|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 15:39:53 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!!! OK. I think your posts speak for themselves. Good luck on your project.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 15:41:29 GMT -5
Well done again Snookeroo. I think you've about summed it up the best there.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 15:44:57 GMT -5
Here's why Ringo was brought in. The drums come in about 15 second into the song. That was cool! I wish Apple would release a set of these isolated or stripped down tracks.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 15:44:57 GMT -5
If Pete had been good enough in the end Ringo wouldn't have got a look in.
Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 15:46:29 GMT -5
If Pete had been good enough in the end Ringo wouldn't have got a look in. Sad but true. Sad for Pete, happy for the world that got to hear the Beatles as they should be.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 15:47:30 GMT -5
Here's why Ringo was brought in. The drums come in about 15 second into the song. That was cool! I wish Apple would release a set of these isolated or stripped down tracks. Can't see them doing that but it would be nice. Maybe after they release the Let it Be film.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 15:49:05 GMT -5
Just found this interesting clip with Tony Sheridan talking in pretty good detail about Pete Best. Tony paints a picture that shows that Pete's firing may have been a long time coming, and that Pete knew it. This displels the whole idea that Pete was shcked and blindsided that day when Brian called him to his office. The audio is bad because this is in a stairwell, but hang in there and listen to when Tony goes into detail about Pete. It turns out that Bert Kamefert even had issues with Pete. Very enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 15:55:51 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. I enjoyed reading that book, but to be fair to all involved, I have since heard and believe that a good deal of the book was made up. I'm not sure if that "Ronny" story ever really happened, way interesting if it did.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 15:59:45 GMT -5
Just found this interesting clip with Tony Sheridan talking in pretty good detail about Pete Best. Tony paints a picture that shows that Pete's firing may have been a long time coming, and that Pete knew it. This displels the whole idea that Pete was shcked and blindsided that day when Brian called him to his office. The audio is bad because this is in a stairwell, but hang in there and listen to when Tony goes into detail about Pete. It turns out that Bert Kamefert even had issues with Pete. Very enlightening. When the Beatles learned they failed the Decca auditions, it was months before they let Pete in on the news. How could Pete think he was one of the boys?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:04:46 GMT -5
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. Then why didn't they just use Pete when they were desperate for ANY drummer even to the point of asking audience members to come up and play? They just could not find a drummer, they were hard to come by - and you mean all this time they were supposedly "practically living with Pete and Mona Best", and it never occurred to them to simply ask Pete? Seems extremely odd to me that they'd practically live with Pete for a long time and never even think to ask him to drum for them when they were desperate! It was only the day before they needed to go to Hamburg that they remembered they knew Pete Best for over a year already? Again, depends on what source you want to believe (and I'm still waiting for you to name yours in some claims here). I've just read the Allan Williams book, and he says that Larry Parnes and Billy Fury in 1959 were REALLY interested in The Beatles, but wanted to hear them play without Stuart (they refused). Williams said that Parnes and Fury said the Beatles were a good band and had a chance, but their loyalty to Stuart caused them to pass up on Parnes' offer at that time. I read a lot of things in the "pre-Best" period in this book that say The Beatles were already becoming a damn good band -- before Pete. At one point Williams says the only reason the Beatles were called "that bum group" was because someone didn't like the way they dressed. Later on, the term "bum group" is brought up as a quote by Howie Casey, who was with Derry & The Seniors -- it's the famous quote where he asked Williams not to send The Beatles to Hamburg. Of course, you cherry pick whatever Lennon quotes you want to use, and say "those" are "The Truth". What contributions did Pete Best make to The Beatles? Aside from getting thrown out and causing them to be Worldwide Music Legends...? That is the single, most accomodating thing anyone could ever do for them. I think it's just the opposite. At first John says "we heard..." and then he gives Pete even more clout by clarifying: "We KNEW of..."
