| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Abrawang 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 29 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 112
|
 Posted: February 19 2009 at 22:59 |
|
Ringo was fine but no standout. Of his 60s contemporaries, Ginger Baker and Keith Moon could turn OK songs into fab ones. Check out their drumming on We're Going Wrong (Cream) and We're Not Gonna Take It (from Tommy).
|
|
Casting doubt on all I have to say...
|
 |
DamoXt7942
Special Collaborator
Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 03 2009 at 08:45 |
I think buffering is the counterpart of self-assertion, not talent.
Naturally I'm sure Ringo and Neil are drummers of talent.
 BroSpence wrote:
I hear Neil Peart is a good buffer too. Especially, on weekends and boxing day. |
|
|
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: January 03 2009 at 07:34 |
|
I hear Neil Peart is a good buffer too. Especially, on weekends and boxing day.
|
|
DamoXt7942
Special Collaborator
Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 01 2009 at 10:32 |
chopper wrote:
What's a buffer-member? |
I guess Ringo was a shock-absorber between the other three talents in The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
topofsm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 17 2008
Location: Arizona, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1698
|
Posted: December 31 2008 at 11:21 |
DavetheSlave wrote:
Sorry Boys and Girls!!!!! I contributed earlier in this thread gently!!!! Ringo was never a good drummer or in fact musician!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Paul - Yes- Lennon Yes!!!!! Good understanding of music from both of them. But Ringo??????? He was a bum drummer and his later, solo albums were as useless as he was!!!!!!! I remember "Back of Boogaloo"" HNuh??!!!! There were bands and drummers operating at the same time who were real musicians!!!!!! |
Excuse me... No need to shout. 
|
|
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20032
|
Posted: December 31 2008 at 04:39 |
|
|
|
DamoXt7942
Special Collaborator
Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 30 2008 at 23:45 |
He's a fine rhythm-keeper I think.
As a drummer, and as a BUFFER-MEMBER of the Beatles...
And, as I wrote on another thread, his drumming in the song "Rain" is awesome.
|
|
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 30 2008 at 20:36 |
So I hate to jump into the fray again here, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
Let's face it, none of The Beatles, with the possible exception of McCartney, would be considered at the top of the heap technically in terms of instrumental prowess. As vocalists and songwriters it's another story. So that must be why a bunch of incompetents came to be one of the most influential bands in rock history.
We could probably say the same of the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan (anyone here ever cringe at a Dylan harmonica solo?).
The point being it's not all about technique.
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: December 30 2008 at 08:53 |
DavetheSlave wrote:
Sorry Boys and Girls!!!!! I contributed earlier in this thread gently!!!! Ringo was never a good drummer or in fact musician!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Paul - Yes- Lennon Yes!!!!! Good understanding of music from both of them. But Ringo??????? He was a bum drummer and his later, solo albums were as useless as he was!!!!!!! I remember "Back of Boogaloo"" HNuh??!!!! There were bands and drummers operating at the same time who were real musicians!!!!!! |
I agree: his solo stuff sucked. BUT he is a musician. He's not the greatest drummer in the world, but come on, he can keep time, so he's decent. He's not technically capable of doing much, but is still a decent rock drummer.
|
|
|
|
AlbertMond
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2008
Location: Namibia
Status: Offline
Points: 139
|
Posted: December 29 2008 at 17:09 |
|
|
|
DavetheSlave
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492
|
Posted: December 29 2008 at 16:19 |
|
Sorry Boys and Girls!!!!! I contributed earlier in this thread gently!!!! Ringo was never a good drummer or in fact musician!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Paul - Yes- Lennon Yes!!!!! Good understanding of music from both of them. But Ringo??????? He was a bum drummer and his later, solo albums were as useless as he was!!!!!!! I remember "Back of Boogaloo"" HNuh??!!!! There were bands and drummers operating at the same time who were real musicians!!!!!!
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: December 29 2008 at 16:13 |
AlbertMond wrote:
Ringo's a perfectly fine drummer and a nice singer and songwriter. |
He's a perfectly fine drummer. He keeps good time. But is he technically advanced? NO!!!! Good rock and roll drummer, but he's not in the league of many other drummers. 
|
|
|
|
AlbertMond
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2008
Location: Namibia
Status: Offline
Points: 139
|
Posted: December 28 2008 at 03:01 |
|
Ringo's a perfectly fine drummer and a nice singer and songwriter.
