[QUOTE=Music Man]J.D. Salinger's ALLEGED opinion of Hemingway, does absolutely nothing to "prove" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.

Your comparison is invalid and irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

You sir are an idiot.

"We always gave Ringo direction on every single number. It was usually very controlled. Whoever had written the song, John for instance, would say, "I want this." Obviously, a lot of things came out of what Ringo was playing, but we would always control it."

---Paul McCartney

[QUOTE=LeperMessiah]You sir are an idiot.[/QUOTE]

I was basically agreeing with you in this thread. Sorry you feel the need to make a personal attack.

Please explain what J.D. Salinger's alleged opinion of Hemingway has to do with "proving" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.

Buddy Rich was simply giving his honest, professional opinion of Ringo's playing. To claim that his statement was based on professional "jealousy" or something similar, is pure assumption on the other poster's part.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Plath]I agree with this insult.[/QUOTE]

Then perhaps you could explain what J.D. Salinger's alleged opinion of Hemingway has to do with "proving" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.

[QUOTE=Music Man]Then perhaps you could explain what J.D. Salinger's alleged opinion of Hemingway has to do with "proving" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.[/QUOTE]
it's not, it's proving the Buddy Rich's opinion is not valid.

he may be average, but Buddy Rich's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Plath]No, that's not right either.[/QUOTE]
to say that it is valid is to say that J.D. Salinger is correct in saying that Hemmingway is a bad author. he may be correct or he may not, but either way it is not because HE said so. his opinion of Hemmingway has nothing to do with it. just like Buddy Rich's opinion of Ringo is insignificant. Ringo may be a good drummer, he may be average, he may be crap, but Buddy Rich is not one to say, just like Salinger is not one to say.

he is a human and humans have opinions.

[QUOTE=sr800bkBassist]my point was that your use on Buddy Rich's quote to describe Ringo means as much as what J.D. Salinger said about Hemmingway.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true.

Salinger's alleged opinion of Hemingway was apparently based on professional jealousy. Calling somebody's work "horrible" is clearly insulting.

However, you cannot automatically assume that Rich's statement was based on professional jealousy.

First of all, he described Starr's playing as "adequate", which isn't an insulting or demeaning remark.

If Rich was merely driven by professional jealousy, he could've stated something like "Ringo's horrible" or "Ringo stinks", which are clear attacks.

However, his use of the word "adequate" is clearly not an attack. Thus it appears that he was simply giving his honest, professional opinion on Ringo's playing. There are plenty of professional drummers who have the same opinion of Ringo as Rich does.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Plath]Nothing.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. We agree.

Sorry you feel the need to insult me.

[QUOTE=Music Man]Not necessarily true.

Salinger's alleged opinion of Hemingway was apparently based on professional jealousy. Calling somebody's work "horrible" is clearly insulting.

However, you cannot automatically assume that Rich's statement was based on professional jealousy.

First of all, he described Starr's playing as "adequate", which isn't an insulting or demeaning remark.

If Rich was merely driven by professional jealousy, he could've stated something like "Ringo's horrible" or "Ringo stinks", which are clear attacks.

However, his use of the word "adequate" is clearly not an attack. Thus it appears that he was simply giving his honest, professional opinion on Ringo's playing. There are plenty of professional drummers who have the same opinion of Ringo as Rich does.[/QUOTE]
Salinger's opinion was not proffessional jealousy. if you pay attention to his writing style, you can tell why he'd dislike Hemmingway and Fitzgerald. i can't remember the name of the author, but he considered the author of Moby Dick to be one of the greatest of all time. so he still liked certain authors, but disliked modernists.

[QUOTE=sr800bkBassist]Salinger's opinion was not proffessional jealousy. if you pay attention to his writing style, you can tell why he'd dislike Hemmingway and Fitzgerald. i can't remember the name of the author, but he considered the author of Moby Dick to be one of the greatest of all time. so he still liked certain authors, but disliked modernists.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of Salinger's reasoning for denouncing Hemingway, it still does nothing to "prove" that Buddy Rich's opinion of Starr's playing is wrong.

Rich never stated that Starr was "horrible", or that he "disliked" Starr's playing.

He merely described it as "adequate", which isn't an attack on either Starr's ability or person. And there are a number of other professional drummers who agree with Rich in regard to Starr's playing.

[quote]"Best drummer in the world? He wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles!"[/quote]

You're bandying this phrase around like it was Lennon's mantra regarding Ringo. Every credible source I've checked alleged that the comment was a joke; an example of Lennon's sense of humour.

LOL ...

