|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 18:00:29 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. Let the whole phenomenon arguement go. You've been proven wrong. Just because you prefer to cling to your own fantisies and stalk my every post to state them doesn't make your crazy claims true.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 14, 2012 18:07:46 GMT -5
Let the whole phenomenon arguement go. You've been proven wrong. No, I have not been "proven wrong", nor will I let it go. A few of us here have fully accepted that Bob Wooler wrote "phenomenon" in his biased review. They can call Justin Bieber a phenomenon in an article -- it doesn't mean he is one. Very interesting coming from you, as this is your entire agenda -- you make crazy claims, blow things wildly out of proportion and make absurd claims on selective stray quotes --- and then you want everyone else to take them as "truth" and "facts"? It hasn't happened yet, nobody's buying your bag of goods -- and they never will.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 14, 2012 18:40:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 14, 2012 20:13:38 GMT -5
Joe, wrong for the 66th time? lol Your counting is way off --- I've been right all along, but you've been insignificant about 100 times. Pete Worst was not the best for The Beatles. Get over it. Nobody but Pete and his cronies will ever agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 4:05:18 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 5:26:41 GMT -5
And then the story ends with Quasi Beatles 1995, who weren't the true Beatles , John, Paul, George, & Ringo 1962-1970 Finally...... They weren't the "complete Beatles" in person in 1995, no -- but their two songs were THE BEATLES for certain, just for a brief moment. Yes, the Beatles story ends in 1970. But any future full-range documentary I am positive would include a tiny asterisk (*): (*) -- "and then, in the 1995, Paul, George, and Ringo reunited and made two new Beatles Songs using John Lennon's home demos with John on vocals...."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 5:28:36 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board.... Absolutely, and I have been trying to expose this from the very beginning. He has already been shown the door at other Beatles forums. And I am largely to blame here because I've indulged him.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 15, 2012 6:25:23 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board.... Absolutely, and I have been trying to expose this from the very beginning. He has already been shown the door at other Beatles forums. And I am largely to blame here because I've indulged him. So he's certainly on a crusade to sell that movie of his.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 6:29:22 GMT -5
So he's certainly on a crusade to sell that movie of his. Oh, without any doubt. And he's being given a platform to accomplish this goal. He can use footage of John saying he thinks Pete's had a few lawsuits and then twist it 'round to claiming that Lennon's calling him a drunk who's had a few drinks. He takes a tiny handful of comments and tries to mold them into something conclusive or "factual".
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 15, 2012 6:37:32 GMT -5
It's called "winning friends and influencing people" Joe. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 15, 2012 6:51:51 GMT -5
Thanks for supplying some quotes. However, I still think Ringo was a "Beatle" nearly from the moment he joined. Peter Brown is undoubtedly correct (he is someone who should know) that Ringo was paid a probationary rate, at first, to see if it would work out. It did work out, big time, and almost immediately. Right after Ringo joined, The Beatles began to become what 99% of people would call a phenomenon (ie., 99% would not call the pre-Ringo Beatles a phenomenon). I would suggest that once the band realized how well he fit in, and once "Love Me Do" was issued and became a hit (with Ringo drumming on it), that Ringo was "a Beatle" in everyone's mind. He may not have been paid as much (yay, 50 pounds!) as the others for a while, but in everyone's mind, he was a Beatle. (Which is not to say that Pete Best wasn't a Beatle, too.) David Bedford is not someone whose opinion is in any way authoritative. That can be dismissed. I'm still waiting to get a concise summary of what your thesis is, as I'm still confused.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 6:59:37 GMT -5
So he's certainly on a crusade to sell that movie of his. Oh, without any doubt. And he's being given a platform to accomplish this goal. He can use footage of John saying he thinks Pete's had a few lawsuits and then twist it 'round to claiming that Lennon's calling him a drunk who's had a few drinks. He takes a tiny handful of comments and tries to mold them into something conclusive or "factual". Joe, what I said was Lennon was evading answering the reporters question by dimminishing Pete with as untruth - a lie. At the time I said it appeared to make he was making Pete look like a non-credible drunk. You and others said he was saying Pete had filed previous lawsuits. I said fine. I can accept that explanation, but he was STILL evading the question by spreading misinformation - lies - about Pete to make him appear uncredible. Pete had never filed any lawsuits before that and John knew it. And he only filed that one to put and end to other lies John and Ringo were spreading about him in their 1965 Playboy interview where they claimed they had to fire him because he had a drug problem that caused him to keep missing work. (For you that's now wrong #67) THEY WERE THE DRUG ADDICTS, NOT PETE!!! What the two of them did to Pete was a outragous lie. They should be ashamed of themselves for spreading that crap, especially when they knew it wasn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 7:03:34 GMT -5
Oh, without any doubt. And he's being given a platform to accomplish this goal. He can use footage of John saying he thinks Pete's had a few lawsuits and then twist it 'round to claiming that Lennon's calling him a drunk who's had a few drinks. He takes a tiny handful of comments and tries to mold them into something conclusive or "factual". Joe, what I said was Lennon was evading answering the reporters question by dimminishing Pete with as untruth - a lie. At the time I said it appeared to make he was making Pete look like a non-credible drunk. You and others said he was saying Pete had filed previous lawsuits. I said fine. I can accept that explanation, but he was STILL evading the question by spreading misinformation - lies - about Pete to make him appear uncredible. Pete had never filed any lawsuits before that and John knew it. And he only filed that one to put and end to other lies John and Ringo were spreading about him in their 1965 Playboy interview where they claimed they had to fire him because he had a drug problem that caused him to keep missing work. (For you that's now wrong #67) THEY WERE THE DRUG ADDICTS, NOT PETE!!! What the two of them did to Pete was a outragous lie. They should be ashamed of themselves for spreading that crap, especially when they knew it wasn't true. Pete was a crap drummer and should have thanked the others for allowing him to have some sort of notoriety, which he couldn't possibly have gained through such crap, amateur, drumming.... Pete Worst...how apt
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 7:09:03 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board.... Absolutely, and I have been trying to expose this from the very beginning. He has already been shown the door at other Beatles forums. And I am largely to blame here because I've indulged him. You know it was ONE forum as I told was happened on a thread here. Your adding as "s" to forums is a lie by you to try and gather the support of others here by making it look like I have beeen banned from many websites. Liar, liar, pants on fire!!! shame on you Joe. As for BeatleForum.com, I was shown the door by owner Alan Saint who was attacking me with personal insults like "cock" for because he didn't like me posting about Pete. When I pointed out that the owner of the website shouldn't be posting personal insults directed at specific members, Alan defended his right to do it saying that it is his website and he can do what he wants. He added that his "I am a cock" statements stand and he then banned me from posting. Could you imagine John or Steve doing something like that? They have a bit more class. (That's wrong #68 for you Joe)
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 7:15:21 GMT -5
Thanks for supplying some quotes. However, I still think Ringo was a "Beatle" nearly from the moment he joined. Peter Brown is undoubtedly correct (he is someone who should know) that Ringo was paid a probationary rate, at first, to see if it would work out. It did work out, big time, and almost immediately. Right after Ringo joined, The Beatles began to become what 99% of people would call a phenomenon (ie., 99% would not call the pre-Ringo Beatles a phenomenon). I would suggest that once the band realized how well he fit in, and once "Love Me Do" was issued and became a hit (with Ringo drumming on it), that Ringo was "a Beatle" in everyone's mind. He may not have been paid as much (yay, 50 pounds!) as the others for a while, but in everyone's mind, he was a Beatle. (Which is not to say that Pete Best wasn't a Beatle, too.) David Bedford is not someone whose opinion is in any way authoritative. That can be dismissed. I'm still waiting to get a concise summary of what your thesis is, as I'm still confused. I only posted the Bedford link because he had a information on what the other three made. (If Ringo got 25, what were John, Paul & George getting?) And, yes, I agree that Ringo turned out to be a GREAT fit. My thesis??? I don't know if I have a thesis. I have said that I think Pete, and to a lesser exstent Stu, has the significant role he played in early Beatles history dimminished by the other Beatles and many of their fans. I am speading real truths backed by real facts. That's it. Hope that answers your questions.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 7:17:54 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board.... I am up to spreading real truths about early Beatles history. And yes, I think it is fair to say I have been stirring the pot a bit. But only for the right reasons - to spread awareness of real honest to goodness truths. Nothing sinister about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 7:26:51 GMT -5
