|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Dec 13, 2011 18:07:10 GMT
The Quarrymen were a poor excuse for a group. George is quoted in Anthology as saying that just prior to when they hired Pete Best, they were “horrible and an embarrassment”. When the Beatles held auditions to find a drummer, Pete Best was the only one who even wanted the job. They were a bum group nobody wanted. The main motivation in changing the name of the group was because they had already ruined the Quarrymen name and they needed a fresh start. Heck, they even had to leave the country to find work. When Allan Williams was sending them off to Germany, one of the other Liverpool groups working there wrote him a letter begging him not to send that "bum group" or else they'll ruin it for everyone.
Pete Best's mother gave them all a regular place to play (the Casbah) and a home away from home. Then Pete gave them what they needed - a steady drummer dedicated to the band. Unlike the others, he also did well in school. He even learned German and handled business dealings for the group (with help from his mother Mona).
Within a month or so of Pete joining the Beatles, they became the hottest band in Hamburg. Just 4 months after Pete joined they became the hottest band in Liverpool and he was the star of the group. In order to please fans, they even tried doing shows with Pete and his drum kit in the front of the stage with John, Paul & George forced to perform from the back. Pete's "Atom Beat" became the Liverpool sound. All of the other drummers were copying his style - including Ringo Starr from Rory Storm & The Hurricanes.
HOW POPULAR WAS PETE?
On the 1 year anniversary of Pete joining the Beatles, the Mersey Beat ran an article raving about the group. They were called a phenomenon unlike anything we will ever see again in our lifetime. Beatlemania was already happening over a year before Ringo joined the band. In that same Mersey Beat article, Pete was singled out for his mean, moody magnificence. John, Paul & George were never even mentioned.
As a drummer, was Pete a Buddy Rich or Keith Moon or John Bonham?
No. And he was never going to be.
But he was a loyal Beatle and good friend to Lennon, McCartney & Harrison. He was a dependable bandmate missing only 3 or 4 gigs out of over 750 plus performances. All with proper notice and for good reason. Others also missed a few gigs with flu or other illnesses. Paul is said to have missed the most, way more than Pete & the others. In fact, in terms of total time spent playing live, Pete played more in his 2 years with the Beatles than Ringo played in his entire career.
Pete was a rocker who liked playing in the band, drinking beer, chasing girls and getting into trouble (fun kind) with John. He didn't get on as well with George. George was friends with Ringo and had always liked him as a drummer. In a fall 1960 letter home George mentions Rory Storms group is playing the Kaiserkeller with them. He's says he thinks they're crummy and the only one in the group that's any good is the drummer (Ringo). He also mentions how well Pete is drumming in the same letter.
George became good friends with Ringo. He wasn't as close to Pete. He then lobbied Paul to make the switch from Pete to Ringo. After awhile, Paul came around to the idea and then lobbied John. John said no and didn't change his mind until the Love Me Do session when George Martin stated a preference for using Andy White. That gave George and Paul the ammo they needed to get John to make the move. Also, dispite all of his shilling for McCartney & Harrison regarding the reasons for dismissing Pete, the fact is that George Martin did not even attend the Pete Best "Love Me Do" session. He received a report from his engineers who were there.
Mona Best had lobbied Granada TV to come to Liverpool and do a piece on the Beatles. They came and recorded the Cavern debut of Ringo Starr, her son's replacement. At the end of their performance of "Some Other Guy", you hear someone in the crowd shout out "We want Pete". You can hear John shouting "Yeah!" in agreement.
John wasn't around to have a say in The Beatles Anthology. So Paul & George ran the show. As a result, Anthology 1 provides a very distorted version of the Beatles early years. It attempts to create the impression that Ringo was in the group for far longer than he really was and also tries to diminish the roll Pete and the Best family played. It attempts to fool the viewer at every turn and lead the audience into drawing false conclusions.
For instance, when George tells the story of how they found Pete, George struggles to even remember his name. He says that he remembered this guy um, um, who's mother had a club, um, um, who's son got a drum kit for Christmas, and his name was um, um, er, a ... Pete Best. He knew exactly who Pete Best was. John and Paul knew exactly who he was too. They all practically lived at his house for over a year. The Quarrymen were the house band and they hung out there when they weren't playing. They even painted the Casbah with artwork that survives to this day.
