I read in an interview though it doesn't bother him any more, and in another one he jokingly said Lennon/McCartney sounds best but when it's full it's better the other way
It's all a bit petty really. Ok, John never wrote Yesterday, but Paul didn't have much to do with I Am The Walrus either. Both writers received credit for songs they played no part in, so the order of names makes little difference.
There was an unwritten agreement that Beatle songs could revert to McCartney-Lennon if they ever wanted them too. As far as I know Paul never requested this change during the life of the band. I say keep it as it is - imagine if we had to start saying Sullivan & Gilbert
It's all a bit petty really. Ok, John never wrote Yesterday, but Paul didn't have much to do with I Am The Walrus either. Both writers received credit for songs they played no part in, so the order of names makes little difference.
There was an unwritten agreement that Beatle songs could revert to McCartney-Lennon if they ever wanted them too. As far as I know Paul never requested this change during the life of the band. I say keep it as it is - imagine if we had to start saying Sullivan & Gilbert
or
Stoller and Lieber
King and Goffin
Dozier, Holland and Holland
Richards and Jagger
Hammerstein and Rodgers
No, they all sound wrong, just leave it as Lennon and McCartney.
Don't know if he's the most talented, because John Lennon went deeper than that I think, at least for me.
He had a way of affecting and fascinating people in a way that none of the other Beatles and no other musician has. Just going for the jugular and opening up his wounds and his thoughts in his lyrics and his music. I've never seen or heard anyone do that so successfully.
He was certainly one-of-a-kind and I wouldn't want to cheapen it by giving him a title such as 'most talented', 'talent' sounds too much like a textbook word.
I agreed with Q magazine when they listed him as the number 1 most 'influential' artist of all time.
How talented you are could be measured with mundane facts and figures, whereas there's no way of putting your finger on exactly what causes someone to affect and influence you, who reaches you on a sub-conscious level above and beyond any other musician.
That's what John Lennon does for me.
I was just going to say that, before I got to your post! Agree that how talented he was compared to other artists is open to discussion, but his influence goes way beyond his art and in that area no-one gets near...
Love you forever John, I will never forget the morning of the 9th December 1980 wakeing up to hear the terrible news.
I watched that programme on ITV on Monday it made me cry again, even though George is my favourite Beatle I can accept his death a lot more than John's.
Paul didn't let Ringo join, it was a joint decision by John, Paul & George. He'd already sat in for Pete Best at a Beatles show when Pete was sick.
And Ringo wasn't an exceptionally poor drummer. George Martin has confirmed that his drumming was so skilful it rarely had to be rerecorded in the studio. Some of Ringo's performances were a major influence on other drummers - Rain and A Day In The Life in particular.
he was rubbish . and if george said that he is talking rubbish too.
well known ringo was adequate at best..
and after doing some googleing around concerning what i allready know.
its the general concensous that ringo was just that "adequate"
if you want to hear a skilful drummer go check out john bonham, thats what a skilful drummer sounds like.
ringo starr skilful yeah and i am next in line to the throne
Wish all this rubbish over who was best would stop, I love all The Beatles and the four of them together was magic, It would not have been the same without Ringo or anyone of them.
he was rubbish . and if george said that he is talking rubbish too.
well known ringo was adequate at best..
and after doing some googleing around concerning what i allready know.
its the general concensous that ringo was just that "adequate"
if you want to hear a skilful drummer go check out john bonham, thats what a skilful drummer sounds like.
ringo starr skilful yeah and i am next in line to the throne
The Beatles didn't need a John Bonham or Keith Moon. Ringo was ideal for them, and he is much better than adequate.
I can more easily envisage Ringo playing with the The Who or Led Zep than I can Moon or Bonham playing with The Beatles.
I suppose Bonham and Moon would be right out of character playing Beatles style, but I couldn't see Ringo with The Who (although his son does a great job with them) or Led Zep.
I suppose that is why all three bands were so good. They had the right people in place for what they were.
