Ringo


PDA

View Full Version : Ringo


srv_king
01-02-2007, 05:12 PM
Me and my friend are having an argument about weather Ringo is a talented drummer or not. I say he wasnt a gifted drummer, and was really lucky to get into the beatles. When you compare him to other drummers of his time like Moon or Bonham hes not that great. What are everyones opinions on this?

backtothe70s
01-02-2007, 05:19 PM
well I say that beatles were most lyrics and so altough it is very good music but the skills you can see among later bands are not shown in the same way

Circus
01-02-2007, 05:22 PM
What exactly is your friend arguing? That he was awesome? Vs Moon and Bonham, definitely not.

Take this quote:

Interviewer: So, do you think Ringo's the best drummer in the world?
John Lennon: We're not even sure he's the best drummer in the band!

EDIT: The poll is very polarised, too. Just because he wasn't a fantastic drummer, that doesn't mean he had to be lucky to get in. I don't know a huge amount of Beatles history, beyond the above quote, but maybe he was good friends with one of the other three? As mentioned, the Beatles didn't *need* to have wonderfully complex drum beats, as the guitars and the lyrics did the 'talking,' as such. So to say that he's not a good drummer and was lucky to get into the band isn't to be making two directly linked statements. Think about how much choice they would have had, too. Bands then weren't formed exclusively on talent.

mattvl
01-02-2007, 05:22 PM
I have no idea how good he was as a drummer technically speaking but that being said he was the percussive voice of the Beatles, whether he showcased exemplary technical skills should really not be a point to question. The fact is that he is an integral part of the Beatles sound, a sound which is one of the most famous in the world even today. Whether he was amazing or not I think it is almost more impressive to see a musician who downplays their talents for the sake of their band. The less time they spend having the audience focus on themselves the more time they have to focus on the band, and that seems to be a large part of their success. If Ringo had stopped to bust out a drum solo in the middle of Strawberry Fields I doubt you'd find too many audience members who would look on the moment with awe. They had a distinct style and they played it perfectly, they didn't try to copy anyone else and as a result they never had a need to.

Derigiberble
01-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Seen as he was pretty big in Europe before The Beatles and The Beatles practically begged him to join the band, I'd say he can't be that bad.

Circus
01-02-2007, 05:39 PM
Just consulted wikipedia. Derigiberble's right, though he/she exaggerates a little bit =P

Ringo was big in another band before the Beatles asked him to join, but that still doesn't mean he had to be awesome or have much of the luck to be asked to join... they met him before they asked him and they hadn't had any drummer for any long period of time before that, so maybe they got on well with him better than any others who wanted to fill the role (if indeed there were any). People often say that the person who most often 'gets the gig' is not necessarily the most technically proficient but the one the others can see themselves hanging out with in the pre-show.

Derigiberble
01-02-2007, 05:40 PM
Just consulted wikipedia. Derigiberble's right, though he/she exaggerates a little bit =P

Ringo was big in another band before the Beatles asked him to join, but that still doesn't mean he had to be awesome or have much of the luck to be asked to join... they met him before they asked him and they hadn't had any drummer for any long period of time before that, so maybe they got on well with him better than any others who wanted to fill the role (if indeed there were any). People often say that the person who most often 'gets the gig' is not necessarily the most technically proficient but the one the others can see themselves hanging out with in the pre-show.

Well, I did only say "he can't be that bad" :p:.

Circus
01-02-2007, 05:45 PM
I was referring to the 'practically begged,' not how good you said Ringo is :)

ufossuck
01-02-2007, 06:37 PM
Ringo is quite a good drummer. Comparing him to Keith Moon is stupid though because Keith Moon was the best drummer ever. I don't see anyone comparing John to Jeff Beck or Paul to John Entwhistle or George to Jimi Hendrix. Ringo was as good a drummer as The Beatles needed and he was certainly no worse than Pete Best. Not to mention he is a great singer and surprisingly good pianist.

Sloopy
01-02-2007, 10:43 PM
He was rock solid. Flashy drummers can be annoying. Look at Frank Beard from ZZTop, the man has the simplest beats ever but he knows his job is to keep the band together. Ringo is the same. Drummers that play like they are on guitar piss me off.

RINGO FOREVER PETE NEVER!



