Ringo Starr or Charlie Watts???

Ringo seems like a really nice guy who was scrambling to keep up with his peers, and never really succeeded. As most people have noted, Watts was/is noticeably more rock solid. That Watts is far more serious about the art of drumming is reflected in the fact that he's still very active, and stretching out into other arenas. (I'm under the impression, btw, though I could be wrong, that Paul McCartney did a certain amount of the drumming on Abbey Road.)

I don't think either would qualify as "great" drummers, frankly, but Watts would be closest. Whoever mentioned John Bonham...now he left his mark. Another hugely under-rated drummer was Clive Bunker, who was with Jethro Tull through Aqualung (I think). One of the most creative AND rock solid drummers in rock 'n roll.

Ringo did what the band needed him to do. Impossible now to predict how he might have developed or changed his style had the situation been different.

However, Ringo is a member of rock music's most exclusive club.

Charlie is simply a Rolling Stone.

Underselling Ringo is kinda sad, like the way many dismiss George's profound contribution to the most influential band in modern history. Watts is great but face it, he seldom had to stretch playing with the Stones like Ringo did with the Beatles. Ringo is a very proficient drummer with a very singular style and a wonderful creative spirit. Two very accomplished musicians each with an important place in modern music history.
"thunder rolled over the hills like Jean Krupa with glasspacks"

Blkadr, I have to agree with you. Charlie Watts could have never done what Ringo has accomplished. Can you imagine if Charlie played on side 2 of Abby Road? Then again I wonder what Ringo would have come up with for Honky Tonk Women or Start Me Up.

If you put Ringo in the Stones and Charlie in the Beatles both bands would
suffer for it. IMHO, the tasks they were executing were different enough to
make this type of judgement irrelevent.

BTW Blakadr, I think it's "Gene Krupa"

Marty