|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 7:46:25 GMT -5
Updated list of claims by 'beatlestatheirbest' which need back-up:
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 Williams ----- 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 audio cassette of George appearing on the ROCKLINE radio show in the 1990's. 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".
5.) What about the newly discovered Paul McCartney 1960 handwritten letter? It was in response to a LIVERPOL ECHO ad placed by an unknown drummer, seeking a job. Paul replied in his letter that this drummer should contact the Jacaranda club and speak to one of The Beatles or Allan Williams (not to the Casbah and Mona Best) - and Paul tells him he must be prepared to go to Hamburg immediately. If, as BATB claims, the Beatles "knew Pete Best well already and practically lived at his and Mona's place", why didn't they already think of Pete? Here is concrete evidence that they are still desperately seeking drummers for Hamburg only days before going..... ANY drummers!
6.) In the PETE BEST IN THE BEATLES UNIVERSE thread below, I posted four links to a recent interview Pete did with the guys from "Fab Fourum". In these clips at one point, Pete is asked about his singing and resplies that he didn't really sing much, and names 3 songs he did. Meanwhile, BATB has made it appear that Pete was always the "up front guy in the spotlight".
7.) Also in the PETE BEST IN THE BEATLES UNIVERSE thread, Mr. BATB says the Beatles should have thanked Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe when they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I have asked you, BATB -- why should Pete and Stu be thanked when they had absolutely nothing to do with the BEATLES recording history that is what they're celebrating at the RRHOF? I have put it to you that, if we are to be honest about it, the best thing the BEATLES could have thanked Pete and Stu for is that one of them was fired and the other chose to quit and subsequently passed away. Otherwise, the BEATLES wouldn't even have been standing at the RRHOF.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 2, 2012 8:56:50 GMT -5
Number 4 doesn't actually appear to be a claim as such......
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 2, 2012 9:00:34 GMT -5
I tell you what though, these's been some good mileage from this. When you consider how tied up we get over Lennon vs McCartney (and rightly so, since that issue is at the very heart of The Beatles), the issue of the extent to which Pete Best may or may not have been unfairly marginalised by The Beatles' machinery has had a bloody good run for its money (assuming it hasn't still got another dozen pages to run). So well done, everybody, give yourselves a pat on the back!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 9:22:13 GMT -5
I tell you what though, these's been some good mileage from this. When you consider how tied up we get over Lennon vs McCartney (and rightly so, since that issue is at the very heart of The Beatles), the issue of the extent to which Pete Best may or may not have been unfairly marginalised by The Beatles' machinery has had a bloody good run for its money (assuming it hasn't still got another dozen pages to run). So well done, everybody, give yourselves a pat on the back! The only reason this has been the case is that beatlesattheirbest doesn't want to address or back up many of the claims he's made. It's basically back and forth, back and forth... repeating the same things on both sides. And doing so in multiple threads.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 2, 2012 9:25:10 GMT -5
When you consider how tied up we get over Lennon vs McCartney (and rightly so, since that issue is at the very heart of The Beatles), I don't agree with that, when I first discovered the Beatles that never entered my mind, Lennon vs McCartney, why would it ? Everything they did was The Beatles, to make the Beatles bigger and better not themselves. Sure they had a rivalry but it was a healthy rivalry which allowed the development of their songwriting to grow to greater heights. It's only after the Beatles had well and truly broken up that people started to take sides because they had a falling out. People are free to compare and prefer one over the other but it is not the heart of the Beatles, the heart is Lennon and McCartney not Lennon vs McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Mar 2, 2012 9:45:51 GMT -5
I tell you what though, these's been some good mileage from this. When you consider how tied up we get over Lennon vs McCartney (and rightly so, since that issue is at the very heart of The Beatles), the issue of the extent to which Pete Best may or may not have been unfairly marginalised by The Beatles' machinery has had a bloody good run for its money (assuming it hasn't still got another dozen pages to run). So well done, everybody, give yourselves a pat on the back! The only reason this has been the case is that beatlesattheirbest doesn't want to address or back up many of the claims he's made. It's basically back and forth, back and forth... repeating the same things on both sides. And doing so in multiple threads. Not true Joe. I have backed up all of my previous claims and everything I have said was true. I respond to you and your questions more than all the other posters here COMBINED!!! I have also replied MANY times this week on numerous other threads directly to you. I told you I would answer all of your lasted list of questions as well as those of others posters by the end of this week. I just don't have all of the time at the moment to do the needed research for the footnotes you require.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 9:47:29 GMT -5
People are free to compare and prefer one over the other but it is not the heart of the Beatles, the heart is Lennon and McCartney not Lennon vs McCartney. I thought Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe (not necessarily in that order) were the heart of The Beatles? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 9:52:49 GMT -5
