|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 24, 2013 21:27:07 GMT -5
I think this would be an interesting book. It is an interesting, if brief, chapter in the Beatles story. I think though the biggest story in this Jimmy Nicol saga is how willing the powers that be in Beatledom were willing to replace Ringo, even if temporary, to keep the money game going. Bottom line, Ringo was expendable and that is the big story there. There is no way in hell that if John or Paul fell sick that either would have been replaced even if for just two weeks. What does Berkenstadt say about George Harrison's attitude to Jimmy? By all previous accounts George absolutely, positively hated the idea of Ringo being replaced temporarily and said as such but he was "just George." The Jimmy Nicol chapter proved forever that all Beatles were not created equal and that it was really just the John and Paul show. Johnny, the book does fully cover George's position on starting the tour without Ringo, and bottom line, George was not pleased. More details in the book. Fred, please know I am delighted that you started this Thread. As between Steve's interview of Mr. Berkenstadt and your thorough post starting this Thread, I learned about an interesting new book. I never shoot the messenger(just sometimes the piano player). This is an interesting and perhaps more important chapter in Beatles history than we previously realized. It was the start of the marginalization of Ringo Starr by Brian Epstein, George Martin(yes, old George is involved in this chapter, isn't he Fred, the book should confirm that!), John Lennon and Sir Paul McCartney! Only George Harrison fought the good fight, and stood up for Ringo. Why oh why do you all think Ringo wrote a tribute song for George only and not one for John and he sure as hell won't write one for Paul. This even though George shagged Ringo's then wife, Maureen?! Ringo remembered the only Beatle who stuck up for him, that's why! This sounds like a very good book but instead of us all feeling good(or bad) about Jimmy Nicol, we need to hang our heads in shame of this blatant mistreatment of poor old Ringo!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 24, 2013 21:46:03 GMT -5
"...the start of the marginalization of Ringo Starr..."? I thought the start was the tambourine. And what did they do to Ringo after this? I guess he should have stuck with Rory. Although Rory would have probably canned him after awhile (He called in sick a lot).
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 24, 2013 23:45:41 GMT -5
"...the start of the marginalization of Ringo Starr..."? I thought the start was the tambourine. And what did they do to Ringo after this? I guess he should have stuck with Rory. Although Rory would have probably canned him after awhile (He called in sick a lot). The "Love Me Do" debacle was #1. Being replaced by Jimmy was #2. From then on out, Ringo was told how to drum on every song especially by Paul. It got to the point where Ringo wasn't even drumming on all Beatles' songs. What did John say, Ringo wasn't eventhe best drummer in the The Beatles!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 25, 2013 0:57:53 GMT -5
Johnny, the book does fully cover George's position on starting the tour without Ringo, and bottom line, George was not pleased. More details in the book. Fred, please know I am delighted that you started this Thread. As between Steve's interview of Mr. Berkenstadt and your thorough post starting this Thread, I learned about an interesting new book. I never shoot the messenger(just sometimes the piano player). This is an interesting and perhaps more important chapter in Beatles history than we previously realized. It was the start of the marginalization of Ringo Starr by Brian Epstein, George Martin(yes, old George is involved in this chapter, isn't he Fred, the book should confirm that!), John Lennon and Sir Paul McCartney! Only George Harrison fought the good fight, and stood up for Ringo. Why oh why do you all think Ringo wrote a tribute song for George only and not one for John and he sure as hell won't write one for Paul. This even though George shagged Ringo's then wife, Maureen?! Ringo remembered the only Beatle who stuck up for him, that's why! This sounds like a very good book but instead of us all feeling good(or bad) about Jimmy Nicol, we need to hang our heads in shame of this blatant mistreatment of poor old Ringo! Ringo often played and sang "I Call Your Name" in tribute to John. I have a recording of him talking about how much he loved John just prior to playing this song. John said a lot of stupid things in his life about all his friends, but he had a lot of respect for Ringo and loved him as much as the others. He gave the song "I Am The Greatest" to Ringo for his solo album. It was Ringo who raced to NY following John's death to comfort Yoko and be there for her. Where were the other two?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 25, 2013 1:02:25 GMT -5
