Talk:Ringo Starr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



B
This article has
been rated as
B-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

Top
This article has
been rated as
Top importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:

Contents

[edit] Bill Harry's encyclopedia of Ringo

I don't think anyone should quote from that book. Whenever some is commenting or speaking about Ringo in the book, the author [Bill Harry] never shows where he got his quotes from or whether he interviewed any of these people.

Does anyone else agree that his book is sometimes unreliable? Sandy June 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singing

[edit] Singing I

Does Ringo sing one song off each Beatles album, or at least one? Did he have two on The White Album? Abbey Road? Also, we really should add something about his solo career and his acting career; there is more to his life than The Beatles, though that is clearly what he's most known for. --Koyaanis Qatsi

One per album. Since The White Album was 2 disks, I guess you could say one per record :-)
One per LP - so 2 on the White Album. There is an exception: "Hard Day's Night" (and also "Let It Be", although it will be noted that the group had split up by the time that was assembled for release.)

[edit] Singing II

Starr was underrated as a singer, thats my opinion, but Ive also heard hes mean to fans who ask for autographs AntonioMartin

Wouldn't you be ocasionally mean after signing thousands and thousands of autographs? (He was probably eating, talking to someone, or on the toilet at the time.) --andreasegde 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Especially when most nowadays seem to go straight home and sell them on eBay! --jmb (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # of songs he sang

Does anybody know the number of song in which Ringo was the lead singer (like "With a little help from my friends")? "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was 3. They were:
  • With a Little Help from My Friends
  • Don't Pass Me By
  • Octopus's Garden

However, I'm happy to be proved wrong if anyone else knows any others. --Liamshaw 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's more--Yellow Submarine, I Wanna Be Your Man, What Goes On, my mind is blank at the moment, but he often had one song per LP. Freshacconci 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Good Night" from the White Album. "Act Naturally". There may be a couple more. Freshacconci 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Honey Don't"--Crestville 10:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"Boys" Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Don't Pass Me By" 72.211.175.219 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
He also sang "Matchbox"

Ringo, also sang another song after his follow Beatle George Harrison passed away. The song is called "Never Without You". gameplaya 6: 57 31 March 2007

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you know... If you want to know the real answer, look it up: check the sub-article of the wiki entry on "The Beatles", "List of Beatles songs by singer". You'll see Ringo sang 11 normal releases plus "If You've Got Trouble". Jtnet 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The list sorts them alphabetically. Here they are in order of relese, with their albums included (UK albums, that is):
Please Please Me - Boys
With The Beatles - I Wanna Be Your Man
(Hard Day's Night - No Ringo track)
Beatles For Sale - Honey Don't
Help! - Act Naturally
Rubber Soul - What Goes On
Revolver - Yellow Submarine
Sgt Pepper - With a Little Help From My Friends
The Beatles [White Album] - Don't Pass Me By / Good Night
Abbey Road - Octopus's Garden
(Let It Be - No Ringo track)
He also sang the non-album "Matchbox" and "If You Got Troubles", unreleased until 1996.

"Matchbox" was released on album in the USA. Jtnet 07:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Matchbox was released in the UK on the EP Long Tall Sally in 1964. If You've Got Trouble was intended for the Help! album, but remained unreleased until 1996 when it was released on the Anthology 2 album. --Spiby (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background vox

The article states:

Starr's backing vocals can be heard on songs such as "Help!", "All Together Now", "Carry That Weight", and "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill".

Starr's b-vox cannot be heard on "Help", because he didn't sing on it! Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I will delete this title in the list very soon. Jtnet 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He didn't sing on "Help!".

What about the Middle 8 in Dear Prudence? Lennon sings "look around / look around 'round 'round" and Ringo, in a deeper voice in the background sings "round round round..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.202.97 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We need reliable evidence (not WP:OR) for a backing vocal by Starr on "Dear Prudence." The song was recorded when he was estranged from the band and reliable evidence from Ian MacDonald says the vocals were by other people. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with John Cardinal. It is clear Ringo wasn't present during the recording, and there is no clear evidence that he sang b-vox at any later date. The deep voices you hear are the other Beatles. On the White Album, he only sings on his "own" songs and on "Bungalow Bill". Jtnet (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drumming

[edit] Really the best?

Did John, Paul, and George really say Ringo was the best R&R drummer in the world? I have heard that John, at least, when asked whether Ringo was the best drummer in the world answered "He's not even the best drummer in Beatles". I also understand that other drummers filled on on some of the studio work that Ringo couldn't handle. I don't have anything against giving Ringo his due, but this article seems to overstate his abilities.

That stuff about Bernard Purdie doing some of the drumming on early Beatles stuff is trash. He worked on some of the very early stuff, when "The Beat Brothers" (John, Paul, George and Pete) backed up Tony Sheridan, but nothing after that. As for whether the Beatles ever said Ringo was the best drummer, I'm sure Paul has. John, I believe, was joking in the remark about Ringo not being the best drummer in the Beatles; it was not long after Ringo briefly quit, and Paul drummed on "Back in the USSR". Whether he's called him the best, however, I can't be sure. As for George, he and Ringo were fairly close, I'd say he must have said it at some point, but that's just conjecture. Anyway. - Vague | Rant 04:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please! There is NO WAY a person can listen to the drumming on, say, "Magical Mystery Tour" (the song) and something like "Savoy Truffle," back to back, and maintain that they are the same drummer. At least, not anyone who has ears & knows the first thing about drums. "Magical Mystery Tour," which is certainly Ringo, is pretty near incompetent---the kick sounds like a drunk 5-year-old is playing it and the feel is crappy---whereas "Savoy Truffle" is 100% world-class grooving. Bernard Purdie-style grooving. I know these are later tracks, but there it is. Take the listening test for yourself. And by the way, if anyone ever had the PR and financial muscle to hush up a thing like this, The Beatles did. (And also by the way, if any drummer has no motive whatsoever to embellish on the credits of his career---his career being absolutely stellar---that drummer is Purdie.)

Bernard Purdie is known in the music business for his musical boasts. He was actually called in to overdub or "sweeten" Pete Best's drum tracks during the Sheridan recordings, so he might have gotten the two confused. He claimed, in an interview with Max Weinberg, that he doubts George Martin ever knew about what he had done and that Brian Epstein had arranged everything. There is no clear evidence as to whether his claims are true or not. None of Epstein's men (Bernard claimed that some of his closest circles were at some of the recording sessions)- Alistar Taylor, Peter Brown, Derek Taylor, or Tony Burrow- ever mention Purdie in their subsequent books. He isn't even mentioned in the session logs (e.g. Mark Lewisohn's 'Sessions')or by Geoff Emerick, a studio engineer at EMI. Personally, I believe the Purdie thing is pure fabrication. How could George Martin possibly not know that there is another drummer playing on a track he had just produced, or that Ringo could be heard distinctive in the now widely available studio takes? If Ringo didn't play on anything as Purdie claims, what was he doing in the studio? Talking to himself while Purdie played? Pure fabrication and egotism on Bernard's part, a "stellar" drummer in his own right. Mentione

That's Ringo playing on Savoy Truffle. Do you want to know how I know this? The FIRST take was recorded on October 3, 1968 and the final mixes were done by October 14, 1968. Ringo left the band in August of 1968 and came back in the first week of September. Let's try to be accurate here please and also let's try to sign our names after our comments. Don't be a coward. And another thing, his drumming on "Magical Mystery Tour is far from incompetent. I've listened to that song and it sounds good. Ringo 'made' the songs sound great. Sandy June 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The drummer on both "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Savoy Truffle" is Ringo Starr and only Ringo Starr.

In 1969, Paul sent Ringo a card reading, "You are the best drummer in the world. Really." This was a day after the rooftop concert.

George Harrison once called him "the best backbeat in the business". As far as Ringo being replaced, this was only on "Love Me Do", the first single. During the White Album sessions, Ringo got fed up with the others and left for a few days, Paul filled in for him on drums during some songs on that album. Danthemankhan 20:01, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
He was replaced on "Love Me Do" because when they auditioned for George Martin, Pete Best was their drummer(my source here is the Anthology, and it's a little sketchy, but worth looking into, so take it as you like, but my point is that Andy White was replacing Pete, not Ringo).

- -Andy White replaced Ringo Starr on September 11, 1962. It is Andy White on drums for the LP version of "Love Me Do." Ringo Starr had "failed" his audition on drums on September 4, 1962. Starr was to play the drums from November 1962 on, however.

There is a recording of "Love Me Do" with Ringo on drums on a Beatles Rarities album from the 80's.  Also, I recall in the Anthology, either Paul or a recording of John is heard calling Ringo "the best rock drummer".

John Lennon was once asked in an interview if Ringo was the best rock 'n' roll drummer in the world and his answer was, "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles!!!"

Re. the above (unsigned) contribution: I have yet to see a citation for the interview where Lennon is supposed to have said this about Ringo. I have seen articles claiming he said it, but only in the last few years (long after his death). Prior to that I recall Jasper Carrot (UK comedian) used the line (unattributed to Lennon) in his act in the late 70s/early 80s. --Beatlefan63 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Paul also plays drums on Ballad of John and Yoko.

