|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 20, 2014 22:15:13 GMT -5
I think the perception that GM was "charmed" right away by them is also being blown out of proportion. He has stated that the recordings he first heard were "ok", but didn't blow him away. . George Martin himself has always been the one who said he was struck by The Beatles' charm and personalities straight away. I don't understand why you feel it's a misperception or blowing things out of proportion, when it's Martin himself who's always sung that tune. All we can do is follow what these people have said. As to the recordings Martin first heard, he used terms such as "not very good", and worse. I think "ok" is being kind.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 20, 2014 22:50:57 GMT -5
Oh I know the story about how he was taken by their personality as much as the music. Epstein said the same thing. Although with Eppy is was also the trousers :-) I guess my point is to an extent I'm agreeing with you Joe. I don't buy the idea that GM was forced to sign the band and that was the only reason. maybe he was forced (to an extent) to give them a look. Here's a 1971 interview where GM recalls the beginnings, with much detail. beatlesnumber9.com/martininterview1971.html
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 21, 2014 6:52:08 GMT -5
Snookeroo, George Martin only went to see The Beatles at the Cavern AFTER they'd made 'Love Me Do' and it was out. He went there because he'd offered to make an album with them.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 21, 2014 6:53:12 GMT -5
Oh I know the story about how he was taken by their personality as much as the music. Epstein said the same thing. Although with Eppy is was also the trousers :-) Yes, indeed... as I recall, they were very... umm, .... tight....
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 22, 2014 8:00:53 GMT -5
By the way, this particular radio interview with Mark Lewisohn --
-- is quite interesting, and parts of it deal with the things we've been discussing in this thread. In particular, the parts from around the 10-minute-mark to the 15-minute-mark.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 22, 2014 12:26:59 GMT -5
By the way, this particular radio interview with Mark Lewisohn -- -- is quite interesting, and parts of it deal with the things we've been discussing in this thread. In particular, the parts from around the 10-minute-mark to the 15-minute-mark. For those who don't have the book, also from the 47'-56' minute mark, Lewisohn talks in detail about the Pete Best sacking. Apparently when Bert Kaempfert heard the band in 1961, he did not care for Pete Best's drumming, and the people at Decca said after the New Year's Day audition in 1962, had they decided to accept the group, they did not like Pete Best either and would have requested they get another drummer. Add on G. Martin's opinion after the June '62 session (Guess we have to call it that now, and not an audition or test, since they were already signed) and you have three separate entities disapproving of Pete Best. Lewisohn says it was clear the band no longer was that interested in Pete as their drummer at the point they ceased to perform at the Casbah Club, but they needed a drummer for the return to Hamburg, and didn't know who to replace him with. Lewisohn says it was clear at that point Pete was just on borrowed time going forward. Lewisohn says that since Brian Epstein had a legal contract with the band as of late 1961, with Pete as the official drummer, when it was decided in late summer 1962 to replace Pete, Epstein consulted a lawyer who said if Pete was fired, he was still under legal contract to the band, so the best thing to do was what they did; The Beatles officially disbanded in late summer 1962, voiding the original contract, then Ringo joined the band and they re-signed with Brian immediately under a new contract with Ringo as their drummer, and Pete had no recourse to sue upon being fired. So technically, The Beatles broke up twice in their history, the first time being August, 1962. I was also enlightened to the fact that up until The Beatles signed with Brian in 1961, they did not play their own songs in their sets. When the band did the Decca Audition in 1962, Brian convinced them to include three of their own songs in the audition. "Like Dreamers Do", Hello Little Girl", and "Love of the Loved." The fact that they did, but failed the audition, meant that the people at publishing firm of EMI heard the tape, liked especially "Like Dreamers Do", wanted to publish it, so convinced EMI to sign the band to a contract. So it was Brian who suggested the band do some original songs, and one of those songs got them a recording contract. With the right producer as well. Glad they flunked the Decca Audition. This was probably the biggest and smartest decision Brian ever made about the band besides agreeing to manage them.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 22, 2014 13:31:38 GMT -5
Yes, Lewisohn basically disproves everything that nutter "Beatles at their Best" or whatever he called himself was arguing -- that Pete Best was the best drummer in The Beatles. Tony Sheridan, who played with Best every day for months in 1961, also says that Pete was "a crap drummer". Even Pete's best friend Neil doesn't make him sound too good, and Neil makes clear that Pete was never one of the "John, Paul, George" inner circle.