...I also really liked "It Don't Come Easy."

figsandbobo
01-03-2007, 01:05 AM
he was very good but he was overshadowed by john lennon and paul mccartneys awesomeness as was george

sinan90
01-03-2007, 02:36 PM
I've just finished reading "The Beatles Anthology" and in it all the band members recognise that none of them are highly gifted technical players, but all of them were as good as they needed to be. And Ringo got in the band because Pete Best wasn't very good at keeping time and missed a load of gigs where Ringo stepped in and played, and it also says in the book that the other 3 members felt he was the best drummer in Liverpool at the time.

TheHeartbreaker
01-03-2007, 02:43 PM
My opinion on Ringo...

In some respects, when you compare him to other drummers, he appears as being quite poor. He simply plays a single beat throughtout every song, very rarely incorporating fills. When you listen to him, and then another drummer, such as John Bonham, it's easy to see that there is a difference in their playing that makes John obviously appear better than Ringo.

While I do not find Ringo to be among the best drummers, something I have noticed in his playing is his precision.

What he plays is simple, but it's so precise in timing it is amazing.

Guitar0player
01-03-2007, 03:03 PM
It's quite weird that his son is Zak Starskey,but maybe he was tought better....

But Ringo was not the best drummer,but he was not very creative.

Derigiberble
01-03-2007, 03:27 PM
He played for the song. That's all that really matters. And for the record, Macca is an amazing musician. I doubt there are many other guys from the 60s who can write classical symphonies.

FreddieMercury
01-03-2007, 05:45 PM
his son is better

Guitar0player
01-03-2007, 05:56 PM
his son is better


Well,he was able to replace Keith Moon.

WHO-ligan!
01-03-2007, 06:11 PM
Ringo is a fine drummer. Nice and simple just like Charlie Watts, although when I play drums I like to be creative with fills and beats (Keith Moon is my idol!)
If Ringo's drumming was good enough to get him into the Beatles, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Abe
01-03-2007, 06:28 PM
Well, The Beatles early work is pure pop music, which you don't need fantastic drums for, and he wasn't a fantastic drummer. But look at pop music today; doesn't even use real drums all that much any more, compared to that Ringo's a tubthumping legend!!

VoodooChild15
01-03-2007, 07:00 PM
He was rock solid. Flashy drummers can be annoying. Look at Frank Beard from ZZTop, the man has the simplest beats ever but he knows his job is to keep the band together. Ringo is the same. Drummers that play like they are on guitar me off.

RINGO FOREVER PETE NEVER!



...I also really liked "It Don't Come Easy."

I could not possibly agree more. I'm really hoping drummers grow a sense of discretion after high school, because everyone I've played with thusfar has been like that.

treefiddey
01-03-2007, 08:09 PM
Ringo was a great drummer
His style of drumming was not only very different than that of any other drummer at the time but in my opinion much better.
While his technical skill may not have been excellent, he was a damn good drummer.
Listen to A Day in the Life or Abbey Road and tell me otherwise

Lessthanbass22
01-04-2007, 02:06 AM
He was good enough, he didn't need to be a Bonham or Moon because the songs didn't need a Bonham or Moon.

Guitar0player
01-04-2007, 02:20 AM
Actually,Ringo also had a uniqe feature:

He was able to use both hands for lead.

ufossuck
01-04-2007, 04:53 AM
Actually,Ringo also had a uniqe feature:

He was able to use both hands for lead.
That's because he played backwards. He is left handed, but learned to play right handed for some reason. Playing an instrument backwards is a bitch, but he does it.

I'd say he's much better than people have any reason to believe. He hates playing solos and playing a simple beat like he's been known for doing for 45 years is what he wants to do. He can play some crazy complicated stuff, I've heard him do so, but he doesn't choose to. I doubt that John or Paul ever wanted him to play anything complicated because that might make him the star in their band.

As for Zak seeming to be a better drummer, he's not. He replaced Keith Moon, obviously he's going to have to play complex parts.

Sherman901
01-04-2007, 07:18 AM
Ringo is not a person. He is a metronome that talks and walks.

Ringo never missed a beat, he always stayed on time. He did exactly what he needed to. Who says you have to be flashy and wild to be a drummer? He did exactly what was necessary to compliment the music and keep everyone in time. He is very talented.

