As the biggest Beatles fan that I know, let me be the first to say whooopty shiat. I could care less. The two worst members of the Beatles touring simply to make a buck off the Beatles name is not something I want to see. If it were George and John I'd be all over this, but alas this world is left with Paul and Ringo.

Oh goody, the least talented two trying to pad their bank accounts a bit more.

Too bad they are dying in order of talent, from most to least.

Paul & Ringo have played together countless times. Hardly news. And yeah, I'm a Beatles fan too, but I agree they were the two weaker links.

Golly, I guess this hot-breaking news will eclipse the ballyhooed reunion of Rudy Vallee and George Gershwin.

Or, I know, let's ponder the careers of musicians who have been marginally relevant sometime in the last QUARTER OF A CENTURY, hm?

cambie: I could care less.

How much less could you care?

Barnacles!: "Remember, the offer still stands, and now that works out to be $1,500 for each of you. Nice, huh?"

Oh, and this was brilliant.

/Yeah, I remember when he first made this offer. George was the only one to show.
//Off my lawn...NOW!

Ringo is underappreciated. Seriously.

The other three didn't need a drummer with Buddy Rich-style virtuosity. Rather, they needed a competent, studio-ready drummer who was adaptable to a bunch of different styles. The other three threw tons of different ideas at him that would overtax anybody locked into one style; Ringo handled them with aplomb.

Ringo was the lynchpin that held together a brilliant lyricist, a pop-song savant, and an emerging songwriter with exotic musical tastes, and gave them the ability to push the envelope of pop music. They wouldn't have been able to do so if Ringo a) were a bad drummer or b) had a virtuoso's ego.

More love for Ringo!

/Seriously
//"One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for the Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music and still identify the song."
-- Steve Smith (new window)

Oh for heaven's sake. Call a spade a spade. Ringo couldn't do much more than very basic drum beats.

McCartney's cool and all that. But "reuniting" him with the drummer couldn't possibly be less exciting.

Corn_Fed: Ringo couldn't do much more than very basic drum beats.

Listen to the fills on this (new window) and hang your head in shame.

I agree with giving Ringo more credit. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you have to show it off in every song. You ever heard of Dragonforce? Yeah. They've got skill but they try too hard, and every song ends up sounding the same. The Beatles understand when enough is enough and that's how they're able to have such a variety of songs and still pull them off.

Corn_Fed: Ringo couldn't do much more than very basic drum beats.

Rain (as BKITU said), Come Together, Tell Me Why, Revolution, Anna, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, and countless other songs disprove that hypothesis. Seriously, why do people still believe this? Ringo was a talented drummer; get over it.

MikeXpop: Seriously, why do people still believe this?

I concur. and Paul had some great basslines, and he could write a tune too.

MikeXpop: Seriously, why do people still believe this?

Paul was dubbing Ringo's drumming
John was dubbing Ringo's humming
People were starting to talk

This announcement feels like a hole where the rain comes in.

The only other mention of Lorne Michaels' offer came in the late '90s when Paul was the musical guest on SNL. During a bit where Alex Baldwin wanders around the set throwing away money, Lorne and Paul are chatting in the hall with Lorne saying "... I just assumed when I paid him that George would have split the money with the rest of you...."

Boring.

Call me when Lennon and McCartney team back up.

The only reason this would be cool would be if they used the Beatles name and then did not give that self-serving biatch Yoko one dime.

Paul was the most talented.

A source tells British newspaper the Daily Star, "There's been a lot of chat in Beatles fan chatrooms on the internet and the feeling is that it could happen."

So neither McCartney's nor Starkey's management have confirmed or even commented on this, and their only basis for this is fans' speculation on chat boards? Great! I'm going to start my own rumor: "The surviving members of the original Star Trek series are going to make cameos in the new Star Trek film!" It must be true - I just posted it on a Yahoo message board!

Idiots.

Meh. Too little, too late.

Corn_Fed: Oh for heaven's sake. Call a spade a spade. Ringo couldn't do much more than very basic drum beats.

Yeah, the Beatles would have been much better with Neil Peart as their drummer.

cambie: The two worst members of the Beatles touring simply to make a buck off the Beatles name is not something I want to see.

