The Starr Shines Bright

There he was smiling up at me from the Sunday New York Times sitting outside my neighbor’s door, flashing his ubiquitous peace sign. Was it possible that the Times was revisiting, for the umpteenth time, Richard Starkey? He was not celebrating a notable birthday, though at his age they’re all somewhat noteworthy. Nor was it a significant Beatles anniversary. Yet, it was definitely the one, the only, Ringo Starr.     

Ringo holds a unique place in modern culture. As a member of the biggest act of the 20^th Century he is one of the most photographed, written about, dissected, parodied people in the history of the world. For many years that scrutiny has been done with a cheekiness that not too subtly asks whether he deserves all the adulation. No one questions the prominence of John, Paul and George. But Ringo? Wasn’t he just along for the ride and to provide comic relief?

In many ways, Ringo has never lived down the discredited quote attributed to John Lennon that he wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles. Actual or not, many jumped on the bandwagon to suggest that he was just a lucky guy who got to sit behind the big three and keep time. He was fine doing that but musically provided little else.

In recent years, the tide has shifted. Drummer after drummer has stepped forward to testify to his influence. Dave Grohl, Stewart Copeland, Max Weinberg and Questlove, among others, have heaped praise on his ability to “play for the song” and thereby take them to new levels. Increasingly it is acknowledged that Ringo was an integral part of the Beatles sound.

I cannot solve the debate, and my guess is that many who weigh in are in no better position to do so either. However, I do take in the testimony of my friend Phil Moore. He is a lifelong drummer who still plays for fun. He told me, somewhat abashedly, that he found the Beatles the most satisfying to practice with because Ringo’s drumming was inventive and challenging. If Uncle Phil says so, that’s good enough for me.

Drumming aside, Ringo has a special place in our family. Like many, my kids were raised on Beatles music. I considered it part of their necessary education. Not surprisingly, they took to the music, but even more so they took to Ringo. He was their favorite, hands down.

I remember once we were on a driving vacation and stopped into a convenience store where they discovered fake IDs of celebrities, including Ringo. A battle ensued as to who would get that prized souvenir. If we were playing any kind of game where they could name a character after Ringo or use him as a punch line, it was done.

One Christmas our eldest, Aster, proudly entered while we were decorating the tree with a cutout of Ringo’s face. He proclaimed that it was time to put the Starr on top of the tree. It has been a family tradition ever since.

It’s not hard to define Ringo’s attraction. He has always come across as somewhat naïve and innocent. John and George were engaged in a never-ending analysis of the Beatles’ place in the universe. Paul has carefully guarded his and the group’s musical legacy. Ringo seems to just take it all in and enjoy the ride. His approach reminds me of the life philosophy of Spinal Tap keyboardist, Viv Savage, “Have a good time all the time.”

Ringo’s public persona was established in the 1964 movie “A Hard Day’s Night”. It is a unique film. I cannot think of another that cemented the perception of its stars the way that did, especially for Ringo. Since then, he has unalterably been the somewhat befuddled, easy-going bloke with the goofy grin. It has served him well.

John Lennon anointed him as the Yogi Berra of Rock and Roll. He’s been credited him with inadvertently crafting the title of “Hard Day’s Night”, as well as the song “Eight Days a Week”. Whether that’s true is beside the point. It fits too well with his image to be denied.

Not that Ringo hasn’t had his share of troubles over the years. He was, after all, the first to leave the band, though he famously came back to a drum kit adorned with roses. The breakup of his first marriage was not pretty. He had a well-documented substance abuse problem, which lasted many years longer than John’s lost weekend. Yet, he never misplaced his charm.

I think that the most surprising thing about Ringo is how much the music really matters to him. For someone who was supposedly just along for the ride, he has been devoted to asserting his own musical voice post-Beatles. Immediately after the breakup it seemed that the other ex-Beatles were looking to prop him up, with George co-writing some of his biggest hits, and the others guest starring on his albums.

After the early supportive spurt largely petered out, Ringo continued to put out albums. Between 1976’s “Ringo Rotogravure”, which peaked at number 28 on the US charts and “Look Up”, his most recent country-tinged effort Ringo put out 15 albums, many of which hardly cracked the charts at all. He hasn’t had a single in the top 50 since “Oh My My” in 1974. Clearly, making music is more important to him than many of us imagined.

In fact, it was “Look Up” that sparked the Times article. Ringo’s interest in country music is nothing new or invented. As usual he was able to surround himself with top notch talent, including T-Bone Burnett, who wrote most of the songs and co-produced the album, Alison Krauss and Joe Walsh, his brother-in-law.

I wish I could unequivocally urge you to listen to the album, but I can’t take it that far. Like almost all his efforts, it is pleasant enough, has some catchy hooks and is instantly forgettable. I do enjoy Ringo’s voice. It is solely his own and can add sincerity to mediocre lyrics. However, it’s nothing that is going to make you sit up and take notice. Neither is the album.

That being said, I hope Ringo keeps rocking as long as he can. As Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone observed in reviewing “Look Up”, Ringo is “the least jaded rock star in the universe”. In a world of braggarts, blowhards and bombastic baboons, that is something to cheer. Keep on shining Ringo Starr!!!!