|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 25, 2014 7:15:06 GMT -5
JSD -- well, that's not what you originally meant about "Ringo being an all-around Entertainer"... this here is a completely different story, you showing Ringo falling so low as to doing Wine Cooler commercials. How does this have anything to do with Ringo being a movie actor or a TV show personality or anything else he did? You're just going off the track here in bashing all The Beatles as usual, in showing Ringo at his lowest ebb. But if you try to be fair, you can acknowledge that after Ringo did these Wine Cooler ads (around 1987), he went to rehab in Arizona the next year (1988) and then has been sober ever since and started the All-Starr Band in 1989 (a wonderful tradition that has been continuing for 25 years now and keeps Ringo fit, sober, and out there for his fans to constantly see him). Ringo then looked younger, better, and healthier from 1989 through 2014 than he did in this Wine Cooler advertisement. But I'll tell you something else. In my collection I have a complete run of all Ringo's Wine Cooler TV ads, and they're fun to watch. Furthermore, the last time I went to The Fest For Beatles Fans, one of the things I liked in the dealers room which I purchased was a really cool button/pin from these Wine Cooler ads where it's got Ringo's face and it says: DEMAND A CLASSIC! -- I really love it, and it's right here, pinned with other collectables next to my computer. I have always thought it was nice that one of The Beatles did so many TV commercials (I also like the one with The Monkees for Pizza Hut) .. So there.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jan 25, 2014 7:26:53 GMT -5
A little early 80's Ringo. A great drum track in my mind - not just for the drumming breaks, but all the little fills throughout. I tried to find just the song but was only able to find the whole album. The song is called "Goin Down", and you can pick it up at the 33:20 mark. Check it out. Just listening to the first track. It sounds like NEW. That first track was the "single" In my Car with Joe Walsh, who I believe also recorded the song.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 25, 2014 11:10:38 GMT -5
I believe that OLD WAVE began Ringo's musical collaborations with Joe Walsh. If I remember correctly, Ringo was at sort of a low point career wise. He hadn't made any kind of splash on the charts, and he was still an alcoholic. Also (again, as I recall), he didn't even have a major record label and this album and in fact had trouble getting a label interested. In the next few years Ringo would get sober and put together the first All Starr Band. I give him a lot of kudos for not simply burning out and fading away around this time.
I didn't realize until recently that Joe Walsh is married to Barbara Bach's sister, so Ringo and Joe are brothers-in-law. Walsh is also a former drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 25, 2014 11:56:35 GMT -5
Hey Snookeroo (another really nice Ringo solo song, by the way). I notice from your profile pic that you play a little drums yourself. I wonder, as a drummer, how you would rate the respective talents of Ringo and Pete as drummers. I admit, I'm the type that rarely listens to drums specifically. There are songs I've listened to for 20 years and never really noticed whether it was actual drums or a drum machine. I'm the same way about most bass guitar. Usually I don't specifically listen to it (though I'm sure it has an effect on a subliminal level). But two drummers that I DO listen to are Ringo and Keith Moon. Ringo mostly for his "melodic" style of drumming, and the way he perfectly accents a song. And Keith Moon for playing drums almost like a lead instrument.
Thanks for asking. I am a drummer, although not so much these days. But I did play in a classic rock band on many bar and party gigs "back in the day". The song WIPE OUT" was what hooked me when I was very young. I'll try to be brief but I can chat about this stuff forever.
My humble opinion: In a purely musical way (personalities aside), Pete Best was a decent time-keeper. He was fine for a band that wanted to get somewhere and needed someone on drums. However, it seemed like he would never get further than simply being just "fine". There's nothing wrong with that if you're just putting a beat to the music. But Pete didn't drive the band like a great drummer does. If he did have that ability then he would have risen much higher in another band after he left. He only seemed to have that one snare roll that he used on almost everything. I've listened to later recordings of Pete's playing and he never seemed to progress creatively. That's not to say that he "sucked". He just was a very basic time keeper.
