|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 20:18:39 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!!!! You're right! Just don't expect me to contribute $ to that project.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Feb 26, 2012 20:22:56 GMT -5
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. I didn't bother because I wasn't interested, I thought, here's a guy with a boring project, and figured he'd go away. I don't even know what thread that was in anymore, but I'm really getting a little tired of this...I never thought I'd be discussing Pete Best so much. Now JoeK is going to start up the Tommy Moore threads. We'll be having endless debates over what would have happened if poor Tommy's girlfriend encouraged his rock and roll life. Moore of the Beatles! Coming to a theater near you!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 26, 2012 23:13:49 GMT -5
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. The reason that Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe should have been acknowleged when The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is because they were in The Beatles and they both put in a great deal of time and effort to help The Beatles make it. Especially Pete. A simple acknowlegement would have been the classy thing to do.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 27, 2012 1:14:43 GMT -5
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.... You're right, lowbasso. I've pointed this out for days now. Imagine that -- all those gigs and "he never improved". Oh nooooo! Now you've done it, lowbasso --! I have interviews with Pete, and I've heard him muster up the courage to flatly declare that he was the better drummer of the two! I was just watching a fan recorded Beatles convention apearance from New Haven with Pete, and he is asked if he thinks he's a better drummer than Ringo, and he says a flat-out "Yes". I think he's always believed he's a better drummer, or at least as good. Especially when Pete appeared on TV shows like OPRAH and makes it very clear that the "Beatles Phenomenon" did not begin until after he was fired. He says he got depressed and tried to gas himself "when I watched them start to become a phenomenon". It doesn't mean anything that one DJ used the word to express his own biased opinion on the band in 1960 for one hyped-up newspaper article. Joe; Then I'm disappointed in Pete. If he said he is better than Ringo, then he is only fooling himself. I asked BATB to ask him that question directly to see if he would give an honest answer. I spent an entire afternoon listening to Pete drum with his band live at a Beatlefest a few years ago because I wanted to see for myself who is the better drummer. I've heard Ringo twice live now with his All-Star band. Pete didn't even come close to Ringo. His beat was tentative (in fact his half-brother Roag plays drums better than he does), and not steady through the songs. He deferred to Roag to play many of the fills in the songs his band played rather than take them himself that day!! Pete says in his book that The Beatles had been playing Love Me Do in the German clubs well in advance of the audition for EMI in June 1962. So Pete had plenty of opportunities to play the song many, many times over before the June session. The audition for EMI clearly shows he was still insecure in his beat in the song, even after having done it repeatedly in Germany. Ringo, on the other hand, had very few, if any chances to play the song before the Sept. session for EMI, in which Martin felt it could be done better. We don't have that initial session to hear and judge, as it was wiped from the tape, a standard practice in those days according to Martin. But within three weeks, Ringo had put down a take of the song that was as good as Andy White's version done earlier in the month. And miles better than Pete's version from the previous June. Ringo's drumming on the Beatles first album, which was a collection of their songs that came from the selections they played in the German clubs and The Cavern, is clearly better than the drumming heard on the Tony Sheridan tracks in which Pete was still on drums with the band. I have never met anyone (until now if BATB thinks this?) that has ever thought Pete drummed better than Ringo based on the available recordings of both drummers circa 1961-62, or based on how they both sound in recent years when Pete went back on the road with his band and Ringo has been touring with his All-Star band. Ringo is clearly the more accomplished drummer of the two, and always has been. If Pete thinks otherwise, he is kidding himself. Pete had a great run with The Beatles for two years when they needed a drummer to take the gig in Hamburg (and they would have taken anybody who could beat a drum to get that gig), but clearly when the the opportunity presented itself to try and get Ringo into the group, whoever suggested it, it was a smart move, musically speaking. Anybody who thinks otherwise, well that would be bewildering to me. It is just so obvious. If Pete were really honest with himself, he'd admit Ringo was the better drummer Perhaps his pride keeps him from being really honest. Everytime Pete is willing to be interviewed about his time with the band, he should be asked that question over and over again. He keeps saying he doesn't really understand why he was let go. It's time to "face the music" Pete. Literally.....and honestly. It doesn't mean we love you less Pete. You were a Beatle once. No one can ever take that away from you.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 6:35:06 GMT -5
