GEORGE HARRISON on The Beatles' HAMBURG Days 🎸🥁
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- #georgeharrison #thebeatles #hamburg
In 1969, whilst promoting Abbey Road, Australian DJ Ritchie Yorke spoke to George Harrison. The conversation moved to the early performing days.
For more info please go to www.findingcla...
There's 2 uploads on CZcams of one of their Hamburg concerts, audio only, I think it's the only surviving audio of them during this period. I HIGHLY recommend anyone reading this to check out the one with the clearer audio. It was honestly mindblowing when I first heard it...... their style was waaaaay more heavier and modern than you'd ever expect. No joke, the Beatles basically invented punk rock when they were in Hamburg.
Are you referring to the Star Club tapes from late '62, with Ringo on drums? Or something earlier with Pete?
Lovely to hear George's voice.
Wonderful. History walks in
Best Liverpool accent
i never realized the beatles went to hamburg 5 times. i thought it was just twice. when george was deported for being too young and then upon their return when sutcliff died. but when george listed all the venues they played, i guess it was 5 times. he didn't mention the star club though.
Great interview, great find on the audio-I had only read this interview in print. Part of the interview is quoted on the back cover of that Early Beatles Polydor album. Thanks for sharing!!!
So Pete couldn't have been that bad a drummer if that was their best years playing live and they were tight as a band
well yes he could have been - being able to carry a beat for a live show is NOT the same as laying down an accurate beat for recording. Which is the exact reason was replaced - he simply wasn't good enough to get them a record deal. Cue Ringo.
George Martin said the exact same about Ringo and didn’t use him on the first few records. It was the norm at that time to use session musicians on the record, especially drummers.
That is correct, steve, anyone who thinks a band can be great, tight, etc., without a drummer who is great, or at the very least, very good, doesn't know a thing about music or bands. A poor drummer drags the whole band group, and had Pete been a poor drummer John and Paul and George would've sacked him after 2 weeks, not two YEARS. lol The proof is in the pudding, the day before The Beatles hired Pete they were the worst band in Liverpool, and mere weeks after they hired Pete they were the hottest ticket in Hamburg. So hot that Ringo Starr had this to say: *"My band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, got to Germany a couple months after The Beatles had arrived. We played on the same bill a lot and so I was always running into them. I'll never forget the first time I heard The Beatles play, they were already great. They were the only band I would go see on my time off."*
Turn the piano off!
Lennon also said The Beatles were at their best during these two years, the same as George is saying here. Which proves that Pete was a great drummer, and they sacked him for reasons that had nothing to do with his drumming. Were John, Paul and George jealous of Pete and his immense popularity with the fans and press? Yes, from everything I've read or listened to on the subject, they were. And that is why they dumped him as soon as they got a record deal. If you don't want to take my word for it, here's what a contemporary drummer of Pete's said when he was asked in an interview what he thought of Pete's drumming: *"He was a genius. You could sit Pete Best on a drum kit and ask him to play for 19 hours and he'd put his head down and do it. He'd drum like a dream with real style and stamina all night long, and that really was The Beatles' sound, forget the guitars. I was amazed when they replaced him. I even thought about learning guitar so he could be the drummer in my band. The Beatles didn't hate Pete Best, but they didn't want to be outshone by their drummer. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."*
- Chris Curtis, drummer for The Searchers, a great Liverpool band who scored a 1964 Top 3 Hit in the US charts with their classic, "Love Potion # 9". Chris saw Pete Best play many times in both Hamburg and Liverpool during Pete's two years as The Beatles' drummer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a drummer and I promise you, Pete Best was a very average musician. He wasn't innovative at all and he always played the same two or three beats in every song, as well as ALWAYS play the same unimaginative snare roll fills. He didn't make the Beatles insecure at all. He wasn't brilliant like they were. He didn't have the something special that Ringo had.
@@dailyflash Not innovative??? LOL Ummm, Pete's "Atom Beat", which he invented just days after The Beatles arrival in Hamburg, *revolutionized* rock drumming, inspiring every drummer--including Ringo--in the Hamburg/Liverpool circuit to try to copy it. But where your ignorance really shows, is in your claim that John, Paul and George were not jealous of Pete. They were EXTREMELY jealous of him. Pete was the far and away most popular Beatle with the fans, club managers, and press. They couldn't handle it, and so they replaced him with the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer with adequate skills they could find, Ringo.
I suspect it's usually people who WANT TO BELIEVE they too been unjustly "unappreciated" by the world and think they are talented but they are not! who insist Pete was a great drummer and the rest of the band were jealous of his good looks, just a dumb idea!@@dailyflash
@@lamper2 Actually, most people who BELIEVE that Ringo got the job on the merits of his drumming, suffer from that delusion because it's too painful for them to admit that he only got the gig because he was short, scrawny, and ugly. It's comforting for them to believe that, because they themselves are short, scrawny and ugly. They celebrate Pete being replaced by Ringo because it is the ultimate "revenge of the nerds" story, something they never got to experience in their own bitter lives. How pathetic.
@@Cosmo-Kramer john et paul jaloux de quoi ??!! Best ne savait pas chanter, n'était pas du tout auteur compositeur ! Et il avait un physique ringard...
Its a shame they became hippies, but they created some of the best music of all time
They will always be the greatest.x
@Sirron Nitram
Who's a hippy? John was Punk. George was Hindu. Paul was Vaudevillian. Ringo was Country. You think because they had long hair, and tried acid a few times, and thought that peace and love instead of war was a good idea that they must be hippies? Those things are not exclusive to hippies by any means and anybody framing it as such should rethink their existence...
@@PlaysWithChildren Hippies can have other traits, but they were still hippies
@@sirronnitram8937
The Beatles made fun of hippies. George thought the San Francisco scene was despicable because people were just going along with the trend and didn't really care about anything but partying 24/7. Do you think anybody that pursues an enlightened existence is a "hippy?" Is being anti-war a "hippy" trait? Does practicing meditation make somebody a "hippy?" How do you define a hippy exactly because I am pretty sure your idea of a hippy and the Beatles idea of a hippy are two completely different things?
Do you realize the term "hippy" was around before the Beatles were making music? The Beatles were singing a cover of a song called "The Hippy Hippy Shake" back in 1963 and probably much earlier than that. Hippy originally I think was simply meant to be a "hip" person that was "in" on what was cool, similar to "hipster," but during the sixties became slander against people that were free loaders and junkies. Do you think that is what The Beatles were?
John Lennon was indeed a junkie for a time during his life