Roag Best says his father, Neil Aspinall told him that Ringo's only contribution to the Anthology Videos was to push to have Pete faded out of the famous 1960 Beatles fairground shot and have himself Photoshopped in. They say Pete was unrelyable - yet he did the most work of anyone in the band. He did 7 hour shows 7 days a week (drugfree, unlike the others0 and managed the groups affairs. They say they realknew they had to get "Liverpools greatest drummer" Ringo Starr, when the truth is they had actually reached out to other drummers before contacting Ringo. They also imply that Martin used White instead of Starr only because he didn't know Starr was coming to the session. That's false. Martin had listened to Starr the week before and decided he was no better than Pete. He then booked White and let Ringo play tambourine.
I think the Beatles are great (Ringo too)! They are not only a great band; they are the most successful entertainment group in the history of the world. But their true story has never truly been told.
"We were at our best when we were playing in the dance halls of Liverpool and Hamburg. The world never saw that." - John Lennon
That's the time when Pete Best was the drummer. In fact, the first thing Brian Epstein (and most everybody else at that time) says they noticed about the Beatles was their "beat". Best helped the Beatles go from being a bum band nobody wanted into being the #1 band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries and also helped them to get 2 different record deals in 2 different countries. He was dumped during the recording of "Love Me Do". A month later it was on the charts.
What I am trying to do with my short film "The Beatles at their Best" is shine a light on this very important chapter in music history. If you care about the Beatles, and care about the truth, you should want the true story to be told. If you don’t want to hear the truth, then how can you call yourself a true fan?
And it is possible to like Ringo and like Pete too!
Pete Best was a loyal Beatle who contributed greatly to the success of the group. Even if Ringo was to one day replace him, Pete deserved better treatment than he got. He was dumped coldheartedly by his friends, then badmouthed and never spoken to again for the rest of his life.
Gimme some truth!!!
Please consider supporting efforts to get "The Beatles at their Best" out to a wider audience. You can join the project!
Click the link below the video to visit the project at Kickstarter.com
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 13, 2011 19:57:16 GMT
I don't disagree with the vast majority of what you are saying but what's your point? Some Beatles fans just like the Beatles for their records they put out and couldn't give a toss about their history - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Other people, like me, have taken a lot of time reading into their history and of these people I would suggest that not one of them would disagree that treatment of Pete Best was cowardly and shameful. He and Mona did contribute a lot to the bands local, early success.
I take exception to your subject 'Beatles fans cant handle the truth'. Which Beatle fans? When all is said and done a band is a business, The Beatles where/are a business. There is no room for sentiment in business. The records speak for themselves - comparing Ringo and Pete, Ringo was by far the better drummer. Sure, The Quarrymen probably weren't a very good band as presumably weren't Johnny and The Moondogs, The Silver Beatles and The Beatles before Pete joined. Any band without a decent drummer is going to be crap even if it does consist of John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison.
Pete Best didn't make the Beatles but he certainly helped them become a cohesive band and achieve their potential but then any decent drummer would have done that - Johnny Hutch for example.
When John Lennon said they were at their best in the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg he meant in terms of live performance not in terms of the band in general as each of them became better singers, instrumentalists and songwriters as The Beatles progressed - there is no doubt in this.
