Beatles without Ringo and George

Take away either Ringo or George, and I doubt they would have been 'big' at all, definitely not as big.

 

I agree. George and Ringo created a sound and style for themselves that fit The Fab perfectly.

 

if in Toronto, let me know, a beer is a must

 

I have a few Dan-heads in my life, with no love for those Beatles or Stones, somehow...

it takes all kinds and tastes

i forward them the SD threads and they shake their heads and sigh or moan softly in pain.

 

Both were very important. No, vitally important.

George not only provided additional harmonies, interesting runs and leads and counter melodies, but as a songwriter a) took a bit of the burden off Paul and John, as well as b) enhanced most all the albums from the mid period on with a style and direction that otherwise wouldn't have been explored. Clapton, for example, is of course an excellent player and would have complimented many songs well (for example While My Guitar...), but he would have likely stayed a pretty straight player (feel free to disagree) who didn't provide the aforementioned other directions, etc. Adequate? Yes. Transcendental? (for lack of a better word) No.

Ringo even more so. He wrote drum parts that are only for those songs. Ticket to Ride is recognizable without any other instrument. And there are many other examples. Would we really want Keith Moon being hyperactive all over We Can Work It Out or In My Life, etc? No. (Though he'd have been a riot on Helter Skelter.) Ringo was steady, controlled, and disciplined. Ginger would have been ok, but he's SO plodding at times, heavy handed, and a third ego of that caliber would have blown them apart before Rubber Soul.

When you have a perfect formula, you don't try to enhance the flavor or effects.

 

George's arch-nasal harmonies and arch-nasal finger-pointing worldview are a huge part of it all. Paul blended in perfectly like yeast for most harmonies, wish they had pulled him out a bit more like in Norwegian Wood...

 

I love George and Ringo. But if their drummer and lead guitarist had been Bob elliott and Tony hicks they woul have been just as huge. Different, but the lennon and mccartney songs and harmonies were 80% of the show almost till the end.

 

They wouldn't be the Beatles without George.

You could have replaced Ringo, but he would need an intuitive sense of what works for the songs, like Ringo did.

 

There is no way of knowing.

 

No, they wouldn’t. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, very subtle, he could do the rock stuff but chose not too if it didn’t serve the song. See side two of Abbey Road as evidence.

George wrote some great songs & took some pressure off at the end.

 

John Lennon created The Beatles and fashioned them in his own image.
One man with four heads.
George and Ringo are completely integral to that vision.

 

Yeah, its not like there was any acrimony in their breakup or anything.

 

Need all four - collectively, they were the best of the best.
Just listen to "Stars of 63" on Swingin Pig OR "Johnny & the Moondogs" - same recording.
Even the newly released "rooftop" show. From the nanosecond of the very first note - those guys were amazingly tight.
Nobody even remotely close.

 

The Ballad Of John & Yoko was a number 1 single.

 

Better WINGS!

 

CHECKMATE

 

I heard a radio interview with Carl Palmer, probably a decade ago, where he was asked about Ringo. Carl's reply was "He was the perfect drummer for that band"

 

I said to my wife 'you better shoot me'

 

I don’t get it, but it takes all kinds as you said. In my mind I think there’s a lot of similarities between the two bands. I think they’re what Lennon/McCartney would have done had the groundwork been laid. The problem is The Beatles had to do their thing so it’s a paradox.

 

Ringo was also very important to the band's image in the early days; they even ran him for President in '64.



If you asked an innocent bystander (not a mega fan) at the time what they knew about the Beatles, they would respond, in order: hair, yeah yeah yeah, Ringo. He stood out from the other three for his name alone.

The Mosquitoes on Gilligan's Island were called Bingo, Bango, Bongo and Irving. They weren't called Bohn, Baul, Beorge and Irving!

 

No George, no sitar? That was a key addition, not only to the Beatles music, but also to the whole '60s counterculture. Other artists could have introduced the Indian instrument into rock/pop music (indeed, there were previous attempts by the Kinks and the Yardbirds imitating that sound with guitar) but I guess the impact would not have been the same.

 

The whole was greater than the sum of its writing pair.

 

Don't forget Brain Jones, who play an actual sitar on "Paint It Black."

 

That's easy! No George and Ringo = no Beatles.

 

They would have been Tears for Fears.