|
Post by rarebeatles on Jul 27, 2008 22:13:54 GMT
Hi all Difficult hypothetical question for you guys ... If you HAD to remove ONE of the Beatles and have him replaced by any other artist, who would you remove and who would you replace him with? Me personally, hmm its tough (Almost Blasphemy!) but i'd get rid of Ringo Starr and replace him with Keith Moon Tongue Go on, share your decision if you have the nerve LOL Thanks Scott www.rarebeatlesmemorabilia.com/ rarebeatlesmemorabilia.com/blog/
|
|
|
Post by The End on Jul 29, 2008 22:19:20 GMT
How about replacing Paul McCartney with Mick Jagger?!!
|
|
|
Post by HotRockinJohnny on Dec 3, 2008 5:28:56 GMT
Replacing Pete Best with Ringo Starr was a great move...
that's was about it.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 3, 2008 17:43:57 GMT
How about replacing Paul McCartney with Mick Jagger?!! Small point but Mick Jagger can't play bass or piano as far as I know. Also he is a bit lacking in the vocal department compared to McCartney. However I suppose I am being drawn into your wind up here aren't I !!
|
|
|
Post by The End on Dec 3, 2008 18:33:19 GMT
LOL
|
|
missbaez
What Goes On In Your Heart
Bob who???
Posts: 42
|
Post by missbaez on Dec 22, 2008 15:29:01 GMT
You can't replace any of the Beatles. it just can't be done!
|
|
|
Post by Robber Soul on Jan 9, 2009 4:23:57 GMT
You can't replace any of the Beatles. it just can't be done! 12 truer words have not been spoken!
|
|
|
Post by coconutfudge on Jun 18, 2009 21:17:42 GMT
I'd remove Ringo and replace him with Micky Dolenz. Micky's not quite the drummer that Ringo is, but he's a better singer, a more prolific songwriter and could add the same comedic flair that Ringo did.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Aug 2, 2009 22:38:13 GMT
In my post in the "Why the Beatles" thread, I left out the synergy created by the John, Paul, George, and Ringo combination. I don't know that anything else would have worked.
But, since you asked, I'd say replace Ringo with Hal Blaine or maybe one of the Motown drummers. These guys weren't rock stars; they were real musicians.
|
|
|
Post by coconutfudge on Aug 3, 2009 0:58:33 GMT
Hey henryj, I dig what you're saying about the Fabs being musicians, but they were rock stars, too. So much of their appeal in the early days was their "look", sense of humor, personalities. In large part because of the Beatles, young men started growing their hair long. When Sgt. Pepper came out, a lot of young men let their facial hair grow. And what was it that carried "A Hard Day's Night" and "HELP!" (aside from the music)? It was their charm, wit and looks. Yes, they were musicians, but they were also a whole lot more.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Aug 4, 2009 0:29:01 GMT
Actually, by "these guys" I was referring to Hal Blaine and the Motown drummers as being real musicians (not that the Beatles weren't). The Beatles were indeed consummate rock stars.
|
|
|
Post by coconutfudge on Aug 5, 2009 21:58:54 GMT
Gotcha.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Aug 8, 2009 15:25:52 GMT
OTOH, replace George with Brian Wilson.
When Brian Wilson presented Pet Sounds to the other Beach Boys, Mike Love didn't like it at all. In fact, Capitol Records didn't like it either and didn't really promote it. So let's say Brian got back at them by producing "Good Vibrations" and then split.
At the same time, during the Beatles' late 1966 hiatus, George went to India and fell in love with the place. According to the Geoff Emerick book, George more or less lost interest in being a Beatle, his heart being in India.
So, in my imaginary scenario, just before Sgt. Pepper sessions begin, and with "Good Vibrations" at the top of the charts, George quits the Beatles, Paul becomes lead guitarist (which he always wanted to be, as most Beatle fans know), and Brian Wilson becomes the Beatles bass player. As good as Beatle vocals had been, they are now even better.