So I say to you again - what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Dec 13, 2011 23:02:47 GMT
For those keen on the history, you need the Anthology, which is by the Beatles and The Beatles:A Long And Winding Road, which was by everybody else, including Allan Williams, Alistair Taylor, Julia Baird etc... Some where between the two of them, you might get 90% of the truth. And maybe the other 10% from "Beatles At Their Best". Thankyou for sharing that with us. Some of us fans are fanatical! But it's nice to know that since Anthology, he's been able to "cash in" (I mean that in a positive way) on some of the fame he never saw. He IS more famous now than he ever was. He tours around regularly and promotes himself as "Best Of The Beatles" these days and I think he's entitled to do that. And Neil and Paul set it up so that a good chunk of those "Pete Best" recordings that have been circulating around the world in that legal grey zone they inhabit, would finally be included on a proper EMI Beatles album and collect from his performances. So somewhere around '94, he became an "official" member of The Beatles, EMI recording artists. I'm sure you have it but in case you don't, " The Beatles: The True Beginnings" is a nice book about that era, written by Roag with help from Pete and Rory. Anyhow, as was mentioned, lots of people don't really care and it's NOT important that they do. But I know that on the other hand, there are people who do find this stuff important and this is all great treasure finds for them. I'm interested. Thanks again for your efforts and hopefully your film does well. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Dec 24, 2011 23:43:46 GMT
My point is, Beatle fans can say any decent drummer who played with them for their first 2 years would have helped Lennon, McCartney & Harrison achieve their potential. Problem is, only Pete Best wanted the job. Hutch didn't want it. Nobody wanted to drum for them - except for Pete. Six months after he joined they were the hottest band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries. A year after he joined the Mersey Beat was calling them a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime with Pete Best being singled out for his mean, moody magnificence. John, Paul & George weren't even mentioned.
Fans were calling the group Pete Best & the Beatles. Pete wasn't just in the Beatles as a technicality. His drumming was the first thing people noticed. He helped make the group into the phenomenon they became. He deserved better treatment from Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & even Ringo Starr, who was also his friend. He also deserves better treatment from Beatle fans as well.
|
|
|
Post by raymartin on Dec 26, 2011 17:58:22 GMT
the problem was that pete didnt have a rapport or the same sense of humour as the rest of them. a nice lad but he didnt have the same goonish fooling around in em that the others had.
thats what made the beatles more special than other groups before or since.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 27, 2011 18:48:12 GMT
My point is, Beatle fans can say any decent drummer who played with them for their first 2 years would have helped Lennon, McCartney & Harrison achieve their potential. Problem is, only Pete Best wanted the job. Hutch didn't want it. Nobody wanted to drum for them - except for Pete. Six months after he joined they were the hottest band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries. A year after he joined the Mersey Beat was calling them a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime with Pete Best being singled out for his mean, moody magnificence. John, Paul & George weren't even mentioned. Fans were calling the group Pete Best & the Beatles. Pete wasn't just in the Beatles as a technicality. His drumming was the first thing people noticed. He helped make the group into the phenomenon they became. He deserved better treatment from Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & even Ringo Starr, who was also his friend. He also deserves better treatment from Beatle fans as well. Are you related to Pete Best by any chance? I stand by my comment that any decent drummer would have helped The Beatles achieve their potential or at least give them the kick start to compete with local bands. If Pete Best was such a phenomenon you claim in terms of drumming and looks then why didn't The Pete Best Four and Lee Curtis and The Allstars make it big? The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best. I think you overestimate Pete Best's importance in the phenomena of The Beatles. 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. What did you want Starr to do? Refuse the offer of being the drummer in The Biggest band in Liverpool?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Dec 30, 2011 14:55:59 GMT
mrmustard on Dec 27, 2011, 6:48pm wrote:
Are you related to Pete Best by any chance? I stand by my comment that any decent drummer would have helped The Beatles achieve their potential or at least give them the kick start to compete with local bands. If Pete Best was such a phenomenon you claim in terms of drumming and looks then why didn't The Pete Best Four and Lee Curtis and The Allstars make it big? The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best.
I think you overestimate Pete Best's importance in the phenomena of The Beatles. 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. What did you want Starr to do? Refuse the offer of being the drummer in The Biggest band in Liverpool?
