|
Post by OldFred on Feb 7, 2010 9:10:05 GMT -5
From Mitch Axelrod: Hi gang, You can watch the entire [Ringo Starr] Hollywood Walk of Fame ceremony on February 8 LIVE on our website at: www.fabfourum.com/video-gallery.htmlEnjoy!!!!!!! Have a great weekend. Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 7, 2010 18:31:17 GMT -5
From Mitch Axelrod: Hi gang, You can watch the entire [Ringo Starr] Hollywood Walk of Fame ceremony on February 8 LIVE on our website at: www.fabfourum.com/video-gallery.htmlEnjoy!!!!!!! Have a great weekend. Mitch It'll be on my Beatles Examiner page, too.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Feb 8, 2010 22:10:07 GMT -5
I'm seeing the video feed live but getting no sound.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Feb 8, 2010 22:26:05 GMT -5
Here are screens cap of Ringo at the ceremony with Joe Walsh.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 9, 2010 11:49:38 GMT -5
I'm seeing the video feed live but getting no sound. The replay has sound. If you saw my two postings on the Examiner, I was there. I'm about to fly home. I'll have more to say after I get back home.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 10, 2010 13:01:37 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Ringo Starr got his name on a Hollywood Star as a solo act in 2010? Is it because of his mediocre to lousy record sales since post-1974; is it for his acting career which never took off; or is it for a semi-annual tour of has-beens and increasingly one-hit wonders, said tours which long ago stopped booking the larger A-list venues and went to the decidedly B-list smaller theaters for ticket sale reasons only(and not for "artistic" reasons)?
Will there next be a serious argument here that Ringo belongs in the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as a solo act?
Just wondering while sitting out the snowstorm we are having here.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 10, 2010 15:12:02 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Ringo Starr got his name on a Hollywood Star as a solo act in 2010? Is it because of his mediocre to lousy record sales since post-1974; is it for his acting career which never took off; or is it for a semi-annual tour of has-beens and increasingly one-hit wonders, said tours which long ago stopped booking the larger A-list venues and went to the decidedly B-list smaller theaters for ticket sale reasons only(and not for "artistic" reasons)? Will there next be a serious argument here that Ringo belongs in the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as a solo act? Just wondering while sitting out the snowstorm we are having here. John: It must be the snow. I can't believe you're saying this. But it's this kind of argument that is the reason he really deserved the award. Session players who've worked with him marvel at his talent as a drummer both in and out of the Beatles. While not all of his albums have been fantastic, Paul McCartney has some embarrassing ones, too. The All-Starr Band is an enjoyment thing for him. He's said many times that playing with the All Starrs is fun because he likes to play. He picks great players and goes on the road. It's rare that you'll find a rocker as big as him go for that unassuming a reason. As for the Rock Hall, damn straight they should. But stupid Jann Wenner probably won't.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 10, 2010 17:34:54 GMT -5
[ John: It must be the snow. I can't believe you're saying this. Neither can I. No wait -- I can -- it's JSD.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 10, 2010 17:43:27 GMT -5
One aspect of the All Starr bands that doesn't get enough credit is the list of musicians Ringo puts on stage. In some cases these are people that might otherwise not get that kind of touring gig if they tried it alone. These shows bring some real good players out of the woodwork, and you get to see some really classic songs played live by those people. I think Ringo deseves an awful lot of credit for his active musical life since he quit the booze and got his shit together. I also think that you can't completely build a wall between John, Paul, George, and Ringo pre-1970, and post-1970. If a musician like Ringo goes into the R&RHOF under his own name then it should be looked at as his contribution to rock music for his entire career. Even though he happened to be in the Beatles, Ringo sort of made people notice the drummer in the back. He brought the drummer out from the shadows. He also sang live. These things, along with his great drumming itself was very much an individual accomplishment. IMO of course. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 10, 2010 18:20:42 GMT -5