Opinions could be valid and invalid, yes, but you have experts in stuff.
Look, about people liking each others (writing)style it is always an opinion.
But technability will be facts because you can proove how good someone is.
Let me make it better for you,
Bert hated Ernies playingstyle on the drums, but he thought he was a great drummer.
Ernie loved Berts style on the drums, but he thought he was a bad drummer.
First thing: opinion -> style
Second thing: fact -> technibilaty

And then there are people you call experts, certainly a doctor his advice would be much better on someone's health than a random guy ...

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]LOL ...

Opinions could be valid and invalid, yes, but you have experts in stuff.
Look, about people liking each others (writing)style it is always an opinion.
But technability will be facts because you can proove how good someone is.
Let me make it better for you,
Bert hated Ernies playingstyle on the drums, but he thought he was a great drummer.
Ernie loved Berts style on the drums, but he thought he was a bad drummer.
First thing: opinion -> style
Second thing: fact -> technibilaty

And then there are people you call experts, certainly a doctor his advice would be much better on someone's health than a random guy ...[/QUOTE]
well Salinger not only claimed to dislike Hemmingway, but he actually said his writing, itself, was merely second-rate.

[QUOTE=sr800bkBassist]well Salinger not only claimed to dislike Hemmingway, but he actually said his writing, itself, was merely second-rate.[/QUOTE]


OMG did he :| wooooow
So you say if Salinger makes mistakes and say stupid things, everyone does.

Woow great conclusion, that will mean you are talking **** yourself ;)

what?

exactly!

Well, you say Salinger has critic on someones technibilaty which has no good argument etc etc. SO he is wrong. And you sa because he is wrong that guy who criticized Ringo is wrong. So you say because Salinger is wrong, every random guy is wrong because opinions aren't valid blahblahblah

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]exactly!

Well, you say Salinger has critic on someones technibilaty which has no good argument etc etc. SO he is wrong. And you sa because he is wrong that guy who criticized Ringo is wrong. So you say because Salinger is wrong, every random guy is wrong because opinions aren't valid blahblahblah[/QUOTE]
no, i'm saying that they aren't valid enough for an arguement.

everyone's opinion has value, but if you were arguing a point, the way Music Man was about ringo's drumming, you need a concrete fact, not another opinion.

But the opinion of a specialist is always used as an argument.

Like, the guy who studies medicins said I need to go to a doctor, so that is an argument to go to the doctor ;)
And the guy who knows much about music says I'm not really technical, so that means the specialist would probably know that better. And if you heart the music you will understand why ;) he is good at keeping beat he doesn't have special tricks it's adequate

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]But the opinion of a specialist is always used as an argument.

Like, the guy who studies medicins said I need to go to a doctor, so that is an argument to go to the doctor ;)
And the guy who knows much about music says I'm not really technical, so that means the specialist would probably know that better. And if you heart the music you will understand why ;) he is good at keeping beat he doesn't have special tricks it's adequate[/QUOTE]
the guy who studies medicine bases his advice for you to go to the doctor on percentages, facts, and science in general. you can't neccessarily compare an objective proffession involving science/math to a subjective proffession like art or music.

if the guy who said you weren't technical presented you with facts, then you could trust him.

if Buddy Rich had given reasoning, his quote could be concrete. but it's not. saying "he said he is good/is not good/is mediocre, so he must be," is not a valid arguement. Music Man kept presenting quick quotes by Lennon, McCartney, and Buddy Rich that were quickly spoken remarks regarding his skill. if Music Man quoted Buddy Rich as saying "as you can hear in this song, Ringo's playing does not compare to the drumming in [insert band here], [insert band here], or even [insert band here]. his fills are not as well thought out as _______'s, his technique blah blah blah blah blah," then it would be a concrete quote.

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]But the opinion of a specialist is always used as an argument.

Like, the guy who studies medicins said I need to go to a doctor, so that is an argument to go to the doctor ;)
And the guy who knows much about music says I'm not really technical, so that means the specialist would probably know that better. And if you heart the music you will understand why ;) he is good at keeping beat he doesn't have special tricks it's adequate[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Buddy Rich is considered one of the greatest drummers in history. He is an internationally recognized authority on the art of drumming.

So his opinion carries a lot more weight than unknown individuals posting on an internet site.

He was clearly giving an honest, EXPERT opinion on Starr's playing. Calling somebody "adequate" is NOT a personal attack or professional jealousy.

If I wanted an opinion on heart surgery, I'd go to a heart specialist. I sure wouldn't go to a gas station.

And if I want an opinion on drumming, I value Rich's opinion over that of unknown internet posters.

And I never said the Ringo "sucks" or that he was a "bad" drummer. So I'm not here to attack him. I'm simply saying he wasn't the allegedly "incredible" and "great" drummer that Beatles fanboys claim he was.

It is very uncommon for someone to claim Ringo "incredible", and have you purposefully just been ignoring my posts, or what?

[quote]"I did quickly realize that Ringo was an excellent drummer for what was required. He's not a technical drummer. Men like Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa would run rings around him, but he is a good solid rock drummer with a steady beat, and he knows how to get the right sound out of his drums."

