|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 28, 2014 8:53:49 GMT -5
But there is no doubt that they were "The Beatles" (the real thing, that is) before Ringo joined. Have to disagree. No, I don't think they were "The Beatles" for real until Ringo joined them. We can tell even from the Decca Tapes and what exists of the early 1962 EMI Recordings with Pete, that these guys were not yet the same version of The Beatles who came to be. We don't really know any further, because Ringo came in and then suddenly everything improved. Whether it was due to Ringo or not, it all improved at the same time so it's not possible to say. I don't think they were going anywhere up to the moment where Ringo replaced Pete. They may have been big shots in Hamburg and Liverpool, but there were other great bands also playing in Hamburg and Liverpool. Even though they had been signed in 1962, they were still completely un-proven and were something of a risk to Parlophone. This is another debate. But technically, as long as the members themselves agreed to be The Beatles -- even for one show, or in this case one or two songs-- that is what they were. It does not matter what you or I personally consider it to be. And the three members here agreed to be Beatles for two songs (and so did John in a sense, through his spokeswoman, Yoko).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 28, 2014 9:38:25 GMT -5
No, I don't think they were "The Beatles" for real until Ringo joined them. We can tell even from the Decca Tapes and what exists of the early 1962 EMI Recordings with Pete, that these guys were not yet the same version of The Beatles who came to be. You're speaking emotionally, not logically. There is no evidence to suggest that they magically transformed into a success overnight when Ringo joined. There is a ton of evidence to suggest they were on a huge upward curve, careerwise, before he joined. I don't think they were going anywhere up to the moment where Ringo replaced Pete. That's absurd. You make it sounds as if they were one of a host of Liverpool bands that were equal. They weren't. By spring 1962, The Beatles -- with Pete -- were BY FAR the biggest and most successful group on Merseyside, and were the ONLY group to have a record out, a manager, and to be making big money. It's indisputable that they were going places far and fast, as the fact that they had a recording session with EMI only further proves. All before Ringo. But technically, as long as the members themselves agreed to be The Beatles -- even for one show, or in this case one or two songs-- that is what they were. It does not matter what you or I personally consider it to be. If you go back and read my OP, you'll see I clearly specified that, in this thread, I want to know WHAT FANS CONSIDER TO BE 'THE BEATLES' -- I specified that I don't care what The Beatles themselves think, or what a record company advertises. Also, I've no idea what you mean by "technically" in your above argument. There are valid opinions besides what a record distributor prints on a sleeve.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 28, 2014 9:54:10 GMT -5
You're speaking emotionally, not logically. There is no evidence to suggest that they magically transformed into a success overnight when Ringo joined. There is a ton of evidence to suggest they were on a huge upward curve, careerwise, before he joined. Define "success". What was this "huge upward curve"? They were still playing The Cavern and Hamburg, and local dates. They tanked with the Decca audition. They had not recorded anything that was worthwhile; in fact, they did not even get a recording contract until Parlophone - but this too was more of a shot in the dark. Nothing had been proven until "Love Me Do" got released, by which time it was Ringo. And then ever-onward. "Big money?" at that early stage? I don't think so. "Had a record out"? What, you mean "My Bonnie" as side men for Tony Sheridan (with Sheridan saying how Pete's drumming stunk?). Few people had even known about "My Bonnie", that's how obscure it was. Even once The Beatles became THE BEATLES, nobody cared much about the Tony Sheridan stuff -- and today, nearly 55 years later -- they still don't! Okay, so The Beatles were the hottest thing in Liverpool - no contest there. So what? There can be a big band that plays the hottest club in your hometown and constantly rates #1 on the Poll, but still never amount to anything like a worldwide phenomenon when it comes to recording. And the whole recording contract thing was a fluke... George Martin (and everyone else) hated Pete's drumming and there's a good chance the band would never have morphed into THE BEATLES as we know them, had Pete remained in the band one more day. The timing of Ringo just happened to come along at the very last second. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with what "a record distributor prints on a sleeve".. it's what the members of the group themselves decided on. If they wanted to call themselves "The Wilburys", then that is what they would have been called. But they decided to be THE BEATLES -- and THAT trumps what you, I, or some record distributor thinks.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 28, 2014 15:33:32 GMT -5
