Ringo Starr as a drummer

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???

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.

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.

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.

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)

Ringo's a perfectly fine drummer and a nice singer and songwriter.

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!!!!!!

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 wrote: progrocker2244 wrote: 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. Agreed. He was a standard drummer as far as ability goes.

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!!!!!!