|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 7:27:47 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 may be some opinions out there to that effect, but it's pretty well established that Ringo Starr was considered the #1 DRUMMER at the time, in the biggest group, Rory Storm And The Hurricanes. You like quoting John Lennon about "The Beatles were at their best in the early days" .... but how about Lennon's quotes: "Ringo was a professional, we were amateurs" [which includes Pete]...? and that "Pete Best was a lousy drummer, he never improved"...?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 7:48:15 GMT -5
d 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 may be some opinions out there to that effect, but it's pretty well established that Ringo Starr was considered the #1 DRUMMER at the time, in the biggest group, Rory Storm And The Hurricanes. You like quoting John Lennon about "The Beatles were at their best in the early days" .... but how about Lennon's quotes: "Ringo was a professional, we were amateurs"...? and that "Pete Best was a lousy drummer, he never improved"...? LOL!!! No, it is not established that Ringo was the #1 drummer in Liverpool at the time. He wasn't even The Beatles first choice to replace Best. There is this thing called Google. Do some of your own research. Better educate yourself and you will find I am right on both points. As for Ringo being a professional & the others amatures. Yeah, I agree with that. Before Pete joined The Beatles, Ringo was a professional already playing with Rory. The Beatles were an out of work bum band. So yeah, what Lennon said was true. There is a lot of evidence to dispute that Pete was a lousy drummer. Maybe not a great drummer, but lousy is a bit harsh. All the other Liverpool drummers including Ringo were influenced by him and tried to copy his style, not to mention how the group really took off after adding him so he must have been doing something right. Brian Epstein himself said that the very first thing he noticed about The Beatles was their beat - then he took notice of Lennon, McCartney & Harrison. As for the "he never improved" comment, well that's probably a fair statement. There is a lot of evidence that Pete improved a great deal in his first year in The Beatles and not as much in his second year.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 11, 2012 7:57:10 GMT -5
I fail to see why this argument over who was a better drummer (Pete or Ringo) seems to go on and on and on. John, Paul & George decided after their EMI audition to replace Pete with Ringo, who they seem to like better and regarded as a better drummer. How they did it is not as important to history as the fact that it was done and with Ringo, they went on to make music history. Music as a business is not always done politely. They simply replaced Pete with Ringo. It was their choice to do so and they did it. Pete was free to move on to join any other band that would have him. He chose to form his own band and did not have enough success to sustain him financially, so he left the music business and found employment elsewhere. Does that mean he wasn't a good enough drummer to make it professionally elsewhere. Not necessarily. He just wasn't lucky enough to find the right job with a good band or be successful enough with his own group. Simple as that. Ringo went on to be successful with The Beatles. Is/was Ringo better than Pete in 1962? Or in 2012? It's all subjective conjecture since we are talking about an artistic endeavor with every other person on earth holding their own opinion on this. Having heard Pete on the few tracks available with The Beatles prior to his sacking in 1962, and how Ringo sounded with the group subsequent to his joing in 1962, IMO, Ringo sounds like a better fit. In 2012, Ringo is clearly a more competent drummer; he has had 50 years of experience to draw on, where Pete did not.
To dwell on Pete's history with The Beatles, specifically whether he was as good as Ringo, is an endless discussion that has as many different opinions as there are people discussing it. Does it solve anything to endlessly argue the matter. I don't see any value in it. It is history. Pete's contributions are there for all to hear with what is available to listen to. There is no need to re-write history, or say that what opinions The Beatles put in their anthology is "not the complete picture, or not all true." That is the way the band saw it. Pete has had his say in his own books and DVD.
What is the point of arguing this over and over?