Who knows how Brian would have reacted to a different environment. Maybe with George Martin over him he would not have broken down.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Kite on Aug 8, 2009 18:48:09 GMT
This question seems to pop up on a lot of Beatle forums and I can not answer it what so ever as The Beatles wouldn`t be The Beatles if there wasn`t The Beatles as The Beatles ! Have just answered the question ? I don`t know ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 21:03:20 GMT
OTOH, replace George with Brian Wilson. When Brian Wilson presented Pet Sounds to the other Beach Boys, Mike Love didn't like it at all. In fact, Capitol Records didn't like it either and didn't really promote it. So let's say Brian got back at them by producing "Good Vibrations" and then split. At the same time, during the Beatles' late 1966 hiatus, George went to India and fell in love with the place. According to the Geoff Emerick book, George more or less lost interest in being a Beatle, his heart being in India.So, in my imaginary scenario, just before Sgt. Pepper sessions begin, and with "Good Vibrations" at the top of the charts, George quits the Beatles, Paul becomes lead guitarist (which he always wanted to be, as most Beatle fans know), and Brian Wilson becomes the Beatles bass player. As good as Beatle vocals had been, they are now even better.Who knows how Brian would have reacted to a different environment. Maybe with George Martin over him he would not have broken down. Absolute garbage. It was Geoff Emerick's personal opinion and assumption that George lost interest in being a Beatle. The fact that George's input to The Beatles repertoire post 1966 was invaluably significant kind of dispels that line of reasoning. Brian Wilson on bass guitar, replacing Paul whilst Paul takes over lead guitar? Give over. That's shite and you know it. Brian Wilson wasn't an exceptional bass guitarist. Paul was (and still is). And George's vocal range was more subtle than Wilsons. Brian Wilson could have had the Lord God, the Virgin Mary and Sir Bobby Robson 'over him' but even those people and George Martin wouldn't have saved him from what was an inevitable and unavoidable breakdown. Yours may have been an imaginary scenario but I think, in future, you should keep such conclusions to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Aug 8, 2009 21:14:41 GMT
OTOH, replace George with Brian Wilson. When Brian Wilson presented Pet Sounds to the other Beach Boys, Mike Love didn't like it at all. In fact, Capitol Records didn't like it either and didn't really promote it. So let's say Brian got back at them by producing "Good Vibrations" and then split. At the same time, during the Beatles' late 1966 hiatus, George went to India and fell in love with the place. According to the Geoff Emerick book, George more or less lost interest in being a Beatle, his heart being in India. So, in my imaginary scenario, just before Sgt. Pepper sessions begin, and with "Good Vibrations" at the top of the charts, George quits the Beatles, Paul becomes lead guitarist (which he always wanted to be, as most Beatle fans know), and Brian Wilson becomes the Beatles bass player. As good as Beatle vocals had been, they are now even better. Who knows how Brian would have reacted to a different environment. Maybe with George Martin over him he would not have broken down. I have been reading your posts and have come to the conclusion that you are just a wind up merchant who talks a lot of crap. In addition to Arthurlee's accurate retort to your posting, McCartney may well have coveted the lead guitarist position but he was not and will never be the guitarist George was.
|
|
|
Post by The End on Aug 9, 2009 13:58:37 GMT
Brian Wilson could have had the Lord God, the Virgin Mary and Sir Bobby Robson 'over him' but even those people and George Martin wouldn't have saved him from what was an inevitable and unavoidable breakdown. Quality!!
|
|
|
Post by marvinmarks on Aug 12, 2009 1:32:16 GMT
No offense to Ringo but my choice would be pretty easy (Ringo) ... The other members are just too vital. Don't get me wrong, I like Ringo and I think he was the right drummer for The Beatles. He also had the perfect voice for "Yellow Submarine" and "With A Little Help..." He was a part of The Beatles magic, for sure. I'm not a Ringo hater. It's just a matter of how absolutely essential the other members were.
As far as who to replace him with? I don't know. I don't think I'd go for anyone who is too flashy, that wouldn't fit with The Beatles style.
|
|
elementrypenguin
I'll Be On My Way
Living is Easy with eyes closed...
Posts: 155
|
Post by elementrypenguin on Sept 3, 2009 18:48:35 GMT
I Really wouldn't really want to replace anyone. but if i had to it would have to be ringo,because John is the creative genius of the group,paul is the brilliant songwriter and singer of the group,George is the inventive and ital guitarist,and ringo is the drummer,personality,and who keeps the band together in a way. you've got to have a weaker member off a band,unfornately for him that was ringo. but i couldn't replace him. it's ringo or no-one.
|
|
|
Post by The 90's Kid on Sept 11, 2009 20:07:59 GMT
Non! some said Ringo i wouldnt replace him though he's the bands comedian, he was The Beatles' scapegoat eh?
|
|