Ringo was able to inject energy through the band by his playing. That why the idea that Ringo was simply lucky is so wrong. When you have a guy like him on drums it elevates everything in the music. Pete would have been OK on the first album, but Ringo kicked it in the ass. Even a guy like Andy White was a total pro, but didn't drive the band to really kick it. Listen to that little drum fill on the song PLEASE PLEASE ME just before the bridge (middle eight in Beatle-speak). Ringo's is just better. Then, later on Ringo was able to connect on songs like SHE SAID SHE SAID. Can you imagine Pete (or anyone) doing quite what Ringo did on that tune?
I like what Keith Moon did for the most part, but sometimes he went over the top. People often praise his playing on BARGAIN. I think it's too much and gets in the way of the rest of the song. I CAN"T EXPLAIN was great. I even like his playing on WHO ARE YOU, which was near the end of his life. But for the other guys in the Who playing with Moonie could also be frustrating. He certainly had energy like nobody else. BTW - I also like Charlie Watts.
Here'a a vid of one of my favorite songs for Ringo's drumming. You've heard/seen this a million times, but this time just watch John Lennon throughout. He's really enjoying the song, and he loves playing off of Ringo. Look how much they musically groove with each other. Especially on the last chorus. This is the connect that Pete didn't have the wherewithal/ability/ desire to make.
Even when George takes his solo, Ringo plays to him. But just watch John.
The Beatles might have made a splash with Pete on drums but the
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2014 12:03:34 GMT -5
JSD -- well, that's not what you originally meant about "Ringo being an all-around Entertainer"... this here is a completely different story, you showing Ringo falling so low as to doing Wine Cooler commercials. How does this have anything to do with Ringo being a movie actor or a TV show personality or anything else he did? You're just going off the track here in bashing all The Beatles as usual, in showing Ringo at his lowest ebb. But if you try to be fair, you can acknowledge that after Ringo did these Wine Cooler ads (around 1987), he went to rehab in Arizona the next year (1988) and then has been sober ever since and started the All-Starr Band in 1989 (a wonderful tradition that has been continuing for 25 years now and keeps Ringo fit, sober, and out there for his fans to constantly see him). Ringo then looked younger, better, and healthier from 1989 through 2014 than he did in this Wine Cooler advertisement. But I'll tell you something else. In my collection I have a complete run of all Ringo's Wine Cooler TV ads, and they're fun to watch. Furthermore, the last time I went to The Fest For Beatles Fans, one of the things I liked in the dealers room which I purchased was a really cool button/pin from these Wine Cooler ads where it's got Ringo's face and it says: DEMAND A CLASSIC! -- I really love it, and it's right here, pinned with other collectables next to my computer. I have always thought it was nice that one of The Beatles did so many TV commercials (I also like the one with The Monkees for Pizza Hut) .. So there. My post summarized the two things that derailed Ringo from being a musical artist who mattered: 1. Alcohol/drugs(Ringo doesn't talk about it but I suspect from his company kept that he was abusing much more than alcohol in the 1970's and 1980's); and 2. Really, really bad material like "A Man Like Me" from "Bad Boy." Like everyone here, I was happy as can be that Ringo sobered up because that meant he lived rather than died like so many other famous victims of substance abuse. His tours keep him busy and are fun to those who have never seen them before. Ringo has even recorded some great things and Time Takes Time is a great album and Ringo seems to give us maybe two, if we are lucky three, non-crap songs on his subsequent albums but the damage is done. His albums appeal only to Beatles Board Members meaning the most hardcore of all Beatles fans. Ringo bittersweetly jokes about it in concert with his halting announcement that he is doing a song off the so and so album that "sold like 58 copies." I gave my opinion on how Ringo could still be viewed with respect and treated as at least a musical equal(never a songwriting equal) to his contemporaries like McCartney, Clapton, Dylan, Townsend, surviving members of The Band, Roger Waters, etc. He's not viewed in such company but if folks here are happy with how Ringo's solo career played out, so be it. We are all glad Ringo beat the demons of alcohol and drug abuse and puts on a decent oldies show in cities' smallest venues that may or may not be sold out, that beats being dead for sure. I envisioned more for the Beatles' fabulous drummer, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 25, 2014 13:42:37 GMT -5