I've been reading a lot about the Beatles lately, and while at one time I may have agreed with you, I now realize the Beatles ain't shiat without Paul. The Paul & John combination was way more than the sum of the parts, "Silly Love Songs" notwithstanding.

CravenMorehead: Oh goody, the least talented two trying to pad their bank accounts a bit more.

Again, I greatly disagree with that assessment.

major-kong: Golly, I guess this hot-breaking news will eclipse the ballyhooed reunion of Rudy Vallee and George Gershwin.

Like it or not, the Beatles effect and influence is still widely felt in pop music today. (And by the way, if Gershwin popped outta the grave today are you telling me you wouldn't want to hear him play piano?)

balthan: Paul was dubbing Ringo's drumming

According to both the Bob Spitz bio and the Geoff Emerick book, this is an untrue urban legend. Paul did all the arranging and told everyone what to play in the later years -- not just Ringo. This was a source of dissention in the band and a major contributor to their breakup.

how is paul the least talented? anyone who says that a)knows absolutely nothing about how music works or b)is retarded. aside from that, yeah this is dumb.

ragnarqk: You ever heard of Dragonforce? Yeah. They've got skill but they try too hard, and every song ends up sounding the same.

actually dragonforce has no skills. its widely known they cant play at all, its all studio stuff. i know, youre thinking,'it takes studio tricks to sound that gay?'

Link (new window)

yep

The Dynamite Monkey: I've been reading a lot about the Beatles lately, and while at one time I may have agreed with you, I now realize the Beatles ain't shiat without Paul. The Paul & John combination was way more than the sum of the parts, "Silly Love Songs" notwithstanding.

QFT

Paul was a pop-music savant--he could take a shiat, and a catchy hook would float in the bowl. John was a gifted lyricist--his skills at wordplay and evocative imagery were world-class.

On the flip side of this: Paul digs heavily on syrupy sweetness and never grew out of his reliance on "yeah-yeah-yeah! la-la-la!" John's inner demons and sarcasm would frequently manifest in deliberately nonsensical lyrics and/or outright sanctimony.

When the two of them kept each other in check, the results were amazing. Left to their own devices, they got terribly hit-and-miss. Paul on his own writes "Live and Let Die" and "Band on the Run," but also "Silly Love Songs" and the entirety of Memory Almost Full. John on his own writes "Imagine" and "Watching the Wheels," but also "Oh Yoko" and the nails-on-a-chalkboard holiday perennial "Happy Xmas (War is Over)."

They needed each other badly. Paul needed John's sensibility; John needed Paul's marketability.

This is good for my mom; Ringo is her favorite Beatle. Mine is George, though, so...

a little late for that, don't you think-----assholes?


///shakes fist

BKITU: The Dynamite Monkey: I've been reading a lot about the Beatles lately, and while at one time I may have agreed with you, I now realize the Beatles ain't shiat without Paul. The Paul & John combination was way more than the sum of the parts, "Silly Love Songs" notwithstanding.

QFT

Paul was a pop-music savant--he could take a shiat, and a catchy hook would float in the bowl. John was a gifted lyricist--his skills at wordplay and evocative imagery were world-class.

On the flip side of this: Paul digs heavily on syrupy sweetness and never grew out of his reliance on "yeah-yeah-yeah! la-la-la!" John's inner demons and sarcasm would frequently manifest in deliberately nonsensical lyrics and/or outright sanctimony.

When the two of them kept each other in check, the results were amazing. Left to their own devices, they got terribly hit-and-miss. Paul on his own writes "Live and Let Die" and "Band on the Run," but also "Silly Love Songs" and the entirety of Memory Almost Full. John on his own writes "Imagine" and "Watching the Wheels," but also "Oh Yoko" and the nails-on-a-chalkboard holiday perennial "Happy Xmas (War is Over)."

They needed each other badly. Paul needed John's sensibility; John needed Paul's marketability.

QF more T

Both John and Paul kept each other in mind when writing their own songs with the Beatles. Paul couldn't get too cute, because he knew John could be ruthless (see "Teddy Boy" on Anthology 3). Alternatively, John's ego wouldn't allow him to present anything less than the best, because even though he downplayed it, he deeply respected McCartney's skills.

