|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 25, 2012 15:52:04 GMT -5
I think Roag Best has left the building.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 25, 2012 16:05:08 GMT -5
I voted on the other page before I saw the call to move the discussion.
I think it's "a few lawsuits".
Beatlebest makes a good point, in that there had been no prior lawsuits up to this, but I think John is saying Pete had a few "claims" in the lawsuit, other than he used to be a Beatle.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 25, 2012 16:07:23 GMT -5
Ah I see.
It probably is a few claims rather than a few pending lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Feb 25, 2012 19:23:58 GMT -5
I don't see how anyone looking at that interview with John can come to conclusion that John was trying to say Pete had a one drink too many or something along those lines ..
Steve's original youtube link with Pete on that show , shows to me quite clearly that Pete did not fit in with the others personality - wise to begin with, whether he was a good drummer or not is also moot because they preferred to play with Ringo , they felt better with Ringo on the drums.
I agree they didn't handle this the right way but Pete should have confronted them at the time and he could have stayed friends with them or they may have offered him another role ala Mal Evans etc ..
I think to conclude that John was calling Pete a drunkard in that clip is far-fetched.
Also, I heard the link that Snookeroo played of a John interview, it's clear they weren't happy with him, what else do Pete supporters want ?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 25, 2012 19:50:13 GMT -5
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. How would you like it if I said lied in the press that you kept missing work all of the time with your periodic illnesses? That you were taking pills to make you ill? Yeah, that's such a cheeky thing to do. Ringo should have kept his f----- mouth shut and John should have corrected him right there on the spot. Also, you say I am revising history with lies. Really? Name one lie I have told. Go ahead, name one. You just can't handle the truth. Not to get too personal, but your line of argument makes me sick. I keep talking about you twisting and spinning the truth, and you misquote me (for the third time now) as saying you lie. What you do is worse. Early on you said your objective was to only bring up the facts that supported your hypothesis and would not aim to present the facts in a balanced manner. That is misleading people. I'm not saying you lied. Technically Clinton did not lie about there being a relationship with Lewinsky, but he certainly led one to the wrong conclusion, as you've been doing. Don't attack me, I've been honest in how I post. Can you say the same. And finally, would you finally answer the questions I've asked multiple times? What recordings make use of the Atom Beat that Pete Best supposedly created? Where is his influence evidenced? How would the Beatles recordings been at all different if not for Pete? If you can't answer these questions, you have nothing worth saying that anyone would be interested in about Peter Best.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 25, 2012 20:00:18 GMT -5
anyoneanyhow I don't want to fight with you on whether or not you are calling me a liar, but when you say things like... 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.That sounds to me like you are. If I am wrong about that then I am sorry, but it sure does sound to me like you are lumping me in with other people who revise history with lies. If I am revising history (I doubt I am) I am doing it with truth. Gimme Some Truth!!! Also, at no point did I ever say I my "objective was to only bring up the facts that supported (my) hypothesis and would not aim to present the facts in a balanced manner". I did say I would strive to make sure every fact I bring up is actually true. And I have. Gimme Some Truth!!! Also, I never said Pete's "Atom Beat" ever influenced any of The Beatles recordings. It influenced the Beatles live impact and fans reactions to seeing them in concert. The first thing I noticed was their music, their beat!
-Brian EpsteinGimme Some Truth!!!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 20:17:48 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. Man, that's some real fancy editing to put a spin on everything to suit your agenda. Listen to Lennon at the 33 second mark. He says they got Pete because they needed a drummer and went to Hamburg. They needed A drummer. I havbe another question for you BATB. Do you think the Beatles were AT THEIR BEST from 60 - 62? Better than they were when they recorded things like, oh I don't know, RUBBER SOUL - REVOLVER - SGT PEPPER - THE BEATLES - ABBEY ROAD - LET IT BE.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 25, 2012 20:28:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 25, 2012 21:04:19 GMT -5
You can argue with that, can you?
|
|
gloi
Very Clean
Posts: 222
|
Post by gloi on Feb 26, 2012 4:19:42 GMT -5
I remember when they were talking about making the Anthology and how they could always find the perfect quote from John to use, as if he'd know one day it would be needed..... Because it took me a few goes to get Snookeroo's link to work I've transcribed it here so everyone can see it more easily.
