OT: Favorite New Music in 2018/2019?
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banshee
Extrapolating your apparent affinity for intense "wailing, shrieking or keening" in music partially explains your otherwise inexplicable failure to recognize Ringo as the tremendously inept drummer he is. We will have to discuss your aural banshee fetish at your upcoming 5-song party. :)
bands are like a recipe, and Ringo was the perfect ingredient for that dish.
without Ringo, those songs would all have had a different flavor.
Paul's drummers after The Beatles no doubt are considered technically superior, but none could have added what Ringo added, and none can make Paul's Beatles covers sound anything like The Beatles.
he'd suck as the drummer for Metallica, but The Beatles wouldn't have sounded anything like The Beatles with Lars or anyone else at the kit.
same with Moon.
his individual style gave The Who a dimension no other drummer would have, even though he might not have worked so great with other bands..
The Who may have still been a great band, but they wouldn't have sounded like The Who we know.
Last edited:
I'll buy that.
I cannot contribute other than suspecting RU#s might find something interesting through this link someone sent me some time ago.. at least some artists to look into.. though he probably knows them all
Keith Moon was a great drummer. Not a technical drummer, but a great musical drummer. He had a unique, loose style, but was still a very competent drummer.
We will have to agree to disagree about Ringo. Any studio drummer of the day could've played exactly the same notes and sounded so much better doing it. My objections to Ringo aren't technical or stylistic. He just lacked a sense of time, had no groove, and his playing was stilted as opposed to flowing (evidence of poor coordination in any drummer).
To put it another way, I'm not saying what he played was bad. I'm saying how he played it was incompetent and untalented.
it's not about whether they can cover what Ringo played, after the fact.
it's that others would have never played it as he did in the first place, and they would have been a different band.
everything else you said is total crap.
Curious, where/when did you see the Specials? They were the first concert I ever went to (Speaks nightclub on Long Island, March 1980). Would still rank that show in my top 3 list, just amazing.
People get pretty offended by my take on Ringo. :)
@RU848789 and I have a friend in common who is a guitar-player/singer that loves the Beatles. He’s about 5’-4” and wears a peace sign. Still, I always make sure I’m out of striking range when I talk about Ringo when he’s around. [laughing]
Incidentally, I had to give you a like for your post. Not for what you said so much as how you said it. :D
Yes, he was technically not skilled, but you can't just remove him from the equation and expect that the same music comes out the other end.
Perfectly said. @mildone is simply a friggin' moron when it comes to Ringo and the Beatles and thinks because he plays drums that he knows more about it than untalented drummer hacks like Dave Grohl, Steward Copeland and Questlove. Ringo was extraordinarily creative and knew how to fit in with what the rest of the band was doing perfectly.
It was at the old Hotel Diplomat in NYC also in March 1980 (same tour, I assume). Was my first ska band concert and it was a blast, even though I barely knew their music at the time. Luckily a friend convinced me to go. That show was a big reason I became a pretty big ska fan.
Nope - figured there's a subtle joke there, but I guess it's too subtle for me, lol...
Don't really know the Pietasters, but was a pretty big fan of Reel Big Fish...
This song has been around for a few months, but my favorite rock song of 2019 so far
S.O.S. (Sawed off shotgun) by The Glorious Sons
S.O.S. (Sawed off shotgun) by The Glorious Sons
The third one, Courtney Barnett reminds me of Liz Phair from 15 years ago. Thanks for posting these.
Def agree re: Ringo, but Stuart Copeland of The Police was/is very talented.
Pretty sure numbers was being satirical when he referred to Grohl, Questlove and Copeland as untalented drummer hacks!
You are correct - they're three of the greatest rock and roll drummers ever, IMO (with fairly different styles), so that's why I'll take their assessment of Ringo...
Bang on! Have said that myself and have had other folks say the same, including one of my friends who is a huge Liz Phair fan - comparing Courtney Barnett to Liz Phair was how I got him to go see CB, since he didn't know her music - he loved the show.
Grohl, Copeland, etc. are all spinning like mad about Ringo. Great drummers don't need someone to make a video with a bunch of other drummers proclaiming their greatness. It's self-evident. The fact that someone felt it necessary to make that video just proves my point.