take this with whatever value you want, but this was not my source: tourThat is a fantastic article Mike, thanks! I really dropped my jaw at the mention of a cancelled appearance live on Mike Douglas in mid-December which would have possibly altered history! I had never heard of that possibility and I have always wondered aloud why John and Yoko had done no live TV appearances to plug the terrific new album! All print or radio interviews. Damn for many reasons!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 28, 2014 19:13:05 GMT -5
take this with whatever value you want, but this was not my source: tourThat is a fantastic article Mike, thanks! I really dropped my jaw at the mention of a cancelled appearance live on Mike Douglas in mid-December which would have possibly altered history! I had never heard of that possibility and I have always wondered aloud why John and Yoko had done no live TV appearances to plug the terrific new album! All print or radio interviews. Damn for many reasons! and in Hawaii of all places!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 29, 2014 3:16:53 GMT -5
What was this "huge upward curve"? They were still playing The Cavern and Hamburg, and local dates. They tanked with the Decca audition. All false. They were playing The Cavern and Hamburg, yes, but they also were playing The Star Club (top dollar, 2 hours a night instead of 8), were playing on BBC radio to hundreds of thousands of listeners, had a record contract with Bert Kaempfert, had a classy manager, got another contract to record with EMI, and were making BIG money as per Liverpool's standards of the time. (Mark Lewisohn's book specifies exactly how much money they were earning and it was way more than I ever thought.) Of course, these achievements pale compared to the Ed Sullivan show and Shea Stadium, but in context they were WAY BIGGER than anyone else on Merseyside, and indeed bigger than any 'rock' combo (except The Shadows) in England at the time. The point I'm making is that The Beatles' achievements in the 10 months or so before Best was fired are ENORMOUS achievements compared to every other group of their peers. So, yes, they were clearly going places and fast. The Decca audition was a minor blip on their road to stardom, but even it had a silver-lining as it led to their disc being played to London execs who then pushed George Martin to record them. As Ringo didn't even play drums on the 'Love Me Do' single that later sold millions and topped the US charts, it's crazy to suggest to imply that The Beatles wouldn't have 'made it' without him. Clearly, they would have made it onto the charts and had hits; I don't see how there's any debate about that. They had not recorded anything that was worthwhile; in fact, they did not even get a recording contract until Parlophone - but this too was more of a shot in the dark. Nothing had been proven until "Love Me Do" got released, by which time it was Ringo. And then ever-onward. So are you implying that Ringo's arrival was what allowed them to make worthwhile recordings? Are you in fact saying that if Ringo hadn't been there (and a studio drummer had drummed at EMI, and Pete live) that recordings of 'Love Me Do', 'Please Please Me', 'She Loves You', etc., would have been worthless and would have failed to chart? I guess we'll never know, but I just can't see how that's even remotely possible. "Big money?" at that early stage? I don't think so. Very big money compared to all their peers and pretty-much all musicians at the time. Lewisohn's book has all the details. Go and read it. Even in 1961, they were all earning two or three times what their fathers were, which was big money at the time. (I think I calculated mentally that they were each getting about $60,000 a year - today's money -- at the point when Pete left, but someone might be able to be more specific.) The difference between what they were making then and what they were making in 1967 is way less than I would have thought (bearing in mind that The Beatles were completely ripped off). But the difference between what they were making in 1962 and what Rory Storm and the Hurricanes or King-Size Taylor was making was HUGE. There can be a big band that plays the hottest club in your hometown and constantly rates #1 on the Poll, but still never amount to anything like a worldwide phenomenon when it comes to recording. The issue is not whether they were "a worldwide phenomenon" at the moment Ringo arrived. The issue is whether they were heading towards stardom or not. I say they were. The timing of Ringo just happened to come along at the very last second. As Lewisohn's book has shown, the "original three" were keen on getting rid of Pete as early as mid-1961 or even sooner, and it was one of the first things they said to Brian Epstein (he talked them out of it). Despite their ambivalence about him, their fast-track to stardom was going very, very well. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with what "a record distributor prints on a sleeve".. it's what the members of the group themselves decided on. Okay. And John, Paul, George, and Pete called themselves 'The Beatles'.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 29, 2014 6:31:40 GMT -5
Of course, these achievements pale compared to the Ed Sullivan show and Shea Stadium, but in context they were WAY BIGGER than anyone else on Merseyside, and indeed bigger than any 'rock' combo (except The Shadows) in England at the time. And if they had never gotten Ringo at the last moment, they likely wouldn't have wound up on Ed Sullivan and at Shea Stadium. All that other stuff you mention is small beans. You can list all the "advancements" you like; people still hadn't heard of them outside of the locals. Would they have made it the same with Pete? Probably not, but we don't know for certain. First of all, the whole business about the 'Like Dreamers Do' recording being the reason for the Beatles' EMI recording contract is up for debate... because it came from the claim of only one man, who hadn't even opened his mouth for decades about it until fairly recently. But never mind that -- okay, let us say this IS the truth --ok, fine-- it still in no way ensures that The Beatles would, in fact, have made it as big with Pete. They might have stalled right out after their first single. I don't believe for a second that Pete's type of drumming worked well with John and Paul's songs, and this is evident to hear based on what we have. Ringo's version WAS the single that made it to #17, their first record that did decently on the charts. And Ringo's "sad little clown" appearance and charming personality also did wonders to round outThe Beatles' image... even ignoring Pete's abysmal drumming style, if Pete Best had been the fourth personality of The Beatles I don't believe they would have hit as big. This is my opinion - we cannot prove it -- but your opinion is also your own. No, we cannot know this for certain. Hey, for all we know, Pete Best being on "Love Me Do" may have made it #1 or #2 on the chart instead of #17 ... but we only know what we know. And in the case of "Love Me Do", that Pete's erratic drumming was horrible and threw John and Paul off, and likely would not have been as good. Like you just said (and I have already said above) - we will never know. But how far do you think the Beatles would have gotten if Pete Best kept only playing live and they had a studio session drummer for the records? Do you think they would have gone on to REVOLVER and PEPPER, things like this? I'm happy for that. All the same, it does not change what I'm saying regarding The Beatles still basically being a hometown kind of success up to the moment Pete got sacked. Depends on what qualifies as "heading for stardom". I don't think that can be determined until after several releases. How many acts have you heard of who had one record released at some point that was a decent seller, but ultimately they faded into obscurity and nobody heard of them? I knew a kid when I was young whose day had made a record with a group called "Dickie Doo and The Dont's"... they had a 45 on Swan (ironically enough) called "Click-Clack"... however, they never actualy went on to become "Stars". Maybe Pete would have been successful on "Love Me Do" - maybe even more successful than Ringo. But the Beatles did not come into actual "Stardom" until well after they got Ringo. Now, is that just a coincidence and would they have been the same "stars" had they kept Pete Best? Who knows? It is a possibility -- however, we can only know for sure based on what did occur. At the point Pete was with The Beatles they may have been up and coming ... but they did not become bona fide Stars until Ringo (whether Ringo was actually responsible or it just worked out that way). But the four young men who were at EMI in June of 1962 were just not anything great at that second in time. Better than most, yeah. But they never hit Stardom while with Pete. So we can never be sure. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with what "a record distributor prints on a sleeve".. it's what the members of the group themselves decided on. Don't see any point here. Sure, J.P,G&Pete were also "The Beatles" at that point in the early '60s. How does this change what I'm saying that P,G.R(and Yoko) agreed that the two new '90s songs were also "The Beatles"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 8:03:25 GMT -5
