Quote
ash
Paul's voice is really poor compared to even 20 years ago.

Quote
Turner68
19. Hey Jude (vs Satisfaction)

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.[/quote



It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

In response to the original post Stones VS Beatles..

its not really a contest now is it. the stones have continued a further 46 years,
be it live or recording, no contest. Lennon's not with us now is he. also Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for soo long now its embarrassing.. but the dude still tours so that's good..as for set lists, oh no not again. it is what it is..

Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for so long??? I'm not sure how you're measuring time, but "Memory Almost Full" from 2007 had a very big hit, "Dance Tonight". Flaming Pie from 1997 was a massive hit record. Yes, it was 18 years ago, but it's not as long as it's been since the Stones had a record that charted that high. Tattoo you?

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.[/quote



It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

In response to the original post Stones VS Beatles..

its not really a contest now is it. the stones have continued a further 46 years,
be it live or recording, no contest. Lennon's not with us now is he. also Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for soo long now its embarrassing.. but the dude still tours so that's good..as for set lists, oh no not again. it is what it is..

Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for so long??? I'm not sure how you're measuring time, but "Memory Almost Full" from 2007 had a very big hit, "Dance Tonight". Flaming Pie from 1997 was a massive hit record. Yes, it was 18 years ago, but it's not as long as it's been since the Stones had a record that charted that high. Tattoo you?

those two hit records as you put them are embarrassing. its my opinion, i respect yours dude, but come on the same man who wrote let it be and long and winding road cant do better than dance tonight really ought to give it up.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.[/quote



It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

In response to the original post Stones VS Beatles..

its not really a contest now is it. the stones have continued a further 46 years,
be it live or recording, no contest. Lennon's not with us now is he. also Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for soo long now its embarrassing.. but the dude still tours so that's good..as for set lists, oh no not again. it is what it is..

Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for so long??? I'm not sure how you're measuring time, but "Memory Almost Full" from 2007 had a very big hit, "Dance Tonight". Flaming Pie from 1997 was a massive hit record. Yes, it was 18 years ago, but it's not as long as it's been since the Stones had a record that charted that high. Tattoo you?

those two hit records as you put them are embarrassing. its my opinion, i respect yours dude, but come on the same man who wrote let it be and long and winding road cant do better than dance tonight really ought to give it up.

And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards
And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Curiosity got the better of me and I listened to Macca's 'Dance Tonight' for the first time. Wow. Never again unless Paul is willing to play it at my 5 y/o son's birthday party wearing a clown suit.

Quote
Hairball
Nice article on Ringo:

Ringo's no joke. He was a genius and the Beatles were lucky to have him
On the eve of his 75th birthday, it's time to celebrate the musical contribution Ringo Starr made to the Fab Four

James Woodall 4 July 2015

>RINGO

‘He was the most influential Beatle,’ Yoko Ono recently claimed. When Paul and John first spotted him out in Hamburg, in his suit and beard, sitting ‘drinking bourbon and seven’, they were amazed. ‘This was, like, a grown-up musician,’ thought Paul. One night Ringo sat in for their drummer Pete Best. ‘I remember the moment,’ said Paul, ‘standing there and looking at John and then looking at George, and the look on our faces was like …what is this? And that was the moment, that was the beginning, really, of the Beatles.’

I think Ringo Starr was a genius. The world seems to be coming around to the idea. Two months ago, he was finally accepted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame — the last Beatle to be inducted. About time too. On 7 July he turns 75.

Some might now plead, enough. Ringo should surely just be celebrated for being Ringo: daffy, doleful, odd. Ousting for good in mid-1962 the gloweringly sexy, Mersey-fan-adored Best, Ringo chanced upon the biggest ride in showbiz history and so became the luckiest Scouser of all time. He wasn’t spectacular; he set the Beatles’ backbeat and kept time, making up for a lack of upfront technique with his characteristic ‘fills’ — flicks and flashes across the drums between lyrics and musical phrases.

Ringo was also short, with a big nose, traditionally the least appealing Beatle. When the band played live, he shook his mop and thrashed around behind the bass drum. On TV in December 1963 the comedian Eric Morecambe called him Bongo. The idea of a slightly absurd creature with a silly name, bucking the sleeker charisma of his colleagues, somehow stuck.

