|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 1, 2012 18:25:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 1, 2012 18:28:20 GMT
mrmustardBut yet everything I said is true. You - a Beatle fan - don't like it. Thus my comment, Beatle fans can't handle the truth.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 1, 2012 18:40:13 GMT
mrmustardBut yet everything I said is true. You - a Beatle fan - don't like it. Thus my comment, Beatle fans can't handle the truth. Sure, keep deluding yourself all the way to $5000!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 1, 2012 22:13:53 GMT
Again, you can't dispute my facts so you engage in personal attacks. Is the idea of putting my project on Kickstarter what has you so bothered now?
I started "The Beatles at their Best" by accident while researching for an internet index film detailing the influence of The Beatles on Michael Jackson. While learning The Beatles early history I felt deceived by the way they told their story in Anthology so I did something about it. I made a short film. It was already accepted into 2 festivals and reviewed at one - the rough cut was given 4 stars.
It's not easy making a film on your own, much less 2. It is a lot easier to troll Beatle message boards hating on people who spend their own time AND MONEY as I have creating a new work that doesn't share your perspective on Beatle history. It costs money to enter films in festivals and even more to attend. Attending is important to getting press. A friend suggested Kickstarter to help with the costs.
I didn't make The Beatles at their Best to make money as you are now implying. Short films never make money. They cost money or else everyone would be making them. The Kickstarter launch has added some publicity without really costing me any additional money, so from that standpoint it will be a success whether the funding part comes through or not.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 2, 2012 1:04:03 GMT
I didn't feel ' deceived' by Anthology, but I could right away see it as revisionist history, but ALL history is like that. Each person sees the history from a different angle. That's why I suggested the 'other' video collection;" A Long And Winding Road". It gives the viewpoint of all the players in The Beatles story that weren't included in Anthology. And the Roag Best book, which provides more insight into The Beatles relationship with the Best family. And Hunter Davies Beatles Biography (with the 1985 afterword***). And even then, you won't get the "whole truth". And as for Beatle fans unable to handle the truth; to me. it's just entertainment. I can't go on a crusade to shine light on the truth about Best and The Beatles, because it won't change anything. Pete seems to be happy now. Living the ex-Beatle life. And all the details in all the aforementioned sources give their views as remembered by them. And I enjoyed reading and watching it ALL because I'm an irrational Beatles fan. But it didn't change how much tax I owed last year (damn government). Or affect my over all happiness (but I'm usually crabby, but I think it has more to do with the migraines than Pete Best getting a raw deal). But I will not, either, criticize anyone for pursuing the topic as being of great importance. Because it IS important to them. The inescapeable fact is that it's NOT important to most people because the most important thing for them is enjoying the tunes. But, to ' students' of the band, this kind of thing IS important. Or at least, a fascinating read (or view). And all the other stuff I said. And to both of you: settle down or I'll send you both to your rooms! Without desert.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 2, 2012 10:57:03 GMT
Not wishing to labour the point because, to be quite honest, I'm bored of it now however my gripe was not against someone perusing a subject concerning The Beatles, it was the fact that the assumption was made that all Beatles fans did not want to believe the points raised in the original posting. I found this condescending and offensive.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 2, 2012 14:24:38 GMT
I think we should move on as well, but the whole point of my original post "Beatles fans can’t handle the truth" was that if a person tried to speak up about Pete Best and set the record straight about his and his family's contribution to the Beatles, some Beatle fans can't handle it. They usually skip right over talking about the facts and instead feel they have to go on the attack to protect their already held belief of what they think The Beatles are/were. That’s the interpretation put forth by The Beatles themselves, John Paul, George & Ringo. These days, because of Anthology, more so George & Paul. But that's not all of The Beatles are/were. If John was alive to have participated in Anthology, I think the early years of The Beatles (1960-1962), the years when they were playing Rock & Roll, would have been treated differently.
Pete and Stu (his role is also usually diminished) were also Beatles. They each were not Beatles just as a technicality; they each had a profound influence on the direction and sound of the group.
I called my post "Beatles fans can’t handle the truth" because I feel that if someone tries to talk facts about Pete Best and his contribution to the group, a lot of Beatle fans can’t handle it. They won’t talk facts. I talked facts in my original post. A lot of them. When you read through all the replies and see where this discussion ended up, all most all of the replies have ignored discussing the facts contained in my original post.
