Ringo Starr... Good or bad?

stramming

stramming

Member
I am a huge Beatles fan, and Ringo is usually the one who people say has "limited" talent. I disagree with this. Sure, he isn't John Bonham or Keith Moon level, but he is still a great drummer and very underrated.

What do you guys think?
 
Anyone who could navigate all the stylistic waters that Lennon and McCartney floated through during the Beatles career, has my respect as a drummer.
 
@bruin

I agree, and if anyone thinks Ringo isn't that good should listen to "Rain" or "The Word".
 
Last edited:
Time for another round of Ringo sucks/rocks? Cool!

To précis the debate as I see it: Ringo did a job and did it well. If anyone thinks he never did anything good, well he's Ringo Starr and who the bloody hell are you?

On the other hand, there were a few jobbing drummers who could have easily stepped into his shoes in 1962 or whenever it was and to suggest that The Beatles wouldn't have made it as big as they did if they had taken any of them over Ringo is overstating his importance just a tad.

The influence of The Beatles is undeniable, but if it had been Herman's Hermits that had made it huge and The Beatles had been just another band down at The Cavern then we'd all be having this argument about Steve Titterington now and again.
 
Ringo sucks!!!!!.......

sorry .....that was Sticks/Balto channeling through me trying to get back on the forums
 
Ringo also symbolizes how the right "personality" makes for a good fit. Lennon/McCartney were the genius, George was a brooder -- all 3 were very good looking. Tommy Sheridan was also brooding and good looking. That's one too many. There was only room for the goofy. happy go lucky guy...enter, Ringo.

As for his playing, he not only fit the mold, listened to what Mac told him to do, and had great time, but had some unique quirks that people have been copying ever since.

The backwards fills in "Day in the Life."

The hi-hat-less beat in "Something."

The busy but perfectly placed fills in "You Won'tt See Me."

The groove in "Let it Be."

The Intro to Come Together.

The Ray Charles mambo in "I Feel Fine."

The syncopated beat in "In My Life." (Stolen for the song "Get Together by the Youngbloods).

And most impressive, those amazing "two hands together" fills. Check out the build on the snare and floor at 1:41. here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vXWYHUTDR4
 
For me, Ringo is not only an awesome drummer but the consummate entertainer and that makes him special. He also clearly still loves what he does after all of these years and it comes thru in his shows. I'll be seeing ny third consecutive All-Starr show this summer and can't wait. Maybe hes not the most technical but his timing is impeccable. I would give my left foot for half his talent.

So , yeah, I think he's pretty good.
 
stramming said:
I am a huge Beatles fan, and Ringo is usually the one who people say has "limited" talent. I disagree with this. Sure, he isn't John Bonham or Keith Moon level, but he is still a great drummer and very underrated.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I think you need to spend more time reading the forum and less time asking questions that have been asked 1000 times. Use the search feature.

You could start here with the 8 plus pages which I found under Drummers on the main page. why do new people click the box saying they have read the forum rules and clearly have no clue. Sorry but it just gets old.

http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=382&highlight=ringo

45,000 members but only 10,000 looks at the forum rules page. Problem? I think so.

the fact that you bring him up means he is IMPORTANT. Thats all that counts.
 
Last edited:
Its foolish to think that a drummer lacks ability because he or she is not take solos or

shows off during a song/band. Ringos drumming was creative and complimented all the

music he played. He did his job and he did an outstanding job. He played on music that is

timeless, it will be around for ever. He was a singing drummer, do you know how hard that

is, he was a lefty that played righty, he wrote great songs. Being a good drummer means

playing good music. He influence more people to be drummers and all around musicians

than any other drummer, even the drummers so called Master drummers. Compare

Ringos lifestyle to any one of your master drummers, Ringo comes out ahead, and thats

just the way it happened to work out. Ringo is part of music history, how many drummers

can say that. We can all learn from Ringo.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
I think you need to spend more time reading the forum and less time asking questions that have been asked 1000 times. Use the search feature.