No, I am not related to Pete Best. I did meet him in July 2009. We didn't hit it off. It's nice that you stand by your comment that any decent drummer would have helped The Beatles achieve their potential or at least give them the kick start to compete with local bands. No kidding. And if pigs could fly... The point is NO OTHER DRUMMER WANTED THE JOB. NOT ONE. Also, I never claimed Pete Best was a phenomenon. I said the Beatles with Pete Best as their drummer and most popular member were being called a phenomenon a full year before Ringo joined. Here is a quote from the August 1961 Mersey Beat. “The stuff that screams are made of... Truly a phenomenon such are the fantastic Beatles. I don’t think anything like them will happen again.” In that article Pete Best was singled out for praise as the one generating most of the screams. John Lennon, Paul McCartney & George Harrison were not mentioned in the entire article. It's a fact, not my opinion. You need to do your homework. Why didn't Pete Best have the same type of success that Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had without him? Because he couldn't write and sing #1 songs they way they could is probably the biggest reason. Same reason no other group in the history of the world could. You say "The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best." NOTHING? Nothing? Really? They went from being a bum band no one wanted into being described as a phenomenon in the papers a year later, yet you say Pete Best contributed nothing to their becoming a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon. Beatlemania started in December 1960, 4 months after Pete Best joined the Beatles. They went on to become the #1 band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries, with 2 different record deals in 2 different countries with Pete Best as the drummer and their most popular member (and helping to manage the groups business affairs). They had already been called a phenomenon for over a year before they dumped him just weeks before Love Me Do hit the chart, yet you say "The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best". Like you said any decent drummer could have done the job. Problem is, no other decent drummer did. Pete Best did. I never said that Starr treated Best unfairly as you claim. But I will say it now. Starr was lame in his treatment of Best. They were friends. Starr has been feeding for 50 years off of the table that Pete Best helped set. I didn't expect Ringo to turn down the job of "being the biggest band in Liverpool". Would it have been too much for Ringo Starr to at least mentioned Pete's contribution when Ringo accepted his trophy at the Beatles Hall of Fame induction? Or at any time in the past 50 years? They way you try so hard to dimminish Pete and hype Ringo, I'll have to ask you. Are you related to Ringo Starr?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Dec 30, 2011 18:26:12 GMT
Hi everybody; just listen to the voice of reason! Some people like frogs, others like clams. Others will just take whatever you give them. They're all legitimate feelings and none of them are wrong. Some want to feel outrage at Pete's treatment and others don't, but you are both right. Different Beatles fans like them for different reasons and hook onto certain things to obsess about. Cut each other some slack and enjoy the ride, or I'll come around lookin' for you both! [quote author=amadeus board=beatles thread=3656 post=17757 time=1323817367 Thankyou for sharing that with us. Some of us fans are fanatical! But it's nice to know that since Anthology, he's been able to "cash in" (I mean that in a positive way) on some of the fame he never saw. He IS more famous now than he ever was. He tours around regularly and promotes himself as "Best Of The Beatles" these days and I think he's entitled to do that. And Neil and Paul set it up so that a good chunk of those "Pete Best" recordings that have been circulating around the world in that legal grey zone they inhabit, would finally be included on a proper EMI Beatles album and collect from his performances. So somewhere around '94, he became an "official" member of The Beatles, EMI recording artists. I'm sure you have it but in case you don't, " The Beatles: The True Beginnings" is a nice book about that era, written by Roag with help from Pete and Rory. Anyhow, as was mentioned, lots of people don't really care and it's NOT important that they do. But I know that on the other hand, there are people who do find this stuff important and this is all great treasure finds for them. I'm interested. Thanks again for your efforts and hopefully your film does well. Cheers [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 30, 2011 20:51:12 GMT
