George
 

[QUOTE=DeusExMachina]George was definitely rad, and very underlooked. His solo career is really incredible, and songs like Here Comes the Sun and Something are just incredible.[/QUOTE]

ya he really is awesome here comes the sun is a great song but while my guitar gently weeps is also really good probably my fav. by george :thumb:

Okay, time for the drummer to intervene........

Ringo kicks the ***.

Why?

His style.

Who gives a **** if he can't blast chops like Krupa or Rich? I don't give a ****.

His drum sounds are the best I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE, and his style is supurb. I envy him as a drummer.

Also, Ringo has influenced more people then anyone else (*cough* 2-9-64)....try to disagree.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Okay, time for the drummer to intervene........

Ringo kicks the ***.

Why?

His style.

Who gives a **** if he can't blast chops like Krupa or Rich? I don't give a ****.

His drum sounds are the best I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE, and his style is supurb. I envy him as a drummer.

Also, Ringo has influenced more people then anyone else (*cough* 2-9-64)....try to disagree.[/QUOTE]
wow, you haven't heard many drummers have you.

fine, let's go rock and roll, mitch mitchell was excellent. much better than ringo.

And what about ringo makes him the best you HAVE EVER HEARD IN YOUR LIFE.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]wow, you haven't heard many drummers have you.

fine, let's go rock and roll, mitch mitchell was excellent. much better than ringo.

And what about ringo makes him the best you HAVE EVER HEARD IN YOUR LIFE.[/QUOTE]
you dont read very well do you? he said that ringo's drum SOUND was the best hes ever heard in his life. if you didnt notice, were not basing this all on technical talent. we know he wasnt the greatest drummer technically. but guess what, mitchell was sloppy. and ive never heard ringo go out of time once.

thats two drummers opinions going against yours. when are you going to give up?

mitchell wouldve been a terrible match with the beatles as well.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud]you dont read very well do you? he said that ringo's drum SOUND was the best hes ever heard in his life. if you didnt notice, were not basing this all on technical talent. we know he wasnt the greatest drummer technically. but guess what, mitchell was sloppy. and ive never heard ringo go out of time once.

thats two drummers opinions going against yours. when are you going to give up?

mitchell wouldve been a terrible match with the beatles as well.[/QUOTE]
Have you heard a drummer play out of time in any professional recording?

Oh and about the drum sound, thanks for pointing that out, of course, now the question is completely different. Let me restate that:

what makes his drum sound the BEST YOU'VE EVER HEARD IN YOUR LIFE.

plus, i don't think you guys understand. I'm not saying he's bad cuz he isn't flashy or because he wasn't too technical. That's fine. I'm saying he's bad, because what he did is nothing special. He kept the beat. Oh wow, he kept the beat. Dammit, Lars Ulrich keeps the beat. Many disagree, but even Lars keeps the beat. I've tested it next to a metronome, it works. Billy Cobham can keep the beat.
I think if the PInk Floyd drummer drummed for the Beatles, it could work.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]plus, i don't think you guys understand. I'm not saying he's bad cuz he isn't flashy or because he wasn't too technical. That's fine. I'm saying he's bad, because what he did is nothing special. He kept the beat. Oh wow, he kept the beat. Dammit, Lars Ulrich keeps the beat. Many disagree, but even Lars keeps the beat. I've tested it next to a metronome, it works. Billy Cobham can keep the beat.
I think if the PInk Floyd drummer drummed for the Beatles, it could work.[/QUOTE]


please, please, i am sick of reading you're stupid posts, just stfu or at least say something usefull.


Wether Ringo was a good drummer or not doesnt matter, wether someone else could do a better job doesnt metter, [B]the bottom line is Ringo was the Beatles drummer and thats not going to change.[/B]

Yellow submarine is actually pretty good, and John and Paul wrote it, the acoustic part of it is brill.

That same ringo discussion was happening ont he 2nd page of this thread!

Shows how much this thread has moved along :thumb:

Look Freestyle whatever-the-fu[color=white]ck[/color]-your-name-is.

Mitch Mitchell couldn't be with the Beatles, because he was with HENDRIX, you moron.

Stop trying to change the past, it doesn't matter.

The Beatles' drummer was Ringo, that's the way it's going to be for the next millenia.