"By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best too because he was a lousy drummer , you know. He never improved, you know, and there was always this myth being built up over the years that he was great and Paul was jealous of him because he was pretty and all that crap, you know. The reason he got in the group in the first place was because the only way we could get to Hamburg we had to have a drummer. And we just heard that this guy was, we knew of this guy who was living at his mother's house who had a club in it and he had a drumkit and we just grabbed him, auditioned him and he could keep one beat going for long enough so we took him to Germany. And we were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer, you know. But by the time we got brought back from Germany we'd trained him to keep, you know, a stick going up and down four in the bar he couldn't do much else and he looked nice and the girls liked him so that was alright. "
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 7:44:28 GMT -5
I already said I know the quote and confirmed Lennon made it even before it was posted here. My whole point is that the other Beatles downplay and diminish the contributions of original members Stu & Pete. You playing a quote of John doing that only proves my point. For example, listen to the part where he says he heard about a guy who was living at his mothers house that had a club in it. It is true? Yes. Pete was living at his mother’s house and it did have a club in it. Does Lennon seek to downplay or diminish Pete. Of course, he is doing exactly that. George does it even worse in Anthology where he stumbles along, appearing to struggle to even remember Pete's name. "We heard of this guy, um.. who's mother had club in it..., er, um, er... his name was, er, um... Pete Best." They didn't just hear of this guy. They knew Pete and his family VERY well by the time they asked him to join. The whole idea that Lennon or Harrison would have to struggle to remember Pete's name is beyond ridiculous. In addition to Pete being in The Beatles, they spent three years practically living with him (1959-1962). Yes, they technically didn't lie, but they tell their story in a way that would fool the uneducated listener into believing they didn't even know Pete before they asked him to join. They only heard about some guy who was living with his mother. Give me a break!!! The Beatles (then the Quarrymen) were the house band when Mona Best opened The Casbah in 1959. (Stu acting as manager helped negotiate the deal) They even helped paint the place with artwork that survives to this day. Over the next YEAR, when they weren't playing there, they were often spending time there as it was the most popular spot in Liverpool for teens to hang out with their friends and enjoy Rock & Roll music. At times, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison were practically living at his house. So when John says "we just heard that this guy was, we knew of this guy who was living at his mother's house who had a club in it" , that's John down playing how well they knew Pete. They didn't just hear about Pete, they knew him and his family very well by the time they asked him to join the group. Even the whole part about "this guy who was living at his mothers house" is a slight. It makes him sound like a bum that couldn't live on his own. HE WAS STILL A TEENAGER. The other Beatles lived with their families too. Big deal. It's also worth noting that not another drummer in Liverpool wanted the job. True, many had jobs or other commitments that like school that they considered bigger priorities, but the fact is, even knowing Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had a guaranteed paid gig playing Rock & Roll in Germany waiting for them, not a single person in the entire city of Liverpool wanted the job except for Pete Best. Nobody was interested in playing drums for that bum band of John Lennon's. Nobody in the entire town of Liverpool. You make a big deal about John saying Pete could bang a stick up and down, apparently Lennon, McCartney & Harrison weren't doing much better at the time. I could play you MANY quotes of Lennon saying some pretty damning things about McCartney, Harrison and Starr too. Just because Lennon says something doesn't make it the absolute truth. The Beatles say a lot of things and they HATE giving credit to others for anything. How many others contributed to the music on their albums (many). How many actually got credit on the record (almost noone). Look at Sgt Pepper. Where's the credit for all of the other musicians who were on that record? If you bought it at the time you would think the entire record was no one but Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Starr. No one except the official Beatles did anything. The other Beatles have ALWAYS had an agenda to diminish Pete and his contributions to the group. You playing a quote of John Lennon doing that only proves my point. Gimme Some Truth!!!
