Here's some fairly exclusive info that I gleaned from my trip to Liverpool regarding Allan Williams and Mark Lewisohn....

* Allan Williams' has just sold the film rights to his book "The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away"! This is a TOP book by the way!

* Mark Lewisohn has been commissioned to write a series of incredibly in-depth books about the Beatles and their impact on society and the Sixties. These are expected to be MIGHTY tomes and the first is due out in 2008 with the second to follow some FOUR years later! Mark has already expressed some doubt that these deadlines will actually be met and has asked for an extension!!  I think there are 4 books due out in all! Start saving now!

Nice news...Exciting stuff!!!! Cheers for the tip.

Does this mean a film will be made of Allan's book?

Niiiiiiiice. Thanks for sharing, Alan.

When Paul signed Allan William's book for him, he said (fearing endorsement) something like "To Allan, some of this book is almost correct".

i love that book...wrong info doesn't really matter,the pics were worth the price.
it is a good read too.....

Quoted from juniorsfarm

When Paul signed Allan William's book for him, he said (fearing endorsement) something like "To Allan, some of this book is almost correct".

LOL!

John wrote some nice comments about it though - the letter from John is re-printed on the back of the book.

Quoted from Bobber

Does this mean a film will be made of Allan's book?

According to Allan, yes.

God I hope not. There has been no one in any of these contrived movies that vaguely resembles, sounds, has the same mannerisms, etc., as the Beatles. Look at that piece of mess "Two of Us". The only person that would probably be easy to play would be Pete Best--you wouldn't have to talk, the only scene where you have to do anything is lighting a condom on fire, then you get axed.

oh no don't tread those waters j r.

Quoted from pc31

oh no don't tread those waters j r.

Why not? Pete Best doesn't have a personality. Didn't then, and seeing him last year at the Beatlefest, doesn't now.

but he was what gave them a steady drummer and a place to play...b4 they had neither and likely wouldn't have.

Quoted from pc31

but he was what gave them a steady drummer and a place to play...b4 they had neither and likely wouldn't have.

That's speculation--you really don't think they could have found a drummer? Or a place to play? Please. How many times did they play at the Casbah? My guess is that though he was competent enough as a drummer, they'd have been able to find another one out there. They used the hell out of him. They only wanted him in the first place because he owned his own drums.

drum kits,especially complete ones were quite expensive back then,there were only a limited amount around too.as poor as most of liverpool was there couldn't have been many.
then took at the other drummers they had.tommys girlfriend wanted him to quit,he was unreliable and he wanted to be paid.the early beatles made beer money and lunch with very little left over.they didn't even have decent amps but far worse they flat out blew.they were together a few years with no steady drummer.there are a few recordings of the four of them with no drummer present.the bass is the only percussion type there.and the recording sounds tinny as heck.plinking and strumming.now wonder mac use to block release of bootlegs and tried to stop the star club tapes too.
they even did a few shows with no drummers.few drummers owned full kits.one that did was richard starkey,another was pete best.pete was never and never will be as good as ringo,by the way.peace and love richie.
who was another steady??that other guy norm david chapman?disappeared i guess.
most drummers probally had a high hat and a snare drum as you usually carried with you what you played.petes drums were stored at the casbahnow the casbah is a dirty little cellar.a bomb shelter maybe.remember the cellars were dark and dank.hot and not well ventelated,so smells lingered.there was not adequated electric i surmise also.butto be a house band at the time meant a steady gig and steady gigging is what perfects you.
without pete they would has passed on germany.the single most important peice of their playing experience.george even said thats where they became a band.
so to shrug pete off just seems unfair.granted he was not beatle material but he put the beat in beatles....hallejulah!!! brothersand blisters....... think about it...lets hear about the positives things he did.no mater what he was at least signifacant.

heres a nice link.sour grapes or not still a neat read.http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Entertainment/2003/08/17/pf-162315.html

oh look the quarry men were there too.....

I'm not discounting his place in Beatle history. He was a means to an end and played a role in their develoment. As you said, most of the bands had subpar equipment, drums are probably the most expensive equipment to buy, but if other bands made due, and given the determination of the Beatles, they would have as well. My original post, having seen most if not all of the made for TV documentaries, Backbeat, the horrible one Pete did with Dick Clark in the late 70s, 'Two Of Us', etc., they were all lame, and one more of those (Allan Williams project) on the early days, I'm guessing would be equally lame. My point was that Pete would be the easiest to portray because he didn't say much, and had/has no charisma. You get these actors that try to portray Lennon and they are so over the top its ridiculous, and probably the thing that gets on my nerves the most is that they are works of semi-fiction. The dialogue is contrived and made up as hell, and its presumptuous at best.

I dont think the Beatles grabbed ahold of Pete with the intentions of canning him. Once they became solid and the ideas of strong studio time started to become a reality, they realized his short comings, but lets remember that Ringo wasnt even sure he was going to join the beatles (King Size Taylor and the Dominos also offered him a seat), but luckily they offered him a bit more cash and he joined.

damn power surge blew me off line.
where was i..........oh yeah pete was a little less ugly than ringo too another point.

granted he was going now wheres alone but i believe as teenagers go pete was the most exotic one.being as he was born in india and his mom owed a club...i say club lightly...hell if that was a club my bar b que gazebos a club.i just need a band.
no matter the point,he was an essential....

its kinda like the expression give the devil his due....

There's no doubt about his contribution. It was all part of the band's evolution. From a bunch of friends playing skiffle to getting into the rock and roll bit, then taking it seriously enough to forge ahead. It has been pretty well documented that Pete had a loyal following, Ringo just fit in, he was the missing piece to the puzzle, and the four had that chemistry that made them The Beatles. Didn't matter if Ringo was a great drummer or not, it was the sum total that made them complete.

and i say it did matter if ringo was good or not several better musicians' bands failed for shoddy drumming.....

And there were better drummers than Ringo.