50th anniversary latest

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Wrong. Pete Best receives no royalties or mechanicals from his appearance on The Beatles Anthology 1. He received a one-time-only cash payout in mid-1995.

I strongly believe your wrong Howie.  Read an interview last year with McCartney.

Read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-447201/Pete-Best-The-happiest-Beatle-all.html

Several article state "Best received a substantial windfall—between £1 million and £4 million—from the sales"
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0078983/bio

I believe it's pretty hard in this day and age to jip someone out of royalties.  It's been a while since I read Jon's book but I didn't David get his royalties back?

There is a CNN  with Pete Best, right around 1995-1996, where he holds up a check for about $13,000,000 that he got for royalties from the first Anthology boxed set (and videos).

David always got his royalties for (mostly) everything he played on dating from Murry's backdated paperwork which wrongly states his exit as happening in 8/63. There was never an issue of getting them "back" since they were always paid in accordance with that end date. The issue is the things he played on after that... (approx. 8/63 through 10/63 maybe longer) which he does not get paid for. Unfortunately the session paperwork from that period has been missing forever...check Murry's tomb.

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

Exactly - kinda splitting hairs Howie.

[Jon Stebbins]

Well...there is a difference. Royalties never go away, they cycle as long as sales keep happening. If you are owed royalties legally, you will keep getting them as long as product moves. A one time pay out is something else... its like a severance package or a settlement...or in this case a gift, because I have a hunch that legally the Beatles owed nothing to Best. They decided to give him some dough because he was on some ancient, unreleased, and badly contracted material they were using. They finally did him a solid which was a real cool thing. However, my point was the lawyers or accountants who were instructed to release the funds to Pete may have created a contract that leveraged Pete's "gift" against sales or royalties of a certain percentage or rate of Anthology 1 projected sales. That's a total guess on my part, just knowing that lawyers like to keep things justified contractually. Howie may have a better idea since he's interviewed Pete and some of the other Beatle principals.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Well...there is a difference. Royalties never go away, they cycle as long as sales keep happening. If you are owed royalties legally, you will keep getting them as long as product moves. A one time pay out is something else... its like a severance package or a settlement...or in this case a gift, because I have a hunch that legally the Beatles owed nothing to Best. They decided to give him some dough because he was on some ancient, unreleased, and badly contracted material they were using. They finally did him a solid which was a real cool thing. However, my point was the lawyers or accountants who were instructed to release the funds to Pete may have created a contract that leveraged Pete's "gift" against sales or royalties of a certain percentage or rate of Anthology 1 projected sales. That's a total guess on my part, just knowing that lawyers like to keep things justified contractually. Howie may have a better idea since he's interviewed Pete and some of the other Beatle principals.

Jon - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  Go on the web and read some Pete Best interviews where he talks about his Anthology royalties.
Based on the interviews he's done, it seems clear he has been paid based on the sales of the package.  Course, rock writers always get it right.

Pete was on some live Hamburg tracks and also on the Decca audition tapes.  The Beatles couldn't legally use his performances without paying him royalties.  If they made an agreement to pay his royalties in one lump sum, then it's still royalties.  Again, you are splitting hairs over semantics.

Without some agreement in hand to reference, you are just speculating.

As a songwriter with ASCAP and my own little publishing company, with a band record about to come out - I've been doing alot of research into royalties.  To say it's a confusing area with layers and players is an understatement.

If you want to go on record as saying Pete Best doesn't get any sales from Anthology at this point, that's a stretch.

Bottom line, Pete Best is not a good anology to David!

[Jon Stebbins]

Jon - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  Go on the web and read some Pete Best interviews where he talks about his Anthology royalties.
Based on the interviews he's done, it seems clear he has been paid based on the sales of the package.  Course, rock writers always get it right.

Pete was on some live Hamburg tracks and also on the Decca audition tapes.  The Beatles couldn't legally use his performances without paying him royalties.  If they made an agreement to pay his royalties in one lump sum, then it's still royalties.  Again, you are splitting hairs over semantics.

Without some agreement in hand to reference, you are just speculating.

As a songwriter with ASCAP and my own little publishing company, with a band record about to come out - I've been doing alot of research into royalties.  To say it's a confusing area with layers and players is an understatement.

If you want to go on record as saying Pete Best doesn't get any sales from Anthology at this point, that's a stretch.

Bottom line, Pete Best is not a good anology to David!

