Paul Is On Ringo's New Album
BibsBro
Jeff
> http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Ringo-Sta...
>
> This is a good article.
>
> Ringo is the greatest!
I hope it's better than his last crappy album. He was
doing well.
Jeff
iarwain
And you better believe it baby!
Just don't ask for his autograph.
freshfeces
I'm certainly not holding my breath for anything great. But I hope it
is.
Jeff
I would rate "Verticle Man" a B.
freshfeces
A much better grade than my C-. He needs to lose the sap and get to
the rock. I really hope he achieves it on Y Not.
Dale Houstman
I just think he needs to make sure he does superior sap. Ringo's voice
(such as it is) lends itself to somewhat sentimental and childlike
songs, so an album of superior songs (even "sappy" ones) will do just
fine...
dmh
The Walrus was Danny
> I just think he needs to make sure he does superior sap. Ringo's voice
> (such as it is) lends itself to somewhat sentimental and childlike
> songs,
Let's face it. Ringo Starr can't sing for toffee.
I'll give you that for Children's songs (Yellow sub and Oct Garden)
it's appropriate but otherwise it's shite. "It don't come esy" is
better sung by George. "Goodnight"..I'd rather hear JL singing it. I
prefer the JL Matchbox (or was it something else...Boys???). I mean
what would you rather hear? Six o clock in the morning by Paul..or by
Ringo??
Danny
Bernie Woodham
wrote:
Ringo doesn't do to bad on "Honey Don't"
Dale Houstman
>> I just think he needs to make sure he does superior sap. Ringo's voice
>> (such as it is) lends itself to somewhat sentimental and childlike
>> songs,
>
> Let's face it. Ringo Starr can't sing for toffee.
So? No matter what his technical vocal abilities, it is obvious that -
given the right song - he can turn in a charming performance. Rock and
roll singing is not often a matter of virtuosity (Lou Reed doesn't
actually sing at all - he speaks), but more a matter of matching
material to person. In that regard, there is a certain spectrum of
song-writing (admittedly small enough) in which Ringo can produce
something worth listening to. Of course, he will never win "singer of
the century", or decade, month, or even minute. But informing us that
Ringo can't sing isn't telling us anything we don't know, and it's
diverting attention from his actual value in this regard: the ability to
project a certain sort of naive genuineness. This isn't a grand talent,
but it has its uses.
>
> I'll give you that for Children's songs (Yellow sub and Oct Garden)
> it's appropriate but otherwise it's shite. "It don't come esy" is
> better sung by George.
Your opinion mate, not mine. I like Ringo's performance on this song.
> "Goodnight"..I'd rather hear JL singing it.
I think Ringo's is almost perfect for that song, lending his childlike
genuineness which takes some of the onus of "stickiness" off the tune.
> Six o clock in the morning by Paul..or by
> Ringo??
Again, Ringo's version strikes me as utterly charming, and certainly far
from "shite". As is his version of Lennon"s "I'm The Greatest" -
obviously John has the better voice, but Ringo's approach dilutes the
potential for seeming egotism that is in the song; no version by Lennon
(despite his better voice) would be able to capture that quality. so it
isn't always a matter of technical perfection.
But anyway, you've said (often enough) that you think that Ringo was the
luckiest man in Liverpool (or somesuch) because he is not really a good
drummer. I think that is bollocks, honestly, but you're welcome to both
these opinions. I don't share them...
dmh
AllaBest
> http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Ringo-Sta...
>
>
> Ringo is the greatest!
It sounds GREAT!
RINGO STARR!
PAUL McCARTNEY!
Y (It Looks Like A Peace Sign) Not
Jeff
How is Ringo supposed to Rock..the way you want with that voice?
Jeff
wrote:
You don't get a choice Danny, unless Six o clock is released by
Yoko. She might have a full band take of it, I hope.
Jeff
Ron Fowler
the Storytellers version of Back Off Boogaloo. I'm surprised he keeps
making albums, they're not selling in big numbers, but I enjoy them.
Fattuchus
wrote:
> > I just think he needs to make sure he does superior sap. Ringo's voice
> > (such as it is) lends itself to somewhat sentimental and childlike
> > songs,
>
> Let's face it. Ringo Starr can't sing for toffee.
