Ringo's Drumming: Harder Than It Looks

Ringo isn't/wasn't qualified to tune Abe's drum kit. Really, no disrespect intended but Abe is superior across the board. Abe is even a better singer. Let's just say that Ringo was a great fit for that band, and contributed to that band's sound.

OK - Abe is great - but let's not go that far. This kind of comparison is like talking about early Frank Zappa and the Mothers on Invention and then talking about later Zappa bands. Many would say that later Zappa bands were true monster musicians, but none of them were the original, quirky Mothers band from the 60s. Ringo was the original, and Abe is probably busy doing his best Ringo because he was influenced just like we all were. As good as he is, I'm not sure I'd call him the next best Beatle drummer - he probably wouldn't call himself that, would he?

My post was merely an answer to Scott's question, nothing more and should be read within that context only :)

I didn't implied that Abe was or wasn't as good as Ringo or vice versa, it's just that of all the drummers I've heard playing Beatles music, Abe is the one which fits the best in my opinion, so it was a compliment, not a rating of Abe's playing.

I'm a big fan of Abe Laboriel Jr and I have several records on which he play (non-Beatles), this guy is sensational.

So now I've clarified my comments I'll say it again, Abe is the best Beatle drummer since Ringo, and that's not putting down either Ringo or Abe or stating a who's best scenario :)
 
What a lot of people on here seem to forget is the fact that Ringo's drumming, in the Beatles, and that is what is being discussed here, was........ 50 years ago. Drumming, tuition, equipment, expectations and style have all moved on. Musical fashion is always changing.

Rock/ pop drumming was in its infancy and Ringo was one of the pioneers. Its a bit like being able to play some Hendrix guitar stuff now. Well great, but back in the 60s he was new and fresh and different, an innovator. Almost anyone can copy, coming up with something in the first place is the trick.

As has been said already, why should he care. He is probably the most famous drummer in history, he played on some of the most played and influential music of the 20th century. Music that is still being discovered by youth today.

"His playing is simplistic, he didn't even play some of it, Bernard Purdie said so". Pish. The Beatles were a band in the fullest sense, when Ringo left in the late 60s the rest begged him to come back. If he was being subbed on tracks why bother?
 
What a lot of people on here seem to forget is the fact that Ringo's drumming, in the Beatles, and that is what is being discussed here, was........ 50 years ago. Drumming, tuition, equipment, expectations and style have all moved on. Musical fashion is always changing.

Rock/ pop drumming was in its infancy and Ringo was one of the pioneers. Its a bit like being able to play some Hendrix guitar stuff now. Well great, but back in the 60s he was new and fresh and different, an innovator. Almost anyone can copy, coming up with something in the first place is the trick.

As has been said already, why should he care. He is probably the most famous drummer in history, he played on some of the most played and influential music of the 20th century. Music that is still being discovered by youth today.

"His playing is simplistic, he didn't even play some of it, Bernard Purdie said so". Pish. The Beatles were a band in the fullest sense, when Ringo left in the late 60s the rest begged him to come back. If he was being subbed on tracks why bother?

In another 50 years who will be remembered? Ringo or the names suggested by the conspiracy theorists?

It's almost like "he's not american/ jazz/my hero - he can't possibly have done that"

What a crock of dung
 
Ringo isn't/wasn't qualified to tune Abe's drum kit. Really, no disrespect intended but Abe is superior across the board. Abe is even a better singer. Let's just say that Ringo was a great fit for that band, and contributed to that band's sound.

To be fair I suspect Ringo is and was and that you're talking utter nonsense.

Abe's great by the way. But I've yet to hear his cover of Don't Pass me By to cast judgement.

I don't get this suggestion that Ringo's singing was worthy of poking scorn at. One of my favourite songs is Octopuss's Garden. That song wouldn't work in the manner it does with any other singer. It's just wonderful.

It's becoming almost in vogue for other amateur drummers to bum on Ringo....it's pathetic quite frankly.
 
It's becoming almost in vogue for other amateur drummers to bum on Ringo....it's pathetic quite frankly.

Agreed. Not just burn on Ringo, but flame over him.

really these Ringo threads are kind of like bad highway car accidents. As you slowly drive by you don't want to gawk at the scene, but somehow cannot resist seeing the carnage.
 
I know Ringo threads are my favorite. I have yet to tire from them. I like them because they touch a nerve in the majority of people here.

The guy is simultaneously, one of the worlds best...and worst...drummers lol. Depends who you talk to. It's high entertainment at the very least. And it susses out DMC from wherever it is he is. I always look forward to his contributions.
 
