|
Post by Panther on Jun 10, 2012 8:46:15 GMT -5
I can't believe we're (again) having this ridiculous discussion.
Here are the facts:
- The Beatles were a very popular band of local heroes in Liverpool, in 1962, prior to Ringo joining. - Prior to Ringo, The Beatles had no money, no records, no fame, no success of any notable level. - After departing The Beatles, Pete Best did nothing of note
That's pretty much all we need to know. So, in conclusion, yes, The Beatles were a local sensation (amongst young people who liked rock music -- not a huge demographic in '62), in Liverpool (and only Liverpool), by 1962, despite having no records out.
If you want to define that as a "phenomenon", then fine. Personally, I would define it as a "local sensation".
Okay, those are the facts.
Now, to add my own subjective view: I very much doubt that Pete Best had anything to do with the limited success The Beatles had in 1961-62.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 9:21:21 GMT -5
I can't believe we're (again) having this ridiculous discussion. Here are the facts: - The Beatles were a very popular band of local heroes in Liverpool, in 1962, prior to Ringo joining. - Prior to Ringo, The Beatles had no money, no records, no fame, no success of any notable level. - After departing The Beatles, Pete Best did nothing of note That's pretty much all we need to know. So, in conclusion, yes, The Beatles were a local sensation (amongst young people who liked rock music -- not a huge demographic in '62), in Liverpool (and only Liverpool), by 1962, despite having no records out. If you want to define that as a "phenomenon", then fine. Personally, I would define it as a "local sensation". Okay, those are the facts. Now, to add my own subjective view: I very much doubt that Pete Best had anything to do with the limited success The Beatles had in 1961-62. Yeah, playing drums for 750-800 shows, being the most popular member of the band, attracting more fans than any one else in the group, helping them get 2 different record deals in 2 different countries in addition to helping to manage their business affairs is not contributing anything to their success. What successful group has ever needed a steady drummer, fans, a record deal and someone to manage their business affairs when they were just starting out? Oh, that's right.... ALL OF THEM!!! GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 10, 2012 9:53:17 GMT -5
Yeah, playing drums for 750-800 shows The fact that Best played drums for 750 shows does NOT mean he was an integral part of The Beatles VERY LIMITED (i.e., they had no money or records out) success by 1962. Yes, he was a fully contributing member of the band onstage, but I firmly believe they could have replaced him with any young drummer on Merseyside at the time and have had exactly the same amount of VERY LIMITED success. (Indeed, they did replace him with another young drummer on Merseyside and immediately became 10,000 times more popular). being the most popular member of the band Pure speculation on your part attracting more fans than any one else in the group Pure speculation on your part helping them get 2 different record deals in 2 different countries Yeah, that German record deal really made them challenge Elvis! Give me a break. Pete contributed absolutely nothing to the maybe-sort of-we'll let you have an audition in the studio-maybe "deal" with EMI. He contributed so much, in fact, that the session's producer immediately said he wasn't up to snuff. in addition to helping to manage their business affairs Yeah, he did this before Brian took over, which is to say he did it in 1960 and part of 1961 -- that wouldn't have been hard as they had ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY OR SUCCESS at the time. Let us know when the spaceship lands. (Sexual comment removed by Steve.) He probably needs all the fans he can get. But please, for the love of God, don't go over the deep-end into "Pete was the main force behind the 1961 phenomenon of The Beatles" garbage. We've been over it.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 10:44:13 GMT -5
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 You think George Martin is the final word on wether or not Pete Best made any a significant contribution to the early history of The Beatles? Martin didn't even attend the Pete Best recording session. He received a report from his engineer. He was there for Ringo's session. He didn't like him and brought in a studio drummer to replace him the following week. Martin also wasn't there for any of the two years Pete was busting his ass playing live helping The Beatles to make it. And, Martin didn't ask to have Pete sacked. Actually the opposite is true. He thought Best was the most marketable one in the group. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 10:46:34 GMT -5