Cute expression. He can sing . . . . just not the greatest singer.
It's hard for me to listen to more than two Ringo songs in a row.
>
> I'll give you that for Children's songs (Yellow sub and Oct Garden)
> it's appropriate but otherwise it's shite. "It don't come esy" is
> better sung by George. "Goodnight"..I'd rather hear JL singing it. I
> prefer the JL Matchbox (or was it something else...Boys???). I mean
> what would you rather hear? Six o clock in the morning by Paul..or by
> Ringo??
>
> Danny
I agree. I think Ringo is best when singing a children's song, a
comedy song . . . something cutesy. IMO it's hard to tolerate an
entire album of that.
Ringo wasn't too bad on Matchbox . . . .but someone with a real rock
voice (i.e. Paul) does it better.
Fattuchus
I agree . . . He's OK on something cutesy like a humorous country and
western song. Again, not something I'd want to listen to for an
entire album.
Fattuchus
IMO a song like "I'm the Greatest" was almost made for Ringo to
sing. He can get a way with it. People can listen to it and laugh.
It's similar to Groucho Marx singing a song. The public expects
comedy.
I don't know if John could sing I'm the Greatest and "get away with
it." People might think he was serious and full of himself.
Fattuchus
Much better than "Why" . . . or that other one, "Why not"
Jeff
Maybe, but he would be dead now and this newsgroup would
be filled with the topic.
Crisstti
"Starr speaks fondly about how the collaboration came about. “Paul was
doing the Grammys, so he came over to the house and was playing bass
on `Peace Dream.” So I played him this other track and Paul said,
`Give me the headphones. Give me a pair of cans.’ And he went to the
mike and he just invented that part where he follows on my vocal. That
was all Paul McCartney, and there could be nothing better. He makes
it bigger and he makes it fuller. It makes the song like a
conversation between us, and that was Paul’s idea to do his part one
beat behind me. That’s why he’s a gen-i-us and an incredible bass
player.”"
Phred
> On Nov 20, 11:17 pm, AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:45 pm, "BibsBro" <Bibs...@taxachusetts.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Ringo-Sta...
>
> > > This is a good article.
>
> > > Ringo is the greatest!
>
> > It sounds GREAT!
>
> > RINGO STARR!
>
> > PAUL McCARTNEY!
>
> > Y (It Looks Like A Peace Sign) Not
=============================
Just the opposite. Put a circle around it and it's an upside down
one. What does this mean? - Nothing.
The Walrus was Danny
> But anyway, you've said (often enough) that you think that Ringo was the
> luckiest man in Liverpool (or somesuch) because he is not really a good
> drummer.
That's not what I've said.
I think that is bollocks, honestly,
It is Bollocks.
RS was the luckiest man in the world because he was in the right place
at the right time. He was an OK drummer. A bloke who was able to keep
the beat just like PB. Because he was in the Beatles meant that he
could develop and become versatile..which is what happened.
but you're welcome to both
> these opinions. I don't share them...
You dreamed them up Dale, like some of your surrealist poetry.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> I don't know if John could sing I'm the Greatest and "get away with
> it." People might think he was serious and full of himself
Isn't there a fab version on the lennon anthoogy?
Danny
Robert (enterprise)
AllaBest
wrote:
> Isn't there a fab version on the lennon anthoogy?
Here is an extended version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hxxMZ_qiM4&fmt=18
Here's an even earlier demo:
Stephen X. Carter
How odd.
I remember reading the original posting and thinking that it was a
reasonable summary of your oft stated position on Mr Starkey.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
The Walrus was Danny
> I remember reading the original posting and thinking that it was a
> reasonable summary of your oft stated position on Mr Starkey.
What original posting??
If you mean Dales I was pointing out that it wasn't....and btw you
still haven't issued me a formal apology (with stooped shoulders and
hanging head) for incorrectly stating that my picture in the cafe was
after my PB book signing..shame on you young Stevie baby.
Danny
Stephen X. Carter
<dannyist...@tesco.net> wrote:
>On 21 Nov, 23:24, Stephen X. Carter
>> I remember reading the original posting and thinking that it was a
>> reasonable summary of your oft stated position on Mr Starkey.