Okay, First off, wikipedia is not a debate over who's better at anything. It happens to serve as a useful information website that brings FACT, with a small bit of opinion. Second of all, before you go criticizing (sp?) Ringo, think to yourself: What makes a good drummer. After you find that out, think: Does that explaination serve everybody's feelings? IF the answer is yes, than I stand corrected. But Srriously, your thoughts on good drumming are certainly diferent than mine, so why don't we just shut up about the whole gosh darn thing. Thank You. Zachary McDevitt 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Did John, Paul, and George really say Ringo was the best R&R drummer in the world?":
In his interview in Playboy, December 1980 (published shortly after his murder) Lennon praises Ringo's ability as a drummer extravagantly. The interview was eventually published in expanded book form. I'll try to come back with a verbatim quote for you.
Re: "I have heard that John, at least, when asked whether Ringo was the best drummer in the world answered 'He's not even the best drummer in Beatles'.":
I have read and listened to various lengthy John Lennon interviews, and I've never across a passage in any denigrating Ringo's drumming. If Lennon thought little of Ringo's drumming, it's unlikely he would have used Ringo on every single track of his first post-Beatles album. I've never encountered a legitimate Lennon quote that praised McCartney's drumming either--or acknowledged it in any way--, although Lennon does praise McCartney's bass playing in the Playboy interview mentioned above. TheScotch 07:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "During the White Album sessions, Ringo got fed up with the others and left for a few days, Paul filled in for him on drums during some songs on that album.":

At least one of these tracks has a composite drum part with McCartney and Lennon both playing various drums. TheScotch 07:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Please! There is NO WAY a person can listen to the drumming on, say, "Magical Mystery Tour" (the song) and something like "Savoy Truffle," back to back, and maintain that they are the same drummer. At least, not anyone who has ears & knows the first thing about drums. "Magical Mystery Tour," which is certainly Ringo, is pretty near incompetent---the kick sounds like a drunk 5-year-old is playing it and the feel is crappy---whereas "Savoy Truffle" is 100% world-class grooving.":
I've always thought the distinctive thing about Ringo's drumming is its acute sensitivity to the need of the particular song it accompanies. "Magical Mystery Tour" just isn't a "groovy" song. In fact, in my opinion, it's one of the poorest songs any of the Beatles ever concocted. I don't know how it might have been salvaged, and I can't imagine that Ringo could have been much inspired to create a great drum part for it. In any case, everyone has off days. McCartney, for example, in my opinion, was having an off day when he wrote that one. Could "Magical Mystery Tour" have been written by the same composer and lyricist who wrote "Michelle" (in collaboration with John Lennon) and "Eleanor Rigby" (in collaboration with Lennon and George Martin)? Yes. These things happen. TheScotch

Re: "...whereas "Savoy Truffle" is 100% world-class grooving. Bernard Purdie-style grooving.":

I listened to "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Savoy Truffle" today, following along with complete transcriptions. They both seem to me very much within Ringo's classic style. Tour is oddly recorded though--probably because the Beatles were in their psychedelic timbral-ly experimental period at the time. I also listened to three Bernard Purdie tracks: Steely Dan's "Home at Last" and "Kid Charlemagne" and Aretha Franklin's "Rock Steady". These three tracks are recognizably performed by the same drummer (or at least a very similar drummer) and are world's away from both Tour and Shuffle. TheScotch 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here: (http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinterviewwithjohnlennonandyokoono.htm)
LENNON: "Ringo was a star in his own right in Liverpool before we even met. He was a professional drummer who sang and performed and had Ringo Star-time and he was in one of the top groups in Britain but especially in Liverpool before we even had a drummer. So Ringo's talent would have come out one way or the other as something or other. I don't know what he would have ended up as, but whatever that spark is in Ringo that we all know but can't put our finger on -- whether it is acting, drumming or singing I don't know -- there is something in him that is projectable and he would have surfaced with or without the Beatles. Ringo is a damn good drummer. He is not technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same way Paul's bass playing is underrated. Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period. He is an egomaniac about everything else about himself, but his bass playing he was always a bit coy about. I think Paul and Ringo stand up with any of the rock musicians. Not technically great -- none of us are technical musicians. None of us could read music. None of us can write it. But as pure musicians, as inspired humans to make the noise, they are as good as anybody." Carlo 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving the above remarks to where they belong chronologically in the discussion. I appreciate the quote, but please do not interpolate anything into the middle of any of my posts (or of anyone else's). Thank you.TheScotch 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For the LP version of Love Me Do Andy White played drums, but for the single-version Ringo played drums. The single-version can be heard on the compilation Past Masters Vol. 1 --Spiby (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is undisputed. George Martin booked White for the date before he'd ever heard Ringo--before he ever even knew Ringo existed, for that matter. Clearly, this is not an example of "other drummers [filling in] on some of the studio work that Ringo couldn't handle", and the LP version proves that Ringo could "handle" this tune easily. (It is, however, an example of Martin's lack of confidence in Pete Best.) TheScotch (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ringo's lack of talent

In everything I have read and seen in documentaries, all I can gather is that Ringo Starr was not a very good drummer at all and all the innovation this article talks about is not true.

I have read in many places (Blender magazine's recent article about the song Ticket to Ride, for example) that Paul McCartney had to constantly tell Ringo how to play. I also remember a quote that went something along the lines of this:

Interviewer: "Is Ringo Starr the best drummer in the world?" John Lennon: "He's not the best drummer in the Beatles!"[1]

As far as I'm concerned, that puts a lot of the statements about Starr's abilities and virtuosity into question and this article needs a lot of citation. There's also a question of whether Ringo was great because of his drumming or because he was in the Beatles. There are/were plenty of much better drummers (Buddy Rich, for example) with far less fame because they weren't part of the most popular rock group in history. --Stellis 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid most of the Beatles articles are in need of citations and referencing. Why not join the Beatles WikiProject and help with such tasks?
i've always held to the belief that he was merely an adequate drummer, but the most adequate drummer there is. in terms of time keeping, he has a very great reputation, rather than someone like Keith Moon, who can make an awesome din but can barely keep a simple rhythm. Joeyramoney 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As regards to your specific comments, can you tell me how John Lennon can be considered an authority on drumming quality? I really wouldn't give too much weight to what he said in a jokey context; I'd give more weight to what he did, which is to sign Ringo in place of Pete Best just as they were on the verge of fame.
Ringo certainly isn't a flashy drummer, and flashiness is how drummers tend to be assessed these days. However, he kept a solid beat and was sympathetic to the music of the times (cf. Charlie Watts). Ultimately, though, what you, I or other editors think is - as you've alluded to - irrelevant. Ideally this article would quote other drummers on Ringo's qualities and deficiencies. I think there's serioys schools of thought both for "Ringo is great" and "Ringo is a talentless chancer who got very very lucky"! --kingboyk 01:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Nod. Let's teach the controversy. Find the cites for all viewpoints and present them all, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. As usual, because that's the essence of WP:NPOV... ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ref Macca telling Ringo how to play, it should be noted that Sir Paul was also in the habit of telling George Harrison how to play the solo's on Beatles record... few people today doubt Harrisons ability and status as a guitarist.LessHeard vanU 12:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Telling George what guitar sound he wanted might have been a bit bossy, but it's not the same as disputing his talent. (Sorry, but I see a continuing gentle undercurrent of anti-Macca sentiment on talk pages round here :) George is my favourite Beatle too but Paul a) is not dead (just thought I'd clear that one up :P ) b) was (in terms of songs written and playing ability) every bit as good as Lennon, if not better! :) ) --kingboyk 12:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Paul would literally tell George what notes to play. Literally.24.143.45.225 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So? That's what composers do. They tell musicians what to play. Sometimes the other players get more freedom, sometimes they don't; it depends (in part) on how finished the idea is in the composers mind. John Cardinal 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so snarky. I was trying to make a point is all. As I understand it, Kingboyk thought Paul was telling George what "kind" of guitar solo he wanted, and I was trying to make it clear that Paul is reported to have told George exactly' what to play, which turns the scene from Paul constantly having to remind Ringo which skin to hit to Paul being a little bossy. Wow, I'm long-winded.24.143.45.225 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I (thought I) was saying, having Macca tell/suggest what/how to play does not mean the player is substandard. Macca seems to have a very clear vision of how he wanted "his" songs to sound like, and would detail the arrangements. I thought that this aspect of his approach, contrasting with Lennons more experimental methods, was understood to be one of the reasons for the tensions that later arose within the group? The Lennon quote regarding Macca's assumption of "leadership" after the death of Epstein appears to refer to it. For the record, I believe Macca to be the better tunesmith and Lennon the better lyricist - but I liked George best of all!
As for Ringo, if they had used different drummers then they would likely have credited it. They did when Macca played drums, or when Billy Preston played keyboards or Eric Clapton played guitar - Lordy, they used to credit Mal Evans if his handclaps were on the track - so the theory that Ringo was substituted doesn't hold water. If his drumming standards were not always maintained to the highest level, then it may be that it was because he was merely excellent (but maybe not the greatest in the world). It still appears that he is under-rated, even after all these years.LessHeard vanU 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lack of talent" is just plain disrespectful. Ringo was not the greatest drummer technically, indeed he was never formally trained and learned by listening to records. But being ambidextrous and improvising his drumming, he had a style that could not easily be emulated, which gains him much respect in the drumming world. Many excellent and professional drummers have tried – and failed – to copy him, which is why he’s in such a respected category. He’s Ringo Starr, for crying out loud! He only got the MOST fanmail of all the Beatles ;-)

Fanmail is not a yardstick for talent. Ringo was a very good drummer, and he was part of The Beatles right until the end. His technique was good enough for the band to expand their sound and attempt various styles throughout their career.LessHeard vanU 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
He was brilliant because he didn't play like a normal drummer. Listen to the later Beatles stuff and get a drummer to try and copy it. Ringo played like an orchestral percussionist on many tracks, and never just blasted his way through. "Come together" is a perfect example. It's not about expertise, it's about originality. All of The Beatles were not technically gifted, but they were original, and that's the hardest part... --andreasegde 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been a drummer for 40 years, and I think that Ringo is exceptional. I once saw Keith Moon answer the question, "Who's your favorite drummer?" with "Ringo". Listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Come Together", "Sun King", or even the straightforward "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". For dynamics, he has few equals. His beat choices were often inspired and inspiring. His counting was metronomic: think of the way he just nails "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" down. 72.83.172.216 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)dangfitz

Ringo didn't have a choice. He HAD to play as the writers wanted it or else the song wouldn't sound right, the same with George. He was forced to play it as John or Paul wanted it. Usually drummers are forced to play as the writers or producers wanted it-- Ringo is no exception. Listen to "I Me Mine" in the Let It Be movie. Ringo complements George as he's playing his guitar riff: something truly amazing.