I respond to you and your questions more than all the other posters here COMBINED!!! No. You have not responded to those questions, not for days and days. You have not. What research? What footnotes? Many of those listed points from me above don't require anything other than you reading them... considering them... and then reacting, maybe considering what I'm pointing out to you. It does not require research and all kinds of footnotes. You need notes to respond to point #3 above (for example) about George and his ANTHOLOGY remarks? 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 audio cassette of George appearing on the ROCKLINE radio show in the 1990's. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Mar 2, 2012 11:34:11 GMT -5
BATB - a few questions if I may: You say that the Beatles "sold out". How so? Are you a fan of them and their music after Ringo came in? It doesn't seem possible. Do you play, or have you played in a band? Just curious. Do you know of ANY recorded vocals by Pete Best that you could post. I think it is possible to be a big fan of John, Paul, George and Ringo and still be a fan of Stu & Pete and also appreciate the significant contributions that they also made in helping The Beatles to make it in their early years. I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Mar 2, 2012 12:37:44 GMT -5
I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has. No, the issue is you and others here want to give him a lesser part than he has earned. Doing this DOES take away his rightful part in Beatles history.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 2, 2012 13:47:39 GMT -5
People are free to compare and prefer one over the other but it is not the heart of the Beatles, the heart is Lennon and McCartney not Lennon vs McCartney. I thought Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe (not necessarily in that order) were the heart of The Beatles? ;D I think there is a big difference between Stu and Pete Best, Stu was John's mate, so had he lived I am sure John would have remained friends with Stu and been in his life, just like Klaus Voorman and like some of his other school friends like Pete Shotton. I wonder what the relationship between John and Astrid was after Stu's death ? If they kept some contact or not. Pete just didn't click with the others and they saw him as dispensable. Once he served his purpose they dumped him quite coldly which is sad. He didn't deserve that. Also, he wasn't someone they knew from school or college so they had no history with him.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 2, 2012 14:49:41 GMT -5
I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has. No, the issue is you and others here want to give him a lesser part than he has earned. Doing this DOES take away his rightful part in Beatles history. Look brother- I have no bone to pick with you. I am a Pete Best fan. I was thrilled Pete got some chunk of props for Anthology. I remember anxiously counting the tracks he was on- wishing they put ALL of Decca on it. I really enjoyed Decca. I wish they let him do some sort of token collaboration- but even with "step dad" Neil running things- it was never to be. I roared at his cameo in "The Rocker" so appropriate and classic. That movie was really a modern day homage to him. I've been a musician since 18. For the first 7 or 8 years I really sucked. I've slowly worked at it and now at 51 can say I'm not too shabby- though I certainly don't make a living off it. Pete was handed some bad luck- but it took many years of him living a normal life to finally take another shot at music much later in life not to so much become famous but just make some music again. With the exception of a few thousand 60-70 somethings that lived their teen years in Liverpool, he will never be considered by the masses at any equivalent level to the other four- because it just didn't happen, and only those few thousand saw actually him in action. As for Hamburg being in the mix- those crowds weren't there to watch- just get pissed and dance and whatever came after. Do you have in your film any German sailor or prostitute who remembers ANY of them? But I am also a fan of his because he is an underdog. He DIDN'T live that life and still managed to lead a normal life. Good luck with your film- but I bet in some ways at least George Harrison would have traded places with him. Probably John too. Keep the man grounded. That is who he is- a normal down to earth bloke.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 2, 2012 15:56:01 GMT -5
I think it is possible to be a big fan of John, Paul, George and Ringo and still be a fan of Stu & Pete and also appreciate the significant contributions that they also made in helping The Beatles to make it in their early years. I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has. I think there is definitely a point to the argument that Pete got the short end of what he contributed to Beatle history. When the Beatles hit America, his name was buried under an avalanche. Things have changed and he's been admitted back in to a certain extent. There's nothing wrong with discussing him and his importance. There are a couple of books that focus in on this issue that anyone might want to get. I guess a really good question is what they would have done with him and not Ringo. I think Ringo added a lot, but George was a silent type, too, and it didn't seem to hurt. I think it all goes back to the drumming. There's no question in my mind that Ringo is the better drummer. Compare their work then and now. That's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 16:08:38 GMT -5
