|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 7:31:50 GMT -5
How can you now say that you are also sorry Pete got canned when you've posted reply after reply showing how thrilled you were about his firing even to the point of gladly "rubbing it in"? Please. I am sincerely sorry for Pete's sake that he got canned, and I think it was lousy the way the Beatles did it. That must have been awful for the man. At the same time, look at everything the world gained with Ringo... so it worked out to the World's advantage, but not Pete's. I've always felt that way, and long before I ever joined this board. What I say I say sincerely. You have ignored the other stuff I'm trying to get across to you -- that when someone "overpraises" Pete and revises history, I have to reply and I want to restore balance. As a result, it may sometimes come across that I am dissing Pete, and you're right -- the revised history you're stating is making me unfairly bashing Pete, and I'm trying to explain I don't want to do that to him. The same thing occurs when RTP takes Paul's side on every little thing... it almost backfires and makes people resent Paul, which is not fair to him either.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 7:33:19 GMT -5
I never said Pete was a better drummer than Ringo. Pete has never said that Ringo was a better drummer than Pete. What you just stated never happened. And here as well. Lowbasso offered up all sorts of points and questions, but you've disregarded those and just went back to "Pete said he was a better drummer". Now, how about addressing everything else lowbasso wrote..? Joe, are you now the keeper of everyone elses replys too? Seriously you do nothing but troll around monitoring and replying to each and every post I make. I don't have enough hours in the day to respond to all your posts attacking me and the replys I make. If Pete said Ringo was a better drummer than he was, I would like to see the source. Let's see you do a bit of research. Show me a source.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 7:36:03 GMT -5
Joe, are you now the keeper of everyone elses replys too? Seriously you do nothing but troll around monitoring each and every post I make. I don't have enough hours in the day to respond to all your posts attacking me and the replys I make. If Pete said Ringo was a better drummer than he was, I would like to see the source. Let's see you do a bit of research. Show me a source. Pete never said this, and I never claimed he did. What are you talking about? I'm the one who just wrote proof that Pete has always said he felt he was a better drummer than Ringo, or at least just as good. Didn't you read that? Yesterday you accused me of having a bad tone and being nasty, so I'm trying to curb that and I apologize. But here you are calling me names just because I am pointing out things which make you uncomfortable. I am not "attacking" you when I ask you to consider other points of view, or ask you to back something up. Instead of you attacking me here, please try addressing the points I and other posters have made to you. That's the only way this discussion can progress beyond you just stating the same few things over and over and disregarding other peoples' ideas or considerations. Thank You.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 7:41:54 GMT -5
In 1965, when asked at a press conference about Pete Best, John not only wouldn't admit Pete was in The Beatles, he didn't even admit to knowing him. Instead he dismissed him as a drunkard making crazy claims (like being in The Beatles). Okay, fine. John talks a lot of crap. So that takes us back even stronger to the point I've made several times and which you refuse to address -- is it not also possible that John was over-stating when he said "We were at our best in the early days and the public never saw that", just to try and de-myth the Beatles?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 7:53:43 GMT -5
Joe, are you now the keeper of everyone elses replys too? Seriously you do nothing but troll around monitoring each and every post I make. I don't have enough hours in the day to respond to all your posts attacking me and the replys I make. If Pete said Ringo was a better drummer than he was, I would like to see the source. Let's see you do a bit of research. Show me a source. Pete never said this, and I never claimed he did. What are you talking about? I'm the one who just wrote proof that Pete has always said he felt he was a better drummer than Ringo, or at least just as good. Didn't you read that? Yesterday you accused me of having a bad tone and being nasty, so I'm trying to curb that and I apologize. But here you are calling me names just because I am pointing out things which make you uncomfortable. I am not "attacking" you when I ask you to consider other points of view, or ask you to back something up. Instead of you attacking me here, please try addressing the points I and other posters have made to you. That's the only way this discussion can progress beyond you just stating the same few things over and over and disregarding other peoples' ideas or considerations. Thank You. I was responding to another poster regarding the Pete allegedly saying Ringo was the better drummer. You are correct that you were saying this is untrue. Sorry for any confusion on that point.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 7:59:40 GMT -5