[ John: It must be the snow. I can't believe you're saying this. Neither can I. No wait -- I can -- it's JSD. LOL! But seriously, what have I written that is inaccurate: poor record sales post-Goodnight Vienna; acting career that fizzled out years ago without even starting; and minor league tours with people who, as Snooks notes, could never tour on their own? We Beatles' fans have to get objective about Ringo. He was important to The Beatles but has had a solo career running on empty for a long time. It is based on the sheer strength of The Beatles legacy alone that we are even uttering the name Ringo Starr in 2010. Sometimes we Beatles' fans need to step out of our sheltered box and view the real world like everyone else does. Ringo is under the real world's radar.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 10, 2010 19:21:34 GMT -5
Neither can I. No wait -- I can -- it's JSD. LOL! But seriously, what have I written that is inaccurate: poor record sales post-Goodnight Vienna; acting career that fizzled out years ago without even starting; and minor league tours with people who, as Snooks notes, could never tour on their own? We Beatles' fans have to get objective about Ringo. He was important to The Beatles but has had a solo career running on empty for a long time. It is based on the sheer strength of The Beatles legacy alone that we are even uttering the name Ringo Starr in 2010. Sometimes we Beatles' fans need to step out of our sheltered box and view the real world like everyone else does. Ringo is under the real world's radar. Hey Sinatra had bad albums and bad periods, but overall, the music world owes him a ton. Same with Ringo. His drumming style made him a pioneer. I think the Hall of Fame designation is well-deserved, but again, politics (and Jann Wenner) will determine if he gets it.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Feb 10, 2010 22:06:20 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Ringo Starr got his name on a Hollywood Star as a solo act in 2010? Is it because of his mediocre to lousy record sales since post-1974; is it for his acting career which never took off; or is it for a semi-annual tour of has-beens and increasingly one-hit wonders, said tours which long ago stopped booking the larger A-list venues and went to the decidedly B-list smaller theaters for ticket sale reasons only(and not for "artistic" reasons)? Will there next be a serious argument here that Ringo belongs in the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as a solo act? Just wondering while sitting out the snowstorm we are having here. Now this is something that could bring me out of the woodwork. JSD is absolutely on the mark with this post. And what about that turnout of his friends? What's it cost these days to get a star anyway? And comparing his career to Sinatra's or McCartney's? They've had bad albums too?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 10, 2010 22:31:56 GMT -5
Neither can I. No wait -- I can -- it's JSD. LOL! But seriously, what have I written that is inaccurate: poor record sales post-Goodnight Vienna; acting career that fizzled out years ago without even starting; and minor league tours with people who, as Snooks notes, could never tour on their own? We Beatles' fans have to get objective about Ringo. He was important to The Beatles but has had a solo career running on empty for a long time. It is based on the sheer strength of The Beatles legacy alone that we are even uttering the name Ringo Starr in 2010. Sometimes we Beatles' fans need to step out of our sheltered box and view the real world like everyone else does. Ringo is under the real world's radar. IMO: ALL of the four fabs have had solo careers based on the "sheer strength of The Beatles legacy" when you get right down to it. Had The Beatles never existed, would we be paying $250/ticket today to see Paul McCartney Concerts? Would Paul have been as big as he is today w/o The Beatles? I doubt it. He probably would have formed his own band and written music for it. But would he have achieved world-famous status? Maybe not. 50-50 there IMO. Would John have had the discipline to build and carry a band to world-wide attention without the other 3 fabs? I doubt it. Would John and Paul have developed into such great legendary songwriters without each other to bounce ideas off of? Probably not. Average songwriters? Possible. Would George have played lead guiter for some other British band? Probably. Written all his later Beatle hits as well as solo hits without the Lennon/McCartney influence on him in his early days? Maybe. But his work in another band probably would not have achieved him the status he reached as a Beatle, which allowed him to pursue his solo work at the leisurely pace he did pursue it at, post 1970. And finally Ringo; would he have stayed with Rory Storm had The Beatles never existed? Probably. And gone on to any fame outside Britain? Doubtful. Does the legacy of The Beatles infer that