I think there is definitely a point to the argument that Pete got the short end of what he contributed to Beatle history. When the Beatles hit America, his name was buried under an avalanche. Things have changed and he's been admitted back in to a certain extent. But Steve, I'm not sure what Pete contributed? What I mean is -- He played drums for the band pre-stardom when they were in Hamburg and Liverpool, but that was before the group released LOVE ME DO and made Rock History. I suppose we could say he helped drive the band in Hamburg with his drums, but I feel it wouldn't have mattered which drummer played those shows at that point. I don't mean this to take away from Pete - I'm just suggesting that he only happened to be the one who was there. I don't think the Beatles ever denied that Ringo was not their original drummer, even in 1964-1965. I am at a loss now for knowing precisely which press conference it's in, but someone asks if there was another drummer before Ringo joined, and they all answer in the affirmative, and one of the Beatles (maybe Paul, I'm not sure?) answers: "Yeah, a fella named Pete Best". Right, but would it have worked with TWO silent types? I guess nobody can know what would have happened if Pete had remained in the group and the world had never heard of Ringo Starr... but it's a fact that in America, especially, Ringo was VERY popular. As you say, Ringo added a lot - and much more than people realize, I think. That "loveable little clown Ringo' went a looooong way. I also wonder if the band would have remained friends for so long if Pete had been in the band.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Mar 2, 2012 16:31:40 GMT -5
I don't think it would have mattered which drummer they'd had either Joe. It would read better if Ringo had joined instead of Pete before going to or during Hamburg.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 2, 2012 16:52:33 GMT -5
The morning after Ed Sullivan, everyone at my school wanted to play drums.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Mar 2, 2012 17:01:13 GMT -5
The morning after Ed Sullivan, everyone at my school wanted to play drums. Funny that's what Pete Best was thinking! Sorry . . sorry . . . it could have been worse.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 2, 2012 18:47:51 GMT -5
I don't think it would have mattered which drummer they'd had either Joe. It would read better if Ringo had joined instead of Pete before going to or during Hamburg. Was Ringo already in Rory's band in 1960 when The Beatles needed a drummer to go to Hamburg? It seems to me like Alan Williams told them they could have a gig in Hamburg IF they could get a steady drummer into the band, so The Beatles grabbed the first available set of sticks that could beat a skin because they were afraid they'd lose out on the gig if they spent too much time auditioning drummers. Pete got the gig because George remembered him from his days at The Casbah and when they asked him to join, he immediately said yes, so the search stopped there, and they were off to Germany very shortly after. I have a feeling if they couldn't have found a drummer quickly, rather than risk losing the job, Paul might have even volunteered to be the drummer for the gig in Hamburg.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 2, 2012 18:59:49 GMT -5
It seems to me like Alan Williams told them they could have a gig in Hamburg IF they could get a steady drummer into the band, so The Beatles grabbed the first available set of sticks that could beat a skin because they were afraid they'd lose out on the gig if they spent too much time auditioning drummers. Pete got the gig because George remembered him from his days at The Casbah and when they asked him to join, he immediately said yes, so the search stopped there, and they were off to Germany very shortly after. And what's even more interesting is that nobody thought of Pete at the snap of their fingers. They even were answering drummer ads in the ECHO. They obviously didn't think enough of Pete to recruit him straight away. It didn't even seem like they remembered him til late.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 2, 2012 19:06:29 GMT -5
I have a feeling if they couldn't have found a drummer quickly, rather than risk losing the job, Paul might have even volunteered to be the drummer for the gig in Hamburg. I think Paul might have suggested Stu play drums and he'd move to bass.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 2, 2012 19:12:06 GMT -5
I have a feeling if they couldn't have found a drummer quickly, rather than risk losing the job, Paul might have even volunteered to be the drummer for the gig in Hamburg. I think Paul might have suggested Stu play drums and he'd move to bass. Paul only wound up on bass because after Stu, both George and John were adamant that they were NOT going to play bass in the band.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 2, 2012 19:17:11 GMT -5
I think Paul might have suggested Stu play drums and he'd move to bass. Paul only wound up on bass because after Stu, because both George and John were adamant that they were NOT going to play bass in the band. I think Paul might have half-way fancied playing the bass. I don't think for a minute he would have been stuck on drums.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 2, 2012 19:48:47 GMT -5
When you consider how tied up we get over Lennon vs McCartney (and rightly so, since that issue is at the very heart of The Beatles), I don't agree with that, when I first discovered the Beatles that never entered my mind, Lennon vs McCartney, why would it ? Everything they did was The Beatles, to make the Beatles bigger and better not themselves. Sure they had a rivalry but it was a healthy rivalry which allowed the development of their songwriting to grow to greater heights. It's only after the Beatles had well and truly broken up that people started to take sides because they had a falling out. People are free to compare and prefer one over the other but it is not the heart of the Beatles, the heart is Lennon and McCartney not Lennon vs McCartney. I understand exactly what you're saying, but a) it doesn't take much of a scan back through this board to see how much John vs Paul discussion there has been, and b) the fact that the relationship between them was sometimes John and Paul, sometimes John vs Paul (and sometimes both at the same time!) was one of the dynamics which drove them to progress as far and as fast as they did. When that dynamic disappeared (mid/late '68), I suggest that so did the progress.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Mar 2, 2012 23:42:50 GMT -5
