I recall watching Ringo on Donohue’s program years ago, shortly after his marriage to Barbara Bach. Several members of the audience were drummers and a couple of them commented in knowledgeable musician-talk on the unusual way he played and how what he did was just perfect for the song. He was asked a couple of times how he thought to do the things he did in this song or that, and he would just shrug and shake his head as though he didn’t know the answer himself. The impression was that it just came to him, but he didn’t know how.
P.S.: Did you know he’s a lefty? He learned to play the drums arranged for a right-handed player. He went to “the toppermost of the poppermost” playing the damned drums backwards! That’s why his fills are so unique. He had to start off with the wrong hand, and go an unnatural direction for him. That’s also the reason why he hated doing solos. He didn’t have the dexterity to go all Buddy Rich, he had to work within his limits on a righty kit.
Now, I can do a pretty good imitation of his style, right-handed for me. But if I had to learn how to do it backwards on the kit, well, those odds seem insurmountable!
Woohoo!!! Billy Shears Is My Hero!!
Let’s put it this way: Can anyone, anywhere, see Pete Best saying, “I’m a mocker.”?
Sounds like y’all got a good handle on Ringo. I suspect his greatest talent was his ability to get along with the other members.
I’m serious. The Beatles became who they were because they acted as a group, supporting each other just like a real family. There was also a tremendous amount of competition between John and Paul that, when it worked in a positive way, forced each of them to top each other. When it didn’t, you got songs like “How Can You Sleep?”
With all these egos, the last thing the group needed was a fourth who thought he was God’s gift to drumming. Instead, they got someone who worked hard, kept the beat straight, was a good, humorous personality and was willing to sit behind the kit for take after take after take after take, and who listened to all the bickering and fighting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t George realize how seriously in trouble the Beatles were was when Ringo quit the group?
I concur.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve seen/read interviews with him, and he doesn’t seem bitter about having been canned. The way he sees it, he’s not sorry to have missed out on the downside of fame, and Michael Jackson has never tried to buy his ice cream parlors out from under him.
And another thing to keep in mind about Ringo is that when he joined the Beatles, it didn’t look like a sure thing. They lured him away from Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, a local group that was, at the time, a bigger draw than the Beatles. He took a chance that paid off, but J, P and G lucked out as much as he did, IMO.
Good god, no.
Slight tangent: I remember that in Roger Ebert’s review of the movie Backbeat, he remarked on Best’s near-invisibility in the film, and expressed hope that this wasn’t because “another director thinks there’s a movie in his story”. No fear. The reason Best wasn’t a featured character in that film, or any Beatles bio for that matter, is that there just isn’t much to say about his presence in the group. He’s only conspicuous in his absence.
+1 on all the good points made here.
-
Ringo is a solid drummer, who innovated in a fairly simple way that happened to be perfect for where the Beatles were going. Sometimes, less is more - when the Beatles started taking their 4-track to places no one else had been, having a solid, simple anchor kept it together.
-
Personality matters and Ringo played well with others. Having been in bands where the guys got along but the talent lacked, and in bands where we were all talented but didn’t like each other (and everywhere in between - jeez have I been in too many bands…) I can just say that bands are like marriages in a lot of ways and Ringo clearly provided an element that was key.
My one addition to this thread: Read Lewisohn’s Abbey Road Recordings - I can’t remember if it was explicitly stated or was an observation by a buddy of mine who has practically memorized that book. But do you realize that in all the studio time the Beatles logged in - all the all-nighters, producing 2 albums a year + 4 or so singles - Ringo making a mistake was NEVER the cause of having to lay down a new track? Do you realize how INCREDIBLE that statement is? As a musician, I am simply in awe of that - J, P and later G could experiment all they wanted, and Ringo was there for them. Talk about invaluable.
Regarding Ringo not making any mistakes causing them to redo a track: the only examples of this are found on the master reel for “Thank You Girl.” He was having trouble with the fills in the coda, and they recorded six edit pieces - eventually going with the first one. Nowhere else can you hear him unsure of what to play, or playing it in less-than-stellar fashion.
Reference: Unsurpassed Masters Vol 1, Yellow Dog YD 001 (1989).
-Hallo, Bongo!
-That’s Ringo!
-Oh, is he here as well?
Count me in on the “Ringo is underrated” bandwagon.
I lurves Ringo.
Every now and again someone comes along and says, “Ringo was lucky or George was lucky–they were carried by John and Paul.” And some will even argue the point that Paul was lucky to have John or vice versa.
Nonsense.
I am not a musican (sadly) so I cannot comment on his approach to the drums etc. I do recall him saying on the anthology that playing live with all the screaming meant that he couldn’t do anything more than just provide a back beat for the front 3.
However, I am digressing. The Beatles, despite people’s attempts to micro-analyze and/or deconstruct them remain the Beatles.
They are the only living representation of 1+1+1+1=4000 instead of 4. Don’t ask me to explain the math (suck at that too!) but I know it’s true.