Another thing is that Ringo made the "cut" with Please, Please Me. He could have been replaced as he was in Love Me Do, but his drumming saved him. Read Bob Spitz's book "The Beatles". Sandy June 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: comments above about Buddy Rich. Buddy Rich would be worse for the Beatles than Starr. First, it wasn' this idiom. He had the talent to adjust (play louder, play simpler beats, no solos, leave space for the bass part to shine), but he wouldn't have done it. Stepping back from that specific drummer, many pre-rock'n'roll drummers looked down on it as a genre and didn't want to play it. I suspect that was partly age and "I know what I like" attitude, but who knows? As a drummer (who makes some noise on other instruments, too!) I think he was great. His sense of time is very good. His cymbal work is excellent; listem to McCartney's sloppy cymbal work on the stuff he played for the Beatles and then listen carefully to almost anything Ringo did. Don't get me wrong; Paul's a good drummer for someone who isn't a drummer and he also has a sense of what to play and what not to play. Starr had that, too, and while some parts were suggested to him (sometimes the songwriter is trying to get the band to play what he hears in his/her head), he had to understand what they meant and make it real. If you listen to the alternate versions we have available, pay particular attention to songs that changed style and how Ringo's parts sound pretty good in both versions. Songs that changed dramatically during the recording process are an interesting indicator of what he brought to the band. He "got it".
all that said, it's appropriate for this topic to be in the article, but properly cited. I don't think the criticism or praise has to come from drummers, but it must come from reliable sources, like everything else. Professional reviewers, professional drummers in written works or interviews, etc. John Cardinal 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey Stellis, if John didn't think Ringo wasn't the best drummer in the Beatles why did pick Ringo to drum on some of his songs? Also, John is well known for his biting sarcasm. He's criticized the other two Beatles before. But, Ringo is a good drummer in his own right. Check out She said She said. That's some great stuff man. He did some nifty drum fills on Long, Long, Long. Ringo just had his own sound, which was very important to the Beatles. Even George Martin says this in his book: All You Need Is Ears. Sandy June 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ringo's drumming ability

I think there's a lot of negative nonsense being written about Ringo's talents. Many drummers have praised Ringo's talents including Phil Collins. There's a great article called THIRTEEN REASONS TO GIVE RINGO SOME RESPECT by John Bryant (a drummer). This article as written by a drummer clearly shows just why Ringo deserves recognition for his abilities as a drummer. I would copy it here but it is copyrighted so I can't without infringement of the copyright. But I'm sure if anyone does a search on the Internet they will find a copy. Please do proper research before posting negative comments.--Peter Jensen 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As the majority of tyhis page are Beatles fans, it's safe to say we agree with you. However, it would be wrong to ignore the critisism Ringo has recieved. However, we have also made an effort mention the praise he has recieved and it seems very well balenced to me. I like him, fuck Phil "slaphead" Collins with his massive drumkit or that twat out of Cream and his 20 minute drum solos that bored me shitless. Fuck them, hail Ringo for being steady and innovative.
A bit embarrassed to sign your name?LessHeard vanU 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Uncited comments regarding Ringo's drumming, for good or bad, are POV and should not be included in the text. A link to the article mentioned above could be included at the end of the article, if appropriate.LessHeard vanU 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Ringo Starr could beat Phil Collins and Nick Mason in a three-way tornado drumming fight. Do I win £5?--Crestville 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the John Bryant article http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/bryant.html but please don't copy and paste the article into the Ringo Starr page without permission from the author.--Peter Jensen 04:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hello Goodbye" is proof enough.[2] Ever heard a drummer playing a solo in the verse, and floor tom in the chorus? Never. Originality is something that hours in the woodshed with a rubber practice pad can never be achieved. How many drummers have you seen with a tea towel over their snare to make it sound different? None. This kind of conversation makes my blood boil...--andreasegde 06:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems fashionable to critisize Ringo's drumming, but I think the last word should rest with The Beatles. From 1965 onwards the band were the biggest in the world, and every musician would have sold their mother to have played with/for them. In that time Ringo's place was never in doubt, even as Lennon and McCartney pushed songwriting and recording into hitherto unknown areas. He was good enough for the greatest band of the era - 'nuff said!LessHeard vanU 09:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "distinctive drumming style"

ringo is the least distinctive drummer i and most beatles fans have ever heard. could someone explain this part? 67.172.61.222 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Your ears are full of the shit leaking from your brain, and you do not speak for most beatles (who they?) fans. LessHeard vanU 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
First, don't speak for "most beatles fans." Many of us (most?) feel he is an underrated drummer with a distinctive style, who was uniquely suited to the Beatles (can you imagine Keith Moon playing for the Beatles?). This has been discussed above in two seperate sections, so it doesn't need rehashing here. Freshacconci 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bombastic fills

Re: "Two song performances where Starr is most renowned as a drummer are "Rain" (his personal favourite) and "She Said, She Said": his synching with McCartney's bass on the final coda of "Rain" is considered one of his most memorable moments; on "She Said, She Said", his bombastic fills along with his smooth changing of tempos from 4/4 to 3/4 have been highly praised":

"His bombastic fills...have been highly praised" sounds like a Monty Python (the Rutles?) joke. In the first place, "bombastic" is POV. In the second place, it's highly unlikely anyone would praise anything he considered bombastic.

Tempo, by the way, is the pace of the music, not the meter. The approval of someone who would praise "smooth changing of tempos from 4/4 to 3/4" is not worth having. TheScotch 09:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I could, of course, delete "bombastic" and replace "tempos" with meters, but I'm not happy with these choices of songs altogether. In my opinion, "A Day in the Life" and "Come Together" are much more representative of Ringo at his very best. As far as the drum part goes, the meter change in the middle section of "She Said, She Said" is about as unremarkable as you can get. Neither is the "synching" with the bass in "Rain" remarkable (the phrase "final coda", by the way, is redundant). Both the "She Said, She Said" and the "Rain" drum parts are uncharacteristically busy (without being in the slightest bit virtuosic), whereas Ringo's drumming is generally distinguished by its economy. Notice, for example, how he saves the cymbals in "Come Together", such that they are much more effective when they eventually enter. Notice how telling his rolls in "Wait" are. TheScotch 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheScotch's choices of songs, including "Wait", as better -- or at least additional -- examples, but I wouldn't entirely dismiss the ones already mentioned. However, perhaps they should be mentioned for other reasons. Their problem is perhaps that they only represent one end of a broad spectrum. Certainly, both are "busy" songs for Ringo, but then, so are the first two mentioned by TheScotch, although dissimilar to the others in the "way" they are busy. "Rain" was incredibly melodic and almost "beautiful" in its drum part, and the way it, the bass, and the droning melody/backing track fit each other. (It was a rare song in the Beatles catalog which -- perhaps like "Happy Jack" by the Who -- featured drums almost as a lead instrument.) Where "busy" backing tracks are often left "open" by Ringo, here, he had space and filled it. (However, there are tempo problems in this song, he gets slower, thus making its use here debatable in the context of his oft-cited "metronomic timing".)

As for the point about synching with the bass, I have to disagree with TheScotch about that. The drum/bass fill leading into the final ("backwards") verse of "Rain" is a template for the 60s psychedelic sound, and thus remarkable. While it may not be the only template, it is perhaps the most important one for this sound. It is still frequently copied in modern interpretations of psychedelia (e.g. "Vanishing Girl" by The Dukes of Stratosphear/XTC). (One question that could be raised here is whether this synching is more Starr's or more McCartney's doing, or if both players should get equal credit. This is however a secondary point, as it is the result -- the sound itself -- that counts, and it "took two to tango".)

"Rain" would also prove a great counterpoint to another "drone" song, "Tomorrow Never Knows", which is equally remarkable and yet in itself is played by Ringo as a "drone", i.e. without a single fill! The two songs illustrate how Ringo worked around (or with) the material to find a "best way".

"Come Together's" drums are also, like "Rain", so melodic and so much of a "lead" that the song can almost not be imagined without "that" drum part. However, it is a better performance overall because the tempo is solid and the quality of the band's playing is generally higher. It is perhaps one of the Beatles finest performances. The economy of all of their parts was different here -- but that is not surprising, as it is a post-psychedelic song! "A Day in the Life" is exceptionally full of variable fills, all at the same parts of the verse, and is almost tympani-like in its effect.

[I sometimes wonder if Ringo, if either given "extra time" to get involved with a track (e.g. "Brown Shoe") or if particularly interested in the track (e.g. "Something"), spent more effort in developing his drum patterns. The patterns in songs such as all of these then became more complex, but rarely overpowering.]

However, to bring this to a point: I believe that songs with "simpler" and/or "straighter" drum parts, e.g. "Tomorrow Never Knows", or in a different sense "In My Life", should get equal billing here if the parts were as essential and "musically tuned" to the sound of the songs as they were in the more complex songs being discussed above and in the article.

PS - I also agree that the wording (e.g. "bombastic") is rather poor. Someone should try to tackle that section. Jtnet 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For now I've simply removed "bombastic" and the redundant "final" and changed "tempos" to meters.
Maybe I'm not getting what is meant by "synching with McCartney's bass". I assumed this referred to the bit toward the end of the song where the drums and the bass merely happened to be playing a few notes together, which doesn't strike me as especially worth commenting on. Did the author of this passage really mean "interlocking" rather than "synching"? That would be altogether a different matter.
You seem to me to be overlooking the circumstance that busy is pejorative (although much more mildly pejorative than bombastic). Something like active might be a better term--because it's a more neutral term--to describe the drum part in "A Day in the Life". The difference is not that I like the "A Day in the Life" drum part more (although I do), it's that this drum part is especially distinguished by the nature of its activity, rather than its degree of activity, whereas the "She Said, She Said" drum part to my ears merely has more thrashing. It's as if one were praising Ringo for sometimes being a little bit like Keith Moon, in a tepid sort of way, rather than for usually being a lot like Ringo Starr.
A difficulty with Rain as an example, it seems to me, is that it's a fairly obscure Beatles record. It was originally released as a B-side and didn't appear on an LP until the Hey, Jude album, which was released belatedly in the UK and of which most younger Beatles fans are utterly unaware. "Come Together" and "A Day in the Life", on the other hand, respectively opened and closed what are generally considered to be the Beatles's best and most historically significant albums--and "Come Together" was a hit in its own right.
At the very least I should like to know who it is who (according to the article as it currently reads) "highly praise[s]" the drum part for "She Said, She Said". TheScotch 10:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. TheScotch's major points:

1) I agree that "SS,SS" is a far less convincing argument for Ringo's drumming than any of the other songs mentioned. However, I think I could probably find a source in which the playing was highly praised -- not that I need to, but just for the fun of it.

However, like I said, I feel songs like the ones we are discussing give an unbalanced view of the situation.

2) I think you are probably right about "interlocking". And when I say it, I mean for example the fill where Paul and Ringo play exactly in synch with each other. (da-dat da-dat dat da-da-da-da-da-da-dum) I haven't a clue what the author of that passage in the article meant.

3) The author of that passage was however correct in stating that "Rain" was one of Ringo's personal favourites. For that reason alone it should be worthy of consideration for inclusion. However, I also feel that it is just plain good.