---George Martin[/quote]

In other words, Starr was ADEQUATE---but certainly not in the same league as GREAT drummers like Rich and Krupa.

Gee, who should we believe---anonymous internet posters at Sputnik Music---or the producer who directly supervised hundreds of Beatle recording sessions?

hmm jeez I wonder

Ringo's inspired more drummers to pick up sticks then anybody else in the world combined....since you lived in the 60s (apparently) you should know this.

His influence and his style is what makes his greatness, not that the fact that he can do paradiddles at 360 bpm or polyrhthmic patterns with 16th on the bass and triplets on the ride.

Ringo, on my list of drummers, is #3. He inspired me to play set, his style is absolutly wonderful, and he drums in my favorite band. Plus his drums sound better then anything I've heard before in my life. Listen to Abbey Road and try and tell me those drums sound 'adequate'. Oh wait, cause if you use adequate, its not an insult so I can't call you on it.

well I get confused

In the CR thread, he's talking about how since an album is popular, and original because it used synthesizers (when in fact ELP, the Beatles, Moody Blues, and King Crimson used them before Townshend did) then it has to be better, as in a factual statement.

My feeling is that in this thread, he's takling about how Ringo is not a godlike drummer.

I come this thread for the first time I a long while, and I find people insulting Ringo! Ringo was an excellent drummer, he knew how to play with the others. I doubt too many drummers are as versatile as Ringo. Being in the Beatles he had to make drum's for all different types on genre's. His fills are so tight, and even on the first album the whole band sounds so tight. Compare that to the Who's first record where the drums are poorly recorded and it sounds like Keith Moon is all over the place (which was a big part of the who's sound) but compared to the Beatles first album the Who sounded like amateurs.

And now to drop some quotes, since that seems to be the popular thing.

[QUOTE=John Lennon 1980]"Ringo's a damn good drummer. He was always a good drummer. He's not technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same way Paul's base-playing is underrated. Paul and Ringo stand up anywhere with any of the rock musicians."[/QUOTE] And that was in 1980 when John was finally looking back on his Beatles past happily.

[QUOTE=George Harrison 1987]"Ringo could be the best rock ''n'' roll drummer -- or at least one of the best rock and roll drummers ... He does fills which crack up people like Jim Keltner. He's just amazed because Ringo starts them in the wrong place and all of that, but that is brilliance, that's pure feel."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Phil Collins]"I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Al Kooper]"Sgt. Pepper was the album that changed drumming more than anything else. Before that album, drum fills in rock and roll were pretty rudimentary, all much the same, and this record had what I call space fills where they would leave a tremendous amount of air. It was most appealing to me musically and the sound of the drums got much better. What I had to figure out now was what am I going to do to get drums to sound like that."[/QUOTE]

[url]http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html[/url] go there for some more

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Ringo's inspired more drummers to pick up sticks then anybody else in the world combined....since you lived in the 60s (apparently) you should know this.

[/QUOTE]

No ... Keith Moon, John Bonham and Ginger Baker had much more influence than he, they still have influence now, Ringo has almsot no influence now ...

Apparently Al Kooper never heard Ginger Baker play.

[QUOTE=Dragon_Prince]No ... Keith Moon, John Bonham and Ginger Baker had much more influence than he, they still have influence now, Ringo has almsot no influence now ...[/QUOTE]

How did they influence more people? Ringo has no influence? Then what drummer are the 25+million people who bought The Beatles #1's cd in 2000 listening to? The Beatles have sold more records than all those drummer's bands, and therefore more people have heard them. I haven't heard any drummer today that sounds like Moon, Bonham, or Baker. Most band's seem to prefer the tight knit style of Ringo (althoug minus alot of the fills that Ringo did).

All the members of the beatles were a crucial part! John Lennon and Paul probably would have either pissed of Keith Moon till the point that he would have quit, or they would have got rid of him because he could not play what they wanted. Ringo's personality also probably helped keep the band together a little longer. And we can't forget his great vocal performances, With A Little Help From My Friends, and Yellow Submarine wouldn't have sounded the same with anyone else. And Octopus Garden is a great song, and Don't Pass Me By to a lesser extent.

Who are the Beatles?

Bonham and Baker have more influence relevant to this day than Ringo does, I think.

And note, just because the Beatles have sole more records does not directly correlate to more influence. I enjoy the Beatles occasionally and am a drummer myself, but when I listen to them it doesn't automatically mean that Ringo influences my playing.

[QUOTE=Eliminator Jr.]Who are the Beatles?[/QUOTE]
bunch of old guys who did drugs and sang about walruses.

no big deal, really.

[QUOTE=Lunch]Bonham and Baker have more influence relevant to this day than Ringo does, I think.

