All opinions will be cheerfully considered
Your insatiable man-crush on the fab-4 is adorable.
Isn't it just ! As they once wrote
"You may be a lover, but you ain't no dancer !".
Mind you, I think the term 'crush' might be a little weighty though.
Last crush I had was back in '77 on Mrs Crosby, my French teacher. Once, when I referred to some of my classmates as 'kids', she said to me "I don't see any goats here !".
But let's be real. Ringo sucked, and had little, if anything, to do with any part of the Beatles success.
I guess that depends on one's perspective. Personally, I've long felt he was just the right drummer for them. Having thought about it for many years, my opinion is that drummers like Ginger Baker, Viv Prince, Bobby Graham and Keith Moon could never have drummed for the Beatles, never mind the American drummers of the time. Charlie Watts, hmm, possibly.
The point about him having little to do with their success is, in my opinion, paradoxical. I am presuming that you're referring to his actual drumming and I'm of the opinion that up to "Ticket to ride" in '65, his drumming wasn't the most
noticeable part of the Beatles songs in anything other than the same general way that the actual drumming as opposed to 'the drums' is often not the most noticeable part probably of most songs. You know what I mean, often it's noted that there are drums and the drums often drive a song and accentuate parts and add excitement, but I don't know many people that actually
listen to what the drummer is actually doing.
But the Beatles were such a package that even before they hit the States, the media was focussing on their personalities, opinions, clothes etc that the music so often is lost in a welter of other things. It was long long long before Paul McCartney's bass playing was recognized, George Harrison was seen as a revolutionary guitarist more for playing a 12 string Rickenbacker than the actual stuff he played, etc, etc. Them days were the start of so much of what we take for granted now so it's hard to gauge what made groups and singers 'successful'. I'd say lots of different things went into the pot, working at different strengths at different times. All one can say is that the other Beatles regarded him as the one they needed (even when he left the band they didn't try to replace him) and many guys that saw him drumming on his distinctive Ludwig set were inspired to take up the drums. I've read too many opinions from drummers of the 60s~90s saying Ringo turned their heads drumming wise to say "No he didn't ! He couldn't have. He
sucked....".
Toprocker22, my apologies for hi~jacking your thread with that insatiably long post.
