|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 13:55:44 GMT -5
I had previously said that The Beatles were being called a phenomenon before Ringo joined the band.
A poster here has claimed that what I said wasn’t true, insisting that no one called The Beatles a phenomenon until after Ringo joined the group. To support his statement he used a misquoted and twisted a statement from a Pete Best / David Letterman interview to back his position. During that interview Pete commented about the ‘phenomenon they became”. The poster took the quote out of context. He quotes Pete as saying "when I watched them start to become a phenomenon". Pete never said he watched them start to become a phenomenon. His quote is also taken out of context. Not mentioned is the fact that Pete was discussing the period of time when The Beatles were just starting out in 1960 Hamburg. Pete was talking about the period of time when they would use John’s famous “to the toppermost of the poppermost quote” to motivate themselves. Pete said at the time not even the other Beatles realized that they would become the phenomenon they became. The exact quote was…
“We went over to Germany (August 1960) and we were there for about a month when we suddenly realized that the German audiences are going wild about us. There was always an inner feeling, Dave, which was funny to explain, but we knew, you know… in fact we had a saying. A lot of people don’t know this, but we used to get on stage and we used to stand there and say ‘where are we going guys’? To the top!’ That was the inner belief we had amongst ourselves. It’s funny, we knew that somewhere along the line we were going to make it big. Truthfully wise, I don’t think even they would have realized that they were going to become the phenomena that they were."
That Letterman interview where Pete discusses about what The Beatles themselves were thinking in 1960 is not proof that no one called The Beatles a phenomenon before Ringo joined two years later. For example, if I said a man was a “idiot” in 1990, could I not also say that man was nothing like the bigger “idiot” he became a decade later after 10 years of sniffing glue. He could be an idiot now and still be a bigger idiot later.
The fact is in 1961, people did think of The Beatles as a local phenomenon and people were using the word phenomenon to describe them (and a lot of other words like fabulous, fantastic, incredible, unbelievable, ect). I previously provided a source backing my claim. It was a newpaper article from the August 1961 Mersey Beat. In it columnist DJ Bob Woller wrote…
“Truly a phenomenon – and also a predicament to promoters! Such are the fantastic Beatles. I don't think anything like them will happen again.'
Bob Wooler is not a bird, a dog or a duck. He is a person, he is someone who was writing about The Beatles for the newspaper that was the most respected authority on the Liverpool music scene at the time. His article came out in August 1961. So I was correct. Someone (Bob Wooler) WAS calling The Beatles a phenomenon in the papers a full year before Ringo joined the group. And yes, in 1961 and early 1962 Liverpool there were others who didn’t write for newspapers who were saying the same thing. As for Wooler, he would have looked like a complete fool for writing articles calling The Beatles a phenomenon if it wasn’t true. And, 50 years later I have yet to see a single person dispute what Woller wrote at the time or say he was foolish for writing it. I’ve seen MANY people who made comments that giving credibility to his opinion. In fact, what he said about the group in mid 1961, sounds like a spot on description of what came to be known in 1963 Britain and worldwide in 1964 as Beatlemania. In 1961 Wooler wrote..
“The Beatles were the stuff that screams were made of.”
“Truly a phenomenon…, such are the fantastic Beatles.”
“I don't think anything like them will happen again.”
Even the Beatles own 1968 authorized biography says they were a phenomenon before Ringo joined the group. Author Hunter Davies talks about how big The Beatles became after the Litherland gig (December 1960) and says that if they weren’t a phenomenon at that point, “their success as a local phenomenon was assured, once the Cavern days arrived.”
The Cavern days he speaks of arrived shortly after the Litherland gig over a year and a half before Ringo joined the group. The fact is that The Beatles WERE being thought of as a phenomenon and people WERE calling The Beatles a phenomenon well over a year before Ringo joined. It’s a fact.
