Reminder The Beatles were absolute nobodies before Ringo joined

Reminder The Beatles were absolute nobodies before Ringo joined.

Attached: image.jpg (630x472, 33K)

>the most popular band in Liverpool for years before they became superstars
I mean...

Technically true, but the swap out of Pete for Ringo was done just as they established a relationship with EMI/George Martin. They were already on the precipice of fame and success. That's not to demean Ringo's contributions, but I could easily imagine a reality of famous, Ringo-less Beatles, even if their subsequent career would be drastically different.

Yeah, which is great but it took them Two years to pick up Ringo and grow the Beatles. Needed the 4 corners.

George and Ringo with someone decent, what would have happened?

I like you

Ringo's based, this just proves it.

Have you guys ever heard their music Pete Best? He seems like a cool guy, but he was a really bad drummer.

Attached: 2a1f0d4469ffd2aa216b900340c23544--editorial-photography-stock-photos.jpg (319x480, 33K)

And yet he's the least known member by a mile.

The only Beatle whose name I couldn't remember as a kid was George, and I thought most George songs were John songs.

Damn, I feel bad for you. I was speaking in normie culture more than anything though.

were they the original industry plants? their whole dorky image was made up and carefully engineering to blow up big. this is what they actually looked like when they were authentic

Attached: proto-beatles.jpg (570x615, 301K)

They wrote their own music so no.

He was also a bad bandmate, always missing gigs and being too hungover to play. It's no wonder they kicked him out.

They were only forced to change their look because leather jackets weren't fashionable anymore even among their Liverpool contemporaries, and it became hard for them to get bookings when they looked like street thugs.

one of the biggest industry plants by far that's why i refuse to listen to them

>The Beatles wanted to look like this

Attached: georgharribeatlesleatherjacket_3.jpg (500x680, 251K)

but is correct, despite the fact that their image was manufactured and they were cleverly marketed, they did write their own music and their music delivered. It wasn't just image.

Based. Harrison was legitimately the most talented Beatle

they would have had some success, but don't get it twisted, Lennon and McCartney made the Beatles

Yea Forums always arguing over whomstbe' the best Beatle when the real truth be all Beatles are based.


wake thyselves up peeple.

Attached: beach bois.jpg (763x700, 64K)

Because and Strawberry Fields BTFO the Beach Boys’ entire discography

yeah I agree.

Ringo was the least talented among them though.

Not when George exists he isn't

George made good songs like My Sweet Lord, Got My Mind Set On You and What is Life. What did Ringo do?

>Got My Mind Set On You
lmao this was a cover.

and my sweet lord was a rip off..... george fans btfo

>a signed band
>absolute nobodies
Nah

Real bad examples you dumbfuck. George made I'd Have You Anytime, Let it Roll, Art of Dying, etc

I think they're all equallyy known in pop culture. John is the one that teenagers like, George is the weird Indian one, Ringo is the one that kids like and Paul is the one who still makes music(granny shit).

Sutcliffe had as much potential as the others in terms of art it hurts.

Have you heard recent Paul singles? It's obvious he's just trying to copy popular music because he's run out of ideas in his old age.

But he's still well known isn't he?

Totally true, was just trying to say he's not making granny shit atm. Might agree that George and Ringo are equally known in pop culture, but for pop culture that actually know their music, I would say George is more well known.

Isn't that what a good chunk of both their solo careers?

Oh yeah, George is more relevant musically. I thought you were talking about personality and all that.

Beaucoups of Blues is a personal favorite of mine

Get off 4channel, ringo