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Feb 26, 2012 7:58:04 GMT -5
I already said I know the quote and confirmed Lennon made it even before you posted it. My whole point is that the other Beatles downplay and diminish the contributions of original members Stu & Pete. You playing a quote of John doing that only proves my point. For example, listen to the part where he says he heard about a guy who was living at his mothers house that had a club in it. It is true? Yes. Pete was living at his mother’s house and it did have a club in it. Does Lennon seek to downplay or diminish Pete. Of course, he is doing exactly that. George does it even worse in Anthology where he stumbles along, appearing to struggle to even remember Pete's name. "We heard of this guy, um.. who's mother had club in it..., er, um, er... his name was, er, um... Pete Best." They didn't just hear of this guy. They knew Pete and his family VERY well by the time they asked him to join. The whole idea that Lennon or Harrison would have to struggle to remember Pete's name is beyond ridiculous. In addition to Pete being in The Beatles, they spent three years practically living with him (1959-1962). Yes, they technically didn't lie, but theytell their story in a way that would fool the uneducated listener into believing they didn't even know Pete before they asked him to join. They only heard about him. The Beatles (then the Quarrymen) were the house band when Mona Best opened The Casbah in 1959. (Stu acting as manager helped negotiate the deal) They even helped paint the place with artwork that survives to this day. Over the next YEAR, when they weren't playing there, they were always spending time there as it was the most popular spot in Liverpool for teens to hang out with their friends and enjoy Rock & Roll music. At times, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison were practically living at his house. So when John says "we just heard that this guy was, we knew of this guy who was living at his mother's house who had a club in it" , that's John down playing how well they knew Pete. They didn't just hear about Pete, they knew him and his family very well by the time they asked him to join the group. Even the whole part about "this guy who was living at his mothers house" is a slight. It makes him sound like a bum that couldn't live on his own. HE WAS STILL A TEENAGER. The other Beatles lived with their families too. Big deal. It's also worth noting that not another drummer in Liverpool wanted the job. True, many had jobs or other commitments that like school that they considered bigger priorities, but the fact is, even knowing Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had a guaranteed paid gig playing Rock & Roll in Germany waiting for them, not a single person in the entire city of Liverpool wanted the job except for Pete Best. Nobody was interested in playing drums for that bum band of John Lennon's. Nobody in the entire town of Liverpool. You make a big deal about John saying Pete could bang a stick up and down, apparently Lennon, McCartney & Harrison weren't much better at the time. I could play you a few quotes of Lennon saying some pretty damning things about McCartney, Harrison and Lennon too. Just because Lennon says something doesn't make it the absolute truth. The other Beatles have ALWAYS had an agenda to diminish Pete and his contributions to the group. You playing a quote of John Lennon doing that only proves my point. I think it's all part of the unsavoury manner in which Pete was sacked from the group. The way I look at it is this, Pete was needed to get the Beatles to the point where they were the biggest group in Liverpool but they needed Ringo for world domination. Ringo had all the elements (musical and personality) that made the chemistry between the four appeal to the masses. I still think Pete made a mistake in not confronting them at the time.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 8:03:55 GMT -5
I think it's all part of the unsavoury manner in which Pete was sacked from the group. The way I look at it is this, Pete was needed to get the Beatles to the point where they were the biggest group in Liverpool but they needed Ringo for world domination. Ringo had all the elements (musical and personality) that made the chemistry between the four appeal to the masses. I still think Pete made a mistake in not confronting them at the time. I agree. I have never said Pete was better than Ringo or that Ringo was a bad choice. Only that Pete's contribution (and to a lesser extent Stu's) is always downplayed by the other Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Feb 26, 2012 8:15:54 GMT -5
I think it's all part of the unsavoury manner in which Pete was sacked from the group. The way I look at it is this, Pete was needed to get the Beatles to the point where they were the biggest group in Liverpool but they needed Ringo for world domination. Ringo had all the elements (musical and personality) that made the chemistry between the four appeal to the masses. I still think Pete made a mistake in not confronting them at the time. I agree. I have never said Pete was better than Ringo or that Ringo was a bad choice. Only that Pete's contribution (and to a lesser extent Stu's) is always downplayed by the other Beatles. Pete should have been kept on as part of the Beatle "family" , I guess they were too embarassed to face him and tell him or make contact with him. If he had initiated it maybe something could have been salvaged for Pete unless being blind-sided that way had made him too angry to speak to them which is what happened. Also, from the Beatles (Fab 4) point of view , maybe because they were such a phenomenon and only they lived it, they themselves feel that before a certain point ie Love Me Do , Ringo joining etc .. that it didn't really matter, it didn't count .. that all that was a process of settling the main lineup.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 8:22:20 GMT -5
Snookeroo - I said The Beatles were at their best as a live act from 1960-62. The studio records that you mention are not live recordings. "Our best work was never recorded. Because we were performers in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls. What we generated was fantastic when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain. As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off. You know, Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. But we sold out.
