Beatles revisionist history

by **Chris Speers** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 10:48 am

Today's Beatles revisionist history comment?

Could the Beatles have done it without Ringo and George?

Question is could the Beatles have gotten over with just John and Paul and say two other blokes Eric and Stu. The other is yes. Absolutely. While Ringo and George were competent and important members, the answer is while they wouldn't have been as big as they were with Ringo and George - the BEatles would have gotten over with two other side session men. I think Ringo could have been replaced around 1965 if he left and we still would have had great music and continued success. Similarly, i think if Harrison left say around after Hamburgh - the Beatles would have been maybe a little bit less bigger but eventually would have hooked up with a Clapton or a Hendrix or a host of top-notch session men. Granted, you wouldn't have had the sitar or the Indian music thing or TM - but, shoot, can you imagine Hendrix on Revolution or John Lennon having Clapton play lead on some of his tracks.

by **Chris Speers** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 10:48 am

Today's Beatles revisionist history comment?

Could the Beatles have done it without Ringo and George?

Question is could the Beatles have gotten over with just John and Paul and say two other blokes Eric and Stu. The other is yes. Absolutely. While Ringo and George were competent and important members, the answer is while they wouldn't have been as big as they were with Ringo and George - the BEatles would have gotten over with two other side session men. I think Ringo could have been replaced around 1965 if he left and we still would have had great music and continued success. Similarly, i think if Harrison left say around after Hamburgh - the Beatles would have been maybe a little bit less bigger but eventually would have hooked up with a Clapton or a Hendrix or a host of top-notch session men. Granted, you wouldn't have had the sitar or the Indian music thing or TM - but, shoot, can you imagine Hendrix on Revolution or John Lennon having Clapton play lead on some of his tracks.

by **Chris Speers** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 11:48 am

One of the reasons Brian Epstein liked the Beatles was the following:

It wasn't the music. It wasn't their sound. It wasn't to get their records in their shop. Brian Epstein was physically attracted to the Beatles in the Cavern Club and had a secret crush on John Lennon. Later, he developed a fatherly kind of approach with the group. But, let's just say, Epstein was attracted to the boys in leather singing in the cellar. And it's pretty funny now when Paul looks back and he states "I was surprised that we didn't realize how much Brian was attracted to us being that we were young and dumb".

by **Ram1** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 11:52 am

You bring up an excellent point, Chris. I'm glad you pointed out the fact that The Beatles wouldn't have been "AS big" without George and Ringo. Because beyond their musical input (especially George's), Ringo and George were a part of the unique "Beatle personality" which is a main factor why the group was so successful. But that being said, yes, I think John and Paul could have been a huge success without Ringo and George. Just, as you said, a little less big.

PS--But let's not belittle George's very IMPORTANT influence in the music though.

by **Chris Speers** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 1:41 pm

Yeah, man, absolutely. People forget that Ringo was the most popular member in 1964 so they wouldn't have been as big without him. I have a friend who insists that the Beatles were big in NYC because most people felt Ringo was Jewish. I said to her that Ringo denied he was a Jew on the anthology. She said "He's a jew...he just doesn't know it, yet". We loved Ringo because he was one of us. When she said Ringo refused to play Washington, D.C. during Yom Kippur in 1965, i told her it was Sandy Koufax but she wouldn't listen. I then got a twenty minute lecture on how Jews all over Europe migrated to England in the early 1900's and Ringo is a jew he just doesn't know it.

Nonetheless, despite this, Ringo's central role in the group outside of the frivilous disappeared by 1967 and the touring group. While he was a good mate and kept a steady beat, he was very replaceable.
(although in later years - let's face it - he was a gifted drummer but he was happy to get the gig).

George gave the Beatles much more than Ringo. And his influence on a guitar perspective is amazing. Plus, all the eastern stuff and the mediation and psychedilia. Plus, his later songs were brilliant. However, i would add any number of guitarists to the Beatles and they would have been a very excellent team.

So, Beatles would not have been as big but would have gotten over and would have been worshipped as revered.

by **Aujouret** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 5:00 am

Everyone knows why Brian Epstein loved the Beatles. It was their trousers.
Paul and John both said there would not have been Beatles without George and Richie. There is no Beatles without the four of them.
No threetles, no twotles, no Whotles either.
John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Period.

by **Ram1** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 3:05 pm

Well, let's all remember that Eppie loved The Beatles for much more than just their tight leather pants. He did enjoy their performances and musicianship, as well as their infectious personal charm on and off stage.

by **Liam OSM** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:22 am

Besides, it was Epstein that had the idea of putting them into suits - so it wasn't the leather trousers that were the major turn-on . . .

by **Ram1** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:46 am

Well, I think Eppie preferred them in the leather pants. [:D] But he put them in the suits because he knew it would look more professional.

by **Liam OSM** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:47 am

Something like that . . . [;)]