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 8:05:30 GMT -5
I fail to see why this argument over who was a better drummer (Pete or Ringo) seems to go on and on and on. John, Paul & George decided after their EMI audition to replace Pete with Ringo, who they seem to like better and regarded as a better drummer. How they did it is not as important to history as the fact that it was done and with Ringo, they went on to make music history. Music as a business is not always done politely. They simply replaced Pete with Ringo. It was their choice to do so and they did it. Pete was free to move on to join any other band that would have him. He chose to form his own band and did not have enough success to sustain him financially, so he left the music business and found employment elsewhere. Does that mean he wasn't a good enough drummer to make it professionally elsewhere. Not necessarily. He just wasn't lucky enough to find the right job with a good band or be successful enough with his own group. Simple as that. Ringo went on to be successful with The Beatles. Is/was Ringo better than Pete in 1962? Or in 2012? It's all subjective conjecture since we are talking about an artistic endeavor with every other person on earth holding their own opinion on this. Having heard Pete on the few tracks available with The Beatles prior to his sacking in 1962, and how Ringo sounded with the group subsequent to his joing in 1962, IMO, Ringo sounds like a better fit. In 2012, Ringo is clearly a more competent drummer; he has had 50 years of experience to draw on, where Pete did not. To dwell on Pete's history with The Beatles, specifically whether he was as good as Ringo, is an endless discussion that has as many different opinions as there are people discussing it. Does it solve anything to endlessly argue the matter. I don't see any value in it. It is history. Pete's contributions are there for all to hear with what is available to listen to. There is no need to re-write history, or say that what opinions The Beatles put in their anthology is "not the complete picture, or not all true." That is the way the band saw it. Pete has had his say in his own books and DVD. What is the point of arguing this over and over? I was not arguing over who was the better drummer. Everyone else wants to turn any discussion regarding Pete into a Ringo vs. Pete, but that was not the point of this thread. The point of this thread was when did people start calling The Beatles a phenomenon? Ringo joining the band was only used as a time referrence. I guess I could have called the thread "The Beatles were a phenomenon before August 1962" and kept Ringo's name out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 8:15:48 GMT -5
No, it is not established that Ringo was the #1 drummer in Liverpool at the time. He wasn't even The Beatles first choice to replace Best. There is this thing called Google. Do some of your own research. Better educate yourself and you will find I am right on both points. I am already well educated in Beatles, and so are others here when it comes to this membership at AbbeyRd. Not everything found with Google is always correct anyway, so that is a moot point. Anyone can find more things saying that Pete Best was a nobody and Ringo was great over on Google, so I'm not sure you'd want to go there. Lennon was referring to The Beatles being "amateurs" with Pete Best included. Anyone can use that hook: "There is a lot of evidence..." "Lousy" is an opinion, and it is an opinion shared by enough people as to Pete's drumming in those days. No, Ringo did not copy Pete. If he had we wouldn't have had THE BEATLES. You throw around a loose statement like "all the other drummers" and that is something which cannot be proven. Where did Brian Epstein say he took notice of Pete Best first, and later the other three? Anyway -- I think what Brian really noticed first was the trousers. And apparently he was most smitten with John Lennon. When you watch the famous clip of Epstein talking about how he became interested, he can't come right out and say he was hot for The Beatles, so he stumbles while coming up with "their beat". Then he practically swoons with ecstasy when he says he was struck by their "personal charm"...
|
|
|
Post by RockoRoll on Jun 11, 2012 8:24:05 GMT -5
Poor Pete feel sorry for him, thank god Stu ain't around.....He would have put up with this flak as well......
What a thread, your not alone *beatlesattheirbest*, I've got an obsessed beatle fan at work, who's obsessed with Pete, and reckons (in 1962) was a better drummer, created the Atom beat?, and drummed longer (in hrs) in the two year period with the other three, than Ringo did in seven years......
To me I luv them both, inc Stu...They were all a part of early Beatle history...Whatever happened, happened....Destiny....
OK, here is something that's better than Ringo's (2008) Liverpool 8 album, Pete's (2008) album *Haymans Green *...There you go, I luv to see Jimmy Nicols, Andy White come out with music like this.... ;D
Just for you *beatlesattheirbest*.........
Luv this one also.....