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: December 23 2008 at 23:47 |
progrocker2244 wrote:
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
Those guys were exceptions to the general rule. Drummers from the 50's and early 60's generally aren't technical or are great drummers. All most of them can do is keep 4/4 time.
There's always a few exceptions to every rule.
|
I assume we're sticking to the boundaries of rock and roll here, correct?
And there is nothing wrong with 4/4. |
Keeping 4/4 time isn't hard at all. If you were to jazz it up and make i hard, there's an exception. But if you generally don't jazz it up, like drummers for the 50's and early 60's, then it's not difficult at all.
Nothing wrong with it, but it's not a difficult time signature.
|
No time signature is really that hard its just that we're beaten in the head with 4/4. specifically we are beaten in the head with 4/4 and about one division of it "1, 2, 3, 4". Nothing wrong with it, but its only easy if thats what you are familiar with. Rock drummer from that time period certainly played 4/4 pretty much always because thats what the music was written in. And plenty of prog drummers stick to 4/4.
And again I assume when you mention drummers of the 50s and 60s you are strictly referring to a slew of rock and roll drummers, yes? |
Yes I am referring to many rock and roll drummers, but also big band and jazz.
Nothing is wrong with 4/4 time. It's just not a difficult time signature!
Most prog drummers do play 4/4, but also have played 9/8, 10/6, and all a truckload of other odd time signature.
Name one prog drummer that has stuck to 4/4, and never has used anything other than 2/4, 3/4, 6/8, and 4/4. (All easy time signatures)
|
Oh my. There have been so many more incredible Jazz drummers in that twenty year span that still have yet to be beat by any rockers! Elvin Jones, Tony Williams, "Philly" Jo Jones, Jo Jones, Buddy Rich, Paul Motian, Jimmy Cobb, Art Taylor, Billy Higgins, Charlie Persip, Kenny Clarke, Roy Haynes, Max Roach, Sam Woodyard, Shelly Manne, Albert Heath, and Art Blakey just to name a few of the stand outs. And these guys are dealing with a hell of a lot more than rock and roll guys than a matter of time signatures.
Correct, nothing is wrong with 4/4. And the other time signatures aren't difficult either! They are all as easy as one another.
Big whoop!
And considering my knowledge of drummers playing progressive rock music in different time signatures or for that matter sticking to just one is not encyclopedic I can't name one, but it is extremely likely there are several out there.
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: December 23 2008 at 21:08 |
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
Those guys were exceptions to the general rule. Drummers from the 50's and early 60's generally aren't technical or are great drummers. All most of them can do is keep 4/4 time.
There's always a few exceptions to every rule.
|
I assume we're sticking to the boundaries of rock and roll here, correct?
And there is nothing wrong with 4/4. |
Keeping 4/4 time isn't hard at all. If you were to jazz it up and make i hard, there's an exception. But if you generally don't jazz it up, like drummers for the 50's and early 60's, then it's not difficult at all.
Nothing wrong with it, but it's not a difficult time signature.
|
No time signature is really that hard its just that we're beaten in the head with 4/4. specifically we are beaten in the head with 4/4 and about one division of it "1, 2, 3, 4". Nothing wrong with it, but its only easy if thats what you are familiar with. Rock drummer from that time period certainly played 4/4 pretty much always because thats what the music was written in. And plenty of prog drummers stick to 4/4.
And again I assume when you mention drummers of the 50s and 60s you are strictly referring to a slew of rock and roll drummers, yes? |
Yes I am referring to many rock and roll drummers, but also big band and jazz. Nothing is wrong with 4/4 time. It's just not a difficult time signature! Most prog drummers do play 4/4, but also have played 9/8, 10/6, and all a truckload of other odd time signature. Name one prog drummer that has stuck to 4/4, and never has used anything other than 2/4, 3/4, 6/8, and 4/4. (All easy time signatures)
|
|
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 23:30 |
progrocker2244 wrote:
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
Those guys were exceptions to the general rule. Drummers from the 50's and early 60's generally aren't technical or are great drummers. All most of them can do is keep 4/4 time.