On top of that, the popularity or obscurity of a Beatles song is a relative thing. Every song of theirs is widely available -- we don't need to be discussing or praising the songs from the album "1" here. The fact is that "Rain" was historically important for many reasons, esp. the fact that it was the first psychedelic song in their catalog. It sounded druggy, drone-y, trippy, and had that slow, plodding, heavy, "humid" feel that a lot of psychedelia had. (I compare "Rain" for the Beatles to "I Can See for Miles" for the Who.) And, like "Come Together", it was a B-side of a single!

4) I see "busy" with varying connotations, I don't see it as especially negative. However, for argument's sake, I am using it in a general sense meaning "more fills".

I'm not sure "active" is neutral enough, either, but for the moment I can't think of an appropriate term.

The article mostly misses the major point. Ringo is (in-)famous for playing few/too few/bad/no fills, "because he's a crap drummer". That's the rap. But it's like arguing about religion. Either you feel that his musicality overshadows the technical prowess question, or you want technical prowess and don't care about the rest -- and never the twain shall meet. The article is pretty defensive about him without really explaining why. Jtnet 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "However, I think I could probably find a source in which the playing [on She Said] was highly praised -- not that I need to, but just for the fun of it.":
You don't need to, but I should think the article needs to back its assertion. (It would have to be more highly praised or more often highly praised than most, of course.)
Re: " The author of that passage was however correct in stating that 'Rain' was one of Ringo's personal favourites. For that reason alone it should be worthy of consideration for inclusion.":
Yes, it should. Can you direct us to where Ringo says it is?
Re: "I think you are probably right about "interlocking". And when I say it, I mean for example the fill where Paul and Ringo play exactly in synch with each other. (da-dat da-dat dat da-da-da-da-da-da-dum) I haven't a clue what the author of that passage in the article meant.":
Interlocking is just off the top of my head. Is there a better term still? I think the article needs to be clearer about this. Can you say more specifically what it is about the "da-dat da-dat dat da-da-da-da-da-da-dum"?
Re: "Either you feel that his musicality overshadows the technical prowess question, or you want technical prowess and don't care about the rest -- and never the twain shall meet. The article is pretty defensive about him without really explaining why.":
I never thought of Ringo as technically deficient. He obviously isn't Buddy Rich or Carl Palmer, but in the idiom (rock and roll) and era (1962-1969) for which he is known not many drummers were. He is distinguished from the majority (the vast majority in my opinion) of the other drummers in his idiom and era by the degree to which he is willing to subordinate himself to serve the piece (which in many cases means simpler playing, but in other cases may mean more complicated playing) and by the imagination and taste with which he often conceived ways of serving the piece.
There are two advantages to technique: On the one hand, the ability to play fast and complicated should allow you to play slowly and simply with more control, precision, and expression. On the other hand, the ability to play fast and complicated gives you the option of playing fast and complicated should the occasion for it arise--you have greater flexibility. I don't think it should ever be a matter of musicality outweighing technique or vice versa: technique has no other purpose than musicality. Ringo needs to be judged by what he played, not by what he might or might not have been able to play. TheScotch 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
re.: Yes, it should. Can you direct us to where Ringo says it is?
I'm sure I could find it [the source for Ringo's comments on "Rain"] if I really tried. However, I don't know when. The original author could, maybe, find the source more easily. (But I, too, sometimes start from memory when writing these things and search for sources later.)
Jtnet 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
re.: Can you say more specifically what it is about...[interlocking]?
First I would like to stress again that I think "Rain" should be in there for various reasons, particularly its "lead drum" aspect as mentioned previously, for its having been praised quite often in the past by various authors (though I can't name any at the moment), and for its being one of Ringo's faves as well (which is also not sourced, but true nevertheless). However, the part I thought of when I read the original author's text in this article was the exactly synched mid-speed fill (McCartney/Starr), which was used several times in the song and particularly clearly in the fill leading into the "backwards verse". This is still a "gold standard" in pop music, often copied.
It may a] have been more McCartney's doing ("Verdienst") than Starr's, and it may b] not be the first or best use of this technique on a fill of this nature (although I don't know), but it was the one that appeared to make others listen. Thus I admit, while the song may be praised for Starr's drumming (or Starr's drumming on the song might be praised), the midspeed-fill-synch could just as easily be praised in an article on McCartney. And consequently the article wording on this topic should also be reconsidered.
Jtnet 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
re.: Ringo needs to be judged by what he played, not by what he might or might not have been able to play.
Though I agree with your comments [about technique] wholeheartedly, the arguments judging him "by what he played" are often coloured by the arguments re. "what he might or might not have been able to play". This is part of the reason why arguing about Ringo is like arguing about religion. Or like trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind.
Jtnet 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving your most recent remarks to where they belong chronologically. Interpolated into my last set of remarks they make it appear either that some of mine were unsigned or that you wrote both yours and mine. I have added bracketed references as sparingly as I could. TheScotch 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "And, like "Come Together", it ["rain"] was a B-side of a single!":
I've changed my mind about just letting this remark go. "Come Together" was not a B-side. "Come Together" with "Something" made a double-A. "Come Together" got tons of radio play, whereas as "Rain" got virtually no radio play. You can't know Beatles history with having lived through the era. TheScotch 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I did live through the era, but I was a late comer. I accept the "double-A" status. Nevertheless I stand by my comment that there are virtually no "obscure" Beatles tracks when it comes to tracks that have appeared, for instance, on Hey Jude. Millions and millions and millions of people have "Rain" and have had it since 1969-70 (the year I bought it). While it may have been more "obscure" in the beginning (i.e. 1966), it wasn't any more after that "album" (or collection of songs), which was bought by many for its lead single. Besides, it is historically a very important song in their catalogue. Jtnet 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stone

Didn't the Rolling Stone name him the #1 drummer of all-time?--Kingforaday1620 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. I think he's great, amd I think he'd be listed in the top 10 because of his innovations, but best? But then, who knows? Freshacconci 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Overdoing it (Ringo's role)

I feel like the section "role in the beatles" is a bit gushing at times, and it overstates his talent. The whole thing seems like an enthusiastic defense of his playing skills, rather than an objective look at them. I suggest someone look over it. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} A fresh set of eyes is probably exactly what it needs. Show no mercy mate, we don't want fancruft round here :) Thank you, over and out. --kingboyk 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Eh, this is an incredibly famous guy with passionate fans. If I did go ahead and make said changes without asking first and seeking a consensus, there would likely be an averse reaction, especially considering he is apparently the greatest drummer to ever hold a drumstick. I might delve into it soon. AdamBiswanger1 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We adhere to NPOV here (cough)! If an opinion regarding Starrs ability or lack thereof is going to included then if needs references/citations. Removing pro comments may cause a spate of reverts, but be bold and request the reverter provide refs, etc. Removing anti comments, as you seem to suggest, may not create the same reaction but the same rules apply if there is. Have fun. LessHeard vanU 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Most Beatle fans probably don't rate Ringo as the best drummer ever you know (whilst they certainly rate him as a vital ingredient in the mix), but some professionals do. Other professionals no doubt think he's a chancer of dubious talent who got very lucky. The ideal would be to quote both, with citations. In the meantime, feel free to zap any over-enthusiastic fancruft or, indeed, anything overly negative. Cheers. --kingboyk 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a little bit of cleanup. It's ok, but it could get better. AdamBiswanger1 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This talk about how good, or bad, he was/is should stop. If anyone doesn't like his drumming, just turn the stereo knob on your sound system to the left, or the right, and you will have no problem. The man was original, and he was in The Beatles. As Paul McCartney said on Anthology about this kind of thing; "Hey, it was The Beatles, it sold - shut up." Stop nit-picking. --andreasegde 06:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a good drummer, maybe not a technical genius but I like his style. I like the drum beat to all The Beatles songs at any rate. And at least he didn't ever resort to performing that holy grail of gobshite-drummer tricks: The Drum Solo. Euugh. He did a little one when forced to on The End, but it wasn't some fucking Phil Collins-in-Genesis/Ginger-twat-out-of-cream 10 minute self indulgent BORING BORING BORING tripe. For this alone he should be praised. And the drum loop on Tomorrow never knows.--Crestville 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just realised I wrote an almost identical comment about 2 topics up and forgot to sign it. At least I can't be accused of being inconsistant. Although I do feel that Ringo's critics should certainly be represented in the article. He gets a lot of stick, to be sure.--Crestville 09:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songwriting

Ringo confessed fairly recently that George Harrison "co-wrote" It don't come easy. As there exists a demo recording of the song with George singing it, it seems pretty likely that George actually wrote the entire song - this isn't mentioned in the article though - should it be amended and can anyone point to a citation for the co-wrote comment by Ringo? Apepper 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If George did co-write It Don't Come Easy, then there would be no surprise if he sang a 'guide vocal' to help Ringo; who was not very confident about his singing. It doesn't mean that he wrote the entire song (nor that he even wrote much at all). He was just helping his mate make the record. However, if Ringo is now saying George did help in the composition then please provide a reference. LessHeard vanU 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I always thought they co-wrote it and was credited that way. I may be wrong and don't have the LP in front of me. But then, RIngo does acknowledge George's co-writing on Octopus' Garden, which Ringo is credited alone (plus, Ringo co-write "Badge" with Clapton and Harrison, but didn't get credit). Freshacconci 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"It Don't Come Easy" is credited to Ringo alone. TheScotch

VH1 Storytellers is also a good source here. Ringo says clearly on that show/album that he wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with George, and discusses their arguments about the part of the lyric that finally ended up as "Peace, remember peace is how you make it."

It is clear that George helped Ringo on a lot of things. If you watch the movie Let It Be, you can see George helping Ringo compose "Octopus' Garden". The Beatles often helped each other out -- uncredited -- and as George and Ringo were particularly close, re. the uncredited help with "It Don't Come Easy", I can only say: It Don't Come As A Surprise! Jtnet 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ringo also mentions this on the bonus "radio show" disc to RingoRama. In effect, he says he is a 2-verse-and-chorus guy, and when he gets that far he needs someone to help him finish. He also said he is "not a great guitar player" and liked to go to George because he would add chords that "make me look brilliant." He specifically mentions "It Don't Come Easy" in this context. Jtnet 07:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Personal life

Where is the deatils about Rong's personal life? His marraige to Babara and Maureen? All this tell us is of his musical career.