>
>What original posting??
In this thread.
>
>If you mean Dales I was pointing out that it wasn't....and btw you
>still haven't issued me a formal apology (with stooped shoulders and
>hanging head) for incorrectly stating that my picture in the cafe was
>after my PB book signing..shame on you young Stevie baby.
Don't have the slightest idea what you are going on about.
Dale Houstman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:14:20 -0800 (PST), The Walrus was Danny
> <dannyist...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>> But anyway, you've said (often enough) that you think that Ringo was the
>>> luckiest man in Liverpool (or somesuch) because he is not really a good
>>> drummer.
>> That's not what I've said.
>>
>> I think that is bollocks, honestly,
>>
>> It is Bollocks.
>>
>> RS was the luckiest man in the world because he was in the right place
>> at the right time. He was an OK drummer. A bloke who was able to keep
>> the beat just like PB. Because he was in the Beatles meant that he
>> could develop and become versatile..which is what happened.
>>
>> but you're welcome to both
>>> these opinions. I don't share them...
>> You dreamed them up Dale, like some of your surrealist poetry.
>
> How odd.
>
> I remember reading the original posting and thinking that it was a
> reasonable summary of your oft stated position on Mr Starkey.
It is. He said something so close to it that the difference doesn't make
a difference. He has either forgotten, or (for some reason) he doesn't
want to own to it anymore. But he DID say it.
dmh
The Walrus was Danny
and btw you
> >still haven't issued me a formal apology (with stooped shoulders and
> >hanging head) for incorrectly stating that my picture in the cafe was
> >after my PB book signing..shame on you young Stevie baby.
>
> Don't have the slightest idea what you are going on about.
There was a very long thread which was quite fun actually...hard to
imagine in rmb I know....it was called something like "Pete Best was a
drummer"...anyway it involved me photographing a signature from Roag
Best which said "To the Walrus" because nobody believed me that it
existed (I put it on the facebook page - I think you said you wouldn't
join as it's a bit ..er..not your thing)..anyway it was my contention
that Roag supported my theory about PBs sacking because he signed the
book to my tag name here on rmb...and that he must have recognised me
from the pic in the rmb cafe.
You then said that my pic was published in the rmb cafe *after* the
book signing. This was fundamentally untrue and a gynormous slur on my
reputation..I still await an apology...say it like you mean it too.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> It is. He said something so close to it that the difference doesn't make
> a difference. He has either forgotten, or (for some reason) he doesn't
> want to own to it anymore. But he DID say it.
I never said "Ringo Starr isn't a very good drummer"
I said (and have always said) "Ringo was an *ok* drummer, who could
keep the beat" (as was PB).
I think there's a difference between *isn't very good* and *ok*. Like
the difference between poor and satisfactory.
Danny
iarwain
I think Ringo was a better drummer than Pete Best.
Ringo was no virtuoso drummer on a technical level, that is true. I'm
not sure if anyone would argue otherwise.
Nonetheless, can we agree that he did do a good job at keeping the
beat (which is necessary), and that as a rock drummer, he had a good
feel? He also did add in some interesting drum lines, although it's
practically impossible to divorce this from the songs he was given to
play on.
I think Ringo's economical style (which I actually find quite
interesting) suited the Bealtes material very well. It never got in
the way of the songs (which were very strong) and in some cases
enhanced them (it's hard to hear Come Together without thinking of the
drum part). The Beatles were mainly about songwriting and singing
(harmonies included) IMO.
I agree Ringo is a lucky guy, but that's not to say he has no talent.
I wouldn't say any of the Beatles were really virtuosos on their
instruments, so it's a little harsh to pick on Ringo for it. Paul
probably comes the closest, just because he had such a strong sense of
melody on the bass and was innovative for that reason, but not because
of exceptional technical prowess.
Stephen X. Carter
Only the delusional see offence where there is nothing at all.
Stephen X. Carter
Confucius he say... "When in a hole... stop digging"
Fattuchus
wrote:
Yes, I have heard it and enjoy it. It is my understanding that this
was John's guide vocal or a rehearsal John did with Ringo to teach him
the song.