That was my whole point. That's why I gave it the title I did.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 2, 2012 14:35:31 GMT
The only thing that makes me slightly agitated is that there is NO record of The Beatles live until Dec 1962. And by that time they were in the transition between coarse, chaotic club band and squeaky clean juke box act. I would've thought that SOMEONE with a tape recorder would've taped SOMETHING from their hundreds of Casbah/Cavern/Reeperbahn gigs but there's nothing! Just a couple of BBC numbers from the spring of '62, but that's not REALLY live now is it?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 2, 2012 20:23:11 GMT
I called my post "Beatles fans can’t handle the truth" because I feel that if someone tries to talk facts about Pete Best and his contribution to the group, a lot of Beatle fans can’t handle it. They won’t talk facts. I talked facts in my original post. A lot of them. When you read through all the replies and see where this discussion ended up, all most all of the replies have ignored discussing the facts contained in my original post. That was my whole point. That's why I gave it the title I did. You really just won't leave it alone will you. I am more than happy to talk facts with someone who wants to listen. You don't want to listen. You have your agenda and are running with it. Like I said in my very first reply to you 'I AGREE WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING'. However you have completely chosen to ignore that statement. I believe you are actively looking for people to argue with just so you can justify yourself. If anyone has the slightest of disagreements with you then you will use this to justify your ridiculous subject line. I note that you haven't bothered to post anything else other than your film on this forum. That says a lot really. Good luck with the film.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 2, 2012 20:29:51 GMT
The only thing that makes me slightly agitated is that there is NO record of The Beatles live until Dec 1962. And by that time they were in the transition between coarse, chaotic club band and squeaky clean juke box act. I would've thought that SOMEONE with a tape recorder would've taped SOMETHING from their hundreds of C asbah/Cavern/ Reeperbahn gigs but there's nothing! Just a couple of BBC numbers from the spring of '62, but that's not REALLY live now is it? Someone will have some recordings somewhere I am certain. It stands to reason. It's like for all the planets in the universe there has to be life on some. The same goes for recordings of The Beatles. Slightly odd comparison I know but you get my drift!
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 2, 2012 22:53:32 GMT
Well then, some young adults better start rootin' through their grandparent's attics and unearth this stuff then! I'll be sitting patiently, waiting... and they better hurry too before APPLE gets a hold of the tapes and vaults them. I somehow doubt that the Star Club tapes will ever be released again. But it's OK. I've got a "purple chick".
I'd love to hear them when they were a "bum" group and hear the progress they made over the two years to Dec '62.
I'll just be over here, waiting.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 3, 2012 0:07:14 GMT
mrmustardYou haven't talked facts. So you keep going after me personally. Now you're going after me because I just joined, made 1 post and then have had to spend all of my time responding to your attacks. Your the one who can't leave it alone. Thus my comment, Beatle fans can't handle the truth. Did you ever check to see if Ringo really did make those slanderous comments about Pete in The Beatles 1965 Playboy interview?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 3, 2012 0:21:56 GMT
mrmustardYou haven't talked facts. So you keep going after me personally. Now you're going after me because I just joined, made 1 post and then have had to spend all of my time responding to your attacks. Your the one who can't leave it alone. Thus my comment, Beatle fans can't handle the truth. Did you ever check to see if Ringo really did make those slanderous comments about Pete in The Beatles 1965 Playboy interview? No I didn't check because I believed you.
|
|
wozza62
What Goes On In Your Heart
Posts: 88
|
Post by wozza62 on Jan 3, 2012 3:13:10 GMT
mrmustardYou haven't talked facts. So you keep going after me personally. Now you're going after me because I just joined, made 1 post and then have had to spend all of my time responding to your attacks. Your the one who can't leave it alone. Thus my comment, Beatle fans can't handle the truth. Did you ever check to see if Ringo really did make those slanderous comments about Pete in The Beatles 1965 Playboy interview? I have been watching this thread with almost disbelief at some of the opinions posted. Are you referring to the "He takes pills to make himself sick" line? My god, talk about blowing things out of proportion. Ringo was a clown who was prone to this sort of off the cuff remark, you seem to be asserting that this was premeditated. I agree Pete Best was instrumental in forming the Beatles sound early on, but it's obvious that the Beatles evolved from that early sound and left it behind in 1962. As for Beatles fans not being able to handle the truth, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I certainly don't think Pete Best's contribution to the Beatles sound overall was all that great but I do acknowledge his early contribution.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 3, 2012 14:22:17 GMT
wozza62 - I have been watching this thread with almost disbelief at some of the opinions posted. Are you referring to the "He takes pills to make himself sick" line? My god, talk about blowing things out of proportion. Ringo was a clown who was prone to this sort of off the cuff remark, you seem to be asserting that this was premeditated.