CravenMorehead: Oh goody, the least talented two trying to pad their bank accounts a bit more.

Too bad they are dying in order of talent, from most to least.

Ringo is a great guy, great performer, and yes, a great musician in his own right. He made some awesome stuff in the '70s, and is one of the most influential drummers of all time (like him or not).

It's sad and revisionist to say that Paul's genius was any less than Lennon's. They were two sides of a coin.

/"Here, There and Everywhere," FTW.
//His solo albums weren't so great, so sue him.
///Heather is.

BKITU

Listen to the fills on this (new window) and hang your head in shame.


Utter crap. Seriously. The only reason I clicked was because I was betting that the link was a Rick Roll, not thinking that anyone could seriously be arguing that Ringo Star was a talented drummer. If it was a RR, I was going to cred you with a perfect set up over two comments.

Massa Damnata: BKITU

Listen to the fills on this (new window) and hang your head in shame.


Utter crap. Seriously. The only reason I clicked was because I was betting that the link was a Rick Roll, not thinking that anyone could seriously be arguing that Ringo Star was a talented drummer. If it was a RR, I was going to cred you with a perfect set up over two comments.

I didn't know Pete Best had a Fark account.

Massa Damnata: Utter crap. Seriously. The only reason I clicked was because I was betting that the link was a Rick Roll, not thinking that anyone could seriously be arguing that Ringo Star was a talented drummer. If it was a RR, I was going to cred you with a perfect set up over two comments.

You fail teh bandz.

// kidding, but why don't you at least try to back up your arguments with examples of where Ringo could have made a Beatles song better with more complex playing.

I'd buy a ticket IF they added Dhani Harrison and Julian Lennon.

And yes, Dhani Harrison (new window)does look exactly like George stayed young while everybody else got old.

BKITU: Corn_Fed: Ringo couldn't do much more than very basic drum beats.

Listen to the fills on this (new window) and hang your head in shame.

If anyone is still unimpressed, try She Said She Said.

The Dynamite Monkey


but why don't you at least try to back up your arguments with examples of where Ringo could have made a Beatles song better with more complex playing.


Reasonable request I guess. Except complexity only really makes a drummer better if its appropriate. I suppose that is your point, i.e., that Ringo was 'the best drummer for the greatest band' therefore he must be a good drummer. I hear that reasoning comforted him after the beatles brought in session drummers for recordings. Anyhow, reffering to Ringo's drumming in the above provided sample, I found his fills to be interuptive to the song itself. To my ear, at least, his simplistic drumming was not in itself all that appropriate to the music.

After all has been said, I have never been privy to a farkien defence of Ringo, and I think I am better for it.

Massa Damnata: I hear that reasoning comforted him after the beatles brought in session drummers for recordings. Anyhow, reffering to Ringo's drumming in the above provided sample, I found his fills to be interuptive to the song itself. To my ear, at least, his simplistic drumming was not in itself all that appropriate to the music.

From teh Wiki:

"McCartney played the drums on "The Ballad of John and Yoko", recorded 14 April 1969, since only Lennon and McCartney were immediately available to record the song.[29] Starr commented that he was lucky in being 'surrounded by three frustrated drummers' who could only drum in one style.[30] Starr also did not play drums on The Beatles' first-ever single, "Love Me Do". Session drummer Andy White was brought in by The Beatles' producer George Martin to record in place of Pete Best, and Martin claims to not have realized prior to the session that The Beatles had hired a professional drummer. Starr played tambourine on the version of "Love Me Do" featuring Andy White and maracas on "P.S. I Love You".[31]"


It's not like they brought session drummers in on every recording, just one early song.