Years ago there was a poll taken on Howard Cossell, sports broadcaster, in which people were asked to name their favorite sportscaster and 50% of the vote was for Howard. The same survey asked for their worst broadcaster and again about 50 percent of the people said Howard Cossell. Those surveys like these threads are all but useless. And I hope it is the last.
 
Without regard for your drumming ability, nor your ability to ear drum parts, how in the world do you feel you can make this claim?

"Live cuts of the Beatles/Ringo playing the song clearly show what Ringo does with his right hand and the tom accents on 'four-and'. Ringo never plays a cross stick live (more difficult) and again I could see it could 'possibly' be for audio reasons, but honestly I don't think he was even capable then, or even now for that matter."

Evaluating what someone is capable of doing in this way is very flawed and lacking in reason and logic.

I must agree with others, you are coming off as though you are buying into a conspiracy theory and not paying any attention to facts or other opinions that don't support your view. Whether this is based on you feeling superior, a bias against the type of music (genre) the Beatles played, or just ego, I can't say.

Everyone should be open to learning from other musicians without implying better or worse. I guess the spirit of dissing Ringo or any other musician is just bad in my view. To state you don't like their style, or the music genre is one thing. But to belittle the skills or capacity while considering them from a bias point of view won't put one in a good light.
 
Last edited:
I think musicians struggle with this stuff more than non-musicians. For many years, I had no use for Ringo, even though I loved The Beatles. I just didn't hear the flashy stuff that was required to impress me. I had the same issue with Hendrix and Chuck Berry. I used to wonder, "What's the big deal about these guys? Modern players are more advanced." I only felt that way because I was a fledgling musician, viewing everything through that prism of what was hard vs. easy to play. Non-musicians only care about whether they like the song; they don't care how impressive the parts are.

I've got my thinking straight now, though. Ringo revolutionized drumming. He was the first "heavy" rock drummer. People try to credit the parts he played to Paul and John, but whatever, Ringo is the one who played them and gave them that weight, that feel. It propelled the music that changed the art form. It was him. Not somebody else. It's easy to do it in hindsight, but it's almost impossible to do it the first time.

I'm usually the first one to say everything in music boils down to subjective opinion. But history can be evaluated objectively, and I think Ringo's importance from a historical perspective is concrete. If you don't see the value in what Ringo did, or think he was just some lucky bum who was in the right place at the right time, that anybody could have done what he did, then I think it's just that you haven't reached that part of your musical journey yet.
 
Ringo isn't/wasn't qualified to tune Abe's drum kit. Really, no disrespect intended but Abe is superior across the board. Abe is even a better singer. Let's just say that Ringo was a great fit for that band, and contributed to that band's sound.

Not qualified to tune Abe's kit.The two come from a completely different background,and training.Abe,was nearly bred to be a musician by his famous bass playing dad,and had years of formal lessons by some of the best players out there.Ringo...is self taught,starting at age 13,and was illiterate at age 8.,and was a sickly child,who nearly died.

That's a WORLD of difference between the two.He also ...came up,with those drum parts almost 50 years ago.Abe copies them,albeit well,but,still copies them.Abe also pays homage to Ringo's parts,citing them as perfect for the songs.For a guy of his skill set,that's saying something.

Ringo,is perfect fit for EVERY band he plays in,because he listens.....and leaves his ego,at the door.There's a reason,John Lennon wanted him on his first solo album,saying in an interview,"He's the best back beat in the business".High praise from two,of the best musicians to ever walk the planet.What's next...right place at the right time?That would apply to everybodys life story ...wouldn't it?

Steve B
 
Re: "Who Actually Played On The Recording(s)..."

I think its foolish to believe we know one way or the other...the only ones who really know are the ones who did the performing that was recorded...anything anyone SAYS, including the performers, is subject to modification via $.

Its a market....and no one is obligated to be truthful outside of specific honored contract terms.

This is part of what I think of as being a sickness of this industry. Business ethics are largely lacking except where enforceable...you who have had music stolen know what I'm talking about.

Take home message...do your contracting and do it well.
 
As someone who may or may not have formerly been a shadow guitarist.. I can neither confirm nor deny that this is good advice.

...that's a nasty GAG reflex you got there... ; )

Really a bad situation...stunts promising artist growth...reduces the general music business environment.

Simply acknowledging a guest artist looks good for all concerned...and when that guest takes off, you get part of the spotlight when new fans looks for their work on your older catalog.

Greed(fear of not having enough restricted resources in the future) is truly mankind's greatest enemy.
 
...that's a nasty GAG reflex you got there... ; )

Really a bad situation...stunts promising artist growth...reduces the general music business environment.

Simply acknowledging a guest artist looks good for all concerned...and when that guest takes off, you get part of the spotlight when new fans looks for their work on your older catalog.

Greed(fear of not having enough restricted resources in the future) is truly mankind's greatest enemy.

