Ringo Starr. Set me straight people...

I'll preface my comments by stating that I am not a drummer but rather a songwriter/guitarist.

I think a drummer should not clutter up a song but rather provide the glue that holds it together. I think this is something Ringo did very well. He was very economical and never cluttered or got in the way of those great songs. I think his best drumming ever was on songs like " While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and especially on "Something". I think his drumming on that song fits it perfectly.


was a very

Ok...here it is. It's gonna open up a can of worms but I'll fire away. People regard Ringo Starr as one of the greatest drummers. (By people I mean drummers and civilized people alike. )It's my opinion and here it goes. After much deliberation, I've concluded:

RINGO STARR BITES THE WEENIE. HE SUCKS.

In his defense he DID play for the Beatles, but it seems to me that THAT is what earned his credit. I mean, he didn't do anything groundbreaking. He wasn't very technical. He never demonstrates any speed or even mobility. I try to watch EVERY drummer (both celebrities AND LOCAL) that I ever see/hear for at least ONE thing that I can take back to the rehearsal room with me. Sadly, Ringo is at the top of the list for "drummers that came up fruitless"...and believe me, the list is REALLY short. So tell me people, did Ringo do anything besides make it cool to be the drummer?

I agree with jag. Im a guitarist/bassist/songwriter/singer, and learning drums. Nothing is more annoying than a drummer who clutters up a good song with a bunch of damn crap that hinder more than helping a song. Ringo was a great drummer because he played for the music and NOT for his ego. There should be more drummers like that...song oriented!

hey - he had feel!!! you can't beat it!

I personally thought this was kind of a funny post.
In a way Ringo did suck; he wasn't what I would call technically proficient-and I don't know if an of you have ever set up a click with Beatles recrds-but they are way out of time. That doesn't matter though-because thay are out of time together! I played in a Neo-Classical/"Yngwie Malmsteen-ish" band for years-and timing was important-so Important that I had a Metronome mounted on my kickdrum hoop to make sure that I wasn't barreling along.
It made sure that the tempos were where we needed them to be, because I could double kick faster than my Guitarist and Bass player could rip through arpeggios.

That said-

Ringo was a good "song drummer". He played what was most important for the song.
His timing was off-but in alot of music-people speed up in the chorus parts if their faster, they slow down in the verses. I think it's just a natural thing that happens-and it makes the songs move in "waves" likea roller coaster; It's one of the reasons that I think alot of music today is kind of "sterile". by having the timing shift a little bit-it gves the songs a little more life.

I mean-if it's a pop song (any kind of dance music exluded) but like REM type of stuff-the timing can be off some-as long as the whole band is of together.

When I was doing the whole Neo-Classical bit-timing is EVERYTHING. because you're doing a tom lick that's going right along with guitar and bass licks, so it's a different story-but I like playing sloppy pop type of stuff as well- stuff where the song is more important than the actual performance-and it's alot of fun.
To me-the neo-classical stuff is a band getting to SHOW OFF their Chops.

Tim

Ya I think it's a funny post too. Ringo Is Ringo. Move along.

in my opinion, Ringo was a timekeeper, and damn fine one at that...

but more to the point, he was the best narrator for the TV show 'Thomas the Tank Engine' which i grew up on...

Don't get me wrong here. I like song oriented drummers (I like the way you put that) Sean Kinney is one of my favorites, and he is definately what you call song oriented. I just can't fathom how truly astounding drummers get overlooked everyday, but Ringo plays for the Beatles (let's face it, had he been with someone else, would he have been regarded so highly?) and POOF..even though he's simple and his timing isn't strict (in his defense, there are times to throw the metronome out) he's a legend.

You guys mentioned this post being funny, by that I don't really follow you, but here's where it stemmed from...I'm constantly rassed at work about being a drummer and someone brought up my opinion on Ringo Starr. I told them what I thought (not harshly, I just said I wasn't impressed and I didn't think he was deserving to be a legend) Now I'm an idiot. I wanted to get the opinion of some more "musicly inclined" people to see if I had missed something somewhere. maybe a little...

No, he wasn't very technical. Check out his hi-hat technique. He attacks them from two miles away! This is probably an effect of needing to play loud in German bars, but it did add to the "Beatles sound". He played very loud for that time, it seems.

