It's got nothing to do with his image, it's got to do with his being the only non-contributing member of the band. The fact that he was 1/4 of the most popular band of the century (arguably) is the whole point. He didn't pull his weight! The only sound that would've been different without him is the lead vocals on the very few songs he sang. He may have been the beat, but he wasn't responsible for its existence. George and John and Paul were, and any other drummer could've handled it at least as well. He was the only Beatle that didn't excel. He just sufficed.
Joined: Wed Jan 12 2005, 12:39pm
Location: Plague of Madness
Posts: 1100
"Bill Hicks" wrote ... You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause You know what the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs... The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.
I think I made it pretty clear that I listen to the Beatles the way they are and approve of others doing the same, and also that how much Ringo contributed to the band is a matter of fact, not my opinion. I don't believe I commented negatively on his "worth" as a human being.
as strong as these personalities where his controbution could have been to lay back and not fight for creative liscense like the others.....maybe he was their muse. ...........it matters not. since you were not there you dont know so it is your opinion. if the other three thought he was a burdon that they had to carry.....I'm sure they would have acted. if they could live with their choice ....so can I. ..........and I like ringo too.
I didn't say they didn't get along, or that he was a burden. If you're saying that his contribution may have been not to contribute, that's a fine way to look at things if you want. But my only opinion is that he doesn't deserve the title of Beatle, which I base on the known fact that he didn't really do anything to contribute creatively to his own fame and fortune. (When it comes to the Beatles, anyway. I don't know if you want to argue that his post-Beatle fame was in any way due to his talent as a musician rather than his having been a Beatle. I, of course, tend to lean towards the latter, but I never listened to his solo stuff.)
................in the scheme of things who really gives a fuck?
I don't really feel the need to bear down on you to belive in my beliefs. ..................it won't help a damn thing if I did. I'm also used to people giving me shit about the beatles in one form or another. ........it puzzles me that I talked about it this long. If you don't like ringo, I will fight for your freedom of choice as an american to hate him as best you can.....fuck him dude! party on.
"its only a rock n roll band, ......nothing important." ------john lennon