In 1965, when asked at a press conference about Pete Best, John not only wouldn't admit Pete was in The Beatles, he didn't even admit to knowing him. Instead he dismissed him as a drunkard making crazy claims (like being in The Beatles). Okay, fine. John talks a lot of crap. So that takes us back even stronger to the point I've made several times and which you refuse to address -- is it not also possible that John was over-stating when he said "We were at our best in the early days and the public never saw that", just to try and de-myth the Beatles? I feel when John slants or distorts the truth it is usually when he is pressed or put on the spot in an uncomfortable way (like when the reporter asked about Pete). John ALWAYS stated that he thought The Beatles were at their best when they played the dancehalls of Hamburg and Liverpool. He said it consistantly throughout his entire life. It wasn't an off cuff remark made after being put on the spot. It was a consistant position he always had. I am also not trying to demyth The Beatles. Just trying to tell the truth. Gimme some truth!!!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 8:14:52 GMT -5
I feel when John slants or distorts the truth it is usually when he is pressed or put on the spot in an uncomfortable way (like when the reporter asked about Pete). John ALWAYS stated that he thought The Beatles were at their best when they played the dancehalls of Hamburg and Liverpool. He said it consistantly throughout his entire life. It wasn't an off cuff remark made after being put on the spot. It was a consistant position he always had. John also was consistent about Pete. This "when John was put on the spot" thing is something you admit is only how you "feel". There are tons of interviews with John out there and in actuality he is rarely ever squeezed or "on the spot". There were times in press conferences where the Beatles were asked if they had a drummer before Ringo, and they all answer almost in unison in one of them: "Yeah, a fella called Pete Best". I don't know exactly what you're referring to with John pretending not to know Pete, but it made sense to try and keep attention off him because it is also a fact that Pete tried to sue the Beatles when they became a phenomenon. I'd imagine it was very touchy too, with the Fabs having to watch what they were saying. (Even in 1978 when Ringo appeared on the MIKE DOUGLAS SHOW, he said Pete kept suiing Ringo because he kept saying Pete was sick or unwell when Ringo would sit in). I feel you're distorting the truth.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 8:23:31 GMT -5
I feel when John slants or distorts the truth it is usually when he is pressed or put on the spot in an uncomfortable way (like when the reporter asked about Pete). John ALWAYS stated that he thought The Beatles were at their best when they played the dancehalls of Hamburg and Liverpool. He said it consistantly throughout his entire life. It wasn't an off cuff remark made after being put on the spot. It was a consistant position he always had. John also was consistent about Pete. This "when John was put on the spot" thing is something you admit is only how you "feel". There are tons of interviews with John out there and in actuality he is rarely ever squeezed or "on the spot". There were times in press conferences where the Beatles were asked if they had a drummer before Ringo, and they all answer almost in unison in one of them: "Yeah, a fella called Pete Best". I don't know exactly what you're referring to with John pretending not to know Pete, but it made sense to try and keep attention off him because it is also a fact that Pete tried to sue the Beatles when they became a phenomenon. I'd imagine it was very touchy too, with the Fabs having to watch what they were saying. (Even in 1978 when Ringo appeared on the MIKE DOUGLAS SHOW, he said Pete kept suiing Ringo because he kept saying Pete was sick or unwell when Ringo would sit in). I feel you're distorting the truth. Pete didn't TRY and sue The Beatles. He DID sue The Beatles and won his case. He never said a bad word about them and only sued to clear his name after Ringo falsly accused him of being fired because he was missing gigs due to a drug problem.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 8:30:18 GMT -5
Pete didn't TRY and sue The Beatles. He DID sue The Beatles and won his case. He never said a bad word about them and only sued to clear his name after Ringo falsly accused him of being fired because he was missing gigs due to a drug problem. Point remains, all the more reason to be careful in saying too much about Pete at press conferences. Might even be wiser at times to deny knowing him all together. So how much did Pete get from winning his case? It couldn't have been much.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 8:39:21 GMT -5