JSD -- well, that's not what you originally meant about "Ringo being an all-around Entertainer"... this here is a completely different story, you showing Ringo falling so low as to doing Wine Cooler commercials. How does this have anything to do with Ringo being a movie actor or a TV show personality or anything else he did? You're just going off the track here in bashing all The Beatles as usual, in showing Ringo at his lowest ebb. But if you try to be fair, you can acknowledge that after Ringo did these Wine Cooler ads (around 1987), he went to rehab in Arizona the next year (1988) and then has been sober ever since and started the All-Starr Band in 1989 (a wonderful tradition that has been continuing for 25 years now and keeps Ringo fit, sober, and out there for his fans to constantly see him). Ringo then looked younger, better, and healthier from 1989 through 2014 than he did in this Wine Cooler advertisement. But I'll tell you something else. In my collection I have a complete run of all Ringo's Wine Cooler TV ads, and they're fun to watch. Furthermore, the last time I went to The Fest For Beatles Fans, one of the things I liked in the dealers room which I purchased was a really cool button/pin from these Wine Cooler ads where it's got Ringo's face and it says: DEMAND A CLASSIC! -- I really love it, and it's right here, pinned with other collectables next to my computer. I have always thought it was nice that one of The Beatles did so many TV commercials (I also like the one with The Monkees for Pizza Hut) .. So there. My post summarized the two things that derailed Ringo from being a musical artist who mattered: 1. Alcohol/drugs(Ringo doesn't talk about it but I suspect from his company kept that he was abusing much more than alcohol in the 1970's and 1980's); and 2. Really, really bad material like "A Man Like Me" from "Bad Boy." Like everyone here, I was happy as can be that Ringo sobered up because that meant he lived rather than died like so many other famous victims of substance abuse. His tours keep him busy and are fun to those who have never seen them before. Ringo has even recorded some great things and Time Takes Time is a great album and Ringo seems to give us maybe two, if we are lucky three, non-crap songs on his subsequent albums but the damage is done. His albums appeal only to Beatles Board Members meaning the most hardcore of all Beatles fans. Ringo bittersweetly jokes about it in concert with his halting announcement that he is doing a song off the so and so album that "sold like 58 copies." I gave my opinion on how Ringo could still be viewed with respect and treated as at least a musical equal(never a songwriting equal) to his contemporaries like McCartney, Clapton, Dylan, Townsend, surviving members of The Band, Roger Waters, etc. He's not viewed in such company but if folks here are happy with how Ringo's solo career played out, so be it. We are all glad Ringo beat the demons of alcohol and drug abuse and puts on a decent oldies show in cities' smallest venues that may or may not be sold out, that beats being dead for sure. I envisioned more for the Beatles' fabulous drummer, that's all. You expected more from the solo career of the non-songwriting, rarely single drummer? Which fourth member of any band has had a career as rich as Ringo's? I think if you ewe expecting a McCartney sized career you're expectations were not reasonable. His solo albums since time takes time are great. almost all the songs are those are worthwhile, it's just that Ringo will never be the singer the are/were. I don't know how he could have done better, I enjoy all the music this 73 year old drummer produces, and I don't expect him to hit the top ten.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 25, 2014 14:31:34 GMT -5
Double post
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 25, 2014 14:53:07 GMT -5
If Ringo's last album only sold 58 copies, it alone has still outsold Pete Townshend in the last 20 years.
Anybody remember Psychoderelict? It was Pete's last studio album and was released in 1993. Wiki doesn't have any sales figures.
