Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tab, Tips, Theory and Technique' started by ASATKat, Apr 4, 2019.
I love this, care to give some examples?
I've already stated what I think if Ringo as the right man at the right time for the right songs. As a lifetime drummer he was one of the ones who inspired me to play. This great one was the other. And this is only a small part of his work.
This was the concert where his drum riser or kit were falling apart and he had to play through it.
Anyone who wants to argue down Ringo has to argue down eight years of Beatles albums.
Isn't there a quote/misquote/joke knocking around about Ringo...something like......'He wasn't the best drummer in the world....he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles'.
I'm personally OK with his playing/technique during his time with the Beatles.....he played what was required at the time in that era of popular music.
Yep, Hal was the man. Also Gary Chester, Earl Palmer, DJ Fontana, Jim Keltner, Russ Kunkel, Jim Gordon. All these guys defined drumming in amazing and unique ways, probably a lot more so than much more widely recognized "stars" because they were in the studio 40 hours a week cutting genre-defining tracks meant to last generations.
Their touch, creative sensibilities, sensitivity to the song, and their superb meter have left an awesome legacy in American music, even if 90% of the listening world had no idea who they were.
It's awesome that people who don't play the drums at all finally know who Hal Blaine even was.
EDIT Oops, I forgot to mention Bernard Purdie. Whew!
Bingo! (rhymes with Ringo ).
Lennon said it at some point post Beatles period. He said a lot of 'things'.
Ringo was a Beatle!
Every personal appearance or interview he’s ever done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That quote is from a an old Radio 4 comedy series called Radio Active in 81, not John.
No band with a weak drummer can have success anywhere near what he Beatles achieved. Maybe because of his personality, he was not not taken seriously by some. Measured by his body of work, Ringo is not only a great drummer, he was innovative and integral to the Beatles greatness.
Paul didn't do too bad with the "Band On The Run" album. He played drums, bass and most of the lead guitar. Oh yeah, great vocals. Not being snarky, I just think he's a little better than a time keeper. JMO
Getting back to the OP. The Beatles were the sum of all the parts.
Let's say Ringo had been replaced by a perceived "better" drummer. That could have changed the dynamics of the unit.
I've been in enough bands to see that happen.
If Ringo, Bonham, Moon and Watts had not contributed to their respective units. Would the music produced by their bands been the same? Maybe, maybe not.
Drummers are as individual as guitar players. Each of these drummers had/have their own style.
Thankfully we were blessed with the music that all these drummers contributed to.
Sounds more to me that you perhaps dislike the guy more so than he has a massive ego?
I have seen many interviews of him where he seems very humble...the video interview previous in this thread where he demonstrates his right hand/left hand thing for one.
Do you have personal experience or just your read from his professional interviews?
Genuinely interested to know, as it amazes me how one person can read someone so opposite to the other.
Most drummers dig the heck out of Ringo. Most Ringo naysayers aren't drummers. Interesting.
Ringo had the coolest footwear... that's why...
as a kid, I always wanted those green boots and the orange strides.... oh, yeah...
I'm always amused when people try to use some notion of "chops" to rate musicians. If this were in any way relevant, half the guitar teachers in LA would be the greatest guitarists who ever lived. The thing I love about music is that it's equal parts right and left brain, meaning there are actual mathematical and scientific rules that apply to it, but the other half is completely subjective... you know, art. Keith Moon, John Bonham and Ginger Baker all would have been terrible in the Beatles (and Baker probably would have stabbed John or Paul at some point, maybe both). The parts Ringo played in the Beatles fit those songs beautifully, what other criteria is there?
Indeed. Imagine if you switched Starr and Peart, too- they would have been disasters in each others' bands, but were both perfect for their own.
I would prefer to be locked in an anechoic chamber over hearing either, thanks.
...you understand Stu Sutcliffe was the bass player, right? And his death had nothing whatsoever to do with Ringo joining the band?
Here's a story about what an egotistical jerk Ringo is, though- sometime in the '80s, Howard Stern sent Stuttering John Melendez to hassle people at a red carpet event. Melendez yelled, "Hey Ringo, what'd you do with the money?"
"What money?" Ringo replied.
"The money your mom gave you for singing lessons!"
Without missing a beat Ringo replied, "Spent it on fish & chips, didn't I?"
Yeah, total dick... (sarcasm/off)
I don't know much about Ringo but I had never heard him called egotistical before.
I'm no Beatles expert, but I've never read anything negative about him by people who worked with him except Geoff Emerick (I'm a recording nerd, so I had to read that book). Emerick didn't seem fond of Ringo, he said Starr was kind of morose and depressed all the time, convinced he was going to be kicked out of the band at any moment. Doesn't sound egotistical to me. On the other hand, I suppose you can understand someone having a certain sense of their own importance if they'd been in the ******* Beatles.
Ringo always played the song- that’s what all great drummers do.
Martin has explained that he’d hired a session drummer because most pop drummers back then weren’t good enough to record. He has also said that he apologized to Ringo for than many, many, times. ;-)
He has also stated and written that Ringo had a rock solid sense of time that made it possible to do all the edit he did.