On numerous occasions I have seen Ringo Starr referred to in the media as “the luckiest man in the world.” What evidence supports/contradicts this assertion?
If not Ringo, then who better might be described the luckiest man in the world?
Well, Ringo was the least talented* of the Beatles, and if he hadn’t caught on with them, he’d probably be scrounging out a living as an obscure sessions drummer. It’s possible he may have latched on with a group, but he would have been just another drummer. He certainly wouldn’t be a world-famous celebrity.
But Ringo does have some things going for him – most imporantly his likeability. The Beatles were the springboard for him, but he had enough talent and personality to stay at the top afterwards. I doubt Charlie Watts would have been as well known if the Stones had broken up at the same time as the Beatles.
Still, there are plenty of other people who gained fame due to chance. What about the guys in O-Town, for instance? Debbie Reynolds became a star because some Hollywood talent scout happened to see her in a beauty pageant that she entered as a lark.
Or how about Kato Kaelin? He’s being pushed for a new TV show strictly because he happened to be staying at OJ Simpsons. If Nicole Brown hadn’t been murdered, no one would have had a clue as to who he was.
*Not a slur on Ringo – with Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison to compete with, nobody could reach their level of talent.
RealityChuck is right; Alas this is just one more thing drummers have to put up with. (I say this as a professional drummer) Drummers are not considered to be “musicians” by a lot of folks, hence they think “any monkey can play the drums”. Therefore, for someone like Ringo to fall in to the lap of The Bealtes, must truly be a stroke of incredible luck. (drummer = no decernable talent)
Does this make Pete Best the “Unluckiest man in the world?” Of course not. I’m sure the other professional musicians will back me up when I say being a part of a band (From The Beatles on down to…well, down to the guys I gig with every week) is a mixture of skill, chemistry, personalities and friendship. Is Ringo any “luckier” than Charlie Watts? Russel Kunkle? Neil Peart? Peter Criss? etc? The only “unlucky” drummer was the drummer for “Spinal Tap.” Sorry if this sounds like a rant–but I guess it is. Leave it to a drummer to change the tempo! 
No points for pointing out the many puns in this post!
Hey, Drollman, what do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians?
[
You may call him lucky, but Ringo’s more than that.
First, he’s considered an excellent drummer. Not innovative, not flashy, but capable of keeping a steady beat. I’m not a musician, but I’ve been around a few in my time, and having someone trustworthy behind the skins is pretty rare. Before Ringo hooked up with the Beatles, he had a reputation for being very good, and he would have found steady work no matter what.
Second, he’s an amiable fellow, capable not only of submerging his ego against world-class egotists like Lennon and McCartney (and George was a close third), but also acting as a calming influence. Band members could bitch to him, blow off steam, and nothing bad would come of it. Near the end, it really shocked the group when it was Ringo who decided he wanted out. He was that steady, and I would imagine that it gave the other three a clear idea of just how bad things had gotten.
Ringo was so self-effacing a drummer that he’s one of the few who did not demand drum solos. None of this “give me five minutes so I can bash the cymbals repeatedly while y’all have a smoke.” He had to be lobbyed pretty heavily to contribute that solo to “The End,” <i>and that was his first drum solo</i>. Pretty hot solo, too.
So while Ringo wasn’t flashy, he didn’t need to be. He wasn’t a talented songwriter or singer, but he didn’t have to be. But he was a good drummer, and that’s what the Beatles needed.
Like many people, I call Ringo the luckiest man in show biz history, but NOT because he was a bad musician, or because I don’t respect what drummer’s do. Rather, it’s because Ringo was HANDED a golden opportunity to join an act that was just about to become the biggest show on Earth, with or without him.
Ringo was definitely lucky! The Beatles fired Pete Best and hired Ringo just days before making their first record. In other words, Ringo had nothing to do with the Beatles’ getting a recording contract. He simply joined the band just as they were about to become a sensation.
Moreover, by several accounts I’ve read, Ringo rarely played the drums on early Beatle records- George Martin tended to use session drummers.
Sidebar: I do NOT say this to insult Ringo personally. Fact is, that practice was FAR from uncommon, in the music biz in the 1960s. You’d be surprised at how often producers on BOTH sides of the Atlantic replaced the “real” members of a band with session musicians. On record, most of the Beach Boys and the Byrds were replaced by session men like Hal Blaine and his “Wrecking Crew”; and most hits by Them and Herman’s Hermits featured Jimmy Page on guitar and John Paul Jones on bass. It’s not that the members of those bands COULDN’T play their instruments… it’s just that they rarely did, on records.
Side bar over. Back to Ringo: Once the Beatles became an established, successful band, I gather that they stopped using session men, and that Ringo got a chance to show what he could do. And, assuming that Ringo was, in fact, the drummer on tracks like “Ticket to Ride,” then he WAS a superb drummer. His technique added a great deal to a lot of records.
But the fact that the Beatles hired him when they did WAS a huge stroke of dumb luck for Ringo! Look, I LIKE the guy, so I don’t begrudge him that great stroke of good luck (and yes, I DO say Pete Best was the unluckiest man in show biz history!). But a huge struck of dumb luck is what it was.
Heck, one reason everyone likes Ringo so much is that he’s one of those rare celebs who seems to KNOW just how lucky he is!
Points well-taken, all. I’ll have to side with astorian and say that yes, Ringo was th eluckiest simply because the opportunity came along ready-made.
And in Ringo’s defense, he was/is a real groundbreaking drummer. OK, I know nothing about this, but a buddy of mine used to be a music critic, and once interviewed Ginger Baker, the drummer for Cream. Baker said that when a new Beatles album came out, all the drummers would rush out to buy it to see what crazy, innovative stuff Ringo was doing. If Ginger Baker says it, that’s good enough for me.