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 16:04:46 GMT -5
Just found this interesting clip with Tony Sheridan talking in pretty good detail about Pete Best. Tony paints a picture that shows that Pete's firing may have been a long time coming, and that Pete knew it. This displels the whole idea that Pete was shcked and blindsided that day when Brian called him to his office. The audio is bad because this is in a stairwell, but hang in there and listen to when Tony goes into detail about Pete. It turns out that Bert Kamefert even had issues with Pete. Very enlightening. It does give you that spooky inevitable feeling about the scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:11:13 GMT -5
OK. I think your posts speak for themselves. Good luck on your project. A little more I've learned about this "project" is that - according to a review I tracked down - Ringo Starr is really downplayed in the film, as being clearly inferior to Pete's abilities. I've also found out that the real hope is to make a feature film about Pete Best and the Beatles, something like what was done for Stuart Sutcliffe with BACKBEAT. I also saw a page where donations were asked for, and that $5,000 was the goal, and so far only $300-something was raised.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:15:41 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading that book, but to be fair to all involved, I have since heard and believe that a good deal of the book was made up. I'm not sure if that "Ronny" story ever really happened, way interesting if it did. I thought I heard something like that as well, but then I suppose the quote by John Lennon on the cover must be fake? It reads: "The ONLY book that can give eyewitness insight into the making of The Beatles" -- John Lennon. If some of the book is made up, chances are so is Allan Williams' tale of "The bum group that nobody wanted". As always, people believe what they choose.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:21:38 GMT -5
My whole point is that the other Beatles downplay and diminish the contributions of original members Stu & Pete. You mention Stu again. Look -- it sounds like Stu was a real sensitive guy, and would have gone on to be a genius in the art world, had the poor guy lived. But what "contributions" do you think Stu made to The Beatles? The one thing I would give him is if he did in fact make up their name -- but other than that, he never wanted to be a musician and he could not play well at all.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:28:05 GMT -5
Pete was definitely a Momma's Boy, but aside from that --- Why in the world would John or George need to "downplay how well they knew Pete" by the time we got to the 1970s and the 1990s in ANTHOLOGY...? For what reason? Perhaps they had to be careful for legal reasons, and had to think a bit before speaking... or perhaps they weren't sure if the documentary ought to focus too much on Pete.
But I'd like to know what you think about this... Around 1992 George was on the radio call-in show ROCKLINE, and he talked about making what would become ANTHOLOGY. When someone asked him how this was going, George said: "We have to do some editing, because it's already 10 cassettes long, and Pete Best hasn't even joined the band yet!" -- Now, consider that public radio quote. George Harrison actually VOLUNTEERED Pete Best's name! He wasn't hiding it..
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 16:30:40 GMT -5
Does anyone recall if Ringo has ever been asked, and/or commented on the whole Pete Best scenario?
Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 16:39:20 GMT -5
I recall Ringo on Mike Douglas in '78 talking about Pete getting ill or something and Ringo to sit in for him, but then saying he keeps gettin' sued because he says Pete was sick, so he has to be careful. Ringo has sometimes talked about "they had a drummer that was well liked, and I was well liked, so we had this audience fighting each other". I've heard him and George bring up the "Pete Best Forever, Ringo Never" line.
It is interesting that the whole Pete Best fiasco is kind of taboo. It's a subject I'd like to hear more about at length from Paul and Ringo (we already know what John thought). But it does seem to be something they don't like discussing, and I think it's either because they're afraid that Pete will try to sue them (maybe not now because he's finally got some money) or because they know they didn't handle his firing in a good way. But they've never denied they handled it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 16:43:27 GMT -5
Does anyone recall if Ringo has ever been asked, and/or commented on the whole Pete Best scenario? Just wondering. He has. He always says he never felt sorry for Pete because he wasn't involved in Pete's sacking. He was friends with Pete, but like the others, once Pete was sacked he never spoke to him again for the rest of his life nor has he ever properly acknowledged the contributions Pete made to the band (like at the Hall of Fame induction where no one even mentioned Pete or Stu).
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 17:03:59 GMT -5
In the Anthology book he also added that he felt was a better drummer as well.