Pete says in his book that The Beatles had been playing Love Me Do in the German clubs well in advance of the audition for EMI in June 1962. So Pete had plenty of opportunities to play the song many, many times over before the June session. The audition for EMI clearly shows he was still insecure in his beat in the song, even after having done it repeatedly in Germany. That's very interesting, lowbasso. But what happens is, BATB only has a handful of quotes out of thousands which he cherry picks as he sees fitting his agenda and uses those few to his advantage. Then he disregards everything else, or says the commentator meant something else. Better than the Tony Sheridan tracks. Better than the Decca Auditions. Better than Pete's LOVE ME DO Bossa Nova mess. I think Pete is kidding himself, but I understand it. It's survival and self-confidence. More power to Pete for believing in his abilities, even though I think he's the lesser drummer.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 6:52:20 GMT -5
Hey, BATB's not talking to me. I think he's got a sulk on. And I understand why. (He'll say it's due to my attitude, but in reality it's because I have placed all kinds of questions and facts in his path and they have presented a stumbling block for him so he pretends he doesn't hear me or that I don't exist). He can possibly give himself a lot of credibility if he can successfully address the following: 1.) BATB has claimed "Pete missed far less gigs than Paul". I have asked him his source for this bold statement, and he has not given it. We know that Ringo sat in for an ailing Pete -- who sat in for Paul, and where are all those Paul-less pics and memories? 2.) BATB claims that the Beatles knew Pete Best and his mommy at the Casbah well and were so close with them that "they practically lived in the house". The book by Allan Williams makes no mention of this and says they spent most of their time at the Jacaranda, but even ignoring that ----- if BATB is correct, then I'd like to hear his explanation for why the Beatles always played without any drummer at all instead of asking "their good pal Pete"? The Beatles and Williams tried and tried and couldn't find a drummer. Very often the Beatles would take ANY drummer they could find -- they got Tommy Moore, when Moore quit they located Norman Chapman for about 3 months... they even asked the audience members if anyone fancied themselves as a drummer to come on stage and play! So how could it be that Pete Best was just right in front of their faces as they "practically lived in his house all this time" but they never thought to ask Pete to drum for them until one day before they went to Hamburg? Something smells mighty fishy here! 3.) BATB makes a big stink because George Harrison pauses a moment before mentioning Pete Best's name in ANTHOLOGY, and then claims George doesn't want to acknowledge Best or doesn't want to let on how well he knew Pete. Well, I have a pre-ANTHOLOGY release tape of George appearing on the ROCKLINE radio show. A caller asks George how the ANTHOLOGY project is progressing, and Harrison volunteers Pete's name: He says something like "It's very long so we'll have to do some editing. It's already 10 cassettes and Pete Best hasn't even joined the band yet!" This doesn't sound to me like George is avoiding Pete when he volunteers his name out of nowhere. 4.) BATB complains that John Lennon tries to downplay how they knew Pete in Snookeroo's interview clip when John says "We heard of this guy... we knew of this guy..." . Well, I say John actually corrected himself because he gives Pete a little more importance by elaborating that they "knew" him, not "just heard of him".
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 27, 2012 7:04:25 GMT -5
If Pete were really honest with himself, he'd admit Ringo was the better drummer Perhaps his pride keeps him from being really honest. Everytime Pete is willing to be interviewed about his time with the band, he should be asked that question over and over again. He keeps saying he doesn't really understand why he was let go. As I said elsewhere, if this is genuinely Pete's reaction, then I think it casts light on his musicianship and actually provides part of the answer to his own question: if he couldn't/can't see for himself that Ringo was a better drummer than him by a country road, that speaks volumes about the quality of his musicianship. I play drums and guitar well enough to know that i play better than people who can't play, and not as well as almost everybody else. I suggest that anyone who is a halfway decent musician can rank themselves, and accurately, against other musicians on the same instrument. Anyone suggesting that Pete was as good as Ringo - on the basis of the recorded music available is either delusional, not very musical, or an apologist.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 7:35:17 GMT -5
I just found this old quote from BATB in another thread. Consider this:
Listen to your own words there, BATB. This is exactly the same thing you are attempting to do with your biased Pete Best Agenda Film. You are taking certain quotes, ignoring others, to fashion a completely faux and distorted reality of the actual truth. You are attempting to form the viewer's perception into something that's basically your own fantasy.
