Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Baluchitherium Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dallas, TX
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.27.18 @ 09:19 PM
    Liked 3,451 Times in 1,817 Posts

    Default Since I wasn't the reason it was locked...

    That other thread got nasty with insults flying instead of logical discussion.

    So to continue the calm stuff that was actually interesting:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lovemachine97(Version 2)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke
    1- He was the first drummer to be seen on TV. That wasn't an accomplishment due to Ringo. He was in the band.
    2-He changed the way drummers hold the sticks. True...Ringo gets that one.
    3-Ringo was on a drum riser. Was that Ringo's idea?
    4-Ringo played Ludwig drums. Well...ok...that's an accomplishment?
    5-Ringo changed the sound of recorded drums? Really? That's Geoff Emerick's accomplishment.
    6-Ringo has perfect tempo. He probably does have good tempo...but Geoff Emerick revealed that Paul would often have to "conduct" Ringo to keep him in time on many recording sessions. That article might be praising Paul instead of Ringo.
    7-Ringo had great "feel". They had to put that in quotes for a reason. It's just an opinion. Others would prefer a different "feel".
    8-I agree with Ringo on the hatred of drum solos. Does that make me awesome too?...or is that another opinion?
    9-Ringo could play odd time signatures. What drummer can't? I would hope so!
    10-Ringo could play many different styles. That's a compliment for sure....but hardly a rare thing in drummers. Any drummer in a cover band does the same thing every night.
    11-Ringo was better than Pete Best. Hard to know if that is a compliment. Pete Best may have sucked.
    12-Ringo played on all the Beatles songs...except when he didn't. I notice the fact that George Martin replaced Ringo on their first recording was glossed over.

    So the article is trying to make the case that Ringo is a great drummer. Isn't that overrating him a bit? That's the point being made here.
    My only intention was to show that even the guy that gets the least credit was incredibly influential. My argument has been about influence. Yes, influence builds, so blues artists and prior musicians were influential too, but with the Beatles the floodgates opened. It's a combination of songs a lot of people liked, look, popularity, sales, girls going crazy, experimentation, songwriting, recording tricks (often by the fifth Beatle, Martin), quality of performing live, lasting a long time (not as a band, but their music is pretty much timeless), people covering their music, people inspired by their music...

    ...and then there is stuff like this that shows how much influence they actually had. It doesn't mean they have to be everyone's favorite or that anyone need like them, i'ts that a combination of all these things put them at the top of most people's lists, even if The Beatles aren't their favorite band.

    As far as the list, I thought about cutting out some of the ones like Ludwig drums, but I figured no one would click the link and see that I was just leaving out ones that didn't matter, not ones that made him look bad, if that makes sense. The time signature one, I think you aren't giving that one enough credit. At that time, in rock and roll, drummers weren't doing that. Maybe those rock drummers could, I don't know. But Ringo did it with ease, probably because he was familiar with so many genres, which means I don't think you give that one enough credit. This was 50 years ago, not today.

    Like I said, the point was that there was immense influence, even from the guy everyone makes fun of.
    "Most influential" was agreed upon by me. That a given.

    My point was articles like that which attempt to put Ringo on a higher place as a musician than he really deserves. Yes kids saw him playing Ludwig drums and he was in the they bought Ludwig drums too. That's is "influential" but not an accomplishment by Ringo. That article was trying to get us to "respect" Ringo.

    He deserves props for changing the way drummers hold the sticks...but the other stuff would have been true of any drummer the Beatles had. I mean...was it really Ringo's idea to put the drummer on the riser? That sounds more like something Paul or Brian Epstein would come up with. Ringo wasn't exactly a guy who sought the spotlight. And every other part of their look was a calculated move by the band as a whole.

    I know it was 50 years ago...but you may be thinking in terms of rock musicians. It's true they sucked in the 60s. But any professional drummer in any band should be able to keep time, play odd time signatures, and play different styles of music. There are many who can't of course...but they aren't professional drummers. The Beatles of course would have had a drummer who could play odd time signatures and play different styles. If that was unusual for rock musicians, that says more about how pathetic 60s rock musicians were than anything else. Drummers playing for non-rock acts were expected to have something that basic in their arsenal long before the Beatles showed up.

    Again, if Ringo was the first rock player who could do that (seems unlikely), it's not because he came up with anything unusual for a drummer.

    I should probably again state that I like Ringo and appreciate that he wasn't one of those over-playing 60s drummers. Knowing that every song isn't a drum solo is more than worthwhile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pride of Pasadena
    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke
    We've been instructed that we must "recognize" and "understand" that the Beatles are great and better songwriters than everyone else.
    Na, I wasn't saying you have to understand they were great, or they were better song writers than everyone else, just that they were good song writers....just like Plant and Page.
    That still sounds like an opinion being forced on other people.

    I happen to like the Beatles a lot....but why would a person who doesn't like them have to understand they were good songwriters? Why would any person call a person who writes songs they don't like a good songwriter?
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy007
    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke
    Paul was huge...but not Beatles huge. And Beatles huge is the evidence that Beatles fans routinely use to "prove" they are better than everyone else.