No, I am not related to Pete Best. I did meet him in July 2009. We didn't hit it off. It's nice that you stand by your comment that any decent drummer would have helped The Beatles achieve their potential or at least give them the kick start to compete with local bands. No kidding. And if pigs could fly... The point is NO OTHER DRUMMER WANTED THE JOB. NOT ONE. Also, I never claimed Pete Best was a phenomenon. I said the Beatles with Pete Best as their drummer and most popular member were being called a phenomenon a full year before Ringo joined. Here is a quote from the August 1961 Mersey Beat. “The stuff that screams are made of... Truly a phenomenon such are the fantastic Beatles. I don’t think anything like them will happen again.” In that article Pete Best was singled out for praise as the one generating most of the screams. John Lennon, Paul McCartney & George Harrison were not mentioned in the entire article. It's a fact, not my opinion. You need to do your homework. Why didn't Pete Best have the same type of success that Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had without him? Because he couldn't write and sing #1 songs they way they could is probably the biggest reason. Same reason no other group in the history of the world could. You say "The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best." NOTHING? Nothing? Really? They went from being a bum band no one wanted into being described as a phenomenon in the papers a year later, yet you say Pete Best contributed nothing to their becoming a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon. Beatlemania started in December 1960, 4 months after Pete Best joined the Beatles. They went on to become the #1 band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries, with 2 different record deals in 2 different countries with Pete Best as the drummer and their most popular member (and helping to manage the groups business affairs). They had already been called a phenomenon for over a year before they dumped him just weeks before Love Me Do hit the chart, yet you say "The Beatles as a national phenomenon and then world wide phenomenon had nothing to do with Pete Best". Like you said any decent drummer could have done the job. Problem is, no other decent drummer did. Pete Best did. I never said that Starr treated Best unfairly as you claim. But I will say it now. Starr was lame in his treatment of Best. They were friends. Starr has been feeding for 50 years off of the table that Pete Best helped set. I didn't expect Ringo to turn down the job of "being the biggest band in Liverpool". Would it have been too much for Ringo Starr to at least mentioned Pete's contribution when Ringo accepted his trophy at the Beatles Hall of Fame induction? Or at any time in the past 50 years? They way you try so hard to dimminish Pete and hype Ringo, I'll have to ask you. Are you related to Ringo Starr? It appears I have touched a raw nerve but then you have to justify the movie to reach your $5000. You really need to re-look at your e-mails before you put finger to keyboard as you have completely contradicted yourself on several occasions. You do indeed claim Starr contributed nearly as much as the other three in doing him a dis-service. I am more than aware of the article which focuses on Pete Best but you need to rationalise your interpretation of specific articles and not use them as a basis for a concept. The way you put Pete Best on a pedastal is completely distorting the truth. Sure, he helped towards the formation of the band in Liverpool and Hamburg and got them gigs but it ends there. All three of them contributed towards getting gigs - McCartney in particular. In terms of his drumming it's all there to be heard - he was limited. Sure he had a hard bass drum sound but that's because he played it on every beat which leads to limitations in drumming style. Love Me Do is the perfect example. Pete's drumming is very laboured on it were as Ringo's is lively and keeps the pace constant. The recordings are there for comparison in drumming style and Ringo is miles away the more proficient and interesting.It's very hard to see Pete fitting in with their style later on in terms of drumming and personality. As I have previously said, I take exception to your subject line. Sure, Pete's contribution should never be overlooked but then it shouldn't be overstated. Why couldn't you just say you were making a film about Pete Best instead of trying to put down Beatles fans?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Dec 31, 2011 0:32:53 GMT
Hot Damn! This is a humdinger!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Dec 31, 2011 15:48:36 GMT
mrmustard says...
It appears I have touched a raw nerve but then you have to justify the movie to reach your $5000.
You really need to re-look at your e-mails before you put finger to keyboard as you have completely contradicted yourself on several occasions. You do indeed claim Starr contributed nearly as much as the other three in doing him a dis-service. I am more than aware of the article which focuses on Pete Best but you need to rationalise your interpretation of specific articles and not use them as a basis for a concept.
The way you put Pete Best on a pedastal is completely distorting the truth. Sure, he helped towards the formation of the band in Liverpool and Hamburg and got them gigs but it ends there. All three of them contributed towards getting gigs - McCartney in particular. In terms of his drumming it's all there to be heard - he was limited. Sure he had a hard bass drum sound but that's because he played it on every beat which leads to limitations in drumming style. Love Me Do is the perfect example. Pete's drumming is very laboured on it were as Ringo's is lively and keeps the pace constant. The recordings are there for comparison in drumming style and Ringo is miles away the more proficient and interesting.It's very hard to see Pete fitting in with their style later on in terms of drumming and personality.
As I have previously said, I take exception to your subject line. Sure, Pete's contribution should never be overlooked but then it shouldn't be overstated. Why couldn't you just say you were making a film about Pete Best instead of trying to put down Beatles fans?
