Without Ringo On Ed Sullivan 60 Years Ago Today, How Would Your Drumming Life Be Different?

John and Paul could hire any drummer on the planet by that stage.
Writing innovative pop with weird time signatures and weird grooves, spanning rock to latin to music hall.....sure, you need a great drummer.
 
as a drummer Ringo was perfect as a character Ringo was perfect choice for the Beatles.
A Hal Blaine or another contemporary Cozy Powell type contemporary sitting back there on Ed Sullivan- would have been a 3/4 the band with the "usual" drummer person..


- as the drummer - to be an equal fourth part- compared to what the expectation of what a drummer was up to then (the hidden guy no one sees - Dave Clark 5 exception) you had to be humorous drummer and open to pure originality- with an early rock foundation- which he was- perfect choice; not a businessman drummer; not a serious jazz exponent who settled to play rock-- an innocent naive open- a drummer people watched enjoying himself-
Rattlin' Bones said:
Right. They could have hired any good drummer on the planet.
Click to expand...
maybe missing the point as a Drummer -he was a definite personality- in equal part to the other three (maybe more so than even George ..)
Unique for a drummer at the time to be a vocal equal part in interviews- and relationships with the public (and He's still doing it!!.with the All Stars..)
A stock sturdy studio or polished dour rock drummer- it wouldn't have been the same

Ringo was besides being the drummer a "shared" personality with the other 3.
remember the girls held up posters. Love you George Love You Ringo He didn't bring the drums out front as much as he drug this drummer's personality out front.. and people loved him

he was an equal part. which was "unusual" for band drummers at the time to this extent.
Girls liked him as much or equal to the other three

not any drummer could pull that off
beside his unique intuitive drumming.

He's still singing Yellow Submarine still milking making bank on that charming personality.
People still love him, It was personality - perfect personality choice - plus interesting drums- weren't there some drum disagreements? not many but as usual with any drummer- some- So his maturity and personality made him an equal.
He with John - in fact he was oldest of the Beatles- was born with it.
But I think it was/is his humanity - personality more than anything- that's born with
definitely wasn't a "flub" or on the other hand a -bored to tears with his part drummer - was an intuitive perfectly executed- drummer but an additional group Personality puts him over the top in the pop world
 
Last edited:
4ae307d75613a346ba36b27ca0dde4af.jpg
Ringo.jpg


that 'ain't got ' little to do with drums 😄
they each was sex/symbols
society/symbols social/symbols
 
Last edited:
Rattlin' Bones said:
OK Now I can sorta see a connection - without Ringo they never would have played on Ed Sullivan therefore Ringo would have never influenced your life therefore your drumming today would be different? So I take it Ringo made your drumming life a lot different. So different that you call yourself LudwigedHive. Wait, no, your GretschedHive lol. Having fun with you, dude.

Yeah that's kinda sorta related to question. Maybe I guess. But your premise I don't agree with at all: with another short not-too-good looking drummer that can play in the pocket and be inventive in his style without over-playing they never would have become a famous band? Or without a tall good looking drummer that can play in the pocket and be inventive in his style without over-playing they never would have become a famous band? Never made it in America? Never played Ed Sullivan? I don't much agree with that at all. That's just...................................
Click to expand...
I think It could have been any other drummer and the Beatles would have done pretty much the same. Is not that Ringo completely took over their music and made it his, is that his style worked well for what they already had written. If any other drummer would have been in that spot it might have sounded a little different but the music would have been mostly the same, Ringo didn't write it he just wrote his drum parts.
If the music remained mostly the same, their success or failure would have depended on their exposure and not on Ringo. but If people insist that without Ringo MY playing would be different because without his influence on me I would be maybe playing guitar then go for it, I didn't even know his name until probably the late 80s and by then a lot of other drummers had influenced my playing.
 