If anyone disagrees and still believes that no one was calling The Beatles until after Ringo joined (in August 1962), please come up with some real evidence to back your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 8, 2012 14:23:11 GMT -5
I had previously said that The Beatles were being called a phenomenon before Ringo joined the band. A poster here has claimed that what I said wasn’t true, insisting that no one called The Beatles a phenomenon until after Ringo joined the group. (No need really to write "a poster said--" when you mean Me.) You are speaking in semantics. I'm saying the word meant nothing at the time. You are referring to Bob Wooler, who had a personal interest in the success of The Beatles. Just because he used the word "phenomenon" in a self-serving "newspaper review" it does not mean that they were truly thus. But I did not take anything out of context. Pete has used that phrase "-- when I watched them become a phenomenon" many times, and not just on THE DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW. He said this on shows like OPRAH as well... you would have us believe that Pete meant "an even bigger phenomenon than they were at first", or something.... but it is very clear by Pete's own words that he did not consider the Beatles to have become any type of "phenomenon" until after he was dismissed. Pete was specifically asked at what point did he get depressed, and he said "---when I started to watch them become a phenomenon". I have many interviews with Pete, not just Letterman's. Others on MTV, News 4 NY, etc.... he is NOT talking about the "1960 Hamburg period" in those clips I mentioned. He is specifically referring to post-1962. And Bob Wooler's newspaper review adjective for sensationalism doesn't mean squat. Bob Wooler was a shill. Anyone can say anything in a newspaper review, especially if he's got an M.O. The reason you've never heard anyone dispute what Wooler wrote is because up until you arrived here on the scene, everyone already knew it didn't really mean anything. It was so insignificant that it goes in one ear and out the other. Only you are expanding its wording to somehow make it out like this means The Beatles owe their success to Pete Best.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 14:37:21 GMT -5
I had previously said that The Beatles were being called a phenomenon before Ringo joined the band. A poster here has claimed that what I said wasn’t true, insisting that no one called The Beatles a phenomenon until after Ringo joined the group. (No need really to write "a poster said--" when you mean Me.) You are speaking in semantics. I'm saying the word meant nothing at the time. You are referring to Bob Wooler, who had a personal interest in the success of The Beatles. Just because he used the word "phenomenon" in a self-serving "newspaper review" it does not mean that they were truly thus. But I did not take anything out of context. Pete has used that phrase "-- when I watched them become a phenomenon" many times, and not just on THE DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW. He said this on shows like OPRAH as well... you would have us believe that Pete meant "an even bigger phenomenon than they were at first", or something.... but it is very clear by Pete's own words that he did not consider the Beatles to have become any type of "phenomenon" until after he was dismissed. Pete was specifically asked at what point did he get depressed, and he said "---when I started to watch them become a phenomenon". I have many interviews with Pete, not just Letterman's. Others on MTV, News 4 NY, etc.... he is NOT talking about the "1960 Hamburg period" in those clips I mentioned. He is specifically referring to post-1962. And Bob Wooler's newspaper review adjective for sensationalism doesn't mean squat. Bob Wooler was a shill. Anyone can say anything in a newspaper review, especially if he's got an M.O. The reason you've never heard anyone dispute what Wooler wrote is because up until you arrived here on the scene, everyone already knew it didn't really mean anything. It was so insignificant that it goes in one ear and out the other. Only you are expanding its wording to somehow make it out like this means The Beatles owe their success to Pete Best. You keep wanting to dismiss what Wooler wrote in a newspaper in 1961 like it doesn't count. You also refuse to acknowledge all of the other comments from people who were there at the time who corroberate what Wooler wrote. Show me one person other than you who feel what Wooler wrote was rubbish and didn't mean anything. Come on. Show me your sources!!! You also want to dismiss the fact that The Beatles corroberated what Wooler wrote in their own 1968 authorized biography like that didn't happen either. Either come up with some evidence to back your misguided beliefs or move on. My point has been proven. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 8, 2012 14:48:22 GMT -5