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 8:30:54 GMT -5
No, it is not established that Ringo was the #1 drummer in Liverpool at the time. He wasn't even The Beatles first choice to replace Best. There is this thing called Google. Do some of your own research. Better educate yourself and you will find I am right on both points. I am already well educated in Beatles, and so are others here when it comes to this membership at AbbeyRd. Not everything found with Google is always correct anyway, so that is a moot point. Anyone can find more things saying that Pete Best was a nobody and Ringo was great over on Google, so I'm not sure you'd want to go there. Lennon was referring to The Beatles being "amateurs" with Pete Best included. Anyone can use that hook: "There is a lot of evidence..." "Lousy" is an opinion, and it is an opinion shared by enough people as to Pete's drumming in those days. No, Ringo did not copy Pete. If he had we wouldn't have had THE BEATLES. You throw around a loose statement like "all the other drummers" and that is something which cannot be proven. Where did Brian Epstein say he took notice of Pete Best first, and later the other three? Anyway -- I think what Brian really noticed first was the trousers. And apparently he was most smitten with John Lennon. When you watch the famous clip of Epstein talking about how he became interested, he can't come right out and say he was hot for The Beatles, so he stumbles while coming up with "their beat". Then he practically swoons with ecstasy when he says he was struck by their "personal charm"... You are NOT well educated about The Beatles early years. I CONSTANTLY have to keep correcting you regarding your mistaken facts and misquotes. Here I go again. The exact quote from Lennon (which took all of a minute to find using Google) was... "They had brought Howie Casey over, with the Seniors - or maybe they were even there when we got there - anyway, they were playing here, at Bruno's other club. They were pretty competent. They had saxes; they were really a together group. They had a black singer [Derry Wilkie] who couldn't really sing, but was a real showman. So we had to compete with them at first, and we had to start putting on this show to get enough people into our club, even though they were owned by the same person. Then they moved us in - with Rory Storm and Ringo. They were professionals; we were still amateurs. They'd been going for years, and they'd been to Butlins, and God knows what, and they really knew how to put on a show."Lennon is speaking about where The Beatles and Ringo were career wise at the time The Beatles added Best and went to Germany for the first time (two years before adding Ringo). He is not comparing The Beatles during the Pete Best years with how they sounded after adding Ringo. His comment was not an indictment of Best and his drumming as Best had just joined the band when they went to Germany. So once again you are mistating facts and taking quotes out of context. Once again I am doing your research for you. I am not trying to fight with you, but I am honestly telling you that you don't know early Beatles history as well as you think you do, or else you wouldn't keep making so many misstatements. I am not saying that just because I use Google, that means whatever comes up is true. I am saying Google is a useful tool in finding real evidence such as the quote from Lennon I just provided. I am not quoting Google. I am quoting John Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 8:43:03 GMT -5
You are NOT well educated about The Beatles early years. I CONSTANTLY have to keep correcting you regarding your mistaken facts and misquotes. That's funny, because I feel the same way about you and your 'facts' and 'quotes'. That's a quote you found. Mine was an audio quote I'd heard from John. Do you have any audio clips of John? In the Pete Best Universe thread Snookeroo posted the one I kept writing here but couldn't find in audio --- where we actually HEAR John talking about how sick they were of Pete Best and what a lousy drummer he was and the fact that they only grabbed him at the last moment because it was the only way they could get to Hamburg at that point. Believe me, you don't want me to start Googling. I would present you with all sorts of facts you don't like, then you'd Google back and find others. That written quote of John's which you just Google'd is not the same audio one I'm quoting from at all, where John spoke audibly. There was no "still" in his sentence in the one I was talking about: "He was a professional, we were amateurs" is what he said. I don't remember the entire paragraph but John also said "We knew of Ringo...", and that is not present in your quotation either. So they're probably not the same interviews. i think you're the one making misstatements, as well as taking only cherry picked quotes you approve of and then running wild with them to absurd levels.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 8:45:31 GMT -5
You are NOT well educated about The Beatles early years. I CONSTANTLY have to keep correcting you regarding your mistaken facts and misquotes. That's funny, because I feel the same way about you and your 'facts' and 'quotes'. That's a quote you found. Mine was an audio quote I'd heard from John. Do you have any audio clips of John? Snookeroo posted the one I kept writing here but couldn't find in audio --- where we actually HEAR John talking about how sick they were of Pete Best and what a lousy drummer he was and the fact that they only grabbed him at the last moment because it was the only way they could get to Hamburg at that point. Believe me, you don't want me to start Googling. I would present you with aqll sorts of facts you don't like, then you'd Google back at find others. That written quote of John's which you just Google'd is not the same audio one I'm quoting from at all, where John spoke audibly. There was no "still" in his sentence in the one I was talking about: "He was a professional, we were amateurs" is what he said. I don't remember the entire paragraph but John also said "We knew of Ringo...", and that is not present in your quotation either. So they're probably not the same interviews. i think you're the one making misstatements, as well as taking only cherry picked quotes you aqpprove of and then running wild with them to absurd levels. Whatever Joe. SMH
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 9:38:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 9:51:23 GMT -5
SMH means "shaking my head". And yes, I would like you to do some Googling of your own. I would like to see the exact quote where John Lennon says that The Beatles were amatures before they added Ringo in August 1962. I don't believe for a minute that he said any such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:21:39 GMT -5
I don't believe for a minute that he said any such thing. John was speaking of the Beatles while playing Hamburg. He said "we knew of Ringo", and added "he was a professional, we were amateurs". I also had the quote beloe from my signature in my memory originally before Snookeroo was able to locate it and post it in the old Pete Best thread. As to what you believe or not, you cherry pick based on your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 10:26:05 GMT -5
And yes, I would like you to do some Googling of your own. I would like to see the exact quote where John Lennon says that The Beatles were amatures before they added Ringo in August 1962. It's from an audio interview that is etched in my head. I also had the quote from my signature below in my head ("By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best") but was not able to find it online. Some people may have doubted it, but fortunately, Snookeroo was able to locate the audio clip of it and I thank him for that. I don't think the quote is etched in your head correctly. I am not insulting you. I still have the belief that I read Paul missed more gigs than Pete etched in my head, but absent some real sources (other than fans on webpages saying it) I have backed off that and will only say Paul was more unrelyable. That doesn't mean I was wrong about Paul missing gigs and no one here has provided me with any real proof that I was wrong, but absent any real verifiable proof of my own, I am willing to conceed that it is possible I am not remembering that fact 100% correctly.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 11, 2012 10:28:59 GMT -5
Stay civil fellows just as you have thus far this morning.
