Yeah kudos to the luckiest man of show-business ever born.

Hadn't he met the other 3 aka "the talented 3" Ringo would be the proud manager of a fish 'n chips somewhere in the Tuebrook 'hood.

I think that's maybe a bit unfair

Ringo was probably the perfect drummer for the Beatles.

A flash technical drummer would have been a distraction from what was really great within the Beatles' music.

They were essentially about "tunes" ...great melody and harmony.

I disagree with the comments above by DCBA.

Ringo was not “lucky”, he got the job because he played the drums well and fitted in with the others. He got the job on his own merit, his skill and character.

He also took a risk, to move from an arguably more established group to the upcoming group.

People get on in life because of their skills and attributes and also because they are prepared to put themselves out, move out of their comfort zone and take a risk.

To many people in my experience are critical of others and call them “lucky” when they themselves either are not capable enough or motivated enough or too cautious in life.

Not much in life is handed out on a plate. Ringo went for it and was successful.

To be fair, I think dcba's comments just may have been a tad tongue in cheek .

I'm with you Kingbeebuzz. Perfectly said.

It was 60 years ago today, Ringo Starr taught the band to play!

Quote
treaclefingers
It was 60 years ago today, Ringo Starr taught the band to play!

He's guaranteed to raise a smile!

Quote
dcba
Yeah kudos to the luckiest man of show-business ever born.

Hadn't he met the other 3 aka "the talented 3" Ringo would be the proud manager of a fish 'n chips somewhere in the Tuebrook 'hood.

Very unfair and untrue statement. You need to LISTEN.

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
dcba
Yeah kudos to the luckiest man of show-business ever born.

Hadn't he met the other 3 aka "the talented 3" Ringo would be the proud manager of a fish 'n chips somewhere in the Tuebrook 'hood.

Very unfair and untrue statement. You need to LISTEN.

To take nothing away from Ringo, this is probably true. I say that because regardless of who was behind the kit, these guys were absolutely going to make it. So from that perspective, Ringo was very lucky even though he was a great addition to the band and the sound.

Quote
dcba
Yeah kudos to the luckiest man of show-business ever born.

Hadn't he met the other 3 aka "the talented 3" Ringo would be the proud manager of a fish 'n chips somewhere in the Tuebrook 'hood.

Yeah, because Ringo wasn't talented. What a joke. Please tell me it's a joke.

somehow (but only somehow) Ringo seems to be The Beatles' equivalent to Ronnie Wood…

Quote
slewan
Ringo seems to be The Beatles' equivalent to Ronnie Wood…

That's insulting to Ronald. He can play several instruments and he never took himself seriously.
You can't say the same thing about the "Lucky lad from Liverpool".

Without Ringo, no Beatles (as we know them).
And without the Beatles, no Stones.

The world would be a different place without Ringo in so many ways.
Hats off to Ringo - Peace and Love.



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
dcba
That's insulting to Ronald. He can play several instruments and he never took himself seriously.
You can't say the same thing about the "Lucky lad from Liverpool".

Are you sure Ringo takes himself too seriously? I seee a lot of fun and goofing around similar to Ronnie, as pointed out already. Maybe you just don't like anything Beatles? That's okay but you don't have to jump in every time to insult them.

Given the fact that Ringo has played a goofy caveman in the movies, and who has hosted a childrens tv show as a train conductor, sort of hard to say he's ever taken himself too seriously.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
frankotero

Quote
dcba
That's insulting to Ronald. He can play several instruments and he never took himself seriously.
You can't say the same thing about the "Lucky lad from Liverpool".

Are you sure Ringo takes himself too seriously? I seee a lot of fun and goofing around similar to Ronnie, as pointed out already. Maybe you just don't like anything Beatles? That's okay but you don't have to jump in every time to insult them.

plus: both of them played kind of minor role in their bands (at least compared to the others (John, Paul, George; Jagger, Keith, Charlie, Brian Jones)). For different reasons, of course. Ringo was 'just' the drummer and was outshined by the others, while Ronnie came somehow too late, i.e. he joined the Stones after their major albums and songs had already been recorded. And, well, both – Ringo and Ronnie – were very lucky. On the one hand because it's very unlikely that they would had been that successful with any other band. On the other hand Ronnie was very lucky because the Stones tours became very profitable from the last 80s onwards and are running forever while he joined the band early enough to become a 'real' member (in contrast for Daryl Jones).
in short: Ringo and Ronnie were at the right place at the right time. That doesn't mean that they weren't talented but both achieved more than what their talent promised.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-20 16:32 by slewan.

Ringo and Ronnie are at the right place at the right time. That doesn't mean that they weren't talented but the both achieved more than what their talent promised.


Exactly right, slewan

Quote
slewan
somehow (but only somehow) Ringo seems to be The Beatles' equivalent to Ronnie Wood…

At the end of The Last Waltz both made micro-appearance cameos--just brief close-ups during the group finale--that got them listed in the promotion alongside all the other artists who were spotlighted as they performed their own songs. They didn't really add much other than representing the bands that are considered to be the two peaks of British rock royalty.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Ringo and Ronnie are at the right place at the right time. That doesn't mean that they weren't talented but the both achieved more than what their talent promised.


Exactly right, slewan

right and it's not much of a dig at them considering how much individual talent they would both have had to have mustered to reach the same level of success and fame or even close to that of the stones and beatles on their own

very very few individual have reached the same level and sustained it for this long

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Ringo and Ronnie are at the right place at the right time. That doesn't mean that they weren't talented but the both achieved more than what their talent promised.