Yeah, playing drums for 750-800 shows The fact that Best played drums for 750 shows does NOT mean he was an integral part of The Beatles VERY LIMITED (i.e., they had no money or records out) success by 1962. Yes, he was a fully contributing member of the band onstage, but I firmly believe they could have replaced him with any young drummer on Merseyside at the time and have had exactly the same amount of VERY LIMITED success. (Indeed, they did replace him with another young drummer on Merseyside and immediately became 10,000 times more popular). Pure speculation on your part Pure speculation on your part Yeah, that German record deal really made them challenge Elvis! Give me a break. Pete contributed absolutely nothing to the maybe-sort of-we'll let you have an audition in the studio-maybe "deal" with EMI. He contributed so much, in fact, that the session's producer immediately said he wasn't up to snuff. in addition to helping to manage their business affairs Yeah, he did this before Brian took over, which is to say he did it in 1960 and part of 1961 -- that wouldn't have been hard as they had ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY OR SUCCESS at the time. Let us know when the spaceship lands. I realize you have a throbbing hard-on for Pete Best, and that's fine. He probably needs all the fans he can get. But please, for the love of God, don't go over the deep-end into "Pete was the main force behind the 1961 phenomenon of The Beatles" garbage. We've been over it. Please provide some sources for ALL of your wild, ridiculous and inaccurate claims.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 10, 2012 14:08:59 GMT -5
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. If the thrust of your film is: "I just think Pete deserves some respect for the significant contribution he and his family made in helping The Beatles to take off" then I don't have a huge problem with your thesis. Pete was no doubt one piece of the puzzle although obviously not to be a final player in the story. Yet he played a significant role early on but I think he went as far as he could with his musical skills. Anthology was a nice time for Pete, it got his name out and better yet, he got substantial royalty payments. But I think Pete will never win if he insists that he would have been better for the Beatles than Ringo and I don't know if he even makes that argument. I just think things worked out as they should although regrettably ugly and messy at times.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 10, 2012 14:34:44 GMT -5
The fact that Best played drums for 750 shows does NOT mean he was an integral part of The Beatles VERY LIMITED (i.e., they had no money or records out) success by 1962. Yes, he was a fully contributing member of the band onstage, but I firmly believe they could have replaced him with any young drummer on Merseyside at the time and have had exactly the same amount of VERY LIMITED success. (Indeed, they did replace him with another young drummer on Merseyside and immediately became 10,000 times more popular). Pure speculation on your part Pure speculation on your part Yeah, that German record deal really made them challenge Elvis! Give me a break. Pete contributed absolutely nothing to the maybe-sort of-we'll let you have an audition in the studio-maybe "deal" with EMI. He contributed so much, in fact, that the session's producer immediately said he wasn't up to snuff. Yeah, he did this before Brian took over, which is to say he did it in 1960 and part of 1961 -- that wouldn't have been hard as they had ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY OR SUCCESS at the time. Let us know when the spaceship lands. I realize you have a throbbing hard-on for Pete Best, and that's fine. He probably needs all the fans he can get. But please, for the love of God, don't go over the deep-end into "Pete was the main force behind the 1961 phenomenon of The Beatles" garbage. We've been over it. Please provide some sources for ALL of your wild, ridiculous and inaccurate claims. Come on BOTB, let's not play that game and I'll admit that sometimes you have faced the same unreasonable challenges. There are certain representations of fact that get made on Message Boards from time to time that do call for some citation of authority, as vectisfabber noted somewhere else. Every single person on this Board has studied enough of The Beatles to be able to express informed opinions on various topics. In that we are self-policed and we all know when someone makes a representation of an alleged fact so against the grain of generally accepted knowledge that we request some basis of fact for that representation. panther answered with an informed opinion he holds based on his own studies of The Beatles and was not so beyond the