Ringo was Ringo and brought a number of qualities to the table. It is impossible to add them up in any accurate way. I am just glad that he was there, along with the other 3.
I lurves Ringo.
Every now and again someone comes along and says, “Ringo was lucky or George was lucky–they were carried by John and Paul.” And some will even argue the point that Paul was lucky to have John or vice versa.
Nonsense.
I am not a musican (sadly) so I cannot comment on his approach to the drums etc. I do recall him saying on the anthology that playing live with all the screaming meant that he couldn’t do anything more than just provide a back beat for the front 3.
However, I am digressing. The Beatles, despite people’s attempts to micro-analyze and/or deconstruct them remain the Beatles.
They are the only living representation of 1+1+1+1=4000 instead of 4. Don’t ask me to explain the math (suck at that too!) but I know it’s true.
Ringo was Ringo and brought a number of qualities to the table. It is impossible to add them up in any accurate way. I am just glad that he was there, along with the other 3.
Sorry for dreaded double post.
:smack:
This is true. “Ringo, why do you suppose you get more fan mail than the other Beatles?” “Well, I suppose it’s because more people write me letters.”
From the Playboy interviews:
“Ringo’s talent would have come out one way or the other. I don’t know what he would have ended up as—whatever that spark is in Ringo, we all know it but we can’t put our finger on it. Whether it’s acting, drumming or singing, I don’t know. There’s something in him that is projectable and he would have surfaced as an individual.”
Heehee! Never thought of that!
I would just like to reiterate that I do like Ringo, and my OP was in no way an attempt to knock his contribution to the group. I think it’s clear that he wasn’t a Lennon/McCartney-level genius, but as others have pointed out, that’s not what the group needed.
I’m convinced, reading the responses, that the Beatles sans Ringo (with or without Pete Best, who I didn’t remember being as actively crappy a drummer as he was) would’ve gotten famous (maybe Kinks-level fame), but Ringo’s personality was probably a critical factor in sparking Beatlemania and making them stratospheric.
Actually, Kinks-level fame would’ve been pretty crappy compared to what the Beatles achieved. I’m pretty sure the Kinks never had a #1 single or album. I think the Beatles, without Ringo, would definitely have still been the most successful British band.
Not in America, perhaps. But according to Popular, The Kinks hit #1 in the UK with the singles “You Really Got Me” (September 12, 1964) and “Tired of Waiting for You” (February 20, 1965). There may be more, but the list only goes to November 1965 so far.
I’m not a drummer, but I am a guitar player who’s played a big chunk of the Beatles’ repertoire.
As others have said here, Ringo’s playing is like a rock, solid, reliable, but with enough quirkiness to add to the music.
If, instead of Ringo, the Beatles had had some oustanding technician like Neil Peart or Buddy Rich, their music would not have been as enjoyable, and, without one easygoing guy to compromise on disagreements, they probably would’ve broken up by 1966.
In addition, there’s the personality thing. IMO, John was a nutty egomaniac (albeit a genius); Paul, a perfectionist control freak; George a moody weirdo.
Ringo is the only Beatle I would’ve wanted to be friends with.
Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified that I was talking about U.S. performance. The Kinks were also hurt in the U.S. by their a touring ban imposed on them. Still, I think a Ringo-less Beatles would have easily done much better than the Kinks anywhere in the world. Lennon-McCartney were just better than anyone other British rock-and-rollers at writing catchy pop tunes, which helped greatly to sustain the band after the first wave of Beatlemania ended.
I agree Ringo is a terrific drummer, but the staccato drum part on “Ticket” was conceived by Paul.
That may be what he says now, but getting thrown out of the Beatles devastated Pete in the short term; he couldn’t settle into a new career, and even attempted suicide. I’m glad he’s come out of that and found peace with himself.
Rory Storm et al were playing another season at Butlin’s holiday camps when the Beatles approached Ringo. A decent paying gig, but not one that was going to take them anywhere special; they were pretty much spinning their wheels by that time.
The Beatles certainly lucked out in that Ringo was both the best drummer on the Liverpool beat scene (there may have been other guys who were technically finer, but Ringo was definitely a star) and a really funny guy who meshed perfectly with the other three. The Fabs could’ve gone to London and had some open auditions for a new drummer, but it’s just about inconceivable they could’ve found someone else with Ringo’s combined talent and temperament.
I seem to recall from a recent re-read of Lewisohn that there actually was one instance where Ringo made a mistake—and it was such a rare thing that it prompted John Lennon to remark, “What was that?!”. Which in no way undermines your point, of course. (Hell, if any Beatle was prone to botching takes, it was Lennon.)
I think I knew that at one time but I’d forgotten it. Only makes his acheivements more impressive, IMO.
(And, while this is somewhat outside the OP, I’ve often thought of Ringo as the Beatle who has the greatest capacity for enjoying life. He has a great sense of humor, doesn’t take himself too seriously, and seems like a guy for whom soaking up life itself is the best way to live. If I had to be one of the Beatles, he’s the one I’d want to be.)