I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has. No, the issue is you and others here want to give him a lesser part than he has earned. Doing this DOES take away his rightful part in Beatles history. So what you're saying is that you're the only one who can see the truth, and the rest of us are wrong, and blind to it. It seems you've gotten a huge earful from the Best camp. Apparently they've given you the true story that the throng of media missed back when all this happened. What you need now to balance it off - which will never happen - is to speak with Ringo and Paul. This whole "discussion" is nuts. But I'm hooked.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 3, 2012 5:22:17 GMT -5
I don't agree with that, when I first discovered the Beatles that never entered my mind, Lennon vs McCartney, why would it ? Everything they did was The Beatles, to make the Beatles bigger and better not themselves. Sure they had a rivalry but it was a healthy rivalry which allowed the development of their songwriting to grow to greater heights. It's only after the Beatles had well and truly broken up that people started to take sides because they had a falling out. People are free to compare and prefer one over the other but it is not the heart of the Beatles, the heart is Lennon and McCartney not Lennon vs McCartney. I understand exactly what you're saying, but a) it doesn't take much of a scan back through this board to see how much John vs Paul discussion there has been, and b) the fact that the relationship between them was sometimes John and Paul, sometimes John vs Paul (and sometimes both at the same time!) was one of the dynamics which drove them to progress as far and as fast as they did. When that dynamic disappeared (mid/late '68), I suggest that so did the progress. I watched a documentary on John's Peace in Toronto show and the people who made it happen were talking about how nice John and Yoko were, there was a moment when they were in the back of a limo with one of the promoters and on the radio Get Back came on, it had just come out and they said said John told the driver to turn the volume up and he was bopping away in the back seat, going off, they all loved that moment. I think that sums it up as to their relationship. That was the period where things were starting to get tense and John was rocking to a Paul song or should I say a Beatles song ...
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Mar 3, 2012 9:36:26 GMT -5
I understand exactly what you're saying, but a) it doesn't take much of a scan back through this board to see how much John vs Paul discussion there has been, and b) the fact that the relationship between them was sometimes John and Paul, sometimes John vs Paul (and sometimes both at the same time!) was one of the dynamics which drove them to progress as far and as fast as they did. When that dynamic disappeared (mid/late '68), I suggest that so did the progress. I watched a documentary on John's Peace in Toronto show and the people who made it happen were talking about how nice John and Yoko were, there was a moment when they were in the back of a limo with one of the promoters and on the radio Get Back came on, it had just come out and they said said John told the driver to turn the volume up and he was bopping away in the back seat, going off, they all loved that moment. I think that sums it up as to their relationship. That was the period where things were starting to get tense and John was rocking to a Paul song or should I say a Beatles song ... Stories like that are so nice to hear about. As nasty as things got there was a musical, and personal bond between them. This is the kind of story that makes me really wish they had found a way to agree to split for awhile BEFORE it got ugly, and then get together after a year or two to talk about the namd...Oh well. Thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Mar 3, 2012 16:42:57 GMT -5
I have yet to see anyone take away Pete's rightful part of the Beatles history in here. The issue is that you seem to want to give him a much bigger part than he has. No, the issue is you and others here want to give him a lesser part than he has earned. Doing this DOES take away his rightful part in Beatles history. I think Pete's appropriate part in history has been pretty well set for about 50 years now. Good luck in trying to make a buck skewing that history now, but don't be shocked if you can't produce the blockbuster that's dancing around in your head. If Beatles fans have now put a collective yawn, who else do you think will care?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 12, 2012 6:11:56 GMT -5
I see "beatlesattheirbest" ran away with his tail between his legs ... he could not back up many of his absurd statements elevating Pete Best in Beatles History. On March 2nd he promised "I'll answer all your questions by the end of the week!".
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Mar 12, 2012 22:10:20 GMT -5
I see "beatlesattheirbest" ran away with his tail between his legs ... he could not back up many of his absurd statements elevating Pete Best in Beatles History. On March 2nd he promised "I'll answer all your questions by the end of the week!". Or - maybe posts like this one of yours drove him away Joe. Totally unecessary IMO. I hope he comes back. I may not agree with his Pete Best thinking, but he's a Beatles fan.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 12, 2012 22:31:53 GMT -5
I see "beatlesattheirbest" ran away with his tail between his legs ... he could not back up many of his absurd statements elevating Pete Best in Beatles History. On March 2nd he promised "I'll answer all your questions by the end of the week!". Or - maybe posts like this one of yours drove him away Joe. I guess that makes rtp our biggest nut now. I just know rtp is going to have to start siting some of his references. (Just kidding - rtp)
|
|