I don't argue for the sake of arguing, and this is not an argument anyway. Just replying to your "splitting hairs" comment. I don't think it is...so i responded and tried to explain why. I haven't read a whole bunch of Pete interviews like you, or interviewed him myself like Howie. I have read a few things about Pete getting a gift or lump sum for the Anthology 1 record. So yes I am speculating. Its a "fact" to you that he gets "royalties"... its not as clear to me at this time, I know he got a bunch of dough. Technically The Beatles could use his performance without paying him "royalties" if a binding legal agreement (old or new) superseded that. I know what Pete played on, but thanks for making sure, I don't know what contracts or agreements are in play regarding those recordings. I don't think that's splitting hairs...i am losing hair though. I've been a registered BMI songwriter for 28 years. I get royalty checks for songwriting about every three months, and I get a check for publishing about twice a year. I never got one for 13 million dollars. I got one for 7 grand once and that made my wife real happy for about a day. Most of the checks i get are for a couple hundred bucks...which is nice because i haven't written or performed on a published/recorded song since the '80's. But enough nostalgia. I don't want to go on the record about Pete not getting royalties, although i believe it is possible he got money, a gift, without being "legally" eligible for performance royalties. Speculation. I'll do some independent research on this and perhaps I'll say, "hey that Surf Rider guy was right". Don't want to split or lose any more hairs. And yes, bottom line, Dave Marks is no Pete Best. Mahalo.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Jon - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  Go on the web and read some Pete Best interviews where he talks about his Anthology royalties.
Based on the interviews he's done, it seems clear he has been paid based on the sales of the package.  Course, rock writers always get it right.

Pete was on some live Hamburg tracks and also on the Decca audition tapes.  The Beatles couldn't legally use his performances without paying him royalties.  If they made an agreement to pay his royalties in one lump sum, then it's still royalties.  Again, you are splitting hairs over semantics.

Without some agreement in hand to reference, you are just speculating.

As a songwriter with ASCAP and my own little publishing company, with a band record about to come out - I've been doing alot of research into royalties.  To say it's a confusing area with layers and players is an understatement.

If you want to go on record as saying Pete Best doesn't get any sales from Anthology at this point, that's a stretch.

Bottom line, Pete Best is not a good anology to David!

I don't argue for the sake of arguing, and this is not an argument anyway. Just replying to your "splitting hairs" comment. I don't think it is...so i responded and tried to explain why. I haven't read a whole bunch of Pete interviews like you, or interviewed him myself like Howie. I have read a few things about Pete getting a gift or lump sum for the Anthology 1 record. So yes I am speculating. Its a "fact" to you that he gets "royalties"... its not as clear to me at this time, I know he got a bunch of dough. Technically The Beatles could use his performance without paying him "royalties" if a binding legal agreement (old or new) superseded that. I know what Pete played on, but thanks for making sure, I don't know what contracts or agreements are in play regarding those recordings. I don't think that's splitting hairs...i am losing hair though. I've been a registered BMI songwriter for 28 years. I get royalty checks for songwriting about every three months, and I get a check for publishing about twice a year. I never got one for 13 million dollars. I got one for 7 grand once and that made my wife real happy for about a day. Most of the checks i get are for a couple hundred bucks...which is nice because i haven't written or performed on a published/recorded song since the '80's. But enough nostalgia. I don't want to go on the record about Pete not getting royalties, although i believe it is possible he got money, a gift, without being "legally" eligible for performance royalties. Speculation. I'll do some independent research on this and perhaps I'll say, "hey that Surf Rider guy was right". Don't want to split or lose any more hairs. And yes, bottom line, Dave Marks is no Pete Best. Mahalo.

Mahalo to you Jon!

Here's a link for an article quoting a CNN interview from 1996 with Pete Best.  " Best said "The Beatles Anthology 1" has given him "a little bit of recognition, which for so many years was denied." "Financially, it's going to be rewarding as well, because this time around there are royalties."

http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/peteivw.html

Maybe Pete is going around misstating the facts (which wouldn't surprise me either).

+++++++++++++

By the by, any news about your updated "The Real Beach Boy".  I know you are busy with numerous other projects.

[Andrew G. Doe]

A check for $13,000,000 for five tracks on Anthology 1 and the videos ?

Sorry, that is simply impossible - for one thing, A1 didn't sell 13,000,000 units worldwide: couldn't have. In the US, by far the biggest market, it's certified as 6x platinum, which means it sold 3 million units. The DVD boxset is certified as 13x platinum (13... hmmm... seen that figure before somewhere  )- however that's not as impressive as it looks, as platinum certification is 200,000 units and every disc in a set counts as one unit and there are 5 DVDs in the set, thus each box counts as five units, thus  13x platinum equates to actual sales of 520,000 DVD box sets. And that was in 2003 ! So, total US sales of A1 are about 3.6 million. Even assuming that ROW sales were an impossible 9.4 million, does anyone here honestly think Best was on a royalty if $1 a set for five tracks ?

Simply... a "windfall" isn't a royalty - if it was, they'd have said "royalty", and if Best was waving a check for 13 mill, it was a prop.

My point is intact - Pete Best has never received a royalty from any Beatles recording

Edit - the UK certification for A1 is double platinum, or 600,000 units (possibly 1,200,000 not sure if it's per disc or per set), and the DVD box hasn't been certified, so it sold less than 25,000... all of which makes the alleged $13,000,000 payment even more impossible.

[Carrie Marks]

Whatever you say, Yoko. 

Good one! LOL

BTW Carrie...please let me know if your husband plays in Atlanta again.  Had no idea that he had performed here recently until after the fact.  I would have definitely have gone had I known about it!