When I first wrote my initial review of 'The Beatle Who Vanished' book, I was only partially finished in reading the book, but was impressed enough to write something on it. I've now completely finished reading the book, and all I can say is 'WOW!!!' This is definitely one of the best Beatles books I've ever read. The last few chapters alone read like a detective novel. I've learned things about Jimmie Nicol and his stint with the Beatles, before and afterwards, which are incredibly fascinating. Kudos to Jim Berkenstadt for the research he put into this book, he's definitely in a class with Mark Lewisohn and Bruce Spizer when it comes to thorough research on his subject. I don't want to give too much away, but I can say with assurance that the Beatles, Brian Epstein, Mal Evans and Neil Aspinal did consider Jimmie Nicol to be a Beatle and he was treated as a Beatle during his short tenure with the band while Ringo was ill. Paul McCartney was definitely trying to look out for Jimmie when he was going through a bad patch of luck and Paul anonymously lent a hand on several occasions which are revealed in the book. One interesting fact that I won't go into too much detail on that you can read more fully about in the book is that Nicol's son, by shear conicidence, worked on the 'Beatles Anthology' project (and later 'Wingspan'), and when Paul found out who he was, wanted to get in touch with his father so that Jimmie could be interviewed for and be a part of the Anthology! That alone should answer the question of whether any of the Beatles considered Nicol to be a Beatle. I came away from this book with an all new admiration and respect for Jimmie Nicol, and it just makes it all the more sadder the way his life and career turned out after he was no longer in the spotlight. It's a tragic Beatle-related story along the lines of Badfinger, but with more of a twist to it. Again, I can't recommend this book enough. It belongs in any serious Beatles scholars' library. And check out Jim Berkenstadt's website on the book, with lots of rare photos, clippings and videos of Jimmie Nicol before, during and after the Beatles. You can also download a free sample excerpt of the book to check it out. www.thebeatlewhovanished.com/Old Fred; You deserve a Beatle Bedsheet for all the nice things you said about the book and Jimmy Nicol....
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 25, 2013 5:13:15 GMT -5
But you're not having Steve's....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 6:33:00 GMT -5
The "Love Me Do" debacle was #1. Please, JSD, let's not try to make a court case out of this. George Martin did not know Ringo and it was perfectly understandable what happened with the Andy White thing. Paul said in 1980 (it's on the LP "The McCartney Interview") that they always gave Ringo direction on every number. However, I have Ringo on the Howard Stern show in 2001 saying that this was not really the case. So what is the verdict? I wish people would not give more life to this quote when there is not audio/video evidence of this from John. If John actually said this, I would love to know the source of it (even if it's a written interview)? Instead of fans just loving it, running with it, and spreading it like an epidemic.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 6:46:39 GMT -5
[Why oh why do you all think Ringo wrote a tribute song for George only and not one for John and he sure as hell won't write one for Paul. This even though George shagged Ringo's then wife, Maureen?! Ringo remembered the only Beatle who stuck up for him, that's why! Are you just trying to be "Facetious JSD" again, or are you actually serious? Ringo loved and respected John, and always called him his dear friend. He seemed closer to John at times than anyone, judging from all Ringo has said about John in many interviews over the past few decades. This is a problem I am afraid I have with so many fans, as they just never get around to watching tons of video interviews, thus they never see the evidence. I have Ringo crying for John on Barbara Walters in 1981 ... Ringo praising John and stifling back tears on TV appearances like Merv Griffin, and PM Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, etc, etc. And then we had John in 1975 on Tom Snyder, saying "i t always went 'round that Ringo was dumb but he ain't dumb", and then went on always on record as saying he was happy that Ringo's recording career at the time has done well: "I'm glad everyone's doing well. I'm more glad - I think we all are in a way - that Ringo is doing well. Because although he makes films and he's good at it, there was a concern for how his recording careeer was going to be. And at the moment it's probably better than mine, actually! " . I guess this is one of those times where you and Sayne say "you have to know when something is a joke, and take it lightly". Because I sure hope this is a joke. Ringo was not mistreated here on the 1964 tour, for reasons I've expressed, and which I hope you've considered (I haven't checked yet). The guy was out sick with having his tonsils removed, so they kept up their tour commitments by sticking a guy on the drums for a few live gigs. He never replaced Ringo, was never going to replace him, and that was that. Damn these bloody conspiracy theorists!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 7:26:14 GMT -5