Before that was 1989's The Iron Mask. I missed that one too.
White City: A Novel - 1985 went gold. (Don't ask me.)
I'm a big Pete fan. I bought Empty Glass and almost got Chinese Eyes but then he fell off the earth in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 25, 2014 18:43:24 GMT -5
1. Alcohol/drugs(Ringo doesn't talk about it but I suspect from his company kept that he was abusing much more than alcohol in the 1970's and 1980's); and 2. Really, really bad material like "A Man Like Me" from "Bad Boy." 1. Ringo did talk about all his abusing in many TV interviews from the '90s. But booze was always his #1 demon. 2. I like "A Man Like Me", and I like nearly the entire album, BAD BOY. I think Ringo has already done waaayyy more than most "drummers" in a band (or whoever was the "least guy in the lineup"). Can't we just be grateful that Ringo has been out there more than most 'last members' of various bands? You don't see Charlie Wattts accomplishing all that Ringo has, for instance. "Smallest venues that may or may bot be sold out, that beats being dead for sure". Wow -- I really don't know what you expect or want.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 25, 2014 18:47:08 GMT -5
You expected more from the solo career of the non-songwriting, rarely single drummer? Which fourth member of any band has had a career as rich as Ringo's? I think if you ewe expecting a McCartney sized career you're expectations were not reasonable. Exactly. In fact, I think you and I could make a successful argument that Ringo Starr has FAR EXCEEDED his limitations!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2014 19:25:00 GMT -5
You expected more from the solo career of the non-songwriting, rarely single drummer? Which fourth member of any band has had a career as rich as Ringo's? I think if you ewe expecting a McCartney sized career you're expectations were not reasonable. Exactly. In fact, I think you and I could make a successful argument that Ringo Starr has FAR EXCEEDED his limitations! So in your view, I am saying Ringo has a great talent but underperformed in his solo years while you are saying he is the guy who, because of a lack of talent, has greatly overperformed? So in your view, was Ringo lucky then to have gotten into The Beatles? I'd be careful to diss Charlie Watts because he is greatly revered as a drummer and by other musicians. Charlie knew his limitations in that he is not a singer or all-round entertainer. He is a no-nonsense Rock and Roll drummer and his pride and integrity are 100% intact with those people he cares about, his peers and his musical idols.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 25, 2014 20:54:03 GMT -5
Exactly. In fact, I think you and I could make a successful argument that Ringo Starr has FAR EXCEEDED his limitations! So in your view, I am saying Ringo has a great talent but underperformed in his solo years while you are saying he is the guy who, because of a lack of talent, has greatly overperformed? So in your view, was Ringo lucky then to have gotten into The Beatles? I'd be careful to diss Charlie Watts because he is greatly revered as a drummer and by other musicians. Charlie knew his limitations in that he is not a singer or all-round entertainer. He is a no-nonsense Rock and Roll drummer and his pride and integrity are 100% intact with those people he cares about, his peers and his musical idols. Where do I go to read about all these plaudits Charlue Watts gets that Ringo Starr doesn't, besides your post? And we're not saying that, we're saying that you are ridiculously undervaluing Ringo's solo success because he doesn't sell out arenas like McCartney. How many musicians meet that standard? At least he has more solo #1's than McCartney. Maybe Paul should have practiced more and become a bass for hire as opposed to a failed solo artist.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 25, 2014 20:54:54 GMT -5
Ringo has had a marvelous post-fab career overall I would say. Getting sober was a big part of it. John Lennon once said that even if Ringo hadn't been a Beatle he would have made an impact in the entertainment field. Couldn't resist photoshopping these two images together. The hair style was so similar. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2014 21:54:09 GMT -5
Where do I go to read about all these plaudits Charlue Watts gets that Ringo Starr doesn't, besides your post? Every where. Charlie is universally considered a great Rock and Roll drummer. I wasn't putting Ringo down in comparison to Charlie; Joe was putting Charlie down in comparison to Ringo. Again, if you guys are happy about how Ringo's solo career turned out, fantastic. Ringo needs diehard fans too like John, Paul and George all have. We should harness our energy and seek to get Ringo in the RRHF as a solo artist since John, Paul and George are already there as such.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 25, 2014 22:50:05 GMT -5
John, I have to say I also think you're a bit out of order here. Yeah, Ringo was basically washed-up as a record-maker circa the late 70s through early 80s, but so were a lot of ex-60s greats much more talented individually than he was (for example, Joan Baez didn't have a record contract, just like Ringo; numerous others saw their sales drop by 500% maybe on average from their late 60s/early 70s peaks). Ringo's personal appearances were also, I think, regrettable in much of the 80s, as he usually appeared drunk, nasty, annoying, and insecure.
