Customer Discussions > Beatles forum

Ringo


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 22, 2011 3:53:06 PM PST
Tero says:
the drummer

You can get a feel for Ringo drumming here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37UvtMBqxQk

the kid is pretty good too

this is not quite as good, but I don't think he goes wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD18Ta1glKA&feature=related

this might be the first guy again, hes good, She Loves You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-qsgKzCHk&feature=related

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 3:56:12 PM PST
Tero says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aNama2bJw&feature=related

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 6:11:34 AM PST
Dee Zee says:
The batmankozy kid was great.

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 7:05:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 27, 2011 7:10:06 PM PST
Tero says:
Some actual Ringo
glass onion
http://youtu.be/Q4IXpebAlUo

http://youtu.be/-6G7MkBMVxE

Be glad to see remastered Let It Be some day too.

Nowhere Man drum lesson. Bass drums sounds clearly
http://youtu.be/fOg43gUj1Yc

Posted on Jan 29, 2012 3:49:48 PM PST
Tero says:
Playing a bootleg of Rooftop. They have miked the bass drum quite close. We mentioned Pete Best only being able to play fours. Well, Get Back is "fours." So is Two Of Us.

Posted on Mar 4, 2012 6:03:14 PM PST
Tero says:
Batman does I Feel Fine, note rim work
http://youtu.be/trZ7wR9Yq8s

Posted on Oct 6, 2012 7:56:34 PM PDT
Tero says:
Hey Bulldog cover. Great work on toms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fae96iTDAo4&feature=share&list=UUa_maffLGmc4t-6TBxmjzbQ

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 7:32:23 AM PDT
DKPete says:
Ahh...another thread on the overlooked artistry of R. Starkey.

It's kind of lousy that we, as Beatle fans, go through these phases in which we feel the need to defend the poor guy as a drummer.

In all seriousness, Tero, your choices are great ones and it's Ringo's creativity on these tracks which helps make THEM great. You bring up Get Back being in "fours"...it is, but there's more to it than that...there's that galloping beat which actually moves an otherwise pretty mundane song, f you ask me. Had Ringo played a straight 4/4 it would have been just another average little Rock song-Ringo's playing takes it in an entirely different direction making it, actually, Country Rock when you think about it.

Experiencing Ringo's drumming (or lack of getting to experience it) is one of the biggest shames of the end of touring. If anyone never really got the chance to improve on his talent it was Ringo; as he, himself, had said, due to all that screaming he had no choice but to keep that straight downbeat going to keep everything together; it sure didn't leave much room for "experimentation" to get better as live drummer.

We all know how great and improved he was in the studio as the years went on-and there's much to be said for that. But I would have loved to hear Ringo, within The Beatles, doing what he did in a live setting where the audience actually sat and listened inspiring him to improve.

While I love The Beatles in the studio more than virtually any other band or artist in existence, by stopping the live shows they cheated both their true MUSIC appreciative fans as well as themselves as musicians.

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 8:17:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 8:20:52 AM PDT
John D. Muir says:
Thanks, Tero- and good point by DKPete. Ringo had about a year with the band when he could actually work on his drumming in live shows. After that, not only could he not hear himself (even playing the wrong song on occasion, not that anyone noticed!), but the repetoire became so limited, 7 or 8 songs and the same thing every night, that he simply had nothing to work with.

If there's one way concerts have changed enormously for the better since those days, it's that now bands play for a couple of hours at a time. Back then, in the UK anyway, the headline act was preceded by several opening acts, not necessarily musical. They played 3/4 of the concert and the headliners came on and played for 25 minutes or so at the end. They only had time to do their hits and maybe a couple of new songs if they had an album they were promoting. No wonder Ringo (and the others, too) got fed up with touring.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 9:38:33 AM PDT
DKPete says:
John, those Rock and Roll "shows" took place a lot here as well...in fact Shea Stadium, to name one, was like that.

The point you make about their limited time for each performance is a good one as well; limited stage time combined with most of the same songs over and over...even as late as 1966 Ringo was delegated to doing I Wanna be Your Man..how inspiring that must have been.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 9:44:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 9:45:22 AM PDT
Dee Zee says:
Ringo's really starts to stand out on In My Life, he takes rock drumming to a different level at that point and never looks back. There are earlier tracks too like Ticket To Ride and I Feel Fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 10:39:10 AM PDT
DKPete says:
In My Life is a great drum song;that snare-closed high hat synchopation is brilliant. And I Feel Fine...that samba beat is absolute perfection for the song; he reproduces it beautifully on The Ed Sullivan Show..holds the entire performance together.

