Page 1 of 5

Where would Ringo be now if not for The Beatles?

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:19 pm
by max_tranmere
I am watching 'Help' on tv right now and it got me thinking. Ringo Starr had very little talent and was incredibly lucky to wind up in The Beatles. Does anyone have any theories as to what Ringo would be doing now if he hadn't been recruited by the other three following the sacking of Pete Best? I heard someone say once that after leaving his previous band, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, Ringo would probably have spent the last 45 years working as a lolly-pop man in Toxteth and living in a small council house. Do people agree that he was the luckiest person EVER in music, and what do people think he would have been doing for the last 45 years had it not been for The Beatles?

Re: Where would Ringo be now if not for The Beatles?

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:12 pm
by Jonone
Max, sit down with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and whoever and if they're humble men they'll tell you about the breaks luck has given them. Why do you want to single out Ringo ? Whether you choose to believe it or not, chance plays a huge part in the accomplishments of 'successful' people.

Re: Where would Ringo be now if not for The Beatles?

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:23 pm
by max_tranmere
Very true. White people with moustaches have a great sense of rhythm too. Like Pete Best. He ended up working as a Civil Servant in Liverpool for the next two decades, I heard.

Re: Where would Ringo be now if not for The Beatles?

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:28 pm
by max_tranmere
I always remember Ian Stewart, who was The Rolling Stones' permanent session man for about 25 years (played piano/keyboards). He was described as 'the sixth Stone' and he said something very interesting in an interview once. He said "a band is only as good as its drummer, if you have a rubbish drummer you are a rubbish band - regardless of how good the others in the band are." He went on: "I always liked The Rolling Stones because they have an excellent drummer. I never liked The Beatles because they had an awful drummer. In my opinion The Hollies were a better band than The Beatles". Very interesting. Charlie Watts, the Stones' drummer, was an influence on thousands in the 1960's. Ringo Starr was not an influence on anyone as far as I can tell.

Re: Where would Ringo be now if not for The Beatles?

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:34 pm
by max_tranmere
Obviously Ringo took the opportunity that came his way, and there was no guarentee it would work out. It did of course though. I do think that the description he has been given over the years by some - namely that he was a 'passenger' in the band, and carried along by the other three - was/is a fair description.