King Kamala 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2007 He also starred in Caveman which was HI-larious. A lot of people sort of bust on Ringo's All Starr Band but the first one, IMO, was pretty excellent. Ringo Starr on vocals, Joe Walsh and Nils Lofgren on guitar, Rick Danko on bass, Levon Helms and Jim Keltner on drums, Billy Preston and Dr. John on the keys. WIth my main man, Clarence Clemons on the sax. Everyone after that has gone significantly downhill to the point where the one last year had Richard Marx, Sheila E and Billy Squier in it. Yech! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Man in Blak 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2007 Took Brainwashed on a spin for the commute this morning and, initially, it's not striking me as the ****1/2 near-masterpiece that AllMusic fell in love with. I like "Rising Sun" and "Looking For My Life", but "P2 Vatican Blues" is an absolute dud and the rest of the album doesn't impress on the first listen. Here's to giving it a second go-round on the way back, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mecha Mummy 0 Report post Posted January 23, 2007 "Near-masterpiece" for Brainwashed would be a massive exaggeration for sure. Half of the tracks are incredibly forgettable ("Marwa Blues," "Pisces Fish"). I disagree regarding "P2 Vatican Blues" but I can understand why one wouldn't enjoy it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2007 Ringo Starr was not the most successful Beatle, SuperJerk. I never said that he was. I was only noting what I'd heard. I honestly don't know who the most successful solo Beatle was (my guess would be Paul). But for Incandenza to say he had "the least commercially and critically popular solo catalog" discounts how popular his early solo work was, and also how you define "solo" since a great deal of Paul McCartney's later success was when he TECHNICALLY wasn't solo (i.e. songs released by Wings or when he was collaborating with Michael Jackson). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fro 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2007 Ringo Starr was not the most successful Beatle, SuperJerk. But for Incandenza to say he had "the least commercially and critically popular solo catalog" discounts how popular his early solo work was, and also how you define "solo" since a great deal of Paul McCartney's later success was when he TECHNICALLY wasn't solo (i.e. songs released by Wings or when he was collaborating with Michael Jackson). That ignores the fact that all of his "hits" were covers or songs George Harrison co-wrote with him, and many of the other Beatles made "guest appearances" on his early albums. Harrison easily had more success than Ringo, and Lennon/McCartney had even more success than Harrison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 Ringo Starr was not the most successful Beatle, SuperJerk. But for Incandenza to say he had "the least commercially and critically popular solo catalog" discounts how popular his early solo work was, and also how you define "solo" since a great deal of Paul McCartney's later success was when he TECHNICALLY wasn't solo (i.e. songs released by Wings or when he was collaborating with Michael Jackson). That ignores the fact that all of his "hits" were covers or songs George Harrison co-wrote with him, and many of the other Beatles made "guest appearances" on his early albums. Harrison easily had more success than Ringo, and Lennon/McCartney had even more success than Harrison. Like I said, it depends on how you define "solo." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Spencer 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 I'm willing to bet that even on a purely solo basis, McCartney was more successful than Ringo, though. If you really want to play semantics (and since you're SuperJerk, I know you do), then it ultimately depends on how you define "success". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 oh, snap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Report post Posted January 26, 2007 How has this "solo Ringo > other Beatles" hypothesis even been entertained beyond "haha good one, no seriously, which one"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 i distinctly remember a beatles solo episode of '8 track flashback' on vh1 ten years ago, where david cassidy rattled it off as a piece of trivia. then they showed the video for "back off boogaloo." which is a great song. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Kamala 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 The least successful solo Beatle if he even counts (Which he doesn't IMO) would easily be Pete Best. Poor guy did a show here with his band that according to the local paper's review of the show, drew 40 people, most of whom got comp tickets. But the article (which was a concert review/ interview with Pete Best) kept making the point that Pete "wasn't bitter anymore about getting kicked out". I guess nobody wants to here early Beatles stuff played by Pete Best and a cover band/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2007 wow. even outdated wrestlers grow up and get new professions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2007 I heard Pete made quite a bit of money when the Beatles Anthology was relased in the 90s, see he played drums on quite a bit of it. i distinctly remember a beatles solo episode of '8 track flashback' on vh1 ten years ago, where david cassidy rattled it off as a piece of trivia. then they showed the video for "back off boogaloo." which is a great song. I also remember an old interview with Paul McCartney where he said they were all worried about what would happen to Ringo when they broke up, and the interviewer mentioned how funny that was since Ringo went on to have the most popular solo career. How has this "solo Ringo > other Beatles" hypothesis even been entertained beyond "haha good one, no seriously, which one"? Okay, Mr. I Know Everything About Music. I have no idea if its true or not, but I'm not the person who invented it. I was just saying that's what I've heard. I'm interested in someone straightening me out with some actual facts, instead of the dismissive chorus of "that's ridicules" without anything to back it up. I'm willing to bet that even on a purely solo basis, McCartney was more successful than Ringo, though. If you really want to play semantics (and since you're SuperJerk, I know you do), then it ultimately depends on how you define "success". If you guys are going to keep harping on me about something I never actually said, at least provide some proof beyond what you're willing to bet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Kamala 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2007 Seriously man, the only aspect Ringo could be considered the most successful Beatle in, is he's had the most succesful acting career of any of The Beatles. And even that's a bit debatable. Sort of off topic RE: Back Off Boogaloo. I heard the song is slamming Paul McCartney. If it's true, what prompted Ringo to write it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2007 Like I said... If you guys are going to keep harping on me about something I never actually said, at least provide some proof... HINT: Mentioning that John Lennon actually had more top 10 hits would be a good place to start. Yes, I know Ringo wasn't the most successful ex-Beatle. AND I NEVER SAID HE WAS. I just got annoyed at how everyone kept insisting something wasn't true without lifting a fucking finger to prove it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Kamala 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2007 Like I said... If you guys are going to keep harping on me about something I never actually said, at least provide some proof... HINT: Mentioning that John Lennon actually had more top 10 hits would be a good place to start. Yes, I know Ringo wasn't the most successful ex-Beatle. AND I NEVER SAID HE WAS. I just got annoyed at how everyone kept insisting something wasn't true without lifting a fucking finger to prove it. OK, looking back at your original post you said something along the lines about how you heard Ringo was the most successful. Sorry about that then. Like I said, there's no way you can consider Ringo the most successful Beatle (outside of having the biggest acting career). Paul McCartney has had 2x more top ten hits than Ringo if you count Wings (Which I do since it was essentially The Paul McCartney band). But if you don't count Wings, Ringo did have more top ten hits than McCartney. And Ringo did have more top 10 hits than George. Paul McCartney has also considerably outdrawn Ringo in terms of live concert attendance, I'd imagine. And in terms of influence, I don't think I've ever saw an interview with a musician where they said "Yeah man, I was totally influenced by solo Ringo Starr. I don't think I'd ever recorded music if it hadn't have been for 'Back Off Boogaloo'." I'm going to stop arguing. Because Ringo was my favorite Beatle as a kid and I have a soft spot for the guy. I can't slam the guy too much. He starred in Caveman and has played The Pope. Paul McCartney's never played the Pope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2007 This discussion makes me wonder why the fuck McCartney ever even formed Wings in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