I would like to bring further attention to this inquiry, as it is something lacking, in comparison to the other Beatles' entries. --RealGrouchy 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree.
We need info on Maureen (and should include tidbits like "Thanks Mo!"), their kids, the divorce, meeting Barbara during the filming of Caveman, their bout with alcoholism, etc. And possibly better info re. his friends (e.g. Keith Moon, Harry Nillsson, Jim Keltner, and of course John and George) and their role in Ringo's life. Finally, eventually something could be added re. the friends whose friendships have influenced his career in interesting ways, e.g. Vini Poncia, Mark Hudson, Johnny Warman, etc.
Jtnet 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

I remember reading about Ringo's alcoholism, but there's no mention of it here. I recall reading that he recorded an album (late 90s? early 21st century?), and sobered up during post-production, then blocked the album's release because he felt his alcohol-influenced performance was substandard.

Is there someone more knowledgeable than I who would like to add something about this?


Ringo did sue producer Chips Moman over some session tapes recorded in 1987 for a proposed album. The judge heard the tapes in court, and I believe the judgment came out in favor of Ringo. In 1989 Ringo submitted to a cover story in the American magazine "People", discussing his and his wife's alcoholism and their treatment.

[edit] Instruments he played/plays

(As I did previously for other multi-thread discussions on related topics, I have placed various threads that seemed to belong together under this new, higher-tiered heading Jtnet (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Only Drums

I have never seen him play any other instrument except drums. He never credited to any other instument besides drums on all of the beatles albums, and his own. So unless somebody can show me proof that this talentless musician can play the first instrument(monkeys and cavemen invented the drums by hitting rocks) then I should take out all the instruments "he can play". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.27.30 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • He plays piano and guitar as well. He most famously played a piano on "A Day in the Life." He sometimes plays piano with his All Starr bands, which include drummers.

ufossuck 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Instruments part of the infobox should include piano, guitar, etc. I am not saying he didn't play guitar or piano, but he was not known for his skill on those instruments. Starr himself admitted in 1970 that he could only play the piano in the key of C. I do not mean that as a criticism of him as a musician. I think he's a great drummer. He's inventive, his cymbal work is subtle and flawless, and he's a good timekeeper. If you listen to Beatle songs where there are wildly different versions available, note how well Starr's drum part fits the various styles. John Cardinal 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The inconsistencies in Wikipedia can certainly cause one to ponder its quality. Keith Moon's list of instruments is very extensive (incl. vocals, bugle, tuba). Yet we certainly know that he also did not sing or play tuba more often than Ringo played, say, piano. In principle, I agree with the shorter list for Ringo (for the reasons stated above), but if they allow a wider interpretation for other articles, why shouldn't that be allowed here?
Jtnet 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We're not obviously talking about article deletion here, but I think WP:WAX applies in a sense. We shouldn't be adding instruments because the Keith Moon article lists so many, we should be removing instruments from the Keith Moon page. Starr and Moon are notable for being drummers, not pianists or tubists. All the Beatles dabbled with a variety of instruments throughout the band's recording history. That could be expanded on in the main Beatle article. However, each Beatle should be listed for their main instrument. Otherwise, where does it end? They all played paper-and-combs on "Lovely Rita". Do we list that as well? As for Ringo playing piano on "A Day in the Life": are we talking about "The Chord" here? Does that really count? I think drums, percussion and vocals is sufficient. That's what he's known for. Freshacconci | Talk 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle. The problem is that this sort of argument will come up 1 million times here. In fact, almost every time I read an article on a "typical Wiki topic" (i.e. one that wouldn't be covered in detail in any other encyclopedia, e.g. pop culture in its widest sense -- music stars, movies, toys, cereal brands), I discover some inconsistency with all the other articles I have read in Wiki on similar topics. It is a daunting and basically impossible task to really establish consistency in Wiki, and for that reason there will be those who never take it seriously.
On the actual topic here, I will check, but I believe Ringo also played piano on "Don't Pass Me By". However, I agree, he -- as Moon -- is a drummer. And in the case of Ringo, a vocalist. Anything else he might accidentally have played is not to be taken "seriously".
Jtnet 10:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The other Beatles' articles seem to be far worse on the topic than Ringo's. I have never seen or heard anything of Paul playing a violin or double bass, nor John playing harmonium. George's article says he played mandolin. I know George better as an oboe player than a mandolin player. Surely Ringo plays piano more often than Paul plays violin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufossuck (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Fix the other articles, don't break this one. John Cardinal 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Starr himself admitted in 1970 that he could only play the piano in the key of C.":

He sings it too. (Conversely, Irving Berlin remarked that the key of C is for trained musicians.)

Re: "It is a daunting and basically impossible task to really establish consistency in Wiki, and for that reason there will be those who never take it seriously.":

Why even worry about that? Let's edit articles one at a time.

Re: "However, each Beatle should be listed for their main instrument. Otherwise, where does it end?":

It's really merely a matter of common sense. I'm inclined to think that Ringo and Harrison were the only true instrumentalists in the Beatles (unless we count Billy Preston as a Beatle), but I think we should concede, in addition to guitar, harmonica and piano to Lennon and, in addition to bass guitar, guitar and piano to McCartney.TheScotch 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you with the possible exception that I am not sure what you mean by "Ringo and Harrison were the only true instrumentalists in the Beatles." The dictionary says an instrumentalist is someone who plays an instrument, so all the Beatles were clearly instrumentalists. Were you saying that Starr and Harrison were instrumentalists while Lennon and McCartney were multi-instrumentalists?
I remain convinced that adding piano for Starr isn't appropriate if common sense is applied. Almost any musician can get musical sounds out of a piano, but that doesn't make them pianists; the musician must achieve achieve some level of fluency on the instrument. Starr is a very good drummer, but he wasn't a pianist and he admitted as much. John Cardinal 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I took TheScotch's comment to mean that Starr and Harrison were the most consistent instrumentalists in the band, i.e. on the professional level of session men, which I guess means that McCartney was more a virtuoso (flashes of brilliance, "showy"). But Lennon was a solid rhythm player (and occasionally good lead guitarist, such as on "Get Back"). In the end, though, Starr was not a pianist. He banged at it occasionally, but the final chord on "A Day in the Life"? It's a chord. That doesn't make him a pianist. Mal Evans played organ on a song too – was he an organist? The amazing thing with the Beatles was that they tried everything, worked with all sorts of sounds, and just like we can't list every genre of music they experimented with, listing every instrument outside the main is silly. Starr's a damn good drummer, decent vocalist, decent songwriter. That's a good legacy right there. What does adding piano prove? McCartney did play guitar and piano enough to list them ("Taxman" on the former, "Hey Jude" on the latter, with plenty more that could be mentioned) and Lennon's harmonica playing helped define the early sound (Bill Wyman in Stone Alone talks about how threatened the Stones were that another band was using a harmonica when they first heard "Love Me Do", even though it was a different style of music). But Starr and piano? My !vote is no. freshacconcispeaktome 14:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your comparison to genres. There is no rule that the infobox should include every instrument Starr played live or on record, and including all of them would make the article worse, not better. Starr is notable as a drummer, percussionist, and vocalist. Other instruments he played are discussed in the text of various articles, or listed in credits in song articles, etc., and that is sufficient and appropriate. John Cardinal 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to Ringo's infobox only including drums and percussion if George's is only says guitar, keyboards, sitar, oboe and ukelele; John's includes only guitar, harmonica and keyboards; and Paul's only guitar, bass guitar, keyboards, drums and percussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufossuck (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I took TheScotch's comment to mean that Starr and Harrison were the most consistent instrumentalists in the band, i.e. on the professional level of session men....":
For the record, I meant that within the group dynamic Lennon and McCartney seem to me to have functioned predominantly as singers and song writers rather than as instrumentalists. However much technique they may have acquired or however expressively the could play, Lennon and McCartney never demonstrated the devotion and dedication to their instruments that Harrison and Ringo did to theirs. TheScotch 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping quiet here, but as it seems to be coming down to the "I vote for this or that" part, I might as well cast mine. My take on the various Beatles' instruments would be as follows:

  • Ringo: drums, percussion
  • George: guitar, sitar, keyboards, bass (there were several examples of this)
  • Paul: bass, guitar, piano/keys, drums
  • John: guitar, harmonica, piano/keys, bass (again, several examples)

For my tastes, the main and/or influential instruments come first, but the ones that were played on, say, 2-3 songs should be listed. All the oboe/violin type of stuff was part of their experimentation phase (drugs, psychedelia, and oboe!), but it wasn't serious playing and it certainly wasn't often or important. It also wasn't like the Moody Blues, who actually then played these kinds of instruments in recognizable parts somewhere in the foreground of the mix. If George played violin somewhere in the mix of some great symphony piece,... well, it didn't matter.

If you set the "number of songs played" number to 4-5, then George and John's bass as well as George's keys and Paul's drums would drop out of the list, but I think they actually belong there.

And although I often agree with TheScotch, I must disagree with his take on McCartney and his dedication to his main instrument. I find the interpetation fascinating that he might not be dedicated to the bass in a similar manner to, say, Starr's dedication to drumming. (Harrison was probably the most dedicated to his playing, both because he needed to practice a lot but also because he was going for certain sounds he just had to have. But Starr? He himself says he never practiced. He only talks more about drums than McCartney does about bass because drums were his... madness. Talent. His only one. And he wasn't as naturally talented as McCartney was, nor do I see him following some sort of particularly exceptional path toward musical enlightenment.) McCartney's playing was very inventive, ahead of its time, and above all very influential; he was aware of what was happening around him and, like the Beatles' music in general, he was able to pick out the bits that were important to him and form a new, very personal style from them. I believe that these advances in his technique were very much intentional, very much due to his dedication to getting a particular sound. That he had more natural talent at playing instruments than the others did, and therefore did not have to "practice until his fingers bled" as George might have does not truly infer less dedication.

But perhaps I am still not understanding your point?

Jtnet (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding McCartney and drums, he played the drums many more than 4 or 5; he played drums many times in his solo career, including all the drums on McCartney and Band on the Run.
More importantly, the instruments played by everyone other than Ringo should be discussed on their talk pages, not here. John Cardinal (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize, I got a little carried away there. But the discussion of all the Beatles -- when carried out in moderation -- does have its advantages. Sometimes we all look at these people with our "Beatles glasses" on. McCartney did, or course, play drums on tons of songs in his solo career, on many of his albums. And whether or not his playing was good, it was of considerable importance to the songs in question.