all four members deserve individual accolades such as Stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or induction into the R&R HOF? IMO: yes, because in hindsight, without the contributions of any one of those four guys, the entity know as The Beatles would not have become as big as it was. The band is those four members. Collectively, they created The Beatles. So those contributions they did as members of the band alone mean they deserve the above mentioned individual accolades. The solo careers are footnotes (and some of them arer/were BIG Footnotes, and some not so big footnotes) to The Beatles as a band, but they belong to the legacy as well, for better or worse. So, IMO, Ringo deserves the Star and induction into the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 10, 2010 23:24:23 GMT -5
John Lennon once said something about Ringo to the effect that Ringo's natural talent would have surfaced even if there had been no Beatles. There are so many "what-if's" posted above - it's ridiculous. Maybe Rory Storm and the Hurricanes would have hit it big. Who's to say? By all accounts they were a hell of a band. In 1961 the Beatles were just another band. I think Ringo is a good ambassador for rock and roll. He's 70 and still out there entertaining. He has been recording original music for years now. Does it require that a performer hit the top-ten all the time to merit anything? The top ten sucks these days IMO. There are people in the HOF that had some great hits and then faded out, or died. Ringo's Beatle roots haven't been a guaranteed safety net. There was a time where he couldn't get on a major label. When the Beatles split he happened to be part owner of a label. And he came out of the gate blazing in the early 70's. He had a huge album, and a bunch of great singles. I thought he showed some balls releasing a counrty album, and a standards album to start his solo career. Had Ringo continued to burn out in a haze of drunkeness I would agree with some of the above thoughts. But I think he's been a strong part of the rock music scene since about the late 80's, and made a nice comeback. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by waitrose on Feb 11, 2010 7:54:42 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Ringo Starr got his name on a Hollywood Star as a solo act in 2010? Is it because of his mediocre to lousy record sales since post-1974; is it for his acting career which never took off; or is it for a semi-annual tour of has-beens and increasingly one-hit wonders, said tours which long ago stopped booking the larger A-list venues and went to the decidedly B-list smaller theaters for ticket sale reasons only(and not for "artistic" reasons)? Will there next be a serious argument here that Ringo belongs in the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as a solo act? Just wondering while sitting out the snowstorm we are having here. He got it because, in the words of Steve White: "Ringo starr the greatest pop drummer of all time"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 11, 2010 8:06:47 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Ringo Starr got his name on a Hollywood Star as a solo act in 2010? Is it because of his mediocre to lousy record sales since post-1974; is it for his acting career which never took off; or is it for a semi-annual tour of has-beens and increasingly one-hit wonders, said tours which long ago stopped booking the larger A-list venues and went to the decidedly B-list smaller theaters for ticket sale reasons only(and not for "artistic" reasons)? Will there next be a serious argument here that Ringo belongs in the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as a solo act? Just wondering while sitting out the snowstorm we are having here. Now this is something that could bring me out of the woodwork. JSD is absolutely on the mark with this post. But in fairness .... when people said they felt "Paul's voice is shot", you'd had enough and retreated back into the woodwork, Jim. What I'm asking is, is it okay to sling mud at Ringo but not Paul? On the contrary, I think it was Snookeroo whose post was exactly on the mark.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Feb 11, 2010 12:27:12 GMT -5
No mud. Just dispute anything in JSD original post, as he said. It's all true. The only "mud" was once again splattered on McCartney and Sinatra in Ringo's cause. To defend Ringo, Steve said Paul has had some "embarrassing" albums too.
First of all, the comparison in either case is ridiculous. But to drag extraordinary performers down in order to make Ringo's case? Come on. Must they be listed? Bad Boy, Ringo the 4th, etc.
And the last batch since Vertical Man? Does anyone really play these things for fun any more? Ringo didn't even have a copy of Everyone Wins (single b-side) in order to demo it for the band.