Not sure how you “touched a raw nerve”. You asked if I was related to Pete? I said I wasn’t. You still haven’t answered my question. Are you related to Ringo Starr? As for the Kickstarter launch. I will get my movie done either way, it just gets expensive when you are doing everything yourself. I will be updating it Monday & will go into more detail on how I will spend the money if that part of the project is successful. As for the specific quote that you claim I am I contradicting myself, I believe this one in my original post is the one you are referring to… “Pete Best was a loyal Beatle who contributed greatly to the success of the group. Even if Ringo was to one day replace him, Pete deserved better treatment than he got. He was dumped coldheartedly by his friends, then badmouthed and never spoken to again for the rest of his life.” In one response post you claimed I said…” Starr treated Best unfairly” I responded to your first misquote by saying… I never said that Starr treated Best unfairly as you claim. But I will say it now. Starr was lame in his treatment of Best. They were friends. Starr has been feeding for 50 years off of the table that Pete Best helped set. I didn't expect Ringo to turn down the job of "being in the biggest band in Liverpool". But, would it have been too much for Ringo Starr to have at least mentioned Pete's contribution when Ringo accepted his trophy at the Beatles Hall of Fame induction? Or at any time in the past 50 years? I wasn’t contradicting myself. I was correcting your misquotes and at the same time trying to clarify my position. You then said that I "do indeed claim Starr contributed nearly as much as the other three in doing him a dis-service". Again the words in my original quote speak for themselves – and they are not what you are quoting me as saying. I would like to repeat my words were… “Pete Best was a loyal Beatle who contributed greatly to the success of the group. Even if Ringo was to one day replace him, Pete deserved better treatment than he got. He was dumped coldheartedly by his friends, then badmouthed and never spoken to again for the rest of his life.” and then in a later post I added.... "I never said that Starr treated Best unfairly as you claim. But I will say it now. Starr was lame in his treatment of Best. They were friends. Starr has been feeding for 50 years off of the table that Pete Best helped set. I didn't expect Ringo to turn down the job of "being in the biggest band in Liverpool". But, would it have been too much for Ringo Starr to have at least mentioned Pete's contribution when Ringo accepted his trophy at the Beatles Hall of Fame induction? Or at any time in the past 50 years?" I would now also like to add that it was Ringo, not John, Paul or George that claimed in a 1965 Playboy article that he replaced Pete because Pete “took little pills to make him ill”. Pete had never taken legal action against The Beatles until Ringo made this false & slanderous statement. Ringo should have acknowledged Pete’s contribution to The Beatles at The Beatles Hall of Fame inductions or in Anthology or at any point in the past 50 years. Pete wasn’t just the guy that helped set the table that Ringo fed off of for the next half century. Pete was also his friend. As for Love Me Do, it was Pete on a bad day, not yet comfortable with a song he was still learning. To use that one day and compare it with Ringo on a good day 2 months later, after Ringo had time to learn the song isn't a fair when comparing their overall work in The Beatles. Why not talk about the 15 songs Pete recorded on Jan 1. No one was awesome that day, but many have made the point that Pete might have done better that day than the others. If so, would that prove that Pete was better than John, Paul & George? Why do you feel the need to dimminish Pete? I will ask you again, are you related to Ringo?
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Dec 31, 2011 16:00:25 GMT
A bit like the dialog between Kennedy and Kruschev. I would think.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 31, 2011 16:18:07 GMT
A bit like the dialog between Kennedy and Kruschev. I would think. Hi Amadeus. I am really interested to know which one of us represents Kennedy and which one represents kruschev?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Dec 31, 2011 16:24:50 GMT
Kennedy
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Dec 31, 2011 16:40:07 GMT
It doesn't matter. They both had to make concessions. Kennedy had to remove his missiles from Turkey, Then Kruschev would remove his missiles from Cuba. Some want to argue passionately for Pete, Others want to argue passionately for Ringo. They're both right and neither needs to start a war. Because ultimately, none of it is REALLY important. IMO it's of historical interest only. It doesn't affect us personally. But it's FUN to argue the points as long as it doesn't become condescending on either side. To me, the important point is that Pete has finally (30 years after the fact) been officially recognised and compensated as a Beatle. And according to Roag in his (above mentioned book), he seems to be embracing his lately won notoriety and capitalising on it. As my avatar says, I am a self described genius of everything. So There! If either of you is related to Pete and/or Ringo, Umm, any chance of an autograph?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 31, 2011 16:40:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Dec 31, 2011 17:21:15 GMT
I clearly have touched a raw nerve as you are being so defensive. No I am not related to Ringo Starr.