BATB also added:
He's basically admitting even his own film is a con job. But amazingly, he only sees it this way with ANTHOLOGY.
|
|
gloi
Very Clean
Posts: 222
|
Post by gloi on Feb 27, 2012 8:15:57 GMT -5
You can see that they only considered Pete as the drummer for Hamburg as a last resort because Paul had been advertising for a drummer for the group just before they were due to go as was seen last year when a letter from Paul went up for auction. The phone number in the letter is for Allan's Jacaranda. newsfeed.time.com/2011/10/19/old-paul-mccartney-letter-shows-early-search-for-beatles-drummer/My personal opinion on as to why none of The Beatles talked about him much or want to meet him at all is that they never liked him very much in the first place as he had a totally different type of personality to the others. Actually I think he ended up with the best deal in the end, became rich without having to do anything for it and able to live a normal life.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 8:28:48 GMT -5
You can see that they only considered Pete as the drummer for Hamburg as a last resort because Paul had been advertising for a drummer for the group just before they were due to go as was seen last year when a letter from Paul went up for auction. The phone number in the letter is for Allan's Jacaranda. (Note to BATB): The Jacaranda, not The Casbah. One wonders why they wouldn't just grab Pete since he was right there and "they practically lived at Pete and Mona's place". That's a good point. Why even bother? Pete has done very well for himself. He can say he used to play with The Beatles before they became a phenomenon, so he does enjoy some kind of a notoriety. He is embraced and loved at Beatles conventions and I think the fans like him for the most part. And he has now made some nice money from ANTHOLOGY and as you say, he didn't relly have to do much or give up his privacy. Well done, Pete!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 8:51:50 GMT -5
Expanding upon Gloi's link about the item in question. This is actually a handwritten letter that Paul McCartney wrote in reply to an unknown drummer's LIVERPOOL ECHO ad, which the drummer placed there looking for work. It was Paul replying to his ad.
It is dated by Paul as August 12, 1960. It's the same day that Pete Best joined the group. Either the Beatles never waited to hear from this "unknown drummer" and just decided to grab Pete at the last minute, or maybe the writer of the ad was Pete Best!
|
|
|
Post by Zander on Feb 27, 2012 8:55:33 GMT -5
Can't get this link to work - can someone PM it to me?
|
|
|
Post by Zander on Feb 27, 2012 8:57:46 GMT -5
Expanding upon Gloi's link about the item in question. This is actually a handwritten letter that Paul McCartney wrote in reply to an unknown drummer's LIVERPOOL ECHO ad, which the drummer placed there looking for work. It was Paul replying to his ad. It is dated by Paul as August 12, 1960. It's the same day that Pete Best joined the group. Either the Beatles never waited to hear from this "unknown drummer" and just decided to grab Pete at the last minute, or maybe the writer of the ad was Pete Best! This is the day Pete Best auditioned the boys to be his backing group wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 8:59:08 GMT -5
Zander -- sorry you can't get the John Lennon link to play (I'm thinking it only plays for AOL users?) But Gloi was nice enough to transcribe the words from John's audio track here:
"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 Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 9:11:04 GMT -5
This is the day Pete Best auditioned the boys to be his backing group wasn't it? ;D Looks to me like they literally grabbed Pete out of despair in the very last second, and didn't really want much to do with him before then. This letter - dated the same day Pete joined them - speaks VOLUMES! They were still looking for ANYONE! From the article: "A Beatles expert, Bruce Spizer, tells the Associated Press that this letter sheds new light on the Beatles’ search for a drummer other than Best. Also, the letter wouldn’t be to Starr, who was already an accomplished Liverpool drummer by that time, so McCartney wouldn’t have addressed the letter “Dear Sir.” "I'd really love to hear people ask Paul about stuff like this, instead of asking him if he was really dead or how he wrote YESTERDAY.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 27, 2012 9:33:55 GMT -5
Personally speaking, I have no problem at all with Pete saying "yes" when asked if he is as good as, or better Ringo. What the hell else is he supposed to say?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 27, 2012 12:25:28 GMT -5
Personally speaking, I have no problem at all with Pete saying "yes" when asked if he is as good as, or better Ringo. What the hell else is he supposed to say? Of course he'd say that. But Pete still also says he doesn't understand why he was fired. At Beatles festivals he is asked to appear at, everyone hashes over the same old dilemma with him; he was too handsome, Paul was jealous, he didn't show up for gigs, he wouldn't get a Beatle haircut, he was a loner. Could it be that his fellow bandmates felt Ringo was a better drummer? (So say The Beatles in the anthology). So they asked Ringo if he would join them? And they were concerned that their future record producer wasn't pleased with Pete's audition? If it walks like a dog, and barks like a dog, it must be a dog..... Pete seems to be the only one who disagrees with everybody; that it couldn't have been because Ringo was/is a better drummer. When he plays with his band, he never seems to want to show he is the "better" drummer. As I mentioned, at Beatlefest, when he played, he left all the big drum fills to be played by his step-brother Roag. He struggled just to keep a good steady beat on his own skins; much like he did 50 years ago.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 27, 2012 12:38:43 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does it seem like this thread has gone on longer than the time Pete spent in The Beatles??? How much longer will the carcass stand all the kicking?? So; is it really Stu singing in that new recording of "Love Me Tender?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 13:14:50 GMT -5
RINGO FOREVER!