I think Vectis is right...this dude is up to something,,i think he is clearly trying to stir the pot....all over the board.... I am up to spreading real truths about early Beatles history. And yes, I think it is fair to say I have been stirring the pot a bit. But only for the right reasons - to spread awareness of real honest to goodness truths. Nothing sinister about that. Real truths is extremely subjective considering your subject was sacked for being crap and that was what he was.... Regardless of how many drummers the Beatles had or wanted Pete was the Worst, as opposed to the Best...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 15, 2012 7:33:40 GMT -5
I don't know if I have a thesis. Well, you should, since you've started 468 confrontational threads. If you actually aren't making any point, you might consider not starting any more threads. Of course, that's up to you. I have said that I think Pete, and to a lesser exstent Stu, has the significant role he played in early Beatles history dimminished by the other Beatles and many of their fans. First of all, if those roles are diminished by The Beatles, why are you posting on here? The Beatles do not read this forum. Second, I disagree with your opinion. Stuart Sutcliffe is practically a folk hero of the 60s, and has had a movie made about him. His art is on display in tourist-places and sells for tens of thousands of pounds. (Not bad for a guy who couldn't play bass very well and died at 21.) As for Pete, he of course is perceived more as the 'pitiable loser' than the romantic hero. (In my opinion, he deserves it.) But I think his significant role has gotten more than enough exposure -- indeed probably more than he wanted, at times. And at age 53 or whatever, he got a pay-off of a couple of million pounds for doing no more than drumming competently for two years in his late teens/early twenties for a semi-professional beat combo.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 7:46:10 GMT -5
I don't know if I have a thesis. Well, you should, since you've started 468 confrontational threads. If you actually aren't making any point, you might consider not starting any more threads. Of course, that's up to you. I have said that I think Pete, and to a lesser exstent Stu, has the significant role he played in early Beatles history dimminished by the other Beatles and many of their fans. First of all, if those roles are diminished by The Beatles, why are you posting on here? The Beatles do not read this forum. Second, I disagree with your opinion. Stuart Sutcliffe is practically a folk hero of the 60s, and has had a movie made about him. His art is on display in tourist-places and sells for tens of thousands of pounds. (Not bad for a guy who couldn't play bass very well and died at 21.) As for Pete, he of course is perceived more as the 'pitiable loser' than the romantic hero. (In my opinion, he deserves it.) But I think his significant role has gotten more than enough exposure -- indeed probably more than he wanted, at times. And at age 53 or whatever, he got a pay-off of a couple of million pounds for doing no more than drumming competently for two years in his late teens/early twenties for a semi-professional beat combo. How is this thread confrontational? I only made it in responce to Beatles fans (like you) who spread what I consider confrontational misthruths about the groups early history. I created this thread and others to counter your untruths with real truths. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 7:50:23 GMT -5
First of all, if those roles are diminished by The Beatles, why are you posting on here? The Beatles do not read this forum. What I actually said was "Pete, and to a lesser exstent Stu, has the significant role he played in early Beatles history dimminished by the other Beatles and many of their fans"[/b] Now you are spreading untruths by conveniently leaving off the rest of my sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 15, 2012 8:59:00 GMT -5
Pete "Worst"?...Really??
Pete Best was not a "crap" drummer. That's an ill-informed, immature, ill conceived, and confrontational comment to post.
He was a very competent drummer that could have gotten steady work with many bands - and he did just that with the greatest band of all time. He ended up not being right for that band though, and they changed to a drummer that was a better fit musically, and personally.
Pete was a very basic time-keeper. But he wasn't crap. All of this childish bickering on the Pete Best thing - that has now crept into other threads that start out on an alltogether different subject - is crap.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 9:57:40 GMT -5
Pete "Worst"?...Really?? Pete Best was not a "crap" drummer. That's an ill-informed, immature, ill conceived, and confrontational comment to post. He was a very competent drummer that could have gotten steady work with many bands - and he did just that with the greatest band of all time. He ended up not being right for that band though, and they changed to a drummer that was a better fit musically, and personally. Pete was a very basic time-keeper. But he wasn't crap. All of this childish bickering on the Pete Best thing - that has now crept into other threads that start out on an alltogether different subject - is crap. Exactly. I don't understand why it's such a bad thing to point out the real contributions Pete & the Best family made if it really is true. And it is really true.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 15, 2012 10:10:52 GMT -5
Pete "Worst"?...Really?? Pete Best was not a "crap" drummer. That's an ill-informed, immature, ill conceived, and confrontational comment to post. He was a very competent drummer that could have gotten steady work with many bands - and he did just that with the greatest band of all time. He ended up not being right for that band though, and they changed to a drummer that was a better fit musically, and personally. Pete was a very basic time-keeper. But he wasn't crap. All of this childish bickering on the Pete Best thing - that has now crept into other threads that start out on an alltogether different subject - is crap. Exactly. I don't understand why it's such a bad thing to point out the real contributions Pete & the Best family made if it really is true. And it is really true. Easy now BATB. I'm not trying to trumpet your cause. I'm was just making a point on Pete's playing, with no regard to this insane discussion that seems to have no ending. I was speaking as a drummer, about a drummer. I took exception to him being called a crap-drummer.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 11:00:19 GMT -5
Easy now BATB. I'm not trying to trumpet your cause. I'm was just making a point on Pete's playing, with no regard to this insane discussion that seems to have no ending. I was speaking as a drummer, about a drummer. I took exception to him being called a crap-drummer. lol
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 15, 2012 11:11:03 GMT -5
Beatles fans (like you) who spread what I consider confrontational misthruths about the groups early history. You'll have to let me know when and where I spread mistruths about the group's early history. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Seriously, how old are you -- 14? I haven't seen anyone on this forum unfairly denigrading Pete Best, ever. I'm not aware of a single Beatle fan on this forum who thinks Pete contributed nothing. There may be some fans who, based on the limited evidence, think Pete was a crap drummer -- and they're very entitled to their opinions, right or wrong. Here's a tip -- just because you learned something from a Google search that everyone else doesn't know, does not mean you are divinely possessed of a "real truth" (whatever that is) that lesser mortals are unworthy of. Nor are you now a divine figure of truth whose mission is to spread the Gospel to the great unwashed. What you probably are is a Junior High student who recently discovered The Beatles (on which point of taste I commend you). What you certainly are is an egocentric poster who craves confrontation from easily baited posters (I've nearly fallen into your juvenile trap), hoping that excessive attention on a web-forum will give you a more fulfilling sense of yourself as a worthy human being. I certainly won't be indulging you any more. Sayonara!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 15, 2012 11:17:52 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone on this forum unfairly denigrading Pete Best, ever. ROTFL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 17:07:09 GMT -5
I certainly won't be indulging you any more. Sayonara! Same for me. Yes, yes, I know it's hard to believe, but just watch me. No more indulging and replying to this guy BATB and challenging his claims anymore from here on. That will make him very happy because he'll be free to go on and on with revisionism, but whatever... nobody's really listening to him anyway so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 17:15:52 GMT -5
Pete "Worst"?...Really?? Pete Best was not a "crap" drummer. That's an ill-informed, immature, ill conceived, and confrontational comment to post. I am willing to consider your POV on the "Pete Worst" extreme, however I meant it only in the sense that Ringo was deemed "Best" by the other Beatles... and so Pete was the "lesser". Tell me about it. But that's because someone else started so many different threads on this same thing. There was already a Pete Best Section and thread down below that Steve organized, and which could have covered all of these discussions all in one.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2012 17:45:52 GMT -5
Pete Worst...how apt Well, his real last name invites the gag... Honestly .... I have nothing against Pete himself. As I have written here before, fabfour, from all I have ever seen of Pete he seems to be a likable sort of guy. I feel sorry for him and think he was dealt a rough blow (but I think Pete's now made it up and is happy and I say good for him, I'm glad he never killed himself or anything). I also think the way the Beatles broke the news to Pete was rather cowardly. The problem here is when someone tries to go "overboard" about a subject's virtues, the poor innocent person caught in the middle is often the guy minding his own business -- in this case Pete Best himself -- and perhaps unfairly he is the one who gets maligned in the process. I'm sorry about that, as I didn't have ANY problem with Pete whatsoever until a new poster took matters wildly out of reality. So actually, the very OPPOSITE effect has happened to me. But I didn't feel very comfortable writing "Pete Worst", as I kept thinking "Pete's not even involved in all of this". (Though it may be argued that Pete too has elevated his own persona over the years as well). But anyway -- I'd like to meet Pete at a show one day; I'd shake his hand, tell him what a pleasure it is to meet him, and that it's great to meet one of The Beatles' original drummers. In other words, I don't want to take all of this stuff out on Pete Best.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 16, 2012 5:33:23 GMT -5
No one does Joe. None of the jokes were aimed at Pete. They were aimed to get at BATB. A shameful exercise all round.
|
|