While Ticket To Ride was Paul's idea..hey, it's still Ringo playing it; and I'm quite sure he adds a lot of his own touches to what Paul basically had in mind.

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 5:58:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 6:01:00 PM PDT
@DKPete: "by stopping the live shows they cheated both their true MUSIC appreciative fans as well as themselves as musicians."

I have to disagree. It is common knowledge that they stopped touring for two main reasons: 1) they felt their lives were in danger after that last tour and 2) the fans screamed so loud and they couldn't hear themselves to the point where their live musicianship was clearly going *down*, not up. Quitting touring was the only way, given the situation of their live shows at the time, for them to improve their musicianship, even if they had to do it solely in the studio from that point on. And it did continue to improve.

Also, I'd say that not having to get beaten up in airports and death threats from the KKK thrown at them kind of superceded any potential musical loss (which there wasn't any, anyways, by that point).

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 6:10:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 6:13:12 PM PDT
Michael, that's a pretty good point!

Did you happen to catch M.C. Jones last post on the Give Ireland Back To The Irish v.s. Freedom post?

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 7:06:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 7:22:46 PM PDT
Tero says:
Yes there definitely is an unusual drive to Get Back. In a way it's like Love Me Do as a song. There is nothing much to it, yet they would both be difficult to get just right, for a cover band.

I've seen a cover band do a good job on Please Please Me, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 7:06:42 PM PDT
DKPete says:
Michael..I wasn't saying that the reasoning I gave was the reason in and of itself that they quit touring...but quitting live performances, I do believe had an impact on their progress as musicians-John, himself often implied the importance of live performing in getting better and better as musicians and how the advent of Beatlemania brought an end to that progress. But even at that, I was referring primarily to Ringo's drumming.

That said-in terms of musicianship-while I agree that they all continued improving-it's much easier to "get it right" when you're under the controlled situation of a recording studio.

I'm not doubting their competence as musicians but they-strictly as a studio band- always had at their disposal the luxury of multiple takes, edited takes, sped up or slowed down tapes, etc.

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 8:27:59 PM PDT
@DKPete: it's true as a studio band they were under a controlled situation. I'm just saying that continuing to play live wasn't helping their musicianship anymore--that's part of the reason why they quit! They did not think they were playing well, because they couldn't hear anything.

It would be nice, of course, if they *could* have heard themselves, not gotten death threats, etc. and been able to continue to tour. I'm sure the musicianship would have improved even more than it did. I know that Paul thought going back on tour would also bond them more as a band again (although I'm not *quite* sure it would have worked by then, seeing as how John would have undoubtedly brought Yoko along and probably insisted she perform with them).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 8:54:38 PM PDT
ED S. says:
The Beatles in 1966, transitioned from basically a four piece band to a multi layered band. The beatles were essentially the same four piece as the time of the earliest Beatle recordings. Yes keyboards were added, but still a basic four piece. That stopped with Rubber soul and especially Revolver.
Some of the songs on Revolver and Rubber soul would require re configureing the stage for multiple keyboards and electronic sounds devices as well as a tambora. How were the cellos produced on "Eleanor Rigby"? It would be a different show indeed unless they stuck to the four piece new songs and the back catalog. No "Elanore Rigby", "Im Only Sleeping", Tomorrow Never Knows". The show would be more like Duran Duran than the standard 1966 four piece band de jour. With Sgt Pepper, the technology did not exist in '67 to perform live. Touring with the new sound just would not work at the time. They were evolving into Maroon 5. Heard the latest Maroon 5 album? Totally electronic and electronically treated. The "old school" Maroon 5 fans hate this. I love it. Kinda like "Revolver". None of you will like it so don't try. No tamboras.

One last thought...The Beatles legacy is for all practical purposes flawless. Let's thank the music gods that they did stop touring when they did.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 9:38:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2012 9:43:14 PM PDT
John D. Muir says:
I'm sure you're right, DKPete, that if they had been able to perform live playing decent length sets and able to hear themselves play, they would have improved as live musicians. After all, when they stopped touring, Ringo had just turned 26 and he was the oldest member of the group! George was only 23, Paul 24 and John 25- absurdly young to end their performing career.

However, although I take your point about studio recordings giving much more latitude to correct mistakes than live shows, if they had been playing live would they have had the time or the inclination to be as innovative as they were in the studio? Not having to follow a touring schedule freed them up to spend as much time as they liked working on new material and new sounds. I think, as ED S., says the difference in style between their albums when they were still performing live and after they had stopped (which started with 'Revolver') is enormous. I doubt whether they would have made that quantum leap if they hadn't stopped touring.

