Tomorrow Never Knows The Outcome

[admin]

I thought it might be interesting to consider what the Beatles would have been like without Ringo.

We can speculate from many different points of view, the performance, appeal to fans, the recordings, longevity of the group and countless others.

What do you think?

[blazer]

They probably would've disbanded. There was a common rule among the members of the beatles that if one of them wasn't there, it wouldn't have been the Beatles, which is also why they never performed together without John.

When the Beatles did a tour with Jimmy Macnichol, they never presented him as a "replacement" Instead, they would've liked to have cancelled the tour alltogether because without Ringo, no Beatles, but in those days the band themselves had nothing to say about touring, the tours were planned in advance by their record company and they had no choice but to do them even with Moral difficulties.

The "Free as a bird" and "Real Love" sessions were an exception because in a way John WAS there. According to George, they just did it with a "John has gone for a cup of coffee." kind of attitude. John just sang his tracks and took a break so the others could do their tracks.

[admin]

A great response Wouter. I am inclined, due to the resilient and most ambitious personalities of Lennon and McCartney, to think that the group would have been very different without Ringo but that they would have survived even with Pete Best.

It is hard to imagine the group without Ringo and surely "A Hard Day's Night, Eight Days a Week and Tomorrow Never Knows would not have these titles. What lyrics would we have had for "A Hard Days Night" or "Eight Days a Week?" Would these melodies have emerged without the climate created by Ringo?

[expomick]

Keeping with the idea that Pete Best had remained as their drummer, how would that have affected their initial reception in the United States?

Ringo...and Paul...were initially the most "user-friendly" Beatles, and marketing is everything, even then.

As kids in the late 60's (I was born in 1963), all my friends knew the name Ringo Starr, though we couldn't name the other Beatles at that point.

Yes, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden had a lot to do with that.

And according to most of the books we've all read, Richard Starkey wasn't considered a loveable, cuddly character back in Liverpool before they were famous, but he sure was presented/marketed/misrepresented that way once Beatlemania hit.

Can anyone imagine Pete Best being seen that way? Ringo's public Beatle persona was key in the cross-demographic marketing and acceptance of the Beatles as a cultural phenomena...which, in turn, bankrolled the band and allowed them the endless hours in the studio to create their musical magic.

Ringo is as much a key part of the Beatles success as the other three (a belief I once didn't put much stock in, but we get older...and maybe wiser).

[admin]

Intriguing comments about the spin put on Ringo's personality by the media Nick.

Many in North America only knew Ringo as the Beatles' drummer when the Fab Four emerged from the rubble. Pete Best was written out of history to some extent. I am wondering if the press would have put the same affable spin on Best that they did for Starr.

The song choices for Ringo were brilliant, whether by accident or design I am not sure. The songs were playful which seemed to be consistent with his personality. Also, I consider that the connection with country music and Ringo seemed to suit his voice very well.

I am not sure that Pete Best would have been able to make it work for him. I understand, however, that the same sort of music was offered to him in the early days.

[alecstar]

I always thought that Ringo was the glue that held all the personalities together when things started to get edgy. As far as what would the band have been like had Pete Best remained their drummer is really a non issue. His personality may have fit but his timing would not have. Especially later on when they moved out of the "pop" sound into more complex arrangements. I wonder if George Martin would have stayed if they had pressed on with Pete Best. I think a better question is who else would have they picked from those days that would have been a good fit.

[beatlefreak]

Pete definitely had a 'darker' personality in those days. As Beatlemania unfolded, Pete's somewhat moody outlook would not have fit in with the energetic, fun-loving personalities of the other three - Just as Stu's personality wouldn't have fit.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Consider this quote from Beatle producer Chris Thomas:

"I was really thrown in at the deep end. George Martin informed me that he wouldn't be available. I can't remember word for word what he said to me, but it was something like 'There will be one Beatle there, fine. Two Beatles, great. Three Beatles, fantastic. But the minute the four of them are there that is when the inexplicable charismatic thing happens, the special magic no one is able to explain. It will be very friendly between you and them but you'll be aware of this inexplicable PRESENCE.' Sure enough, that's exactly the way it happened. I've never felt it in any other circumstances, it was the special chemistry of the four of them which nobody since has ever had."

This bit really rings true for me, and it makes me think that a Beatles without Ringo would not have endured as we know it. Things would have had less "magic" and would probably have broken down more quickly without any one of them. Together they were exactly right.

I'm just sayin'...

[admin]

A great quote, Kyle. Perhaps the best case scenerio is that the Fabs would have petered out without Ringo.

[tennis_nick]

I'd imagine they would have played London a few times and the public would of gotten bored of them.

EVERY song would just have a... Doomph Doomph Doomph Doomph Beat in the back... just listen to the Decca auditions...

[admin]

Nicolas: Much has been said about the bettter drumming talents of Ringo.

Your point is understood, however, I am wondering, however, if Ringo was that far ahead at the time or was Pete that far behind his peers. George Martin did not use Ringo in the beginning.

Here is an example of Pete with the Beatles. What do you think, for the early days?

[jamie]

I wonder if there would have been a blow out sooner down the road had Pete remained in the band seeing he had a bit of a bigger flamboyant ego than Ringo.

Even Ringo quit at one point over internal squabbles but they were able to patch it up and make up. If there were early concerns among the other Beatles about Pete I just don't feel it would have lasted as long and that the bubble may have burst after the touring.

I find it interesting though that locally the Beatles image was hurt a bit after Pete was kicked out and they got some abuse from fans.

[tennis_nick]

I thought George Martin didn't use Ringo at first (Love Me DO and P.S I Love You, right?) because he thought he too would be a transition between drummers. I thought so anyhow. From what I can hear from listening to Decca tapes, is that Had Pete stayed in the band, their releases would NEVER had been so numerous because they would have to take SO MANY extra takes to get the drums in time! the Till There Was You audition tape proves this easily. I think my old Improv coach read the stats one time. 120 or so songs, about 8-15 takes of each... only about 6 takes throughout their entire career were cut short because Ringo made a mistake. He was as reliable as a drummer should be, Pete was shaky. imagine if they had to take 20+ takes for each song, That adds up.

[admin]

If the math is correct this is a compelling argument, Nicolas. When you think about it, it is really too bad that the Beatles didn't present it to Pete this way.

[shamustwin]

He did, in the early days, give comedians and the news something to latch onto, helping the Fab Four gain a stronger foothold here (IMO). Remember, they were made fun of quite a lot then, for their look and sound.

I can recall the word "Ringo" being used as some sort of punchline or response daily, when they first hit here (US). He was the easiest to pick out due to his odd name, height (when grouped with the others), and the fact he was less "traditionally" good looking than the others.

Everyone, boy or girl, seemed to have their favorite right off the bat. As a nine year old, he was the one I liked first, cause I perceived him as funny. I liked his songs (Boys, IWTBYM) on their albums best. I took up drums.

And his drumming is fantastic and quite underrated, IMO. I don't believe a better drummer could have made Beatle record sound any better.