(No need really to write "a poster said--" when you mean Me.) You are speaking in semantics. I'm saying the word meant nothing at the time. You are referring to Bob Wooler, who had a personal interest in the success of The Beatles. Just because he used the word "phenomenon" in a self-serving "newspaper review" it does not mean that they were truly thus. But I did not take anything out of context. Pete has used that phrase "-- when I watched them become a phenomenon" many times, and not just on THE DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW. He said this on shows like OPRAH as well... you would have us believe that Pete meant "an even bigger phenomenon than they were at first", or something.... but it is very clear by Pete's own words that he did not consider the Beatles to have become any type of "phenomenon" until after he was dismissed. Pete was specifically asked at what point did he get depressed, and he said "---when I started to watch them become a phenomenon". I have many interviews with Pete, not just Letterman's. Others on MTV, News 4 NY, etc.... he is NOT talking about the "1960 Hamburg period" in those clips I mentioned. He is specifically referring to post-1962. And Bob Wooler's newspaper review adjective for sensationalism doesn't mean squat. Bob Wooler was a shill. Anyone can say anything in a newspaper review, especially if he's got an M.O. The reason you've never heard anyone dispute what Wooler wrote is because up until you arrived here on the scene, everyone already knew it didn't really mean anything. It was so insignificant that it goes in one ear and out the other. Only you are expanding its wording to somehow make it out like this means The Beatles owe their success to Pete Best. You keep wanting to dismiss what Wooler wrote in a newspaper in 1961 like it doesn't count. You also refuse to acknowledge all of the other comments from people who were there at the time who corroberate what Wooler wrote. Show me one person other than you who feel what Wooler wrote was rubbish and didn't mean anything. Come on. Show me your sources!!! You also want to dismiss the fact that The Beatles corroberated what Wooler wrote in their own 1968 authorized biography like that didn't happen either. Either come up with some evidence to back your misguided beliefs or move on. My point has been proven. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!! I'm going to say it to you, too. Keep it civil, please. Telling someone to move on is on the border. This has been a heated discussion in the past and we will shut it down if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 15:00:53 GMT -5
You keep wanting to dismiss what Wooler wrote in a newspaper in 1961 like it doesn't count. You also refuse to acknowledge all of the other comments from people who were there at the time who corroberate what Wooler wrote. Show me one person other than you who feel what Wooler wrote was rubbish and didn't mean anything. Come on. Show me your sources!!! You also want to dismiss the fact that The Beatles corroberated what Wooler wrote in their own 1968 authorized biography like that didn't happen either. Either come up with some evidence to back your misguided beliefs or move on. My point has been proven. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!! I'm going to say it to you, too. Keep it civil, please. Telling someone to move on is on the border. This has been a heated discussion in the past and we will shut it down if necessary. I didn't tell him to move on. I told him to address the topic at hand or move on. You really think that is uncivil by me? Really?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 8, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
John, Paul, George and ANY half-way decent drummer would have been a phenomenon. Which is what Pete Best was in my opinion. A half-way decent drummer. No more no less.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 8, 2012 19:14:18 GMT -5
Hey BATB good to see you back.
No doubt the Beatles were a phenomenon in Liverpool at the time. I agree.
The only issue really is that Pete was dismissed before they had a hit record or album, if he was still the drummer after say Please Please Me was released and was dismissed at that point then Pete would have been more a part of the phenomenon they became.
Since he was let go before they became a national phenomenon, it doesn't really matter how much of a phenomenon Bob Wooller thought they were in Liverpool, which is unfortunate for Pete because he did put in the hard yards with all the gigs he played.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 19:21:16 GMT -5
Agreed. The phenomenon The Beatles became in '64 dwarfed the phenomenon they were in 1961.
My only point is that the word "phenomenon" was being used to describe them as early as 1961.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 8, 2012 19:25:16 GMT -5
I didn't tell him to move on. I told him to address the topic at hand or move on. You really think that is uncivil by me? Really? You said: That was speaking to him as far as I'm concerned. If you weren't, word your sentences a little better.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 19:38:48 GMT -5
I didn't tell him to move on. I told him to address the topic at hand or move on. You really think that is uncivil by me? Really? You said: That was speaking to him as far as I'm concerned. If you weren't, word your sentences a little better. I admit I was speaking to him. I just didn't think asking someone to provide proof or move on was being uncivil.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 8, 2012 19:47:08 GMT -5
Some people really have too much time on their hands...