A specific stab at Starr was once attributed to John Lennon himself. Apparently asked if he thought Ringo was the best drummer around, Lennon is said to have replied that he wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles. Were the attribution correct, Lennon might slyly have been alluding to McCartney — Paul drummed on some late Beatles. But Lennon didn’t say it. Beatles biographer Mark Lewisohn has apparently traced them to the Brummie comic Jasper Carrott, who seems to have made the quip in 1983, three years after Lennon’s murder.


The joke nonetheless played and plays into a repeated, grave misunderstanding of Starr’s role. True, he wrote only two and a bit Beatles songs (‘Don’t Pass Me By’ and ‘Octopus’s Garden’, with a credit on Rubber Soul for ‘What Goes On’, as well as one for a 1967 instrumental called ‘Flying’). He took lead vocal, with his idiosyncratic nasal glumness, on these and on eight other songs in the tally of 13 UK Beatles LPs. Yet proper focus on his musicianship reveals his indispensability to the other three. His rhythms were tight and infectious, shaping and shaped by guitars and voices: never obtrusive, always consistent. His thuds and whacks behind that bass drum helped create magnificence on nearly every track the Beatles recorded.

It began early. Many might suppose that ‘She Loves You’ (from mid-1963) opens with just those words, sung in chorus. In fact, it kicks off on a fantastically propulsive Starr tom-tom. Through a revolutionary two minutes 20 seconds he frequently plays off the beat. With thrilling use of hi-hat cymbal he opens dynamics and heightens decibels in a manner hitherto not heard on a Beatles record. Such percussive glee was a band war cry as, from 1964 into 1965, the Beatles shook the world.

In his renowned study of the group, Revolution in the Head (1994), Ian MacDonald said of ‘She Loves You’ something absolutely germane to Starr’s real importance: ‘Beyond the basic words and music lay the vital work of arranging, at which juncture the Beatles became not a duo but a quartet.’

It’s one of the astutest points ever made about them. The Lennon–McCartney songwriting machine was well oiled by the supple, moody musicality of George Harrison. But so it was by an unerring Starr. In the past two decades, nerdy concentration on precisely who wrote what, and which Beatle was most important, has often occluded a more basic truth: the Beatles were great only because of the greatness of four men composing and playing together. Without Starr in the mix, they would have sounded quite different, and probably not as wonderful.

Ringo got subtler the further the band left touring behind and the more experimental, from mid-1966, they became in the studio. Without him, there’d be no Beatles track like ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, which ends the album Revolver. With its tape-loop screeches and Lennon’s eerie vocal, the whole is held together by Starr’s astonishing, off-the-beat control on slackened tom-toms. His drumming makes this piece of music shamanic and, still, utterly fresh.

Instances of Ringo’s ingenuity abound: the fills in the first minute and a half of ‘A Day in the Life’ on Sgt. Pepper; the relentless ferocity and, again, control on the White Album’s hard-rock ‘Helter Skelter’; the svelte jazz tempos of, and cymbal use in, ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ on Abbey Road; and at the end — on side two as it once was — of the same album’s valedictory medley is the only drum solo Starr performed. (He didn’t approve of drum solos.)

Lack of close listening has disallowed Ringo from being considered as complete a musician as John, Paul and George. When the Beatles took him on (manager Brian Epstein had to sack Best), Ringo was in fact a highly experienced performer, and had long been better known in Liverpool than the others put together. Thirteen years after MacDonald, another reliable Beatles chronicler, Jonathan Gould, wrote: ‘There is little question that the invitation to join the Beatles was the single luckiest thing that ever happened to Ringo Starr. But Ringo’s acceptance of that invitation was also one of the luckiest things that ever happened to the Beatles.’

Correct. The Beatles needed a fresher, better and more Beatlesy drummer than Best. As he reaches his three-quarter century, this congenial northerner surely deserves universal respect, and many happy returns, for being an essential part of one of Britain’s most fabled contributions to the 20th century.

James Woodall is the author of ‘The Story of The Beatles’ Last Song’.

