Just two (of many) examples:

Enjoy!

Ringo was able to do very odd rhythms and those weird "left-handed" fills were great and became part of that idiosyncratic sound of The Beatles. Charlie's own idosyncrycies contributed to the Stones' sound in a similar way. Neither are "jam" drummers or (God forbid) the double-bass pyrotechnic type. They both can swing and paid their dues in clubs, and in shows where the screaming threatened to drown out the music. They both had to change with the stylistic winds in the 60s - from R&B to pop to psychedelia to blues. They both had to sit quietly in the studio for hours at a time while the big egos worked out the songs.

I would say they have a lot more in common than they have differences.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 02:16 by 71Tele.

CHARLIE OF COURSE, I HATE THE BEATLES AND RINGO.

CHARLIE IS THE BEST EVER.

Quote
slew
The entire Some Girls album

He is awesome on When the Whip Comes Down.

charlie of course. Ringo is not very good at all, he just keeps the beat in a boring way, because beatles play very much more simple and weaker music..
Charlie keeps the beat in a really groovy way. its impossible for me to not keep the beat with my foot when listening to the stones.

Quote
Pelle
charlie of course. Ringo is not very good at all, he just keeps the beat in a boring way, because beatles play very much more simple and weaker music..
Charlie keeps the beat in a really groovy way. its impossible for me to not keep the beat with my foot when listening to the stones.

this is true and it is why the beatles are more popular.

I like Ringo's work on 'Back in the USSR' best.

Mathijs

I don't know where you guys are getting this, but the Beatles musical compositions have always been much more complex than the Rolling Stones.

Typical Stones song : Brown Sugar, Bitch, Start Me UP

Typical Beatles Song: Hey Jude, I am the Walrus, Day in the Life, etc.

Not even close.

It is probably for that reason that Ringo is so much more of a complex drummer than Charlie ever had to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 19:40 by mitchflorida.

this is a stones messageboard.
people are brainwashed...

Both different, both great drummers.

From a personal point of view - Charlie Watts. At least he isn't on 'Yellow Submarine'.

You're @#$%& kidding me, right? Ringo Starr is just another rock and roll drummer.

Watts is a true original -- a jazz drummer in a rock and roll band. The unique Stones sound comes from three main sources: Jagger's growly voice, Richards' smooth rhythm playing, and Watts jazz-style drumming. If you compare Watts' drumming to that of other drummers in rock and roll bands, you'll hear him creating the tempo along with the other musicians, not laying down the tempo like other drummers do.

He really is an original, and his fills are as good as any jazz drummer who ever played.

What is Ringo Starr next to that? A nice guy with a mop-top?

Charlie is a good jazz drummer, but he's no Elvin Jones or Buddy Rich or Billy Cobham. If you hate the music of the Beatles, it's so easy to say you hate their musicianship.

Buddy Rich is a very talented and proficient drummer, but to my ears , his drum solos just don't sound that good.

it is like eating an expensive burrito that has all the right ingredients but just doesn't taste right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 20:16 by mitchflorida.

Quote
Mathijs
I like Ringo's work on 'Back in the USSR' best.

Mathijs

It's a joke, right?
McCartney played the drums on 'Back in the USSR', didn't he?

Richards "smooth" rhythm playing?

HA HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Forgot the '.

Ringo is mighty fine and very underrated in general. But he is a typical drummer while Charlie is more of a "general musician" that simply expresses himself through the drums. Somehow the same goes for everyone in the Stones, especially Keith.

Quote
z

Quote
Mathijs
I like Ringo's work on 'Back in the USSR' best.

Mathijs

It's a joke, right?
McCartney played the drums on 'Back in the USSR', didn't he?

And the Ballad of John and Yoko. ><

And the Ballad of John and Yoko. ><[/quote]

That's interesting , because I always thought the drumming on Ballad of John and Yoko was subpar . . now I know why. Ringo has finesse and style, Paul drums like a caveman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 23:38 by mitchflorida.

people may think that there's nothing special about this now - but in 1966 this beat was pretty innovative.

Just one simple example. So, in the sixties, within the confines of their 'pop' medium (whose forntiers they led the way in expanding) they had a tasteful and inventive drummer who could add expression and interest to every song.