There's always a few exceptions to every rule.
|
I assume we're sticking to the boundaries of rock and roll here, correct?
And there is nothing wrong with 4/4. |
Keeping 4/4 time isn't hard at all. If you were to jazz it up and make i hard, there's an exception. But if you generally don't jazz it up, like drummers for the 50's and early 60's, then it's not difficult at all.
Nothing wrong with it, but it's not a difficult time signature.
|
No time signature is really that hard its just that we're beaten in the head with 4/4. specifically we are beaten in the head with 4/4 and about one division of it "1, 2, 3, 4". Nothing wrong with it, but its only easy if thats what you are familiar with. Rock drummer from that time period certainly played 4/4 pretty much always because thats what the music was written in. And plenty of prog drummers stick to 4/4.
And again I assume when you mention drummers of the 50s and 60s you are strictly referring to a slew of rock and roll drummers, yes?
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 18:18 |
BroSpence wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
Those guys were exceptions to the general rule. Drummers from the 50's and early 60's generally aren't technical or are great drummers. All most of them can do is keep 4/4 time.
There's always a few exceptions to every rule.
|
I assume we're sticking to the boundaries of rock and roll here, correct?
And there is nothing wrong with 4/4. |
Keeping 4/4 time isn't hard at all. If you were to jazz it up and make i hard, there's an exception. But if you generally don't jazz it up, like drummers for the 50's and early 60's, then it's not difficult at all. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not a difficult time signature.
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 10:49 |
Thank you, ModernRocker. Some useful inforfmation to prove Ringo doesn't suck. :)
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 09:55 |
progrocker2244 wrote:
ZowieZiggy wrote:
I would just say to the initiator of this thread that Carl Palmer, Mike Schrieve, Bill Brufford, Ian Paice, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell and Keith Moon to name of few came from the sixties. They were awesome drummers and could more than probably hold the comparison with ANY current drummer. so what's the point to say that Ringo was only good for the sixties??? Do you mean that those guys (I'm not talking about Ringo whom I think is not a great drummer) were only good because they were part of the sixties???
IMO, the only one who plays in the same league nowadays is Mike Portnoy. I am not a huge DT fan, but I witnessed one of their concert in October 2007, and I was mostly looking at him because he is just fabulous. |
Those guys were exceptions to the general rule. Drummers from the 50's and early 60's generally aren't technical or are great drummers. All most of them can do is keep 4/4 time.
There's always a few exceptions to every rule.
|
I have heard that Ringo had a facility to play odd and unusual time signatures with ease. This pushed rock into uncharted territories heretofore unknown. For example, the 7/4 timing of "All You Need Is Love," or the ” with repeating 11/8, 4/4, and 7/8 passages in the chorus. "Here Comes The Sun" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun". Ringo’s proficiency in many differen styles such as two beat swing (”When I’m Sixty-Four”), ballads (”Something”), R&B (”Leave My Kitten Alone” and “Taxman”) and country (the Rubber Soul album) helped the Beatles to explore many musical directions with ease
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 03:29 |
jammun wrote:
I'm listening to some Beatles right now...say ya'll he was the drummer for this particular band. Outclassed technically by countless others who came later, but the man knew what a beat was all about, way 'bout '63. If this is going to turn into a Ringo bashing thread, please let's name some great drummer's who were amongst the driving force for those bands of the era. Dave Clark? Charlie Watts?
Quick, who was the drummer for Herman's Hermits? Or for that matter the Kinks or Yardbirds?
I ain't sayin' the guy was the original incarnation of John Bonham, but please.
And screw what McCartney played or did not play, drum-wise, on the White Album.
Warning sexist comment: Ringo ended up with the best 'bird'.
|
He might have ended up with the best bird, but George wins in that department for his liaison with Patti Boyd = gorgeous in the extreme.
Get your serious point s too. I'm a massive Kinks fan, but without digging out CDs I can't remember if their drummer was Mick Avery or John Gosling - one of the two played bass and the other drums, but I can't immediately recall which was which!
Re McCartney and drums - Ronnie Wood plays drums on some of his solo stuff. Oh for Ringo!
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Ringo Starr as a drummer