Exactly right, slewan

right and it's not much of a dig at them considering how much individual talent they would both have had to have mustered to reach the same level of success and fame or even close to that of the stones and beatles on their own

very very few individual have reached the same level and sustained it for this long

even if the Stones or the Beatles hadn't be as succesful as they were I guess Ringo as well as Ronnie would have had more than a middle range career. Most likely Ronnie would have been done better than Ringo (at least careerwise) but think about where Ronnie where before he joined the Stones (do you really think that the Face would have lead anywhere on the long run?). And who'd really buy their solo albums if not for their Beatles/Stones fame?
Both – Ronnie and Ringo – might have ended as hired sidemen for live bands or might have left the music business (I don't think a career as studio musicians would have been a real option)

Ronnie was already famous and successful when he joined the Stones.

Ringo IMO is one of the best drummers to ever come around. The Beatles wrote the most sophisticated pop songs. The drummer had to be just right.
I can not even think of another drummer who could have done 'She Loves You"; "Here Comes the Sun"; "I Feel Fine"; "Tell me Why";
Sure, today many can play the parts; but he is the OG

From Variety:

‘Revolver’ Confirmed as Next Beatles Album to Get Deluxe Treatment and Remix
By Chris Willman

REVOLVER

The suspense over which album by the Beatles might be next in line to get a remix and bonus-filled boxed-set treatment is over: It’s officially “Revolver.”
Apple Corps and Universal Music have confirmed that a deluxe celebration of the 1966 release — which, like the Beatle boxes that have preceded it, will include a Giles Martin remix — is in the pipeline for this fall.
An official announcement of the project is not expected to come until some time in September, at which point details about the deluxe package’s contents and a release date will be forthcoming. “Revolver” had been widely speculated among fans as the next in the series. Previously, the boxed sets and remixes in the series started with 1967’s “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and continued chronologically with 1968’s White Album, 1969’s “Abbey Road” and, last year, 1970’s “Let It Be.” Having reached the end of the Beatles’ road as a group with that last release, it made sense that the series might go back to “Revolver,” the album before “Sgt. Pepper,” and possibly work backward in time from there — although the keepers of the Beatles’ catalog always refrain from confirming plans for future years in advance. But, beyond any reverse-chronological planning that might be in order, it goes almost without saying that most fans were hoping “Revolver” would be next. Many consider it the Beatles’ finest work. Moreover, outtakes have not been widely bootlegged to the extent that they have with later projects like “Let It Be,” leaving enormous curiosity as to what may lie among the bonuses.

Some Beatlemaniacs had been skeptical, however, that Apple would be able to produce remixes of the pre-“Sgt. Pepper” albums that match what Martin had already done with the latter part of the band’s catalog, due to the fact that the albums through 1966 were recorded with two tracks that combined multiple instruments or vocals onto a single track — with sometimes bizarre-to-the-modern-ear results — making separation of those elements a technical challenge. When Variety spoke with Martin in the fall of 2021 about the prospects of doing remixes for the pre-’67 albums, he made it sound like he thought the moment was nigh to tackle them, although he said he wasn’t yet underway on work on any of them. “I think we have to do it,” Martin said at the time. “If you take something like ‘Taxman’ from ‘Revolver’ [a track often cited for its bizarre stereo separation], ‘Taxman’ is guitar, bass and drums on one track, and vocals and a sort of shaking and guitar solo (on the right). And it sounds good; they’re amazing recordings, and amazing mixes. You know, we have to look into what technology we can do to make things de-mixed and all this kind of stuff, which I’m looking into. So I’m looking for the technology to do it with, to do something really innovative with ‘Rubber Soul’ and ‘Revolver,’ as opposed to just a remastering job, because it’s been remastered already. So I think we will. I think we also will look at outtakes as well.” He added then, “I think we’re getting there with technology. I think we are. I’m not doing it at the moment, though, I can tell you that much. But hopefully. So, yeah — watch this space.” For those who have indeed been watching this space over the last year: Your patience has been and is soon to be even more rewarded.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Great news on Revolver. Only hope it leads to something happening with the Stones DECCA catalogue b eyond just repackaging the exact same albums. I know it's by design I'm just saying I hope things finally evolve.

Quote
Hairball
From Variety:

‘Revolver’ Confirmed as Next Beatles Album to Get Deluxe Treatment and Remix
By Chris Willman

REVOLVER

Great news!

Rumoured tracklist: [webgrafikk.com]

Remixing and redoing history is no good at all. They should simply reissue mono mix of Revolver on SHM-CD without any bonuses.

Ringo got the job because he was the best available drummer that fitted the band.

And what risk did he take? He was in with a band that just got a recording contract.

Right time, right place to go.

They did not need a virtuoso, they just needed a good enough drummer.
No single Beatle is a virtuoso but at least two are geniuses.

Quote
ds1984
Ringo got the job because he was the best available drummer that fitted the band.

And what risk did he take? He was in with a band that just got a recording contract.

Right time, right place to go.

They did not need a virtuoso, they just needed a good enough drummer.
No single Beatle is a virtuoso but at least two are geniuses.

We're still shitting on Ringo? They loved Ringo the second they played with him. And he did excellent work with them. He doesn't have to be the greatest of all time, he was exactly what they needed. I'm not sure why that needs to be defended decade after decade. Their word on things should be enough, and his work should speak for itself.

It's just a matter that some people hate Beatles. Although I will say it's mellowed some through the years here on IORR.

I think that the age old saying that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" applies just as much to The Stones as is does to The Beatles.

No single member of either band has produced anything of the standard that the whole band produced.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan