Why, I wonder?
Why does this Ringo = poor drummer thing always rear its head?
No criticism implied of anyone who'se posted here, but it just seems so unfair that we forever have this stale debate. Noone keeps posting that Bob Dylan was a crap guitarist, or George Harisson a rubbish sitar player, or John Lennon was at best average on the piano etc, or Lou Read can't sing too well, but the Ringo thing always comes up.
Maybe because people think of LennonMcCartney as the 'talent' and Ringo just 'the drummer' ? OK almost anyone could have been in that band on drums and they still would have been big, but Ringo fulfilled the role and the rest is history. Can anyone honestly say that a better drummer would have significantly improved on their work at the time?
Maybe debates like this get kicked off by people who are great musicians themselves, but can't understand why they themselves have not been more succesful in the music biz, when people like Ringo have?
People don't get the fact that it is not about 'musicianship', if it was then we'd all be listening the classical music and jazz as they have arguably the 'top' most skillful musicians and non of us would listen to raw punk bands for example.
Do we all remember The Sex Pistols because they could all play their instruments so well? No. They were adequate musicians, but a phenomenon for OTHER reasons.
Ringo's place in history is assured and many young drummers try to emulate his sound and playing style.
Again - I am not 'having a go' at anyone who posted on this thread - just sounding off about the Ringo thing!