I feel when John slants or distorts the truth it is usually when he is pressed or put on the spot in an uncomfortable way (like when the reporter asked about Pete). John ALWAYS stated that he thought The Beatles were at their best when they played the dancehalls of Hamburg and Liverpool. He said it consistantly throughout his entire life. It wasn't an off cuff remark made after being put on the spot. It was a consistant position he always had. John also was consistent about Pete. This "when John was put on the spot" thing is something you admit is only how you "feel". There are tons of interviews with John out there and in actuality he is rarely ever squeezed or "on the spot". There were times in press conferences where the Beatles were asked if they had a drummer before Ringo, and they all answer almost in unison in one of them: "Yeah, a fella called Pete Best". I don't know exactly what you're referring to with John pretending not to know Pete, but it made sense to try and keep attention off him because it is also a fact that Pete tried to sue the Beatles when they became a phenomenon. I'd imagine it was very touchy too, with the Fabs having to watch what they were saying. (Even in 1978 when Ringo appeared on the MIKE DOUGLAS SHOW, he said Pete kept suiing Ringo because he kept saying Pete was sick or unwell when Ringo would sit in). I feel you're distorting the truth. Like you said, just because you "feel" it, doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 8:43:27 GMT -5
Pete didn't TRY and sue The Beatles. He DID sue The Beatles and won his case. He never said a bad word about them and only sued to clear his name after Ringo falsly accused him of being fired because he was missing gigs due to a drug problem. Point remains, all the more reason to be careful in saying too much about Pete at press conferences. Might even be wiser at times to deny knowing him all together. So how much did Pete get from winning his case? It couldn't have been much. Pete sued to clear his name from Ringo's lie. He won. All agree that Pete never missed a gig because he was on drugs. He only missed 3 or 4 gigs total (far less than McCartney did) out of 750+ shows (a 99.5% attendance rate). The others missed gigs as well. As for you saying that you never heard John passing Pete off as just a drunkard making claims. Watch the beginning of this video clip. Lennon does exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 8:48:57 GMT -5
All agree that Pete never missed a gig because he was on drugs. He only missed 3 or 4 gigs total (far less than McCartney did) out of 750+ shows (a 99.5% attendance rate). The others missed gigs as well. It's not that Pete's being chided as a bad guy for missing gigs ... it's that when he missed a gig, Ringo sat in and it suited the group better. Someone else here said something like Pete missing some gigs and Ringo sitting in might have been the very thing which wound up affecting him in the end. Where is your source that Paul McCartney missed more gigs than Pete did? So, do you know how much money Pete made winning his suit?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 9:01:07 GMT -5
As for you saying that John passing Pete off as just a drunkard making claims. Watch the beginning of this video clip. I think you've just made a grave error to your case here by calling attention to this clip, sir. I urge everyone to watch it for themselves and realize what I am talking about... The clip only shows a few seconds, and when the man asks if Pete Best has a lawsuit against the Beatles, Lennon simply replies: "I think he's had a few, but we don't bother about those". Lennon meant to acknowledge that not only does Pete have a lawsuit, Lennon says he even thinks he's had a few of them. And that it's not up to the group to handle them. Now, you have gone on record as saying that Lennon has called Pete Best "a drunkard". John did no such thing, and I think that maybe if Lennon was alive today he might think about suiing you for completely twisting what he's said for the sake of this agenda you have. Talk about a distortion of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 9:01:15 GMT -5
All agree that Pete never missed a gig because he was on drugs. He only missed 3 or 4 gigs total (far less than McCartney did) out of 750+ shows (a 99.5% attendance rate). The others missed gigs as well. It's not that Pete's being chided as a bad guy for missing gigs ... it's that when he missed a gig, Ringo sat in and it suited the group better. Someone else here said something like Pete missing some gigs and Ringo sitting in might have been the very thing which wound up affecting him in the end. Where is your source that Paul McCartney missed more gigs than Pete did? So, do you know how much money Pete made winning his suit? There are many sources that say Paul missed a lot of gigs. Google it. I don't think Pete won a lot of money. I think he was more interested in clearing his name. It's hard to get a job when international magazines are publishing articles falsely saying you kept missing work at your last job because you had a drug problem.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 25, 2012 9:04:49 GMT -5
But you also quoted my point where I mentioned that "you can't have it both ways and only believe the John Lennon quotes you want to believe and ignore the ones you don't like". You see, this is the problem. This discussion has not flowed because you keep stating your same few lines over and over, and whenever someone else proves otherwise or at least offers you something else to consider differently, you don't acknowledge it. So isn't it possible that if you say Lennon liked to tweak things, that he was also denouncing the Beatles' catalogue by saying they were their best in the early days, too...? In 1965, when asked at a press conference about Pete Best, John not only wouldn't admit Pete was in The Beatles, he didn't even admit to knowing him. Instead he dismissed him as a drunkard making crazy claims (like being in The Beatles). Is there a link you could post for that? I'd like to see it. Thanks for the better link Steve. I'll have read later.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 25, 2012 9:06:27 GMT -5
Sorry.
