Solo forums > Fifth Beatles and the Merseybeat Scene
Stuart Sutcliffe - The Lost Beatle
BeatlesAtTheirBest:
Many Beatles fans know the story of how Stu had just purchased a bass and was learning how to play it he he joined the group. Fans also know he sang "Love Me Tender" and "Loving You" when they played the clubs of Hamburg. He was shown doing this in the the movie "Backbeat" (singing rather badly). But did you know that Stu really could sing? He was not only in the choir as a teen, but was head chorister!!! When he sang with The Beatles he often got the biggest ovation of the night!!!
He took piano lessons as a kid and even owned an acoustic guitar. In fact there are photos of Stu during the time he shared a flat with John where Stu's guitar is clearly visible in the shot.
Stu's influence on the early years of The Beatles, especially John Lennon, was HUGE. When he came into the picture he became John's mentor and even took over as manager of the band. It wasn't Brian Epstein or Allan Williams who was The Beatles first manager. It was Stuart Sutcliffe!!! When he came on the scene, McCartney & Harrison were bumped down a peg and the new pecking order went...
1. John Lennon
2. Stuart Sutcliffe
3. Paul McCartney
4. George Harrison.
"When Stuart came in, it felt as if he was taking the position away from George and me. We had to take a bit of a back seat. "
- Paul McCartney on Stuart Sutcliffe
That's the biggest reason McCartney hated Stu so much., not because Stu couldn't play bass.
Like I said, his influence on Lennon was huge. If Lennon was a genius as he claimed, well Stu was too. Maybe more so. Just look at what the two of them had to say about each other.
“I looked up to Stu. I depended on him to tell me the truth. Stu would tell me if something was good, and I'd believe him”
- John Lennon on Stuart Sutcliffe
"He was self-centered yet at the same time he was always a loyal friend. A frustrated and misunderstood child not given its due need in affection ends in a man without roots. In rebellion or bewilderment, almost embittered; this was John."
- Stuart Sutcliffe on John Lennon
Lennon would spend his whole life examining himself trying to discover what was already obvious to Stu as a teen.
When was the last time you ever heard any of the facts listed above in a Beatles documentary? You certainly didn't hear it in The Beatles Anthology.
Here are links to watch a great documentary on Stuart Sutcliffe, original bassist for The Beatles. It contains a lot of the same info found in other Beatles Documentaries, but also has a lot of info you won't find including some evidence backing up some of what I just said. Check it out. I am not saying to blindly trust everything you see and hear (especially from Stu's sister who has been accused of revising history a bit regarding her brother), but if you are a real Beatles fan and interested in knowing real truths about their early years, I am sure you will find it worth your time.
Stuart Sutcliffe - The Lost Beatle
1of4
Stuart Sutcliffe The Lost Beatle Part 1/4
2of4
Stuart Sutcliffe The Lost Beatle Part 2/4
3of4
Stuart Sutcliffe The Lost Beatle Part 3/4
4of4
Stuart Sutcliffe The Lost Beatle Part 4/4
TomMo:
Fantastic post!
I've always felt that there were so many "what if's" in the rise of the Beatles, and Stu was one of the biggest "what if's".
Stu's relationship with Astrid would bring about the Beatle haircut and the shadowy photographs. The haircut became a gimmick which was part of the total fascination of British Beatlemania. I've often wondered if the Beatles would have conquered America if they had kept the rocker/greaser haircuts. Kids in the U.S. had grown tired of the 50's looks, especially when the big acts of Elvis' era faded away, and the Fabian/Frankie Avalon era brought the neater, "safer" image. For those of us who were around, the haircuts WERE a big deal. How many Beatle wigs were sold in 1964? The cover of "With The Beatles" ("Meet The Beatles" in the U.S.), with the Astrid influenced photo showed that the Beatles were not the usual "pop" musicians.
By the same token, Stu's decision to leave the Beatles to stay with Astrid and return to his other love, art, probably resulted in the Beatles avoiding an issue that might have destroyed the band before they barely got started. What if Stu had stayed with the band? At what point would he have become a matter of dispute between John and Paul? I think John's friendship and loyalty to Stu would have outweighed any objections by Paul. It could have gotten really ugly.
Bobber:
--- Quote from: BeatlesAtTheirBest on June 17, 2012, 01:09:01 AM ---He took piano lessons as a kid and even owned an acoustic guitar. In fact there are photos of Stu during the time he shared a flat with John where Stu's guitar is clearly visible in the shot.
--- End quote ---
As a matter of fact pictures of Stu's guitar are on this forum as well somewhere.
--- Quote ---That's the biggest reason McCartney hated Stu so much.
--- End quote ---
How much prove is there that Paul really hated Stu? Tell me. I need facts to back this up.
TomMo:
--- Quote from: Bobber on June 17, 2012, 04:48:40 PM ---
How much prove is there that Paul really hated Stu? Tell me. I need facts to back this up.
--- End quote ---
None whatsoever, unless you accept Pete Best's version of the Hamburg period. Methinks Pete may have biased.
BeatlesAtTheirBest:
--- Quote from: Bobber on June 17, 2012, 04:48:40 PM ---As a matter of fact pictures of Stu's guitar are on this forum as well somewhere.
How much prove is there that Paul really hated Stu? Tell me. I need facts to back this up.
--- End quote ---
Dot Rhone, Paul's girlfriend from the summer of 1959 to summer of 1962 has confirmed it - in fact using those exact words to describe Paul's feelings about Stu. She said that John had a very close relationship with Stu, much closer than he was to Paul. That pushed Paul out of the picture and Paul didn't like that. He also had no use for Stu in the band and wanted him gone. She had said Paul really hated Stu.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version