Should Ringo Starr be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?

The other beatles are for their solo work, should Ringo be too? He sold more albums than the other three, why shouldn't he be in the Hall?

Absolutely. All 4 should be.

I'm tired of Ringo jokes. They're stupid & cliched. It's long been "cool" to call Ringo "lucky" & "untalented".

Ringo Starr has inspired countless people to pick up drumming & IMO, is the 1st rock drummer w/ a memorable personality.

Can anyone think of another?

The Fab 4 would not be the same without all 4 personalities as we know them...

no because he only wrote like two songs whe he was with the Beatles

Solo work... def no.

As a beatle - absolutly.

Yes just because he IS Ringo Starr.

Yes. I think he should. I always loved Ringo and all of the Beatles.

Yes, yes, yes

hye should be.

yes

Yes, but only as a member of The Beatles. Not for his solo career. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is a joke.

because hes not putting out cds and has songs on mtv right now hes not popular with americas youth. and The reason john got in besides he was a awesome musican was that america is a morbid country and due to his death it made him that much more popular

No, not as a solo artist!!

as a beatle yes, for solos NO

Definitely yes.

His son will probably be there, too, some day, as the drummer for The Who and future solo work.

Oh my my!

I love The Beatles, but no, he doesn't belong. That doesn't mean he isn't talented, but the HoF is for the elite (or at least it should be) and while was a great fit for The Beatles and their personalities, he is not even close to an elite solo artist. He is in the HoF for his accomplishments as a Beatle and that is how it should be.

yes

Yes, I do but not for his solo work. He should be in as a member of The Beatles and as a sideman. I know it's become somewhat fashionable to say he was a terrible drummer but he really wasn't. He had a unique style because he was self-taught. In the early 1960s, he was a much sought-after drummer in the Liverpool area. The other Beatles were glad they were able to get him. He was the right drummer for the right group and they all clicked together.

He sold more albums then the other 3 because he had 14 albums & most critics would say the album "Ringo" is the only 1 worth having...

But he was always considered at the least talented of the bunch.

Yes he should be without a doubt. But I'd like to see your statistics on album sales becuase I just don't think he could have possibly sold more than Wings, Paul solo, or John solo. I could se selling more than George, but I was under the impression George's stuff was more popular than Ringo's

YES! He was a Beatle and he did write some pretty good songs. He can't be left out!!!!! >:(

I agree with the rest - as a Beatle, sure, just because he was apart of the phenomenon. If it's based solely on merit with the Beatles, then no. He wrote ONE SONG for The Beatles and co-wrote another. As a solo artist, I'd have to say no as well only because I don't think he's as recognized as the rest of The Beatles were when they went solo. Hell, John and Paul are the most popular and George put out the first 3 disc CD in rock and roll history and he held the charity concert for Bangladesh which got him a ton of publicity. Ringo did... well, Ringo didn't do much. Love him, but I don't think he deserves it as much as the other three.