The aforementioned nutter also pretended to "know" that Ringo was hired as a non-full member of The Beatles at a lesser rate than the others -- Lewisohn also disproves this.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 22, 2014 15:04:39 GMT -5
Add on G. Martin's opinion after the June '62 session (Guess we have to call it that now, and not an audition or test, since they were already signed) and you have three separate entities disapproving of Pete Best. Lewisohn says it was clear the band no longer was that interested in Pete as their drummer at the point they ceased to perform at the Casbah Club, but they needed a drummer for the return to Hamburg, and didn't know who to replace him with. Lewisohn says it was clear at that point Pete was just on borrowed time going forward. One thought that I've always found fascinating is that even though The Beatles admittedly were never thrilled with Pete Best's drumming, and although Pete never fit in with the others, they were STILL ready to go on their way to stardom WITH Pete, only up to the fateful moment that George Martin decided he didn't like Pete's drumming. John, Paul, and George were prepared to keep Pete anyway before this occurred, as long as it meant they got the recording contract, whatever way. Had Martin never said he didn't want Pete on the recordings, the whole Ringo thing might never have come to pass, and it was going to be John, Paul, George, .... and Pete.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 23, 2014 11:58:04 GMT -5
Add on G. Martin's opinion after the June '62 session (Guess we have to call it that now, and not an audition or test, since they were already signed) and you have three separate entities disapproving of Pete Best. Lewisohn says it was clear the band no longer was that interested in Pete as their drummer at the point they ceased to perform at the Casbah Club, but they needed a drummer for the return to Hamburg, and didn't know who to replace him with. Lewisohn says it was clear at that point Pete was just on borrowed time going forward. One thought that I've always found fascinating is that even though The Beatles admittedly were never thrilled with Pete Best's drumming, and although Pete never fit in with the others, they were STILL ready to go on their way to stardom WITH Pete, only up to the fateful moment that George Martin decided he didn't like Pete's drumming. John, Paul, and George were prepared to keep Pete anyway before this occurred, as long as it meant they got the recording contract, whatever way. Had Martin never said he didn't want Pete on the recordings, the whole Ringo thing might never have come to pass, and it was going to be John, Paul, George, .... and Pete.If upon hearing of G. Martin's dislike of Pete's drumming after the June '62 session, they also knew that Kaempfert had not cared for him in '61, and if they got feedback from the Decca audition along the same lines, perhaps the third person to voice the same opinion was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. The Beatles wanted that contract at EMI, and wanted to please Martin, so there was a strong motivation to finally dump him. As pointed out now in the Lewisohn book, Brian had to figure out a way to do it so Pete wouldn't have grounds to sue them, so he had to consult a lawyer on how to go about it. But you are right that had Martin not voiced any opinion, they might never had made the switch at that moment and Pete might have lasted longer in the band. Lucky for them Ringo had been in Germany the same time as them, and sat in with them when Pete wasn't able, so they had an option when Pete didn't satisfy Martin in the June session. Fate.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 23, 2014 14:05:39 GMT -5
When the Beatles got the Hamburg gig they desperately needed a drummer. John -- who's been quoted more than once as describing Pete's drumming as "awful" -- explains how Pete got the job.
"We just grabbed him and auditioned him. He could keep one beat going for long enough, so we took him."