realm of norm that he must provide string citations for every word he wrote. And BOTB, we have sometimes been too hard on you too but you are coming here and challenging many notions of The Beatles early years. An assertion that Paul missed(completely not just late) more gigs than Pete runs against the conventional wisdom that Paul was the most professional of The Beatles and is a represented fact that seems subject to verification. The CW on any topic is not beyond challenge for sure but I would hate to see footnotes demanded after every sentence we all write here on a Message Board. I think Steve has made it clear for folks to engage with you robustly but in the spirit of learning more about this early period of The Beatles and to have some fun while we exchange ideas. So all of us need to remember that. Carry on folks!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 14:44:33 GMT -5
If the thrust of your film is: "I just think Pete deserves some respect for the significant contribution he and his family made in helping The Beatles to take off" then I don't have a huge problem with your thesis. Pete was no doubt one piece of the puzzle although obviously not to be a final player in the story. Yet he played a significant role early on but I think he went as far as he could with his musical skills. Anthology was a nice time for Pete, it got his name out and better yet, he got substantial royalty payments. But I think Pete will never win if he insists that he would have been better for the Beatles than Ringo and I don't know if he even makes that argument. I just think things worked out as they should although regrettably ugly and messy at times. I am not saying The Beatles would have been better off with Pete. They became the biggest selling group and most unbelievable entertainment phenomenon in the history of the world without him. Hard to do better than that. Also, my posting here is not about my short film (just a no budget art film really). My posting is part of bringing attention to an issue. The same reason I made the film. The Beatles were at their best as a live act before Ringo joined and Sutcliffe & Best get little respect for the significant contributions they both made in helping The Beatles to take off. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 15:06:51 GMT -5
I spend a great deal of time defending my positions against posters here who misquote me and lace their misquote with personal insults. When you put someones words in quotes it should be their exact words. Otherwise don't put quotes around it.
For instance, Panther comments about me having "a throbbing hard on for Pete Best" while quoting me as saying something I never said. His quote is not a real quote.
He also claims The Beatles had no money (they were the top paid act in town by a longshot) and had no success. Their success was unprecidented at the time and resulted in 2 record deals, 1 in Germany and another in the U.K. which led to their first hit song. The Beatles didn't get those record deals based on what Pete did in the studio. They got those deals because of the thousands of hours Pete put in playing live.
People call my facts fantasy, and make demands for sources. What's wrong about me demanding the same of them? I'd like to see some sources for some of the untruths members spout here.
What's so wrong about that?
GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 10, 2012 16:10:04 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. OK, much ado is being made over a quote full of hype written by one Bob Wooler.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 17:32:44 GMT -5
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. OK, much ado is being made over a quote full of hype written by one Bob Wooler. Again, its not just a quote from Wooler. It is a fact confirmed by The Beatles themselves in their own authorized biography. How can I possibly provide better sources than the most respected authority on the Liverpool music scene at the time corroborated by The Beatles themselves? Seriously??!!! (Comment deleted by Steve.) GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 10, 2012 17:51:30 GMT -5
(Sexual comment deleted by Steve.)
I agree 100% that The Beatles were a better live act, in general, in the Pete Best years than the Ringo years. This, of course, is not because Pete was the better musician, but is because: (a) They were a club band when Pete joined, but soon after Ringo joined, were not, and (b) When they did play live after early 1964, it was a freak-show, not a music show, and (c) They didn't play live after 1966, the very period when rock concerts starting catching up with contemporary technology.
I'm not sure, however, that the August 1962 to early 1963 live Beatles weren't way better than the previous incarnation. I believe they were.