Fattuchus
> > I said (and have always said) "Ringo was an *ok* drummer, who could keep the beat" (as was PB)
>
> I think Ringo was a better drummer than Pete Best.
> Ringo was no virtuoso drummer on a technical level, that is true. I'm
> not sure if anyone would argue otherwise.
> Nonetheless, can we agree that he did do a good job at keeping the
> beat (which is necessary), and that as a rock drummer, he had a good
> feel? He also did add in some interesting drum lines, although it's
> practically impossible to divorce this from the songs he was given to
> play on.
>
> I think Ringo's economical style (which I actually find quite
> interesting) suited the Bealtes material very well. It never got in
> the way of the songs (which were very strong) and in some cases
> enhanced them (it's hard to hear Come Together without thinking of the
> drum part). The Beatles were mainly about songwriting and singing
> (harmonies included) IMO.
>
> I agree Ringo is a lucky guy, but that's not to say he has no talent.
Based on Beatle bios that I read, John and Paul thought that Ringo had
great talent and wanted him badly. Ringo played regularly with Rory
Storm and the Hurricanes, and during a show, Ringo would be given some
time center stage (i.e. Starr time). In the very early days, Rory's
group was the most popular group in Liverpool. At the time, they were
the "one to beat."
John and Paul were happy to "steal" Ringo away from Rory Storm.
who?
wrote:
> Dale said:
>
> > It is. He said something so close to it that the difference doesn't make
> > a difference. He has either forgotten, or (for some reason) he doesn't
> > want to own to it anymore. But he DID say it.
>
> I never said "Ringo Starr isn't a very good drummer"
>
Okay, Danny, but people who say this...never explain what
Ringo could have played better...on what songs? Please be
the first to fill me in. The only song I think Ringo could
have played better on, was "Walrus." He plays like he's
uptight, and he needs to relax more.
>
> Danny
Jeff
who?
It was Ringo's guide vocal, (all those outtakes) not John's.
Jeff
who?
Whatever happened to Rory Storm? Do you know?
Jeff
iarwain
I've also read that John and Paul said Ringo was the best drummer in
the area. That could be hyperbole, but I don't have cause to doubt
it. The guy never gets very fancy, but he is rock solid IMO. I've
always said I would love to play in a band with Ringo.
You have to remember that when people say Ringo is not that good of a
drummer, they are looking backwards over the whole historical span of
rock, over 50 years. Rock drumming got more sophisticated later, when
people like Ginger Baker entered the scene, and on through the arena
acts of the 70s. At Ringo's time, this sort of thing was unheard of,
so it isn't really fair to compare him to them. Jazz drummers were
sophisticated back then, but I'm thinking rock drummers of that era
were not. Someone with more knowledge may very well correct me.
The Walrus was Danny
>
> >You then said that my pic was published in the rmb cafe *after* the
> >book signing. This was fundamentally untrue and a gynormous slur on my
> >reputation..I still await an apology...say it like you mean it too.
>
> Only the delusional see offence where there is nothing at all.
Baby, you got it wrong. You stated an untruth..a bitter lie. Shame on
you!
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> Whatever happened to Rory Storm? Do you know?
He committed suicide in his mothers house near the start of the M62 in
Liverpool.
Danny
Dale Houstman
said that he said Ringo was a bad drummer: I said he said "Ringo was the
luckiest man in Liverpool" (or England or some such close enough to make
no difference to the discussion) - he did say that, and he meant
(whatever Ringo's level of proficiency he might have been thinking was
accurate) that Ringo was "just okay" and - obviously - that he was
fortunate to be "along for the ride". Making it into an argument over
whether or not he said "Ringo was a bad drummer" is a mild enough
delusion, but it's a delusion (and a diversion) nonetheless. I disagree
with the idea that Ringo was "just lucky" to be along for the trip, or
that he was merely adequate in his position. Many major drummers have
pointed to Ringo as an influence, and many other musicians (for instance
Stephen Stills) have used him precisely because he has a wide range of
drum styles: i.e. he can play whatever is needed, and always with taste,
which is not a minor quality in a musician. And I don't think Ringo's
parts on the Beatles records are a matter of "deep searching" to
discover this or that "good job." On the early records, he is already
demonstrating that he can not only drive the band, but is also
proficient at charming fills. The perfect pop band drummer for my money.
