Just staking my place on my side of the fence.

Beatles over Beach Boys anytime. If you wanna know why, it's pretty much the same reasons everyone else has said.

High praise indeed to equate him with Jimi Hendrix, but I am afraid that the only correlation between the two is their stage antics, nothing more. There is no correlation music-wise. Keith Moon had his own style, and done what he wanted willy-nilly around the kit then kicked apart - big whoopee doo. He lack the class and style of Charlie W., Ringo S., Mel T., Hal B., Brian B., and Dennis W. - the list goes on...

Everyone (or at least Who fanboys) thinks it's etched in stone somewhere that Moon is the greatest most amazing whatever... what they like about him is not his redundant drumming style it's his antics on and off the stage. But Keith Moon was very limited drummer, a drummer limited to his own style.

Ringo on the other hand (even though considered adequate drummer) was a solid drummer, and well adapt to play different styles. I know Ringo gets pick on and it seems he is an easy target, and Moon get all this adulation which is mostly for being a party animal. When it comes down to Ringo is the better drummer for being a truer to the art of drumming.

I wasn't actually referring to his acentric behavior on stage. But instead, I was referring to his unique style on the drums. Its true he didn't follow any certain set of rules to his drumming like most drummers do. Like Jimi Hendrix, he played through his instrument and his style was quite unorthodox (as so was the same with Hendrix as well). It's all quite obvious if you watch and listen to the old videos of Keith Moon and the Who.

I think moons style was more free wheeling and had a great style especially where rock and roll is concerned, and starr, though bringing a bit more of a unique sound song by song was not quite as thrilling. His solo on "the end" was killer as overall he was extremely efficient, but I wouldn't say that would automatically make him a better drummer than moon. I'd probably go more for Bonham in that department. I think he's the real one trick pony despite his skill.

One thing that I think we should all keep in mind is that we don't always see the full extent of a patticular artist talent. We just hear them playing all the songs that were made popular by the band they were playing with at the time of their success. For example, you can tell that Keith Moon was highly influenced by jazz. And who knows what other genres of music Ringo Starr could have been good at. After all, they are all professional drummers, and I think that sometimes the genre they are popular in sometimes over shadows the full extent of their talent. I personally don't see any of the drummers mentioned above as being a one trick pony.

Ringo's drumming contributed a lot to their sound. And usually,when I see a Beatles cover band, however how professional they are, usually the biggest problem is that they can't imitate Ringo, as mad as it sounds.

Not that I dig cover bands a lot, they would use their talent a lot better if they made their own music instead of merely covering others, but that's a different matter entirely.

Ringo is a rock solid drummer and is very underrated. If you listen to the 'Anthology' versions of many Beatles songs, Ringo's drumming is way up front and you can hear how versatile he was from song to song, even the weirder, more psychedelic stuff - he was always right in the pocket and God love those funny little fills. To compare him to Keith Moon or Charlie Watts though, I don't know. Vastly different drummers for very different bands.

I personally prefer The Beach Boys. I do love me some Beatles though.

Bronzed or pale?

Some can be quite cute.

Ringo Starr is better than Keith Moon. I can only tolerate Looney Mooney's happy jack drumming for so long before it gets old. I can listen to Ringo's funny little fills any time at all. Charlie Watts beats them both by a moonlight mile.