The All-Starr tours stopped mattering a long time ago. Great players? There's guys from Mr. Mister and the Romantics on this one, right? We're not talking about Jack Bruce or even Dave Edmunds. Sadly, this situation will only get worse as the years pass.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 11, 2010 12:37:16 GMT -5
No mud. Just dispute anything in JSD original post, as he said. It's all true. The only "mud" was once again splattered on McCartney and Sinatra in Ringo's cause. To defend Ringo, Steve said Paul has had some "embarrassing" albums too. First of all, the comparison in either case is ridiculous. But to drag extraordinary performers down in order to make Ringo's case? Come on. Must they be listed? Bad Boy, Ringo the 4th, etc. And the last batch since Vertical Man? Does anyone really play these things for fun any more? Ringo didn't even have a copy of Everyone Wins (single b-side) in order to demo it for the band. The All-Starr tours stopped mattering a long time ago. Great players? There's guys from Mr. Mister and the Romantics on this one, right? We're not talking about Jack Bruce or even Dave Edmunds. Sadly, this situation will only get worse as the years pass. Great players is a relative term. And playing with them as a band may be more satisfying than you think. I know when I saw the ASB in 2008, I was amazed how good they were. Who'd a thought that group of guys would be so enjoyable? But they were. Is this partly a private thing? I think so. Is that good? Maybe, maybe not. But Ringo doesn't seem to be the guy who carries that ego thing around with him that much. A Beatle takes out a group of not-front-line players and makes a great show out of them. That's something, I think.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 11, 2010 13:48:12 GMT -5
Friends I am just trying to be objective for once about Ringo's solo career. Ringo was an innovative drummer with The Beatles(and he had ideas help there) and I said above that Ringo was important with The Beatles. Ringo clearly belongs in the R&RHF and Walk of Stars as a Beatle. No doubt about it.
I am talking solo career here. Name any solo Ringo drumming that any other famous drummer has claimed influenced him/her. I'll get your list of solo drumming songs ("Back Off Boogaloo" I bet someone offers) but you won't be able to quote a famous drummer influenced by Ringo's post 1970 drumming. In my opinion, Ringo's last innovative drumming was on John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. The different fills and twists on "God" are magnificent. That was the end of Ringo as an innovative drummer.
"Drumming Is My Madness" sums up the nadir of Ringo's solo drumming. Hell, on most of those solo albums Ringo uses additional drummers just like in his concerts.
I am not anti-Ringo; I am being objective about a very precarious and thin solo career. Ringo can always boast of one great solo album and that was of course RINGO. That was also a very, very long time ago. Ringo should have gotten his solo Star of Fame in 1973/74 if at all. Not now. This is a sympathy thing and maybe that is what I wanted to avoid coming out and saying.
I take it my friends here also believe that Ringo Starr should be given a Super Bowl Halftime show like Paul McCartney, the Stones, Petty, Prince, Springsteen and the Who?
Ringo has rightly earned the highest musical accolades possible as 1/4 of The Beatles. These new solo accolades are being handed out by the "Old Guard" who are "pretty vacant" (as the Sex Pistols might scream) on fresh ideas.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Feb 11, 2010 13:59:24 GMT -5
Ringo can always boast of one great solo album and that was of course RINGO. That was also a very, very long time ago. I must disagree with you there, Johnny. Ringo has done some really good albums since the 'Ringo' album. I submit that 'Time Takes Time', 'Vertical Man' and the most current one, 'Y Not', are among his best solo albums with some of the best drumming Ringo has done since the Beatles' days. You have to admit that the musicianship on those albums are all excellent. I'm very happy Ringo got his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he deserves it. And I'm looking forward to celebrating his 70th birthday on July 7th at Radio City Music Hall along with JoeK. And if anyone else from the board is going to this show, gives us a heads up. Hopefully we can all get together early for a toast.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 11, 2010 14:19:14 GMT -5
Hollywood stars aren't always given at the most appropriate times. The fact it was given to Ringo now means little. He got it. Now, how about that knighthood?
