A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13

Author Topic: Pete Best  (Read 34874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SieLiebtDich

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2440
  • ("\(#^_^)/")
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2004, 02:39:02 AM »

[quote by=Mairi link=Blah.pl?b=fifths,m=1079488179,s=38 date=1102535555]Yes. And, it's true that Stu wasn't much of musician either. As I recall he couldn't even play bass.[/quote]

i heard that too
Logged

Revolver

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2004, 05:31:52 PM »

[quote by=pc31 link=Blah.pl?b=fifths,m=1079488179,s=39 date=1102557120]beatles the biggest??????[/quote]

Yes... Is that troublesome?
Logged

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2004, 03:21:51 AM »

just seems like a narrow veiw.thats all.

Revolver

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2004, 09:48:27 PM »

What's narrow?  That the Beatles are the biggest band in the world or that Pete is not as good as Ringo?

The Beatles have sold more records than any music act in history and they still are a top 10 selling act 35 years after they broke up.  To me, that's the biggest band in the world.  Now, if you're arguing that there is someone who is better than the Beatles, that's a subjective opinion, but that's not what I was referring to.

As far as Pete vs Ringo, once again, based upon recorded evidence, Ringo seems to be better.  That might be a subjective opinion, but most would agree with me.
Logged

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2004, 11:41:09 AM »

maybe beethovens 5th has been played more than yesterday.i love the beatles too but because the impact is personal i must disqualify myself as a judge.
you catch my drift?music is like THE BORG.it is a collective type thing that needs all parts.no one person or people can be the best can they?
influential sure...........

Revolver

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2004, 05:26:45 PM »

I understand what you are saying, but I think we are talking about different things. 

I didn't say the Beatles were, necessarily, the best group ever or the most influential (although, I think they are), but that point can be argued.

What I did say, is that because the Beatles are the most popular, most well known band in the world, the Pete Best thing gets blown out of proportion.  Really, think about it, more people know who Pete Best is (who is only a former Beatle) than know who the actual drummer is for many, many rock bands. 

I, really, don't think the fact that the Beatles are the most well known and popular band in the world can be challenged.  They've sold more than anyone else, they continue to sell more than most others (even modern bands), and most everybody knows the names of the 4 members, even if you aren't a fan.

Now, that doesn't mean that someone won't come along who will be more popular and well known, but as of right now, because of the reasons I listed, the Beatles are the biggest ever and because of this, people make a bigger deal out of Pete Best being kicked out than they should.  He is just a footnote.
Logged

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2004, 01:36:05 AM »

good defense paul......lol kidding i know the beatles we know and love would not have been the huge thing they were without mr richard starkey.i just kinda consider the facts as they are.....like b4 pete they had no steady drummer and at some shows showed with no drummer.then the fact mona owned the casbah club,where they played more than a few times.also neil aspinall lived with petes family while he was a beatle.
they used pete.paul admits it.THEY HAD NO DRUMMER.and figured pete would do.they asked him to join.he didn't ask them.

but ringo made the band complete.

Indica

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3130
  • Getting into the Herbal Jazz
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2004, 07:43:42 PM »

Yeah, I agree.
Like John said, 'to make it you had to be a bastard, and The Beatles were the biggest bastards at the time' (something along those lines) :)
Logged
Whats the matter lads? Blue Meanies?

Lenny Pane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1337
  • Location: A Rented Cottage On The Isle Of Wight
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2005, 11:00:06 AM »

good old john.. not one to mince his words lol :)
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2005, 06:38:52 AM »

He was at the Chicago Beatlefest last August. Kind of a dour fellow. He was hawking signed drumsticks and photos for $20.00. I felt bad for the guy, here he is tucked in a little room signing stuff and having pictures taken, while you can hear the screams from the screening rooms, and he's surrounded by all the memorabilia, etc. Its a living I suppose, but its gotta suck having your nose rubbed in it.  I know its his choice, but it still has to sting.
Logged

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #50 on: February 09, 2005, 03:01:49 AM »

his nose rivals ringos too.did you notice that?