HOWEVER, he did have a way-surprisingly successful solo career from 1971 to 1976, during which his singles outsold John Lennon's and George Harrison's. That should not be dismissed (even if most of those records aren't to my taste). AND his 1989 'comeback' and subsequent re-invention as a sober, consistent if unspectacular record-maker with interesting, populist tours is no mean feat as his age. He actually has made several, partly self-written albums in the past 20+ years, and none of them have been bad.
I would tend to agree with the view that, AS A SOLO ARTIST, in sum Ringo has far-exceeded expectations for him at the time of The Beatles' break-up (and after the awful Sentimental Journey... which nevertheless had the same UK chart peak as John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band).
I do agree that Ringo has under-performed, however, as a drummer and musician. Even here, though, he has gone back to drumming more and more on his last half-dozen albums and still drums today. Not bad for a 73-year-old who was supposed to be dead by 18.
*********************************
Getting back to George Martin and The Beatles -- I ordered Lewisohn's Complete Beatles Chronicle and received it yesterday. This book is from 1992 (and some of its info is from earlier books in the late 80s), and even in this one Lewisohn outlines the procedure of Martin's first deciding to work with the Beatles. Actually, everything in the new Tune In book was already outlined 21 years ago in the Complete Beatles Chronicle, except for the part about George Martin shagging Judy Lockhart -- that event may or may not have influenced his decision, but as this thread points out, it seems to be more of a minor detail than an important factor. And everything else -- about the pluggers for Ardmore & Beechwood pushing him into it, etc. -- was already explained 21 years ago by Lewisohn.
This, plus George Martin's own 1971 published interview in which he clearly states that he was unimpressed by The Beatles' rough recording and his first meeting, should make clear that he was not sold on them when he first heard/encountered them.
However, Martin's quote that he was "charmed" by them was also certainly true. It seems to have been on the second (with Pete Best), third (with Ringo/Andy White), and especially fourth ('Please Please Me' nailed) sessions during which George Martin eventually (but fairly quickly) was sold on The Beatles. Of course, their having a surprising hit record between sessions three and four probably helped!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 25, 2014 23:43:44 GMT -5
So in your view, I am saying Ringo has a great talent but underperformed in his solo years while you are saying he is the guy who, because of a lack of talent, has greatly overperformed? So in your view, was Ringo lucky then to have gotten into The Beatles? Wow, you really are out of control all over the place here. I have never said that Ringo was "talent-less". Far from it. It's just that he has indeed exceeded people's expectations for him as a solo artist. Ringo was just "the drummer" in The Beatles, John. Even Lennon said - on the 1975 TOMORROW interview with Tom Snyder: "I'm pleased that Ringo is doing well, because even though he makes movies and he's good at it, there was some concern about 'how is his recording career going to be' ... and at the moment it's probably better than mine, actually!".