The Beatles' music died then, as musicians. That's why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it.
We always missed the club dates cause that's when we were playing music. Then later on we became technically efficient recording artists."
- John LennonGIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 26, 2012 8:54:14 GMT -5
I think I heard somewhere that at the time, the Beatles thought they were good without a drummer. They didn't think they needed one. So when they were told they had to have a drummer to get the job in Hamberg, they begrudgedly went with Pete.
When Ringo went out sick, you'd think they would have said, "Let's give Pete a call, it might make up for things, bury the hatchet".
I haven't watched the Anthologies for a while but the struggling with the name could be them saying, "If we tell this part of the story, we have too bring up, I hate to even mention his name. Some people want to overestimate his importance...".
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 9:37:58 GMT -5
I think I heard somewhere that at the time, the Beatles thought they were good without a drummer. They didn't think they needed one. So when they were told they had to have a drummer to get the job in Hamberg, they begrudgedly went with Pete. When Ringo went out sick, you'd think they would have said, "Let's give Pete a call, it might make up for things, bury the hatchet". I haven't watched the Anthologies for a while but the struggling with the name could be them saying, "If we tell this part of the story, we have too bring up, I hate to even mention his name. Some people want to overestimate his importance...". They were never happy about playing as three guitarists without a drummer. They always thought they needed a drummer (except maybe as The Quarrymen at The Casbah). As for using Pete Best instead of Jimmy Nichol in when Ringo was ill 1964. Lennon was asked. His reply was... “He’s got his own group [Pete Best & the All Stars], and it might have looked as if we were taking him back, which is not good for him.”
- John LennonTo me it always seemed as if The Beatles always tried to put as much space as possible between themselves and Pete once they decided to make the change. It would have been neat if Pete could have sat in with them for a week or two when Ringo was ill. They all could have renewed their friendship. Pete could have made a bit of money and experienced two weeks of Beatlemania at its absolute peak. 300,000 people greeting them in Australia and the TOP 6 SONGS on the pop chart!!! Then Pete could have attended the final press conference as Jimmy did with Ringo and the others. The other Beatles could have acknowledged Pete and explained why they chose him to sit in for Ringo. "Pete sat in because he was a Beatle too. Back in the early days of The Beatles when Pete was the drummer, there where times where Ringo was the one sitting in for Pete. That's how he got the job. Ringo's a Beatle and has been for a long time. We think he's the better fit. Besides, Pete's got his own group now, The Pete Best Four. Tell them about it Pete!" That explanation would have worked for everybody. It certainly wouldn't have hurt Pete any. And history would have turned out about the same because no matter what Pete could or couldn't do on drums, he was never going to find another hit songwriting team like Lennon & McCartney. The only thing that might have changed is Pete attempting suicide the following year. I just think, as John Lennon said, they were cowards and it was just easier to avoid Pete altogether after they sacked him. Besides, didn't George raise a big stink about having Jimmy Nichol sit in for Ringo? Imagine the stink he would have raised if it would have been Pete sitting in instead. I can't imagine Ringo would have felt too good about it either. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 11:07:08 GMT -5
I agree.