Just postpone, not cancel, the tour. The Beatles were John, Paul, George & Ringo(in that exact order) and fans got cheated when old Jimmy was at drums. Jimmy Nicol had the charisma of used toilet paper! Sorry, but if Ringo counts, and I say he does, then The Beatles without Ringo ain't The Beatles. We are seeing here who the real Ringo fans are and who are the pretenders. I'm a big fan of Ringo's, one of the biggest here (he's actually become second right after John for me). Of course Ringo was crucial to The Beatles and he could never be replaced... but that's not what happened here. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I have never seen footage of Ringo brewing with resentment over this incident, and every piece of film which exists from this tour show the fans applauding and cheering like typical Beatlemania, all of them accepting of the situation. Sometimes you'd see a sign in the crowd like "Get Well Soon, Ringo!", but that was about it -- no torch-carrying mobs, no violence, no rioting. Oh come on, Ringo played on one version of LOVE ME DO which was issued. JSD, I honestly think you delight in sensationalism when any opportunity presents itself. If we're talking about LOVE ME DO, Ringo did get to play on one of them which was released in 1962, so there is no issue there. They would have been committing suicide by walking out of the sessions for their very first single, you've got to be kidding. If we're talking about the Jimmy Nicol situation, I can admire George's loyalty for Ringo, but frankly it would have been very stupid for him or the other two to walk out. Finally George came to his senses, which is how it should have been. The brief Jimmy period was no big deal to anyone until right here with this book talk -- Again, it's difficult online to know when a person is joking as opposed to seeing and hearing them in person. Could be you're just being outrageous here to stir things up, I don't know. But in case you really mean this -- Of course George Martin was crucial to The Beatles, and without him there would be no Beatles or AbbeyRd Message Board. George Martin was already a success on his own (just not in Rock N Roll), and The Beatles were going nowhere fast. As for your John lennon quote, he has always said it was a mutual thing and that Martin and the Fabs both helped each other out. Go re-watch the 1975 Old Grey Whistle test interview. Of course, if you don't have it in your home collection, it's the brief clips of John wearing the cap and talking of Martin, which even semi-fans might have at least seen on their more common Anthology Videos.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 25, 2013 8:57:31 GMT -5
What did John say, Ringo wasn't eventhe best drummer in the The Beatles! Cool have we found the citation for that then?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 10:02:40 GMT -5
George Martin has admitted to treating George Harrison "beastly" and he has apologized to Ringo for the "Love Me Do" insult. I think Ringo is owed an apology from someone for the Jimmy Nicol incident. Tours can be postponed especially in 1964 when there wasn't yet the traffic of many rock and roll groups touring. This sounds like a cool book but I feel bad for Ringo over the incident. On Anthology he bristles about them leaving for tour without him. And being in the Beatles for two weeks effectively ended Jimmy's music career that had been on the upswing up to that point. It did not open the doors that he thought it would. We don't need a new book to know that. Hey, I apologize for viewing this incident from Ringo's eyes. I thought that this was a Beatles Message Board!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 12:24:00 GMT -5
In the Anthology book, Jimmy Nicol is discussed at Page 139. Paul McCartney is so matter of fact, "We couldn't cancel, so the idea was to get a stand-in." Paul says Jimmy played well and as an afterthought threw in, "obviously not the same as Ringo..." Ringo: "It was very strange, them going off without me. They'd taken Jimmy Nicol and I thought they didn't love me any more - all that stuff went through my head." George Harrison: "Of course, with all respect to Jimmy, we shouldn't have done it. The point was, it was the Fabs. Can you imagine The Rolling Stones going on tour: 'Oh, sorry. Mick can't come.' -'All right, we'll just get somebody else to replace him for two weeks.' It was silly, and I couldn't understand it. I really despised the way we couldn't make a decision for ourselves then....It was the blind leading the blind." Right on Hari!! I miss George, we need him to counter the Macca revisionism! Old George Martin is quoted saying George H. was loyal but Brian and Martin had to talk Hari into going. No Sir George, they didn't have to go, postpone the dates until you have the Fabs, not the 3/4 Fabs! Of course we get no John quotes in the Anthology book as to Jimmy specifically because John is forgotten by 1995 or whenever. JoeK, I do not deal in sensationalism but I do believe in bringing history to life! The use of Jimmy Nicol was VERY hurtful to Ringo and fueled George Harrison's already dislike of Beatlemania. That would have ripple effects for the future. The lines were being drawn of first-class Beatles and sceond-class Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 17:25:17 GMT -5