There are those who would say that becoming a better live band would have led to them writing better songs to be performed live and that would have been a better direction for them. That's a moot point- we'll never know. I'd say, though, that your point about Ringo is a good one; if anyone would have benefitted as a musician from continuing to play live (in the right circumstances, of course), it would have been Ringo.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 3:38:36 PM PDT
DKPete says:
Hey Michael..there;s a very important point I'm leaving out here...and that is the fact that by 1967 (prior to the Yoko-takeover) and onwards, the screaming had stopped (unless your band was The Monkees). People were really starting to shut up and listen to the music and take it more seriously.

That said, as far as live playing is concerned, The Beatles stopped touring at the most crucial period in live Rock. The time had come-in large thanks to them-in which Rock music was to be taken seriously as an art form; Rock musicians were no longer flash-in-the-pan "pretty boys"..they were true technical musicians to be taken into consideration.

This was the time for The Beatles to prove (and IMprove) themselves as a true, live performing band. For better or worse (and for all the reasons you mentioned ), they decided to get off the boat.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 3:52:57 PM PDT
DKPete says:
I have to agree-to a point. The material on Revolver and the entire '67 period would have been, to put it mildly, challenging to perform adequately...but not impossible.

The Beatles were, for that time, revolutionaries where musical presentation was concerned in the studio. Had they truly wanted to, and with-I'm certain-the help of master organizer Brian Epstein-they could have found ways to reproduce on stage (to a respectable point)what they did on their records. It would have involved an extra musician or two on keyboards and guitar and, quite possibly, the limited use of a string/brass section.

This would have required a lot of physical and mental energy on their part; energy which they didn't have anymore-the entire Beatlemania thing discouraged them and, in a sense, wiped them out. But had they HAD the true desire, they could have pulled it off-and much like their earlier accomplishments, this, also, would have been revolutionary in terms of a live Rock show.

And then, we have beyond the intricasies and complications of 1967. While their multi-layerings would have still required additional help onstage (again, an extra guitarist/keyboardist), it would have been much easier personel wise...and they would have sounded great, in my opinion (again, if the true ambition was there). The ultimate proof is in that rooftop performance...as good as they sounded, it was still only half-baked and filled with uncertainty (especially in the case of John and George)...imagine if they had REALLY prepared for it......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 3:58:50 PM PDT
DKPete says:
John, the changing attitudes from serious bands concerning live performances would have forced them to work on it. Sure, if they allowed themselves to go by the standards of the mid-sixties they would have been a laughing stock next to bands like The Who, Hendrix, Cream.

Thsey would have had to advance their approach as a live band if playing live was still something that mattered to them. In one sense, one can say that if they continued to place importance on live shows, their studio albums may have taken an entirely different direction.

Either way, when people sit and listen (as they started to just after their end of touring) you have to show them what you can do. I believe they could have.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 4:17:38 PM PDT
Dee Zee says:
Like Lennon did in 1968 with the dirty Mac and then in 69 with plastic Ono band.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 5:07:35 PM PDT
@DKPete: "and that is the fact that by 1967 (prior to the Yoko-takeover) and onwards, the screaming had stopped..."

True, although The Beatles could not have known this--even as they played their last live show in the very city that was already starting to revolutionize the live rock experience at that time. All they knew was, the fans were continuing to scream.

Even in 1969, knowing full well that rock audiences had changed, the group (sans Paul) were still reticent to go out on tour. While they may not have been worried about the screams, they were probably still justifiably paranoid about the intense attention that always seemed to surround them (witness the mob that formed as late as mid-1968 at the Yellow Submarine premiere).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 5:12:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2012 5:14:33 PM PDT
@DK Pete: I do agree that they could have worked on the problem of reproducing their increasingly complex studio music on stage, if they had really wanted to. "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Being For The Benefit Of Mr.Kite!" might have been too difficult to execute given the technology of the day, but a lot of the other songs could have been reasonably reproduced with extra musicians helping out; they could have helped to pioneer that (of course, it was left to other bands to do so). And of course there's the simpler post-67 material. Even more complex songs could have been given beautifully simplified renditions on stage, as Harrison proved with "Here Comes The Sun" at Bangladesh. He could have performed it just like that on a '69 Beatles tour.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Beatles forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Beatles forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  31
Initial post:  Nov 22, 2011
Latest post:  Dec 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions