I think a person's opinion of whether he was a great, good, competent, or bad drummer, for some people, is in direct correlation with how much they like/dislike the Beatles. Or at least that's the impression I get from this thread, anyway. I could be wrong. (wouldn't be the first time)

Either way, Ringo was 1/4 of the Beatles, and he played his part. John and Paul were the focal point, with George and Ringo the supporting cast. That was just the dynamic, you know?

As far as Ringo's abilities, he wasn't spectacular, but didn't often embarrass himself. He could carry a tune, barely. If he was a great singer, he'd have had more songs, right?

Its not like he tried to do more than he could handle.

Like Tommy Lee.

Well, it should also be taken into consideration that Ringo was a ground breaker in one aspect...he got equal billing with the rest of the Beatles. Up until that time, (the early 60's), the band members were an afterthought. Buddy Holly and the Crickets, Bill Haley and the Comets, etc, etc. Ringo learned to play the drums in the 50's, when all there was to drumming was keeping the beat for the 'real' act, the singer. Also, he came from a lot tamer time, as well. Flambouancy was limited.

Liberace, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard. That was about it, as far as being flashy. Oddly enough, three of those four played piano. Other than Buddy Rich in the 50's, and Gene Krupa before that, there were no drummers with flash. That simply wasn't how music was built back then.

Without googling, can anyone name 5-10 drummers from bands before the Beatles? I certainly can't. Ringo may not have been innovative or much of a free spirit, but her certainly blazed a trail for drummers that still carries on today. He brought drummers to the fore, perhaps inspiring the John Bohnams and Keith Moons and Noel Reddings and Ginger Bakers of the world to follow his cue, grab some spotlight of their own.

Those drummers of the mid to late 60's took the backbone of rock and roll, the drums, and experimented, expanded, evolved. In my opinion, that was the evolution of drumming. Right after Ringo, into the 70's. It got wild!!

No, Ringo didn't invent it, but he certainly changed the drummer's role in rock and roll. After Ringo, the drummer was no longer the guy in the back that no one ever noticed unless he screwed up.

He wasn't a crap drummer. He wasn't a great drummer. He was simply the drummer, and he got his picture taken with the guitartists and the bassist. Equal billing. A first in rock and roll.

wow....as usual, your posts are far and few between, but as wise as always....i have to agree with everything you said....and i bow down to you oh wise buddhist spirit of music banter....:)

Good grief. How embarrassing. LOLOL.

Dont mean to be a smartass but Noel Redding was the bass player for The Experience, i think you mean Mitch Mitchell. :)

You know, I thought about that at work today. LOL. I have never been able to keep those two straight.

he did what he had to do. He was a terrible drummer but it's not like he was asked upon to do alot. He sang a few songs and got the job done.

Yay, another Bjork fan. :thumb:

Have you not learned anything from this thread? Just because he didn't play like Neil Peart doesn't mean he wasn't an amazing drummer. Drummers that play for the song instead of playing for themselves or showing off are much better in my book.