Rowdy

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 963
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #51 on: February 09, 2005, 06:18:41 AM »

so.........was Andy White a better drummer than Pete?
Logged

"Only people know just how to talk to people. Only people know just how to change the world."

  • Guest
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #52 on: February 09, 2005, 05:46:58 PM »

Quote from: Rowdy
so.........was Andy White a better drummer than Pete?

Probably not, but Andy White was a session musician and George Marting was playing it safe, maybe too safe because, let's face it, "Love Me Do" doesn't have the most intricate drumming in the world.
Logged

Rowdy

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 963
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2005, 06:27:16 AM »

Yeah, but if Pete was so bad that George Martin didn't even want to have him on the record........I would think that White was better.
Logged

"Only people know just how to talk to people. Only people know just how to change the world."

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2005, 03:54:09 PM »

it was the fact the were unsure about ringo....

pc31

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2005, 06:48:31 PM »

happy birthday pete.......

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8211
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2005, 01:00:21 AM »

I think it was just because Ringo was an unproven entity in George Martin's eyes and he took the precaution of booking Andy White.

In the end Ringo's version was used as the single (in the UK) and Andy White's version with Ringo relegated to tambourine made the LP. It was around the time of The Beatles' Hits EP that Andy White's version became the version we are most familiar with. I don't think the master of Ringo's version is still in existance! I seem to remember that a new master was made from a dub from a single! Stoopid EMI!

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10667
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2006, 10:04:46 PM »

Pete Best on TV ... long time ago ... funny ... in the mid-1960s as a guest on a TV show ...

Here you are:
http://rapidshare.de/files/18443675/Pete_Best.wmv.html

Logged

Loco Mo

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2006, 03:34:47 PM »

Many people say that when Ringo arrived, the Beatles were complete.  They basically say that Ringo was indispensable and that, perhaps, the Beatles ascent to glory was now unimpeded.  This implies that Pete was an obstacle in their path to fame and fortune.

Nonetheless, Pete was wildly popular with his fan base.  I question how the Beatles disregarded Pete's popularity while assuming they could dismiss him without any threat to the group's overall appeal.  Did they have a Plan B of asking Pete back into the band if Ringo didn't receive the fans' approval?  How could they risk firing him without also jeopardizing their own success?  Could they really have been absolutely sure that Pete was nonessential and that Ringo would automatically receive widespread acceptance (which he did)?
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13509
Re: Pete Best
« Reply #59 on: June 19, 2006, 09:09:45 AM »

Quote from: Loco_Mo
Many people say that when Ringo arrived, the Beatles were complete.  They basically say that Ringo was indispensable and that, perhaps, the Beatles ascent to glory was now unimpeded.  This implies that Pete was an obstacle in their path to fame and fortune.

Nonetheless, Pete was wildly popular with his fan base.  I question how the Beatles disregarded Pete's popularity while assuming they could dismiss him without any threat to the group's overall appeal.  Did they have a Plan B of asking Pete back into the band if Ringo didn't receive the fans' approval?  How could they risk firing him without also jeopardizing their own success?  Could they really have been absolutely sure that Pete was nonessential and that Ringo would automatically receive widespread acceptance (which he did)?

That's a very interesting thought. But I guess there was no way back when they sacked Pete. Asking Pete back? If I were Pete, I would never ever have done that. I wonder if Pete was really an obstacle in getting a proper contract and chance at Parlophone's. If he was, then that might have been a true reason for letting him down. There's been a lot of speculation about the true reasons. Even Pete himself claims he still doesn't know the true reason. Still, John, George and Paul must have been aware of the fact that they took a risk in sacking Pete. Or, they must have been very full of confidence.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
 

Page created in 0.461 seconds with 28 queries.