I tend to believe Pete Best's days were numbered, with or without George Martin's decree.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 23, 2014 16:18:30 GMT -5
"I never suggested that Pete Best must go. All I said was that for the purposes of the Beatles' first record I would rather use a session man. I never thought Brian Epstein would let him go. He seemed like the most saleable commodity as far as looks go. It was a surprise when I learned that they had dropped Pete." -- George Martin
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 23, 2014 16:28:44 GMT -5
"By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best, too, because he was a lousy drummer, you know? He never improved, and there was always this myth being built up over the years that he was great . . . We were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer." -- John Lennon, 1974
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 23, 2014 23:59:42 GMT -5
When the Beatles got the Hamburg gig they desperately needed a drummer. John -- who's been quoted more than once as describing Pete's drumming as "awful" -- explains how Pete got the job. "We just grabbed him and auditioned him. He could keep one beat going for long enough, so we took him." I tend to believe Pete Best's days were numbered, with or without George Martin's decree. I am familiar with Lennon's remarks about Pete... but that's just the point -- as much as John and the others say they were sick of Pete and they were always gonna dump him, the fact is they DIDN'T dump Pete --- and they were all set to record with him right up to signing the recording contract. Had George Martin felt the drumming was fine, The Beatles might have made the records we all know with Pete on the kit.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 24, 2014 2:18:59 GMT -5
And as a disclaimer you gotta put Lennon's comments in context. This is a guy who said Sgt Pepper was "rubbish" and all Paul ever did "was Yesterday."..... Pete Best was an OK drummer. But Ringo was one of the all time greatest rock drummers. No put down of Pete. But the Beatles were operating on the highesr level of artistry.
|
|
|
Post by RockoRoll on Jan 24, 2014 3:54:28 GMT -5
"By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best, too, because he was a lousy drummer, you know? He never improved, and there was always this myth being built up over the years that he was great . . . We were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer." -- John Lennon, 1974 Everytime I read that quote from John, about Pete, never improving.....Reminds me of this Interview from George (1987), about Ringo never practicing/improving himself after 1970 (something that JSD's always complained about..... ) Refer between the 2:00 - 3:00min mark.. Gee, (as he speaks) George's deep breathing due to his smoking?, is a worry??
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 24, 2014 7:10:10 GMT -5
I don't think there's much to this. The only reason they didn't try to replace Pete Best sooner is probably the fact that getting a drummer (right age, not a total nutter) was extremely difficult. They had spent much of the preceding two years (before Hamburg, 1960) trying unsuccessfully to get one. So, when Pete was doing nothing, had a drum kit, and was ready to roll -- not to mention a mom who owned a new club that would book and pay the Beatles -- or course they took him. And once they had someone, they could not easily replace him.
Maybe in 1960/1961, an attempt to replace Pete could have been made, such as when they went on the 2nd Hamburg trip. Perhaps that was the one "lost opportunity" to sack him easily, but again who was going to replace him? Once contracts were signed and visas obtained, etc., for the second trip, there was no replacing Pete. And almost as soon as they came back to Liverpool, they were contracted to Brian Epstein, which also made it extremely hard to get rid of him.
So that takes it into 1962, and yes, perhaps if George Martin had been more enthusiastic about his drumming, they would have just went on with him. But events suggest they'd had it in mind to replace him long before they did (like, one or two years before), but they just couldn't do it easily. Drummers were few and far between, and once contracts are such are signed, it becomes impossible.
In summer 1962, I think they just reached the point of no return -- it was like, "We either get rid of him now (and now that Ringo's career is a bit in flux and he's maybe available) or we NEVER get rid of him". And so they got rid of him, despite Brian's having to face legal trouble in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 24, 2014 13:47:41 GMT -5