PETE BEST NEVER!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 27, 2012 13:34:13 GMT -5
Check this out. It's amusing, and painful to listen to. Tony Sheridan, with Pete Best, and a bunch of Beatle wannabes doing Godawful reditions of Beatles classics. Pete is consistant. His playing and stage presence is not something to get excited about. I had to laugh thinking about the fact that Pete must have taken the place of the guy who "plays" Ringo in this band on this night.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 27, 2012 13:36:44 GMT -5
This clip is far cooler. "My Bonnie".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 13:45:16 GMT -5
In case nobody's seen this interview, it's a recent multi-parter with Pete Best, interviewed by FAB FOURUM. What I find interesting here, in Part 1, is that Pete now reveals something "brand new" to history about the doomed Decca Auditions. He says that it wasn't Dick Rowe who actually turned the Beatles down, it was actually Mike Schmidt. And the reason Pete gives is that Mike had to choose between Brian Poole & The Tremeloes and The Beatles ... but Mike was a big Tremeloes fan, so he preferred them:
In addiiton, Pete says Mike came to see the Beatles first at the Cavern and they were playing driving hard rock n roll the first time, and was disappointed that they didn't do more "rock" at the Decca Session.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 13:53:31 GMT -5
In part 2 of the FAB FOURUM interview, Pete is asked about singing onstage with the Beatles in the old days, and Pete really pretty much says he didn't sing. Maybe a tiny bit. It looks like Pete would disagree with BATB:
Also - Pete here says they refused to do a song that Gerry and the Pacemakers later did and it became #1. When the interviewers ask "Wasn't that HOW DO YOU DO IT?" , Pete is stumped...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 14:15:18 GMT -5
In Part 3 Pete defends Stu's bass playing.
At the beginning they also play a bit of MONEY from Decca, and after the song's over Pete asks "Did anyone notice John's voice crackin' ?"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 27, 2012 14:27:20 GMT -5
In part 4 Pete elaborates more on his singing with The Beatles. He names 3 songs he sang but I get the impression he was rather shy and didn't like singing. Someone asks him specifically about if he went up front to lure the girls...
Some interesting talk here of George Martin and the LOVE ME DO session.
He also calls Ringo "original in his own mind, but not original in my mind".