In the Anthology book, Jimmy Nicol is discussed at Page 139. I have that ANTHOLOGY book, and have read some of it - not all. I take written "isolated quotes" with a grain of salt, unless I see/hear the person actually saying it (or unless it is known to have come from somewhere non-dubious, such as Rolling Stone, Playboy, etc). Doesn't mean they're all untrue, of course, but just possibly unofficial in my view. Nothing foul about this feeling from Paul. I don't doubt there was initially a bit of that running through Ringo's mind as would anyone's, however he has never made a big mention or hoopla over this event in general that I am aware of. George's quote here is silly. Of course you cannot replace Mick Jagger in the Stones, but you could replace Bill Wyman or Brian Jones (AND THEY DID!)... as I said elsewhere, RIngo was the drummer and did not have to sing. I could see George's point if it was John or Paul being replaced, but his Mick analogy is not comparable to this situation. They should have taken the opportunity of George Harrison's protest to let George stay home too, and replace him with a better lead guitarist! this is what I meant by 'sensationalism'! I appreciate your joke for the "forgotten Lennon" cause, however there is probably nothing more devious here other than they couldn't get any Lennon quotes on the Jimmy Nicol experience. See my comment right above. Nonsense (bar the possibility of George getting further soured on Beatlemania... but if he didn't like it, George should have been working on the railroad).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 17:32:33 GMT -5
I think Ringo is owed an apology from someone for the Jimmy Nicol incident. Tours can be postponed especially in 1964 when there wasn't yet the traffic of many rock and roll groups touring. I think you may owe Ringo an apology for over-reaching on his pain here. As for postponing the tour, not in the middle of 1964 and with Beatlemania in its prime, you don't. And the simple fact is, we are mainly talking about LIVE PERFORMANCES here, not studio recordings. Nobody could hear anything anyway. Not a big deal. As I said - all the fans still cheered and clapped and swooned -- nobody caused riots or held "Anti-Jimmy Protests".
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 25, 2013 17:49:01 GMT -5
. . . As for postponing the tour, not in the middle of 1964 and with Beatlemania in its prime, you don't . . . Which is why, too, John had to make nice after his "Jesus" statement. If the money weren't so big, the lawsuits so probable, the logistics so convoluted, the numbers of people with chips in the game so large, his responsibility to the other 3 so strong, etc, John certainly would have given a different response. I wonder if this was at a time when George might have said or at least thought of saying, "John, I don't give a fuck. Say what you want," or was he still all in. We know by Manila and San Francisco he was done, but I wonder if the seed of his discontent was there at the time of John's mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 19:48:21 GMT -5
I have that ANTHOLOGY book, and have read some of it - not all. I take written "isolated quotes" with a grain of salt, unless I see/hear the person actually saying it (or unless it is known to have come from somewhere non-dubious, such as Rolling Stone, Playboy, etc). Doesn't mean they're all untrue, of course, but just possibly unofficial in my view. What!? I am quoting from "The Beatles Anthology," man! That is the most official Beatles source there is! Playboy and Rolling Stone are "non-dubious?" Ask all Monkees fans what they think of RS. What a minute Joe, you say you can't compare Ringo to Mick Jagger and George may have been right if we are talking John or Paul who couldn't go on tour and you want George to stay home with his bad attitude because there are better guitarists but then say "nonsense" when I point out that there are first-class and second-class Beatles?
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jun 25, 2013 19:57:30 GMT -5
Ask all Monkees fans what they think of RS. You mean the magazine Micky Dolenz used to call 'Rolling Stain'? P.S.: You are going to buy the Nicol's book, right Johnny? Don't disappoint me, Son!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 20:16:40 GMT -5
Ask all Monkees fans what they think of RS. You mean the magazine Micky Dolenz used to call 'Rolling Stain'? P.S.: You are going to buy the Nicol's book, right Johnny? Don't disappoint me, Son! "Rolling Stain." I may buy it Fred! I have nothing against Jimmy and the book sounds well written but I must say I am with Ringo and George Harrison on the issue of not substituting Ringo for two weeks. Question: Would the Beatles have used Jimmy for the U.S. leg of the 1964 tour? I say not only no but hell no thus The Beatles were dissing those in Hong Kong and other non-English speaking countries. "Oh they will never notice!"