Finally those that thought the Threetles could be passed off as the Beatles are seriously reconsidering.... They're still victims of blind loyalty though, regardless of when they saw the light...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 29, 2014 8:07:21 GMT -5
And if they had never gotten Ringo at the last moment, they likely wouldn't have wound up on Ed Sullivan and at Shea Stadium. I don't see that as being relevant to the discussion. Obviously things would have been different without Ringo. That's clear. The question is would The Beatles still have been 'The Beatles' if they hadn't fired Pete (or had replaced with Joe Blow)? All I can say is that I'm absolutely sure that the early hits would still have been huge hits without Ringo. Thus, I'm sure The Beatles would have made it by, say, 1963-64. That takes it far enough, I can't speculate beyond that. All that other stuff you mention is small beans. You can list all the "advancements" you like; people still hadn't heard of them outside of the locals. Sorry, your opinion here is absurd. I've already listed their remarkable achievements prior to Ringo joining. If you fail to see it as such, you clearly lack all perspective on the context of the place and period being discussed. Ringo's version WAS the single that made it to #17, their first record that did decently on the charts. That's not what I said. Please don't distort my words. I said the version without Ringo on drums (he was on tambourine) was a million-seller and went to #1 in the USA. That is a fact. Also, let's not forget that the Please Please Me album spent 6 months at #1 in the UK, and two of its tracks don't have Ringo on drums. George Martin has said repeatedly that he didn't care who was on drums. It was standard-practice at the time to replace any musician at the whim of the producer, and this is likely what they would have done with Pete. I can see no reason whatsoever why a recording of 'Love Me Do' or 'From Me To You' with Yertyl the Turtle on drums wouldn't have been a hit. Can you tell me why it wouldn't have been? I'm happy for that. All the same, it does not change what I'm saying regarding The Beatles still basically being a hometown kind of success up to the moment Pete got sacked. How can they be a 'hometown' kind of success when they were a major draw in a foreign country? It's not like a bunch of bums played the Star Club. Its list of acts includes: Cream, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Searchers, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis (his famous album was recorded there), and Little Richard. Anyway, let's stay on topic -- would The Beatles have had success or not without Ringo on drums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 8:33:31 GMT -5
History shows the Beatles didn't have success UNTIL Ringo was employed as the drummer, speculation re success apart from the real facts is either supposition or bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 29, 2014 8:53:34 GMT -5
Finally those that thought the Threetles could be passed off as the Beatles are seriously reconsidering.... They're still victims of blind loyalty though, regardless of when they saw the light... I did and still do consider "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be real Beatles songs. They contained all four members and were released as Beatles songs. On a personal note, I like them both a lot and consider them very good songs and worthy of Beatles standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 9:13:47 GMT -5
Finally those that thought the Threetles could be passed off as the Beatles are seriously reconsidering.... They're still victims of blind loyalty though, regardless of when they saw the light... I did and still do consider "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be real Beatles songs. They contained all four members and were released as Beatles songs. On a personal note, I like them both a lot and consider them very good songs and worthy of Beatles standards. Good for you, they needed you and your ilk to give the con some credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 29, 2014 9:40:57 GMT -5
The question is would The Beatles still have been 'The Beatles' if they hadn't fired Pete (or had replaced with Joe Blow)? How do you mean it? Would they have still been a band called The Beatles, no matter who the fourth member was? Of course; but would they have been THE BEATLES that we came to know as phenomenons ? I say NO . You keep calling my opinions 'absurd', so I will state the same here for yours. You cannot be "absolutely sure" of anything here; you can merely offer your personal guess. And since the only evidence we have to go by is what exists of Pete Best's awful drumming on recordings, as well as that everyone from the other three members, to Tony Sheridan, to Gorge Martin, did not like his drumming... the only "logical" opinion would be that the early hits would