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 27, 2012 23:56:16 GMT -5
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. The reason that Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe should have been acknowleged when The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is because they were in The Beatles and they both put in a great deal of time and effort to help The Beatles make it. Especially Pete. A simple acknowlegement would have been the classy thing to do. Given how many groups have changed personnel before they became famous, I don't recall anyone else doing that. Either way, I don't think it casts any shadow on the Beatles that they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Feb 28, 2012 10:31:42 GMT -5
The reason that Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe should have been acknowleged when The Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is because they were in The Beatles and they both put in a great deal of time and effort to help The Beatles make it. Especially Pete. A simple acknowlegement would have been the classy thing to do. Given how many groups have changed personnel before they became famous, I don't recall anyone else doing that. Either way, I don't think it casts any shadow on the Beatles that they didn't. I filmed the behind the scenes for The Ventures at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2008 and they made a point to thank the groups drummers before Mel Taylor took the duties shortly after Walk Don't Run.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 28, 2012 10:50:02 GMT -5
I filmed the behind the scenes for The Ventures at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2008 and they made a point to thank the groups drummers before Mel Taylor took the duties shortly after Walk Don't Run. Funny stuff. So as usual, you take one thing (molehill) and make a grandiose mountain out of it. The Ventures??? You've got to be kidding! No offense to Pete or Stu here, but just to make a point -- both Stu and Pete had nothing to do with the success of the Beatles as recording artists. The blunt truth is, the best thing they did for the band was for Pete to be fired and for Stu to quit before he died. Would you want the four Beatles to thank them for that? They wouldn't be standing at the HALL OF FAME in the first place if Pete and Stu stayed in the band. You didn't address a point that someone else made about Brian Epstein and George Martin not getting thanked either, who were much more important for them. Please answer the questions people have posed to you. It would give you and your project some credibility if you could.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Feb 28, 2012 13:35:50 GMT -5
Given how many groups have changed personnel before they became famous, I don't recall anyone else doing that. Either way, I don't think it casts any shadow on the Beatles that they didn't. I filmed the behind the scenes for The Ventures at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2008 and they made a point to thank the groups drummers before Mel Taylor took the duties shortly after Walk Don't Run. Wonderful. So the guys in the Ventures are nicer guys than the Beatles. Bad Beatles. The Ventures are not a group where the individual members are household names, like the Beatles are. Thanking the guy who drummed on what is arguably their most well known song makes sense. When the Eagles got in they had Bernie Leadon there. He was part of thje pre-Hotel California line-up. Lots of hits. Fleetwood Mac had the great Peter Green along when they got in. He gave the band it's name, and built the original band. He wrote BLACK MAGIC WOMAN. Pete Best is not to the Beatles what guys like that were to their band. Pete Best drummed on NONE of their well known recordings. In fact, after Ringo came in they came to redo some of the Best-ear stuff with versions that blew-away the earlier stuff. How'd that happen?? Y'know, it occurs to me that when Pete walked away wounded from Brian's office that day....the best thing he could possibly have done to change his place in rock history would have been to prove to the world that he had the chops. He had a golden opportunity to put a freaking hot band together, what with all his vast managment knowledge that we are led to believe he had as Beatle drummer. Not to mention his mom who owned this smokin' hot club and knew how to develop talent. Why didn't Neil jump right in and work on the building of the Best empire? HE STAYED WITH THE BEATLES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Do we know FOR SURE just how many bands came knocking on Pete's door after this mighty pillar of percussion was cut loose from the Beatles? Maybe he could have been Rory Storm's new beat-keeper. Seriously BATB. That Ventures thing was truly grasping at straws.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 28, 2012 15:24:24 GMT -5
I filmed the behind the scenes for The Ventures at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2008 and they made a point to thank the groups drummers before Mel Taylor took the duties shortly after Walk Don't Run. Wonderful. So the guys in the Ventures are nicer guys than the Beatles. Bad Beatles. The Ventures are not a group where the individual members are household names, like the Beatles are. Thanking the guy who drummed on what is arguably their most well known song makes sense. When the Eagles got in they had Bernie Leadon there. He was part of thje pre-Hotel California line-up. Lots of hits. Fleetwood Mac had the great Peter Green along when they got in. He gave the band it's name, and built the original band. He wrote BLACK MAGIC WOMAN. Pete Best is not to the Beatles what guys like that were to their band. Pete Best drummed on NONE of their well known recordings. In fact, after Ringo came in they came to redo some of the Best-ear stuff with versions that blew-away the earlier stuff. How'd that happen?? Y'know, it occurs to me that when Pete walked away wounded from Brian's office that day....the best thing he could possibly have done to change his place in rock history would have been to prove to the world that he had the chops. He had a golden opportunity to put a freaking hot band together, what with all his vast managment knowledge that we are led to believe he had as Beatle drummer. Not to mention his mom who owned this smokin' hot club and knew how to develop talent. Why didn't Neil jump right in and work on the building of the Best empire? HE STAYED WITH THE BEATLES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Do we know FOR SURE just how many bands came knocking on Pete's door after this mighty pillar of percussion was cut loose from the Beatles? Maybe he could have been Rory Storm's new beat-keeper. Seriously BATB. That Ventures thing was truly grasping at straws. And there's the incident of Debbie Harry absolutely refusing to let past members of Blondie to play at their induction. (see below) The Beatles isn't the same thing. Pete was fired. Really, that's the end of the argument as far as the Rock Hall goes. You can argue the particulars all you want, but he was fired.
|
|