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 19:57:33 GMT -5
Some people really have too much time on their hands... Agreed. I don't. Today has been a LONG day of posting. I think I will need another 3 months off.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 8, 2012 21:14:13 GMT -5
Agreed. The phenomenon The Beatles became in '64 dwarfed the phenomenon they were in 1961. My only point is that the word "phenomenon" was being used to describe them as early as 1961. I agree with you. All this debate could have been avoided if at some point The Beatles and Pete had remained friends or had met up and had a beer together and let bygones be bygones.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 8, 2012 21:26:48 GMT -5
I don't have as much of a problem with them sacking Pete as I do with the way they treated him after. They would treat me better than they treated him and I've never done anything for them. He never did anything to hurt them and did a great deal to help them. He was loyal to them even after he got dumped. He was also their friend. They showed no class what so ever.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 9, 2012 2:27:24 GMT -5
I don't have as much of a problem with them sacking Pete as I do with the way they treated him after. They would treat me better than they treated him and I've never done anything for them. He never did anything to hurt them and did a great deal to help them. He was loyal to them even after he got dumped. He was also their friend. They showed no class what so ever. This is why in Liverpool Pete is still well liked. In English and Aussie culture, people look after their mates. This didn't happen here, Pete was ousted and then treated like he didn't exist. This looks bad on John, Paul and George.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 9, 2012 5:34:30 GMT -5
This is why in Liverpool Pete is still well liked. In English and Aussie culture, people look after their mates. This didn't happen here, Pete was ousted and then treated like he didn't exist. This looks bad on John, Paul and George. I agree completely that J,P, and G handled the dismissal of Pete very poorly and were not fair to him. The only thing I can say however is that we've only ever looked at this from Pete's POV as the unfortunate victim and martyr in this fiasco. The Beatles themselves have never elaborated on the character of Pete Best to any great length and detail. Maybe there is more to their side(s) of the story than Pete has told us, but instead the Fabs have always opted to keep quiet and leave Pete invisible as if he never existed.
|
|
|
Post by zemargla on Jun 9, 2012 8:26:53 GMT -5
At least Pete got a lot of money from the Anthology. I am sure Paul, George and Ringo could've avoided that, but they didn't.
In March Pete was here in Cologne, Germany, for an outsold concert. There were articles and an interview in our newspaper. On TV they showed the Beatles at their Best doku. I think he's very well respected nowadays. And rigthly so.
Of course he was asked why he split from the Beatles. He said there was some jealousy involved. He didn't explain further.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 9, 2012 8:59:43 GMT -5
At least Pete got a lot of money from the Anthology. I am sure Paul, George and Ringo could've avoided that, but they didn't. In March Pete was here in Cologne, Germany, for an outsold concert. There were articles and an interview in our newspaper. On TV they showed the Beatles at their Best doku. I think he's very well respected nowadays. And rigthly so. Of course he was asked why he split from the Beatles. He said there was some jealousy involved. He didn't explain further. The documentary they showed was likely "Best of the Beatles". A must see for any true Beatles fan.
|
|
|
Post by zemargla on Jun 9, 2012 12:25:11 GMT -5
At least Pete got a lot of money from the Anthology. I am sure Paul, George and Ringo could've avoided that, but they didn't. In March Pete was here in Cologne, Germany, for an outsold concert. There were articles and an interview in our newspaper. On TV they showed the Beatles at their Best doku. I think he's very well respected nowadays. And rigthly so. Of course he was asked why he split from the Beatles. He said there was some jealousy involved. He didn't explain further. The documentary they showed was likely "Best of the Beatles". A must see for any true Beatles fan. Sorry, I got the name wrong. Yes, a very good docu, many pictures of the early days. Pete tells interesting stories. It's repeatedly shown on TV over here.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jun 9, 2012 15:10:39 GMT -5
I know you have a psychological and maybe physical attraction to Pete Best, but is not cool to put down the others in the group to build him up. Many of your claims are outrageous and not rooted in reality.
Sorry, BATB, but sometimes you come off as an obsessed fan who is not thinking things through clearly. I understand your sympathy for a guy, Pete Best, who wasn't treated as well as he could have been. But it ends up being a business decision. I think Ringo was the piece of the puzzle that made the Beatles who they are--the point where all their personalities jelled and this symbiotic process happened where the sum became larger than its parts.
It wasn't that way with Pete Best and it had nothing to do with who was a better drummer or who was more handsome. Its like John said, Pete was a good drummer, Ringo was a better Beatle. Leave it to John to sum it up perfectly in a few words.
The group would not have been as successful without Ringo because Ringo was the foil for the others, he made them look like Gods. He was the sympathetic character who was both the target and source of humor. Pete was a bit bland personality wise. Yes he was handsome, but they had handsome with George and Paul. They needed someone like Ringo. Ringo was the catalyst for the Beatles breakout international success. The girls wanted to hug him like a teddy bear and mother him. He had greater appeal than people realize.