So - as a recap - since I didn't say Danny had claimed Ringo was a bad
drummer, that part of the conversation is a dead end, fact-wise. But he
most certainly did say Ringo was "lucky" to have his position, and I
disagree with THAT: the band was as just as "lucky" to have Ringo. Danny
can and does disagree with that, which is perfectly as it should be. No
problem, although I do not quite comprehend how anyone with efficient
ears and as definition of drumming which includes range and taste can
make that assumption.
dmh
Crisstti
wrote:
To be fair to Stephen I think he said he "thought" the picture was
published afterwards, and that you could confirm it. You denied it.
I could be wrong though.
Crisstti
Well, Danny's argument refered to Ringo's drumming skills compared to
Pete's at the time one was replaced by the another, not later on.
Crisstti
> Based on Beatle bios that I read, John and Paul thought that Ringo had
> great talent and wanted him badly. Ringo played regularly with Rory
> Storm and the Hurricanes, and during a show, Ringo would be given some
> time center stage (i.e. Starr time). In the very early days, Rory's
> group was the most popular group in Liverpool. At the time, they were
> the "one to beat."
>
> John and Paul were happy to "steal" Ringo away from Rory Storm.
What Danny says is that all of that was a lie and a cover up for the
real reason they sacked Pete.
iarwain
If you put it that way, I think Ringo was far, far superior to Pete
Best. Listening to Best's drumming on Anthology is all I need to
convince me of that.
The Walrus was Danny
..and so the cycle continues. Round and round we go. Care for a dance
anybody?
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> Danny is get all clam chowder with glass shards over this, but I never
> said that he said Ringo was a bad drummer: I said he said "Ringo was the
> luckiest man in Liverpool" (or England or some such close enough to make
> no difference to the discussion) - he did say that, and he meant
> (whatever Ringo's level of proficiency he might have been thinking was
> accurate) that Ringo was "just okay" and - obviously - that he was
> fortunate to be "along for the ride".
Well yes. I did say that. Have said that, and will sing it again. RS
was the luckiest man in the 20th century, nay, millenium, because he
was an average drummer who could keep the beat and was in the right
place at the right time.
Making it into an argument over
> whether or not he said "Ringo was a bad drummer" is a mild enough
> delusion, but it's a delusion (and a diversion) nonetheless.
Have never said he was a bad drummer though. Just haven't. I've said
he was an ordinary run of the mill drummer boy. Neither bad nor good.
Saisfactory if you will.
I disagree
> with the idea that Ringo was "just lucky" to be along for the trip, or
> that he was merely adequate in his position.
Of course he was. In 1962 he was adequate. Adequate enough for George
Martin to get Alan White in.
Many major drummers have
> pointed to Ringo as an influence, and many other musicians (for instance
> Stephen Stills) have used him precisely because he has a wide range of
> drum styles: i.e. he can play whatever is needed, and always with taste,
> which is not a minor quality in a musician.
I doubt they were influence by RS circa 1962 though! RS got better
because he was in the Beatles.
And I don't think Ringo's
> parts on the Beatles records are a matter of "deep searching" to
> discover this or that "good job." On the early records, he is already
> demonstrating that he can not only drive the band, but is also
> proficient at charming fills.
Well ....proficient..yes. I agree...but I wouldn't pull back my
foreskin rapidly about it.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> Well, Danny's argument refered to Ringo's drumming skills compared to
> Pete's at the time one was replaced by the another, not later on
Exactly. PB and RS. Both were adequate drummers for the purpose of
Beatledom in 1962, RS could have been anybody (except Johnny
Hutchinson who turned them down!). Basically he was in the right place
at the right time.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> > John and Paul were happy to "steal" Ringo away from Rory Storm.
>
> What Danny says is that all of that was a lie and a cover up for the
> real reason they sacked Pete.
It may be part of the cover up, it adds a bit of umph to the pro RS
thing. IMO I would have thought that who RS played for before was/is
irrelevant. Here were the Beatles about to hit the big time...we have
a vacancy Mr Starr, would you like the job? "Yes please" say's big
nose, I can drum a bit..and drum he did. (just exactly the same as PB
did).