This was an embarrassment for them and they acknowledged his existence but never really talked about it in any great detail. Lennon as usual was the most candid and truthful about how he and the others probably felt.
Using him instead of Jimmy Nichol would have been a nice gesture (with hindsight) as would slinging him a few quid earlier or helping him out more with his career would have been nice.
Pete seems like a genuinely nice fella who got dealt a rubbish hand.
Never forget we're talking about real people with real emotions and real failings. As far as I can tell Pete just didn't fit and the Beatles were always looking to get someone better but didn't have anything to offer anyone till the record deal. That was the start of the next chapter and it was a harsh decision not handled well.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 11:59:15 GMT -5
I agree. This was an embarrassment for them and they acknowledged his existence but never really talked about it in any great detail. Lennon as usual was the most candid and truthful about how he and the others probably felt. Using him instead of Jimmy Nichol would have been a nice gesture (with hindsight) as would slinging him a few quid earlier or helping him out more with his career would have been nice. Pete seems like a genuinely nice fella who got dealt a rubbish hand. Never forget we're talking about real people with real emotions and real failings. As far as I can tell Pete just didn't fit and the Beatles were always looking to get someone better but didn't have anything to offer anyone till the record deal. That was the start of the next chapter and it was a harsh decision not handled well. Agreed. I also think it proved to be the right decision for what The Beatles were to do next. It's all history now. They all are ex-Beatles. I would just like to see the real truth about their early years told more correctly. It really hasn't been to date. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 12:09:32 GMT -5
I think I heard somewhere that at the time, the Beatles thought they were good without a drummer. They didn't think they needed one. So when they were told they had to have a drummer to get the job in Hamberg, they begrudgedly went with Pete. When Ringo went out sick, you'd think they would have said, "Let's give Pete a call, it might make up for things, bury the hatchet". I haven't watched the Anthologies for a while but the struggling with the name could be them saying, "If we tell this part of the story, we have too bring up, I hate to even mention his name. Some people want to overestimate his importance...". They were never happy about playing as three guitarists without a drummer. They always thought they needed a drummer (except maybe as The Quarrymen at The Casbah). As for using Pete Best instead of Jimmy Nichol in when Ringo was ill 1964. Lennon was asked. His reply was... “He’s got his own group [Pete Best & the All Stars], and it might have looked as if we were taking him back, which is not good for him.”
- John LennonTo me it always seemed as if The Beatles always tried to put as much space as possible between themselves and Pete once they decided to make the change. It would have been neat if Pete could have sat in with them for a week or two when Ringo was ill. They all could have renewed their friendship. Pete could have made a bit of money and experienced two weeks of Beatlemania at its absolute peak. 300,000 people greeting them in Australia and the TOP 6 SONGS on the pop chart!!! Then Pete could have attended the final press conference as Jimmy did with Ringo and the others. The other Beatles could have acknowledged Pete and explained why they chose him to sit in for Ringo. "Pete sat in because he was a Beatle too. Back in the early days of The Beatles when Pete was the drummer, there where times where Ringo was the one sitting in for Pete. That's how he got the job. Ringo's a Beatle and has been for a long time. We think he's the better fit. Besides, Pete's got his own group now, The Pete Best Four. Tell them about it Pete!" That explanation would have worked for everybody. It certainly wouldn't have hurt Pete any. And history would have turned out about the same because no matter what Pete could or couldn't do on drums, he was never going to find another hit songwriting team like Lennon & McCartney. The only thing that might have changed is Pete attempting suicide the following year. I just think, as John Lennon said, they were cowards and it was just easier to avoid Pete altogether after they sacked him. Besides, didn't George raise a big stink about having Jimmy Nichol sit in for Ringo? Imagine the stink he would have raised if it would have been Pete sitting in instead. I can't imagine Ringo would have felt too good about it either. Not at all fair to the Australians. Why should they be stuclk listening to a bum drummer, bringing down the tightness of the whole group? Pete wasn't good for anything outside of the clubs. Maybe he should have taken some lessons.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 12:15:42 GMT -5
anyoneanyhow I don't want to fight with you on whether or not you are calling me a liar, but when you say things like... 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.That sounds to me like you are. If I am wrong about that then I am sorry, but it sure does sound to me like you are lumping me in with other people who revise history with lies. If I am revising history (I doubt I am) I am doing it with truth. Gimme Some Truth!!! Also, at no point did I ever say I my "objective was to only bring up the facts that supported (my) hypothesis and would not aim to present the facts in a balanced manner". I did say I would strive to make sure every fact I bring up is actually true. And I have. Gimme Some Truth!!! Also, I never said Pete's "Atom Beat" ever influenced any of The Beatles recordings. It influenced the Beatles live impact and fans reactions to seeing them in concert. The first thing I noticed was their music, their beat!