"By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best, too, because he was a lousy drummer, you know? He never improved, and there was always this myth being built up over the years that he was great . . . We were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer." -- John Lennon, 1974 Everytime I read that quote from John, about Pete, never improving.....Reminds me of this Interview from George (1987), about Ringo never practicing/improving himself after 1970 (something that JSD's always complained about..... ) Refer between the 2:00 - 3:00min mark.. Gee, (as he speaks) George's deep breathing due to his smoking?, is a worry?? Thanks for the George interview Rocko! I can never get enough of George interviews from 1987 through about 1992, his "Golden Solo Days" what with Cloud Nine, Wilburys and finally Japan. Then he hid again. And you are correct that I am disappointed that Ringo did not stick seriously to what he did best: drumming. While I am happy that since Old Wave maybe, he does his own album drumming for the most part, it just isn't as distinctive as his last great, make you stop what you're doing Ringo Starr drumming which for my money is John's POB album. Man, I would love to hear Ringo's drumming on "God" isolated. After each, "I don't believe in..." Ringo has a different little fill or pattern. Very cool. It is proven by history that since 1970, Ringo's big mistake was trying to be "Mr. All-Round Entertainer." It failed. Ringo is first and foremost a great Rock and Roll drummer and had he focused on that and continued to do serious drumming projects as he did for John on POB and George for much of ATMP for other quality musical artists AND been much more demanding of the material he recorded for himself, he would still be a vital figure in Rock/Pop music. He is not now. He is seen as a happy-go-lucky oldie but moldie, loveable for all that came before 1970. That's my beef. Ringo thought that he could be an actor(he couldn't) and a non-drumming frontman musical entertainer(hey, give us more jumping jacks on stage to songs all over 40 years old) but that was never him. Ringo should have stayed a serious drummer, drumming on entire albums(like he did on POB) for musical artists he(Ringo) admired who were in such need and limited his own solo album to one every four years or longer with much better quality control.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jan 24, 2014 14:08:59 GMT -5
I think on the extras for the John Lennon POB Classic Album DVD there's a bit where they isolate Ringo's drumming on GOD.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 24, 2014 15:14:21 GMT -5
I think on the extras for the John Lennon POB Classic Album DVD there's a bit where they isolate Ringo's drumming on GOD. Thanks Andy! I'll hunt that down. I saw the DVD a few years ago and it is great!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 24, 2014 15:58:23 GMT -5
When the Beatles got the Hamburg gig they desperately needed a drummer. John -- who's been quoted more than once as describing Pete's drumming as "awful" -- explains how Pete got the job. "We just grabbed him and auditioned him. He could keep one beat going for long enough, so we took him." I tend to believe Pete Best's days were numbered, with or without George Martin's decree. I am familiar with Lennon's remarks about Pete... but that's just the point -- as much as John and the others say they were sick of Pete and they were always gonna dump him, the fact is they DIDN'T dump Pete --- and they were all set to record with him right up to signing the recording contract. Had George Martin felt the drumming was fine, The Beatles might have made the records we all know with Pete on the kit. Joe's right. They knew about the June "audition" at EMI while they were still in Hamburg. They could have decided to dump Pete and ask Ringo to join before the EMI session, but they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 24, 2014 17:58:31 GMT -5
"By then we were pretty sick of Pete Best, too, because he was a lousy drummer, you know? He never improved, and there was always this myth being built up over the years that he was great . . . We were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer." -- John Lennon, 1974 Everytime I read that quote from John, about Pete, never improving.....Reminds me of this Interview from George (1987), about Ringo never practicing/improving himself after 1970 (something that JSD's always complained about..... ) Refer between the 2:00 - 3:00min mark.. Gee, (as he speaks) George's deep breathing due to his smoking?, is a worry?? George points out that Ringo doesn't practice, not that he doesn't improve. He also pointed out that he himself doesn't practice. Why so harsh on Ringo?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 24, 2014 18:02:55 GMT -5
Everytime I read that quote from John, about Pete, never improving.....Reminds me of this Interview from George (1987), about Ringo never practicing/improving himself after 1970 (something that JSD's always complained about..... ) Refer between the 2:00 - 3:00min mark.. Gee, (as he speaks) George's deep breathing due to his smoking?, is a worry?? Thanks for the George interview Rocko! I can never get enough of George interviews from 1987 through about 1992, his "Golden Solo Days" what with Cloud Nine, Wilburys and finally Japan. Then he hid again. And you are correct that I am disappointed that Ringo did not stick seriously to what he did best: drumming. While I am happy that since Old Wave maybe, he does his own album drumming for the most part, it just isn't as distinctive as his last great, make you stop what you're doing Ringo Starr drumming which for my money is John's POB album. Man, I would love to hear Ringo's drumming on "God" isolated. After each, "I don't believe in..." Ringo has a different little fill or pattern. Very cool. It is proven by history that since 1970, Ringo's big mistake was trying to be "Mr. All-Round Entertainer." It failed. Ringo is first and foremost a great Rock and Roll drummer and had he focused on that and continued to do serious drumming projects as he did for John on POB and George for much of ATMP for other quality musical artists AND been much more demanding of the