And more stuff:

"In his extensive survey of The Beatles' recording sessions, Mark Lewisohn confirmed that Starr was both proficient and remarkably reliable and consistent. According to Lewisohn, there were fewer than a dozen occasions in The Beatles' eight-year recording career where session 'breakdowns' were caused by Starr making a mistake, while the vast majority of takes were stopped due to mistakes by the other three members.[25]

Starr is also considered to have advanced various modern drumming techniques, such as the matched grip, placing the drums on high risers for visibility as part of the band, tuning the drums lower, and using muffling devices on tonal rings, along with his general contributions to The Beatles as a whole.[23] Specific drum parts executed by Starr in notably signature fashion include the fill that brings the drums and bass guitar into "Hey Jude", the steady rock beats in "Please Please Me" and other early Beatles recordings, the drum kit pattern through the bridge of "Hello, Goodbye", and the driving bass drum notes found in "Lady Madonna", underlying the more intricate, double-tracked snare drum. His use of a 'sizzle' cymbal (a cymbal incorporated with rivets that vibrate) would bring a much fuller sound than standard 'ride' cymbals. Starr comments his best drumming is on the 1966 single B-side "Rain".

C'mon, now. You don't like him, fine. But he was a fantastic drummer.

/also check out his work playing for Harry Nilsson in the '70s
//and vice-versa, Nilsson singing backup on Starr's single "Only You"
///it's on teh youtube, too lazy to link it

First, as songwriters, yes they were the weakest links.

But as musicians (strike me down all you want) ... George and Paul were the strongest. Listen to Paul's coming out on Revolver and you'll know what I mean. He's a fantastic bass player (please don't come at me with examples of "better" players, I don't really care about taste ... but he was a great bass player). Hell, his guitar solos at the end of Abbey Road were definitely better than John's and we all know George was the better guitar player.

But, for songwriting, John and George were for sure the best.

Oh, and cut Ringo some slack. He was left handed and played as though he was right handed (didn't know any better).

/plus all the other arguments

Massa Damnata: Reasonable request I guess. Except complexity only really makes a drummer better if its appropriate. I suppose that is your point, i.e., that Ringo was 'the best drummer for the greatest band' therefore he must be a good drummer. I hear that reasoning comforted him after the beatles brought in session drummers for recordings. Anyhow, reffering to Ringo's drumming in the above provided sample, I found his fills to be interuptive to the song itself. To my ear, at least, his simplistic drumming was not in itself all that appropriate to the music.

I get what you're saying, and it's a good point. I wouldn't even say that I disagree with you on anything other than his drumming fits my taste and not yours.

I would also add that, to my ear, even the best recording techniques of the era make all '60s drummers sound sloppy. The tunings sound slack and the stick attack seems muffled. And the bass drum (which sometimes can hardly be found) often just sounds like a low "wuff".

I don't mean this to be a "blame the tools" argument. It just seems to me like you don't get the same feel of a precise drummer from later decades.

Massa Damnata: I hear that reasoning comforted him after the beatles brought in session drummers for recordings.

One recording - ONLY - the very first single, love me do, as per the Bob Spitz bio and the Geoff Emerick book.

Massa Damnata: To my ear, at least, his simplistic drumming was not in itself all that appropriate to the music.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I think the majority of musicans would disagree. The two examples I see above, rain and she said, involve non 4/4 signatures and time changes, and flowing, psychedlic-y pop rhythyms that aren't just measurably effective -- you are in fact listening to them BEING INVENTED.

It's kinda like the guys who say Chuck Berry is not a good guitar player because he can only play Chuck Berry licks.

The Dynamite Monkey: Massa Damnata: I hear that reasoning comforted him after the beatles brought in session drummers for recordings.

One recording - ONLY - the very first single, love me do, as per the Bob Spitz bio and the Geoff Emerick book.

Massa Damnata: To my ear, at least, his simplistic drumming was not in itself all that appropriate to the music.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I think the majority of musicans would disagree. The two examples I see above, rain and she said, involve non 4/4 signatures and time changes, and flowing, psychedlic-y pop rhythyms that aren't just measurably effective -- you are in fact listening to them BEING INVENTED.

It's kinda like the guys who say Chuck Berry is not a good guitar player because he can only play Chuck Berry licks.

Well said.

It's easy for people to hate when they don't know the true history and the magnitude of the accomplishment. It's all "Stevie Ray and Hendrix and Rush are teh best evar!"

WaltzingMathilda: He's a fantastic bass player (please don't come at me with examples of "better" players, I don't really care about taste ... but he was a great bass player).

In my mind he was the best rock bass player of all time. Listen to all the songs from Rubber Soul on -- they are all driven primarily by Macca's bass (except for the ones that are driven by his piano!).

