lpdeluxe Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Does that mean John burned in hell from 1980 until 2008? I guess that's enough punishment for making that statement. No, no, no. He was merely in Purgatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 No, it's US, that have burn in Hell, since 1980! LOL! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10drum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I thought I'd jump in. I was 12 years old in 1964, so I grew up with & was influenced by the Beatles. Seems like everyone is talking about the "individuals" who made up the Beatles. Maybe that is why they seem over rated. They were a band when they started and they stopped playing live because they had a weak drummer. A band plays together; that's what makes a "band" a "band". The Stones played the same crowds (without monitors) and Charlie Watts was strong enough to hold them together on stage. I love playing beatle songs and I respect any band who can perfrom their songs successfully on stage. All ten items on the over rated list are pretty lame, but not able to play live is a strong idicator that the Beatle were nothing more than a brillant marketing scheme witch produced some great songs. Over rated or not they opened the door for many of us to pick up a guitar and want to learn to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I don't think it was the technology or the drummer that made the band stop touring - I think it was exactly what the band said. They didn't matter. They could have mimed the entire performance, and no one would tell the difference. Screaming fans is one thing, but when they overpower the music, what's the point? That, in addition to the death threats, would stop me from touring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 A weak drummer??? NO, Friggin' Way, sorry!!! They were BORED, with touring when NO ONE listened to the music, they just came to scream at them, and have an excuse to go crazy, as George often said. There are plenty of great drummers that would be more than happy to validate Ringo's ablilities. Besides, it's what works in the group, and for the song, that matters. He played drums, like George played guitar....tasty, and perfect for the song! Now Ringo himself has said, many times, that he couldn't put in all he knew how to do, when they were touring, because he had to keep on that back-beat, to KEEP them together...because they couldn't hear themselves. Not because he wasn't capable of doing a lot more...but, just to keep things together. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamohum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The reason they stopped playing was not because they had a 'weak drummer' . The thing is, if they continued to play live after 1966 they would probably not have created St. Pepper, Strawberry Fields etc. Their musical creativity increased by leaps and bounds once they were able to concentrate on studio work rather than live work. Even now a lot of their later songs would be difficult to replicate accurately on a live stage. They did the right thing, and it's an interesting contrast to the likes of the Stones who continued touring (even to this day) without breaking any musical boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Three things influenced their decision to stop touring. (1) They couldn't even hear themselves over all of the screaming (no monitor speakers in those days) (2) Their near death experience at the hands of Ferdinand Marcos. (3) Their desire to experiment with a lot of studio equipment and special effects that couldn't be used in concert anyway. I might add that they hated being cooped up under high security and constantly having to run to keep away from the crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10drum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Charlie Brown, you just said it all. "Ringo couldn't". Charlie Watts could because Charlie has a "FOOT". There is no way Ringo could've played the down beat when he was nearly standing while attempting to play. "Tasty & perfect" for the song is fine when you have as many takes as you need to get it "tasty". I really think Ringo's look was good enough and not being able to put in "all he knew" isn't the drummers job, the drummer & bass player's job is to make every one else sound good on stage. Here we go again talking about the "individual" not the "band". I like the Beatles. I like the Stones also, they aren't over rated because most critics think they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The reason they stopped playing was not because they had a 'weak drummer' . Gotta agree with you and charlie brown on this one.... Paul and Ringo had to be one of the most colorful rock rhythm sections of all time=d> ..... Ringo understood the rare art of playing within the song, and knowing when to play on-top, or behind the beat. Most young rock drummers of today are only interested in being self indulgent pricks, in trying to cram every rudiment they've learned into a 3 minute song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Strum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The problem with saying the Beatles are over-rated is that you're also saying that pretty much every band that was influenced by them are by association also over-rated. The Beatles were a HUGE influence on the shape of pop music then and now. Despite their originality, they were influenced by those before them and to say they are overrated would also mean that those before them were overrated. I guess it comes down to how you define overrated. They weren't the best musicians, they weren't the best vocalists, they weren't the best performers. However, together they were such a force at the time and influential to this day. They were, as a group, one of the greats, if not the greatest. I don't listen to their music that often anymore, but they are the ones that woke me up to music. Individually they were good, but I don't know if any one of them would have made it in their own. However, John always use to say that if they hadn't made it together, Ringo would have the best shot of making it big without the Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10drum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Duane v, I hear ya about self indulgent pricks. I also agree with you about Paul & Ringo being colorful, but I'm more impressed with a "solid" rythm section, like the rythm section for Booker T .ie Blues Brothers, Duck Dunn and I think is it Willie T Hall on drums? There are alot more self indulgent prick lead guitar players, it's just that they can't do as much damage (to the band) as a S I P drummer. A good drummer can make a average band sound good but and lousy drummer can make a great band sound horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Charlie Brown' date=' you just said it all. "Ringo couldn't". Charlie Watts could because Charlie has a "FOOT". There is no way Ringo could've played the down beat when he was nearly standing while attempting to play. "Tasty & perfect" for the song is fine when you have as many takes as you need to get it "tasty". I really think Ringo's look was good enough and not being able to put in "all he knew" isn't the drummers job, the drummer & bass player's job is to make every one else sound good on stage. Here we go again talking about the "individual" not the "band". I like the Beatles. I like the Stones also, they aren't over rated because most critics think they suck.