Beatles without Ringo and George

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by flaxton, May 13, 2022.

  1. edrebber

    edrebber Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    They got a recording contract with EMI without Ringo and the US version of Love Me Do was a platinum selling single with Andy White playing drums, instead of Ringo, but his vocals on the singles Yellow Submarine and to a lesser extent Matchbox and Act Naturally are iconic. He attracted a fan demographic that they otherwise would not have had.

    On the other hand, we may never have heard of the Beatles, if it wasn't for Pete Best because of his connection to the Cavern Club and his availability as a drummer to travel to Hamburg.

    George was singing an equal number of songs as Lennon and McCartney before EMI so they may not have made it to EMI without George, but he didn't have a hit single until 1969's Something. His harmony vocals and guitar playing certainly helped with their sound. His Indian music was unique and popular , and he certainly attracted a demographic they otherwise wouldn't have had. He seems to have the most popular Beatles song now, Here Comes the Sun, so he might be one of the driving forces of their present day popularity.
     
  2. Black Cat Surfboards

    Black Cat Surfboards Forum Resident

    Location:
    Delaware, USA
    Probably depends on who the different drummer and guitarist are. As much as Ringo gets knocked, I thought his drumming fit the Beatles just fine, but suspect they could have had a similar career trajectory with other drummers.

    On the other hand, I can't imagine the Beatles without George Harrison. There's pure magic in "Something" "Here Comes the Sun" and "While my guitar gently weeps" Irreplaceable beauty right there.
     
    Paulwalrus and stanlove like this.
  3. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england
    Ringo's praise is worthy, but Pete and his mother are hugely overlooked. Possibly more important since the record contract, which Pete played a pertinent part in them getting, is the only reason we have heard of them as an elite band. Plenty of good bands have been out of luck and flown under the radar.

    The talents and songwriting of John & Paul would have eventually got them signed, but in the mid 60's rather than the early 60's may have seen a hugely different outcome.

    I put Pete behind John, Paul, George. Ringo comes 5th. Pete was a worse drummer, singer and personality, but he and his family were instrumental in making the Beatles the Beatles.
     
  4. bewareofchairs

    bewareofchairs Forum Resident

    The problem with this line of thinking imo is that it presumes everything would've fallen into place without George and Ringo, and ultimately it didn't. There's a solid chance John and Paul's friendship doesn't make it past the number of hardships they experienced without George being between them. Not to mention him pushing them to improve their instruments and style. The three meandered for ages before Ringo finally came along and made them a complete functioning unit.

    Even small things like the two of them being able to handle those two egos and being humble enough to not do outlandish solos was crucial to them standing out.

    There were a lot of cool guys around in the 60s. Very few of them were quite as memorable individually as George and Ringo.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2022
  5. cwitt1980

    cwitt1980 Senior Member

    Location:
    Carbondale, IL USA
    Reminds me of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut butter and jelly.
     
  6. Leugi

    Leugi Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC
    Agree about Mona and Pete

    Without them we just can’t assume they would have made it…. Playing the Casbah was a huge break…they weren’t playing at the time…basically on hiatus…Mona going across the street seeing George with his other band and offering them the Casbah was a huge break…can we assume they would have gotten another break before perhaps they splintered ? It seems their bond was very tight but when bands can’t play live they die…
     
  7. DK Pete

    DK Pete Forum Resident

    Location:
    Levittown. NY
    All great counterpoints which one can argue and I honestly don’t know which side would win. Do you feel this also specifically applies to the records? That’s the part I’m less sure on. Yes, what George and Ringo played was perfect for those recordings; but aren’t there different versions of “perfect”?
     
  8. Jamey K

    Jamey K Internet Sensation

    Location:
    Amarillo,Texas
    I keep telling myself I'm falling for the clickbait subject title. Ok, next time for sure.
     
  9. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england
    I may be missing something here, but what events are you referring to? I can only think of a few times John and Paul fell out and George was not a bridge in either of those events. He simply agreed with one over the other. Pretty sure a George replacement would have done the same.

    Brian and Ringo seem to be the more obvious peacemakers within the Beatle unit than George.


    I pretty much disagree with this idea that George Harrison was responsible for this. The entire reason John invited the younger Paul into his band is because he wanted to improve the band and wanted to improve his guitar playing and songwriting. John did not need someone else to push this onto him. Nor did Paul, who was also always searching to improve.

    With or without George these two would have been pushing themselves and the band they were in.



    Meandered? They'd gone from also-rans to the kings of the North of England and Hamburg, and secured a record contract.

    This is not meandering, they were noticeably improving their status. It was not as rapid as bands who would come after them and even some who came before, but they had gained so much ground in those two years. This should not be ignored just because Ringo enhanced them as a band.
     