Ringo might have been a little creative, it's hard to say. But he lacked the talent of his band-mates. As for fitting in, any good musician knows how to listen to his band-mates and fit in with them perfectly. So any other good drummer could've fit in just fine with the Beatles. Wasn't rocket science.
Also, I never said the Beatles were bad; they were great. They could've been even better with a better drummer.
Copeland was an amazingly talented and creative, even somewhat unique, drummer who was getting better and better with each released Police album. There was a guy who could produce a groove, in stark contrast to Ringo who seriously struggled with it.
He was so perfect that Paul (and George) replaced him for some tracks; a bassist and guitarist effortlessly duplicating exactly what Ringo did. You can read all about it here:
Also, proving my point about how a competent studio drummer could easily replace him, he was actually replaced by a studio drummer named Jimmie Nicol for some shows in 1964. Link below:
I will say that, in the later years, Ringo's sense of time improved a lot. But he still was barely competent, and that was while playing incredibly simple stuff. Pretty much any halfway competent drummer (or guitar player) could've (and did, when needed) easily replace him (as proven in the two links above).
When you need someone to produce a video where the drummers talk about "fit" and "creativity" instead of groove, or ability to play in the pocket, or feel, or chops, or syncopation (Copeland)... you know they're spinning like mad to say something positive. I'll give Ringo a little credit for not sounding exactly the same on every song (creativity). But fitting the music is pretty much the most basic task for a drummer and is why I use the term "barely competent" instead of "totally incompetent".
Steve Smith played incredibly simplistic stuff when playing with Journey. He played stuff that fit and, if that was all you ever heard, you'd say he was a good, competent drummer, but not really a great drummer. But I had opportunity to hear him conduct a drumming clinic 30 way back and he was a monster drummer capable of making other great drummer's jaws drop.
That's a great drummer. He can fit whatever the music calls for, and is a virtuoso capable of playing literally anything on his instrument. That simply was not Ringo.
Ha. Their comments put the ass in assessment.
Listen, they were given plenty of time to come up with some nice things to say about Ringo and those feeble words were the best they could do for the drummer of one of, if not the, most celebrated rock bands in history.
Go look up some videos or quotes of drummers commenting on Stewart Copeland, Vinny Colaiuta, Carter Beauford, Omar Hakim, pretty much any drummer who ever played with Zappa, etc. Contrast those comments with what was said about Ringo. Then maybe you'll understand what I'm saying.
The video on Ringo is drummers describing what ANY halfway competent drummer has to be able to do at a bare minimum. That's not greatness. It's not even goodness.
Honestly, I had this argument with a friend of mine on and off 45-50 years ago. I was the guy who thought Ringo wasn't very good. Looking back....it just seems silly.
BTW, just imagine how bad Pete Best was.
Mildone...I dislike all your posts here...lol. As far as the links, Paul played drums because Ringo quit The Beatles for a while so the White album recording went on without him. Paul was not copying Ringo, he was playing a brand new part (btw, you can always tell when Paul is playing by the different way he hits the snare). As far as 1964, Ringo was sick and couldn’t tour so that’s the only reason he was replaced for the 2 weeks.
I understand the dislike of my posts, believe me. I'm a big Beatles fan, so I really understand where people are coming from.
But... Ringo is a pet peeve of mine. He kind of exemplifies a truism of art that states that sometimes, talent has very little to do with success.
So yes, you're correct that those are the reasons he was temporarily replaced. But my point stands. That he was so easily replaced proves that he did nothing that any half competent drummer (or guitarist or bassist, in this case) couldn't easily do themselves. And that doesn't qualify as being any kind of really good or great drummer.
No way in hell Paul or George could cover the playing of the various other drummers I mentioned as being great, earlier in the thread. Many life-long drummers (also not terribly good) couldn't cover them.
It's totally silly. In music, and all art forms, "good" is a pretty subjective term. But it's the internet where everybody has their opinions and it's fun to sometimes argue an unpopular position, if the facts support it.
I'll put more stock in JL's assessment of Ringo's drumming prowess vs guys that weren't his band mates
Actual fake news. John never said that and never would have. The "quote" was made up decades later and still circulates as a meme for trolls incapable of appreciating Ringo's drumming.