Geoff Emerick, the Beatles main recording engineer, points this out in his book, and I have to admit before I read that, and then went back and LISTENED, I had no idea, even though I had heard the songs countless times.

WaltzingMathilda: First, as songwriters, yes they were the weakest links.

You're talking about Paul McCartney, right? Ok, then WTF?!

The Dynamite Monkey: WaltzingMathilda: He's a fantastic bass player (please don't come at me with examples of "better" players, I don't really care about taste ... but he was a great bass player).

In my mind he was the best rock bass player of all time. Listen to all the songs from Rubber Soul on -- they are all driven primarily by Macca's bass (except for the ones that are driven by his piano!).

Geoff Emerick, the Beatles main recording engineer, points this out in his book, and I have to admit before I read that, and then went back and LISTENED, I had no idea, even though I had heard the songs countless times.

Yeah, Revolver was the one that got me. That nasty bass (for its time) right out of the door in Taxman was just "wow" for me.

QU!RK1019: WaltzingMathilda: First, as songwriters, yes they were the weakest links.

You're talking about Paul McCartney, right? Ok, then WTF?!

Paul wrote lame songs like "When I'm 64" and "Golden Slumbers" ... (yes, Yesterday was awesome). He had a few great songs, but for the most part he wrote granpa songs and John wrote the great rock songs. George's few efforts are all incredible, and his solo work was great. (Something, Gently Weeps, I Me Mine, then All Things Must Pass, My Sweet Lord, Wah Wah, just to name a few).

Paul, great player, great composer, but not great rock 'n roll writer. in my humble opinion of course.

Tucci: "George Harrison appeared on the November 20, 1976 episode of SNL. The previous day, November 19, Harrison recorded four songs for the broadcast: "Homeward Bound" and "Here Comes The Sun,"(duets with guest host Paul Simon), "Bye Bye Love" and "Rock Island Line." The first two songs made it onto the Saturday night broadcast. The "Homeward Bound" track was officially released on "Nobody's Child: Romanian Angel Appeal," a charity CD, in 1990. Other numbers are included on "Somewhere in Utopia." During the opening, Harrison and Michaels talked about the $3,000 offer, as Michaels explained to George that meant it was $3,000 for all four of them - that payment was only $750 for one person! An abbreviated version of this program aired on "The Best of Saturday Night Live" on Comedy Central."

Link (new window)

FTA--"Will we ever see Paul, George & Ringo together on SNL? Probably not, but just imagine the three of them together, turning toward the camera and saying, "Live from New York . . . it's Saturday night!"

FAIL

but relating to the thread: all of them needed each other to be what the beatles were.

but ringo was the weakest.
imo not a good drummer.
this still will not take away that the band was the greatest rock band in history and the amount of hits they wrote.

WaltzingMathilda: Paul wrote lame songs like "When I'm 64" and "Golden Slumbers" ... (yes, Yesterday was awesome). He had a few great songs, but for the most part he wrote granpa songs and John wrote the great rock songs. George's few efforts are all incredible, and his solo work was great. (Something, Gently Weeps, I Me Mine, then All Things Must Pass, My Sweet Lord, Wah Wah, just to name a few).

Paul, great player, great composer, but not great rock 'n roll writer. in my humble opinion of course.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I would have thought Paul's reputation as a songwriter was unassailable.

You could make a case, I suppose, by lumping Paul in with the likes of Billy Joel and Elton John, and then discounting their catalogues for not "rocking." But then, how would you place George's Something or John's Imagine?

...And I would add that all three definitely laid some eggs. (Blue Jay Way, What's The New Mary Jane, etc.)

WaltzingMathilda: Paul, great player, great composer, but not great rock 'n roll writer. in my humble opinion of course.

He wrote Helter Skelter, and you insult his rock-composing abilities?

MikeXpop: WaltzingMathilda: Paul, great player, great composer, but not great rock 'n roll writer. in my humble opinion of course.

He wrote Helter Skelter, and you insult his rock-composing abilities?

I said he wrote some great songs, but unfortunately his interest was in writing songs like "the Long and Winding Road" and goofy shiat like "lovely rita"

Sure he wrote a few gems, but in all, he's a goofball that can play a hell of a bass.