JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE and RINGO - *re-shuffle that (hackneyed) sequence for a change?? | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

Ahhh Girl said
Do you mean a thread where people can tell what order their names should be presented? If not, then, well, I’m probably going to feel silly when you spell it out more clearly for me. LOL

  

Yes, I mean: JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE and RINGO became the cliche.  It became almost *unthinkable* to put their names in any other order.  You only needed to start saying ‘John, Paul, George..’ and it became literally just another way of saying ‘The Beatles’.  This was true of no other beat group of the time that I know of  – not even the Rolling Stones, for example.  But why?   And when  you think about it; it was simply because that was what most people always thought to be the **order of importance**.   It was a kind of (understood) ‘pecking order’ – but not one of The Beatles’ own making, actually.

And there are other ways one could have looked at this.  John was not the eldest, for exmple; Ringo was.  And George was the lead, not John (or even Paul).  By 1965, Lennon and Mc. Cartney were not the oniy songwriters either –  and we now know that George was actually writing material almost from the begining as a matter of fact. And he wrote alone.  Some even  believe that he was offering his work from ealry on – but this being sidelined intentionally by Lennon and Mc. Cartney…  And his harmony contibution was often vital on vocals.  How often did you see him and Paul onstage, for example, sharing a microphone whenever John was on lead vocal?  Was Ringo always an ‘afterthought’ – hidden away at the back of the stage , behind his kt’?  Did he have to be?  In both the movies, for example,  Ringo has rather a pivotal part. And so on. 

If it hasn’t been done, and there is felt to be a need for it, then yes I will “spell it all out” and discusss whatever happened to other attmepts to ‘reshuffle’ the cliched sequence, even if just for some ‘variety’ somteimes  – why these attempts never ‘caught on’, and could they/should they have done? Did The Beatles themselves really like the idea of being set up in a kind of  – permament – ‘hiercarchy of importance’ like this?  And there is evidence, for example, that Epstein didn’t really think so, either.  George,  for instance,  was very unhappyy about Ringo’s temporary replacement by Jim Nichol.  For sure, no-one would have ever seriously countnenanced even a temporary replacement for John, or Paul, or even for George for that matter. At times when Ringo felt a bit ‘pissed off’ – after they stopped touring – evidently it was to George that he went for a sympathetic ear.  … .  … and more to discuss…  

meanmistermustard said
It sounds better and rolls off the tongue easier, which helps when making announcements or just speaking in general. 

I doubt the Beatles ever gave it much or any thought (they always saw the group as one whole regardless of what anyone said) but it is also the order in which they joined; John brought in Paul who brought in George who brought in Ringo.

  

Well, I agree that The Beatles themselves always saw the group as one whole, but like I said, this *ineluctable* ‘pecking order was NOT of their making – yet everybody, but everybody seems to have accepted it.  I’m not so sure they did, though.  Could they really have ‘not given it much thought’, when – as we know, and even from early days – this became THE way of announcinng them or talking (or writing) about them; everywhere, all over the world and every place they went and in almost every world language.  Why, even the ‘oldies’ and the ‘sqaures’ used this when referreing to them.  I cannot really agree that ‘they did not give it much thought’. I think there is evidence that they really never actually liked the idea of putting any one member before another.  And, as to ‘rolling off the tongue’ – well, theirs was what became, for some time, a CLASSIC instrument line-up, and most people for sure would have called this out as ‘lead, rhythm and bass and drums’ – so, by that token, the ‘call out’ should have run: GEORGE, JOHN, PAUL and RINGO.  I thnk this was how, in fact, their early DJ convert in the US, Murray the Kaye, would anoucnce them as he put their records on the turntable (in 1964, when they were just ‘breaking into’ the US market – see below).  But that choice of order never ‘caught on’ either.  But why not?