    So what switch was suddenly turned off in 1970 when they went solo? Why would "the best songwriters ever" suddenly stop having the same level of success? I see you came up with some excuses for John...wasn't he political in the Beatles too? Why didn't that turn people off? And was Double Fantasy really "his best stuff"? I don't think it's a coincidence that the public was largely ignoring the album until John was murdered. (Suddenly it jumped to #1)
    Not sure what your criteria is for a "switch being turned off". Chart success doesn't mean everything, but it's a part of the equation that is quantifiable. The Beatles had 27 top 10 singles in the U.S. during the '60s. I didn't go through and count how many of those were attributable to Paul (and it's not always easy to tell anyway as I only counted each single once, but in several cases, both sides of a single charted), but in the '70s, Paul McCartney, with and without Wings, had 15 top 10 singles - more than half of what he had in the '60s with the Beatles. George had 3 and Ringo had 7. Only John didn't carry his weight with only 4 top 10 songs, but he also took half of the decade off to raise his son. And no, John wasn't really political in his music with the Beatles. Maybe a song or two here or there you can count, but not anywhere to the extent he was on his own.
    The Beatles are credited with 600 million in sales while Paul is "only" 100 million. That is a pretty big dropoff....much bigger than the comparison with KISS' dropoff in the 80s. That's not saying Paul wasn't a huge superstar...he was. But he wasn't Beatles huge.

    And that's Paul...the most successful ex-Beatle by a mile.

    If John's activities from 1969 weren't political...I'm not sure what is. Yet that didn't effect the sales of Abby Road or Let It be. Of course John's sales dropped off a cliff when he went solo. The album with his most famously political song...Imagine...was his best seller. That doesn't support the notion that politics hindered his sales.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy 007
    And yeah, it's my opinion that Double Fantasy is his best stuff, but I think a lot of Lennon fans would agree - he was sober, loose, happy, refreshed - and it showed through in his writing. And it's really kind of hard to say how it would've done without Mark David Chapman's intervention. "(Just Like) Starting Over" was only released 7 weeks before the tragedy of December 8, and it was up to number 6 in the charts. Double Fantasy had only been out for 3 weeks. And remember, half of the album is Yoko Ono songs, not exactly a selling point! Who knows what would've happened though if more singles had had a chance to be released while he was alive - would they have curried favour with the listeners and pushed sales of the album. We'll never know...
    No problem with thinking that is his best work, I was talking about sales being used as a measure for that...which often happens with the Beatles.

    I noticed that DF had been out for three weeks...and wasn't going to get near the #1 spot. Suddenly it shot to the top of the charts when John was murdered (or "assassinated" as it is often put ...another way the Beatles are deified). That indicates the real reason why it sold well. Do any of those songs get played on the radio today? I can't recall the last time I heard any of them. Not that I don't love songs that aren't played on the radio....but that is another one which is used to claim the Beatles "wrote great songs"....the radio loves them. I'm guessing that won't apply when the radio ignores a Beatles song.

    And the album of course had the handicap you noted....Yoko. Hey...John thought she made good music so there is not accounting for taste. What John thought was good music is far different than what I think. We can't really "not count" certain songs on the album...John thought they were good. They seemed to pass whatever standard he set for inclusion on one of his they count too.

    This was after a string of albums in the 70s which failed to hit platinum status. When you look at his discography, that album sticks out like a sore thumb. So there was a definite "switch thrown" there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy007
    And who dubbed them "the best songwriters ever" anyway?
    You never hear that one?
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy007
    Y'all can believe what you want, but denying the effect that the Beatles had on music is foolish.
    I'm certainly not denying that. Just like I don't deny the massive effect Nirvana had on music. I'm just talking about the idea of "good songwriting" or "better songwriting".
    Last edited by Harpospoke; 03.22.15 at 11:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mean Street
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Bottoms Up!
    Last Online

    05.27.18 @ 09:22 PM
    Liked 2,383 Times in 1,539 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke View Post
    That still sounds like an opinion being forced on other people.

    I happen to like the Beatles a lot....but why would a person who doesn't like them have to understand they were good songwriters? Why would any person call a person who writes songs they don't like a good songwriter?
    I just think when you're talking about a band as influential, as groundbreaking, and as important to the history of rock and roll as the Beatles there has to be something to respect, even if you hate them. As a lover of all kinds of music ,and the history, that's just how I think. I know most people aren't like me. I'm the kinda of person that believes every record collection should have a Beatle record in it, or ten. Collections without the great artists of the past are incomplete in my mind.

    There's plenty of song writers I don't care for that I can at least give them some respect for being talented. I don't like Joan Baez but I respect the talent. Diamonds and Rust is lyrically good. I don't like Joni Mitchell but Woodstock is brilliant. I don't like most of the hair bands of the 80's but I'll give them respect for writing the hits they did.

    Just a music appreciation thing I guess.



Similar Threads

  1. Locked out on Iphone, Help!
    By Elwood P. in forum VHLinks Feedback & Troubleshooting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05.05.13, 04:00 PM
  2. Why are so many threads locked ?
    By killerq in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01.30.10, 06:36 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08.12.07, 10:00 PM
  4. If it wasn't for DLR Sammy would be
    By Bill Nitz in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09.05.02, 08:44 PM
  5. Profile is Locked
    By AxeSlinger84 in forum VHLinks Feedback & Troubleshooting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08.10.01, 07:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts