|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 12, 2012 12:47:31 GMT
Maybe I have this all wrong. Beatlesattheirbest is the Beatles fan and maybe he can't handle the truth. And what "truth" would that be? Pete Best pointing to a bug eyed, grinning John Lennon who has prelulin in his hand proves Pete Best was on drugs?
|
|
wozza62
What Goes On In Your Heart
Posts: 88
|
Post by wozza62 on Jan 12, 2012 22:37:18 GMT
Maybe I have this all wrong. Beatlesattheirbest is the Beatles fan and maybe he can't handle the truth. And what "truth" would that be? Pete Best pointing to a bug eyed, grinning John Lennon who has prelulin in his hand proves Pete Best was on drugs? The truth is this. At both the recording sessions that Pete Best attended numerous people made comment or complained about his poor drumming skills. At the Tony sheridan session we had several people commenting on his poor drumming to the point that he was asked not to play his bass drum because he was out of time with it. Bert Kaempfert Tony Sheridan himself Karl Hinze the sound engineer Roy Young the pianist At the Love Me do session George Martin had to replace him with a session drummer. And obviously John Paul and George made the decision to get rid of him. Also John Lennon is documented as saying he was a "Lousy" drummer. At the same time that the Beatles were hotly chasing a recording contract. The simple fact of the matter is that Pete Best was punted, although he could probably get away with a racy live gig, because his skills for recording were dreadful. I am sorry, but your pretty boy jealousy theory and pill popping denials don't alter the facts as much as your are doing your best trying to. Could it have been handled better?, I am sure it could have. But to be quite honest your twisted view of history with Pete Best at the forefront of early Beatles popularity is quite frankly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 12, 2012 23:53:30 GMT
At both the recording sessions that Pete Best attended numerous people made comment or complained about his poor drumming skills. At the Tony sheridan session we had several people commenting on his poor drumming to the point that he was asked not to play his bass drum because he was out of time with it. Bert Kaempfert Tony Sheridan himself Karl Hinze the sound engineer Roy Young the pianist At the Love Me do session George Martin had to replace him with a session drummer. And obviously John Paul and George made the decision to get rid of him. Also John Lennon is documented as saying he was a "Lousy" drummer. At the same time that the Beatles were hotly chasing a recording contract. The simple fact of the matter is that Pete Best was punted, although he could probably get away with a racy live gig, because his skills for recording were dreadful. I am sorry, but your pretty boy jealousy theory and pill popping denials don't alter the facts as much as your are doing your best trying to. Could it have been handled better?, I am sure it could have. But to be quite honest your twisted view of history with Pete Best at the forefront of early Beatles popularity is quite frankly ridiculous. Well that's two of us who have given almost exactly the response to to this guy. May be we are both in denial! Any other takers or shakers?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 13, 2012 3:34:35 GMT
Hi Guys. I'm new here. I'm a big Beatles fan. Who here likes the Beatles? We're one big happy Beatles nation, aren't we.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 13, 2012 9:23:36 GMT
Hi Guys. I'm new here. I'm a big Beatles fan. Who here likes the Beatles? We're one big happy Beatles nation, aren't we. Yes, it's like one big happy family in my eyes. Ok we have debate and discussion. It's all good for the soul. Please tell me how you can be 'new' after 257 posts!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 13, 2012 11:12:32 GMT
wozza62 & mrmustard - You both commented on a photo of Pete pointing to John as John holds Preludin in his hand as proof that Pete Best was on drugs. wozza62 called it a "fact" that Pete was a pill popper and said I am in denial. mrmustard agreed that I am in denial, saying that Pete was popping pills like the others. It's "the only rational explanation". After I told you both that a photo of John bug eyed & grinning, with George smiling and Paul looking angry while Pete points to Preludin that John is holding is hardly proof that Pete was on drugs. The two of you skipped right past that point and instead moved on criticizing Pete over the Tony Sheridan sessions. You both are just haters. Hating on Pete Best and hating on me for defending his place in Beatles history. You seek to diminish Pete at every opportunity, just as The Beatles did/do. You slander Best as a druggy just like Ringo Starr did in the Beatles Playboy interview, ignoring that fact that you have absolutely no proof that your allegations are true. The facts are that there are numerous persons on record as saying Pete didn't pop pills. There has never been a person (other than Ringo) who has claimed that Pete did. There was an entire court case over this very issue. Despite the Beatles having millions to pay lawyers & investigators, they were never able to make the case that Pete popped pills like the others. I am not sure they even tried to make the case as they knew it wasn't true. The fact is that Pete Best didn't need pills to play 7 hour sets 7 days a week like the others. He didn't need drugs to put in more time playing live with The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo Starr did in his entire career with the group. Pete Best won his lawsuit over this issue and cleared his name. You both should be more careful about calling him a druggy. He might sue you next.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 13, 2012 15:20:16 GMT
Hi Guys. I'm new here and I really like pickles. Who here likes a good pickle?
Hunter Davies' authorized biography stated that Pete Best was the one who didn't do drugs. I'm not taking sides in, what is a very silly argument, but anything I've read stated that Pete was not on the pills like the others. Maybe he tried them once and didn't like them. Who knows besides him?
In the teenage beat combo I was in in the early '80s, the others regularly enjoyed the pleasures of socially circulated jazz cigarettes and getting blind drunk every weekend. I enjoyed the ability to say no and be the only one in control of my faculties, so that if an axe murderer came (like in the movies) I'd be able to outwit him with my non-reality altered wits and maybe even save the day. And I also don't like vomit on my shoes.
So that was my surroundings and I didn't have to indulge. But maybe you don't believe me, after all, how can I hang around with stoners and drunks and not be a stoner/drunk myself? Who cares? It's no skin off your back one way or the other. And it's my life. And I'm a good drummer too! Even though the other guy is better than me.
So to everyone who wants to perpetuate this nonsense argument about who did or didn't do drugs or who was the better drummer or who was most popular or the best looking or who won this lawsuit or that lawsuit.... can just suck my beatles!
I'm hungry, cranky and I have to go buff my finger nails.
Peace out. Amadeus (rock me)
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 13, 2012 15:47:49 GMT
I'm hungry, cranky and I have to go buff my finger nails. Peace out. Amadeus (rock me) lol
|
|
wozza62
What Goes On In Your Heart
Posts: 88
|
Post by wozza62 on Jan 13, 2012 20:56:42 GMT
wozza62 & mrmustard - You both commented on a photo of Pete pointing to John as John holds Preludin in his hand as proof that Pete Best was on drugs. wozza62 called it a "fact" that Pete was a pill popper and said I am in denial. mrmustard agreed that I am in denial, saying that Pete was popping pills like the others. It's "the only rational explanation". After I told you both that a photo of John bug eyed & grinning, with George smiling and Paul looking angry while Pete points to Preludin that John is holding is hardly proof that Pete was on drugs. The two of you skipped right past that point and instead moved on criticizing Pete over the Tony Sheridan sessions. You both are just haters. Hating on Pete Best and hating on me for defending his place in Beatles history. You seek to diminish Pete at every opportunity, just as The Beatles did/do. You slander Best as a druggy just like Ringo Starr did in the Beatles Playboy interview, ignoring that fact that you have absolutely no proof that your allegations are true. The facts are that there are numerous persons on record as saying Pete didn't pop pills. There has never been a person (other than Ringo) who has claimed that Pete did. There was an entire court case over this very issue. Despite the Beatles having millions to pay lawyers & investigators, they were never able to make the case that Pete popped pills like the others. I am not sure they even tried to make the case as they knew it wasn't true. The fact is that Pete Best didn't need pills to play 7 hour sets 7 days a week like the others. He didn't need drugs to put in more time playing live with The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo Starr did in his entire career with the group. Pete Best won his lawsuit over this issue and cleared his name. You both should be more careful about calling him a druggy. He might sue you next. This thread is becoming quite bizarre. The problem with people like you when you have no argument your resort to name calling and threats. The whole point of this thread from you was to be controversial and when you have people pointing out the flaws in your conclusions you don't like it. Go ahead and make your film, because I wont watch it if it is based on the same drivel you have been posting here. For the record I don't hate anybody including you or Pete Best, but if you expect to attempt to re-write history and use a Beatles forum to do it, you can expect a reply from me.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 13, 2012 22:07:54 GMT
wozza62 & mrmustard - You both commented on a photo of Pete pointing to John as John holds Preludin in his hand as proof that Pete Best was on drugs. wozza62 called it a "fact" that Pete was a pill popper and said I am in denial. mrmustard agreed that I am in denial, saying that Pete was popping pills like the others. It's "the only rational explanation". After I told you both that a photo of John bug eyed & grinning, with George smiling and Paul looking angry while Pete points to Preludin that John is holding is hardly proof that Pete was on drugs. The two of you skipped right past that point and instead moved on criticizing Pete over the Tony Sheridan sessions. You both are just haters. Hating on Pete Best and hating on me for defending his place in Beatles history. You seek to diminish Pete at every opportunity, just as The Beatles did/do. You slander Best as a druggy just like Ringo Starr did in the Beatles Playboy interview, ignoring that fact that you have absolutely no proof that your allegations are true. The facts are that there are numerous persons on record as saying Pete didn't pop pills. There has never been a person (other than Ringo) who has claimed that Pete did. There was an entire court case over this very issue. Despite the Beatles having millions to pay lawyers & investigators, they were never able to make the case that Pete popped pills like the others. I am not sure they even tried to make the case as they knew it wasn't true. The fact is that Pete Best didn't need pills to play 7 hour sets 7 days a week like the others. He didn't need drugs to put in more time playing live with The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo Starr did in his entire career with the group. Pete Best won his lawsuit over this issue and cleared his name. You both should be more careful about calling him a druggy. He might sue you next. You just don't want to hear what I'm saying do you. I go back to my first e-mail in which I said that I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying. Who wouldn't. But to put Pete Best on a pedastal like you are doing is wrong. I couldn't care for one second if Pete Best took prellies, smack or LSD. It makes no difference to him as a person. You started the drug thing and then turned it on to me and Wozza. You then accused me of being a 'f***ing liar' and 'devious' (Correct me on the devious if I'm wrong but I can't be bothered to go back and check). That was unnacceptable. I am still waiting for an apology....... You have no point.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 13, 2012 22:13:36 GMT
Hi Guys. I'm new here and I really like pickles. Who here likes a good pickle? Hunter Davies' authorized biography stated that Pete Best was the one who didn't do drugs. I'm not taking sides in, what is a very silly argument, but anything I've read stated that Pete was not on the pills like the others. Maybe he tried them once and didn't like them. Who knows besides him? In the teenage beat combo I was in in the early '80s, the others regularly enjoyed the pleasures of socially circulated jazz cigarettes and getting blind drunk every weekend. I enjoyed the ability to say no and be the only one in control of my faculties, so that if an axe murderer came (like in the movies) I'd be able to outwit him with my non-reality altered wits and maybe even save the day. And I also don't like vomit on my shoes. So that was my surroundings and I didn't have to indulge. But maybe you don't believe me, after all, how can I hang around with stoners and drunks and not be a stoner/drunk myself? Who cares? It's no skin off your back one way or the other. And it's my life. And I'm a good drummer too! Even though the other guy is better than me. So to everyone who wants to perpetuate this nonsense argument about who did or didn't do drugs or who was the better drummer or who was most popular or the best looking or who won this lawsuit or that lawsuit.... can just suck my beatles! I'm hungry, cranky and I have to go buff my finger nails. Peace out. Amadeus (rock me) Rock Me Amadeus, I hear what you are saying but I have to say that I feel really strongly that this is a forum and part of the function of a forum is for discussion and debate as well as other things like our top ten this and that and our favourite other bands and songs. So I believe, for example, that a discussion on who is the better drummer Pete or Ringo is a reasonable discussion to have. I do agree that at times this thread has got of hand i.e. when I'm being called a 'f**king liar' on the forum. Do you believe this is acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 14, 2012 2:29:27 GMT
I just figgered the name calling and put downs are a bit abrasive. Since this is a forum, I think (although there is no real recorded evidence) that the Quarrymen may well have sucked when you compare them to what the Beatles became several years later. But I also think (and there is recorded evidence) that The Pete Best Combo weren't all that smokin' hot either. And in both cases it doesn't have anything to do with the drummers or lack thereof. It's just that the songs kind of blow chunks.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 14, 2012 15:56:55 GMT
mrmustard I thought this issue was dead. You called me a liar on Jan 3. On Jan 3, I responded that you were the one who was lying. I then explained how you did it. I never heard another peep out of you for a week and a half. You responded to plenty of my other posts, but didn't touch my response saying you were the liar. That's fine. I was happy to move on. But now, 10 days later, you decide you want to go back to Jan 3. You decide you want to go back to your attempts to make me look like a liar and you want to go back to your attempts to force me to issue you a public apology. Since you want to go back to Jan 3, let's go back. On Jan 3 at 3:19pm you made a post blasting me about the title of this thread and for promoting my film. I was surprised that you were blasting me yet again on this since I started this thread back on Dec 13 and you had already blasted me several times in the weeks before. On Jan 3 at 3:22pm I responded to your post saying... Then, somewhere between 3:19pm and 3:23 you used the "Modify" function to delete your post and replaced it with an entirely different post about an entirely different subject. At 3:23, I realized that you changed your original post and had replaced it. So I made a 2nd post explaining that my 1st post was in response to your original post that no longer existed. It’s fine that you changed your mind removed your original post and posted something different. That's OK. What I had a real problem with, and still do, is what you did next. At 4:51 (an hour and a half later) you posted this... That was a lie. You knew that you had deleted or modified your original post, yet you pretended you didn't so that you could call me a liar. You then took it even further by demanding an apology for something that you knew I didn’t do. I felt that what you were doing was dishonest and sneaky - and I said so at the time. I never said what you are doing is "devious", however devious does mean "showing a skillful use of underhanded tactics to achieve goals." So devious would apply. I believe that you thought by using the "Modify" function you could delete a post but still be able to deny you deleted it. Because, you only modified it, right? But the fact is, using the modify function to remove all of the original content of a post and then replacing it with entirely different content is deleting. To deny what you did and instead try and make me out to be a liar so you can demand a public apology is underhanded. That's the very definition of devious. I regret saying "Beatles fans can't handle the truth". I should have said "some Beatles fans can't handle the truth" or "many Beatles fans can't handle the truth". I also regret typing "f--ing" when I said you were lying. I was censoring myself so as not to swear, but even "f---" looks kind of bad when it’s typed out in a message. I should have just said a fudging liar or just said liar and left it at that. Also, why would I lie? If we believe you and you never deleted your original post, than that would mean when I posted my answer, I was really just pretending to answer a post that you never made, so I could make a 2nd post explaining my answer was in response to a post that no longer exited. Why would I do that? Why would I want to pretend to respond to a post that you never made and then make a 2nd post explaining why my previous post no longer made sense? Why? Why would I want to do something like that? I never called you a liar until you started reposting an hour and a half later calling me a liar. Why did it take you 10 days to decide to respond to what I said? Almost every other thing I've posted, no matter how small the issue, has gotten a rapid response from you (including many other posts in this thread). I have no problem with the administrators of this website checking to see who is telling the truth. We both know you modified or deleted your original post and that you are the one who is lying. I don't mind going back and forth with you on other topics. You are right; we have a lot of things we agree on. But you should just drop this apology nonsense and move on from this issue as you did before. You're just making yourself look stupid by going on about it.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 14, 2012 16:56:01 GMT
mrmustard - As for the whole Pete Best drug issue, that got started when you misquoted me. You claimed that I had said that Starr treated Best unfairly when I hadn't said that.
I then replied that even though I hadn't said it, I did think it was true. I said I do believe that all of the Beatles, including Ringo, were 'lame' in their treatment of Best. I pointed out that if I had actually said that Ringo was unfair to Best, it would not be a ridculous statement as you are claiming. I reminded you that it was Ringo who slandered Best in the Beatles Playboy interview where he claimed Pete took little pills to make himself ill. That was very unfair. John Lennon should have corrected Ringo right there on the spot.
The Pete Best pill issue stayed dead in this thread until 2 weeks later when The End posted the picture of Best, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison with Lennon & Harrison holding Prelulin. You jumped right in commenting...
You then added several more posts stating it was obvious Pete was popping pills like the others. You said it was the only rational explaination and that I was in denial.
Now you are complaining about having to talk about it.
Again, it was The End who posted the picture and you who started comenting on on what The End posted. That had nothing to do with me. If you didn't care about the subject or the photo The End posted, why comment on it? And, why make so many follow up posts continuing to try and make the case that Pete popped pills only to now complain that you never really cared. I wasn't the one who made you make so many comments. You did so because you wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 14, 2012 17:42:12 GMT
This is now a farce! We are never going to come to a resolution so we should drop this now. You can say what you like about me. No one takes you seriously around here on this issue. People other than myself have pointed out how you have come across on this thread yet you choose to attempt to discredit me. You have only succeeded in discrediting yourself. I openly admitted I was not really aware on the Playboy interview and subsequently agreed that Starrs behaviour in the whole Pete Best saga was unacceptable.
My final word on this is, again, I DID NOT DELETE ANY POSTS PERTAINING TO THIS THREAD. Nor did amend any posts in a way that changed the emphasis on anything I have said during this thread.
|
|
|
Post by The End on Jan 14, 2012 17:43:23 GMT
Beatlesattheirbest, I don't usually intervene even when discussions get heated on here but your posts in this thread are seriously getting on my nerves. Quite clearly the title and content of your original post and subsequent responses were supposed to provoke a reaction and you certainly got it - job done - move on!
Quite simply Pete was a really nice guy but not a good drummer - but you can read our discussions on this matter elsewhere on the forum.
All of the posters - Beatle fans - actually agree with you about the shoddy treatment of Pete, so consequently the title of your thread is wrong.
Now - PLEASE - be quiet!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 14, 2012 18:30:42 GMT
Beatlesattheirbest, I don't usually intervene even when discussions get heated on here but your posts in this thread are seriously getting on my nerves. Quite clearly the title and content of your original post and subsequent responses were supposed to provoke a reaction and you certainly got it - job done - move on! Quite simply Pete was a really nice guy but not a good drummer - but you can read our discussions on this matter elsewhere on the forum. All of the posters - Beatle fans - actually agree with you about the shoddy treatment of Pete, so consequently the title of your thread is wrong. Now - PLEASE - be quiet! mrmustard started this by playing games with the "modify" feature. He then called me a liar an demanded an apology. I pointed out what he did and how he was the one lying. He never challenged my version and never said another word about it. Now a week and a half later, he starts the whole thing up again by again calling me a liar and again demanding an apology. EACH TIME IT WAS MRMUSTARD THAT STARTED THIS STUPID CRAP, NOT ME. But, if someone hiding anonomously behind a keyboard wants to personally attack me calling me a liar, I reserve the right to point out what that individual is really doing. mrmustard did exactly what I said he did. I only said it (each time) in direct responce to his personal attacks on me - both then and now. Frankly I think mrmustard is an idiot jackass for what he's been doing and you make yourself look like an idiot jackass defending him. You're probably smart enough to know I'm right on that point.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 14, 2012 18:34:29 GMT
Beatlesattheirbest, I don't usually intervene even when discussions get heated on here but your posts in this thread are seriously getting on my nerves. Quite clearly the title and content of your original post and subsequent responses were supposed to provoke a reaction and you certainly got it - job done - move on! Quite simply Pete was a really nice guy but not a good drummer - but you can read our discussions on this matter elsewhere on the forum. All of the posters - Beatle fans - actually agree with you about the shoddy treatment of Pete, so consequently the title of your thread is wrong. Now - PLEASE - be quiet! mrmustard started this by playing games with the "modify" feature. He then called me a liar an demanded an apology. I pointed out what he did and how he was the one lying. He never challenged my version and never said another word about it. Now a week and a half later, he starts the whole thing up again by again calling me a liar and again demanding an apology. EACH TIME IT WAS MRMUSTARD THAT STARTED THIS STUPID CRAP, NOT ME. But, if someone hiding anonomously behind a keyboard wants to personally attack me calling me a liar, I reserve the right to point out what that individual is really doing. mrmustard did exactly what I said he did. I only said it (each time) in direct responce to his personal attacks on me - both then and now. Frankly I think mrmustard is an idiot jackass and you make yourself look like an idiot jackass defending him. You're probably smart enough to know I'm right on that point. You are deluded. Now give it a rest.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 14, 2012 18:36:50 GMT
mrmustard started this by playing games with the "modify" feature. He then called me a liar an demanded an apology. I pointed out what he did and how he was the one lying. He never challenged my version and never said another word about it. Now a week and a half later, he starts the whole thing up again by again calling me a liar and again demanding an apology. EACH TIME IT WAS MRMUSTARD THAT STARTED THIS STUPID CRAP, NOT ME. But, if someone hiding anonomously behind a keyboard wants to personally attack me calling me a liar, I reserve the right to point out what that individual is really doing. mrmustard did exactly what I said he did. I only said it (each time) in direct responce to his personal attacks on me - both then and now. Frankly I think mrmustard is an idiot jackass and you make yourself look like an idiot jackass defending him. You're probably smart enough to know I'm right on that point. You are deluded. Now give it a rest. Mean Mister Mustard sleeps in the park Shaves in the dark trying to save paper Sleeps in a hole in the road Saving up to buy some clothes Keeps a ten bob note up his nose Such a mean old man Such a mean old man His sister Pam works in a shop She never stops, she's a go-getter Takes him out to look at the queen Only place that he's ever been Always shouts out something obscene Such a dirty old man Such a dirty old man
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 14, 2012 18:43:14 GMT
Mean Mister Mustard sleeps in the park Shaves in the dark trying to save paper Sleeps in a hole in the road Saving up to buy some clothes Keeps a ten bob note up his nose Such a mean old man Such a mean old man
His sister Pam works in a shop She never stops, she's a go-getter Takes him out to look at the queen Only place that he's ever been Always shouts out something obscene Such a dirty old man Such a dirty old man
Great song in the context to medley isn't it. Nice post!
[/quote]
|
|