Danny
Crisstti
Jeff
wrote:
You've never listened to those takes of "Hold me tight" like I
suggested in youtube.
Jeff
brilton
May I ask what the takes of Hold Me Tight you refer illustrate vis a vis
this discussion? Just curious, as I am familiar with these recordings.
iarwain
I don't see any evidence that Pete Best was as good a drummer as
Ringo.
It was George Martin who was unsatisfied with Pete's performance in
the recording studio that prompted talk of the switch in the first
place, or are you saying that was part of the coverup of the "real
reason"? I know they could have still kept Pete on to play live with,
so there may have been other reasons to give him the boot - I've heard
the theory that Paul didn't like the competition for "the cute one".
Jeff
I don't remember the takes, but it's the takes Ringo was having
problems with..on the drums. Lennon suggested he play
rhythm guitar for a while to keep him on the Beat. Do
I have the right song?
Jeff
Here's the bottom line no one is mentioning: Ringo had to play
what he
was told to play...by whoever wrote the song, so for
those that think Ringo was a bad drummer, they can blame
John, Paul...and George for that.
Jales
> You have to remember that when people say Ringo is not that good of a
> drummer, they are looking backwards over the whole historical span of
> rock, over 50 years. Rock drumming got more sophisticated later, when
> people like Ginger Baker entered the scene, and on through the arena
> acts of the 70s. At Ringo's time, this sort of thing was unheard of,
> so it isn't really fair to compare him to them. Jazz drummers were
> sophisticated back then, but I'm thinking rock drummers of that era
> were not. Someone with more knowledge may very well correct me.
I agree 100%... Otherwise we should also conclude Charlie Watts was
the second luckiest man in the world ;-)
iarwain
Just to be clear, when someone writes a song, and receives a
songwriting credit, this does not usually include coming up with the
drum parts. Songwriting is generally lyrics, melody, and chords.
Anything beyond that is considered arrangement. The songwriter may be
involved in arrangement, but doesn't generally micromanage down to the
point where he is working out the drum parts. He may have some ideas
as to how he'd like the basic beat to go, but someone was not writing
out Ringo's drum parts for him. I doubt that he would know how to
read them if they did.
Jeff
> > Here's the bottom line no one is mentioning: Ringo had to play> what he was told to play...by whoever wrote the song
>
> Just to be clear, when someone writes a song, and receives a
> songwriting credit, this does not usually include coming up with the
> drum parts. Songwriting is generally lyrics, melody, and chords.
> Anything beyond that is considered arrangement. The songwriter may be
> involved in arrangement, but doesn't generally micromanage down to the
> point where he is working out the drum parts.
It depends on the band.
He may have some ideas
> as to how he'd like the basic beat to go, but someone was not writing
> out Ringo's drum parts for him.
I didn't mean to suggest Ringo's drum parts were written out
on paper, unless George Martin did it. But Ringo was given
directions..on how to play..by John, Paul, and George.
Crisstti
But it was George Martin as well who got a session player to play
instead of Ringo. That seems to suggest his opinion of Ringo's
drumming wasn't much different than of Pete's.
Crisstti
But no one is saying Ringo was a bad drummer :).
The Walrus was Danny
> I don't see any evidence that Pete Best was as good a drummer as
> Ringo.
Both could keep the beat. That was the main thing. Richie flourished
because he was a fab and *continued to be*.
>
> It was George Martin who was unsatisfied with Pete's performance in
> the recording studio that prompted talk of the switch in the first
> place, or are you saying that was part of the coverup of the "real
> reason"?
Kind of both I think. GM said he was amazed they axed Pete (which of
course they didn't - he left by mutual consent - as told at the time
via Merseybeat). GM has been part of the Cover up of PBs true reason
for leaving for all this time. Same as everybody else.
I know they could have still kept Pete on to play live with,
> so there may have been other reasons to give him the boot - I've heard
> the theory that Paul didn't like the competition for "the cute one".
I've told you why he left the band a thousand plus times.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> But it was George Martin as well who got a session player to play
> instead of Ringo. That seems to suggest his opinion of Ringo's
> drumming wasn't much different than of Pete's.