Pete was easily replaceable in the 1960-1962 period. As his replacement proved.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 19:10:32 GMT -5
For instance, Panther comments about me having "a flaming hard on for Pete Best" while quoting me as saying something I never said. I think you'll find I said "throbbing" hard-on, a completely different thing. I agree 100% that The Beatles were a better live act, in general, in the Pete Best years than the Ringo years. This, of course, is not because Pete was the better musician, but is because: (a) They were a club band when Pete joined, but soon after Ringo joined, were not, and (b) When they did play live after early 1964, it was a freak-show, not a music show, and (c) They didn't play live after 1966, the very period when rock concerts starting catching up with contemporary technology. I'm not sure, however, that the August 1962 to early 1963 live Beatles weren't way better than the previous incarnation. I believe they were. Pete was easily replaceable in the 1960-1962 period. As his replacement proved. Fine, your incorrect statement was laced with a personal insult saying I had a "throbbing hard on for Pete". I stand corrected. (I typed my responce on my cell phone while I was waiting in line for my wife. Between the auto correct and scrolling up and down while trying to read those little words without my glasses, typing messages on my cell phone screws me every time!) Also, I never tried to say Pete was the better musician in 1961/62. I said he and Ringo were about the same. They both did some good things. I have only said, repeatedly, that Pete and Stu do not get proper credit from fans and The Beales themselves for the significant contributions they made during the early years of group - the time before Ringo. Geting SOME credit is a BIG difference from getting PROPER credit. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2012 20:32:28 GMT -5
I think you'll find I said "throbbing" hard-on, a completely different thing. I agree 100% that The Beatles were a better live act, in general, in the Pete Best years than the Ringo years. This, of course, is not because Pete was the better musician, but is because: (a) They were a club band when Pete joined, but soon after Ringo joined, were not, and (b) When they did play live after early 1964, it was a freak-show, not a music show, and (c) They didn't play live after 1966, the very period when rock concerts starting catching up with contemporary technology. I'm not sure, however, that the August 1962 to early 1963 live Beatles weren't way better than the previous incarnation. I believe they were. Pete was easily replaceable in the 1960-1962 period. As his replacement proved. Fine, your incorrect statement was laced with a personal insult saying I had a "throbbing hard on for Pete". I stand corrected. (I typed my responce on my cell phone while I was waiting in line for my wife. Between the auto correct and scrolling up and down while trying to read those little words without my glasses, typing messages on my cell phone screws me every time!) Also, I never tried to say Pete was the better musician in 1961/62. I said he and Ringo were about the same. They both did some good things. I have only said, repeatedly, that Pete and Stu do not get proper credit from fans and The Beales themselves for the significant contributions they made during the early years of group - the time before Ringo. Geting SOME credit is a BIG difference from getting PROPER credit. GIMME SOME TRUTH!!! Good luck with this crusade, a crusade that doesn't seem to be getting any traction, anywhere.....
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 10, 2012 20:57:20 GMT -5
BATB, you can lay off with the GIMME SOME TRUTH after your posts. The truth isn't just your point of view. That's what this discussion is all about. Or supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 21:01:54 GMT -5
BATB, you can lay off with the GIMME SOME TRUTH after your posts. The truth isn't just your point of view. That's what this discussion is all about. Or supposed to be. The truth is the truth, not my point of view. If something I present as the truth is not the truth, I am willing to be corrected. Is there something I have presented as the truth that isn't the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 10, 2012 21:20:30 GMT -5
BATB, you can lay off with the GIMME SOME TRUTH after your posts. The truth isn't just your point of view. That's what this discussion is all about. Or supposed to be. The truth is the truth, not my point of view. If something I present as the truth is not the truth, I am willing to be corrected. Is there something I have presented as the truth that isn't the truth? That's not the point. I want the discussion to stay on an even keel and as calm as possible. It's been on the edge since this thing started. Putting it at the bottom of your posts and in capitol letters is YELLING IT OUT. Please leave it off.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 10, 2012 21:26:11 GMT -5
The truth is the truth, not my point of view. If something I present as the truth is not the truth, I am willing to be corrected. Is there something I have presented as the truth that isn't the truth? That's not the point. I want the discussion to stay on an even keel and as calm as possible. It's been on the edge since this thing started. Putting it at the bottom of your posts and in capitol letters is YELLING IT OUT. Please leave it off. Okie dokie.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 10, 2012 22:34:33 GMT -5
But, WERE they a phenomenon before Ringo? Really, aside from the use of the word, what is the evidence that they WERE one?
Yes, I know that at some point they were the biggest group in Liverpool, they sold out the Cavern every time, and they had a single that actually charted, but I seriously doubt that they WERE a phenomenon. Here's what I mean.
Look at the town in which you now live. There's probably a band that is creating a buzz around town. But, I bet you probably don't know who they are. I bet nearly 99% of the people in your town don't know them either. How can a band, despite having a huge local buzz REALLY be called a phenomenon if only a small sector of the community knows about them? When the Beatles went global, THAT was a phenomenon because regardless of the country, regardless of the continent, regardless of age, gender, religion, class, and/or ethnicity, they were known. When the Beatles were at their peak, even grandparents could at least mockingly sing "yeah, yeah, yeah." How many people throughout Liverpool before Ringo joined could name the individual Beatles or even name the band?