not have been early hits without Ringo. The existing take of Pete on "Love Me Do" is proof enough, but there is more anyway. No, I just disagree with you. The Beatles did not become true stars until after Ringo (be it because of Ringo or just by coincidence; we'll never know for certain). But sure, they did make strides up to that precise moment, and were way ahead of others and where they'd been a couple of years earlier. That's not what I said. Please don't distort my words. I said the version without Ringo on drums (he was on tambourine) was a million-seller and went to #1 in the USA. That is a fact. I didn't distort anything. Sure, the version without Ringo on drums made it to #1 in 1964 ... that point is taken. But it is also completely valid for me to add that Ringo's version made it impressively to #17 in 1962 first. By the time the non-Ringo version hit #1 in the USA, the Beatles had already been established as true stars. Talk about absurdity. What does this have to do with anything? Okay, so once the singles of LOVE ME DO (#17) and PLEASE PLEASE ME (#1) were hits (with Ringo on drums), the album later followed - and fans bought it. The fact by then that it just so happened to have 2 tracks on it which Ringo didn't drum on is a non-point. Judging by the awful sounds of Pete on LOVE ME DO, throwing the whole song off kilter, there's one reason. I cannot tell you anything "for certain" (though apparently you believe you can), like figuring the early songs wouldn't have been just as good with Yertyl the Turtle on drums as the ones the Beatles ultimately recorded. And you cannot either. All we know is what DID happen. How can they be a 'hometown' kind of success when they were a major draw in a foreign country? It's not like a bunch of bums played the Star Club. Its list of acts includes: Cream, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Searchers, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis (his famous album was recorded there), and Little Richard. And don't forget Rory Storm and The Hurricanes -- with Ringo -- who were considered to be the biggest band. It was said by John that "Ringo was a professional, we were amateurs". A lot of bands played Hamburg though-- everyone went there. It was the thing to do at that time, and a lot of bands performed. Okay, so The Beatles eventually got very good in Hamburg -- so they were popular there, and popular in Liverpool (even though at one point they thought The Beatles were German). But they had not become true "Stars", which is a point you have avoided. You also decided to ignore my point that just because bands have a record out, they can still fade. Do you have six winning lottery numbers for us? We can only go by what we know. You want me to guess? Well, what is "success", exactly? Would they have had a record or two and still done modestly okay? Maybe. Would they have been THE BEATLES as the phenomenon they became? NO CHANCE. The Beatles as they turned out could only have been THE BEATLES with Ringo included. And I will be so nervy here to add that, if you think Ringo was expendable and they could have been what they were anyway, then you're not a knowledgeable Beatles Fan.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 29, 2014 9:47:46 GMT -5
I did and still do consider "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be real Beatles songs. They contained all four members and were released as Beatles songs. Me too, but it doesn't really matter that you and I consider them Beatles songs. All that counts is that Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko (as John's rep) declared them to be Beatles Songs. Pay no mind to FabFour -- he doesn't know what he's talking about. The two Anthology songs are just as much Beatles Songs as "Yesterday" is (and probably moreso; at least all four members are on "Free As a Bird").
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 29, 2014 17:04:47 GMT -5
Well, it wouldn't had been Pete's drums throwing them off kilter. It would had been Andy White or whoever.
My question is, would the album still say "Pete Best on Drums". My guess, it would had.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 29, 2014 18:59:58 GMT -5
That's right, Pete's lack of ability is besides the point -- another drummer would have been on the studio recordings, and eventually John, Paul,and George would have sacked Pete and got someone else (or not -- either way, it would have made little difference to the studio recordings).
I maintain that Ringo's drums were largely (like, about 95%) irrelevant to The Beatles' hit singles in Britain in 1962-1963. The band was on a meteoric rise before Ringo joined, and was the envy of all other bands on the scene. The fact that no one gave a whit that Ringo wasn't on 'PS I Love You' and (the LP version of ) 'Love Me Do' proves beyond doubt that these early recordings didn't need him to find an audience.