Maybe nicole should provide some quotes! She finds some amazing quotes from the Beatles on various topics.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 10:35:33 GMT -5
Stay civil fellows just as you have thus far this morning. Maybe nicole should provide some quotes! She finds some amazing quotes from the Beatles on various topics. "Oh you're no fun anymore" ;D I haven't got time to read all the wonderful quotes Nicole can come up with. England are just about to play France in the football.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 10:36:45 GMT -5
I don't believe for a minute that he said any such thing. John was speaking of the Beatles while playing Hamburg. He said "we knew of Ringo", and added "he was a professional, we were amateurs". I also had the quote beloe from my signature in my memory originally before Snookeroo was able to locate it and post it in the old Pete Best thread. As to what you believe or not, you cherry pick based on your agenda. He was speaking about when the Beatles first arrived in Hamburg. Pete had just joined the group at that point in time. He was NOT comparing The Beatles after two years of Pete playing to what the group was Ringo joined. You are misquoting John. The Beatles WERE amatures when Pete first joined. I've repeatedly said that and more. John is confirming what I have been saying.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:37:12 GMT -5
I don't think the quote is etched in your head correctly. I am not insulting you. I still have the belief that I read Paul missed more gigs than Pete etched in my head, but absent some real sources (other than fans on webpages saying it) I have backed off that and will only say Paul was more unrelyable. That doesn't mean I was wrong about Paul missing gigs and no one here has provided me with any real proof that I was wrong, but absent any real verifiable proof of my own, I am willing to conceed that it is possible I am not remembering that fact 100% correctly. I'm not infallible either; but I have a good track record for recalling audio statements pretty closely. I was mind-quoting the Lennon "Pete Best was a lousy drummer" quote for YEARS without being able to locate an audio clip. When it finally was found by Snookeroo, I'd been pretty much spot-on.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:41:28 GMT -5
He was speaking about when the Beatles first arrived in Hamburg. Pete had just joined the group at that point in time. He was NOT comparing The Beatles after two years of Pete playing to what the group was Ringo joined. You are misquoting John. The Beatles WERE amatures when Pete first joined. I've repeatedly said that and more. John is confirming what I have been saying. Well, then you are mis-quoting me. I didn't mean that John said that two years after. But anyway, it seems we basically agree at the end -- the Beatles WERE amateurs, and that included with Pete Best. They knew of Ringo though, and Ringo was the "professional" they really liked. Hey, at least they were able to get Pete to "keep a stick going four in the bar for long enough" before they could "dump him and find a decent drummer"
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 10:41:36 GMT -5
Joe did Snookeroo post that clip up?
I can't remember and wouldn't mind listening to it again.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 10:42:02 GMT -5
Poor Pete feel sorry for him, thank god Stu ain't around.....He would have put up with this flak as well......
What a thread, your not alone *beatlesattheirbest*, I've got an obsessed beatle fan at work, who's obsessed with Pete, and reckons (in 1962) was a better drummer, created the Atom beat?, and drummed longer (in hrs) in the two year period with the other three, than Ringo did in seven years......