I think that is why people take issue with the word. WAS it used? Okay, it's been proven. Should it have been used? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 10, 2012 22:43:24 GMT -5
But, WERE they a phenomenon before Ringo? Really, aside from the use of the word, what is the evidence that they WERE one? Yes, I know that at some point they were the biggest group in Liverpool, they sold out the Cavern every time, and they had a single that actually charted, but I seriously doubt that they WERE a phenomenon. Here's what I mean. Look at the town in which you now live. There's probably a band that is creating a buzz around town. But, I bet you probably don't know who they are. I bet nearly 99% of the people in your town don't know them either. How can a band, despite having a huge local buzz REALLY be called a phenomenon if only a small sector of the community knows about them? When the Beatles went global, THAT was a phenomenon because regardless of the country, regardless of the continent, regardless of age, gender, religion, class, and/or ethnicity, they were known. When the Beatles were at their peak, even grandparents could at least mockingly sing "yeah, yeah, yeah." How many people throughout Liverpool before Ringo joined could name the individual Beatles or even name the band? I think that is why people take issue with the word. WAS it used? Okay, it's been proven. Should it have been used? Nah. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 10, 2012 23:13:47 GMT -5
. . . I'm not sure, however, that the August 1962 to early 1963 live Beatles weren't way better than the previous incarnation. I believe they were. . . . I agree. I just saw again the restored footage of the Beatles' first concert in the United States, and I will categorically say that anyone who thinks the Beatles couldn't cut it live doesn't know what they are talking about. They RAWKED, they played flawlessly, they sang in tune (solo and in harmony), George's leads were blistering, Ringo not only kept the beat, but slammed as hard as anyone could - be it Moon, Bonham, Grohl, or anyone). I think they captured the energy they must have had in Hamburg, but with the professionalism they had acquired from all the live and TV appearances they had before they came to America. It was at the point where the exuberance of youth, the professionalism and discipline of experience, the ownership of the mania, and the talent honed through the proverbial "10,000 hours," all came together. I have to say that since this thread and others like it are REALLY about (you choose the word) elevating, restoring, establishing, touting, raising, promoting Pete Best's standing in relation to John, Paul, George, and Ringo, I really don't think that THAT first concert in America would have been anywhere near as good with Pete, and not because of his playing. That joie de vivre would NOT have been there. THAT was the palimpsest that was left on everything the Beatles touched and, therefore, made the Beatles THE BEATLES, and not just some other band, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 10, 2012 23:22:00 GMT -5
I had decided to remove myself from all the threads on this subject because, well, just because. But I had to chime in here.
sayne - I think your last two posts were totally on the mark and incredibly well stated. The discussion can end there for me (I said "for me"). Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 10, 2012 23:37:47 GMT -5
I had decided to remove myself from all the threads on this subject because, well, just because. But I had to chime in here. sayne - I think your last two posts were totally on the mark and incredibly well stated. The discussion can end there for me (I said "for me"). Thanks. Same for me. Thanks again, sayne. (Gotta love a guy who uses the word "palimpsest" in a post about the Beatles.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 3:19:58 GMT -5
I had decided to remove myself from all the threads on this subject because, well, just because. But I had to chime in here. sayne - I think your last two posts were totally on the mark and incredibly well stated. The discussion can end there for me (I said "for me"). Thanks. Same for me. Thanks again, sayne. (Gotta love a guy who uses the word "palimpsest" in a post about the Beatles.) PalimpsestIt's not a word that is in my normal vocabulary...I looked it up, it means Pete was not the Best Beatles drummer. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 5:48:24 GMT -5
OK, much ado is being made over a quote full of hype written by one Bob Wooler. Again, its not just a quote from Wooler. It is a fact confirmed by The Beatles themselves in their own authorized biography. How can I possibly provide better sources than the most respected authority on the Liverpool music scene at the time corroborated by The Beatles themselves? Here is another example of you considering The Beatles themselves being "truthful" only when it works out for you. But elsewhere you accused Paul, George and Ringo of waffling about things on ANYTHOLOGY. And you say that John Lennon was lying in that audio clip from the 1970s where he said they were sick of Pete Best and that he was a lousy drummer who never improved, and that they only bothered with him because that was the only way to go to Hamburg.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 6:46:28 GMT -5
I was told nobody called The Beatles a phenomenon until after Ringo joined. I used The Beatles own words as proof that they were being called a phenomenon before Ringo joined.