Anyway, when the Beatles started experimenting a bit more, they also started out doing weird beat changes. It seems Ringo could handle that very well, so he wasn't totally lousy! Sure, its one thing make huge fills and using a drumset like a symphony orchestra, but playing weird beats and switching effortlessly between them is no mean task either. or?

//Lennart: One amazingly bad drummer.

I agree that Ringo was proficient at being a song oriented drummer which was his role. His son on the otherhand (touring with the Who)is by todays standards far more technical in his style of play and again is more suited for that role. The Beatle I think is overated is George Harrison whom also is regarded as one of the best. I base that on a bootleg tape of their rehearsals in which George put forth an abysmal performance at best. Granted the lead guitar work on Abbey Road is nothing short of brilliant but to my recollection none of those tunes were ever played live. It begs the question: was that George Harrison or a studio musician?

I refrain from answering non musicians querys at to my opinion of professional musicians, especially coworkers who I have to
see everyday. I stated in another thread that
I once got into fisticuffs with non musicians
for stating that I wouldnt pay a nickel to see the rolling stones live, and I like the stones. That was when I was about fifteen, I guess thats where that stems from. Oh catharsis!

yeah he can play in 7/4 holy smokes...

Ringo is just another part of the puzzle. Good music doesn't have to be a bunch of vituoso's having at it.

He is/was a very talented drummer. The fact that he was a member of a popular 20th century music group is secondary. Knowing when to do tom fills, and how to do them is not something everyone knows/understands, or can do very well.




[This message has been edited by Emeric (edited 07-16-2000).]

It was George, Lambo

Ringo was the rock, the anchor. If it wasnt
Ringo then there wouldnt have been any Beatles. Nobody plays in time. They are always swinging back and forth around the time center and good drummer such as Ringo will keep you close to the center. We have
a rock ourselves, the human metronome. I know
some awesome drummers but they are always overplaying, and I would rather have a rock.

sTRAWBERY FIELDS,cometogether,Isaw her standing there!! Fresh,locked in and solid.Steve Gadd lives about 4 miles from me and the drummer in my band knows him. I'll ask his opion and post if possible.Beatles rule!!!!

Ringo is a decent drummer, but drummers aren't in a band to be center stage, they're there to keep things moving and keep things together. Don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles, but don't get all hung up because he didn't try to get all the attention.

>>>mike

I'm not a drummer, but I like to play drums. The drummer is centre of a band, he/she is the ebackbone of any song, Ringo was certainlly not the best drummer, but he wasn't the worst. John Lennon replaced Pete Best with Ringo as of request of the 'higher order', put it this way-he was better and they knew him from Hamburg. He made his money out of drumming and you can't knock him for that.

Ringo was a professional musician before the lads were...it's how he made his bucks, and he was no show-boater, which Pete Best was alleged to be...Ringo made a living early on doing what he loved and doing it very competently...isn't that what all of us would have liked to have been doing?...if ya wanna hear drums only in a band, listen to that smack freak Ginger Baker...if ya wanna hear a complete four piece band, listen to early Beatles...if ya wanna listen to tastefully done understated drum nuance, listen to later Beatles.....Charlie Watts and Ringo both kept a fucking beat and were team players, which is the most important thing of all...besides, I've never heard anyone say he was the greatest drummer anyway, just more famous thanks to his fortunate circumstance...he has said numerous times he was very lucky...so, envy aside, why bash somebody you'd probably enjoy meeting?.....gibs

[This message has been edited by gibs (edited 07-25-2000).]

I started playing drums at age 9 two weeks after the beatles were on Ed Sullivan. I have been inspired by Ringo,Ginger Baker,Carl Palmer,Joe Franco of Good Rats,Twisted Sister, and Leslie West solo albums, and last but not least Neil Peart. Today at 45 years old I am a profesional working lead singer-bass player and studio drummer. Back in the early 80s I played drums and sang lead in a rush cover band. We played the permanent waves album in complete.To this day I still listen to Ringo closly with hopes of learning something I missed. Those in doubt listen to I Feel Fine or rent one of the live videos and see Ringo in action. Paulie.

here on my thoughts on ringo. It was brought to my attention that ringo didn't play drums on a portion of beatles records, especialy the later ones. The drums were preformed by paul and george if I remember correctly. Thats why it has the song oriented feel to them IMHO!