Not for the first time, Joe K goes off the deep-end and concludes that I'm trying to denigrate Ringo. I'm not. No one admires Ringo's drumming and personality more than me. He was obviously superior to Pete Best... all of which is besides the point.
The reason I am saying this is to point out that some people on this thread have argued that "The Beatles" are only John, Paul, George, and Ringo because that's what they always were, but that's not what they always were. What about those fans who went to see them at the Cavern, the Casbah, The Top Ten Club, and the Star Club? What about Astrid and Klaus who became akin to groupies, followed them everywhere, and watched them play live every night of the week? Those people's experience of 'The Beatles' counts, as far as I'm concerned. And their impact-experience was of John, Paul, George, Pete (and partly Stu).
All I'm saying is: There are people who were there, who experienced The Beatles' magic and music, and who didn't experience it with Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 29, 2014 19:20:12 GMT -5
I think the Beatles would have made less of an impact in the US had Ringo not been in the band. He was the most popular of the group after the Sullivan show. The next morning, I remembered Paul's count-in "One, Two, Three, Fa..." and Ringo's cool, laid back attitude on the drums, his head rocking side to side and then the "Woooo" and the head shake. They all did the "Wooo"s but I just remembered Ringo.
He then, as the years went by, kept up with all the changes pretty damn good. Any weak link would have slowed the machine.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 29, 2014 22:59:14 GMT -5
Again, I agree that The Beatles were much better off with Ringo than with Pete Best. As I said, it would have been quite different without Ringo, and I certainly agree with debjorgo that the band would have been less popular overall without him, notably in the US.
But I strongly disagree with statements like Joe's, as follows: "I don't think they were "The Beatles" for real until Ringo joined them."
So, in summary, Joe thinks that 3 (or 4, with Stu) young guys who formed the band and made it happen with a particular drummer were NOT "The Beatles" for real, AND he thinks that 'the Threetles' -- a bunch of middle-aged, semi-retired guys who'd stopped working together 24 years earlier and now dredged-up a solo Lennon demo in a studio -- were "The Beatles".
I can't even acknowledge that as an intelligent perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on May 29, 2014 23:33:44 GMT -5
I think the Beatles would have made less of an impact in the US had Ringo not been in the band. He was the most popular of the group after the Sullivan show. The next morning, I remembered Paul's count-in "One, Two, Three, Fa..." and Ringo's cool, laid back attitude on the drums, his head rocking side to side and then the "Woooo" and the head shake. They all did the "Wooo"s but I just remembered Ringo. He then, as the years went by, kept up with all the changes pretty damn good. Any weak link would have slowed the machine. if you fully accept Lewisohn's reasoning about Ringo vs. Pete, there's no question they were better with Ringo. Aside from that, I believe that anyway. I don't think Pete was awful, but Ringo was the better drummer. And a better character in the John, Paul, George quartet. Most of all, though, it was his drumming that got him into the Beatles. He was the pro from Dover (or Liverpool).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 0:02:25 GMT -5
Ringo the Great... from Liverpool 8...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 7:07:32 GMT -5
I did and still do consider "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be real Beatles songs. They contained all four members and were released as Beatles songs. Me too, but it doesn't really matter that you and I consider them Beatles songs. All that counts is that Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko (as John's rep) declared them to be Beatles Songs. Pay no mind to FabFour -- he doesn't know what he's talking about. The two Anthology songs are just as much Beatles Songs as "Yesterday" is (and probably moreso; at least all four members are on "Free As a Bird"). Pull your head in Joe, i know exactly what i'm talking about, John has no idea his Dakota demo ended up a supposed Beatles song over 20 years after they split, it's a promotional gimmick, an awful one at that. This site doesn't revolve around your opinions only and i won't wear crap like the opening gambit of this post of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 8:30:37 GMT -5