Which, however, allows us to remove the Beatles glasses and re-examine the question at hand: Ringo and keyboards for example. Of Choose Love, Ringo's last studio album as of this date (Nov. 2007), producer Mark Hudson said exaggeratedly, "Ringo's keyboards are all over this record," and indeed, Starr is credited with playing keys on 4 of the songs. He also plays keys on 2 songs on Ringo Rama (and has 3-4 guitar credits), and of course on the wonderful performance of "Don't Pass Me By" on VH1 Storytellers. His keys tend to be somewhere in the mix, "pads" so to speak, except on the last-mentioned song above, but they are there and thus the question at hand is still valid.

I still, however, cast my lot with the likes of freshacconci and John Cardinal. Ringo's keys are not really of consequence. I think the instruments played must "leave a mark", as grey and foggy and open to interpretation as that may sound. Jtnet (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timpani?

Wouldn't timpani count as a percussion instrument, therefore making its in inclusion in the instrument list unneccessary? Glassbreaker5791 12:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not to mention that listing it makes it sound like he played the timpani on most Beatles songs. I removed it from the list. Freshacconci 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piano

Anyone care to comment. A few are adamant about Ringo not having "piano" listed as an instrument in the infobox. He does have credits on two Beatles albums and two of his solo albums. He is also seen playing live on the 2003 DVD by the All-Starr Band. There is also reference at http://liverpoolcityportal.co.uk/beatles/beatles_composers.html I believe it's not our focus to determine how well he played the instrument, but that he did play it.

Vytal 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone care to comment"? Look above under "Only Drums". Many have already commented at length. Please refrain from starting redundant discussion page sections. Please consult the discussion page before editing or reverting articles. TheScotch 13:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to move this, in an attempt (as I have made before) to put the parts of this page that belong together, together. To Vytal's defense, this talk page is now gigantic and sometimes it is difficult to find what you are looking for based on headings alone, especially since, often, they apparently aren't informative enough. They should be improved. Jtnet 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention, there is a scene from the Let It Be documentary in which Ringo plays a portion of "Octopus's Garden" on the piano for George Harrison. Afterwards, Harrison himself plays the piece and offers Ringo suggestions for improving it.

This is true but, in the context of the full discussion under "Instruments he plays", not relevant for the infobox. Jtnet (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ringo" or "Ritchie"

What was the name that the others used to refer to him? Listening to Harrison's "Living In The Material World" there are the lines "Though we started out quite poor / We got Richie (sic) on a tour" and I found that kind of odd, if the guys usually referred to him as "Ringo". Also, in the beginning of the atrocious "Magical Mystery Tour" he identifies himself as Richard Starkey, not Ringo. So I was just wondering how people in his personal life addressed him. (People, that is, who knew him from before becoming famous - there could be a difference between what people he knew, pre-fame, in Liverpool called, and what people, meeting him only after he had become famous, called him.) Does anyone know? Hi There 04:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ringo or Richie I believe. His wife Maureen and family called him Richie. This is all from memory (reading books and listening to bootlegs), I can't tell you exactly how I know... :) --kingboyk 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul often called John "Johnny". George and Ringo often called The Beatles 'them', or 'they' (third person) when referring to The Beatles on Anthology. --andreasegde 11:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On VH1 Storytellers Ringo himself refers to "Ringo" as his stage persona and then just being "Richard Starkey" when he's off stage. Jtnet 10:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul calls him Richie in the Let It Be film. Discussion closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark lindamood (talk • contribs) 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

...but not closed very well, since any Beatles fan could give you umpteen examples of where the other Beatles also called him Ringo in the studio. E.g. John's "calm down, Ringo!" during the orchestral recordings for "Strawberry Fields". Jtnet (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid remarks like "discussion closed" in wikipedia. This is not to say that I see how this question particularly relates to the article, however. In any case, it seems to me that Ringo quotes Lennon at one place in the Anthology documentary as abbreviating "Ringo" to "Ring". Ringo complains to Lennon that Ringo will have to answer for the cover of Two Virgins (in which Lennon and Yoko Ono are photographed naked) and Lennon replies that, "The only thing you have to answer is the phone, Ring." Maybe that's some sort of pun. TheScotch (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also a scene in "Let It Be" with Paul sitting at the piano when Ringo walks in. Ringo says, "Morning, Paul!" to which Paul replies "Morning, Rich!" and then they both play a little boogie-woogie on the piano. Rich (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Humour

This is more of an opinion than an encyclopedia-style entry, so I'm putting it here -- but Starr's main contribution was his laconic humor. The Beatles were as much about personality and charm as they were about music, and Starr was one-fourth of that. To simply focus on the songwriting does him a disservice, and misrepresents the band. Lots of English guys had musical and songwriting talent, but only four of them became the Beatles.

Favorite Ringo line: during a United States tour, he was asked, "How do you find America?" Starr replied, "Turn left at Greenland." - RjLesch

It was John Lennon who spoke that line in the movie "A Hard Day's Night", not Ringo Starr.

Are you sure? AHDN predate the big breakthrough in the US doesn't it. I certainly don't recall that line of dialogue. -- GWO

Yes, I'm positive. The movie actually doesn't predate their breakthrough in the US. They came to the US in February of 1964, and the movie was released later that year. It was Lennon who said that line in the movie.

You're right. Sorry. Horribly illegal script here: http://gayatri.nm.ru/harddn.htm

I recall it being from a genuine press conference though.

It was from a press conference. Most of the lines from the AHDN 'press conference' sequence are taken from actual Beatles press conferences. Not quite sure who first 'quipped' the infamous Greenland line though.

It's indeed from a real press conference and for whatever reason, in A Hard Day's Night they decided to have John say what Ringo really stated and vise versa.

My favorite Ringo lines: During a tour, the Beatles were asked what they think of Beethoven, to which Starr replied, "We love Beethoven. Especially his poems."

Later, in the solo years (around 1985 I think), I saw a quote attributed to Ringo in a major magazine: "Everything government touches turns to crap."

Jtnet 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Organization

I've reorganized this article a bit -- created separate sections for early years, role in the Beatles, then everything after the Beatles. This makes it easier to follow, and also puts it a bit more in line with the Harrison article.

Also, I've reorganized the material in the Beatles section. It should be drumming first, then singing, then songwriting, since that was the order of importance of his roles in the Beatles. The contribution his personality made needs to be added, as someone noted above, as well as his country mustic influence. I'll try to do that next. The post-Beatles material also needs a lot of work. --jls


"The post-Beatles material also needs a lot of work." Do you mean the article or Ringo's actual material!?!?! Ha HAHAHAHAHA


I've just adjusted the post-Beatles stuff a bit. The films are now a separate topic; the section titles include years; and the potpourri of more recent history has now been divided into music-related and TV-related stuff. The section was almost unreadable as it was -- I hope it is sufficiently structured now.
Jtnet 10:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] From a recent edit

This was deleted almost immmediately (it certainly didn't belong at the top of the article like that), but I thought I'd paste it here in case there's anything important (or even true - it's the first I've heard of it):

According to "The Beatles Anthology" book printed in 2000 on page 33 (this is the United States version I'm quoting.) "My real name is Parkin, not Starkey. My grandad was named Johnny Parkin. When my grandfather's mother remarried, which was pretty shocking in those days, she married a Starkey, so my grandfather changed his name to Starkey too. (I went to have my family tree done in the sixties, but I could only trace back two generations -- and they couldn't find me. I had to go to my family to find out, and even they hadn't wanted to say anything in case the press found out.)"
This makes me think that The Beatles page should be changed to reflect this or that this information needs to be proven false. However I believe that this is most likly true as it is one of the few books that they contacted all of the living members of The Beatles to write this book. (This is according to "The Beatles Anthology" book to be released in fall 2000 which I think is at least partly accurate.)

-GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've said in my recent edit, it certainly doesn't belong in the first line of the article. He received his MBE as Richard Starkey, his songwriting credits are as Richard Starkey. Secondly, now I have time - vandals blocked - to read this more closely, I think you misunderstand the quote. He's saying that by rights he is a Parkin, through the male line. When his great grandmother remmaried, his grandfather changed the male line to Starkey. Richard is legally Starkey, and always has been, but had things been different he would have been a Parkin. Am I right?
Right or wrong, if I find it in the first line again I'll be deleting on sight. We don't rewrite history round here, we simply chronicle it. --kingboyk 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, further logic to say I'm right. He traced his family tree back 2 generations because they were Starkeys. The trail stopped there, because prior to that they were Parkins. That does not legally or for the purposes of our article make him a Parkin. It's no more than trivia (and could go into the trivia section). --kingboyk 06:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I support mentioning it somewhere appropriate (trivia, family background, a footnote to one of those, something). I oppose it being in the lead sentence, it's not relevant enough to be a lead sentence thing, IMHO. I've added the page to my watchlist as well, and will revert on sight unless the person who puts it in discusses it here first. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

There's been a lot of vandalism of this page in the last weeks.And it consists in changing a few names ( like "Hamburg" to "Ham Bug" ), which makes it hardly locatable.

Why aren't the last changes watched ? Maybe we should lock the page, I don't know.

MrGater 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been crazy tonight, and I've just blocked 2 IP addresses for an hour. I didn't have this article on my watchlist but will add it now. In future if you see vandalism as organised as this, please rush over to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report it, or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request protection. --kingboyk 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Someone changed the date he became a grandfather to 1965 again. Since that date definitely is incorrect I've changed it back to 1985.

[edit] Ringo's death?

Why does someone write in the article "Ringo passed away December 9, 2006 peacefully in his home in Reading, England at the age of 52." First of all this seems totally untrue as nothing reports his death (and no reports about fading health exist), secondly the age is totally wrong as Ringo is 66 years old. I guess this entry is a bad joke and should be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.65.192.6 (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Did he die?

I heard from our teacher who is a fan that Ringo Starr died not long ago. Is it true?

no Anger22 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell your teacher to read a book sometime. --andreasegde 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a theory that he died in a car crash in 1966 and the remaining Beatles embedded several clues in their lyrics and record sleeves. For example, He's intorduced as "Billy Shears" on Sgt Pepper; and on the cover he wears a black shirt when the others wear white; And on The White album he sings the song "Goodnight" to his fans; and in "Don't Pass Me By" the fake Ringo recounts the car crash in which he was killed.