Basicaly Crisstti is the only person who actually seems to *get it*!!
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> But no one is saying Ringo was a bad drummer :).-
Exactly. He was adequate. Just like PB.
Danny
RichL
> On Nov 24, 8:41 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly. PB and RS. Both were adequate drummers for the purpose of
>>> Beatledom in 1962, RS could have been anybody
>>
>> I don't see any evidence that Pete Best was as good a drummer as
>> Ringo.
>>
>> It was George Martin who was unsatisfied with Pete's performance in
>> the recording studio that prompted talk of the switch in the first
>> place, or are you saying that was part of the coverup of the "real
>> reason"? I know they could have still kept Pete on to play live with,
>> so there may have been other reasons to give him the boot - I've
>> heard the theory that Paul didn't like the competition for "the cute
>> one".
>
> But it was George Martin as well who got a session player to play
> instead of Ringo.
Once. Just once.
> That seems to suggest his opinion of Ringo's
> drumming wasn't much different than of Pete's.
Maybe initially, but the fact that he never used a session drummer again
seems to indicate that he became convinced that Ringo was talented
enough.
The Walrus was Danny
> > That seems to suggest his opinion of Ringo's
> > drumming wasn't much different than of Pete's.
>
> Maybe initially, but the fact that he never used a session drummer again
> seems to indicate that he became convinced that Ringo was talented
..and who's to say he wouldn't have been the same about PB?
Danny
RichL
He never suggested getting rid of Ringo. He did suggest getting rid of
Pete.
What part of that don't you get?
Crisstti
>
He only heard Pete Best once.
Crisstti
But he didn't suggest getting rid of Pete. He suggested they use a
session player for the records. That is what he must have suggested
about Ringo as well, because that's what they did.
RichL
OK, you're right. But Ringo won him over :-)
brilton
Ah, no, that was "Thank You Girl". "Hold Me Tight" was where Paul kept
getting the lyrics wrong.
iarwain
I seem to recall hearing that George had gotten the session drummer
ahead of time, just in case Ringo didn't work out.
In Pete Best's case, the impression I had was George did not want to
work with him any further at all after the initial sessions. He said
you can take him on the road with you but when we record we will get a
session drummer.
iarwain
Okay, I have to admit I'm not familiar with this story about Pete
leaving by mutual agreement for secret reasons? What's the story on
that and what are the alleged real reasons?
Jeff
Okay, thank you. I hope these takes are on youtube for Danny to
listen to?
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
He must have :).
Jales
wrote:
> > But no one is saying Ringo was a bad drummer :).-
>
> Exactly. He was adequate. Just like PB.
>
> Danny
IMO, adequacy is all that's required to be a popular musician, in
terms of beeing able to play an instrument.
Unlike classical music, where an instrumentalist must be able to read
and perform all kinds of scores (from different eras and styles,
ranging from "simple" to "difficult" stuff). In this case the music is
preexistent, and no musician can play a given score unless he/she can
play the written notes. Whereas in arock band, for example, the
required "level" of technical skills is exactly that of its members. I
mean: all you need to play like The Beatles is BE The Beatles. No one
can play better Beatles drums than The Beatles' drummer! It is as
simple as that. No one can play better Led Zeppelin drums than Led
Zeppelin's drummer, and so on. And anyone can cover a Yes/Beatles/
Genesis song, regardless of instrumental skills, since cover versions
doesn't have to sound like the original (in fact it's better they
don't, unless we're talking of tribute bands...). In popular music,
thankfully, there's not such thing as a skill threshold. This kind of
music is NOT written for performance. The arrangement ("score") is
given by the performers in each performance/recording, whoever they
are, and whatever their instrumental skills are. Let's assume Kurt
Cobain is not as good guitarist as Eric Clapton... Should he learn to
play like that before forming Nirvana? Is he not entitled to play
music?....
Let's imagine Bonzo was part of The Beatles. They would have sounded
pretty different. Maybe some people would have like them more... or
not. Maybe some would have prefered another drummer.. who knows? It's
always a matter of taste. But that band would have been a "different"
Beatles, not a "better" Beatles. And: what's the point of having, say,
Jimi Hendrix playng in The Beatles, The Stones, ABBA, The Beach Boys,
etc.
Jales
guitar, or bass, or piano........)
Thank God there's Ringo, Keith Moon, John Bonham, Charlie Watts, Roger
Taylor....
Thank God there's Macca, Freddie Mercury, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, Art
Garfunkel, Jim Morrison, Elvis, Sinatra, James Taylor, Michael
Jackson, Bono, Springsteen, Janis Joplin.... Gilmour, Clapton,
Blackmore, Harrison, Keith Richards, McGuinn, Hendrix....... Squire,
Entwistle, Wyman, Waters, Maurice Gibb.... Carpenters, Ten Years
After, Hollies, UB40, Platters, Tremeloes, Joni Mitchell, Chicago,
Duran Duran, Nirvana, Creedence Clearwater Revival, King Krimson......
Thank God they all don't sound the same!!!! It would be pretty
boring!!!
Dale Houstman
> Thank God there's not a unique way of playing the drums!!!!
I think you meant "...there's not only one way of playing the drums".
There are plenty of unique ways of playing the drums.
dmh
Jales
> I think you meant "...there's not only one way of playing the drums".
Yes, that's what I meant! ;-)
> There are plenty of unique ways of playing the drums.
This is exactly my point. And each one of them has its charms, so to
speak
Dale Houstman
> On 27 nov, 14:47, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you meant "...there's not only one way of playing the drums".
>
> Yes, that's what I meant! ;-)
It's no big deal - the word "unique" is often misused...
>
>> There are plenty of unique ways of playing the drums.
>
> This is exactly my point. And each one of them has its charms, so to
> speak
Certainly...unless the drummer in question does his "unique" thing
badly. What one needs to remember - especially in critiquing the skills
of a group player - is the notion of "appropriateness" (so to speak):
how that certain set of skills (no matter how dazzling or plain) fits
within the demands of the group's intentions. For my money - speaking of
the Beatles - Ringo's style is perfection itself: not technically
"overbearing" but as charming and witty as the band itself, with a
rock-steady rhythm and tasteful bits of drumming which support but do
not overwhelm the song, or the other performers, and which are adaptable
enough to get across a myriad of musical styles. So, Keith Moon's
muscular mania perfectly complemented and supported the raucous energy
and proto-punk attitude of the Who, Ginger Baker's aggressive and
technical prowess matched the other two's proficiencies and slotted well
into a live or studio performance. Is Ginger better than Ringo? For
Cream yes. For the Beatles - not so much. And so on...
dmh
The Walrus was Danny
Please Google "Roag Best" or do a search on this NG for the same name-
all will be revealed.
Danny
iarwain
Yeah, Ringo's style seemed perfectly suited to the Beatles music. The
Beatles were about songwriting and Ringo's sparse but solid playing
complemented the songs without overwhelming them. You think about
more obtrusive drummers like Ginger Baker, Keith Moon, John Bonham,
etc. and you have to think it wouldn't have worked as well. But you
never know, I'd be very curious to hear it. Bonham was actually
pretty basic, so I think his drumming would probably work better with
the Beatles than the others I mentioned. I'm actually surprised that
no one has put together a mashup of the Beatles with Bonham's drumming
or such.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> I'm actually surprised that no one has put together a mashup of
> the Beatles with Bonham's drumming or such.
I'm one step ahead of you...
iarwain
> <http://home.comcast.net/~esionder/temp/TTWY2.mp3>
Those are the drums to When the Levee Breaks. I have to say they
don't go with that song at all, it seems more than a joke than
anything. Which is okay, but I'd like to hear it on a Beatles song
that might be more appropriate to it, a heavier tune to match the
heavier drums.
Thanks for posting that though, I was hoping someone would.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
>> I'm one step ahead of you...
>> <http://home.comcast.net/~esionder/temp/TTWY2.mp3>
>
> Those are the drums to When the Levee Breaks. I have to say they
> don't go with that song at all, it seems more than a joke than
> anything.
Of course. At least *I* thought it was funny.
Someone here said a while back that they thought the drums were too
quiet on Beatles records so I made this to improve it for them.