Ringo Starr's ranked as the 14th best drummer of all time on the Rolling Stone's top 100 drummers... Do you believe he deserves the spot? Yes? No? Why? I'm not a musician so I don't have an opinion on whether he does or not and how he compares to others technically. All I know is that he's the drummer in my favourite band and he's one of the few that really makes me listen out to what he's playing. Come Together made me starting paying attention to drums in songs when I was younger... Rain, She Said She Said, Ticket to Ride, Boys, A Day In the Life, Not a Second Time, Something, Cry Baby Cry, etc. were a continuation of that.
In my opinion, no, he doesn't deserve to be 14th, but top three. If I could choose any drummer for my band, Ringo would be at or near the top of the list. Having a drummer in my band who listens, will play parts given by other band members with no fuss, plays rock solid, for the song, with a recognisable character and style of his own, and great sound and feel,.......is all I could wish for.
He definitely earns a spot on the list, not only for his skills but just the enormous influence he’s had on so many drummers after him, not to mention how many drum sets he probably helped sell in the sixties. I’m sure the Ludwig company would say he’s number 1
Seems about right. Ringo is Top 20, a versatile drummer with all kinds of textures and feels in his trick bag, and obviously the amount of hits he played on and helped to make great speaks for itself, but ultimately he's not one of the very best in terms of talent. The perfect drummer for the Fabs, though. A great bloke, pretty humble and charisma for days. I bet Ringo is pleased to be ranked #14!
Yes - he would be my first choice to drum with my band, even anonymously. And if I could get one Beatle to anonymously contribute an instrumental part to a recording of one of my songs - Ringo would be my first choice (followed by Paul, George, John - the order in which I rank them purely as musicians)
I like Ringo. He did what was needed, and well. I guess from an influence level, that's a fair rating. 14th best drummer ever ... not even close
He played perfect parts that could not be improved upon on the ~200 best recordings ever made by rock bands. which I presume is Rolling Stone's focus. Not sure why he didn't get #1 in that category. Who did they dare put above him and what recordings did they play on that arguably touch those 200? He is obviously not among the top jazz, symphonic, martial, taiko, Indian or African drummers so if the top 13 slots were awarded based on such expertise it is understandable. Rock isn't the be all and end all of drumming for sure.
Well he's the one we're talking about instead of the other 99... or even the 13 above him! I wonder who they are?
Charlie Watts was rated higher at 12th John Bonham #1, Keith Moon #2 Fawning over Beatles sickens me until I put on one of their albums. Then it hits me again that it really was deserved and Richard Starkey was a big part of their excellence.
Anyone who puts any kind of validity into what the Rolling Stone thinks is sadly misguided. Forgetting this whole ranking of drummers (which is a stupid sport done by people who can’t play any instruments themselves), Ringo Starr was great with The Beatles. What he lacked in chops, he made up for with inventive parts that weren’t so square and ordinary sounding. I mean a case in point would be listening to Sgt. Pepper’s for example. There are so many parts that he came up with that completely fit the piece of music. He’s not flashy and was never an astounding technical drummer, but he didn’t have to be. Technical proficiency isn’t the only measure of greatness, IMHO.