...but, of course, the main thrust of the "death theories" always involved Paul, not Ringo, and most of the same clues can be read to support that as well. "Looking Through a Glass Onion"! Jtnet 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ringo Starr vs. Apple Sauce

Is it really a coincidence that Ringo was in an apple sauce commercial, or was the japanese word part of the stage name etymology? --Nintendude 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: the recent sauce → juice edit — seems to be correct [3] [4] unless he did both. Femto 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "last" song

' Starr did all this without ostentatious flash: the only drum solo in The Beatles' catalogue is on "The End" (in some senses the "last" Beatles song) ' The parenthetical was removed but if there's a source for it, I think it's a neat thing to keep. Unsourced? Must go. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources could prove that Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded, and they could also show that "The End" is the song they originally wanted to place last. It was a last-minute change of heart (similar to the laugh track after "Within You, Without You") that led them to put the "Her Majesty" snippet in there as a "deflating moment". So in this sense, which is one of "some", I'm sure the statement can be backed. (Orig. author could look it up.)
Jtnet 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article would need to say specifically in what sense. Just writing "in some senses" isn't good enough.

Re: "Sources could prove that Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded...":

I don't think they could because the truth of the contention depends on what one means by "the last album the Beatles recorded". Although much of Let it Be had been recorded before any of Abbey Road was recorded, the last Beatles recording sessions were Let it Be sessions. Let it Be was also, of course, the last Beatles album released while the Beatles were still extant, which certainly should count for something. I always thought it was interesting that the last Beatles single (in the United States), "The Long and Winding Road", ends with "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"--although that's one too many yeahs, and the Beatles had already cannibalized the expression in "All You Need is Love".TheScotch 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. You know your Beatles history as well as anyone here. They recorded the basic Let It Be stuff, learned to hate each other, went their own ways, and Paul gathered them (incl. George Martin) back together for one (probably final) record. The story is recounted in numerous sources. Then they recorded Abbey Road, then they decided to give (inaccurate quote/John) 'the shittiest pile of badly recorded shit' to Phil Spector to salvage it. During this time, there were some re-recordings and even a completely new song ("I Me Mine"), which could either be considered the last Beatles song or the first Threetles song, as you like it.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Let It Be was issued after the Beatles had broken up. There was all that discussion betw. the three and Paul, concerning the scheduled release dates of Let It Be and Paul McCartney, which he circumvented by quitting in April. Let It Be was released as an album in May, I think. (Singles had been released previously.)
So yes, there are two ways of seeing this, but the last album recorded by the Beatles within the concept of being an "album", and not "repairs and re-edits and overdubs" in a salvage effort, was Abbey Road. Let It Be was the last studio album released by the Beatles.
This can be verified and therefore the "some senses" could be properly defined. I agree that the wording is too vague.
(BTW I agree that the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" in LAWR was interesting because it did seem to signal something, and in its strange way to give the lyric a level of depth it might otherwise have lacked.)
Jtnet 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Also, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Let It Be was issued after the Beatles had broken up. There was all that discussion betw. the three and Paul, concerning the scheduled release dates of Let It Be and Paul McCartney, which he circumvented by quitting in April.":

Paul McCartney did not quit the Beatles. He was, in fact, the only one of the four never to quit. Ringo quit during the "White Album" recording sessions and was persuaded to return. George Harrison quit during the (original) Let it Be sessions and eventually returned. (Whether this took persuading I don't know. John Lennon is said to have remarked, "If he's not back by Tuesday, we'll get Eric [Clapton]", which I assume to be some sort of joke.)

When John Lennon told Allen Klein he was quitting, Klein offered to be his personal manager and advised him to keep silent until Lennon had a solo album ready to be released, reasoning that the news could help advertise the album. Instead Lennon blurted out his intention at a Beatles meeting. The group agreed to disband and agreed further to keep the break-up secret until sometime after the forthcoming Let it Be was released, reasoning in this case that the public would be less likely to buy a new record from a group that had ceased to exist.

Paul McCartney recorded McCartney covertly, booking studio time under a pseudonym. He accompanied the record with a press release announcing that he, Paul McCartney, had quit the group, attempting, no doubt what Allen Klein had in mind with Lennon. The differences, of course, are, on the one hand, that McCartney was lying (you can't quit a group that had already disbanded), and, on the other hand, that McCartney had breeched his agreement to keep quiet about the Beatles's break-up.

In any case, again we find that the question of which Beatles album was last depends entirely on how you define "last".TheScotch 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are basically saying the same thing in two different ways. The story as recounted is well known and we both know that it was Paul who announced the breakup -- hence my "quit" comments. I remember that day quite well, unfortunately! (I was simplifying the story, because this is the talk page.) But your conclusions are correct, and I think still that "some senses" can be defined properly. For my tastes, the sense in which Abbey Road was the final album and "The End" was to be the end of that album is something that makes that song remarkable -- and by chance all four players played solos on that song.
All of which doesn't diminish other remarkable aspects of, say, Let It Be or the happenings of and around that record.
Jtnet 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can specify clearly and succinctly the sense, and if the sense is sensible, then we're fine. I'm still not convinced we can meet these conditions, however. (This is complicated enough without my pointing out that the Hey, Jude album was released in between the release of Abbey Road and Let it Be--but in the United States only. Nevertheless....) Was "The End" the last Abbey Road song recorded? If it was, then in what sense was Abbey Road the last Beatles album? In the sense that it was the last collection of new material released by the Beatles before their break-up was prematurely announced by Paul McCartney? That strikes me as labyrinthine. In any case, I don't think there's anything remarkable about "The End" occurring (nearly) at the end of Abbey Road because this is surely the "end" to which the lyric really refers. The song has no other reason to exist. At least Jethro Tull's "Wind-up" (the last song--really the last song--on Aqualung) is a pun. TheScotch 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your arguments, I am surprised you don't understand mine. I don't find it labyrinthine, or at least not particularly so. (Not more than many other events and aspects concerning the Beatles.) Nor is the interpretation in question in any way obscure, since it can be taken from any number of texts on the Beatles. However, though I support the original author's intent here, I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree over this point for now. At some point, however, I will source his/her statements -- as soon as I find time to delve into the texts -- just because I would appreciate reaching some sort of accord with you. Until then, I don't think we will make much more progress on this.
Jtnet 09:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[The problem with something like this is that there is no absolute truth. But to me, discrediting the original author's intent is like a dog biting its own tail. From wikipedia:
re. Abbey Road being the final album or not:
Abbey Road is the eleventh official album recorded by The Beatles. Although its release preceded that of Let It Be, it was the last album to be recorded.
...
After the near-disastrous sessions for the proposed Get Back album (later retitled Let It Be for release), Paul McCartney suggested to producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album "just like the old days. .. just like we used to," free of the conflict that began with the sessions for The White Album. Martin agreed to this if the band would be "the way they used to be." In their interviews for the Beatles Anthology series, the surviving band members stated they knew at the time this would very likely be the final Beatles' product, and therefore they agreed to set aside their differences and "go out on a high note."
re. the position of "The End":
"The End" was initially intended to be the final track on Abbey Road, but it is followed by "Her Majesty". In the first practice mix of the medley, constructed on 30 July, "Her Majesty" followed "Mean Mr. Mustard"...
...etc. This labyrinth has already been walked through a thousand times by a thousand people.]
Jtnet 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "After the near-disastrous sessions for the proposed Get Back album (later retitled Let It Be for release), Paul McCartney suggested to producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album "just like the old days. .. just like we used to," free of the conflict that began with the sessions for The White Album.":

Wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other wikipedia articles--or for anything else.

The circumstances regarding George Martin and Abbey Road are often misconstrued and misrepresented, and frequency doesn't make misconstruction or misrepresentation valid. George Martin had quit EMI and had begun to work independently as a producer. That meant that if the Beatles wanted to use him for Abbey Road they had to hire him. Given the animosity in recording the "White Album", Martin could easily have been somewhat reluctant to be hired and might well have had to be persuaded.

"The group" was "together" until Lennon announced his departure and it formally agreed to disband, which took place after the recording of Abbey Road. By the time of Abbey Road the recording group and George Martin were legally entirely separate entities--as they had not originally been. (Paul McCartney has, and has had, a vested interested in obfuscating the circumstances surrounding the Beatles breaking up, and has not hesitated to obfuscate or to encourage others to obfuscate on his behalf.)TheScotch 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that wikipedia is a source for other articles. (I am however showing a typical situation where if you try too hard to get it one way here, you will have to do a lot more housecleaning.) The wiki article does reflect something which could be sourced again and again, and would, I would say, be seen as a "generally accepted truth". I do know how long they were together, when they recorded what, who was there and who wasn't -- as well as anyone who has read Lewisohn or MacDonald etc. etc.
As I said, I think we will have to agree to disagree for now. I think we should drop the thread as it has a potential to turn sour. No need for that amongst fans.
Jtnet 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Ringo in text and exception.

In accordance with discussions over at The Beatles:Project and elsewhere I have changed all references from "Ringo" to "Starr"/"Ringo Starr", except one. This is where Carl Palmer says he sold his drumkit to Ringo. Whilst it is not in quotes it is very likely to be reported speech, and therefore I have kept it as is. In any event, this article is the one where the policy is least effective - since Ringo IS Ringo. I am sure that I have seen "serious" articles elsewhere in the past where The Beatles are named as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Ringo.LessHeard vanU 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contradictory Sentence?

The sentence "Starr commented that the other Beatles gave him very explicit instructions on what to drum so it's worth bearing in mind that he was to an extent "programmed"" seems to contradict the paragraphs above it. Is this a legitimate sentence? If so I think it needs a source and needs to be rewritten for clarity.

[edit] sections

This article could really do with a lot more subsections. Stevage 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Wave LP

The article stated that "Old Wave" was only released in Germany, Canada and Brazil but I have seen this LP as being released in Scandinavia as well as Australia. I have lived in both places and currently reside in the latter. Does anyone know of other countries where this LP may have been released? I have added this information to the article relating to what I have stated.--Peter Jensen 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] external links - Russian (?) entry

Is this just a joke title to the correct link, or simply vandalism? I don't want to remove a legit link just because it reads juvenile in English.LessHeard vanU 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and citations from a book: A quick and easy "How-To"

Important: Read this on the editing page, or it won't make sense. Click on the "edit" icon. >->->->->->->

How to put a reference in an article:

Use a book, and start with this:

[1]

The name "Spitz" is the surname of the author.

Add this in the middle:

Spitz, Bob. The Beatles: The Biography, Little, Brown, and Company, New York, 2006. ISBN 1845131606

You will find this information in the book you have.

The whole thing looks like this:

[1]

When you want to repeat a reference from the same book in the same article, use this:

[1]

That’s all.

Note: Copy the information over to notepad, or Winword, and insert the information there, and then copy it back to the page. It will save time…

Note: Make sure the page you are editing has a "References section". (This one has.)