material he recorded for himself, he would still be a vital figure in Rock/Pop music. He is not now. He is seen as a happy-go-lucky oldie but moldie, loveable for all that came before 1970. That's my beef. Ringo thought that he could be an actor(he couldn't) and a non-drumming frontman musical entertainer(hey, give us more jumping jacks on stage to songs all over 40 years old) but that was never him. Ringo should have stayed a serious drummer, drumming on entire albums(like he did on POB) for musical artists he(Ringo) admired who were in such need and limited his own solo album to one every four years or longer with much better quality control. Oh bull, John Ringo has brought more joy to people with his all starr concerts and brought himself a better income than he ever could have seeking drumming gigs in his fifties and beyond. Ringo usually plays two current songs in his concerts. So does Paul, why always pick on Ringo, why not criticize Paul on this score? Btw, I still love the jumping jacks.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 24, 2014 18:59:54 GMT -5
Oh bull, John Ringo has brought more joy to people with his all starr concerts and brought himself a better income than he ever could have seeking drumming gigs in his fifties and beyond. Ringo usually plays two current songs in his concerts. So does Paul, why always pick on Ringo, why not criticize Paul on this score? Btw, I still love the jumping jacks. "Oh bull, John" is right... I agree with you, anyoneanyhow. I have always loved Ringo the way he is, and that is as "the lovable, all-around entertainer".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 24, 2014 19:06:03 GMT -5
In summer 1962, I think they just reached the point of no return -- it was like, "We either get rid of him now (and now that Ringo's career is a bit in flux and he's maybe available) or we NEVER get rid of him". And so they got rid of him, despite Brian's having to face legal trouble in doing so. But only because George Martin said he had no use for Pete on the tracks. If he'd been fine -- or if George Martin had really liked Pete's playing -- the Beatles would have gone right ahead with him. Didn't matter to them by that point, they just wanted the recording contract.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 24, 2014 20:30:31 GMT -5
I admit I WAY under-rated Ringo's solo career. George's too. Lately I've been listening a lot to the Beatles-a-rama internet radio station. And they play a lot of Ringo and George solo stuff. And nowadays they're among my favorite songs in the Beatles canon. IN part it could be because they're less familiar and more fresh to me. But I'm impressed by how many beautifully melodic and Beatle-esque solo songs they produced over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 24, 2014 22:12:44 GMT -5
A little early 80's Ringo. A great drum track in my mind - not just for the drumming breaks, but all the little fills throughout. I tried to find just the song but was only able to find the whole album. The song is called "Goin Down", and you can pick it up at the 33:20 mark. Check it out.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 24, 2014 22:56:15 GMT -5
Hey Snookeroo (another really nice Ringo solo song, by the way). I notice from your profile pic that you play a little drums yourself. I wonder, as a drummer, how you would rate the respective talents of Ringo and Pete as drummers.
I admit, I'm the type that rarely listens to drums specifically. There are songs I've listened to for 20 years and never really noticed whether it was actual drums or a drum machine. I'm the same way about most bass guitar. Usually I don't specifically listen to it (though I'm sure it has an effect on a subliminal level).
But two drummers that I DO listen to are Ringo and Keith Moon. Ringo mostly for his "melodic" style of drumming, and the way he perfectly accents a song. And Keith Moon for playing drums almost like a lead instrument.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 24, 2014 23:17:36 GMT -5
A little early 80's Ringo. A great drum track in my mind - not just for the drumming breaks, but all the little fills throughout. I tried to find just the song but was only able to find the whole album. The song is called "Goin Down", and you can pick it up at the 33:20 mark. Check it out. Just listening to the first track. It sounds like NEW.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2014 0:49:32 GMT -5
Oh bull, John Ringo has brought more joy to people with his all starr concerts and brought himself a better income than he ever could have seeking drumming gigs in his fifties and beyond. Ringo usually plays two current songs in his concerts. So does Paul, why always pick on Ringo, why not criticize Paul on this score? Btw, I still love the jumping jacks. I am not talking money, I am talking artistic integrity! My most embarrassing Beatle fan moment was seeing Ringo and the All-Starrs at a casino in Hammond, Indiana. I had never been to a casino before. I felt like a whore. I think Mike Love and His Beach Boys played there too!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2014 0:58:39 GMT -5
"Oh bull, John" is right... I agree with you, anyoneanyhow. I have always loved Ringo the way he is, and that is as "the lovable, all-around entertainer". 'Cause a man like me belongs to the world, And the world is a great place to be. And a man like me just sings for the world That goes round and round for free.
|
|