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Feb 11, 2010 14:32:05 GMT -5
Ringo can always boast of one great solo album and that was of course RINGO. That was also a very, very long time ago. I must disagree with you there, Johnny. Ringo has done some really good albums since the 'Ringo' album. I submit that 'Time Takes Time', 'Vertical Man' and the most current one, 'Y Not', are among his best solo albums with some of the best drumming Ringo has done since the Beatles' days. You have to admit that the musicianship on those albums are all excellent. Among his best -- and I submit that's not saying much. He doesn't seem to have anything meaningful left to say. The drumming? Nothing special. Many people can competently play instruments. Doesn't mean the result isn't tedious, bland.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Feb 11, 2010 14:33:32 GMT -5
Hollywood stars aren't always given at the most appropriate times. The fact it was given to Ringo now means little. He got it. Now, how about that knighthood? Steve: He got it, yes. But are these bought? Seriously. I'd like to hear an investigation of that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 11, 2010 16:10:55 GMT -5
Friends I am just trying to be objective for once about Ringo's solo career. But that's just it, John. It isn't fair when you keep on saying "well, I'm just trying to be objective", as though the rest of us saluting Ringo deliberately refuse to be objective, or are incapable of being objective. Speaking for myself, at least, I can criticize all four, no problem. Well, you've admitted here that you think Ringo DOES deserve it as a solo artist -- only that "it should have been back in 73/74, not now". But haven't you heard of stars getting awards later in life? Sometimes actors don't even get respected with their awards until after they're dead. Ringo deserves it for the solo hits he's had in the '70s, as well as for the last 20+ years of steady sobriety and activity in the rock world, still releasing albums and playing with the All-Starr's. Well, that's just a matter of personal taste. I'd rather see Ringo than Springsteen or Prince. But generally speaking -- why not Ringo? He was one of the Beatles, after all. John and George are dead. What's wrong with a Halftime Show for the 95% watching who've never seen this particular member of The Beatles, having him singing IT DON'T COME EASY, PHOTOGRAPH, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS, and YELLOW SUBMARINE? How many "legends of the 60s" are left? Thank God for that, with fans who think like you do on this subject, JSD!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 11, 2010 16:24:34 GMT -5
No mud. Just dispute anything in JSD original post, as he said. It's all true. I disputed some things. Not only do I think Everyone Wins is a good song, I think it's better than ANYTHING from Paul's DRIVING RAIN album! ;D So too are Ringo's new songs Fill In The Blanks, Peace Dream, Walk With You, and The Other Side of Liverpool! That's already FIVE better songs than anything on Paul's DRIVING RAIN for me! And in answer to your question -- while Ringo's post-VERTICAL MAN discs are not great, they STILL each have one to three (or more) songs on each of them that beat out Paul's DR! To date, McCartney's lousy DRIVING RAIN album holds the distinction of being the ONE solo effort which I don't like even a single track off! No kidding! Even BAD BOY, RINGO THE 4th, ROTOGRAVURE, SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY, BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES all have more enjoyable songs on them for me! What a terrible, terrible attitude. Ringo could have still been a drunk (or dead) by this time, never even having made it to the first All-Starr's. Here is a man who sobered up, turned it around, and is now in better physical shape and looking far less his age than old man Macca, and still keeping amazingly active for a guy of 70. Who ever thought when the Beatles were in their 20s or 30s that we'd still be excited about going to Radio City Music Hall in NYC in 2010 for one of their 70th birthdays? If I had my way, would I prefer a different All-Starr lineup? You bet I would (though I do love a couple of Romantics songs which I used to club-hop to in the '80s, which I'm sure they'll be playing). Has the initial magic worn off since first seeing Ringo in the '80s and early '90s? Sure, a little bit. Same thing with Paul, truth be told... but at least the man is among us, still active and doing it. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 11, 2010 17:30:11 GMT -5
