Originally Posted by tamadrm
Wow...this has been hashed out on every drum forum,ad nausium.It's a lie,it has been proven a lie,over and over.He may be a great drummer,but a lousy liar.The story has changed over the years as to how many and cuts,which ones and where they were done,here or in the UK.
Mr Purdie never learned the the first rule of a lie.That is you have to remember it,exactly the same way you told it,the first time you told it....forever.
Secondly...if this B.S. were true,someone,anyone would have come foward by now to confirm this ruse as true or not.They also would have done so in their own Beatles tell all books,of which there have to be at least a hundred.
If Ringo was so terrible,then why did the keep him?If Ringo didn't cut it,he would have met the same fate as Pete Best.Just watch the live footage of Ringo's playing and tell me this guy wasn't a pro,who actually made much less mistakes then the other three Beatles.
Why didn't the Beatles keep Purdie,and chuck Ringo...like they did with Pete Best?
Remember...the Beatles recruited Ringo...they wanted him in the band,and not the other way around.
Lastly,if Ringo was a talentless as Mr.Purdie suggests,then why did Ringo play on Lennons first two solo albums,seven George Harrison albums,and four Macca albums.
Ringo also played on around 35 other artists studio albums including Peter Franpton,Jeff Lynn,Tom Petty,BB King and many others.
Seems the "he was only a good drummer for the Beatles" is just the classic argument from ignorance.Tell Steve Jordan,Steve Smith or Greg Bissonette Ringo is talentless and Purdie actually played on say, " She Loves You"(yeah yeah yeah as Purdie claims),and the'll to a man laugh in your face.
Put this nonsense to bed.The only story that will change will be Purdies....once again,who will talk about the B.S. to anybody who'll listen.:(