-Brian EpsteinGimme Some Truth!!! You DID say the Atom beat influenced every drummer in Liverpool at that time. You DID say that you would only present facts that supported your case. You want the truth? Here it is- These threads have gone on wayyyy too long. Not sure you've convinced anybody that Pete was any more significant than history has shown him to be. The drumming on the Decca audition sucked. Pete's drumming on Love me Do was beyond embarrassing, I'm surprised you didn't postulate that the beatles put it on Anthology to show the world why they dumped Pete. I said Pete handled the matter with class. I never mistook you for Pete. OK, you got the truth.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 12:26:02 GMT -5
You DID say the Atom beat influenced every drummer in Liverpool at that time. You DID say that you would only present facts that supported your case. You want the truth? Here it is- These threads have gone on wayyyy too long. Not sure you've convinced anybody that Pete was any more significant than history has shown him to be. The drumming on the Decca audition sucked. Pete's drumming on Love me Do was beyond embarrassing, I'm surprised you didn't postulate that the beatles put it on Anthology to show the world why they dumped Pete. I said Pete handled the matter with class. I never mistook you for Pete. OK, you got the truth. The word "every" is an absolute. I am sure there was at least 1 drummer in Liverpool that wasn't influenced by Pete's drumming. I did say that Pete's Best's "Atom Beat" became the new Liverpool sound. His loud rock style of playing that featured heavy use of the kick drum did influence the drumming styles of many of the Liverpool drummers at the time including Ringo Starr. It's not a lie, it's a fact. Do some research yourself. They ALL gave substandard performances on the Decca audition and you are comparing Pete's first take of Love Me Do with Ringo's final take. Ringo's first take at Love Me Do was so bad they decided to erase it and then replaced him with 32 year old studio veteran Andy White the following week. They let Ringo play tamborine. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 12:51:51 GMT -5
You DID say the Atom beat influenced every drummer in Liverpool at that time. You DID say that you would only present facts that supported your case. You want the truth? Here it is- These threads have gone on wayyyy too long. Not sure you've convinced anybody that Pete was any more significant than history has shown him to be. The drumming on the Decca audition sucked. Pete's drumming on Love me Do was beyond embarrassing, I'm surprised you didn't postulate that the beatles put it on Anthology to show the world why they dumped Pete. I said Pete handled the matter with class. I never mistook you for Pete. OK, you got the truth. The word "every" is an absolute. I am sure there was at least 1 drummer in Liverpool that wasn't influenced by Pete's drumming. I did say that Pete's Best's "Atom Beat" became the new Liverpool sound. His loud rock style of playing that featured heavy use of the kick drum did influence the drumming styles of many of the Liverpool drummers at the time including Ringo Starr. It's not a lie, it's a fact. Do some research yourself. They ALL gave substandard performances on the Decca audition and you are comparing Pete's first take of Love Me Do with Ringo's final take. Ringo's first take at Love Me Do was so bad they decided to erase it and then replaced him with 32 year old studio veteran Andy White the following week. They let Ringo play tamborine Are you not able to see clearly how silly it is to harp on the fact that Ringo's ability was simply questioned on that ONE day? Ringo MUST have dome something to prove himself because he DID manage to record and tour for the next EIGHT years as the drummer for the most legendary rock group of all time. The Andy White story is nothing but an amusing tale he got to tell his grandchildren. BTW - has Andy ever commented on all that? OK - speaking as a drummer again - this ATOM BEAT thing is also a bit over-the-top. Keeping a steady beat of hitting the bass drume on every down beat is not so fantastic. It's basically the same as tapping your foot which any of us can do through a song. Listen to someone like John Bonahm (sp?) for saomeone who had a fabulous bass drum foot. Even 'ol Ringo did some very interesting bass drum patterns. Simply hitting it the way this "atom beat" thing was takes little ability and shows no thought to the playing.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 12:59:06 GMT -5