You're misunderstanding me. I would agree with you here 100%, John - I do like Charlie Watts as a drummer, and I think he's great. So you're completely off base here again. But I'm referring to his accomplishments as a "solo artist apart from The Rolling Stones", that's all I meant. You're bashing Ringo Starr as a solo performer in recent years/decades, and the fact is that he's still been more out there making his own way apart from The Beatles than Charlie Watts did. (Or John Entwistle as the bass player did in The Who, if we're talking about the "least band member out in front"). I definitely think Charlie Watts is a heavier and more Rock N Roll drummer than Ringo is, but what I'm driving at is that Ringo has his own bands, has the All-Starr Tours, makes his own solo albums and sings -- whereas Charlie does little more than drum the drums for the aged Stones at the Superbowl, now quite long past their prime.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 25, 2014 23:54:54 GMT -5
Joe was putting Charlie down in comparison to Ringo. I hope now you've read my other response where I clarified what I actually meant. I only meant that Ringo had a career apart from his old band, unlike Charlie. While it would be nice, I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, the RRHF is a complete joke now. For another, J,P,G, and R are all in there as The Beatles. I'm not one who goes for this thing about having people in numerous times for other projects. But I'll tell you this -- Ringo already has enough hits as a solo artist (1970s) to qualify.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 26, 2014 0:32:54 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for your follow-up Joe on Charlie Watts. They are kind of friends anyway and I don't think they view themselves as rivals.
I have always thought that Ringo should have stayed with hardcore Rockabilly and real roots Rock and Roll and maybe dived into alternative Country and Western like a Steve Earle. Ringo could have recorded with and hung out with guys like Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Merle Haggard and Willie Nelson.
Ringo has four essential albums, RINGO, GV, Blast From Yor Past and Time Takes Time and the best of everything else could be put on a fifth album.
I like Ringo but he has been very lazy musically.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 26, 2014 6:33:51 GMT -5
Ringo has four essential albums, RINGO, GV, Blast From Yor Past and Time Takes Time and the best of everything else could be put on a fifth album. I like Ringo but he has been very lazy musically. Sorry to disagree again, JSD, but I feel differently. Ringo has released something like 17 studio albums, and several live albums! Ringo's studio albums have touched all sorts of genres: "Old Standards", "Country", "Disco", "Christmas Album", "Pop/Rock", "Children's"... . Once again, how many solo LPs did other "fourth band members" release? I think I sort of know what you mean by Ringo being lazy musically I guess, in the sense that he tends to be complacent in some ways. But look at his position as the drummer -- the one who doesn't sing very well, cannot write music all that well ... quite an achievement there, his solo catalogue, under such consideration -- no?
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 26, 2014 10:56:54 GMT -5
Charlie Watts have made some well received music in the jazz world. He is a huge lover of jazz music.
And he's a terrific rock and roll drummer. One of my fav drum parts of his is "19th Nervous Breakdown".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 26, 2014 14:23:20 GMT -5
Sorry to disagree again, JSD, but I feel differently. Ringo has released something like 17 studio albums, and several live albums! Ringo's studio albums have touched all sorts of genres: "Old Standards", "Country", "Disco", "Christmas Album", "Pop/Rock", "Children's"... . Once again, how many solo LPs did other "fourth band members" release? I think I sort of know what you mean by Ringo being lazy musically I guess, in the sense that he tends to be complacent in some ways. But look at his position as the drummer -- the one who doesn't sing very well, cannot write music all that well ... quite an achievement there, his solo catalogue, under such consideration -- no? If Ringo had half of those 17 albums I'd feel better about quality. The albums between "Goodnight Vienna" and "Time Takes Time" could be reduced to one album if passable tracks from each were collected. After "Time Takes Time," Ringo could probably cut over half of those newer albums up to the present by again collecting the best tracks from each to make better, but fewer, albums. Ringo has some very good songs buried in those newer albums and I cite "Liverpool 8" as one of them and that one he did with Paul that I can't even remember its name but I remember liking it. I like Ringo's first two albums a lot, I forgot about them in my post above. Ringo was decades ahead of Macca on doing a standards album. The Country album was what Ringo should have pursued more. Ringo and Disco was an unmitigated disaster. LOL, "Ringo The 4th" was Ringo's "Broadstreet" but then he kept doing them until the masterpiece "Time Takes Time." But Ringo explained why his career became a huge trainwreck: he went where the road don't go!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 26, 2014 14:26:42 GMT -5