Guitar0player
01-04-2007, 08:51 AM
That's because he played backwards. He is left handed, but learned to play right handed for some reason. Playing an instrument backwards is a bitch, but he does it.

I'd say he's much better than people have any reason to believe. He hates playing solos and playing a simple beat like he's been known for doing for 45 years is what he wants to do. He can play some crazy complicated stuff, I've heard him do so, but he doesn't choose to. I doubt that John or Paul ever wanted him to play anything complicated because that might make him the star in their band.

As for Zak seeming to be a better drummer, he's not. He replaced Keith Moon, obviously he's going to have to play complex parts.


I learned how to "air drum" with my both hands(belive me it's not easy if you are trying to use your feet aswell).

So the Beatles kept his excellent drumming skills under cover?


I dont know,I heard good things about him.

TheHeartbreaker
01-04-2007, 12:29 PM
Ringo is not a person. He is a metronome that talks and walks.

Ringo never missed a beat, he always stayed on time. He did exactly what he needed to. Who says you have to be flashy and wild to be a drummer? He did exactly what was necessary to compliment the music and keep everyone in time. He is very talented.

:cheers:

Basically what I said, but it sounded a lot better. :)

PatchworkMan
01-04-2007, 01:12 PM
Ringo was a pretty good drummer, but he was definitely lucky to fall in with three musical geniuses. He was never the creative innvator the other three were. Even now, Ringo is still living off being an ex-Beatle, whereas the other three were all able to create classics in their own right after the Beatles broke up.

samyer8741
01-04-2007, 01:15 PM
My opinion only: Ringo was a talented drummer that was the perfect drummer for the Beatle's music. No, he's not Neal Peart, nor Jon Bonham, but what he played was perfect for the music the Beatles made. His timing really is awesome and he does have a distinctive technique and sound. The Beatles music didn't require gymnastics on the drums. That's one thing about today's music that is lacking. The emphasis today is on who the best is technically but as far as music is concerned is it really important that someone can play 64th notes across ten million drums for 30 minutes? It's fun to listen to and watch that but what Ringo added was the missing element. The drums on a lot of the beatle's songs was actually played by McCarteny in the studio. But Ringo was an inovator. I grew up with the Beatles so I'm from the era. I remember seeing the towel across his snare. No one had seen someone do that before. Not a big thing but different. If you listen to each of the beatles songs, the drums are different in almost every song. A different new technique or sound was used on almost each recording. Maybe that didn't originate with Ringo but it has become his trademark. I will always love his playing in or out of the Beatles.

TheHeartbreaker
01-04-2007, 01:18 PM
Ringo was a pretty good drummer, but he was definitely lucky to fall in with three musical geniuses. He was never the creative innvator the other three were. Even now, Ringo is still living off being an ex-Beatle, whereas the other three were all able to create classics in their own right after the Beatles broke up.

His solo albums were mediocre at best, but he did do some okay work in participating on the other Beatles members albums.

DeSean
01-04-2007, 02:11 PM
Nah, he wasn't very good. He had a couple of awesome songs, but they could have found someone better.

paintITblack39
01-04-2007, 07:25 PM
I like Ringo. :)

TheHeartbreaker
01-04-2007, 08:18 PM
Nah, he wasn't very good. He had a couple of awesome songs, but they could have found someone better.

But could you really imagine The Beatle's with a drummer such as, say, Keith Moon?

It's really hard to imagine that type of drumming fitting in with most of their music.

It's probably better to have someone such as Ringo, who is so precise, playing simple, yet fitting beats, than someone such as Keither Moon either playing drums that don't fit the music, or having him reserve his skill to play like Ringo, but probably not as precise.

jim morrison714
01-04-2007, 08:56 PM
i think the drumming in a day in the life was his best

ElephantMan4563
01-05-2007, 01:50 PM
The drums dont stand out in the Beatles and they dont have to. the vocals were the greatest ever the song writing amazing and They rarely ever really needed a lead instrument part any way

xX*Zeppelin*Xx
01-05-2007, 02:12 PM
He did the job but he wasn't a great drummer. Also, he's a bit of a prick these days.

FaceTheBass
01-05-2007, 04:13 PM
Whoa. Listen more carefully to the Beatles if you think the Ringo isn't a good drummer. He's not as flashy as Moon, but comparing Moon and Ringo are like comparing apples and oranges.