Here's why Ringo was brought in. The drums come in about 15 second into the song.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 13:59:11 GMT -5
The word "every" is an absolute. I am sure there was at least 1 drummer in Liverpool that wasn't influenced by Pete's drumming. I did say that Pete's Best's "Atom Beat" became the new Liverpool sound. His loud rock style of playing that featured heavy use of the kick drum did influence the drumming styles of many of the Liverpool drummers at the time including Ringo Starr. It's not a lie, it's a fact. Do some research yourself. They ALL gave substandard performances on the Decca audition and you are comparing Pete's first take of Love Me Do with Ringo's final take. Ringo's first take at Love Me Do was so bad they decided to erase it and then replaced him with 32 year old studio veteran Andy White the following week. They let Ringo play tamborine Are you not able to see clearly how silly it is to harp on the fact that Ringo's ability was simply questioned on that ONE day? Ringo MUST have dome something to prove himself because he DID manage to record and tour for the next EIGHT years as the drummer for the most legendary rock group of all time. The Andy White story is nothing but an amusing tale he got to tell his grandchildren. BTW - has Andy ever commented on all that? OK - speaking as a drummer again - this ATOM BEAT thing is also a bit over-the-top. Keeping a steady beat of hitting the bass drume on every down beat is not so fantastic. It's basically the same as tapping your foot which any of us can do through a song. Listen to someone like John Bonahm (sp?) for saomeone who had a fabulous bass drum foot. Even 'ol Ringo did some very interesting bass drum patterns. Simply hitting it the way this "atom beat" thing was takes little ability and shows no thought to the playing. All I said was you can't compare Pete's first & only take with Ringo's final take on Love Me Do. That's not fair. When you compare Pete & Ringo's first day in the studio recording the song, they had the exact same result. Both were replaced by a better drummer. I also never tried say Pete was better for The Beatles than Ringo.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 15:06:31 GMT -5
Here's why Ringo was brought in. The drums come in about 15 second into the song. Isn't that pattern used on a Ray Charles song and they loved the fact that Ringo could play it. I'd have to check my Recording the Beatles book but I don't think there was drum overdubs/additions to that. Another fine example here of good solid, exciting drumming with great fills -
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 15:07:21 GMT -5
Are you not able to see clearly how silly it is to harp on the fact that Ringo's ability was simply questioned on that ONE day? Ringo MUST have dome something to prove himself because he DID manage to record and tour for the next EIGHT years as the drummer for the most legendary rock group of all time. The Andy White story is nothing but an amusing tale he got to tell his grandchildren. BTW - has Andy ever commented on all that? OK - speaking as a drummer again - this ATOM BEAT thing is also a bit over-the-top. Keeping a steady beat of hitting the bass drume on every down beat is not so fantastic. It's basically the same as tapping your foot which any of us can do through a song. Listen to someone like John Bonahm (sp?) for saomeone who had a fabulous bass drum foot. Even 'ol Ringo did some very interesting bass drum patterns. Simply hitting it the way this "atom beat" thing was takes little ability and shows no thought to the playing. All I said was you can't compare Pete's first & only take with Ringo's final take on Love Me Do. That's not fair. When you compare Pete & Ringo's first day in the studio recording the song, they had the exact same result. Both were replaced by a better drummer. I also never tried say Pete was better for The Beatles than Ringo. I don't have the wherewithall to go back and see if you ever made the claim that Pete was beeter for the band than Ringo BATB. I take your word for it. Like I said before, I admire your passion on this subject. I just think you've tapped into the loyalty that most fans have for the band somehow with this crusade your on. I have for years defended Ringo's drumming ability anytime someone questions it. I'm not suggesting that you did, but you certainly seem to belittle the fact that it was