Yes, Pete was popular too, but not like Ringo became. The others,especially Paul, sensed the need for someone like Ringo. He was behind the change more than anyone because authors like Bob Spitz documnented how frustrated Paul would get with Pete at times. Yes, Paul was rough on everyone going back to the Quarrymen days, but that is because he wanted the most highly professional band possible,and he wasn't afraid to say so.
Sorry pal, I can't go along with a lot of what you are trying to put across.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 9, 2012 15:55:38 GMT -5
The fact that so much energy is being spent on defending Pete Best in 2012 when we have the benefit of history to see that Ringo, while having many bumps in his road, has had a musical career beyond the Beatles arguably worthy of a solo induction into the RRHF while Pete Best, an admittedly decent human being, has not had much of a musical career at all other than being a historical curiosity, is astounding to me. More evidence that Zombie Apocalypse is upon us!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 9, 2012 16:19:34 GMT -5
It's astounding to me that a quote from Bob Wooler is being touted as a universal truth.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 9, 2012 16:37:52 GMT -5
The fact that so much energy is being spent on defending Pete Best in 2012 when we have the benefit of history to see that Ringo, while having many bumps in his road, has had a musical career beyond the Beatles arguably worthy of a solo induction into the RRHF while Pete Best, an admittedly decent human being, has not had much of a musical career at all other than being a historical curiosity, is astounding to me. More evidence that Zombie Apocalypse is upon us! If the question is whether or not Pete was valuable in the history of the Beatles, the answer is he was, Ringo or not. But it's hard to compare their careers since Pete didn't have the luxury of the Beatles' fame to further his career beyond the Anthology.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 9, 2012 16:56:38 GMT -5
The fact that so much energy is being spent on defending Pete Best in 2012 when we have the benefit of history to see that Ringo, while having many bumps in his road, has had a musical career beyond the Beatles arguably worthy of a solo induction into the RRHF while Pete Best, an admittedly decent human being, has not had much of a musical career at all other than being a historical curiosity, is astounding to me. More evidence that Zombie Apocalypse is upon us! If the question is whether or not Pete was valuable in the history of the Beatles, the answer is he was, Ringo or not. But it's hard to compare their careers since Pete didn't have the luxury of the Beatles' fame to further his career beyond the Anthology. I agree. Pete was valuable and important while a Beatle. But he was also not the best fit and Ringo has clearly earned his keep, especially when The Beatles conquered America and Ringo was huge over here. I am sure the original Cavern fans prefer Pete simply because he was their status quo. Pete is a nice guy but as one of our most esteemed posters has said, it was simply an H.R. decision that worked out much better for The Beatles in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 9, 2012 18:09:36 GMT -5
If the question is whether or not Pete was valuable in the history of the Beatles, the answer is he was, Ringo or not. But it's hard to compare their careers since Pete didn't have the luxury of the Beatles' fame to further his career beyond the Anthology. I agree. Pete was valuable and important while a Beatle. But he was also not the best fit and Ringo has clearly earned his keep, especially when The Beatles conquered America and Ringo was huge over here. I am sure the original Cavern fans prefer Pete simply because he was their status quo. Pete is a nice guy but as one of our most esteemed posters has said, it was simply an H.R. decision that worked out much better for The Beatles in the long run. I agree. Ringo was the perfect fit. Personality wise he was just like the others. Quick wit, Beatle haircut, willing to do drugs and happy to stay out of the way of those 2 (3?) big egos. He was the perfect fit because the others thought he was. Best had 3 years to develope better chemistry with Harrison & McCartney. He didn't. The only one he got on with was John. Ringo got on with all 3 and continued to even after The Beatles broke up and they were fighting with each other. I just think Pete deserves some respect for the significant contribution he and his family made in helping The Beatles to take off.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 10, 2012 5:53:21 GMT -5
I agree. Ringo was the perfect fit. Personality wise he was just like the others. Quick wit, Beatle haircut, willing to do drugs and happy to stay out of the way of those 2 (3?) big egos. He was the perfect fit because the others thought he was. Plus, one other little thing -- Ringo was a better drummer. It's not that people won't give him 'any' credit. It's just that he was not "the be-all and end-all" or "King Of The Beatles"... I do not believe that Pete was truly important to "The Beatles Taking Off".... The Beatles did not truly "take off" until after Ringo replaced Pete -- and the rest of course is history. Before that time, Pete and the others just played at The Cavern and other clubs, and did gigs in Hamburg .... so with Pete in the band the Beatles became big in Liverpool and Hamburg... but they failed their Decca Auditions and Brian Epstein went crazy trying to get them a record deal. Other than their fans at the Cavern and in Hamburg, The Beatles remained a bum band that no record companies wanted while Brian kept getting rejected time after time with their demo tapes.With Pete Best in the band, nobody liked the demo tapes... finally, George Martin decided to take a chance on them but mainly because he thought the Beatles were charming and interesting as characters (and as you yourself have admitted, Pete was not anything like the quick with of John, Paul, and George, so it's unlikely that Martin really noticed Best). From the very beginning George Martin did not like Pete's drumming and said he would have someone else on the records. He didn't know that Ringo was coming and so he already had a session drummer prepared for their first record. (I know you don't agree with this and have a different belief, but I believe George Martin).