And note, just because the Beatles have sole more records does not directly correlate to more influence. I enjoy the Beatles occasionally and am a drummer myself, but when I listen to them it doesn't automatically mean that Ringo influences my playing.[/QUOTE]

How so? I haven't heard a drum solo in ages, which was basically Bonham's claim to fame. Besides the drum solos I don't think there's anything that Bonham can do that Ringo can't. In the context of the song's Ringo's on the same playing field. I'm listening to Dazed and Confused and the beginning's drums remind of ringo's and the filles are reminiscent of Come Together. Name a modern band that sounds more like one of those two people rather than Ringo.

Interesting you should compare the drumming on Dazed and Confused to that of Come Together, when you should consider Dazed and Confused was recorded in late 1968 and released in January 1969, while Abbey Road wasn't released until September that year.

Have you ever listened to Led Zeppelin? If you think all Bonham was known for was Moby Dick, it appears as though you haven't. Bonhan is known primarily for his unbelievable power, thunderous performance, groove, but also his touch and the other dimension of his playing that he developed as Led Zeppelin grew and progressed together as a group (compare Bonham's drumming on No Quarter to his early blues bursts on LZ I). Also, I'd like to see Ringo play Bonham signatures like Achilles Last Stand or In My Time of Dying, or hell, even When the Levee Breaks.

Ringo had influence because he was the first to usher in the new age of drumming in rock, not because he is better than all the drummers who came after him. His influence is trackable to an extent, but it eventually becomes obvious that Bonham (and Baker before him) were there to take drumming to the next level and improve on what Ringo did. Bonham and Baker became the leaders in ushering in almost all heavy rock and metal drumming after their time and are both superior in ability (at least from what we can tell from the recordings of the era).

While it is true that many simple drummers of today would possibily site Ringo as an influence, I don't think his influence is any more widespread than all the drummers today who still look back to what Bonham did with his great dynamics, rhythm, and power. Also, Bonham is still recognized for being a relatively simple drummer, more concerned with touch and groove than showing off (much like Ringo) although more drummers would site Bonham as more an influence because he had more dimensions and was ultimately a better player than Ringo.

[QUOTE=sr800bkBassist]bunch of old guys who did drugs and sang about walruses.

no big deal, really.[/QUOTE]

No big deal? ha wow its not like in the
United Kingdom alone they have released more
than forty different singles, albums and EPs that
have reached number one.

sorry, just had to say

He was being sarcastic.

[QUOTE=El_Goodo]How did they influence more people? Ringo has no influence? Then what drummer are the 25+million people who bought The Beatles #1's cd in 2000 listening to? The Beatles have sold more records than all those drummer's bands, and therefore more people have heard them. I haven't heard any drummer today that sounds like Moon, Bonham, or Baker. Most band's seem to prefer the tight knit style of Ringo (althoug minus alot of the fills that Ringo did).

[/QUOTE]

I am a drummer, I own more Beatles records than I do Who or Zeppelin records, yet I find my playing FAR more influenced by Bonham and Moon than Ringo. Album sales does not necessarily mean influence. I'll agree that The Beatles have probably influenced more bands than the Who or Zeppelin, but there is no way in hell Ringo has influenced more drummers than Moon or Bonham.

[QUOTE=Diabolus in Musica]He was being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

shut up,:o I'm not that smart

[QUOTE=El_Goodo]How did they influence more people? Ringo has no influence? Then what drummer are the 25+million people who bought The Beatles #1's cd in 2000 listening to? The Beatles have sold more records than all those drummer's bands, and therefore more people have heard them. I haven't heard any drummer today that sounds like Moon, Bonham, or Baker. Most band's seem to prefer the tight knit style of Ringo (althoug minus alot of the fills that Ringo did).

All the members of the beatles were a crucial part! John Lennon and Paul probably would have either pissed of Keith Moon till the point that he would have quit, or they would have got rid of him because he could not play what they wanted. Ringo's personality also probably helped keep the band together a little longer. And we can't forget his great vocal performances, With A Little Help From My Friends, and Yellow Submarine wouldn't have sounded the same with anyone else. And Octopus Garden is a great song, and Don't Pass Me By to a lesser extent.[/QUOTE]


I said he almost has no influence now, what drummer that lives today puts on a Beatle track to hear their incredible drummer, well none.
Well I'm a drummer too I get most of my inspiration from Moon and I love Baker andBonham's drumming, simply because it is amazing.
And you don't hear drummers that play like Moon, Bonham or Baker because al most no one can match them in skills ... Ringo is easy to play you hear drummers like him because that beats are the basic too drumming(and don't say he made those beats ;) because that isn't true)

Anybody else see those commercials with All You Need is Love and Got To Get You Into My Life?

Dam[size=2]n[/size] Michael Jackson.