Log In
Register
8.58am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline
Folk get upset at things; at times its better to ward them off before than getting lynched.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug, vonbontee"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.29pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
New topic! I hope I’m phrasing this correctly.
I’ve heard it expressed elsewhere in the ‘Pool that they could have gone on with another drummer or lead guitarist if absolutely necessary, but without John or Paul it would never work. I personally disagree with this: to me, George and Ringo were just as essential as John and Paul, for both their sound and their band-politics. But hey, I’m probably biased… 🙂
Whaddyerthink, lads and lasses? Could the Beatles have still been the Beatles with a different drummer and/or lead guitarist? Just how essential do you think George and Ringo were, as compared to John and Paul? And I’m not just talking about their music, but also their relations with each other.
@AppleScruffJunior spoke the truth earlier when she said (she said) it’s beginning to look like an exam… 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
3.34pm
1 November 2013
Offline Silly Girl said
‘Pool that they could have gone on with another drummer or lead guitarist if absolutely necessary, but without John or Paul it would never work.
Pool?
Whaddyerthink, lads and lasses? Could the Beatles have still been the Beatles with a different drummer and/or lead guitarist?
Well they were called the Beatles before Ringo joined so I think they still would be The Beatles without George and Ringo since they didn’t come up with the name.
3.36pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline That’s NOT the sort of answer I was looking for… 
Yeah, ‘Pool, meaning Forumpool. Sorry, I can’t not inject a tad of silliness into everything I touch. It’s part of my nature. 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
3.40pm
1 November 2013
Offline Silly Girl said
That’s NOT the sort of answer I was looking for…
Next time you gotta word your question so you get what you look for. 
6.19pm
26 March 2015
Offline I sorta agree. George and Ringo aren’t as important for the Beatles writing-wise, and there’s tons of people that could play better than them. But there’s something that’s just not the Beatles without the third/fourth wheels. John and Paul are still obviously the best, though. They had better writing skills and personality.
I finally finished Sgt. Pepper 2! Watch it here. (Sorry if this is annoying advertizing...) 
11.46pm
8 February 2014
Offline I think the Beatles were uniquely the Beatles because of each member and all the members. @Knight said “George and Ringo aren’t as important for the Beatles writing-wise, and there’s tons of people that could play better than them.” I ask: name “tons of people who can play better than them.” I just watched the greatest living drummers concur that Ringo was amazing, unique, and without peer (Ringo’s R&R HOF induction). Sure, there have been and are hundreds of great guitar players – but during the late 60s, George was among the top 10 in the world, imo. I also disagree that John and Paul had better personalities – their 4 different personalities played off each other perfectly, and each had his part.
So while I agree with your conclusion that all 4 made the Beatles the band they were, I feel that they were relative equals (at least until Paul really took over at the end). Yes, John and Paul wrote more, and sang more, but they were generally unanimous about what they did. Well eventually they got to be too big as individuals to fit in a band at all. They always said, it only took one veto to can an idea.
It’s the same way with the Who, Zep, the Doors, the Police, Rush, Nirvana, any quartet or trio that makes it really big – for a band that small to get really big every member has to play their asses off. In bigger bands, members can be swapped in and out more easily without affecting the total band’s vibes (Journey is a good example).
11.55pm
8 February 2014
Offline 
Annadog40 said
Silly Girl said
‘Pool that they could have gone on with another drummer or lead guitarist if absolutely necessary, but without John or Paul it would never work.Pool?
Whaddyerthink, lads and lasses? Could the Beatles have still been the Beatles with a different drummer and/or lead guitarist?
Well they were called the Beatles before Ringo joined so I think they still would be The Beatles without George and Ringo since they didn’t come up with the name.
But they wouldn’t have been The Beatles. They would have been a great band named the Beatles, heck John or Paul on their own had enough talent to front a great band. They just wouldn’t have been the seminal musical magicians they were. Which raises a question: If the Beatles hadn’t been the greatest rock and roll band, who would have been? None of the other great bands really sticks out as a clear 2nd (I suppose the Stones might have the biggest claim on 2nd, but the Who and Zep at least rate pretty high too). Would one of them have been the clear winner? Would there not have been a clear winner? Would it have been a band that didn’t make it as big, like the Byrds, or a band that never existed? And then you have to take all the parallel universes into account…
4.40am
26 March 2015
Offline I still quite disagree, as Ringo wrote only two Beatles songs, both of which were only meh. George wrote more than Ringo, but his writing skills weren’t quite there with John and Paul. He wrote a few decent songs and now he has a group of fans talking about how he’s better than Lennon-McCartney. But I still believe that it has to be all four of them to really be the Beatles. It’s just who they are. And I take back the thing about the personalities, they do play off each other.