  10. scoutbb

    scoutbb Forum Resident

    Location:
    LA
    There you go.
    I love George and Ringo and they fit in perfectly, and of course you can't think of The Beatles without them. History has already been written, but I think The Beatles would have been just as big without them. John and Paul made them famous. When you're in a band with the best songwriting duo of the 20th century, you have no choice but to be famous. I think John and Paul would have been successful even if they never met each other. If George and Ringo never joined the Beatles, you never would have heard of them.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2022
  11. @flaxton, genuine, serious question asked without insult, or hidden meaning.

    Why ask such a question?
     
  12. Monasmee

    Monasmee Forum Ruminant

    Location:
    Albuquerque NM
    Keep in mind that Ringo was a favorite early on especially after Ed Sullivan. So much so, they gave him a solo scene in A Hard Day’s Night. Heck, the OP even titled this thread with Ringo’s name first. In addition to his gifted drumming, this boy has star quality charisma.
     
    51IS, Big Blue and 2141 like this.
  13. scoutbb

    scoutbb Forum Resident

    Location:
    LA
    Yes he was. I don't see how some people might think that Paul was a better drummer than Ringo. Ringo could play a mean shuffle.
     
    Big Blue, AppleCorp3 and 2141 like this.
  14. Evethingandnothing

    Evethingandnothing Forum Resident

    Location:
    Devon
    It's possible. And that's the best we can say really. Talent and hard work don't always win out. Ya need a bit bit of luck/serendipity too.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  15. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    John Lennon said a lot of things, but he never said that Ringo "wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles." That's an internet myth that refuses to die.

    It would have been completely unlike him to make such a comment. Post-Beatles, he sometimes insulted Paul or George's songwriting, criticized their records, or made bitchy comments about them personally. But he never said anything negative about the instrumental abilities of any of his ex-bandmates. Anytime he ever commented on Ringo's playing, he was extremely complimentary.
     
    Paulwalrus, 51IS, AppleCorp3 and 3 others like this.
  16. bewareofchairs

    bewareofchairs Forum Resident

    It's interesting to think about.

    I guess for me, the first thing to come to mind is, what is it about The Beatles that made such an impression on me? John and Paul's songwriting was of course important to that but George and Ringo were as much so. Really it was the contrast between them and everyone else. Things like those three-part harmonies, Ringo's friendly deep voice (which in turn allowed The Beatles to write children's songs), the fact George was into country & western rather than the blues and the riffs he came up with as a result, the variety of genres they were able to cover thanks to both their unique talents, etc. Without the Indian influence, meditation, and trip to India their later era looks totally different. Abbey Road is different too without the moog, George's guitar, and of course his songs.

    People always mention Clapton as a possibility and that whole concept strikes me as awful.

    I just know that with the exception of the odd solo song on The White Album, I can tell when they aren't there and I don't like it. You might find two people who could hit a few of those boxes but not all of them imo.
     
    Paulwalrus, DK Pete and 2141 like this.
  17. linklinc1

    linklinc1 Forum Resident

    The Nerk Twins were great & would have been terrific otherwise some way or another...
    ... but...
    They would not have been The Beatles. They would have been, less than ...
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022
    2141 likes this.
  18. 2141

    2141 Forum Resident

    This completely misses the chemistry those 4 particular people had together. It was truly special in music and personality. Without that you wouldn't have had The Beatles. I'm sure they all could have done something else, different incarnations, but it would not have been nearly the phenomenon that actually happened.
     
    51IS and Big Blue like this.
  19. bewareofchairs

    bewareofchairs Forum Resident

    The Ballad of John and Yoko was after they were already huge names so I don't think that answers anything.
     
    Big Blue, linklinc1 and 2141 like this.
  20. Evethingandnothing

    Evethingandnothing Forum Resident

    Location:
    Devon
    It was a facetious reply to a ridiculous question. :)
     
    frightwigwam likes this.
  21. bewareofchairs

    bewareofchairs Forum Resident

    I'm more responding to people acting like it answers the question.
     
  22. Evethingandnothing

    Evethingandnothing Forum Resident

    Location:
    Devon
    It's a ridiculous question. What answer would you like?

    It's the fab four, not the fab two plus a couple of other blokes.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022
    kw21925 likes this.
  23. Trader Joe

    Trader Joe Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    'Beatles without George'.

    Yes please.
     
  24. Bill Larson

    Bill Larson Forum Resident

    [​IMG]
     
    audiotom likes this.
  25. Kerm

    Kerm Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    They’d probably have roughly the same odds of being a big famous band.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine