|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 12, 2012 15:00:32 GMT -5
What is the date of this quote? If it is after Pete joined then I guess they certainly weren't a phenomenon in Bobby Graham's eyes. He is saying they were unknowns. They weren't phenomenons in any eyes but Bob Woolers'.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 12, 2012 17:19:24 GMT -5
Let's not lose sight of the fact that John, Paul, and George's final and "best" choice for their drummer was Ringo Starr. All the right pieces were in place from that moment on. All that happened before that was a different era. With honorable mention to Brian Epstein and George Martin, without whom.... I agree. Just because I try to give credit where credit is due to people who played with The Beatles before Ringo, that doesn't mean I am hating on Ringo. Ringo was great!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 12, 2012 23:39:57 GMT -5
@rtp Hutchinson had played for The Beatles before. He played and was photographed at the Larry Parnes / Billy Fury session sitting in for Tommy Moore who was late. He also sat in 3 gigs for The Beatles after they sacked Pete and before Ringo joined. So after Pete was sacked, and before Ringo could join the band a few days later so as to give Rory time to find a replacement for him, you are saying Hutchinson sat in for 3 gigs (At The Cavern I assume?) with The Beatles? I cannot remember ever reading about that. Is it in Anthology? I remember the first time Ringo played with The Beatles that weekend at The Cavern; there is video footage of that (I think it is them singing "Some Other Guy?") because at the end of the song you can hear someone in the audience scream "We want Pete!" You can see Ringo's little lick of grey hair as well as he hasn't had time to get his hair into a moptop look yet. Though he had shaved his beard by the first gig. That was also the night someone head-butted George and he wound up with a black eye which you could see in photos of the first EMI sessions a week later in London. I can't recall John, Paul or George mentioning anything about Hutchinson playing any gigs with them that week. Wouldn't that have also caused an uproar in The Cavern over Pete's absence?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 13, 2012 3:53:41 GMT -5
They asked both guys because they were good drummers with a good reputation at the time. You mean they were PHENOMENONS??? I actually don't understand the point of this thread. So, *maybe* Brian approached a drummer or two around Liverpool and inquired as to whether they'd be interested in joining The Beatles. Maybe. And if he did... so what? How does that elevate the status of Pete Best, or denigrate Ringo? If anything, it further proves that Best was inadequate even well before they fired him.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 13, 2012 7:53:21 GMT -5
They asked both guys because they were good drummers with a good reputation at the time. You mean they were PHENOMENONS??? I actually don't understand the point of this thread. So, *maybe* Brian approached a drummer or two around Liverpool and inquired as to whether they'd be interested in joining The Beatles. Maybe. And if he did... so what? How does that elevate the status of Pete Best, or denigrate Ringo? If anything, it further proves that Best was inadequate even well before they fired him. It doesn't elevate the status of Pete at all. It does deflate the status of Ringo a bit to learn he wasn't their first choice. It's also worth noting that even after hiring Ringo, the other three did NOT make him a full member. He was just a guy paid to play drums as a hired hand subject to being fired at any time. They didn't make him a full member of the band until a year later.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 13, 2012 9:54:18 GMT -5
They asked both guys because they were good drummers with a good reputation at the time. You mean they were PHENOMENONS??? No, they were PHENOMEN A[/i]! I'll echo puzzlement as to the purpose of this thread - indeed, the Pete best threads generally. We all know Pete's role in The Beatles fairly well, we've almost certainly all heard all his preserved drumming on the Decca audition and the Anthology audition tracks, we've probably all read the various angles on his firing, and I suspect most of us are in agreement that he was moderately shabbily treated, but that replacing him with Ringo was the best for The Beatles (and ourselves). I suspect we all think he was an adequate drummer for The Beatles in their garage band days, that he didn't improve as the others did in Hamburg, that his chemistry didn't fit, and that Ringo was right in every way. And, notwithstanding that, his firing could have been handled with more grace at the time, and there could have been more in the way of public reconciliation with ex-beatles in the years since. If any of us aren't of this opinion then I stand corrected, but I'm not expecting anyone to seriously voice dissent. And I have me doubts as to whether any opinions are going to change. So what's going on?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 13, 2012 10:07:38 GMT -5
It does deflate the status of Ringo a bit to learn he wasn't their first choice. How does this prove he wasn't their first choice? If I were starting a band, Jimi Hendrix might be my 1st choice for lead guitar, but that doesn't mean I can get him. He might be busy. He might be unapproachable. He might be in the middle of a contract somewhere. His band manager might have said 'don't talk to him'. I might abstractly put out the word to several people at once about the possibility of playing guitar for me, just to feel out the situation. There are thousands of possibilities -- especially with decades of memory lapse, in hindsight, with axes to grind, and with dozens of perspectives on the slightest thing about a singular phenomenon (The Beatles). Quite why you are dead-set on believing 100% the random quotes select people made at random times, as some sort of evidence to use in pointless pursuit of whatever your thesis is, is beyond me. But carry on. It's also worth noting that even after hiring Ringo, the other three did NOT make him a full member. He was just a guy paid to play drums as a hired hand subject to being fired at any time. They didn't make him a full member of the band until a year later. Do you want to explain this? How are you qualified to make the official distinction between being a "full member" and a "hired hand"? Also, if the capability to be fired at any time means he wasn't a full member of the band, doesn't that prove that Pete Best was never a full member of the band?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 13, 2012 10:54:57 GMT -5
I agree with you Vectis.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 13, 2012 17:35:26 GMT -5
You mean they were PHENOMENONS??? No, they were PHENOMEN A[/i]! I'll echo puzzlement as to the purpose of this thread - indeed, the Pete best threads generally. We all know Pete's role in The Beatles fairly well, we've almost certainly all heard all his preserved drumming on the Decca audition and the Anthology audition tracks, we've probably all read the various angles on his firing, and I suspect most of us are in agreement that he was moderately shabbily treated, but that replacing him with Ringo was the best for The Beatles (and ourselves). I suspect we all think he was an adequate drummer for The Beatles in their garage band days, that he didn't improve as the others did in Hamburg, that his chemistry didn't fit, and that Ringo was right in every way. And, notwithstanding that, his firing could have been handled with more grace at the time, and there could have been more in the way of public reconciliation with ex-beatles in the years since. If any of us aren't of this opinion then I stand corrected, but I'm not expecting anyone to seriously voice dissent. And I have me doubts as to whether any opinions are going to change. So what's going on? [/quote] No, you don't know Pete's story very well. Like a lot of Beatles fans you just think you do.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 13, 2012 17:40:40 GMT -5
@rtp Hutchinson had played for The Beatles before. He played and was photographed at the Larry Parnes / Billy Fury session sitting in for Tommy Moore who was late. He also sat in 3 gigs for The Beatles after they sacked Pete and before Ringo joined. So after Pete was sacked, and before Ringo could join the band a few days later so as to give Rory time to find a replacement for him, you are saying Hutchinson sat in for 3 gigs (At The Cavern I assume?) with The Beatles? I cannot remember ever reading about that. Is it in Anthology? I remember the first time Ringo played with The Beatles that weekend at The Cavern; there is video footage of that (I think it is them singing "Some Other Guy?") because at the end of the song you can hear someone in the audience scream "We want Pete!" You can see Ringo's little lick of grey hair as well as he hasn't had time to get his hair into a moptop look yet. Though he had shaved his beard by the first gig. That was also the night someone head-butted George and he wound up with a black eye which you could see in photos of the first EMI sessions a week later in London. I can't recall John, Paul or George mentioning anything about Hutchinson playing any gigs with them that week. Wouldn't that have also caused an uproar in The Cavern over Pete's absence? Hutchinson played 3 gigs before Ringo's Cavern debut. Look it up. It's very well documented. As for Ringo's Cavern debut that was recorded on video. It was Pete's mom who actually wrote the TV program telling them about The Beatles and urged them to come to Liverpool and record the group for TV. She was also the one who got Ray McFall, the owner of the Cavern to start booking the group in the first place. Both did what she asked. The Cavern started booking The Beatles and the TV station came to Liverpool just in time to record the Cavern debut of her son's replacement.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 13, 2012 18:33:13 GMT -5
[/i]! I'll echo puzzlement as to the purpose of this thread - indeed, the Pete best threads generally. We all know Pete's role in The Beatles fairly well, we've almost certainly all heard all his preserved drumming on the Decca audition and the Anthology audition tracks, we've probably all read the various angles on his firing, and I suspect most of us are in agreement that he was moderately shabbily treated, but that replacing him with Ringo was the best for The Beatles (and ourselves). I suspect we all think he was an adequate drummer for The Beatles in their garage band days, that he didn't improve as the others did in Hamburg, that his chemistry didn't fit, and that Ringo was right in every way. And, notwithstanding that, his firing could have been handled with more grace at the time, and there could have been more in the way of public reconciliation with ex-beatles in the years since. If any of us aren't of this opinion then I stand corrected, but I'm not expecting anyone to seriously voice dissent. And I have me doubts as to whether any opinions are going to change. So what's going on? [/quote] No, you don't know Pete's story very well. Like a lot of Beatles fans you just think you do. [/quote] I'll be honest, I'm not terribly interested in Pete's story: I'm interested in The Beatles' story, and I'm mildly interested in Pete's story when it forms a (small) part of their story. You're telling me what books to read (and I've read most of 'em), and you're telling me that the books which are out there don't tell the true story. From which I can only conclude that you have the one and only true story that has been missed in everything published since 1962. So I ask again - what is your agenda? What are you expecting (or maybe hoping) to achieve by the campaign you are waging on this board? I'm not interested in challenging you line by line over quotes from books, youtube clips and google, but I would dearly love to know what you're up to. Because you are clearly up to something, but I'm blowed if I know what it is (and, to be honest, and without wishing to be rude, it is becoming a tad irritating).
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 13, 2012 18:48:05 GMT -5
From today's press conference with Ringo and the All-Starrs at Fallsview Casino:
Q: Paul McCartney said you were the best drummer in the world. So would the Beatles have made it without you and without George?
Ringo: No. Without George and I, it would have been a folk group. (laughter) You know, thats very kind of Paul, but he is the most amazing bass player for me. Most melodic I've ever worked with. I worked with some really good bass players, you know.
Q: So does the drummer hold the band together?
Ringo: Well, I did. I hold the band together (laughing). Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 13, 2012 20:21:19 GMT -5
I'll be honest, I'm not terribly interested in Pete's story: I'm interested in The Beatles' story, and I'm mildly interested in Pete's story when it forms a (small) part of their story. You're telling me what books to read (and I've read most of 'em), and you're telling me that the books which are out there don't tell the true story. From which I can only conclude that you have the one and only true story that has been missed in everything published since 1962. So I ask again - what is your agenda? What are you expecting (or maybe hoping) to achieve by the campaign you are waging on this board? I'm not interested in challenging you line by line over quotes from books, youtube clips and google, but I would dearly love to know what you're up to. Because you are clearly up to something, but I'm blowed if I know what it is (and, to be honest, and without wishing to be rude, it is becoming a tad irritating). I understand that. I am not telling you what books to read. I am telling you what books I am quoting when asked to provide sources for the statements I make. I admit I did suggest that if fans are sincere about learning about early Beatles history, their 1968 authorized bio would be a great place to start. It contains a great deal of information about that period in time that you will not find in Anthology. Also, it is not my one and only true story. There are many other people, more credible than me who are saying the same things I am. They just don't post here. I thought I knew the whole Beatles story until just a few years ago. As the internet grew and grew, access to more information became available. As I read more and more, I became convinced that I had not been told the whole correct truth. That bothered me. I like to know the real truth and give credit where credit is due. I don't like to be lied to and I don't like to be misled. I feel that since Pete was in The Beatles and contributed so much to their early success, he is part of The Beatles story. So, it's not Petes story I am interested in. It's The Beatles story I am interested in. The real Beatles story. The true Beatles story. I want to know what REALLY happened. I want to know the truth. I talk about the early Beatles history because I came to the conclusion that a lot of what I was led to believe about that part of Beatles history wasn't true. I have no other agenda other than helping people discover the real truth. The real truth is OK. It's nothing to be afraid of. And it IS possible to question what The Beatles and others have said and have led fans (like me) to believe all of these years and still be a fan of John, Paul, George & Ringo. The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 14, 2012 5:42:02 GMT -5
The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970 It's John, Paul, George, & Ringo 1962-1970 That's the difference between you and everyone else. THE BEATLES did not take off and become the legends we know them to be until Ringo joined and they made their classic records. Anyone who was in the band before the Beatles hit with Ringo -- Pete, Stuart, Tommy Moore, Norman Chapman, etc.., --- they are just footnotes to the story, people who used to be associated with The Beatles before they became THE TRUE BEATLES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 8:06:17 GMT -5
The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970 It's John, Paul, George, & Ringo 1962-1970 That's the difference between you and everyone else. THE BEATLES did not take off and become the legends we know them to be until Ringo joined and they made their classic records. Anyone who was in the band before the Beatles hit with Ringo -- Pete, Stuart, Tommy Moore, Norman Chapman, etc.., --- they are just footnotes to the story, people who used to be associated with The Beatles before they became THE TRUE BEATLES. And then the story ends with Quasi Beatles 1995, who weren't the true Beatles , John, Paul, George, & Ringo 1962-1970 Finally......
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 14, 2012 8:56:15 GMT -5
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my two questions:
How are you qualified to make the official distinction between being a "full member" and a "hired hand"?
Also, if the capability to be fired at any time means he wasn't a full member of the band, doesn't that prove that Pete Best was never a full member of the band?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 14, 2012 9:00:59 GMT -5
I thought I knew the whole Beatles story until just a few years ago... As I read more and more, I became convinced that I had not been told the whole correct truth. That bothered me.... I want to know what REALLY happened. I want to know the truth. I thought I knew the space aliens until a few years ago... As I was abducted more and more often, I became convinced that humanity did not know the whole truth. That bothered me... I want people to know what REALLY happened. I WANT TO BELIEVE.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 14, 2012 9:08:50 GMT -5
I seem to remember a story where Hutchinson may have been a decent drummer, but was actually not a very nice guy to be around. Maybe even a bit of a bully. I don't think the Beatles particulary liked him but he filled a void for a short time.
Am I totally mistaken on this??
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 14, 2012 9:30:46 GMT -5
The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970 Oh do behave. It's bordering on childishness now. Well said Vectis by the way.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 14, 2012 10:34:32 GMT -5
So after Pete was sacked, and before Ringo could join the band a few days later so as to give Rory time to find a replacement for him, you are saying Hutchinson sat in for 3 gigs (At The Cavern I assume?) with The Beatles? I cannot remember ever reading about that. Is it in Anthology? I remember the first time Ringo played with The Beatles that weekend at The Cavern; there is video footage of that (I think it is them singing "Some Other Guy?") because at the end of the song you can hear someone in the audience scream "We want Pete!" You can see Ringo's little lick of grey hair as well as he hasn't had time to get his hair into a moptop look yet. Though he had shaved his beard by the first gig. That was also the night someone head-butted George and he wound up with a black eye which you could see in photos of the first EMI sessions a week later in London. I can't recall John, Paul or George mentioning anything about Hutchinson playing any gigs with them that week. Wouldn't that have also caused an uproar in The Cavern over Pete's absence? Hutchinson played 3 gigs before Ringo's Cavern debut. Look it up. It's very well documented. As for Ringo's Cavern debut that was recorded on video. It was Pete's mom who actually wrote the TV program telling them about The Beatles and urged them to come to Liverpool and record the group for TV. She was also the one who got Ray McFall, the owner of the Cavern to start booking the group in the first place. Both did what she asked. The Cavern started booking The Beatles and the TV station came to Liverpool just in time to record the Cavern debut of her son's replacement. I did look it up and indeed it appears Hutchinson did fill in until Ringo joined. I had always wondered who played in that interim 3-day period waiting for Ringo to come in. Funny that I can't seem to find any comments from John, Paul, or George on those gigs. It's never mentioned in Anthology is it? See, you learn something new!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 14, 2012 10:39:33 GMT -5
The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970 Oh do behave. It's bordering on childishness now. Well said Vectis by the way. +1
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 10:51:44 GMT -5
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my two questions: How are you qualified to make the official distinction between being a "full member" and a "hired hand"?
Also, if the capability to be fired at any time means he wasn't a full member of the band, doesn't that prove that Pete Best was never a full member of the band?I am not making that distinction. Lennon, McCartney & Harrison did. It is a fact that when Ringo first joined the group he was employed as a work for hire. He was paid per performance and was not considered an equal partner in The Beatles brand. He wasn't made a full partner until the following year. Anyone could be fired. Didn't Lennon once say that when George Harrison walked out in 1968 that he'd give him two weeks to return or else he's gonna replace him with Eric Clapton. Didn't Lennon also briefly consider just replacing Paul with Klaus Voormann when Paul quit? A full partner means an equal split. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Best split all the money 25% each. When Starr joined he was paid his fee then the others split the rest 33.3% each. One more reason to ax Pete. The other three immediately increased their money by another 8.3%. When Starr was made a full partner, they went back to 25% each although Lennon & McCartney made a ton more money because they wrote the songs so they split the publishing money 50% each (although I believe they gave Harrison & Starr a couple percentage points of that - but ONLY 1 or 2 points)
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 10:57:05 GMT -5
The Beatles - John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo 1960-1970 Oh do behave. It's bordering on childishness now. Well said Vectis by the way. Again, while you, Joe & most Beatles fans consider the former members of the group to be only John, Paul, George & Ringo and The Beatles lifespan to be only 1962-1970, John Lennon didn't. So if you are calling me childish you are calling John Lennon childish as well. It's too bad they didn't stay as The Silver Beatles until Ringo joined then change the name to The Beatles in 1962. That would have made a clear distinction between the different lineups much like the way The Quarrymen weren't The Beatles. They didn't do that did they? Again you can blame John Lennon for that.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 14, 2012 11:13:48 GMT -5
Oh do behave. It's bordering on childishness now. Well said Vectis by the way. Again, while you, Joe & most Beatles fans consider the former members of the group to be only John, Paul, George & Ringo and The Beatles lifespan to be only 1962-1970, John Lennon didn't. So if you are calling me childish you are calling John Lennon childish as well. It's too bad they didn't stay as The Silver Beatles until Ringo joined then change the name to The Beatles in 1962. That would have made a clear distinction between the different lineups much like the way The Quarrymen weren't The Beatles. They didn't do that did they? Again you can blame John Lennon for that. No further questions m'lud.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 14, 2012 11:14:59 GMT -5
It is a fact that when Ringo first joined the group he was employed as a work for hire. He was paid per performance and was not considered an equal partner in The Beatles brand. He wasn't made a full partner until the following year. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, but how do you know under what terms Ringo was employed, and when he was paid more? This thread has been (and it has been nothing else) a very good laugh, so thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 11:23:06 GMT -5
It is a fact that when Ringo first joined the group he was employed as a work for hire. He was paid per performance and was not considered an equal partner in The Beatles brand. He wasn't made a full partner until the following year. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, but how do you know under what terms Ringo was employed, and when he was paid more? This thread has been (and it has been nothing else) a very good laugh, so thanks for that! Yeah, the truth can be a laugh sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 14, 2012 17:30:43 GMT -5
Yeah, the truth can be a laugh sometimes. I interpret this response as "I have no evidence for my claims, as usual." Anyway, could you please summarize your "truth" for us, in one or two tidy sentences, so that we understand what exactly the point of these threads is?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 14, 2012 17:46:23 GMT -5
Again, while you, Joe & most Beatles fans consider the former members of the group to be only John, Paul, George & Ringo and The Beatles lifespan to be only 1962-1970, John Lennon didn't. So if you are calling me childish you are calling John Lennon childish as well. I'd bet ALL OF US would consider that Pete and Stu were "Beatles" as well. But what you are incapable of comprehending is that there are TWO forms of The Beatles... the pre-phenomenon 'b e a t l e s" and the legendary BEATLES. I'm glad that you put so much faith in John's "early Beatles" quote -- then I'm sure you'd find his "Pete was a lousy drummer and we were always gonna dump him" to be as faithful.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5
Yeah, the truth can be a laugh sometimes. I interpret this response as "I have no evidence for my claims, as usual." Anyway, could you please summarize your "truth" for us, in one or two tidy sentences, so that we understand what exactly the point of these threads is? ROTFL!!! AS USUAL??!! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE -------- KIDDING ME!!! WHAT THE (bleep) ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I DO NOTHING BUT POST SOURCES. HOW ABOUT SOME SOURCES OF YOUR OWN??? YOU SURE PANTHER ISN'T JUST AN ALIAS FOR "JOE"?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 14, 2012 17:57:09 GMT -5
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my two questions: Be patient. Sometimes it takes him three months, as with my questions. And then he only sort of half-answers them anyway.
|
|