As the Beatles are my all-time favourite band, it is poignant that we reflect on the life and music of John Lennon today. In retrospect I Feel Fine is my fave single of theirs. Intriguingly, John Lennon is namechecked on my no 2 song of the last decade, Badly Drawn Boy with You Were Right.
he was rubbish . and if george said that he is talking rubbish too.
well known ringo was adequate at best..
and after doing some googleing around concerning what i allready know.
its the general concensous that ringo was just that "adequate"
if you want to hear a skilful drummer go check out john bonham, thats what a skilful drummer sounds like.
ringo starr skilful yeah and i am next in line to the throne
okay so if george's word isn't good enough
how about paul
“Ringo, Moonie(Keith Moon), and John Bonham would be my three main drummers. Not technically the best by a long shot but for feel and emotion and economy, they’re always there. Particularly, Ringo.”
but none of that matters
and john may only have been half joking when he said
he (ringo) isn't even the best drummer in the beatles
Ringo was the right drummer for the beatles
John thought he was good enough to play on the Plastic Ono Band lp so john can't have thought to badly of him
Wasn't 1956 a big year for Elvis... ? was that his big breakthrough year ?
Rock and Roll was taking off... the guys must have been getting ideas of the new wave.... the new beat....
suddenly those jazz students in their duffle coats were looking squaresville...
The Beatles finally met up in 1957 ...
shiney new guitars were in the shops.. big, powerful amps...
it was all there just waiting....
America was the big influence.. the big shiney cars... the blonde movie stars.... Little Richard... Elvis... Jerry Lee... Buddy Holly.....
I bet John and the guys were sold on the American Dream back then....
As hard as I try, I just cannot remember John Lennon's death at all. And yet I remember Elvis'! I was 9 at the time of JL death. I adore his music rather than The Beatles, especially Imagine because I played it on piano for my music exam many years ago in secondary school. I have seen a number of documentaries about him and he seems such a genuinely funny, intelligent man robbed of life by a selfish man.
Comments
There was an unwritten agreement that Beatle songs could revert to McCartney-Lennon if they ever wanted them too. As far as I know Paul never requested this change during the life of the band. I say keep it as it is - imagine if we had to start saying Sullivan & Gilbert
or
Stoller and Lieber
King and Goffin
Dozier, Holland and Holland
Richards and Jagger
Hammerstein and Rodgers
No, they all sound wrong, just leave it as Lennon and McCartney.
Wise and Morecambe ....
yeah you re right, just leave things as they are !
I was just going to say that, before I got to your post! Agree that how talented he was compared to other artists is open to discussion, but his influence goes way beyond his art and in that area no-one gets near...
Never forgotten.
Used to sing all his songs quietly to myself on the coach whenever we went anywhere. My older brothers used to listen to him non stop.
I just believe in me.
I watched that programme on ITV on Monday it made me cry again, even though George is my favourite Beatle I can accept his death a lot more than John's.
he was rubbish . and if george said that he is talking rubbish too.
well known ringo was adequate at best..
and after doing some googleing around concerning what i allready know.
its the general concensous that ringo was just that "adequate"
if you want to hear a skilful drummer go check out john bonham, thats what a skilful drummer sounds like.
ringo starr skilful yeah and i am next in line to the throne
The Beatles didn't need a John Bonham or Keith Moon. Ringo was ideal for them, and he is much better than adequate.
I suppose Bonham and Moon would be right out of character playing Beatles style, but I couldn't see Ringo with The Who (although his son does a great job with them) or Led Zep.
I suppose that is why all three bands were so good. They had the right people in place for what they were.
http://www.fooarchive.com/gpb/daveonringo.htm
okay so if george's word isn't good enough
how about paul
“Ringo, Moonie(Keith Moon), and John Bonham would be my three main drummers. Not technically the best by a long shot but for feel and emotion and economy, they’re always there. Particularly, Ringo.”
but none of that matters
and john may only have been half joking when he said
he (ringo) isn't even the best drummer in the beatles
Ringo was the right drummer for the beatles
John thought he was good enough to play on the Plastic Ono Band lp so john can't have thought to badly of him
for an interesting slant on the beatles musical influences
have a look at this
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME12/Interview_McGrath.shtml
and lets not forget Arthur Alexander who john, in particular, was greatly influenced by
always remembered