Turned my back for a minute and you'd posted a link.
I'll go and have a watch now.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 9:08:47 GMT -5
Is there a link you could post for that? I'd like to see it. Check it out, Andy. You'll see in proper context, John said no such thing.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 25, 2012 9:08:51 GMT -5
![::)](//storage.proboards.com/1960644/images/YtKzdxeluGilFNxVSaBL.png) Oh dear! John said he's had a few meaning lawsuits not drinks!!!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 25, 2012 9:11:07 GMT -5
Got it Joe.
It's the old time shift typing and posting paradigm 2 step shuffle at play.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 9:18:07 GMT -5
There are many sources that say Paul missed a lot of gigs. Google it. But you didn't say Paul missed a lot of gigs. You said that Paul missed far less gigs than Pete did. Where is your proof of this, please? And who sat in for Paul every time he was out more times than Pete? Did Ringo fill in on bass on those occasions, too?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
![*](//storage.proboards.com/1960644/images/TgNPADWwgeTsrGNnUTvp.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/1960644/images/TgNPADWwgeTsrGNnUTvp.png)
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 25, 2012 9:20:42 GMT -5
I guess you don't believe that Pete had many more opportunities to work on Love Me Do before they took it into the studio in June for the audition. Ringo was not familiar with the song as he had only been with the band for a week. But after being replaced by Andy White, he came right back after a couple of weeks to work on the song to lay down a take as good as Andy White's. And we have that track to listen to today. So that shows that Ringo was the better drummer. When he had time to work the song, it was damn good. Pete had the same opportunity prior to the June audition, but was not able to get it together. And you love to brag that Pete had so many more live gigs with The Beatles between 1960 and 1962 than Ringo ever had later....Well, he never got his drumming up to Ringo's level even with all those so-called hundreds of gigs.... This is so silly anyway. Just listen to Pete today with his band. He comes nowhere near the level that Ringo is at. He never was at Ringo's level, in 1962, or 50 years later in 2012. Why don't you just ask Pete yourself for your film project? I'm sure he'll be glad to tell you Ringo is and was the better drummer of the two. One thing about Pete. He doesn't BS about himself or his abilities. He's an honest guy who calls it like it is. I saw that in his own DVD and book accounts about his time in The Beatles. And that is the film (and book) I will go to when I want to know what happened in that period. I find nothing you have said on this board to change my view of Pete. I will trust the souce; Pete himself. I think he would be embarrassed or even possibly angry at some of the statements you make about him here. And as far as I am concerned, this is the last statement I will make on this thread and subject. The next time I express an opinion on it will be when Pete himself says something worth commenting on. I never said Pete was a better drummer than Ringo. Pete has never said that Ringo was a better drummer than Pete. What you just stated never happened. Until you interview Pete your opinions are just that. Your opinions. Not facts. Why don't you just interview Pete? Your film, or documentary, or whatever, will be pointless without Pete backing up all your claims. The man is still alive. Ask Pete who is the better drummer. Then and now. See what he says. You say you want the truth. Then go get it from Pete. Put it in your film and maybe then I'll watch it. Without Pete in it, it is just another hearsay film with hearsay facts thrown in from all over the place, from reliable and unreliable sources, all filtered thru your opinion of what they meant. I'll stick with The Beatles Anthology's info on this period, as well as Pete's DVD and book.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 11:34:26 GMT -5
Then it's also possible that when John tried to say [paraphrasing]: "The Beatles' best stuff was never recorded, and we were at our best in Hamburg, and the public never saw that", it's also a possibility that John was saying this just to "debunk the Beatles Myth" and to take down all the praise for their recorded material, isn't it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the John quotes you like were sincere but the ones you don't like were just John being outrageous. I can easily believe that Pete sang with The Beatles up front at times. But I have to ask you again - So What? Before you ask me again, you have to actually ask the first time. The reason I mentioned Pete singing is because another poster, when comparing Pete & Ringo mentioned that Ringo added the extra diimenion of being able to sing with The Beatles. I mentioned Pete sang with The Beatles too. That would be me. Do any recordings exist of Pete singing. I didn't realize that he actually sang live on stage. The few pics of him with a microphone don't prove much. He may very well have been goofing around to get a rise out of the girls. As far as someone asking Pete point-blank if he was/is as good as Ringo - that's awful. Why ask the man such a question, especially at an event of some kind. The only possible answer for Pete to give in that situation is "yes".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 11:39:18 GMT -5
As far as someone asking Pete point-blank if he was/is as good as Ringo - that's awful. Why ask the man such a question, especially at an event of some kind. The only possible answer for Pete to give in that situation is "yes". I don't know if it makes any difference or not, but the fan asking the question asked Pete if he felt he was a better drummer. Pete said 'yes' to that. (I personally think Pete honestly feels that way and believes in himself, and I think it's a good thing).