Why would Pete or Stu need to be mentioned at the Hall of Fame. They weren't actually in the band that made all those records. It's only because it's The Beatles that people are remotely arsed about them
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 17:04:26 GMT -5
All I am saying is that you can't say no one was calling them a phenomenon when Pete was drummer when clearly someone was. Let me put it to you this way and make it easier - there are only 2 people on Earth who think The Beatles were a phenomenon when Pete Best was with them -- Bob Wooler and You. (Not even Pete, as he himself acknowledges that The Beatles didn't become a phenomenon until after he left the band). And now since Bob Wooler is deceased, you're only 1 .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 17:08:51 GMT -5
He was friends with Pete, but like the others, once Pete was sacked he never spoke to him again for the rest of his life nor has he ever properly acknowledged the contributions Pete made to the band (like at the Hall of Fame induction where no one eeven mentioned Pete or Stu). I bet Ringo thanks Pete every day of his life for getting sacked. But Ringo has NOTHING to be sorry for. As for Pete or Stu being mentioned at the Hall of Fame induction - why should anyone mention them? They might as well mention Tommy Moore too, as Pete and Stu were nothing else but ex-members before the beatles became THE BEATLES. Had the Beatles kept Pete Best, they probably wouldn't have been in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 17:37:23 GMT -5
I recall Ringo on Mike Douglas in '78 talking about Pete getting ill or something and Ringo to sit in for him, but then saying he keeps gettin' sued because he says Pete was sick, so he has to be careful. Ringo has sometimes talked about "they had a drummer that was well liked, and I was well liked, so we had this audience fighting each other". I've heard him and George bring up the "Pete Best Forever, Ringo Never" line. It is interesting that the whole Pete Best fiasco is kind of taboo. It's a subject I'd like to hear more about at length from Paul and Ringo (we already know what John thought). But it does seem to be something they don't like discussing, and I think it's either because they're afraid that Pete will try to sue them (maybe not now because he's finally got some money) or because they know they didn't handle his firing in a good way. But they've never denied they handled it wrong. Or maybe because it's irrelevant and not of interest. They don't talk about Allan Williams either. Who cares, except us latter-day Beatlemaniacs?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 17:38:13 GMT -5
Does anyone recall if Ringo has ever been asked, and/or commented on the whole Pete Best scenario? Just wondering. He has. He always says he never felt sorry for Pete because he wasn't involved in Pete's sacking. He was friends with Pete, but like the others, once Pete was sacked he never spoke to him again for the rest of his life nor has he ever properly acknowledged the contributions Pete made to the band (like at the Hall of Fame induction where no one even mentioned Pete or Stu). WHY ON EARTH?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 17:41:52 GMT -5
Or maybe because it's irrelevant and not of interest. They don't talk about Allan Williams either. Who cares, except us latter-day Beatlemaniacs? You know, as obvious as your answer is - that about says it all.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 17:43:23 GMT -5
OK. I think your posts speak for themselves. Good luck on your project. A little more I've learned about this "project" is that - according to a review I tracked down - Ringo Starr is really downplayed in the film, as being clearly inferior to Pete's abilities. I've also found out that the real hope is to make a feature film about Pete Best and the Beatles, something like what was done for Stuart Sutcliffe with BACKBEAT. I also saw a page where donations were asked for, and that $5,000 was the goal, and so far only $300-something was raised. That explains a lot. It's about money. Someone gets the idea, gee, the Sutcliffe movie did pretty well, maybe I can make some bucks with a Pete Best movie? Not such a compelling story, lets fiction it up and maybe some studio will take an interest. Wish people would take their market research elsewhere. This is a Beatles fans message board. Go write the treatment without getting free help from sincere people, Shaun.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 17:59:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the Tony Sheridan clip, Snookeroo - it was very interesting. Funny that even Bert Kamefert didn't like Pete's drumming.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 18:04:19 GMT -5
A little more I've learned about this "project" is that - according to a review I tracked down - Ringo Starr is really downplayed in the film, as being clearly inferior to Pete's abilities. I've also found out that the real hope is to make a feature film about Pete Best and the Beatles, something like what was done for Stuart Sutcliffe with BACKBEAT. I also saw a page where donations were asked for, and that $5,000 was the goal, and so far only $300-something was raised. That explains a lot. It's about money. Someone gets the idea, gee, the Sutcliffe movie did pretty well, maybe I can make some bucks with a Pete Best movie? Not such a compelling story, lets fiction it up and maybe some studio will take an interest. Wish people would take their market research elsewhere. This is a Beatles fans message board. Go write the treatment without getting free help from sincere people, Shaun. I thought everyone had seen that. I'm sure there was link (from a link) somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2012 18:10:30 GMT -5
I'm thinking of making a movie restoring praise and the proper respect for Tommy Moore. He was the "Best Drummer The Beatles Ever Had". I'm not making that up, it is a FACT because one man said this -- Allan Williams.
It is not a lie! And it is in print!
Just Gimme Some Truth!!!!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Feb 26, 2012 18:17:51 GMT -5
I'd go for it. That's got legs that has.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 26, 2012 18:44:16 GMT -5
Does anyone recall if Ringo has ever been asked, and/or commented on the whole Pete Best scenario? Just wondering. He has. He always says he never felt sorry for Pete because he wasn't involved in Pete's sacking. He was friends with Pete, but like the others, once Pete was sacked he never spoke to him again for the rest of his life nor has he ever properly acknowledged the contributions Pete made to the band (like at the Hall of Fame induction where no one even mentioned Pete or Stu). You see BATB, this is where you're in some kind of la-la land. Why would, or should, Ringo feel any reason to acknowledge Pete's involvement in the group? Ringo owes absolutely nothing to Pete. He was offered a nice job and took it. In fact he was very professional in telling Brian that it couldn't be immediately because he wanted Rory Storm to have a chance to replace him. Why in the world should Pete and/or Stu be "thanked" at the R&RHOF? Come to think of it, dDid they thank Brian Epstein and George Martin, without whom.
|
|