I must disagree with you there, Johnny. Ringo has done some really good albums since the 'Ringo' album. I submit that 'Time Takes Time', 'Vertical Man' and the most current one, 'Y Not', are among his best solo albums with some of the best drumming Ringo has done since the Beatles' days. You have to admit that the musicianship on those albums are all excellent. Among his best -- and I submit that's not saying much. He doesn't seem to have anything meaningful left to say. The drumming? Nothing special. Many people can competently play instruments. Doesn't mean the result isn't tedious, bland. That's it in a nutshell, Jim. Ringo has made some decent albums starting in 1992 and on but, as Jim says, decent compared only to Ringo's own 1975 to 1991 output. Not decent when compared to whatever other music was popular since 1992. Ringo's drumming since 1992, when he seems to have really made an effort to do all or most of the studio drumming on his albums(I think maybe he did all the drumming on the very forgettable Old Wave) is nicely competent. Not innovative, but competent. Again, show me quotes from famous drummers who say the drumming on Verticle Man influenced them or caused them to be a drummer! ;D I wish Ringo would be the sole drummer on an entire album by Bob Dylan, Neil Young or some other serious singer/songwriter and not just on his own claptrap songs. Ringo's last great drumming was on JL/POB. Ringo would never do this because he would have to work too hard, get serious with his drumming, and take recommendations from others with more musical skill and knowledge. Hey, those were the elements that made him a great drummer with The Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 11, 2010 17:40:40 GMT -5
[ Again, show me quotes from famous drummers who say the drumming on Verticle Man influenced them or caused them to be a drummer! ;D Well, if they WERE influenced by VERTICAL MAN, they'd be 11 or 12 years old in this famous rock band today. The guy's lucky he can still hold a stick at 70. Give him a break.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Feb 11, 2010 18:31:27 GMT -5
If you look at things in perspective, what have any of US done that even comes close to what Ringo has done in his career? All of us combined couldn't even come close to less than one percent of what Ringo has accomplished. And who are we anyway? A bunch of schlubs hunched over our computer keyboards posting on an internet message board. Boy, that's a great achievement, that's an accomplishment! At least Steve's a journalist with an impressive set of credentials and contacts. I'm an actor who would love to be a little bit more successful, and I'll keep at it, and if I had even 5% of the career Ringo has had, that would be ok.
Ringo is more than deserving of the honors he receives. The fact that he's still making new music, still performing live and still making people happy, and all this AFTER being in the Beatles, is quite a lot for one person to have achieved in one lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 11, 2010 22:34:40 GMT -5
If you look at things in perspective, what have any of US done that even comes close to what Ringo has done in his career? All of us combined couldn't even come close to less than one percent of what Ringo has accomplished. And who are we anyway? A bunch of schlubs hunched over our computer keyboards posting on an internet message board. Boy, that's a great achievement, that's an accomplishment! At least Steve's a journalist with an impressive set of credentials and contacts. I'm an actor who would love to be a little bit more successful, and I'll keep at it, and if I had even 5% of the career Ringo has had, that would be ok. ........ That's kind of hard, Fred. I would like to think that everyone on this Board has done(and continue to do) things in our real lives that make the world a little better, at least in our little corners of it. You weren't suggesting that only you and Steve from this Board have accomplished anything in life? You were kind of exclusive there, not that I am not impressed with your accomplishments. Maybe we should have a Curriculum Vitae Thread! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Feb 11, 2010 22:35:10 GMT -5
To sum up a few of the Pro-Star(r) points then: * Joe: Ringo is better than Prince or Bruce Springsteen. (Actually, Ringo's not even a better drummer than Prince.) * Ringo is alive and sober. And he's been both for years so he deserves a reward -- oh, and also for two or three "good" songs per album. * Joe doesn't care for Driving Rain. * Steve: "great players" is a relative phrase. So I guess it's reasonable to rate the Romantics up there with Cream? * Fred: none among us (except Steve...by a back peddle), have accomplished anything approaching Ringo. * Fred: "contacts" "I realized what a ridiculous lie my whole life has been." -- Biff Loman
|
|