He did a lot more fills and varied patterns than Charlie - but that's cos their music was more diverse and gave more freedom for such expression. But he kept it basically simple like Charlie. Ringo - master of the backbeat, however.

What they have in common is their shared Jazz heritage/influences and that's why they can both play with great FEEL. Modern drummers weren't/aren't brought up on Jazz - and so that touch that these jazz-schooled drummers is seldom to be found these days in Rock music.

Ringo and Charlie (in the era that comparisons are valid) played (generally) in a complimentary manner. (Charlie was brought forward in the mix from 1978 to 1986).

So it's what they have in common that we should cherish.

And too dismiss Ringo as rubbish displays astonishing ignorance and lack of 'feel' on the part of listeners. Just RELAX. Enjoy the ride with Ringo.







Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-11 00:26 by Deluxtone.

<< And the Ballad of John and Yoko >>

and Dear Prudence

Thanks for the great video of The End by the Beatles. I am so ANGRY that the Beatles broke up before their time!!!

Quote
mitchflorida
I don't know where you guys are getting this, but the Beatles musical compositions have always been much more complex than the Rolling Stones.

Typical Stones song : Brown Sugar, Bitch, Start Me UP

Typical Beatles Song: Hey Jude, I am the Walrus, Day in the Life, etc.

Not even close.

It is probably for that reason that Ringo is so much more of a complex drummer than Charlie ever had to be.

It's amazing. I'm a Beatles fan, but those three Stones tracks still get played in bars, still get the crowd going at sporting events, still get people moving at parties, and still kick ass today, whereas those three Beatles tracks sound hopelessly dated. and you never hear them unless you play them yourself. strange.

You certainly have a good point there. Start Me Up was released in 1981, their last big monster hit, I believe.

Charlie or Ringo?

They are both absolutely integral to the aural dynamic of their groups...the Stones and Beatles without their particular drummer(s) simply would not have been as brilliant as they were/are. They are both miracles for their bandmates...complementary, subtle, tasteful, yet surprisingly and deceptively inventive and the driving, swinging backbone of their respective bands' world-changing sound. Are they as flashy and frenetic as Moon? No. Are they as powerful as Bonham? No. Are they as showy as Palmer? Thank Christ, no. Are they as technically awesome as Baker at his peak? No. So what? They are each the perfect drummer for their band. Anybody trashing the talents and contributions of either of these gentlemen only displays his own ignorance.

Listen to Charlie on Paint It Black or 19th Nervous Breakdown or Sway or Tumbling Dice or 2,000 Light Years From Home or Street Fighting Man or Let It Bleed or 100 Years Ago or If You Can't Rock Me or Love Is Strong or Miss You (among many others)...everyone of those songs demands a completely different 'feel' and Charlie nails each one dead...

Ditto for Ringo on songs as disparate as Hard Days Night, Strawberry Fields, A Day In The Life, Magical Mystery Tour, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Come Together...the list goes on...

Most of the other drummers mentioned in all the "Best Drummer" lists would likely try to overpower and CRUSH most of these songs...Charlie and Ringo bring them to life...(nothing against their prodigious talents...but the drummers on those lists are mostly very dominant and obtrusive and they would have simply been wrong for the Stones and the Beatles).

Deluxtone: "What they have in common is their shared Jazz heritage/influences and that's why they can both play with great FEEL. Modern drummers weren't/aren't brought up on Jazz - and so that touch that these jazz-schooled drummers is seldom to be found these days in Rock music. So it's what they have in common that we should cherish."

Beautifully put.

Ginger Baker is to Charlie and Ringo as Jeff Beck is to Keith. Who cares if they're "better" technically? Charlie and Ringo were perfect for their group and for their time. Just look at the band Mick Jagger put together for his solo tour: Great musicians, but who cares?

Great Post TOTR

I concur...Charlie and Ringo: Many more similarities than differences...and I can't believe the people here who dissed Ringo as being nothing special. Pure ignorance.

Ringo did fill the drummer slot in one of the most innovative revolutionary bands of our era. I prefer Charlie by a mile, but there is something Ringo did that no one else did quite like him. I love Ringo on stuff like "She Loves You".

Quote
Deluxtone
He did a lot more fills and varied patterns than Charlie - but that's cos their music was more diverse and gave more freedom for such expression. But he kept it basically simple like Charlie. Ringo - master of the backbeat, however.

Absolutly true!