And, I will insist; this rolls just as easily off the tongue as does any other.  The first three names were all common enough boys’ names.  You could have ‘rattled them off’ in ANY order, and it will still work, actually.  Try it!  I think Starr Shine? (above) helps to make that point actually.  Read the (original) sleeve notes (by Tony Barrow) on the album ‘Please Please Me ‘ – and you’ll see how he quotes a very early announcement of the group by some compere, who began with the – already cliched (as early as 1963) – way of listing their names, and only got as far as ‘John, Paul…’ – before being ‘drowned out’ by a barrage of applause (later, of course, it would be hysterical screams!).

Like I said: I know of no other group – of that era or since actually – of whom such a stereotyped ‘pecking order’ was estabslished like that – and then became, effectively, UNALTERABLE.  Do you?  True: there was a 60s group here in UK called Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch .. but that was exceptional (in fact, it was their gimmmick really, in their case – chosen in fact by them; and most of these names were ‘catchy’ nicknames anyway).

Did anyone ever ‘call out’, for example: MICK, KEITH, BRIAN, BILL and CHARLIE?  Who the Hell were they?  That list of names would have been pretty much meaningless to most people, and still is (except, perhpas, for  a  few of the most dedicated of this group’s fans!).  Who were, in fact, ARE they? THE ROLLING STONES! Second in popularity  at the time, as we know, to only The Beatles themselves!

For a time, in 1967ish, as we know, there was a (short-lived) frenzy of (mostly very young girl) adulation for THE MONKEES.  We could have a big discusion about them all by itself – but we won’t!  But did anyone ever ‘call out’ MICKY, DAVEY, MIKE and PETE .. and, interestingly, that would have been putting the drummer – and most frequent lead singer, in this case – first!  (Again; true – their last album, really, before they were pretty much over – was called ‘Pisces, Capricorn, Aqaurius and Jones Ltd.’ – which I think was a listing of their respective astrological sun signs?).

Suppose I said to most people: BRIAN, CARL, DENNIS, MIKE  and AL.  Well, agan; who the Hell were they? The BEACH BOYS.  Or: RAY, DAVE, PETE and MICK?  THE KINKS!  DAVE, MIKE, RICK, DENNIS and LENNY?  The Dave Clark Five (even had his name in their title, yet…!!). The SUPREMES were, during the 1960s, widely acknowledged as probably the world’s No.1 (top) girl group (in fact, they were once each asked in interview, which of the four Beatles was their favourite) – but if you had said then (and, in this case, only three names to ‘juggle’ with) DIANA, FLO/FLORENCE and MARY? Who??  (At least; not until Diana Ross herself began to be propelled by Tamla on to a solo career would even her name have ‘rolled off’ most peoples’ tongues!). It’s probably fair to say that the names of their most frequent hit WRITERS – Holland,Dozier, Holland – were better known than the individual names of this top girl trio themselves!

Am I making my point here? 

Interestignly; when Dora Bryan made a spoof record, in 1963(?), ‘All I Want For Christmas Is A Beatle’ the lyricists had it “Ringo, Paul, John, George – they’re all the same” .  So; here they put poor old Ringo first... and completely ‘reshuffled’ the rest of the sequence – but yet it still ‘rollled off her tongue’ just fine (semi-comic spoof though it was) and note that the lyric has it “they’re all the same”.  They weren’t – but perhaps it does make the point that ALL are of (equal) value.  Agreed?  And, if Ringo really was just as important as the other three, then how come he was replcaed (temporarily) whilst it would have been truly unthinkable for Epstein to have sent out for even temporary replacements – tour of Australia or no – for John, or Paul, or even George.  When any of these were ill or indiposed, then concerts were simply cancelled, and later rescheduled with them back, if possible – otherwise scrubbed altogether (albeit much to the disappointment of many fans – though at least they did get their ticket money refunded).  At least George could see how making Ringo – even temporarily – replaceable like this was not really fair.  John and Paul, apparently, couldn’t … but then George understood better than either of them what it felt like to be cast as forever in ‘second rank’.  [Cf. my original post here on this thread]. 