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jun 25, 2013 21:00:01 GMT -5
You mean the magazine Micky Dolenz used to call 'Rolling Stain'? P.S.: You are going to buy the Nicol's book, right Johnny? Don't disappoint me, Son! "Rolling Stain." I may buy it Fred! I have nothing against Jimmy and the book sounds well written but I must say I am with Ringo and George Harrison on the issue of not substituting Ringo for two weeks. Question: Would the Beatles have used Jimmy for the U.S. leg of the 1964 tour? I say not only no but hell no thus The Beatles were dissing those in Hong Kong and other non-English speaking countries. "Oh they will never notice!" According to the book, as long as Ringo was sick and unable to perform, Jimmie would have stayed with the group. And I hardly think Australia was a non-English speaking country! Definitely get the book, Johnny. It's a great read and it will adequately answer all of your questions. By the way, if you're expecting me to spill the beans, I can say no more.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 21:56:21 GMT -5
What!? I am quoting from "The Beatles Anthology," man! That is the most official Beatles source there is! Playboy and Rolling Stone are "non-dubious?" Ask all Monkees fans what they think of RS. John, what I was trying to convey is like an official interview, say from RS or PLAYBOY, where you KNOW that the words were really things the subject has said. What I object to are isolated "throw away quotes" from dubious sources and we don't actually know where they came from, thus don't know if they're real or made up. My "George could have stayed home" comment was an attempt at humor in the midst of this craziness (you know, the kind of humor you and sayne claim I am incapable of, but which also seemed to go over your head here? ). Yes - you cannot honestly believe that they could have replaced John or Paul in 1964 in Australia and pulled it off, can you? Like I said, Ringo was irreplaceable as a Beatle in general, but not when it came to a few live gigs for under two weeks' time, where there's just a drummer in the back onstage who needn't be required to sing, and the screaming girls cannot hear it anyway. Of course they may not have been able to hear John and Paul sing either, but it's true that they were more up front in the foreground. If you want to stray away from this main point into playing semantics about "first and second class Beatles", I can't go along with it fully. I would never condone replacing Ringo full-time permanently or on records. But for under two weeks in some concerts as I described above? Yes. And I still have not heard (maybe I didn't read far enough yet) you concede that the appreciative fans did not get upset, never rioted or protested, and actually welcomed Jimmy to the temporary fold, and seemed to have understood the situation perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 25, 2013 22:12:22 GMT -5
"Rolling Stain." I may buy it Fred! I have nothing against Jimmy and the book sounds well written but I must say I am with Ringo and George Harrison on the issue of not substituting Ringo for two weeks. Question: Would the Beatles have used Jimmy for the U.S. leg of the 1964 tour? I say not only no but hell no thus The Beatles were dissing those in Hong Kong and other non-English speaking countries. "Oh they will never notice!" According to the book, as long as Ringo was sick and unable to perform, Jimmie would have stayed with the group. And I hardly think Australia was a non-English speaking country! Definitely get the book, Johnny. It's a great read and it will adequately answer all of your questions. By the way, if you're expecting me to spill the beans, I can say no more. sooooo if Ringo left the Beatles during the White Album would they have rehired Jimmy???
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 25, 2013 22:13:42 GMT -5
Question: Would the Beatles have used Jimmy for the U.S. leg of the 1964 tour? I say not only no but hell no thus The Beatles were dissing those in Hong Kong and other non-English speaking countries. "Oh they will never notice!" So what? They didn't even tell the Hong Kongians that it wasn't Ringo? Now that is bad. Nicol didn't even look like Ringo. Now there was this guy in Canada called Bill Campbell who looked a lot like a Beatle and I hear John thought he played drums better than Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 22:15:26 GMT -5
"Rolling Stain." I may buy it Fred! I have nothing against Jimmy and the book sounds well written but I must say I am with Ringo and George Harrison on the issue of not substituting Ringo for two weeks. Question: Would the Beatles have used Jimmy for the U.S. leg of the 1964 tour? I say not only no but hell no thus The Beatles were dissing those in Hong Kong and other non-English speaking countries. "Oh they will never notice!" According to the book, as long as Ringo was sick and unable to perform, Jimmie would have stayed with the group. And I hardly think Australia was a non-English speaking country! Definitely get the book, Johnny. It's a great read and it will adequately answer all of your questions. By the way, if you're expecting me to spill the beans, I can say no more. Australia got both Jimmy and Ringo, right? Ringo rejoined them in that great concert that was videotaped and broadcast in Australia. But true, if Jimmy played an Australian concert then that was before English speaking people but the shows in the Netherlands and Hong Kong weren't. Ringo was so popular in the U.S. in 1964 that I cannot believe he would have been substituted there!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 25, 2013 22:21:47 GMT -5
"Ringo wasn't the best drummer in England. He wasn't even the best drummer in Canada."