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards
And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Curiosity got the better of me and I listened to Macca's 'Dance Tonight' for the first time. Wow. Never again unless Paul is willing to play it at my 5 y/o son's birthday party wearing a clown suit.

And if he did, you would be reduced to a teenaged fan. No doubt.

Quote
roller99

Quote
Hairball
Nice article on Ringo:

Ringo's no joke. He was a genius and the Beatles were lucky to have him
On the eve of his 75th birthday, it's time to celebrate the musical contribution Ringo Starr made to the Fab Four

James Woodall 4 July 2015

>RINGO

‘He was the most influential Beatle,’ Yoko Ono recently claimed. When Paul and John first spotted him out in Hamburg, in his suit and beard, sitting ‘drinking bourbon and seven’, they were amazed. ‘This was, like, a grown-up musician,’ thought Paul. One night Ringo sat in for their drummer Pete Best. ‘I remember the moment,’ said Paul, ‘standing there and looking at John and then looking at George, and the look on our faces was like …what is this? And that was the moment, that was the beginning, really, of the Beatles.’

I think Ringo Starr was a genius. The world seems to be coming around to the idea. Two months ago, he was finally accepted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame — the last Beatle to be inducted. About time too. On 7 July he turns 75.

Some might now plead, enough. Ringo should surely just be celebrated for being Ringo: daffy, doleful, odd. Ousting for good in mid-1962 the gloweringly sexy, Mersey-fan-adored Best, Ringo chanced upon the biggest ride in showbiz history and so became the luckiest Scouser of all time. He wasn’t spectacular; he set the Beatles’ backbeat and kept time, making up for a lack of upfront technique with his characteristic ‘fills’ — flicks and flashes across the drums between lyrics and musical phrases.

Ringo was also short, with a big nose, traditionally the least appealing Beatle. When the band played live, he shook his mop and thrashed around behind the bass drum. On TV in December 1963 the comedian Eric Morecambe called him Bongo. The idea of a slightly absurd creature with a silly name, bucking the sleeker charisma of his colleagues, somehow stuck.

A specific stab at Starr was once attributed to John Lennon himself. Apparently asked if he thought Ringo was the best drummer around, Lennon is said to have replied that he wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles. Were the attribution correct, Lennon might slyly have been alluding to McCartney — Paul drummed on some late Beatles. But Lennon didn’t say it. Beatles biographer Mark Lewisohn has apparently traced them to the Brummie comic Jasper Carrott, who seems to have made the quip in 1983, three years after Lennon’s murder.


The joke nonetheless played and plays into a repeated, grave misunderstanding of Starr’s role. True, he wrote only two and a bit Beatles songs (‘Don’t Pass Me By’ and ‘Octopus’s Garden’, with a credit on Rubber Soul for ‘What Goes On’, as well as one for a 1967 instrumental called ‘Flying’). He took lead vocal, with his idiosyncratic nasal glumness, on these and on eight other songs in the tally of 13 UK Beatles LPs. Yet proper focus on his musicianship reveals his indispensability to the other three. His rhythms were tight and infectious, shaping and shaped by guitars and voices: never obtrusive, always consistent. His thuds and whacks behind that bass drum helped create magnificence on nearly every track the Beatles recorded.

It began early. Many might suppose that ‘She Loves You’ (from mid-1963) opens with just those words, sung in chorus. In fact, it kicks off on a fantastically propulsive Starr tom-tom. Through a revolutionary two minutes 20 seconds he frequently plays off the beat. With thrilling use of hi-hat cymbal he opens dynamics and heightens decibels in a manner hitherto not heard on a Beatles record. Such percussive glee was a band war cry as, from 1964 into 1965, the Beatles shook the world.

In his renowned study of the group, Revolution in the Head (1994), Ian MacDonald said of ‘She Loves You’ something absolutely germane to Starr’s real importance: ‘Beyond the basic words and music lay the vital work of arranging, at which juncture the Beatles became not a duo but a quartet.’