I finally finished Sgt. Pepper 2! Watch it here. (Sorry if this is annoying advertizing...)
5.46am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Knight said
I still quite disagree, as Ringo wrote only two Beatles songs, both of which were only meh. George wrote more than Ringo, but his writing skills weren’t quite there with John and Paul. He wrote a few decent songs and now he has a group of fans talking about how he’s better than Lennon-McCartney. But I still believe that it has to be all four of them to really be the Beatles. It’s just who they are. And I take back the thing about the personalities, they do play off each other.
George’s and Ringo’s contribution to the group weren’t only just through songwriting- both have/had instantly recognizable styles in their respected instruments. Ringo is worldwide acclaimed as a very unique drummer, who is incredibly innovative and has inspired countless famous drummers today.
“I wouldn’t be a drummer without Ringo..”
“Ringo was the coolest one…”
“You hear his drumming and you know exactly who it is“
Similarly, George brought 12-stringed guitars into the mainstream pop world (Ticket To Ride ), not to forgot the introduction of Indian music (or Indian-sounding music) to the casual music listener and some extremely “decent songs” like Here Comes The Sun and Something (to only mention two). All you have to do is look up ‘George Harrison ‘s guitar playing’ and you get a plethora of videos of “How to play guitar like George Harrison “, he was an original innovator in the guitar world.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
Zig, Beatlebug, Knight, Matt Busby
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
8.11pm
26 March 2015
Offline Okay, I think I’ve been beat. 😛 Ringo definitely brought some new personality to the drummer role and made it a cooler thing and George definitely innovated Indian music into popular rock and hippie stuff. I’m still not taking back the claim that John and Paul are better, but I think I’ve been convinced George and Ringo were vital to the Beatles.
I finally finished Sgt. Pepper 2! Watch it here. (Sorry if this is annoying advertizing...)
4.45am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Aside from their credited songwriting Ringo and George played major parts in getting Lennon/McCartney songs molded into what we know them to be. Would we be proclaiming John and Paul to be the or one of the greatest songwriting teams without their input whether it be a word, phrase, idea, riff?
Both George and Ringo are on record saying that they did far more than we ever know; John and Paul was very clear in their comments that we shouldnt underplay George and Ringo’s importance in the band and that they were all equals. That people continue to ignore all this to continue to disparage Ringo and George’s importance or worth irritates the hell out of me.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Matt Busby, adam"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
2.56am
27 April 2015
Offline Sure, John and Paul could’ve gone on without George and Ringo, and Yesterday would’ve been the last song they would’ve recorded together 😀
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
9.52am
18 July 2015
Offline P3pperish said
Sure, John and Paul could’ve gone on without George and Ringo, and Yesterday would’ve been the last song they would’ve recorded together 😀
But if the band left after Yesterday , we wouldn’t have had Sgt. Pepper , Rubber Soul , Abbey Road ,etc. or really a WHOLE lot of amazing material.
9.57am
27 April 2015
Offline ^^^ Exactly. And that is what I was trying to say 🙂
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
7.37am
27 April 2015
Offline Would it be okay to start a new topic?
I read it elsewhere that Beatles wouldn’t have been as big as they were/are if it hadn’t been for their looks and charm (along with their talent, of course). In fact, I think it was George Martin who said that he thought they could get through on their charm alone.
Do you think they would’ve been as revered as they are now if they didn’t look as good (moptop and all)? After all, the Beatlemania years had a huge part to play in their legacy. And Beatlemania, partly, was because they looked so fabulous.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
7.46am
1 November 2013
Offline I don’t think they would be as popular if they weren’t appealing to the eye. They might of been the recording band and someone else would be the face of their band.
7.51am
27 April 2015
Offline No, what I was meaning to ask was whether their legacy would be the same if they weren’t so easy on the eye…? 
I mean, Sgt. Pepper , etc that happened after the touring Beatlemania years would’ve been just as revolutionary, right?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
1.19pm
1 December 2009
Offline
But would they have been allowed to spend hundreds of hours in the studio perfecting Pepper, etc. if they hadn’t already sold jillions of records to teenagers (not gonna say “teenage girls”) for whom their looks was a huge part of their appeal?
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
Ahhh Girl, BeatlebugGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
4.31pm
1 November 2013
Offline vonbontee said teenagers (not gonna say “teenage girls”)?
But you just did making this part entirely pointless.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
UnidentifiedFiendishThingy