--andreasegde 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Does anyone else think that 42 "citation needed" tags in this article is a bit excessive? I think there is a "this article does not cite its sources" banner that could go at the top without constantly interrupting the flow? If the same philosophy was applied to every article - i.e. that practically every single statement needs a citation - then 90% of articles would be nothing but a forest of these tags.

The George article is the same, I agree it makes it hard to read (as you tend to pronounce all the 'citation needed's in your head). Perhaps a symbol, rather than the actual phrase might help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, there are far too many citation tags, and many of them are unnecessary. If a Starr song appears in a film, it doesn't really need a print citation since it is credited in the film.--Son of Somebody 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Last Apple Album?

"Blast From Your Past" was not the last album released on Apple Records by a long shot. There have been many others since then. Ever heard of "Anthology" or "Let It Be...Naked", or "Love"? Those are all Apple releases.206.113.132.130 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

I'm not sure that this article really needs the 'Trivia' section - one piece of rough information does not qualify for an entire section. I am planning to delete the section 'Trivia' in 24 hours if nobody objects. --Liamshaw 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody object? Please say either way - I'd hate to do it without getting feedback from others first. Liamshaw 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hang on; I'll have a quick look and see if the item can be placed elsewhere... LessHeard vanU 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It could have been included elsewhere if there was a link which may have shed light on what Full House is. As there wasn't I removed it myself. Liamshaw, best thing in these instances is to be bold and remove/amend as you see fit - with a note in the edit summary. If someone else thinks it should stay they can revert it with explanation. LessHeard vanU 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, apologies for my nervousness. However, I've now, at the recommendation of Freshacconci on the Beatles WikiProject talk page, changed "Other Information" into "Trivia". Hope you like. Liamshaw 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in the Miscellenea Section

"In 1990, Starr was the first of the Beatles to become a grandfather with the birth of a daughter to his son, Zak, who is also a drummer and not only plays drums for the Who but also for famous britpop band Oasis, though he is only a semi-official member. Starr arranged for Zak to receive drumming instruction from his idol, the late Who drummer Keith Moon, who was a close friend of his."

How Can this Be When Keith Moon Died in 1978? So Ringo Arranged for his Grandson to have drumming lessons from his friend who died 12 years before the kid was born? Did Ringo not get the memo that Moon had died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppet funk (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Read carefully. Ringo's son Zak was tutored by Moon; Zak was born in the 60's, long before Moon died. John Cardinal 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Ringo?

This section seems highly non-notable. The campaign obviously didn't catch on. Any objections if I delete it? Or at the very least drastically reduce it and merge it with another section? --Auximines 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The points could be removed, especially if the references link to those same points, or similar points, and merge into "Miscellanea" since that's what this item is, until he actually is knighted. Freshacconci 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought all four Beatles were simultaneously knighted. No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


No, I think yo're confusing that with when they got MBE's.--Crestville 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, only Paul's been knighted. They all received MBEs in the 60s. I don't think you can be posthumously knighted either, so George and John are out. Just leaves Ringo. And why not? Christ, they knighted Tom Jones! Freshacconci 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Ringo & the other Beatles give back their MBEs in protest of Vietnam?

John did. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Until Ringo is knighted this section should go.
It's a moot point now that he's dead, but presumably Lennon's returning his MBE--in protest of Britain's involvement in Biafra as well as its support for the United States's involvement in Vietnam--would make him an unlikely candidate for knighthood. Both Rudyard Kipling and Ralph Vaughan Williams refused to accept knighthood, and it's questionable whether Lennon would have accepted his had it been offered. (Conan Doyle had his fictional Sherlock Holmes refuse a knighthood, but Conan Doyle himself hadn't the backbone to refuse his own.) TheScotch 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from the Ringo Rama Radio Hour Interview, ca. 2003, discussing the song "Elizabeth Reigns":

Interviewer: Perhaps the only English phenomenon as big as the Beatles is the Royal Family.
Starr: I don’t feel they’re relevant any more. ... [In the song] I shout ... “God save the queen, if you know what I mean, we don’t really need a king.” I think it should end with this queen. ... I think we can have the pageant without...them. I think they should have built a hospital in the name of the queen mum, but they didn’t, they just decided not to pay taxes and keep their money.
Interviewer: At the end of the song ― which is a balanced view of the queen and company ― you say, “Well, there goes me knighthood.”
Starr: There goes me knighthood – yes, I think it has gone, well and truly…
Interviewer: Does that bother you at all?
Starr: No, I don’t want to be a sir, I want to be a duke or a prince. So if they come through with that, I’ll seriously consider it.

Jtnet 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He "failed" to achieve?

In the "After the Beatles" section it constantly mentions how he "failed" to do things, such as top the UK charts. Maybe I'm being antsy, but that struck me as being very critical and degrading to him.

7FlushSetzer 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In relation to his former band, and his former bandmates, it can be argued that he failed to be quite as stupendously succesful as them. However, if you think you can provide a better NPOV wording then please do so. You may also wish to point out that he was a better selling UK singles artist than the other four in the early 1970's (but you had better get a decent ref for that!) LessHeard vanU 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ringo topped the American charts twice in 1973, before John Lennon had managed it once. Lennon sent him a telegram demanding to know when Ringo would write him a number 1! At that point George had had 2 US number 1s, Paul 3. If the article reads as a succession of "failures", it may be factually correct for the UK but may still be worded in a misleading way.

[edit] Irish?

Am I right in suggesting that of all the Beatles, Ringo was the only one who didn't (or couldn't) claim Irish descent? We know of Paul and John, and I had always assumed that George had some Irish in him somewhere.. but did Ringo? I ask because he is listed in the article List of Irish people#Notable people of Irish descent as being of Irish descent. --Mal 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Who in Liverpool is not of Irish decent, Liverpool is sometimes jokingly referred to as the real capital of Ireland. Starkey is an Irish surname to my knowledge! George is connected on both sides, his paternal grandgather Harrison came from Co Waterford, Ireland. 86.40.10.82 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat reminded of a sketch on Goodness Gracious Me - "Indian!" :-) --kingboyk 02:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Starkey is certainly not a common name in Northern Ireland (though that doesn't necessarily mean that its uncommon in the Republic also). Having done some research on it, it looks as though it is of English and/or German origin - not Irish. However, that doesn't mean that people with the surname Starkey hadn't settled in Ireland at some point.. after all, FitzGerald is a common name in the RoI, but its not an Irish name - its Norman.

Gleave (his mother's maiden name) is also not an Irish name.

According to Alan Clayson's biography, Straight Man or Joker? he was described as the only Beatle not to have had Irish blood.

His maternal great-great-grandfather was a Cunningham (a ancestral surname I have in common with Ringo). This is common in Ireland (particularly in Ulster), but it is primarily Scottish. However, it has been used as an Anglicisation of some Irish surnames.

His maternal great-great grandfather was a Johnson - and that is even harder to determine when it comes to ancestry, being such a common surname throughout the English-speaking world.

I can't see that Ringo has any Irish ancestry at all. Even if he does.. somewhere along the line, it is tenuous at best. I'm going to remove him from the list.

As for who in Liverpool is not of Irish descent.. ermm.. non-Irish descended people perhaps..? lol --Mal 21:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People thinking he is Jewish?

http://jewsrock.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=challah.view&page=L mentions something I'd never heard before - some fans believing that Ringo has Jewish ancestry. Can anyone find a source suggesting that he does (I know he doesn't, before anyone asks....)--MartinUK 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Beatles Anthology, they mention that some people thought he was Jewish. I forget the rest of the anecdote, but suffice it to say he is not. --RealGrouchy 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
During the Beatles tour of Canada, French-Canadian separatists made death threats against "the English Jew." This was mentioned in Peter Brown's The Love You Make, I believe. Starr is not Jewish, as he had responded at the time. The assumption is based--how do I put this delicately (and without making it look like this is my opinion)--on the size of his nose. Freshacconci

[edit] Can we get a picture of modern Ringo?

He looks QUITE a bit different from how he did decades ago (with the exception of his nose!).

I know I seem lazy by just asking someone else to do it, but I'm still learning things here.

7FlushSetzer 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone more experienced in Wiki-ing than I tell me: Can I scan a page from one of his CD booklets and use it for this purpose? The two photos in the article at the moment (Avedon and White Album) are also probably copyrighted, yet they are known and distributed all over the world. And appear in this article. Perhaps I could use the same logic for the photos in, say, RingoRama. Jtnet 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, a new main picture is up. A blocky, pixelated painting of Ringo more than 30 years ago.

7FlushSetzer 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Is he dead yet

Someone should mention hes the oldest beatle of all history.--70.241.27.30 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in the first paragraph. Freshacconci | Talk 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

Good grief, Maureen Starkey is mentioned only once (because McCartney wrote a song about her) and Zak only once because Ringo played drums with him. Montagu Square and Sunny Heights are not mentioned at all. How can this be so? --andreasegde 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical difficulties with the Ringo article ("disappearing" text)

I'm having a technical problem with the Ringo Starr article and I just can't figure it out. I was a bit upset about its poor organization again (I had cleaned it up somewhat in July) and I started to edit it, when I realized only about half of the problem was poor article organization.

The other half appears to be a technical glitch of some sort.

Take a look at the section "Possibility of knighthood" (as of today, 30 Oct.). The last paragraph (currently something about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic mentioned in the heading. And it doesn't! But if you go into edit mode, you will see that awards are technically in their own section, "Awards and Recognition." It's just that the section heading and the first few paragraphs of that section itself just... well, disappear. I tried editing there at that "location" in the article, and it seems as if whatever is placed immediately behind "Knighthood" just gets sort of swallowed. Not only the text itself, which doesn't appear, but headings are not recognized and therefore also do not appear in the table of contents.

Thus I cannot get the article to appear correctly and completely on screen, and I've tried this now on three different computers.

I therefore must assume that the problem exists in general. What am I -- and all of us Ringo editors -- missing here? What's happening? Can anyone help?

Jtnet 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The "notes" link preceeding the missing section was incomplete. I fixed it I think, but someone may want to check that I haven't messed up anything else in the process.
--Jd204 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be okay now. Thank you for that! -- Jtnet 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Starkey Jr

Has he ever actually been called this (the Jr bit, I mean)? If so, it would be useful to have a citation for the "Junior". Bluewave (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you forgot to remove Jr from the infobox, so I took the liberty of removing that. --Spiby (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)