You can go on and on about mis-quotes all you like. It's your interpretation of what you said to what you actually meant.
I was referring to the January 1st recordings when I said to compare Starr to Best. If Best was that good a drummer wasn't he snapped up by other bands? Other Liverpool drummers went on to world wide fame in other bands after playing in Mersey Beat bands. Surely if he was that good live he would have been snapped up. If he was that good George Martin would have had him for recordings.
The Beatles where bastards to Pete (even Starr if the Playboy interview is true) and I am not trying to diminish him in any way at all. He totally deserved his financial gain with the Anthology. However it's business at the end of the day and many people have been ruthlessly fired from bands. Pete didn't fit in and that's the end of it. That's the history.
Again I say to you, why have a go at Beatles fans in your subject line? No one is denying Pete Best his place in history but you seem to want to overstate it and at the same time make a film out of it which personally I find quite disturbing. Why don't you make a film entitled 'Why The Beatles where Bastards to Pete Best'.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jan 1, 2012 18:13:30 GMT
mrmustard - I have a go at Beatle fans who don't know as much about The Beatles as they think they do and yet feel the need to attack anyone or anything that goes against their long held beliefs about the group. (Did you take the time yet to check if Ringo really did say that about Pete in the Playboy interview?) I have a go at Beatle fans who feel the need resort to personal attacks and misquotes when debating anyone who says anything that goes against their own personal view of Beatles history. As you have. I have repeatedly backed up my statements with facts supporting my position. You often conveniently ignore my facts and then go back to launching personal attacks against me. Twice now you’ve started your replies bragging on how you've ‘clearly touched a raw nerve". You give yourself too much credit. I think it is I who touched a nerve with you or else you wouldn't be personally attacking me while ignoring paragraphs and paragraphs of facts. When I claim that you are not quoting me accurately, you respond... "You can go on and on about mis-quotes all you like. It's your interpretation of what you said to what you actually meant." Really? It's my interpretation of what I said to what I actually meant? No, it isn't. What I actually said is what I actually meant, not YOUR interpretation of what I said to what I actually meant. Also, my film is not a film about Pete Best. It is a film that looks at the question of "when were The Beatles at their best as an actual band playing real music", not just technically effecient session players recording music segments at a time? As for Pete Best and your question "If Best was that good a drummer wasn't he snapped up by other bands?" He was. Pete Best was snapped up by Lee Curtis & The All Stars. They then finished second to The Beatles in the 1963 Merseybeat Poll, reportedly by a very narrow margin (just 1 year after Pete topped the same poll as a member of The Beatles). The rise in popularity of Lee Curtis & The All Stars to be 2nd only to The Beatles in popularity was due all most entirely to the addition of Pete. Why did Pete not have the same success with them as The Beatles had? To duplicate the success The Beatles had after his sacking, Pete would have had to find another Lennon, McCartney & Harrison. Three Hall of Famers. He didn't. He wasn’t the only person in the world who couldn’t duplicate The Beatles success. You say no one is denying Pete his place in history. I say you and almost every Beatle fan I have ever met denies Pete his place in Beatles history. That is those that even know him. Just acknowledging Pete’s existence isn't enough. Diminishing or failing to even mention some of his contributions and accomplishments is the very definition of denying his place in Beatles history. I like The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo. I appreciate the contribution all of them made. They ALL deserve credit for EVERYTHING that they brought to the group. Pete brought a lot more than you and other Beatle fans want to give him credit for. That's why I say Beatle fans can't handle the truth. And it’s true. Beatle fans can’t handle the truth. There isn’t a single thing that I’ve said that isn’t the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 1, 2012 18:16:28 GMT
Can't anybody hear me?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 1, 2012 18:24:21 GMT
The only person who is making personal attacks is you Beatlesattheirbest. I take exception to your subject line as I have said all along. You are taking a broad swipe at Beatles fans. You don't know all Beatles fans yet you put them all into one category that suits your needs in order to promote your film. I find that offensive.
|
|