What would The Beatles have sound like without Ringo?....

Not exactly a ringing endorsement....

 

Do you mean, Ringo having never been in the group? Then we may have never heard them, nor never heard of them, there might never have been a British Invasion, and therefore this question would never have been considered.
NO RINGO --- TRULY A UNIVERSE-SHAKING NON-EVENT(s). PARADOX ! OMG!!!

 

He increased the popularity of the Beatles immensely. He sold records to fans the Rolling Stones could not reach.

 

You mean hysterical, as in writing with caps lock and slightly passive-aggressive? I see what you mean.

 

The Beatles with Bobby Elliott would have been Powerpop.

 

LOL...I'm laughing, you are funny! keep it up. : )

 

and some believe this...; )

 

I don't know what to make of it really?

 

he's part of the sound we grew up with! we will always love him...good or bad.

 

I know, i was going to try to track those down and post a link when i saw the thread title. They were spit-my-tea-on-the- computer funny! Fair to Pete? Maybe not but very entertaining.

 

there is always someone better...so true.

 

It’s classic!!!!

 

What Makes Ringo A Great Drummer.

 

They would have sounded like Rush

 

Of course there's no Beatles without Ringo. He could play his drums even remotely!

 

not exactly a ringing endorsement...

 

yesterday would be massively improved with a ringo style blast beat or 3

 

They would have sounded Ringoless.

 

This video is idiotic, particularly the tedious analysis of the way he hits the hi-hat as "lazy drumming". Love or hate him, that makes no sense.

 

Ringo isn't a bad drummer at all, i don't know why anyone would think that. Take away Ringo from the Beatles records and you have a flat groove (Back In the USSR, etc)

Ringo has that touch that just gives the Beatles a bit of a different sound compared to other bands of the era, in-fact most of the 60s groups rely on the fact their drummers had a unique touch.

 

As a drummer, Ringo was often barely sufficient. His beats are tepid, characterless and uncreative. When the tune’s slow, Ringo plays like Levon Helm on downers, struggling to fill the space. When the Beatles take it up-tempo, you can almost hear Ringo holding them back.

 

A little bit different, but sorta the same, except for the Ringo songs.
Ringo was the perfect drummer for them though.

 

Without Ringo they would have either been (forced to be) far less versatile in their stylistic reach, or they would have been just as versatile, but would have needed to use session drummers at least 1/4 of the time.

Ringo could handle anything they threw at him. He never needed to be replaced by a studio drummer, and plenty of (so-called) better drummers than him have been replaced by other drummers in the studio on a song or two (or even a few) in their careers for not being able to play in a style that a particular song requires. AFAIK that never happened with Ringo.

For those who claim that Ringo was "the luckiest drummer ever" - consider this: They had their sights set on getting Ringo in the band long before he agreed to join. They all considered him to be the best drummer in Liverpool. So why didn't he join sooner if they were so keen on him - because at that time, it would have been A STEP DOWN for his career. He was making far more money with Rory Storm than he would have made with The Beatles. It wasn't until they had the EMI contract that he felt they had anything to offer him.

Prior to that point THEY would have been extremely lucky to get HIM.

 

I'm sure you're good and efficient but sorry I'll take these guys work for it..