I only brought up what Ringo said in the Playboy interview after mrmustard said... "Yes, he was treated badly by Lennon, McCartney and Harrison - this has never been in question. To say Starr treated Best unfairly is, at the very least, ridculous." I had never actually said "Starr had treated Best unfairly". But, if I had said it, it certainly wouldn't have been a ridiculous statement. I do think Starr was/is lame in how he's dealt with his friend Pete. Even if Ringo's comments were off the cuff, they were still slanderous. Starr was only too happy to jump in and throw in his 2 cents following up on Lennon who had just finished badmouthing Pete. It was an outrageous lie for Starr to say something like that. Who says something like that about someone when they have no knowledge that it's even true. Especially to say something like that about a friend. Even if it was true, he should have kept he mouth shut. Ringo branded Pete as a drug addict in internationally read magazine interview. It's absolutely horrible that he would do that. It was just as bad that Lennon didn't step up and correct Ringo right then and there. Pete wasn't the one popping pills. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr were. Up until that point, Pete Best had never done anything to The Beatles other than be a loyal member of the group, contributing substantially to their rise to become a phenomenon. He never sued them. Never even badmouthed them. Ringo's "off the cuff" lie was the final straw for Pete. He filed suit to clear his name, and won. Pete was Ringo's friend. Pete helped set the table that Ringo fed off of for the next 50 years. Ringo has never had a nice word to say about Pete. He's never acknowledged Pete's contribution to the Beatles. Not at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, not in The Beatles Anthology. Never. Instead they do things like ripping Pete's face off the cover of Anthology 1 to reveal a seperate photo of Ringo, and Starr asks to have Pete faded out of The Beatles famous 1960 fairground photo and have himself photoshopped in. One more thing to further distort the way people view Beatle history. After replacing Pete Best in The Beatles, Ringo Starr never acknowledged Pete's contributions to the group, never spoke to his friend Pete for the rest of his life and has never said a nice word about him. Never. Isn't that a bit unfair? "Peace & love, peace & love" (I am now flashing 2 peace signs).
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 3, 2012 15:19:44 GMT
This is getting tedious! You said the following
'He deserved better treatment from Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & even Ringo Starr, who was also his friend'
Now although I didn't quote you verbatim the jist of it was pretty much there. Are you not justifying your sentence with the Playboy article?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 3, 2012 15:32:36 GMT
I made that post on December 13, 2011. How many more times are you going reply to tell me you didn't like the title.
I get it. You don't like the title of my post and you don't like me promoting my film.
I get it.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 3, 2012 15:33:47 GMT
My previous post was in reply to your previous post that you now have apparently deleted.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 3, 2012 16:51:22 GMT
My previous post was in reply to your previous post that you now have apparently deleted. I haven't deleted any posts. I stand by what I have said. It's very sad that you now have to resort to lies in attempt to get your point accepted. I will of course accept your apology once you have realised your error. That could be a very long time though!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 3, 2012 18:25:40 GMT
mrmustard - I haven't deleted any posts. I stand by what I have said. It's very sad that you now have to resort to lies in attempt to get your point accepted. I will of course accept your apology once you have realised your error. That could be a very long time though!
You are a f---ing liar. You posted another one of your replies going on about how offended you were about the title of my post "Beatles fans can't handle the truth" and hating on me for promoting my film. I responded to that post. You then used this websites "modify" funtion to remove the post I responded to and you then replaced your original post with a completely different post. After you did that you then put up another new post accusing me of lying about the first post that you had earlier deleted. You are not only a liar, you are a sneeky manipulative liar. Are you sure you are old enough to be allowed to use this website?
|
|