I have also repeatedly said Beatles comments regarding the time Pete Best was in the group should be corroborated for truthfulness when possible. I did corroborated it with a quote from Wooler from the August 1961 Mersey Beat.
I have been consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 6:56:35 GMT -5
You think George Martin is the final word on wether or not Pete Best made any a significant contribution to the early history of The Beatles? Martin didn't even attend the Pete Best recording session. He received a report from his engineer. But Martin heard Brian's demo tapes of The Beatles with Pete Best, did he not? These were the first samples Martin ever heard. Martin said he thought Pete was a poor drummer and said "you can do what you like with him on stage but we'll have someone else on the tracks". 1.) Martin and Ringo have both said that Martin did not know Ringo was coming. 2.) Even if we entertain the notion that Martin and Ringo were fabricating on that story in retrospect, Martin still had the authority to stick with a permanent studio drummer if he truly felt "Ringo was poor". If Martin did have any reservations against Ringo initially, they immediately disappeared once Ringo showed how good he was. But Martin had already heard a dozen or so songs by Pete on that lousy demo tape first. Why do you keep bringing this earlier pre-'62 period up when it has nothing to do with anything pertaining to their meeting Martin? Where had Martin ever claimed being a historian on anything in their early history before the day Brian Epstein walked into Martin's office with his dire tape? Yes, I'm sure Pete was "busting his ass"to help out ... and yet the Beatles never made it! They might still be playing clubs in Liverpool today (and in fact, Pete still is!). Pete drummed horribly on the Decca Auditions, and no matter where Brian went with those demo tapes, every single record company kept turning down "Pete Best And His Beatles". Martin never said he asked to have Pete sacked. And nobody else has ever claimed he did either. But it's accurate that George Martin has said that he did not want Pete playing on the records, and that is something he has always maintained. Martin realized Pete was popular with the fans, and he has been consistent in saying that he didn't care what the Beatles did with Pete for live performances but that "Pete wasn't going to make my life any easier having hit records". (A direct quote from Martin).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 7:10:15 GMT -5
I can't believe we're (again) having this ridiculous discussion. Here are the facts: - The Beatles were a very popular band of local heroes in Liverpool, in 1962, prior to Ringo joining. - Prior to Ringo, The Beatles had no money, no records, no fame, no success of any notable level. - After departing The Beatles, Pete Best did nothing of note That's pretty much all we need to know. So, in conclusion, yes, The Beatles were a local sensation (amongst young people who liked rock music -- not a huge demographic in '62), in Liverpool (and only Liverpool), by 1962, despite having no records out. If you want to define that as a "phenomenon", then fine. Personally, I would define it as a "local sensation". Okay, those are the facts. I agree with these words, letter-for-letter. (Nice to agree with you for a change, Panther ). I would mostly come to this same view, but I would give Pete the following props: 1.) Pete was a hit with the girls, and that's always a plus. 2.) If Pete helped manage things, this was a help. (Which ultimately got them nowhere though).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 7:20:04 GMT -5
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 All silliness aside -- no, I do not. Opinions are opinions. But that's not applicable here. It is not "George Martin's Opinion" that he didn't know Ringo was coming and so he had Andy White ready.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 7:24:15 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. I heard someone call Justin Bieber "God". I guess it's a fact that he actually is. If Bieber believed so as well, even better. I like the way Panther put it (sometimes others say it so much more concisely that I could ) -- and I'd like to expand it a tad: Yes, someone was calling The Beatles "a phenomenon" in the early '60s. People can say whatever they want. Were they TRULY a phenomenon at that pre-1963 point? Nah.
|
|