I kinda see it both ways. Back in the day when studios used tape, getting a mouse-keteer to lay down a lead could become a time consuming and expensive endeavor. Before cheap/clean computer interfaces, an aspiring guitarist couldn't bring his studio work home with him. When the cost would get too great (or the Mouse-keteer didn't show up to the studio date), record companies would call in a ringer to clean up and finish the job. In most cases, the mouse-keteer had the hands to play a close facsimile for live performances, but did not have the sonic maturity or virtuosity to lay down the studio tracks (yet).

This is a worlds apart from what happened with performers like Milly-Vanilly where the group and the album had nothing to do with one another. I think that's awesome, as it exposes the industry for what it really is...

What the conspiracy theorists in this thread are pretty much saying is that the Beatles brought in a ringer for take 7 of IFF, and that Ringo did not possess the virtuosity and sonic maturity to play it. I do not believe this was the case. I think John or Paul said "Can you play that Ray Charles bit?", and Ringo said "Yes, I know that well"

And in reality, it's not that hard of a groove. Much easier than Mambo, though the tempo is pretty quick. I'm of the belief that the Ruff on the tom is actually a limb independence issue because his left hand couldn't come down on the & of the 3 like Milt Turner did. It's following the ruff on the ride like an "Ah-4-&".

Ringo was incorporating Latin beats as far back as "Please Please Me", where the bridge is basically a Cha Cha.
 
As for the "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles"......well ,the famous Beatles banter and John's sledge hammer wit.

Was George the best lead guitarist/vocalist around? No
Was John the best rhythm guitarist/vocalist around? No
Was Paul the best bass player/vocalist around? No.
Was Ringo the best drummer around? No

But put them all together and you have, magic. That's what a band is, more than its component parts.
 
...I think John or Paul said "Can you play that Ray Charles bit?", and Ringo said "Yes, I know that well"

Ringo was incorporating Latin beats as far back as "Please Please Me", where the bridge is basically a Cha Cha.


We can all 'think' something, guess at what we're hearing, but I highly doubt it took 7 takes for them to realize Ringo's bumbling attempts were not working in the groove dept on IFF.

Ringo favored for his ability to play latin beats, latin beats 'as far back' as Plz Plz Me? And then on the 7th take he/they realized what he was trying to do in the 6 takes b/f wasn't working??? Really, a somewhat experienced latin drummer isn't going to hear in the first hr of recording the stuff he's playing isn't working?

Its clear from what hear as labeled "take 6" and "take 7" are very different approaches applications of grooves, but what actually is take 7, the 7th vocal take? Im pretty sure all the takes had vocals, but vocals only appear on what's labeled in speech as "Take 7" which would lead one to think these studio examples were consciously manipulated, vocals left out etc for whatever reason, so lets guess as to why they did it they way they did it. Does anyone know the timeline to the IFF session?




One would expect Ringo to admit after all these years he wasn't 'the guy' on all the Beatles tracks if in fact he wasn't, he'd come clean and say it right, he's an honest guy with nothing to lose right? So we have to take that into consideration. Ringo doesn't want to talk about it anymore, Its so ridiculous its not worth commenting on.

Hal Blaine admitted he didn't do any Beatles tracks, saying the Beatles did all their own stuff, this after industry insiders who were there back in the day say Blaine did record on the white album. Blaine in that vid goes on to say "...he wanted dual drums so I got Jim Keltner...", then immediately corrects himself. Blaine goes on to state John Lennon was an absolute gentleman... how cool! So if an alien comes down in a spaceship and tells you "Don't worry, Im not going to harm you", what would make you 'not' believe him?


I actually want Ringo to be the guy on all the Beatles stuff, but I also want to have fun exploring the possibilities he wasn't.
 
Les - it's been corroborated time and again that it was, in fact, Richard Starkey who played the drums for the Beatles. He played with them in concert, and he recorded with them in the studio.

I remain utterly baffled at the seemingly endless stream of members of this forum who insist that he was either sub-standard, or not even present.

The fact of the matter is that Ringo did a great job with that band, and there's an abundance of recorded material to support that claim.
 
/\ Quite.

It is well documented that on the "Double White" the Beatles were rarely, If ever, all in the studio at the same time, and a lot of the tracks were in fact "Solo" efforts. Paul was seriously miffed that John did Revolution 9 on his own as Paul was also keen to experiment.

Speculate all you want, none of the remaining Beatles are interested in talking about the past. Been there done that.

So weather Jimmy Page played all of Georges parts and George Martin was a genius and played every other instrument, including harp, we will never know. What I do know is the Beatles were a very tight performing unit, I saw them at Newcastle City Hall, and yes, Ringo was the best musician on that stage.
 
Back
Top