. . . whereas Charlie does little more than drum the drums for the aged Stones at the Superbowl, now quite long past their prime. Well, hold on. I remember seeing an interview with Ringo about the so-called rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones. In the interview, Ringo said he recently saw Charlie and his jazz band. Ringo said, "Now, THAT is one happy guy." I think Charlie's solo career is quite where he wants it to be . . . and therefore, successful.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 26, 2014 15:03:23 GMT -5
Well, hold on. I remember seeing an interview with Ringo about the so-called rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones. In the interview, Ringo said he recently saw Charlie and his jazz band. Ringo said, "Now, THAT is one happy guy." I think Charlie's solo career is quite where he wants it to be . . . and therefore, successful. Well, heck -- an artist can be happy doing nothing at all and say he's happy being retired and a regular citizen, too (and therefore, also successful). But I thought we were talking about something else? Specifically, how many things Ringo did in his career after The Beatles disbanded.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 26, 2014 15:06:33 GMT -5
If Ringo had half of those 17 albums I'd feel better about quality. The albums between "Goodnight Vienna" and "Time Takes Time" could be reduced to one album if passable tracks from each were collected. After "Time Takes Time," Ringo could probably cut over half of those newer albums up to the present by again collecting the best tracks from each to make better, but fewer, albums. And you could say the same thing regarding just about all artists and their albums, even those with more songwriting/singing prowess than Ringo. This whole debate is ridiculous. I'll take Ringo as he is/was -- warts, weak LPs, and all. Do I have to begin a "RRS Society" ?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 27, 2014 3:56:47 GMT -5
Maybe this is just my prejudice. But I dont like to hear anybody denigrating George Martin's contributions. Who added his personal touch to every Beatles song. From Love Me Do to Abbey Road. Who is Mark Lewinsohn? And what has he added to Beatles music?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 27, 2014 4:57:41 GMT -5
Mark Lewisohn has added nothing to the music but has contributed some essential books to enhance our (or "my" if you prefer) appreciation of that music. I don't get the impression that he denigrates anyone's contribution to the music, and I feel that the preceding post is unnecessarily denigrating towards him.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 27, 2014 8:51:58 GMT -5
Maybe this is just my prejudice. But I dont like to hear anybody denigrating George Martin's contributions. Who added his personal touch to every Beatles song. From Love Me Do to Abbey Road. Who the fuck is Mark Lewinsohn? And what has he added to Beatles music? Not sure what kind of crack you're smoking, but Mark Lewisohn doesn't denigrate him at all. He builds him up, if anything. In fact, Lewisohn has worked with George Martin before, and they get on well, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 27, 2014 10:04:08 GMT -5
Folks, let's tone down the personal insinuations concerning other poster's respective points of view! This Board can be a large tent of ideas and beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 27, 2014 12:58:18 GMT -5
Maybe this is just my prejudice. But I dont like to hear anybody denigrating George Martin's contributions. Who added his personal touch to every Beatles song. From Love Me Do to Abbey Road. Who the fuck is Mark Lewinsohn? And what has he added to Beatles music? Not sure what kind of crack you're smoking, but Mark Lewisohn doesn't denigrate him at all. He builds him up, if anything. In fact, Lewisohn has worked with George Martin before, and they get on well, apparently. Hey, give me a break. I quit smoking crack YEARS ago. These days its nothing but whiskey and crystal meth for me.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 27, 2014 19:21:45 GMT -5
Okay, then. Whiskey and crystal meth is fine.
|
|