It’s one of the astutest points ever made about them. The Lennon–McCartney songwriting machine was well oiled by the supple, moody musicality of George Harrison. But so it was by an unerring Starr. In the past two decades, nerdy concentration on precisely who wrote what, and which Beatle was most important, has often occluded a more basic truth: the Beatles were great only because of the greatness of four men composing and playing together. Without Starr in the mix, they would have sounded quite different, and probably not as wonderful.

Ringo got subtler the further the band left touring behind and the more experimental, from mid-1966, they became in the studio. Without him, there’d be no Beatles track like ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, which ends the album Revolver. With its tape-loop screeches and Lennon’s eerie vocal, the whole is held together by Starr’s astonishing, off-the-beat control on slackened tom-toms. His drumming makes this piece of music shamanic and, still, utterly fresh.

Instances of Ringo’s ingenuity abound: the fills in the first minute and a half of ‘A Day in the Life’ on Sgt. Pepper; the relentless ferocity and, again, control on the White Album’s hard-rock ‘Helter Skelter’; the svelte jazz tempos of, and cymbal use in, ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ on Abbey Road; and at the end — on side two as it once was — of the same album’s valedictory medley is the only drum solo Starr performed. (He didn’t approve of drum solos.)

Lack of close listening has disallowed Ringo from being considered as complete a musician as John, Paul and George. When the Beatles took him on (manager Brian Epstein had to sack Best), Ringo was in fact a highly experienced performer, and had long been better known in Liverpool than the others put together. Thirteen years after MacDonald, another reliable Beatles chronicler, Jonathan Gould, wrote: ‘There is little question that the invitation to join the Beatles was the single luckiest thing that ever happened to Ringo Starr. But Ringo’s acceptance of that invitation was also one of the luckiest things that ever happened to the Beatles.’

Correct. The Beatles needed a fresher, better and more Beatlesy drummer than Best. As he reaches his three-quarter century, this congenial northerner surely deserves universal respect, and many happy returns, for being an essential part of one of Britain’s most fabled contributions to the 20th century.

James Woodall is the author of ‘The Story of The Beatles’ Last Song’.

Love your post! I was there and covered the event:
Ringo's 75th celebration!

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.[/quote



It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

In response to the original post Stones VS Beatles..

its not really a contest now is it. the stones have continued a further 46 years,
be it live or recording, no contest. Lennon's not with us now is he. also Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for soo long now its embarrassing.. but the dude still tours so that's good..as for set lists, oh no not again. it is what it is..

Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for so long??? I'm not sure how you're measuring time, but "Memory Almost Full" from 2007 had a very big hit, "Dance Tonight". Flaming Pie from 1997 was a massive hit record. Yes, it was 18 years ago, but it's not as long as it's been since the Stones had a record that charted that high. Tattoo you?

"Dance Tonight" MAY have been a very big hit. So was Rubber Duckie by Ernie, Happy by Pharell Williams, Yellow Submarine by the Beatles, Judy in Disguise by John Fred, Escape (The Pina Colada Song) by Rupert Holmes, I'm Sexy and I know it by christ only knows, Convoy by CW McCall, Rivers of Babylon by Boney M...etc

Some people obviously like these songs. To each their own.

But being a HIT does not necessarily mean its a decent song. Crap sells too (much). Dance Tonight is rubbish.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.

It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
drbryant

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
drbryant

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
drbryant
Really, in my experience stones fans are busy talking about the latest shows or how to get tickets, etc. and it's the Beatles fans who suddenly appear with silly posts like "the Beatles were a great blues band". Contemplating a Beatles set list in 2015 is a bit like debating whether Spider Man would be a good addition to the Avengers.

Don't think I've heard anyone here call the Beatles a great blues band. I have heard many Stones fans belittle the Beatles as a mere pop band. All very silly.[/quote



It must have been on another Forum, now that I think about it. It was crazy - a bunch of people (probably young) posting youtube clips of "Kansas City" or "I Got a Woman" as evidence that the Beatles were a great blues band. Others saying George was a great blues guitarist. Here, of course, where 99% of members know Robert Johnson and Robert Wilkins, that thread wouldn't have gotten very far. Obviously the Beatles weren't a "mere pop band" - they were the greatest pop music act in modern history. They just couldn't play the blues

But the Beatles played their fair share of rhythm & blues numbers in the early years (BBC and early LPS, EPs, b-sides, etc., just like the Stones). And they had fun with 'Yer Blues.'

