|
|
Post by kim on Jan 30, 2009 15:08:04 GMT -5
Push came to shove...and if YOU were a fledgling group
back in the early 60's...which one of the two
drummers would you have hedged a bet on
to keep the beat?...aside from knowing what we
now know of course...but more importantly, what
they did as they both hit the ground running back
in the day.
Thanks
Kim
|
|
|
|
Post by spaced on Jan 30, 2009 15:12:15 GMT -5
Dead Even. My honest opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by rtbuck on Jan 30, 2009 17:38:15 GMT -5
Charlie Watts for me but that may be because I'm a Stones Freak
|
|
|
|
Post by Rush862 on Jan 30, 2009 18:25:56 GMT -5
I enjoy listening to and watching Charlie over Ringo any time...I never saw anything good about Ringo...
|
|
|
|
Post by Equinox on Jan 30, 2009 20:35:27 GMT -5
Ringo needed a vote so I gave him one. Nothing earth shattering about either. Like the Beatles top to bottom a little better.
|
|
|
|
Post by moheganer2 on Jan 30, 2009 22:10:35 GMT -5
I go withRingo -loved drums on Rain
|
|
|
|
Post by duojett71 on Jan 31, 2009 0:34:21 GMT -5
I went with Ringo. He was a hard working touring drummer before The Beatles and had a proven track record in the British and German club scene. The Beatles were obviously looking for someone who could really play the repertoire they were playing and someone they could count on to play their own music. Ringo may not be heralded as a great drummer, but I loved alot of the things he did and the guy must have had a great sense of timing to be able to hold it down over the kind of crowd noise he had to deal with. Ringo in my opinion was rock solid, and perfect for The Beatles which could not have been an easy task. He often thought about quitting The Beatles and was constantly talked into staying by the rest of the band....that also says something. He also had the temperment to deal with the rest of the conflicts within the band. He was the one that all the other members always liked. Plus not everyone can say with absolute certainty that they were better than the Best.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Equinox on Jan 31, 2009 12:56:29 GMT -5
3 folks said they veted for Ringo... yet only 2 show?
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jan 31, 2009 13:09:03 GMT -5
3 folks said they veted for Ringo... yet only 2 show? Someone forgot to hit the button me thinks? Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by blackers45 on Jan 31, 2009 14:17:18 GMT -5
Ringo for me. I remember in the 80's when the Stones came to Foxboro,MA. they played one of their songs that obviously had double bass drum in it, yet only one bass drum on stage, I think Charlie Watts was replaced long ago by a robot.IMO |
|
|
|
Post by duojett71 on Feb 2, 2009 2:07:53 GMT -5
Ringo for me. I remember in the 80's when the Stones came to Foxboro,MA. they played one of their songs that obviously had double bass drum in it, yet only one bass drum on stage, I think Charlie Watts was replaced long ago by a robot.IMO ....uhhhh....there is such thing as a double bass pedal. |
|
|
|
Post by rocknut on Feb 2, 2009 5:07:37 GMT -5
Charlie Watts........not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Speedy on Feb 2, 2009 10:05:15 GMT -5
Charlie Watts........not even close. All right! We get to disagree again.  Ringo can play "rings" around Charlie. Too this DAY Charlie Watts cannot play his high hat in time to the music without stopping once a measure. Ringo is also very versatile and has been able to play along with some very eclectic music. Both guys were the BEST for their bands though and nobody could replace them in my mind. |
|
