Ringo Starr

[Mee]

Let's discuss Richard Starkey. Would/could he have been famous without The Beatles? How good a drummer was he? What's up with his nose?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

His drums are perfect for that kind of music. Some of the most classic fills and wickedest energy, simple without being Meg White-******ed.
I've just read a lot of conflicting info on which drum tracks were Ringo and which were Paul.

 

[Mee]

I've just read a lot of conflicting info on which drum tracks were Ringo and which were Paul.

Hmm, I haven't heard about that.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That one famous "drum solo" thing, with the steady thumping bass and the toms going "dooga dooga doo, dooga dooga doo, dooga dooga doo" around it, I always heard was Paul.

Then I was reading some obscure facts about the recording sessions and heard of quite a few more that were shockingly Paul.

 

[Immortalfire]

He married Barbara Bach.

 

[Mee]

"The more you know..."

 

[DBella]

He's a lousy actor.

 

[Avangarde]

He makes a good narrator

 

[Matt]

I disagree with the "hes teh sucks" part because he is a great drummer, but I really believe the only Beatle who could've made it big without The Beatles in Lennon.

 

[Fran]

He was good on an episode of "The Simpsons"

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

but I really believe the only Beatle who could've made it big without The Beatles in Lennon.

Weird. Well, you're just wrong. Paul has always been more accessible. Accessible = Make It Big.
Do I really have to list all of Paul's Galaxy-Shattering solo achievements?

 

[DBella]

I disagree with the "hes teh sucks" part because he is a great drummer, but I really believe the only Beatle who could've made it big without The Beatles in Lennon.

I disagree. Could've? McCartney is already big without the Beatles. He had major success with Wings and don't forget how big... no, HUGE, he is as a solo artist.

 

[jaguarr]

Weird. Well, you're just wrong. Paul has always been more accessible. Accessible = Make It Big.
Do I really have to list all of Paul's Galaxy-Shattering solo achievements?

George Harrison was no slouch, either.

At any rate, didn't they even have another "ghost drummer" that recorded with them in addition to Paul and Ringo's contributions?

jag

 

[Matt]

Weird. Well, you're just wrong. Paul has always been more accessible. Accessible = Make It Big.
Do I really have to list all of Paul's Galaxy-Shattering solo achievements?

But Paul used the Beatles as a spring board. I believe this thread was saying "If the Beatles never exisited".

 

[jaguarr]

But Paul used the Beatles as a spring board. I believe this thread was saying "If the Beatles never exisited".

Ummm....Lennon kind of used the Beatles as a springboard, too. So did Harrison.

jag

 

[Matt]

Ummm....Lennon kind of used the Beatles as a springboard, too. So did Harrison.

jag

I'm aware, I'm commenting that I think Lennon was the only one talented enough that in some alternate universe, where The Beatles never met, would still achieve the level of success he did with The Beatles.

 

[DBella]

Ummm....Lennon kind of used the Beatles as a springboard, too. So did Harrison.

jag

Hehe. Even Yoko Ono kind of used the Beatles as a springboard.

Lennon definitely used the Beatles as a springboard and so did Harrison. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[DBella]

I'm aware, I'm commenting that I think Lennon was the only one talented enough that in some alternate universe, where The Beatles never met, would still achieve the level of success he did with The Beatles.

I still disagree. I think Paul and George are very talented singer/songwriters too. But we all have our favorite Beatle, I guess. And yours happen to be John so of course you think he's the most talented and therefore would be the most successful if the Beatles hadn't existed.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

But Paul used the Beatles as a spring board. I believe this thread was saying "If the Beatles never exisited".

What are you talking about?!?
They all got into Skiffle and Rock independently. That's how they met during their school days.
They all would've been struggling to start and promote bands even if they'd never met.
Is this a hoax?
If you think Paul had no influence on John, you clearly don't know your Beatles.
In the early days they'd joke, "Hey, would you like a bigger swimming pool?"
"Yeah!"
"Okay. *they both grab guitars to sit down and intentionally write a hit TOGETHER.*"

The "Lennon/McCartney" phenomenon was just that.


Whatever, I don't really believe you're this clueless, must just be a Lennon Zombie. *shrug*

 

[Matt]

I still disagree. I think Paul and George are very talented singer/songwriters too. But we all have our favorite Beatle, I guess. And yours happen to be John so of course you think he's the most talented and therefore would be the most successful if the Beatles hadn't existed.

Meh, just an opinion is all. I think Lennon was the best and could've thrived without the Beatles where as the Beatles could not have thrived without Lennon. The same argument could be made about McCartney. I just don't think McCartney had the same kind of raw talent as Lennon and could've gone as far without him.

 

[Speedball]

Ringo is very talented, not near the other Beatles, but talented nonetheless.

 

[DV8]

wow . . . I didn't know that Paul played the drums . . . in that case, Ringo REALLY wouldn't have made it without the Beatles . . . come to think of it, would any of the Beatles really have made it without each other? Their skills weren't anything truly amazing individually, but when they all work together, they did something great . . . .

bottom line . . . Ringo is aaaiight, but goddam lookit that schnoz!

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm aware, I'm commenting that I think Lennon was the only one talented enough that in some alternate universe, where The Beatles never met, would still achieve the level of success he did with The Beatles.

dUde. I prefer Lennon, but are you going to sit there and say with a straight face that songs like "Yesterday" or "Helter Skelter" are just "flukes" that people only love because of the Beatles cachet?!?!?!?

Okay we're getting into "things you read on the internet that are so asinine you almost have a stroke" territory here.

 

[DBella]

Meh, just an opinion is all. I think Lennon was the best and could've thrived without the Beatles where as the Beatles could not have thrived without Lennon. The same argument could be made about McCartney. I just don't think McCartney had the same kind of raw talent as Lennon and could've gone as far without him.

Nothing wrong with your opinion.
Except the part that I don't agree with it.

 

[Matt]

dUde. I prefer Lennon, but are you going to sit there and say with a straight face that songs like "Yesterday" or "Helter Skelter" are just "flukes" that people only love because of the Beatles cachet?!?!?!?

Okay we're getting into "things you read on the internet that are so asinine you almost have a stroke" territory here.

No, I'm not saying that and you're not that dense to believe I am.