A case for Ringo Starr's induction in the Rock Hall

Brother, you've got me convinced!! Yes!

 

Leon Russell?

 

When is Pete Best getting in?

 

What not just create a category called Beatles related and make it transparent?

You could create a ballot the looks something like this.

Pete Best
Stu Sutcliffe
Klaus Voorman
Yoko
Linda McCartney
Billy Preston
Tony Sheridan
Mark Lewisohn
Eric Clapton (Again for playing on When My Guitar Gently Weeps)
Abby Road Studios
The Cavern Club
India
L.S.D.

 

OK, but he could have been inducted for his hits, considering he's had more than others who've already been inducted.

 

I'm not the only fan I've talked to who feels this way. In fact, I got the "John is now marginalized" lingo from someone else; I did not invent it. It is true that these days it is Paul McCartney who is considered to be "The Beatles" by many Macca-maniacs. Just look at this forum.

That's your feeling; others agree with you, and others do not. We've talked about this in other threads, but John technically released only 7 proper studio albums in the 7 years he was recording. That is not a very long time, yet with those 7 albums he has 2 "Classics", and at least 3 "good albums" (5 of 7). He also had some successful singles, including a #1 -- which is more than almost any other artist could ask for within the same parameters.

And a MUCH better case than most others who've been inducted into the HOF.

 

India is perhaps just a tad too large to fit in the RnRHoF, but it'd be cool to see Ravi Shankar in there.

 

It is what it is. That's like saying The Beatles wouldn't have had any hits if not for meeting Brian Epstein and George Martin.

It's also like saying Elvis doesn't belong in the HOF because everyone else wrote all his hit songs, and the Jordanaires helped on the recordings.

By the way, Ringo's solo hits are good songs (and he wrote or so-wrote some!). They're not just riding coattails.

 

Pete Townshend should have been in before Ringo.

 

I'm curious - did Pete have more solo hits than Ringo...?

 

Don't really care. His songs and lyrics are more interesting.

 

That's not what I asked, if you cared or not. I don't care about 90% of those artists who've already been inducted into the RNRHOF.
It has to be more objective than that.

 

I don't know that charting placings or albums sales of either artist.

However, the process is not objective as is and it is political besides.

 

Yeah, you're right about that one. Leon can't headline venues as big as the ones Ringo plays, but he can definitely tour solo and headline shows...

 

Paul gets more discussion than John because he's alive and active. Paul has 34 years more work than John and tours - of course he's going to be discussed a lot more.

I don't agree than many people here regard McCartney as "the Beatles". I think you see slights against Lennon where none exist...

Some others? Yes. Most others? No.

Like I said, I still think Lennon "maybe" deserved induction. I don't strongly agree with the choice, but I don't strongly disagree either...

 

I'm not referring to 'amount of discussion', I have been referring to putting John down and building Paul up, in practically any discussion.

Slights against John exist right in your own words here, for starters.
But I think it's fair to say too, that there are even more forum members who perceive slights against McCartney where none exist; a lot of people get up in arms when anyone even dares to say anything even remotely non-worshipping of The Mighty Macca.

 

Am I in the wrong thread?

 

Conversation tends to ebb and flow. And actually, I suppose the other three Beatles are inevitable to come up whenever discussing something like Ringo's HOF induction. (Someone else brought up the comparisons to Lennon and McCartney's worthiness of the HOF as compared to Ringo).

 

I suppose. Personally, I get weary of seeing these guys pitted, and matched up, against each other all the time. But I guess that's just the way it will always be!

 

In other words, you perceive John being put down and Paul built up. I don't see the same thing.

You perceive slights in my words. I don't see the same thing...

 

There's an eloquent argument.

Rather than roll your eyes, how about you present these clear, obvious slights I committed against Lennon?

 

If not as a solo act, but as a drummer, he deserves it. Huge influence on rock music drumming styles to this day. The William the Conqueror of drummers.

Plus, there was Caveman.

 

I think you know well enough by now that I am fully competent in holding up my own end of an argument. But I thought I'd let you off the hook by NOT doing that, and keeping things quieter by just rolling my eyes, and letting things return to Ringo Talk. But since you insist... go back and read your own posts here. ("Paul - YES ... John - MAYBE"...). Or just go into any thread where we're discussing Lennon and where you consistently put down both him and his solo work.

 

Saying "maybe" John should be in the HOF is a "slight"? I "consistently" put down John and his work?

Again: I put down/slight John in your mind. Not agreeing with you that John is the greatest doesn't equal "slight"/"putting down"...