There aren't many drummers around that make beats that fit the song so well. He's one of the few drummers that captures the character of the song, instead of just keeping the beat.

It also seems to be a common idea around here faster=better. That's a notion you need to get out of your head. Most of the time it is harder to play simpler, on any instrument, and still sound good.

All I have to say is, really listen to the Beatles, and listen to how all the parts fit together. The combination of all the parts into the whole makes all those songs great, and Ringo's part of that is perfect.

skagitup
01-05-2007, 04:17 PM
I love the drums in 'A Day in the Life', give it a listen the fills are quality

WHO-ligan!
01-05-2007, 09:52 PM
I love the drums in 'A Day in the Life', give it a listen the fills are quality
The drums in that song are amazing... he knew just when to put those fills in.

hamish5178
01-05-2007, 10:00 PM
idk, at the risk of sounding like a dumbass i Really don't like ringo.

When I listen to the who, I say wow thats some amazing INSANE drumming

when I listen to the velvet underground I say wow that drummer keeps it simple but is still amazing

when i listen to the beatles I say meh

paintITblack39
01-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Whoa. Listen more carefully to the Beatles if you think the Ringo isn't a good drummer. He's not as flashy as Moon, but comparing Moon and Ringo are like comparing apples and oranges.

There aren't many drummers around that make beats that fit the song so well. He's one of the few drummers that captures the character of the song, instead of just keeping the beat.

It also seems to be a common idea around here faster=better. That's a notion you need to get out of your head. Most of the time it is harder to play simpler, on any instrument, and still sound good.

All I have to say is, really listen to the Beatles, and listen to how all the parts fit together. The combination of all the parts into the whole makes all those songs great, and Ringo's part of that is perfect.
+1

therussian
01-06-2007, 09:19 PM
I read somewhere that Ringo is one of the most efficient drummers in history. He has minimal mistakes, if any.

FaceTheBass
01-07-2007, 12:54 AM
I read somewhere that Ringo is one of the most efficient drummers in history. He has minimal mistakes, if any.

I read that he only made 5 mistakes during the Beatles entire studio career.

Kobrakai
01-19-2007, 03:36 PM
I don't think either of the options is really fair. He was a GOOD drummer. IMO I wouldn't call him amazing OR terrible. Just...good.

Lost_Rose
01-19-2007, 05:39 PM
He was excellent in the beatles! He done his job (as a drummer) superbly. He kept the band in time and together and could knock out the occasional more technical beats WHEN NEEDED!

I dont know if you have ever played a beatles track and then listened to Led Zep you cant really expect Ringo to play like bonham or moon with the beatles music

(plus if you hadnt noticed the beatles were about peace and love not thrashing out heavy rock songs ;))

TheHeartbreaker
01-19-2007, 06:51 PM
I read somewhere that Ringo is one of the most efficient drummers in history. He has minimal mistakes, if any.

Ringo's precision and timing is amazing. He almost never misses a beat. Though one could argue it's due to the simplicity of his beats, which I'm sure plays a part, I just feel as though he just has a very good sense of the timing of the songs.

I feel that this precision more than makes up for what everyone finds he lacks in flashy technique.

trey-col89
01-20-2007, 11:17 AM
I think he is good, honestly. Obviously he's not as good as some of his contemporaries like Moon or Bonham, but he is definitely talented. And when you compare his playing ability to the ability of the other members in the band, he's on par with pretty much all of them except for Paul.

TheHeartbreaker
01-20-2007, 02:42 PM
Or George, who I feel is a very underrated guitarist.

jim morrison714
01-20-2007, 04:01 PM
Or George, who I feel is a very underrated guitarist.

fixed

TheHeartbreaker
01-20-2007, 06:55 PM
...Thanks? :confused:

jim morrison714
01-20-2007, 06:59 PM
had to emphasize :)

JD7
01-20-2007, 09:47 PM
In my opinion, he's good. And if I was going to judge the whole "Getting into the Beatles, look at me" side of things by just his talent, I went with option two. He's good, but not THAT good.

TheHeartbreaker
01-21-2007, 12:53 AM
had to emphasize :)

Ah, yes. :o

ECistheBest
01-21-2007, 12:55 AM
he was definitely talented enough to be recruited by the beatles in their early days. but i don't think he's the best tho.