Ringo's talent as a musician and personality that got him the Beatles gig. I realy and truly don't enjoy focusing on Pete best and the reasons he lost the gig. The simple truth is that he just wasn't as good. I have to add a thought to your last comment regarding the famous LOVE ME DO session. To say that both Pete and Ringo were replaced by a better drummer is a bit broad of a statement. Pete was indeed replaced because his ability was deemed inadequate by George Martin. Ringo was replaced briefly because George Martin had already had his studio guy hired, and he wanted to get the session done. Studio time costs money, and the Beatles walked in with the new guy (Ringo) and George Martin wanted to use his proven guy also, rather than this new guy who he hadn't heard play. Martin must have surely questioned the bands ability to produce a good drummer that day. His doubt regarding Ringo is perfectly understandable in that situation. However, when it came time to record the first album, Ringo was sitting at the drums while Pete Best and Andy White went home. Pete because he didn't make the cut - and Andy because he wasn't needed.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 15:18:40 GMT -5
Spot on Snookeroo.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 15:27:32 GMT -5
I think it's all part of the unsavoury manner in which Pete was sacked from the group. The way I look at it is this, Pete was needed to get the Beatles to the point where they were the biggest group in Liverpool but they needed Ringo for world domination. Ringo had all the elements (musical and personality) that made the chemistry between the four appeal to the masses. I still think Pete made a mistake in not confronting them at the time. With all due respect - I would say that they needed A DRUMMER to help them get bigger. It didn't have to be Pete Best. But when they got huge, Ringo was essential. It is weird how the others seem to have handled the subject of Pete from 1962 onward. I wonder if there was actually a plan that maybe Eppy decided where they would avoid the subject for whatever reasons. Maybe they realized it sucked the way it happened and they wanted to downplay it. If Pete had "a few" lawsuits pending then they probably had to shut up about it. If we try to look at it from the bands perspective, Pete was simply another guy that parted with the group. There were plenty of people from the earliest days of the Quarrymen. It just so happened that the band turned out to be on the brink of fame and fortune. They didn't expect Beatlemania to happen at all. All they knew was that they had a chance to actually make a record. History shows that they were not totally enamored with the drummer, and as fate would have it neither was the guy making the decisions at the big recording studio. I'm sure that if you research it you will find hundredes of stories like this in rock and roll. This just happens to be the most celebrated band which is under the most powerful microscope. Maybe Pete should have throw a shitfit and given George that black-eye himself. But I think he's handled it with dignity, and even profited from his connection with the band. Having "Beatles drummer" on your resume doesn't suck. I'd take it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 15:38:50 GMT -5
Thanks to this discussion, I have actually dug out my old copy of Allan Willams' book THE MAN WHO GAVE THE BEATLES AWAY. I've just read all about 1959 and 1960, and there is no mention at all of Pete Best until they're desperate to find a drummer in a flash to go to Hamburg. According to Williams, the Beatles hung around the Jacaranda more than anywhere else (including the Casbah) and were always desperately running around looking for drummers -- they had Tommy Moore (who Williams calls "The Best Drummer The Beatles EVER Had), and then when he quit they even found Norman Chapman for about 3 months. The question is, if -- as BATB claims -- they were so involved with Pete Best and his mother to a point where they were practically living at the house, why didn't they just grab Pete a lot earlier? You mean a regular steady drummer was right there under their noses and they never considered using him? The Beatles would have taken ANYONE -- in fact, one time Lennon even asked onstage if anyone in the audience fancied themselves as a drummer one time, and they got a huge thug with no talent to bash around! It would have made more sense to "use" Pete Best way earlier, if they were so in with him and Mona.
|
|