To me I luv them both, inc Stu...They were all a part of early Beatle history...Whatever happened, happened....Destiny....
OK, here is something that's better than Ringo's (2008) Liverpool 8 album, Pete's (2008) album *Haymans Green *...There you go, I luv to see Jimmy Nicols, Andy White come out with music like this.... ;D
Just for you *beatlesattheirbest*.........
Luv this one also..... When I first heard Haymans Green, it was nice but reminded me of an Oasis cover band, which is funny since everyone says Oasis sounds like a Beatles cover band.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 11, 2012 10:42:43 GMT -5
I don't think the quote is etched in your head correctly. I am not insulting you. I still have the belief that I read Paul missed more gigs than Pete etched in my head, but absent some real sources (other than fans on webpages saying it) I have backed off that and will only say Paul was more unrelyable. That doesn't mean I was wrong about Paul missing gigs and no one here has provided me with any real proof that I was wrong, but absent any real verifiable proof of my own, I am willing to conceed that it is possible I am not remembering that fact 100% correctly. I'm not infallible either; but I have a good track record for recalling audio statements pretty closely. I was mind-quoting the Lennon "Pete Best was a lousy drummer" quote for YEARS without being able to locate an audio clip. When it finally was found by Snookeroo, I'd been pretty much spot-on. You do Joe(have a good memory on quotes) and I am both amazed and slightly scared by that ability! But yeah, there are certain quotes that stick in one's mind forever. That's how I hunted down the RS interview Paul wants us to forget(from thousands of search hits) because his words stuck in my mind for 11 years.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:43:44 GMT -5
Joe did Snookeroo post that clip up? I can't remember and wouldn't mind listening to it again. Sure, it was in the older PETE BEST thread below. But I think some people had trouble playing it on their computers, depending on their system.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 10:46:19 GMT -5
Ah that's right.
I'd had a quick look but didn't spot the link and I seem to remember not being able to play it.
|
|
|
Post by beatlesattheirbest on Jun 11, 2012 10:48:00 GMT -5
Joe has spent dozens of hours responding to my posts and I have spend dozens of hours finding sources to the facts and quotes I have provided.
I would like to see Joe spend a little time and find a source for his claim that John Lennon said that The Beatles were amatures before Ringo joined the band.
There is no way in (bleep) he said that.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 11, 2012 10:48:23 GMT -5
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 ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:48:48 GMT -5
Ah that's right. I'd had a quick look but didn't spot the link and I seem to remember not being able to play it. Here it is: www.beatlesagain.com/bsounds/john3.mp3And guess what? I can't get it to play now either! I used to have an older computer but it died and now I'm using my girl's Mac. The link won't play!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 10:49:28 GMT -5
Apart from a couple of moments Oasis sounded more like glam/punk bank. A cross between Slade/Marc Bolan/Mott the Hoople and The Sex Pistols with the singer doing an impression of John Lennon via Johnny Rotten. The songwriting had definite Beatles influence in there though.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 10:51:01 GMT -5
Ah that's right. I'd had a quick look but didn't spot the link and I seem to remember not being able to play it. Here it is: www.beatlesagain.com/bsounds/john3.mp3And guess what? I can't get it to play now either! I used to have an older computer but it died and now I'm using my girl's Mac. The link won't play! Thanks Joe. Same problem again for me - it doesn't play.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 11, 2012 10:54:37 GMT -5
Joe has spent dozens of hours responding to my posts and I have spend dozens of hours finding sources to the facts and quotes I have provided. I would like to see Joe spend a little time and find a source for his claim that John Lennon said that The Beatles were amatures before Ringo joined the band. There is no way in (bleep) he said that. Sorry, I've searched Google but there are no existing links to the audio clip which I clearly have in my mind. But you are mis-quoting John and me. I'm just saying I recall John saying "We knew of Ringo.." (don't recall the rest of this part, but it was all about Ringo's prominence in the biz) and then concluded with: "he was a professional, we were amateurs". I didn't say John was referring to August 1962; I'm saying he was talking about the early Hamburg days. But all I'm trying to get across there is that Pete Best was part of The Beatles, so he too was an amateur compared with Ringo. You made a claim that "Pete and Ringo were the same". Not so; Pete was an amateur and Ringo was a pro.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 11, 2012 11:00:42 GMT -5
I managed to play it by signing on using Internet Explorer and not Google Chrome, which is what I normally use.
The quote is as you said it was Joe.
|
|