Beatles without Ringo and George

My Sweet Lord was a number one single.

 

Hallelujah! Was that The Beatles or The Chiffons?

Would The Beatles have made it in "the biz" without John and Paul? George was a capable songwriter, capable of writing great songs, and a great guitar player. Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool, and to many......the world.

 

It's a strange phenomenon, isn't it?

Has anyone ever found a quote from a respected or successful pop/rock drummer, who 'knocks' Ringo or thinks he wasn't very good?

Rather than just criticism from people who really don't know what they're talking about?

 

What is next - what if Paul had married Yoko?

 

?? I'm saying that people are taking your response literally. That's all.

 

They can take it any way they like. To me, it goes without saying that The Beatles in any other incarnation that what we got wouldn't have been the same. Heck, I don't even like the re-mixes. I wanna hear the records just as they were originally released. So, endless pages of people sticking up for George and Ringo, or putting them down, is just meaningless. Why bother? I'm not gonna engage with that. That doesn't mean that I can't find humour in the thread though.

 

“How many Beatles does it take to change a lightbulb?
The answer is “Four”
That’s it, really”

Derek Taylor

 

So were "Photograph" (R&G) and "Your Sixteen" (R&P)

 

Aye, Ringo could have been huge all on his own.

 

The great bands have a chemistry. Whether personal, musical or both.

The band would have been different without George and Ringo, but as to "in what way?" .... we'll never know

 

More very good points as usual; I couldn't agree more on Clapton. Laughable consideration. One thing we both see eye to eye on is how the four of them worked together and off one another as "one". A musician of Clapton's approach would be a sore thumb in such a "mix".

 

Better.

 

And after the Beatles split and Lennon did his first solo album, he could have had his choice of drummers. He chose Ringo.

 

This.

I never understood how countless people that claim to “get” Lennon constantly miss this.

He didn’t like Sentimental Journey, he didn’t like some of McCartney’s granny songs and he certainly had personal issues with Paul - but he never would cross the line and criticize their talents or abilities. He could be equally vitriolic with anyone who dared criticize any of them or the Beatles as a whole, too.

 

George and Ringo gave them too much personality and without them they’d be great but much less so.

 

The Beatles are my favorite band ever, and yeah, they had great chemistry. I wouldn’t change a thing. But do you really think Ringo or George would have had successful solo careers if they had never been in The Beatles? Just speculating, but I just don’t think so. Like I said earlier, John and Paul’s songwriting is what sent them into the stratosphere. George and Ringo were in the right place at the right time, but I’m glad it was them that were along for the ride.

 

I haven’t. Drummers tend to express nothing but admiration for Ringo, IME.

 

The band loved Ringo especially in the studio for his consistency between dozens of takes, in fact they asked for him by name when hiring a new drummer. Ringo was a big part of The Beatles' jangly sound. George wrote some of their hardest rockers like I Me Mine and Taxman, he was a good foil to Paul's "silly love songs".

 

I don’t quite agree with the “along for the ride” part of this (because they would simply have been a different band, with a different sound, which may not have caught on the same), but I see no reason at all to think either Ringo or George would have had recording careers, much less “huge” careers. I mean, we’ll never know that, either, but it doesn’t seem like either of them were going that direction as of when they each joined the band.

 

I hear what you're saying but I think this can apply to almost any Beatles thread. Discussions about them are like Groundhog's Day at this point so I just see it as an excuse to talk about them which I always find fun. I agree with your overall point though.

 

"The only thing you done was Yesterday
And since you've gone you're just Another Day."

 

I believe Phil Spector came up with that lyric & John approved.

 

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious. But let's speculate for a moment. If The Beatles had been hugely successful without George and Ringo then Merseybeat would still have been a phenomenon and Ringo being the best drummer on Merseyside would have elevated whatever band he ended up in, and I'm sure that George would have gotten in some band or other and may also been reasonably successful as he was a handsome bloke, good guitar player, became a decent songwriter and was a friend of Paul McCartney's. Perhaps he would have signed to Apple in '68.

 

I'm not referring to peacemaking. George was important as a middle-ground between Paul and John. He knew Paul well, had his trust, and shared his drive to take the band seriously. At the same time he shared John's rebellious nature and tendency to "expand his mind". For both he was a source of encouragement when they felt they'd reached a dead-end. Whenever there was tension about the musicianship of a member, Paul had an ally in George. Whenever John wanted to go a step further than Paul would go, George was with him. Between The Quarrymen years, Stu Sutcliffe, and Pete Best, George was the only one who cared as much as they did, who stuck through and was consistently reliable.

He was someone other people found likable when they were unsure of one of the other two (the Astrid/Klaus clique for example), and he had a supportive family. The stability he brought and his ability to last as lead guitarist shouldn't be taken for granted.

You can take that up with Mark Lewisohn then because Tune In shows him repeatedly helping them learn, adapt their equipment, and adjust their image. He was the one who got The Quarrymen the gig at The Casbah, he got Mal to join them, and he brought Ringo in. John and Paul had a lot going for them but they weren't superhuman. They had setbacks like everyone else. Paul held off on things because he didn't want to spend the money or disappoint his dad while John lacked focus and wasn't so bothered about the technical side.

I'm not ignoring it. The problem is they didn't want to be the kings of the North. They got bored and wanted something much bigger, and they knew the drummers they had weren't right for that. Ringo made everything fit together in a way it never had before, and they needed that to go to the next level.

 

Yeah, plenty of non-Beatle musicians from Liverpool were relatively successful so I don't see why Ringo and George would have trouble finding bands, especially with Ringo being the best drummer around. They got along so well they might've ended up working together anyway.