meh...I'll go bach to Bach....

I seem to recall George once said, 'Get out of my house, burglar'

They cheated?   

Ringo, in his modest way, claims not to be very good technically.  I don't know if that's true or not, but, in art, creativity beats technique every time.


I would have to agree with Ringo on that but the second part is hitting the nail on the head IMO.
Any decent club band drummer could technically play what Ringo created...but man what he created was indeed true art (had to be to be able to deal with the eclectic-material roller coaster they were on ) and had a uniqueness about it that was always interesting...plus the fact that he was so always in the pocket....with a natural backbeat on the snare....smooth and silky if you will.

bapu

pbognar
B)  Just for the record, Ringo was the only Beatle to not play drums on 'Back in the USSR'.  Primarily Paul, with a teeny bit of help from John and George. 

Pick your reply:

A) Party pooper. The other story was better. 
B) So it took three Beatles to do the job of one?

Sorry to have pooped. 
 
Ringo was quite talented for the early 60's.  Listen to some early stuff - he plays some pretty wicked Latin beats.  He was also brilliant in his slight tempo variations to make the songs breathe and more exciting.
 
The Paul thing cuts many ways.  Very talented guy.  And if not for him cheering on the band, they would have broken up in about 1966.  But he took over as leader about that time.  The others felt like his side-men.
But look what we would have missed out on - especially Abbey Road.

BTW, why has this not been moved to the Techniques forum yet?

Bill,

I totally agree. I was there (for nearly all of it). I was exactly 11 years old on the day they landed in New York and I was damned excited to see them on Ed Sullivan. I had seen the "advance" film clip of them on some talk show (don't recall which one) about a month earlier and was revved up even then.

konradh


I wil get off my Beatles thing now, but consider:

The group was only together 10 years, and only famous for a little over 8 before they broke up.  In that time they went from "Love Me Do" to "Penny Lane," "Sgt Pepper," and "Abbey Road."  And after their first year or so of sprinkling in a few covers to meet the demands of cranking out albums fast enough, they created all their music, and—although people will argue—I believe the music was completely unlike anything anyone else had ever done.

+10000
 
Some bands take 8 years between records. 
 
What I think is hilarious is when someone says they don't like the Beatles.  When your songs range from "Julia" to "Helter Skelter", how can anyone make a sweeping statement?

Much to say here.
 
For some reason, in recent years, it has become trendy to label Ringo as being “untalented” etc. in comparison to the rest of the Beatles.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Ringo was subtle in his playing, and never indulged in drum grandstanding (which really took off in the late ‘60s and has been with us ever since). Thank God! It was his restraint and support for the melody that made (at least to a significant extent) those Beatles songs so great. Unlike his later contemporaries, Ringo always knew that the SONG was the thing - not how hard, or how long a player could hit the drums.

Unfortunately, too much of modern rock music has had its subtlety and melody driven out by overly-eager drummers who are unable to control their own indulgent instincts and always play loud/long/complex riffs – driving the beat instead of following it.
 
On another level, he was able to juggle and work with three HUGE ego’s, and he provided the glue both musically and interpersonally. He was always the guy having the most fun in the room, and was willing to go in the direction that the other three moved – an absolute necessity for the success of the group.
 
There. I’ve said it. Ringo was – and is – a great drummer. Without him, the Beatles may have been just a ‘60s footnote with a single “Greatest Hits” album sold today in the discount bin.

I call Ringo the human Beatle. Saw him on TV the other night and he was just a nice guy, very humble and honest. As for talent, he must be amazing. He's playing at Niagara falls this months and his all star band is a who's, who of rock royalty. None of them need the money so I can only imagine that they really dig Ringo.

@pdarg, You are a wise man.  Thanks for your comments.  I am discouraged about the current state of music, but another way to view it is that we have an enormous opportunity ahead of us. The world needs melody, lyrics, and feel—and those who can craft them.

I see a lot of movies with $100-300 MM of special effects, and almost no story.  I also hear a lot of records that are impeccably produced—much better produced than what I can do—but someone forgot to write a song first.
 
@ampfixer, Good observation.  Even though he doesn't own a a huge song catalog like Sir Paul, Ringo is still in the $200-300 MM range, so he is obviously out just having a good time and being loyal to his fans.

Exactly....Like who was Beethoven's drummer? or Bach's?

The way I heard it, Ringo laid down the track and then Paul came back in the middle of the night and re-recorded it.

Love Ringo's drumming. Love his big, sparse tom fills; e.g., Long, Long Long.

konradh


@pdarg, You are a wise man.  Thanks for your comments.  I am discouraged about the current state of music, but another way to view it is that we have an enormous opportunity ahead of us. The world needs melody, lyrics, and feel—and those who can craft them.

I see a lot of movies with $100-300 MM of special effects, and almost no story.  I also hear a lot of records that are impeccably produced—much better produced than what I can do—but someone forgot to write a song first.
 
@ampfixer, Good observation.  Even though he doesn't own a a huge song catalog like Sir Paul, Ringo is still in the $200-300 MM range, so he is obviously out just having a good time and being loyal to his fans.

Yes - exactly.

Love Ringo's drumming. Love his big, sparse tom fills; e.g., Long, Long Long.

One of my all time favorites... I don't think I 've ever heard any one else reference it.