There were some amusing little ditties too – made up by fans themselves at the tme – which gave Ringo prominence: “We three Beatles of Liverpool are: one in a taxi and one in a car, one on a scooter bibbing his hooter – following Ringo Starr ”  (and only Ringo gets a name here, as well as the punchline!) or (to the tune of ‘Love Me Do ‘): “Paul’s in Liverpool, John’s shifting coal, George is down a hole – and Ringo’s… on the dole!” (which not only ‘reshuffles’ the seqence but, once again, gives Ringo the punchline and the ‘hook’!). 

As I have suggested in my opening post on this thread, The Bealtes themsleves – even whilst, in the early days, acknowledging John (UNOFFICIALLY) as so often the ‘spokesman’… yet the evidence is that they NEVER liked the idea of putting any one of them ‘first’ or ‘second’ or whatever.  There is a legend, which was used in one of the movie biopics (I think it was the (1979) movie ‘Birth of the Beatles’) that Brian Epstein once pointed out to John (this was just before he broke it to John that he was going to attmept what had never been done before by any British band – break into the American market!) that ‘No one of you is important on your own.  Each of you is a vital part of it.’ [I paraphrase here a little] ‘You, John are the mind.  Paul is the heart and Geroge is the soul’. ‘And what about Ringo?’ asks John.  ‘Ringo is the flesh and blood’.  I think this sums it up, actually, extraordinarly well.  Does one not agree?  

As to order of ‘joining’?  Well, we have to remember that John was the original founder, yes – but of The Quarrymen – and, at first it was made up of his school pals from Quarry Bank (hence the name) – his best freinds Pete Shotton and Ivan Vaugnan.  This was going back to the late 1950s, when skiffle was the thing that was happeniing here in UK and ‘Rock ‘N’ Roll ‘ (cf. my post on ‘Cry For A Shadow‘) was truly, as one musicologist has put it ‘in transition’.  Until it was realised by John, as well as by his two best mates themselves actually, that these really couldn’t ‘hack it’ as musicians.  Paul came along a litte after this. 

John recruited George, Paul didn’t.  In fact, one biography of The Bealtes suggests that Paul was a little puzzled as to why John wanted him.  There was his youth for one thing.  And George was then ‘an out and out Ted’ (cf. again, my post ‘Cry For A Shadow’).  And I think I’m right in saying that, by then, John had left Quarry Bank and was now at art shcool, and I believe he had already brought in, or was recruiting, his art shcool friend Stuart Sutcliffe.  And they still had no drummer.  They were in sore need of one, actually.  In fact, they went to Hamburg the first time without one.  The name had to be changed as two of them at least, John and Stuart, were not at Quarry Bank.   Pete Best was a later addition.  They even had a pianist for a time, at one stage.

Stuart tried to ‘blag it’ as a bass guitarist, but … well, we all know the (tragic) story of what happened there. Ringo was not recruited by George either.  No. It is not clear where they first met Ringo.  Probably in Hamburg (he was at one time drumming with another visiting British band on the then popular Hamburg circuit; Rory Storm and the Hurricanes.).  Some say he was never as good a drummer as Pete Best.  But, socially, there was a sense in which Best had never quite fully fitted in (notwithstanding, Pete had a few of his own fans in the Beatles, pre-contract, Cavern days).  It was JOHN primarly who wanted Ringo in.  And Ringo was keen.  As we all know, none of them had the guts to tell Pete that he was out (even though – or perhaps because – they were on the very verge of a reccording contract at last).  They got Epstein to do it.  Sneaky!  Underhand! 

The cliche also runs, of course, that ‘the rest is history’ – but the point here is that the ‘inevitable’ and ‘unalterable’ sequence does not even, entirely, refllect some kind of ‘straightforward’ and ‘linear’ joining or formation history.  It is more complex than that. 

Von Bontee said
I mentioned this on the forum once years ago: When I taped a bunch of Beatles/Lennon documentary programming and soundbites off AM radio in December/January of 1980-1, amongst it was a brief clip of the boys all reciting “Ringo, John, Paul and George!” together, in that order, presumably after the interviewer asked them their names. 

  

Cool! Age order in this case.  Coincidentally?