- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Which Beatles Were The Most And Least Replaceable?
Posted on 3/28/26 at 7:24 am
Posted on 3/28/26 at 7:24 am
A friend of mine was rewatching "Anthology" and brought up drummer Jimmie Nicol who replaced Ringo for a few days when touring in Denmark and Australia. This started a discussion of if The Beatles would have been The Beatles without Ringo. Could Pete Best have created anything close to some of the iconic drumming patterns Starr did on songs like "Tommorow Never Knows" and "Come Together".
This ultimately led to which Beatle was the most and least replaceable.
Even though he's my favorite Bealte, I voted George as more easily replaceable than Ringo since I can't think of many iconic leads he had vs. Ringo's drumming. I view Paul as the least replaceable since he had the best sense of melody and was the driving force in getting albums made. I also think a case could be made both John and George were more influential or impactful than Paul with their social conscious and concerns over humanity. It's an interesting topic.
All four made their imprint on the band, but which do you feel were the most and least essential?
This ultimately led to which Beatle was the most and least replaceable.
Even though he's my favorite Bealte, I voted George as more easily replaceable than Ringo since I can't think of many iconic leads he had vs. Ringo's drumming. I view Paul as the least replaceable since he had the best sense of melody and was the driving force in getting albums made. I also think a case could be made both John and George were more influential or impactful than Paul with their social conscious and concerns over humanity. It's an interesting topic.
All four made their imprint on the band, but which do you feel were the most and least essential?
6
Posted on 3/28/26 at 8:27 am to Mizz-SEC
Wouldn't Pete Best be the most replaceable?
Posted on 3/28/26 at 8:38 am to Saint Alfonzo
John was obviously the least replaceable. He's a generational talent and started the group. Great musician, songwriter and pioneer of modern day music and culture. Ringo was the most replaceable. Although he was also an important piece of the puzzle.
However, I think they were all very integral. Paul's later contributions are unmatched and he actually became their driving force.
George became a fantastic guitarist and his contributions also can't be overlooked.
Basically, they were all very important.
However, I think they were all very integral. Paul's later contributions are unmatched and he actually became their driving force.
George became a fantastic guitarist and his contributions also can't be overlooked.
Basically, they were all very important.
This post was edited on 3/28/26 at 9:29 am
Posted on 3/28/26 at 9:15 am to Mizz-SEC
They were all equally essential. The Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without all of them in the band.
Posted on 3/28/26 at 9:46 am to hogcard1964
quote:
Basically, they were all very important.
Agree. Ringo's drum playing often gets overlooked, but he composed and played very important drum parts to a lot of great songs. If you have to list them i would agree with you essentially that Lennon>McCartney>Harrison>Ringo, and i wouldn't argue with anyone that swaps Lennon/McCartney.
Posted on 3/28/26 at 10:02 am to Mizz-SEC
Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles. He is also the luckiest human on the planet.
Posted on 3/28/26 at 10:31 am to Dawglovertoo
quote:
They were all equally essential. The Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without all of them in the band.
¥
This
Posted on 3/28/26 at 11:13 am to Mizz-SEC
If I had to pick one for each:
Most: Ringo
Least: John
Most: Ringo
Least: John
Posted on 3/28/26 at 1:40 pm to Mizz-SEC
Feel like the fairly obvious answer is Ringo. While I think he's somewhat underappreciated amongst legendary drummers, I feel like someone else could've done just as good as a job.
There was no replacing Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison
There was no replacing Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison
Posted on 3/28/26 at 1:48 pm to Bodie
George really came into his own near their end. Imo, he had the two top songs on Abbey Road.
Posted on 3/28/26 at 3:07 pm to Mizz-SEC
I don't think this is a logical question.
Everything with the Beatles had to happen exactly how it did.
Lightning in a bottle.
Accept the greatness of what it was, because it was a sum greater than all of it's parts.
Everything with the Beatles had to happen exactly how it did.
Lightning in a bottle.
Accept the greatness of what it was, because it was a sum greater than all of it's parts.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News