If John, Paul, George and Ringo HAD NOT been Beatles, would any of them have had significant musical

[ohiosmith]

careers?

[billyskank]

1. Ringo

:rofl:

[ohiosmith]

2. without question

[Tyrone Slothrop]

3. Ringo is so unfairly bashed...

I've always thought Ringo was a pretty good drummer -- ever since I was a little kid. I find it really odd that so many people seem to consider him an no-talent hack.

Good to know that other professional drummers don't feel the same way.

'"Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity," says drummer Steve Smith. "Ringo's popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music, and still identify the song."<6>

Many drummers list Starr as an influence including Max Weinberg of The E Street Band, Liberty DeVitto of Billy Joel's band, Phil Collins, Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater and others.<7> According to Collins, "Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, "I want it like that." They wouldn't know what to do."

In his extensive survey of The Beatles' recording sessions, Mark Lewisohn confirmed that Starr was both proficient and remarkably reliable and consistent. According to Lewisohn, there were less than a dozen occasions in The Beatles' eight-year recording career where session 'breakdowns' were caused by Starr making a mistake, while the vast majority of takes were stopped due to mistakes by the other three members.'

from Starr's Wikipedia entry

[Bassic]

7. He was simple, yet tight.

He was a decent drummer. He did have to be compared with some geniuses like John Bonham though, maybe that's why.

[Bassic]

4. I doubt it.

John and Paul were good songwriters, so perhaps they would have had some influence.

George actually became proficient while he was with the Beatles, so without them, no George the musician.

And I don't think Ringo has had much influence on anything.

[azmouse]

5. No

Read The Beatles by Bob Spitz.

Everyone involved in the Beatles got very lucky.

[Oeditpus Rex]

6. There's no way of knowing

A lot more goes into artistic success than mere talent. Most of it's about timing.

Some of the best musicians on the planet are sidemen whom no one's ever heard of outside the studio circles.

[Radical Activist]

11. I think you're completely correct.

I think John, George and Paul all had the talent and ability to have good solo careers without the Beatles. There's no way to know if they would have.

[PVnRT]

8. Irrelevant. All bands are pale imitations of Oasis.

n/t

[Dukkha]

9. John would have for sure

and Paul would've been a good pop star

[Mad_Dem_X]

13. Paul, definitely

He had/has the drive and personality to sell himself and his music.

[Tikki]

10. Paul might have written....

jingles for the television commercials...:shrug:





Tikki

[otherlander]

12. George

might have played some kind of Indian-influenced music and gotten really good at it but not become famous in the mainstream.