And besides, most of the drummers you are naming wouldn't match with the Beatles in their latter parts of their career. What's up with naming JAZZ drummers?

I don't believe jazz drummers would go well with Sgt. Peppers or Magical Mystery Tour.

Look, if you can provide backup to your evidence and stop posting dumb-as[color=white]s[/color]ed half-thought out opinions, you can stay.

If not, get out of my thread.

o sh[I]i[/I]t you're right. He was with Hendrix. I forgot man. He's just my uncle, that's where I got his name.
Why do you guys get so angry? This is all I said, people say that the two worst members of the Beatles are the only ones alive. That's all. People start bashing me for it so I have to back up my statement. Ringo and Paul were also the two most popular Beatles alive too. I was arguing that Ringo isn't a good drummer. I take back whatever I said about him being Ringo and being a member of the Beatles and so on. He was a character the Beatles needed. It would've helped if he was a better drummer, because certainly there are better drummers out there. And Paul, you all know that his solo career is a failure. Come on...Wings?

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]o sh[I]i[/I]t you're right. He was with Hendrix. I forgot man. He's just my uncle, that's where I got his name.
Why do you guys get so angry? This is all I said, people say that the two worst members of the Beatles are the only ones alive. That's all. People start bashing me for it so I have to back up my statement. Ringo and Paul were also the two most popular Beatles alive too. I was arguing that Ringo isn't a good drummer. I take back whatever I said about him being Ringo and being a member of the Beatles and so on. He was a character the Beatles needed. It would've helped if he was a better drummer, because certainly there are better drummers out there. And Paul, you all know that his solo career is a failure. Come on...Wings?[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but for some reason I don't believe he's your uncle.

Ringo was the Beatle with the most charisma and character.

The reason Paul's career went downhill was because him and John were the PERFECT team. Paul supplied the melodies and John supplied the lyrics.

Yes, Paul's solo career is a complete failure, that's why his USA tour this summer is SOLD OUT?

And the Wings were a brilliant back up band.

Not as good as the Beatles, no. But they were a good back up band, which is what Paul needed at the moment.

HIs repertoire, like i said, is 80 % Beatles material. Paul can't survive without the Beatles. Just as the Beatles can't survive without Paul.

And your perfect pair with John Lennon thing is wrong. ALthough all their songs are credited to both, that was an odd contract agreement made way at the beginning. They didn't make songs as together as you think. FOr example, Sgt. Peppers is most by Paul McCartney, except for Lucy and Mr. Kite was by Lennon. THey didn't collaborate as much as you think.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]HIs repertoire, like i said, is 80 % Beatles material. Paul can't survive without the Beatles. Just as the Beatles can't survive without Paul.

And your perfect pair with John Lennon thing is wrong. ALthough all their songs are credited to both, that was an odd contract agreement made way at the beginning. They didn't make songs as together as you think. FOr example, Sgt. Peppers is most by Paul McCartney, except for Lucy and Mr. Kite was by Lennon. THey didn't collaborate as much as you think.[/QUOTE]

No, the CONCEPT of Sgt. Peppers was thought up by Paul and collaborated with John Lennon in writing of the music.

John wrote Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! on his own.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]

John wrote Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! on his own.[/QUOTE]
That's what I said, I think.

And When I'm 64 is strictly Paul.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]That's what I said, I think.

And When I'm 64 is strictly Paul.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what you said. Haha.

Yes, but that's only one song, the other songs were collaboration.

Lennon even said he hated the clarinets in 64.

But, when I said songwriting, Sgt. Peppers is kind of a bad example.

Take Rubber Soul or Abbey Road, which displays the duo's FINEST songwriting.

Abbey Road, everything except Something, Octopuses' Garden, and Here Comes the Sun were written by Paul and John.

That's who it's credited to, but not necessarily true. You hear the big conflict between Paul and Yoko? That's what this is about. Not all the songs were collaborations.

Okay, you seem to know not much about The Beatles....you seem to be an 'outsider' looking in.

I love how you accuse me of never hearing other drummers.....are you a drummer? Do you know what good drumming is? I doubt it.

Mitch Mitchell is VERY good, I love him a lot, one of my 5 favorite drummers. I like him way more then Hendrix.