You could start here with the 8 plus pages which I found under Drummers on the main page. why do new people click the box saying they have read the forum rules and clearly have no clue. Sorry but it just gets old.

45,000 members but only 10,000 looks at the forum rules page. Problem? I think so.

the fact that you bring him up means he is IMPORTANT. Thats all that counts.
Click to expand...

I don't get this. It's a talk forum, not a reference library. Not everyone has been here for years. Let someone get a conversation going and those who want to join in may do so and those who don't, don't have to. Forums are self regulated -- the thread stays up only if people engage, otherwise, it falls.
 
jackie k said:
Its foolish to think that a drummer lacks ability because he or she is not take solos or

shows off during a song/band. Ringos drumming was creative and complimented all the

music he played. He did his job and he did an outstanding job. He played on music that is

timeless, it will be around for ever. He was a singing drummer, do you know how hard that

is, he was a lefty that played righty, he wrote great songs. Being a good drummer means

playing good music. He influence more people to be drummers and all around musicians

than any other drummer, even the drummers so called Master drummers. Compare

Ringos lifestyle to any one of your master drummers, Ringo comes out ahead, and thats

just the way it happened to work out. Ringo is part of music history, how many drummers

can say that. We can all learn from Ringo.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with all you said -- excpet the notion that singing and playing drums is hard. I know most audiences think it's difficult because they assume the drumming is doing 4 independent things, plus singing, but that isn't really the case. For the most part. it's doing a single repetitive thing.

I've performed singing and playing guitar, playing piano, playing bass and playing drums and I have to say, by far, drums is easiest. (Bass is hardest).

Didn't mean to derail the thread. Just sayin'--- if a drummer can sing at all, do so. It'll make you more employable.
 
I've never put on a Beatles song and then said, turn it off Ringo sucks on this.

If John, Paul, and George thought that Ringo was right for the gig, it's pretty hard to argue that fact.
 
Interviewer: "Do you think Ringo Starr is the best drummer in the world?"
John Lennon: "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles!"

but seriously, he's certainly creative, musical, underrated, and has left quite an impact on the drumming world. All that stuff it says about him on wikipedia.
 
resohead said:
I've never put on a Beatles song and then said, turn it off Ringo sucks on this.

If John, Paul, and George thought that Ringo was right for the gig, it's pretty hard to argue that fact.
Click to expand...

+1. Nicely said Reso
 
plangentmusic said:
I've performed singing and playing guitar, playing piano, playing bass and playing drums and I have to say, by far, drums is easiest. (Bass is hardest).
Click to expand...
Sorry to continue the minor derail, but I have to ask. Did you play the other instruments/vocal before playing drums? If so, I'm thinking that a good portion of the general musician skills/ interpretation was already in your makeup, leaving the mechanics as the only challenge. That progression could easily lead you to the conclusion above, & quite understandably. As I've listened to your excellent clips, I'm regarding your observation as carrying a high degree of credibility.

Ringo - he was right for the band, & at the right moment in time. You have to compare his skills to the mean of skills in Liverpool pop at the time. As such, he was right up there, & got the job done. Even today, if you compared his skills to the average in modern pop, he wouldn't be too far off the mark. Drummers tend to concentrate their attention on the most skilled masters of our craft. I get that, but there's no getting away from the fact that the average standard of drumming in successful bands is way behind that of the very best out there.

Or is that really the case? Do we, as drummers, place too much emphasis on the drummers contribution rather than the totality of the performance. If being a great drummer is all about being part of the team that creates a great song, then maybe it's our collective benchmark that's parochial &, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.
 
He was perfect for The Beatles, that's all that matters.

His playing on the early albums isn't actually that bad. Quite fast and dynamic and it was obviously fitting for the early stuff.

His overly simplistic, almost rusty playing for the later day recordings also fitted perfectly. He was the perfect drummer for them. Fitted like a glove.

Nothing else matters when you're doing your job and playing for the song, which for a band like The Beatles is pretty key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top