Chris Whitten said:
Isn't every drummer the foundation of a good band? How is a drummer ever the least important part of a band?
Click to expand...
That is true for many bands. take Slayer for example Dave Lombardo is a world renown drummer but he was the least important (to the band members). He was the most important to the fans but ended up quitting Slayer because he was not getting paid equally. On the other hand Mike Portnoy is probably the most important member of DT as proven by them removing Manginni (Manginni being the least important member even after he lead them to win a Grammy). Now for drummers that were in equal footing to the rest of the band you can say Alex Van Halen and Neil Peart.
 

He loves that white Ludwig set

Videos - Ringo Starr

Peace &; Love, the official site for Ringo Starr
www.ringostarr.com www.ringostarr.com
wood snare look at the details


ringo1.jpg
 
Last edited:
doggyd69b said:
That is true for many bands. take Slayer for example Dave Lombardo is a world renown drummer but he was the least important (to the band members). He was the most important to the fans but ended up quitting Slayer because he was not getting paid equally. On the other hand Mike Portnoy is probably the most important member of DT as proven by them removing Manginni (Manginni being the least important member even after he lead them to win a Grammy). Now for drummers that were in equal footing to the rest of the band you can say Alex Van Halen and Neil Peart.
Click to expand...
I'm the least important player in the bands I'm in. I don't think there is any band in this area I could say the drummer isn't the least important.
 
doggyd69b said:
I think It could have been any other drummer and the Beatles would have done pretty much the same. Is not that Ringo completely took over their music and made it his, is that his style worked well for what they already had written. If any other drummer would have been in that spot it might have sounded a little different but the music would have been mostly the same, Ringo didn't write it he just wrote his drum parts.
If the music remained mostly the same, their success or failure would have depended on their exposure and not on Ringo. but If people insist that without Ringo MY playing would be different because without his influence on me I would be maybe playing guitar then go for it, I didn't even know his name until probably the late 80s and by then a lot of other drummers had influenced my playing.
Click to expand...

agreed 100%...
 
if members of the band are getting assigned "order of importance", than the band is "missing the point", and probably sounds/performs like it

I hope i never have to be in a band situation like that
 
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
if members of the band are getting assigned "order of importance", than the band is "missing the point", and probably sounds/performs like it

I hope i never have to be in a band situation like that
Click to expand...
Not saying it happens on purpose or consciously. But realistically, the band front, lead singer, lead guitar in typical rock or blues band are way more important than the drummer. Let's be real. Or in a jazz band the horns or keys are more important. Now in jazz, I will say that the drummer has more importance than drummer in most rock or blues outfits. But still it's not the primary instrumental voice.

I know this is Drummerworld, but come on. If your're the drummer in a band then - unless you are Buddy Rich fronting your own band - then you are not as important as the others members as I mentioned.

No one can realistically proffer a thesis that Ringo was equally as important as - in order - John and Paul, or Paul and John, then George. He was just not. It's nonsensical to think otherwise. He wasn't the primary melody writer or lyric writer. Watch "Get Back". It was a lot of OK we've written a new song someone should go and wake up Ringo and let's practice it.

Of course all of this is off topic and has nothing to do with imaginary scenario of Ringo not being on Ed Sullivan as Beatles drummer 60 years ago and would that have changed your life as a drummer. We digress.
 
Last edited:
Everyone is important.
Personally I assign slightly more importance to the songwriter and lead player/singer. But no one should see themselves as 'the least important'.
A lot of bands would sound completely different with a different drummer, so we have a huge impact on every band.
Fleetwood Mac, U2, Rush, Rolling Stones etc.
 
Rattlin' Bones said:
I know this is Drummerworld, but come on. If your're the drummer in a band then - unless you are Buddy Rich fronting your own band - then you are not as important as the others members as I mentioned.
Click to expand...
The drummer could be one of the songwriters, such as Don Henely, Phil Collins, Stewart Copeland, Levon Helm, Dave Grohl, Roger Taylor, Steve Jordan and a load of other drummers. Drummers are every bit as important as every other member of the band, it's not a hierarchy as far as I'm concerned.