And I love how you think of me thinking that Ringo's drum sound orgasm is wrong.....have you ever heard of AN OPINION? Yeah, that's right, and opinion. Listen to Abbey Road. His tom sound is so orgasmic to me, nothing beats it. Someone else like Lars' bass drum sound (not me however) its all opinion. However saying his drum sound sucks isn't much opinion, its just ignorance. They did a lot on Abbey Road to make them sound kickass.

Oh yeah, Mitch Mitchell your uncle......heh. I actually knew someone who's uncle is George Lucas, but that's besides the point. If he's your uncle, I'd think you'd know more about him then that.

Paul and Yoko thing wasn't the cause of it. That's common media knowledge bull****. Read the Beatles Anthology *gasp* reading a Beatles book full of testimonies by the band themselves? I'd always thought that book would be less factual then an 8 year old writing about Cinderella.

Nick Mason wouldn't of been that bad with the Beatles....but still, its Ringo, and he kicks ***. Also one of my top 5 favorite drummers.

Next thing you'll know he'll be talking about Neil Peart being the sloppiest drummer alive :P

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]That's who it's credited to, but not necessarily true. You hear the big conflict between Paul and Yoko? That's what this is about. Not all the songs were collaborations.[/QUOTE]

true, but often when each one was writing a song, they would be stuck on a word, and ask each other for help in writing. Many times they also locked themselves in a room and wrote together when they had to get a song done. Especially in the Rubber Soul/ Revolver time period, they wrote all the songs completely together. They also inspired one another such as McCartney writing Hey Jude about Lennon's son Julian. I'd highly recommend the Beatles Anthology as several have already stated, it explains everything in there.

Okay, what's up with the anti-Ringoism. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, be him bad or good, he was just what the Beatles needed. The only thing you need to do to be a good drummer is to keep the beat. And yes, that's a big deal. If Lars can do it or not, it doesn't matter, but a drummer is just that, the one who keeps the beats and keep all of the other instruments on time.

Another thing about drummers, they have to make the other instruments sound good. The guitar can be great, but put a great rhytmic section behind it, and it sounds even better.

Ringo could keep the beat, and so let every other member to be just in time with the song. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, period.

[QUOTE=slowhand]Okay, what's up with the anti-Ringoism. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, be him bad or good, he was just what the Beatles needed. The only thing you need to do to be a good drummer is to keep the beat. And yes, that's a big deal. If Lars can do it or not, it doesn't matter, but a drummer is just that, the one who keeps the beats and keep all of the other instruments on time.

Another thing about drummers, they have to make the other instruments sound good. The guitar can be great, but put a great rhytmic section behind it, and it sounds even better.

Ringo could keep the beat, and so let every other member to be just in time with the song. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, period.[/QUOTE]

Word. I <3 Ringo.

[QUOTE=slowhand]Another thing about drummers, they have to make the other instruments sound good. The guitar can be great, but put a great rhytmic section behind it, and it sounds even better.[/QUOTE]

Amen. Ringo was a musician's drummer. Maybe on their first album, he would just blast out a beat, but it became apparent very early on that he was the perfect compliment to the Beatles' music. Songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life...it amazes me to think that he didn't have anything to look off of when he drummed these songs..that's all musical intuition and the like..

Ringo was brilliant...

Uno dos tres Slowhand.

Another great post.

Yeah, on a top 100 drumming performance list (and this site has good lists, not kame *** rolling stone lists) it has Rain and Day in the Life on there, I think ranking #57 and #31 or something....which is quite good, considering that there are a lot of good and technically better drummers out there.

Which says that Ringo's composition skills is what makes up for lack of technicality. Both Rain and Day in the Life do have awesome drum parts, just because of how they fit in with everything.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]Uno dos tres Slowhand.

Another great post.[/QUOTE]

I'm just tired of people putting Ringo down. I was like that, one of those people who thought "Ringo doesn't do anything in the Beatles, why is he there?" And then I realize that he, technically and charismatically, was the drummer which fitted the Beatles best.

Remember that George Martin got a session drummer in (Alan White, I believed his name was <--Yoda talk?) who was better technically than Ringo, but he didn't fit. Ringo came in, and it began. Sometimes you have to sacrifice virtuosity for what it fits you best. And with the Beatles, this is no exception.

