Thread: Ringo Starr
View Single Post
  #294  
Old 03-29-2011, 04:40 AM
JMalriat JMalriat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39
Default Re: Ringo Starr

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamadrm View Post
You're really not going to get into that jazz is better than rock thing,are you?Plenty of rock players have crossed over into jazz as well as jazz players into rock.Listed to some jazz/rock or progressive rock and that music is every bit as technically challenging as mainstream jazz,but its still rock.

And Ringo does deserve to be recognized for his contribution to modern music.I would suggest you relisten to his playing objectivly and you will hear the swing and groove and the big pocket in his playing.Ringo as much as or more than Gene Krupa put drummers on the map.You can't compare technical skill by itself with musical creativity and musical playing of Ringo's style.

Steve B
I guess I should re-word that. No style of music is "better" than any other style. Jazz is more geared towards musicians, and rock more towards listeners in most cases. There are absolutely exceptions, I've listened to plenty of rock music I appreciated as a musician (Flood by Snarky Puppy is a perfect example, if you would consider it rock (it sounds like a weird name, but give a listen, they're all extremely talented)) and there is a lot of jazz I can only listen to as "background music". You're right, rock can be technically challenging, but not what Ringo played. I agree that Ringo and the Beatles were all very creative, especially on the lesser known tracks (like any other band/artist I guess). But all the jazz guys did the same thing. They were just as creative, but with a lot more technical skill. I just used jazz as an example because I'm more familiar with it than funk/fusion, latin, etc.
Reply With Quote