Why the Beatles?

[Purple Stickpin]

Again, complimenting a drummer for keeping a beat is like complimenting Kobe Bryant for dribbling a basketball.

Spoken like someone who has never has to lasso feral cats with an overcooked lasagna noodle. You're not getting it.

There are different levels of good and great. Sure, he isn't Bill Bruford, but that's not what he needed to be. Ah, hell, Hooch said it better.

 

[Black Swan]

Spoken like someone who has never has to lasso feral cats with an overcooked lasagna noodle. You're not getting it.

I do not know much about drumming but what was written above was really funny.

 

[Rob.]

Ringo was a good drummer as a Beatle. stick him with Led Zeppelin, or Miles Davis, he's lost. but that doesn't matter, he didn't have to play with Miles or Zeppelin. he knew what he had to do and how to make it work. there's no need to take Ringo out of context.

Well, given that stance, Tommy Ramone was a drum virtuoso. Don't get me wrong, I love the Ramones. I just don't have to elevate their skills in order to rationalize my love.

I love the Beatles too. I just think that Ringo's role in the band is highly over rated, as are his skills as a drummer.

Keith moon was a good drummer. John Bonham was a good drummer. They both kept perfect time, and brought something more to their groups besides well placed fills.

I know Neil Peart gets clowned a lot for his ridiculous kit, but listen to his work. That's what I would consider musical drumming.

Of course, going old school, Buddy Rich must be mentioned in aany discussion of drumming prowess.

As for the new school, Check out Christopher Guanlau of the Silversun Pickups. Songs like Common Reactor are made for me because of his off beat style.

I do get it. Ringo is a Beatle. For that reason, he is a legend.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I'm not elevating anyone's skills. I'm saying Ringo, Tommy, insert any name here, worked well in the context they were given.

Tony Williams is my favourite drummer, but he would've seemed excessive in the Beatles.

 

[Rob.]

Sorry, Hooch, I may have over reacted to your statement. I see what you wrote now, and I have to say that I do agree with your statement. Ringo did work in that context.

 

[mjp]

Funny you should mention Tommy Erdelyi (Ramone). When Marky replaced him on the drums he said it took him a months to begin to approximate what Tommy did. Does that make him good? No, it makes him unique though. Like Ringo.

My point about music is always, does it work for you? Does it make you go 'wow'? Does it rattle your nuts? If it does, it's good music and the people playing it are good musicians.

Someone who aims for technical perfection (see: Peart) leaves me cold. Go play classical music if that's what you want. I like that too, and I'll appreciate you more there.

Rock and roll needs slop. Rock and roll is slop. When you say Keith Moon kept perfect time, I'm assuming you haven't seen a lot of live footage of the Who - the times Townsend turns around and looks at Moon like, "Where the fuck are you going?" That's a rock and roll drummer! ;)

I saw the Who in 1976. I wasn't a fan, particularly, but watching Moon was a show in itself. Never anyone else like him, for sure.

By the way, what is art?

 

[Rob.]

Let's call it a tomato...

I can appreciate good musicians without likeing what they're doing (See Dave Mathews) While I know that he is good at what he does, it falls flat with me...like Peart's drumming does for you I guess. Although, I can't understand why. His technicallity takes nothing away from the passion.

The reason I used Tommy as an example was that I agree that he is not a good drummer. He did, however fit the shirt (Sorry for the Johnny Bravo reference).

I love the sex pistols, that certainly doesn't make Johnny Rotten a good singer.

As for Moon going off, are you speaking of the horse tranquilizer episodes?

 

[mjp]

As for Moon going off, are you speaking of the horse tranquilizer episodes?

No, he did not always feel inclined to play songs the same way every night. That may have been entertaining for him, but could be frustrating for the rest of the band.

As for not appreciating Peart, you really can't understand that? Rush is a head band. Not headband like the singer for Loverboy, but like you appreciate them intellectually. I don't prefer my rock and roll that way.

Bands like Rush and YES and ELP and all of those laughably pompous windbags should have had their own little classification and tour circuit so I wouldn't have had to suffer through their god damned awful college boy textbook music school Ayn-Rand-as-JESUS shows back in the 70's.

So, no. Don't care for them you could say.

And the likes of Dave Matthews - please. I wipe my ass with that piffle. It's just an inferior copy of something that wasn't all that great in the first place. Fuck Dave Matthews and his ilk. I fart in their general direction! I will appreciate him when I can piss on his gravestone.

So to speak.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Bands like Rush and YES and ELP and all of those laughably pompous windbags...

:D All among my favorites!

 

[mjp]

I know, I know. What can I tell you. A lot of people's favorites, obviously, all of them very successful. I just wanted to kill myself when I would watch them play though. I wasn't sophisticated enough to appreciate it I guess. Yeah, that's it. ;)

So why go? We went to everything. Didn't matter if we liked it or not. I was studying all of those fuckers. It was a good strategy as it turned out, because I ended up seeing every band from the 70's and early 80's that you can think of. It was a great time to be alive.

Now is okay too, of course. For different reasons.

 

[Rob.]

So, we've found some common ground.

1) Keith Moon was a good drummer.
2) Dave Mathews is lame.

I can let all the rest go if you can.

 

[Cowboy]

Yeah , Keith Moon was a good drummer , Ringo too , and Charlie Watts , John Bonham and all drummers where good . The 60-70`s was another generation like mjp says and thats right . It`s a generation thing .

But shit , I was working in a musicstudio in the 90`s and I see bands (and drummers) and a lot of musicians from Africa and they playing his ass of . And everyone of them are good on his instruments , so what ? Nobody knows them and they are full of soul and emotion to do their own music .
Sometimes you feel it ,sometimes not , that`s music .
And every person is individual.
What`s on with new Bands , listen to them too.
I was born in the sixties and I listen to all music that touch me . New or old .