i know exactly what i'm talking about, John has no idea his Dakota demo ended up a supposed Beatles song over 20 years after they split, it's a promotional gimmick, an awful one at that. Yoko is now as good as John's voice. That's how it works. Of course it doesn't. But this is not my "opinion"... it's only me relating facts. The facts are -- Paul/George/Ringo/Yoko ( legally speaking for John) agreed to be The Beatles for these songs, and that is the name of the group that is credited plainly on them. What you're speaking about is a matter of your own aesthetics. I would rather they weren't The Beatles personally, because I think FAAB is poor. But it is what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 8:47:19 GMT -5
i know exactly what i'm talking about, John has no idea his Dakota demo ended up a supposed Beatles song over 20 years after they split, it's a promotional gimmick, an awful one at that. Yoko is now as good as John's voice. That's how it works. Of course it doesn't. But this is not my "opinion"... it's only me relating facts. The facts are -- Paul/George/Ringo/Yoko ( legally speaking for John) agreed to be The Beatles for these songs, and that is the name of the group that is credited plainly on them. What you're speaking about is a matter of your own aesthetics. I would rather they weren't The Beatles personally, because I think FAAB is poor. But it is what it is. Yoko speaking for John is not how it works if you want to deal in facts, Yoko wanted John involved in the Anthology and gave the remaining ex Beatles permission to do something with a crap home demo of John's in order for them to create a gimmick to promote the Anthology, she also approved the others to release it as the Beatles even though it clearly wasn't. Yoko owns John's estate, she also owns the title of the one who broke up the Beatles, she can hardly put them back together after John's death with a crap home demo.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 8:55:02 GMT -5
Again, I agree that The Beatles were much better off with Ringo than with Pete Best. As I said, it would have been quite different without Ringo, and I certainly agree with debjorgo that the band would have been less popular overall without him, notably in the US. But I strongly disagree with statements like Joe's, as follows: "I don't think they were "The Beatles" for real until Ringo joined them." It's not always easy conveying things in writing. We can only go by what actually happened; anything else is mere speculation. We are free to speculate, but it is all only opinion on this. I think there was a big difference between "The Beatles before Ringo" and then "THE BEATLES -- the legends they became, With Ringo",. Both versions were The Beatles, but they were different forms of The Beatles. We know of the advances they made while with Pete Best -- but they did not reach star status and became the Legends we remember today until Ringo joined. I never said that (or at least I didn't mean to convey that). These other forms were definitely still a version of "The Beatles"... but they were not the powerhouse version of the same "BEATLES" that went on to become superstars and legends. All four Beatles performed on the two Anthology songs. I don't care one way or the other personally -- makes no difference to me. As I just explained again to FabFour, it's not a matter of my opinion. All the members (with Yoko legally speaking for John) considered themselves re-joined as The Beatles (even saying while recording they rationalized that it was like in the old days where John may have just stepped away for a moment). They then verified they were The Beatles on the labels. This "debate" is a non-issue and has nothing at all to do with what any of us personally chooses to accept. As for me, the results were so disappointing that I'd actually prefer they decided NOT to be The Beatles. Suppose the members of Blondie (or any other defunct band) decided to come back to record one new song as "Blondie", and then immediately said goodbye and went back to what they had been doing before -- were they not still "Blondie" on that one record? You dismiss the three men as "a bunch of middle-aged, semi-retired guys", but if they had gotten back together for more than a couple of records with, say, another guitarist in John's place, and went out on tour again in the same 1990s as "The Beatles", would you accept them as that? Since I suspect you'll want my reply -- yes, they would be a different version of The Beatles... but they would not be THE BEATLES we knew.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 30, 2014 8:55:39 GMT -5