I like the drum work on “All I’ve Gotta Do”…
A drummer who can keep a steady beat is a rare thing.
It wasnt’ untill my third year in college as a music major that I found out that damn and drummer were seperate words.
I would say maybe Tom Cruise or Michael Jordan, seem to be the biggest A-list celebs in the world at the moment. Of course in Jordans case it wasn’t luck, but talent.
I’ve wondered about this for a while, and I guess this is the thread to ask…
I remember hearing that toward the end of the Beatles’ recording career, Paul would occasionally come in after the recording sessions and re-do some of Ringo’s drum parts. Assuming my recollection is correct, did any of these make it onto the final recordings, and if so, which tracks?
Dr. J
Actually, by most accounts (including those given by George Martin), it was only on the recoding the Beatles first single that a session drummer was used – on the first take. Then a second take was recorded with Ringo (whose assesment of the sessions drummer’s work was “He didn’t do anything so great that I couldn’t copy it”). One take was used on the single; the other take was used when the song showed up on the album.
As for Paul coming in to redo the drum parts on later Beatles recodings, there may be an element of truth to it, but it has been greatly exaggerated.
Towards the end, John, Paul and George all began taking more control over how the songs they wrote were recorded, overdubbing more of the instruments themselves and using the other members almost like session men who would come in and lay down a part. So there may be Paul McCartney songs on which Ringo does not appear (particularly “Back in the USSR”), but there are also Harrison songs on which Lennon doesn’t appear, and Lennon songs on which Harrison doesn’t appear.
Actually, by most accounts (including those given by George Martin), it was only on the recoding the Beatles first single that a session drummer was used – on the first take. Then a second take was recorded with Ringo (whose assesment of the sessions drummer’s work was “He didn’t do anything so great that I couldn’t copy it”). One take was used on the single; the other take was used when the song showed up on the album.
As for Paul coming in to redo the drum parts on later Beatles recodings, there may be an element of truth to it, but it has been greatly exaggerated.
Towards the end, John, Paul and George all began taking more control over how the songs they wrote were recorded, overdubbing more of the instruments themselves and using the other members almost like session men who would come in and lay down a part. So there may be Paul McCartney songs on which Ringo does not appear (particularly “Back in the USSR”), but there are also Harrison songs on which Lennon doesn’t appear, and Lennon songs on which Harrison doesn’t appear, etc. So it’s a mistake to single out Ringo as if his contribution was no longer wanted.
i have always said Ringo is the luckiest man on earth.
see above reasons. its not an insult, just and opinion.
In many ways Neil Peart is the anti-Ringo. Prior to Peart, Rush was a promising but mediocre band, foundering after two unremarkable albums. John Rutsey left Rush to “follow other pursuits,” (was he pushed?) and the record company hired Neil Peart to save the band, which he did. Rush rose from obscurity to world reknown with Peart writing almost all of the songs along the way. With John Rutsey on the skins, Rush may have been no more than another four or five hit wonder.
Rather than Neil Peart being the lucky one, it could be better said that Rush was very fortunate to have been the beneficiary of a very lopsided drummer trade.
To concur with the OP, he married Barbara Bach.
Would that have happened to any old session drummer?
Hang on… Ringo wasn’t just ‘handed’ the job. He was picked for it because he had a reputation for being one of the best, if not THE best drummer in Liverpool. That’s not luck, that’s working your ass off and having it pay off spectacularly.
And I beg to differ with those who say that Ringo wasn’t innovative - try listening to the Beatles just for the drumming some time. Try to tune out the greatness all around him, and just listen to what Ringo was doing. Now compare it to other drummers of the time (I’m talking early to mid 60’s). Ringo didn’t fire out pyrotechnics like Keith Moon, but his drum fills and the beat he established for many songs truly was innovative.
And not people know this, but Ringo had the most successful solo act of any Beatle for the first couple of years after the breakup, and was the first ex-Beatle to hit #1.
Consider this career, AFTER the Beatles:
“Photograph” (went to #1)
“Back off Boogaloo” (#8)
“You’re Sixteen” (#1)
“The No-No Song” (#1)
“It Don’t Come Easy” (#1)
“Oh My My” (#5)
Four #1 singles, a couple of #1 albums, and a total of six top-10 hits makes him one of the more successful solo recording acts in the pop era.
Ringo has plenty of talent.
The other Beatles knew Ringo’s abilities quite well for some time. (Cf. Sam Stone’s post.) They didn’t think they were good enough to attract someone as talented as Ringo until they started attracting the fan base that led to the record contract. At the time they hit it big, any musician would have told you that it was George who was the weakest link in talent. (He later grew of course.)
Ringo has had far more #1 hits in his native England than any of the other ex-Beatles. (Perhaps equal the others combined IIRC.)
By being “lucky” you mean the best around, you’re right.
I think any of the minor Baldwin brothers are the luckiest guys on earth. Apparently produced out of some kind of handsome clone factory, their way into the industry smoothed by big brother Alec, who any of them could double for (til Alec started chubbin’ out a little), and be in movies with hot topless chicks like Cindy Crawford.
Not a contradiction, as I hadn’t heard of Ringo’s reputation as a drummer pre-Beatles one way or the other, but I was always under the impression from various interviews, documentaries, etc, that the Beatles met and became friends with Ringo while they were playing in Germany when Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe were still with the band. They liked Ringo better than Pete and thought he was better on drums.
Anyone have a source for Ringo’s pre-Beatle respectability?
Adam Clayton???