"Ringo was so popular in the U.S. in 1964 that I cannot believe he would have been substituted there!" - John S Damm
I know in our neighborhood, the day after Sullivan, everyone wanted to play the drums.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 22:27:11 GMT -5
Yes - you cannot honestly believe that they could have replaced John or Paul in 1964 in Australia and pulled it off, can you? No, I never said John or Paul should or could have been substituted for! I assert that Ringo could not be substituted for. The fans who saw Jimmy Nicol got short-changed in seeing The Fabs. I do not know for a fact that fans did not get upset or riot over the lack of Ringo. You've represented that, sure. I bet there were angry fans at all concerts where Jimmy played. The John, Paul and George fans were happy so they didn't riot. If you were from Hong Kong and loved Ringo best, you got hosed. The U.S. fans would have rioted if Ringo wasn't with them here. Was Ringo getting hosed and substituted for two weeks the worse thing that ever happened in mankind? Of course not. But within The Beatles it caused Ringo grief as I've quoted him and it pissed George Harrison off as I've quoted him. One more nail in the lid for Hari as to enjoying The Beatles. It was really a John/Paul vs. George/Ringo thing. Hey, it is nice to see John and Paul work together even if it was to hose Ringo and piss off George(yet again). I went to a concert in 2011 by The Avett Brothers and bass player Bob Crawford was not present and I was angry. I kept yelling, "Where's Bob!?" as I suspected some kind of dirty pool Pete Best trick on the Avett bassist. Turns out his infant daughter had cancer in her brain and was gravely ill. Yeah, I then felt bad for yelling at the band all night but they should have told us that at the show. See, The Beatles and their dirty tricks with some members makes me feel paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 23:01:13 GMT -5
I do not know for a fact that fans did not get upset or riot over the lack of Ringo. You've represented that, sure. I bet there were angry fans at all concerts where Jimmy played. The John, Paul and George fans were happy so they didn't riot. If you were from Hong Kong and loved Ringo best, you got hosed. There may have been some Ringo lovers who felt hosed (seems that's only to be expected), but none of the footage we see indicates any problem (it's not just my own representation). You may very well be correct. But it did not happen and so we'll never know. Perhaps there would have been a different plan of action by Team Beatles if it had been a US Tour at the time. But it wasn't, and so it's a moot point. "Grief"? You sound like a lawyer trying to make a case for a plaintiff. The quote said the thought that "they didn't love me" went through his head at the time in 1964, which is a completely normal reaction, and would probably occur to anybody. But of course they loved him, and it was obvious when he returned in Australia. You're making more out of it than Ringo has. Sensationalism again. And you don't see it? People get pissed off about all sorts of things, and it likely happened to each of the four Beatles at various times, about something or other. "Dirty Tricks?" More sensationalism. JSD ... it's hard to take you seriously sometimes. "They should have told us at the show" -- so would it have been okay with you if the fans already knew going in that Ringo was ill with tonsiitis and would not be at the shows? Ringo also said it was very big news in that Anthology interview you mentioned -- all fans in Australia knew the deal.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 25, 2013 23:09:48 GMT -5
I assert that Ringo could not be substituted for. Not only could he be -- he WAS! -- and it worked out perfectly, actually. Once again, it was just for onstage appearances for a handful of shows out of a long career. Nothing Earth shattering. The brief chapter has been as forgotten for the last four decades as Jimmy Nicol has been.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jun 26, 2013 4:37:58 GMT -5
According to the book, as long as Ringo was sick and unable to perform, Jimmie would have stayed with the group. And I hardly think Australia was a non-English speaking country! Definitely get the book, Johnny. It's a great read and it will adequately answer all of your questions. By the way, if you're expecting me to spill the beans, I can say no more. sooooo if Ringo left the Beatles during the White Album would they have rehired Jimmy??? Even if they had thought of that, they wouldn't have been able find Jimmie. Read the book and be enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jun 26, 2013 7:48:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 8, 2013 18:14:39 GMT -5
The latest episode of the Fab 4 Free 4 All podcast features an interview with Jim Berkenstadt, the author of the book on Jimmie Nicol 'The Beatle Who Vanished'. Berkenstadt who has done research for the recent George Harrison film by Martin Scorsese, talks in depth on why Nicol was chosen to sub for Ringo on the Beatles first 1964 World tour. A great discussion with bits of humor in the mix, definitely worth a listen. Just click on the link and enjoy. www.fab4free4all.com/
|
|