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 7:04:32 GMT -5
I never said The Beatles never give Pete any credit. I am saying that The Beatles and many of their fans never give him PROPPER credit.
Also, you can't compare the drummer Ringo became to what he was in 1962. In 1961/62, Ringo was about the same as Pete. There are numerous independant sources (no ties to Best or Starr) that confirm that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2012 7:05:43 GMT -5
I agree. Ringo was the perfect fit. Personality wise he was just like the others. Quick wit, Beatle haircut, willing to do drugs and happy to stay out of the way of those 2 (3?) big egos. He was the perfect fit because the others thought he was. Plus, one other little thing -- Ringo was a better drummer. It's not that people won't give him 'any' credit. It's just that he was not "the be-all and end-all" or "King Of The Beatles"... I do not believe that Pete was truly important to "The Beatles Taking Off".... The Beatles did not truly "take off" until after Ringo replaced Pete -- and the rest of course is history. Before that time, Pete and the others just played at The Cavern and other clubs, and did gigs in Hamburg .... so with Pete in the band the Beatles became big in Liverpool and Hamburg... but they failed their Decca Auditions and Brian Epstein went crazy trying to get them a record deal. Other than their fans at the Cavern and in Hamburg, The Beatles remained a bum band that no record companies wanted while Brian kept getting rejected time after time with their demo tapes.With Pete Best in the band, nobody liked the demo tapes... finally, George Martin decided to take a chance on them but mainly because he thought the Beatles were charming and interesting as characters (and as you yourself have admitted, Pete was not anything like the quick with of John, Paul, and George, so it's unlikely that Martin really noticed Best). From the very beginning George Martin did not like Pete's drumming and said he would have someone else on the records. He didn't know that Ringo was coming and so he already had a session drummer prepared for their first record. (I know you don't agree with this and have a different belief, but I believe George Martin). Then are you prepared to consider each and every opinion that George Martin has to be the "correct one" from here on? Will you consult him to decide if your own views are accurate? ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 7:08:30 GMT -5
It's astounding to me that a quote from Bob Wooler is being touted as a universal truth. It's NOT being touted as the universal truth. It IS being touted as real proof that The Beatles were being called a phenomenon at least a full year before Ringo joined the group. This FACT was confirmed by The Beales themselves in their own AUTHORIZED biography in 1968.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 10, 2012 8:17:25 GMT -5
Also, you can't compare the drummer Ringo became to what he was in 1962. In 1961/62, Ringo was about the same as Pete. There are numerous independant sources (no ties to Best or Starr) that confirm that. There are two ways to look at that and I guess it goes back to why Pete was booted out. Either he wasn't the drummer that Ringo was or there was another reason altogether ... the legend that he didn't fit in. The Decca tapes show that there really wasn't anything special about his drumming. He wasn't a flashy drummer and I have to agree that least on With the Beatles, Ringo wasn't really either. His James Dean look and whether that was the reason is more interesting. They were trying to leave the brooding personalities behind with the dropping of the leather jackets. If someone, whoever that was, saw the marketing potential in Ringo back then, you'd have to say they were brilliant.
|
|