i know exactly what i'm talking about, John has no idea his Dakota demo ended up a supposed Beatles song over 20 years after they split, it's a promotional gimmick, an awful one at that. Yoko is now as good as John's voice. That's how it works. Of course it doesn't. But this is not my "opinion"... it's only me relating facts. The facts are -- Paul/George/Ringo/Yoko ( legally speaking for John) agreed to be The Beatles for these songs, and that is the name of the group that is credited plainly on them. What you're speaking about is a matter of your own aesthetics. I would rather they weren't The Beatles personally, because I think FAAB is poor. But it is what it is. Maybe if Paul gets better, he will get two robots (he has one already), program them with pre-taped voice bits of John and George, then he and Ringo and the two robots can bring back the Beatles!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 9:06:56 GMT -5
The fact that no one gave a whit that Ringo wasn't on 'PS I Love You' and (the LP version of ) 'Love Me Do' proves beyond doubt that these early recordings didn't need him to find an audience. I explained all this rather nicely in my other post, which you have chosen to ignore. Anyway -- PS I LOVE YOU was merely the B-Side of LOVE ME DO (which was the reason it was purchased, which made it up to #17). After that, PLEASE PLEASE ME was a #1 single (Ringo on drums). Then came this PPM album you keep mentioning as some kind of 'point' -- but by that time the Beatles had already sold themselves to those buying the LP, through the aforementioned two singles. I have been rather civil with you here, nothing "off the deep end" about it. Secondly, I have not accused you of denigrating Ringo, or concluding that. Sorry, but my opinion is that The Beatles would never have soared as high as they did with Pete Best. Even ignoring the drumming issue, Pete's personality just was not there. I don't think we should under-estimate the importance of Ringo's personality, which went a looonng way in The Beatles' popularity. Can you not see the difference though between: The Beatles!!and THE BEATLES !!!!! ?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 9:17:30 GMT -5
Yoko speaking for John is not how it works if you want to deal in facts, Yoko wanted John involved in the Anthology and gave the remaining ex Beatles permission to do something with a crap home demo of John's in order for them to create a gimmick to promote the Anthology, she also approved the others to release it as the Beatles even though it clearly wasn't. None of the four had to consent to being billed as "The Beatles" if they didn't want it to be so. And all four Beatles do perform on those two songs. Even the Beatles themselves said Yoko did not break up The Beatles (on her own). But why would you accept that, when you don't even accept that they decided they were The Beatles again for these songs?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 9:30:15 GMT -5
Joe will have to let us know how a dead guy can perform on a song...
John did come back to life briefly, though. He rolled over in his grave when 'Free As a Bird' came out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 9:34:21 GMT -5
Joe will have to let us know how a dead guy can perform on a song... You use a recording of him taken from when he was alive. Just like Nat King Cole performed with his daughter on their duet single. I agree that FAAB was terrible. But here you're only proving that you're basing your view on your own personal opinion of the song. And John did not have a grave; he was cremated. In the past you have scolded people for being disrespectful and nasty. But you have sunken to new depths doing that yourself during the course of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 9:40:29 GMT -5
Both versions were The Beatles So then, you agree with me. This is completely opposite to what you actually said in your previous post. I never said that (or at least I didn't mean to convey that). That's exactly what you said. Scrolling above, we can see where you wrote: "I don't think they were 'The Beatles' for real until Ringo joined them." How can the 4 or 5 guys who started 'The Beatles' not be the real 'Beatles'? This "debate" is a non-issue and has nothing at all to do with what any of us personally chooses to accept. I started this thread, and I said at the outset that this thread is entirely about what each of us personally chooses to accept. That's exactly what I'm interested in -- how each fan feels about what constitutes 'The Beatles'. I couldn't care less what the surviving Beatles think (and much less than that what Yoko thinks). __________ I must admit, I'm still baffled by your sticking to the "Paul, George, and Ringo-decided-to-call-a-gimmick-single-'The-Beatles'-so-therefore-it's-indisputably-The-Beatles" line of thinking. You framed it in the passive voice in your previous post, stating that " it was called 'The Beatles' ". So, who called it "The Beatles", and why must we fans choose to accept it? It's fine that you personally think it's The Beatles. Duly noted. But I can't figure out why this is the be-all and end-all and that no discussion can even be entered into.
|
|