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 11:44:43 GMT -5
I just came across this sudio clip of John making those comments regarding Pete. He doesn't sound like he's in that sharp-tounge mood he could be in sometimes. This sounds pretty honest to me. If anything, it sounds like John is tired of hearing the myths that had grown. Does anyone know what year this comment was made by John? www.beatlesagain.com/bsounds/john3.mp3
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 11:52:35 GMT -5
I just came across this sudio clip of John making those comments regarding Pete. He doesn't sound like he's in that sharp-tounge mood he could be in sometimes. This sounds pretty honest to me. If anything, it sounds like John is tired of hearing the myths that had grown. Does anyone know what year this comment was made by John? www.beatlesagain.com/bsounds/john3.mp3 THAT'S THE CLIP I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALLLLL THIS TIME, SNOOKEROO -- THANKS! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/1960644/images/FIyBzuuiffSaIsTWlKCC.png) I didn't recall each word verbatim, but I'd say from memory it was pretty close! That says everything there is to say as far as what Lennon and the others felt about Pete, IMO. I don't know what year it was recorded, but I know I recorded it off that all-day radio special in 1976. I'm only going to guess it was 74-75. And you're right, John does sound pretty at ease. I do also recall John vividly saying "he was a harmless guy but he was not quick, and the rest of us were all quick minds". I don't know if that was part of the same source or from some other interview.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 25, 2012 11:55:42 GMT -5
[quote author=beatlesattheirbest board=petestu thread=3224 post=41671 time=1330174780 Gimme some truth!!! [/quote]
What a distortion of a fine thought. Like Fox's Fair and Balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 12:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 12:01:51 GMT -5
Of the handful of albums released by Pete over the years, is he singing on any tracks. I'm honestly just curious.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 25, 2012 12:03:42 GMT -5
Point remains, all the more reason to be careful in saying too much about Pete at press conferences. Might even be wiser at times to deny knowing him all together. So how much did Pete get from winning his case? It couldn't have been much. Pete sued to clear his name from Ringo's lie. He won. All agree that Pete never missed a gig because he was on drugs. He only missed 3 or 4 gigs total (far less than McCartney did) out of 750+ shows (a 99.5% attendance rate). The others missed gigs as well. As for you saying that you never heard John passing Pete off as just a drunkard making claims. Watch the beginning of this video clip. Lennon does exactly that. Oh puh-lease. Ringo joked in an interview once that "he took little pills to make him ill" thinking it was cute or funny, and gets sued. The Beatles settle a small sum to make Pete go away. You make it sound like Ringo had a slander campaign going against Pete Best. Have a conscience, aren't there enough people out their revising history with lies? Just because you have freedom to do this doesn't mean you should. You call these "facts" but they are something less, little unbalanced snippets designed to mislead people. I have no respect for that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 12:08:15 GMT -5
Of the handful of albums released by Pete over the years, is he singing on any tracks. I'm honestly just curious. Hey - I've got an old LP here called BEST OF THE BEATLES (as "Peter Best"), on SAVAGE RECORDS . I wonder if Pete sang on it... the notes on the cover don't say if they're his vocals.
|
|