 

[Bukfan]

As for touring without him, I believe that the Beatles did four shows in Australia in the summer of '64 with Jimmy Nichol in place of Ringo.

And two shows in Copenhagen. Ringo was very much missed by the fans.

 

[Cowboy]

Anyone knows Rings single "Back to boogaloo" ?

 

[Digney in Burnaby]

I believe McCartney's nickname was "boogaloo".

 

[Purple Stickpin]

And just to provide some rockin', here are the lads on David Frost, circa Spring 1968. This is not one to showcase Ringo or anything like that. I'm not sure how much of this is live; certainly some of the vocals are, and certainly Nicky Hopkins' piano part seems to have been canned in from tape, but it's good nonetheless.

 

[Digney in Burnaby]

More rockin'. Many clips of


on youtube. Ringo is beating the crap out of his kit on this one. In a more recent interview he says he's left handed and his drum kits are right handed. Not sure what that means. If nothing else, with Paul, two lefties in the band.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

well, at least our discussion here is better than this one.

again, buknet wins.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Ringo is beating the crap out of his kit on this one. In a more recent interview he says he's left handed and his drum kits are right handed. Not sure what that means. If nothing else, with Paul, two lefties in the band.

A left-handed drummer will have the high-hat on his right, using his left hand to play on top of the high-hat, and his right on the snare. Ringo, like most drummer's you'll see, have the high-hat on the left side (from the drummer's perspective), and will use their right hand to hit the high-hat from above, and the left to hit the snare when using the high-hat. I've always thought that Ringo considered himself abidextrous, even if he couldn't spell it (or even know what it meant).

P.S. - great clip, Digney, nice find. That appears to be from their first US concert in Washington, DC (before anyone coughs; Ed Sullivan was a live TV broadcast in a small studio) where Ringo's riser had to be rotated every song, along with the mics and amps, to face the circular audience at different times. Ringo is wailing away indeed, and using his crash cymbal like a ride cymbal because of the din (in other words, he's riding the crash, which would ordinarily be used as an ormament; the ride cymbal is the larger one to Ringo's left).

Just to close out the Ringo discussion: Surely, he wasn't anything of the ilk of Bonham, Moonie or Peart, or any number of other drummers (and I'm a jazz guy, so let's not even go there), but one thing he did really well was ride the high-hat and the snare, and manage to get a fair bit of music out of a very limited strinking area, as it were.

 

[Bukfan]

What about Ginger Baker (Cream)? Is he one of the great drummers?

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Ginger Baker, to me, was an excellent rock drummer, but I enjoyed his work on the Blind Faith album more than in Cream. Or, The Cream, as the Brits say.

 

[Bukfan]

I see! I remember a TV program where Ginger Baker explored all kind of native drums (from Africa and what have you). The program made him into some kinda "King of the drums". I never knew if it was all hype or if he really ranked among the best drummers of his time.

 

[mjp]

That appears to be from their first US concert in Washington, DC [...] where Ringo's riser had to be rotated every song, along with the mics and amps, to face the circular audience at different times.

I had that whole concert on tape for a long time, but it's gone now. It is painful to watch them lugging their equipment around the stage like a bunch of god damned performing monkeys.

Notice how many mics are on Ringo's drums and the guitar amps: zero. Must have been great to see them live back then. You could hear some screaming and if you were lucky maybe the vocals over the stadium PA. Sweet.

 

[number6horse]

Ringo was Greg Maddux and vice versa (if I can throw in a baseball metaphor here).

Greg Maddux never had a blazing fastball, an elusive curveball, or an especially deceptive slider, but he knew EXACTLY how to place those "average" pitches for maximum effect in a given situation.

Same with Ringo. No great chops, but he had terrific instincts on when to deploy those chops.

...now join us for the 7th-inning stretch as Ringo Starr leads the crowd in "Death Cab For Cutie"...

 

[buk babe]

who is oasis?

watched a movie a couple of night ago...can't remember which one, but there was a great and true line in it....it said, 'saying no to the beatles is like saying no to life'

 

[Ambreen]

who is oasis?

The band without which the Beatles would have never been the Beatles.

 

[nervas]

Not for nothing, but I always thought Oasis was pretty good. Saw them live a few times and they always left me impressed. I always thought of Liam as a cross between John Lennon and Johnny Rotten. One of the best live quotes I ever heard was last December at the Staples center while watching Oasis. The gig was over, Liam grabbed the mic, and addressing the audience said, "thank you, you were brilliant and we were brilliant!"

That still makes me laugh!

 

[mjp]

They are funny and clever, no doubt. I'll always read or watch an interview with them. But there's nothing there to back it up. The music is boring. Typical 90's drone snooze muzak.

 

[Stavrogin]

I personally have always been more fond of The Kinks (Waterloo Sunset, completely stops me in my tracks) but the The Beatles had a brilliant fundamental grasp of the "chord" to the blues. Lennon was once quoted as saying "the blues is a chair" and it's a very Plato 'The Cave' like comment. Their career as a band was sadly unique - we witness a band journey from naive and innocent to worldly-wise and jaded right before our eyes (or ears).

 

[mjp]

There was nothing naive about their early records. They were all very calculated to appeal to the largest possible audience.

What The Beatles had was a unique chemistry and a fresh (punk rock!) attitude. A kind of, "That's all well and good, but we're going to do it our way" outlook that recording artists just did not have in those days. "Chemistry" is hard to quantify, and sounds like a load of bullshit, but it's real, and it's one of the most important ingredients in a band.