[/quote'] Well, you're quoting out of context! Ringo can play anything that Charlie can play. I won't get into a "Beatles vs. Stones" thing, or a Ringo vs Charlie Watts...because (for me) it's a no win (personal opinion) argument. AND...more importantly, I like The Beatles AND The Rolling Stones...both. But, I never (even as a kid) indulged in a "they're/he's better than them/him" thing, anyway. It's no secret here, or with anyone that knows me personally, that The Beatles, are "my boys!" But, that in no way detracts from my love and appreciation of other groups, then or now. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA HA !!! Thats a good one. Ringo was the glue that held them all together. George Martin said as much after going back through the entire catalogue for the Love soundtrack. His ability to lock in was the reason they could place one song over another. During live shows he would have to watch Paul bob his head and bounce the neck of his Hofner because he couldn't hear a thing. Charlie is a great drummer for Stones but never as inventive as Ringo sorry bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Without Ringo, they wouldn't have had some of those bizarre song names like "Tomorrow never knows". There are Yogi-isms and Ringo-isms. Ringo's make more sense, but not much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10drum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Charlie Brown, I'm not meaning to get into who's better. I just think Charlie's ability to hear the song in his head and know where the changes were, allowed the Stones to perform better live, thus making the Stones a band who could deliver on stage. In a 60 minutes interview with the Stones in 1989, all of the Stones claimed that the only thing that kept them together for all these years was playing with Charlie Watts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The other thing is, the rest of the Beatles picked and wanted Ringo, from the moment they heard him play! They knew, even then, there was something special, in what he did. They could have had ANY drummer they wanted, especially after that first "hit!" They stuck with him, because they knew what they had, and he "fit," too. George had even (initially) refused to go out on tour, without Ringo...(when Ringo had to have his tonsil's out), because he said if Ringo wasn't there, it "wasn't The Beatles!" I think the same could be said, of ANY of them, really. It really was a perfect matching, of talent, personalities, and yes...timing! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axegrinder1281734111 Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's very simple ! No Beatles = no music as we have today ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Charlie Brown' date=' I'm not meaning to get into who's better. I just think Charlie's ability to hear the song in his head and know where the changes were, allowed the Stones to perform better live, thus making the Stones a band who could deliver on stage. In a 60 minutes interview with the Stones in 1989, all of the Stones claimed that the only thing that kept them together for all these years was playing with Charlie Watts.[/quote'] Well, and "I" am, in no way, bashing Charlie Watts, either! He's great! A Good/Great drummer, is essential, to ANY great band...no doubt about it! In fact...I'll go even further and say a good drummer and good bass player, are essential! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10drum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Charlie, I think we're on the same page. Sorry if I made you mad. Axe grinder is right "No Beatles = no music as we have it today". Yuko Nuno wrecked the Beatles. She's the Hillary Clinton of Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stig Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA HA !!! Thats a good one. Ringo was the glue that held them all together. George Martin said as much after going back through the entire catalogue for the Love soundtrack. His ability to lock in was the reason they could place one song over another. During live shows he would have to watch Paul bob his head and bounce the neck of his Hofner because he couldn't hear a thing. Charlie is a great drummer for Stones but never as inventive as Ringo sorry bud. And if you've ever read "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions," you know that Ringo was almost NEVER the reason why they had to stop a take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Do we like the Fab Four or what! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Do we like the Fab Four or what! just a tad more than the original Van Halen line-up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis G Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Do we like the Fab Four or what! Like them or not (and I do) just look at the interest that a band who broke up some 45 years ago still generates, on soooooo many levels. That alone makes a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Like them or not (and I do) just look at the interest that a band who broke up some 45 years ago still generates' date=' on soooooo many levels. That alone makes a statement.[/quote'] The Russians have a WiFi station that plays Beatle music 24/7. And they don't even know what the hell those guys are singing! Go to www.reciva.com and type in RU Beatles (or is it Beatles RU?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Lister Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Yes, the Beatles are over-rated. Most of their career was about candyassed pop ballads for teenage girls. When they finally grew musically to the point of inovation (rock-n-roll wise) they were already being outpaced by the Stones and many others. BTW- in the Ringo vs Watts debate I'd say that Ringo was a better musician initially, but always solid Charlie has grown leaps and bounds over the years to become a monumental rock drummer (whereas Ringo just drifts along). I consider only two of their works worthy of my rock collection -- the White Album and their best one Abbey Road. Hit every BLUE NOTE baaaby..., I'm going to play on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.