He[b]l[/b]l, the same thing happens with George Harrison on guitar. They say he's no good enough and doesn't deserve to be amongst the great, but I think otherwise.

Think about how many artist have the Beatles influence. Many, right? Well, part of the Beatles sound came from Harrison. My point? Liste to [i]Nowhere Man[/i]. All those guitar fills are Harrison's. Yes, it's a Lennon song, but Harrison made it's own with those guitar fills. This goes for many other guitar riffs/fills/solos on Beatle tracks.

So, if other musician were influences by the music of the Beatles, they have been greatly influenced by Harrison, though Lennon/McCartney get all of the credit. So, doesn't that make George Harrison one of the most important guitarist of all times? Thus, making him more than worthy to be counted among the greats, including Clapton and Hendrix.

(I don't believe I've told people about the Harrison vs Clapton guitar feud.)
PS: Sorry for the double-post.

Nobody's saying George is bad. I personally find him to be the most musical of the four.

Fanboy Alert! Fanboy Alert!

:p

I'm just kidding.

But, your opinions are very valid. Harrison is HIGHLY influential and possibly one of the most underrated composers ever.

Just because he doesn't play lightning fast licks, doesn't mean he's not good kiddies :).

[QUOTE=Eman Ruoy]Nobody's saying George is bad. I personally find him to be the most musical of the four.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that because someone accused him of being bad, but I find that he usually gets the same treatment as Ringo is having right now, and I find it unfair. I also find it unfair that he isn't listed amongst the guitar legends, which I explained why in my previous post.

And yes, call me a fanboy, but with reason. =D

I just had a chance to catch up on reading the past couple of pages of posts and I'm still laughing my 'you know what off' at the rhubarb between you guys and Freestyle. If you've been reading my posts, (or do a search for my past posts) you know this has been covered a couple times in the course of this thread, and my humble opinion is the Beatles success was due to four unique individuals who perfectly complimented each other in style and musicianship.

Sure there were flashier drummers. Like I said before,-- could you fit Keith Moon in the early Beatles? Hmmmm.... Sometimes the greater talent is knowing when its time to 'keep the beat' and when its to time to 'control the song.' ( Moon was fantastic, but his sound made the Who, the Who. Ringo's sound made the Beatles, the Beatles.) The same way, Harrison's lead created the songs more than a lot of people realize. John and Paul wrote 'em, but mostly George made 'em sing.

Arguments on talent are apples and oranges. You can drum like the speed of light, or pick a guitar faster than a hummingbird's wings,... but... if it don't sound good together or fit the song style, your trip on the road to success ain't goin' too far. That's where I give the Beatles the credit to say they did change music. They could rock to 'Long Tall Sally', then perfectly change to a Broadway ballad like 'Til There Was You.' Remember, back then, the Beatles were cutting edge. It's old hat to us now, but then, brand new and exciting, when they hit ---Whooo-- Cat's Pajamas, Man! This was The Happening!

One can can think that today's music stands by itself, that it doesn't rely on past influences. Those would deny anything from twenty years ago or more to be too old-fashioned and have absolutely no relevance to the trends of today.

It's a shame some think that way, especially in such a universal language such as music. All music is influenced by what came before. If there had not been Muddy Waters (jazz/blues) and Hank Williams (country), there would be no Bill Haley. If there was no Bill Haley, there'd be no Elvis. No Elvis, no Buddy Holly, Little Richard or Chuck Berry. No Chuck Berry, no Beatles.... If there were no Beatles, perhaps, the the Heavy Metal rockers of today, would be banging their heads to the strains of Frankie and Annette.

Playing the 'what if' game with past history is always a slippery slope. I remember years back when REM dismissed the Beatles as a 'pop group who played trite little love songs' and how any influence was dismissed as beneath them, as they were much more accomplished serious musicians in comparison. Funny how many Beatlesque little riffs and structures popped up in their songs over their careers..... :)

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]

But, when I said songwriting, Sgt. Peppers is kind of a bad example.

QUOTE]

I will have to disagree

A Day In the Life was said by John to be a true collaboration, 50/50. (As read in the bible) (oops... I mean anthology) IMO it is one of their best