A band is the mx of the members that give it that certain something which makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
 
doggyd69b said:
I think It could have been any other drummer and the Beatles would have done pretty much the same. Is not that Ringo completely took over their music and made it his, is that his style worked well for what they already had written. If any other drummer would have been in that spot it might have sounded a little different but the music would have been mostly the same, Ringo didn't write it he just wrote his drum parts.
If the music remained mostly the same, their success or failure would have depended on their exposure and not on Ringo. but If people insist that without Ringo MY playing would be different because without his influence on me I would be maybe playing guitar then go for it, I didn't even know his name until probably the late 80s and by then a lot of other drummers had influenced my playing.
Click to expand...
If you’re looking at this from a historical point of view and you weren’t around at the time, you have no clue about what a phenomenon it was and how important Ringo was. There wasn’t a single drummer who played like that before Ringo. All of a sudden, new bands were playing like Ringo. And Ringo was by far the most popular of the Beatles in America. Yes, they would have found another drummer if not for Ringo, but they didn’t, and the history is written.

I had a brief period of feeling how you did when prog was big. But while Ringo was not a Bill Bruford, I will always believe that Ringo invented rock and roll drumming as we know it. That’s because it’s a fact.
 
JimmyM said:
If you’re looking at this from a historical point of view and you weren’t around at the time, you have no clue about what a phenomenon it was and how important Ringo was.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. The trouble with these debates, and it's a natural issue hard to avoid, but you can't divorce modern ears from the historical fact. I can remember the first time I heard a wah-wah pedal (Jimmy Hendrix), the first time I heard phasing (Itchy Coo Park, The Small Faces).
No one had ever used piccolo trumpet in a rock song before The Beatles, or had different musicians playing in different tempos and keys (like a Charles Ives work) in a pop hit, or had used mellotron flutes played like a piano part (Strawberry Fields).
No one had close mic'ed drums before, then used tea towels to tame the ringing.
It's all quite normal and tame by modern standards, but literally blew people's minds in the mid to late 60's.
 
MCS said:
A band is the mx of the members that give it that certain something which makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
A quarterback is arguably the most important player in football, but they need a great wall of protective players around them so they can do their job, and they need amazing wide receivers or they'll never connect a pass with anyone.
 
Chris Whitten said:
Couldn't agree more. The trouble with these debates, and it's a natural issue hard to avoid, but you can't divorce modern ears from the historical fact. I can remember the first time I heard a wah-wah pedal (Jimmy Hendrix), the first time I heard phasing (Itchy Coo Park, The Small Faces).
No one had ever used piccolo trumpet in a rock song before The Beatles, or had different musicians playing in different tempos and keys (like a Charles Ives work) in a pop hit, or had used mellotron flutes played like a piano part (Strawberry Fields).
No one had close mic'ed drums before, then used tea towels to tame the ringing.
It's all quite normal and tame by modern standards, but literally blew people's minds in the mid to late 60's.
Click to expand...
My mind was blown by She Loves You, let alone the later stuff! Tom as a ride, laying into the snare like that, mixed a little hotter than what was proper…nobody did that.
 

1964
Pop Chart Peaks: Cash Box 107, Record World 127, Billboard 13245 single issued on Decca 31660 - Ringo For President (Bob Hilliard-Mort Garson) by The Young World Singers


Full details:

DEFEAT RINGO NEGLECT!!! - Ringo 4 President!!! - Page 2 - Wattpad

Page 2 Read Ringo 4 President!!! from the story DEFEAT RINGO NEGLECT!!! by darkhorse60 (𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞) with 283 reads. ringo, ringostarr, paulmccartney...
www.wattpad.com www.wattpad.com

ringo1.jpg


what other drummer got such a reaction..

😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top