I'm not going to spend time going through this, but the statement that the "rhythm & blues numbers" covered by the Beatles in their early years was "just like the Stones", glosses over the key difference that has always separated the two bands. There were some shared influences, sure - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Lieber-Stoller, Motown. But aside from Berry, the Beatles were likely unfamiliar with most of the Stones most important influences - Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howling Wolf, Robert Wilkins, etc.

I don't want to revive that old "The Beatles were a great blues band" thread (see, maybe it WAS on IORR before), because I'm more interested in what is happening on the tour, so I'll just leave it with this: even if they tried, the Stones could have never come up with pop symphony as gorgeous as the one on Abbey Road, or a blues number as incontrovertibly awful as "12 Bar Original". It just wasn't in the realm of their abilities.

In response to the original post Stones VS Beatles..

its not really a contest now is it. the stones have continued a further 46 years,
be it live or recording, no contest. Lennon's not with us now is he. also Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for soo long now its embarrassing.. but the dude still tours so that's good..as for set lists, oh no not again. it is what it is..

Paul is incapable of writing anything decent for so long??? I'm not sure how you're measuring time, but "Memory Almost Full" from 2007 had a very big hit, "Dance Tonight". Flaming Pie from 1997 was a massive hit record. Yes, it was 18 years ago, but it's not as long as it's been since the Stones had a record that charted that high. Tattoo you?

those two hit records as you put them are embarrassing. its my opinion, i respect yours dude, but come on the same man who wrote let it be and long and winding road cant do better than dance tonight really ought to give it up.

And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Err i did not write that. go to my original post. who changed my writing. i did not mention Phil Spector

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards
And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Curiosity got the better of me and I listened to Macca's 'Dance Tonight' for the first time. Wow. Never again unless Paul is willing to play it at my 5 y/o son's birthday party wearing a clown suit.

And if he did you would fawn all over him. Keyboard warrior ;-)

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
roller99

Quote
keefriffhards
And I respect your opinion too. Everyone has one, right? I personally think that Let It Be and The Long and Grinding Road are two of the biggest pieces of drek ever written. And Phil Spector ruined them even further. If I NEVER hear either of those songs again, it will be too soon. Dance Tonight is admittedly crap, but it charted very well, proving once again there is no accounting for taste in America.

Curiosity got the better of me and I listened to Macca's 'Dance Tonight' for the first time. Wow. Never again unless Paul is willing to play it at my 5 y/o son's birthday party wearing a clown suit.

dude 'me' Keefriffhards did not write that. weird.

Quote
Happy24

Quote
ash
Paul's voice is really poor compared to even 20 years ago.

His voice is not what it was 20 years ago, but I would not call it poor by any means.

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I'll ask again. Why are stones fans so insecure when it comes to McCartney?

Quote
Stones50

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I'll ask again. Why are stones fans so insecure when it comes to McCartney?

They aren't . I find him horrific. Should have packed it in around 1970

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Stones50

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I'll ask again. Why are stones fans so insecure when it comes to McCartney?

They aren't . I find him horrific. Should have packed it in around 1970

OK, I will rephrase. Why do some Stones fans have a vindictiveness towards him? I don't see the need for it.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Stones50

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I'll ask again. Why are stones fans so insecure when it comes to McCartney?

They aren't . I find him horrific. Should have packed it in around 1970

OK, I will rephrase. Why do some Stones fans have a vindictiveness towards him? I don't see the need for it.

Rockman once called him vaudeville which seems incredibly accurate...so it's not vindictive, it's vaudvictiveness...a word of the day

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Stones50

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I'll ask again. Why are stones fans so insecure when it comes to McCartney?

They aren't . I find him horrific. Should have packed it in around 1970

OK, I will rephrase. Why do some Stones fans have a vindictiveness towards him? I don't see the need for it.

Rockman once called him vaudeville which seems incredibly accurate...so it's not vindictive, it's vaudvictiveness...a word of the day