He will be back in Atlanta at some point...some of his solo band members are from ATL, so he'll be down there more often these days.  Check out Jez Graham’s playing, if you haven’t already…he's great!  I will let you know the next time David plays down there, though.  As far as the Best comparison, there’s no harm done. Mostly, I’m just happy that there are fewer people who feel that way today than did 10 years ago…and I’m optimistic that in another 10 years, the thought will be ancient history.

Carrie, speaking of David's talents, what's the scoops on his new album?  I posted in your Honored Guest thread but nadda.
Can't wait to buy it!

I don't really check the sub-pages very often...sorry.  But yes, he does have a CD coming out in early September called The Circle Continues.  All songs have been co-written by Stephen Kalinich. You will recognize some familiar names in the credits...nothing to the extent Al has on his CD, but there are few amazingly talented guest artists on there. There should be audio clips available in the next few weeks...I'll keep you posted!

I believe it's pretty hard in this day and age to jip someone out of royalties.

Like Jon said, he does get some.  But as it turns out, it is actually pretty easy to gyp someone out of their royalties.

[Howie Edelson]

There are no live Hamburg tracks featuring Pete Best in existence. The oft-bootlegged Star Club tracks were recorded in December 1962, over four months after Best was canned and the band was subsequently signed to Parlophone. The Decca tapes were always fully owned by the group -- in actuality, originally NEMS.

Best's payoff from the Anthology tracks was indeed Apple doing him a solid, and was entirely and completely due to Neil Aspinall taking care of his family.

Incidentally, Ringo Starr has earned far more money from Best's Anthology performances than he will in 82 lifetimes.

[TdHabib]

Compare the royalties David Marks must get from Sounds of Summer to the royalties Pete Best DOESN'T get from 1.

[lupinofan]

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

I've just put Pete Best's name into the PRS (Performing Rights Society) database, which is used to calculate payments for the use of recorded music originated in the UK. He is listed as "performer" for the Decca and EMI audition tracks on "Anthology 1." This usually implies that he still gets royalties as a performer based on sales and radio airplay (albeit a dwindling amount with each year that passes. The EMI tracks may even be based on the royalty rate in the original 1962 contract - a farthing per record sold to be split five ways.) He is not listed as an individual performer on the Polydor tracks, in the same way that - say - Johnny Scott is not listed for his flute contribution to "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," as that was subject to a one-off fee.

What Best has in common with Scott is that he has no right of veto or editorial judgement as to how the Beatles recordings in which he participated are used. As essentially as "session musician with added privileges" I imagine his much-publicised pay-off was a combination of royalties from "Anthology 1" and a further fee to prevent him objecting to the exploitation of these recordings at any time in the future.

Anyway, he's there. If he wasn't getting residuals from the recordings, it would be very unusual for him to be listed without there being a specific note about it.

Hope this helps.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

I've just put Pete Best's name into the PRS (Performing Rights Society) database, which is used to calculate payments for the use of recorded music originated in the UK. He is listed as "performer" for the Decca and EMI audition tracks on "Anthology 1." This usually implies that he still gets royalties as a performer based on sales and radio airplay (albeit a dwindling amount with each year that passes. The EMI tracks may even be based on the royalty rate in the original 1962 contract - a farthing per record sold to be split five ways.) He is not listed as an individual performer on the Polydor tracks, in the same way that - say - Johnny Scott is not listed for his flute contribution to "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," as that was subject to a one-off fee.

What Best has in common with Scott is that he has no right of veto or editorial judgement as to how the Beatles recordings in which he participated are used. As essentially as "session musician with added privileges" I imagine his much-publicised pay-off was a combination of royalties from "Anthology 1" and a further fee to prevent him objecting to the exploitation of these recordings at any time in the future.

Anyway, he's there. If he wasn't getting residuals from the recordings, it would be very unusual for him to be listed without there being a specific note about it.

Hope this helps.

Makes sense.  Too bad certain people ALWAYS have to be right (AGD).  Reminds me of the Captain of the Titanic - gripping the ship's wheel as it went down and still believing his ship couldn't sink.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

A check for $13,000,000 for five tracks on Anthology 1 and the videos ?

Sorry, that is simply impossible - for one thing, A1 didn't sell 13,000,000 units worldwide: couldn't have. In the US, by far the biggest market, it's certified as 6x platinum, which means it sold 3 million units. The DVD boxset is certified as 13x platinum (13... hmmm... seen that figure before somewhere  )- however that's not as impressive as it looks, as platinum certification is 200,000 units and every disc in a set counts as one unit and there are 5 DVDs in the set, thus each box counts as five units, thus  13x platinum equates to actual sales of 520,000 DVD box sets. And that was in 2003 ! So, total US sales of A1 are about 3.6 million. Even assuming that ROW sales were an impossible 9.4 million, does anyone here honestly think Best was on a royalty if $1 a set for five tracks ?

Simply... a "windfall" isn't a royalty - if it was, they'd have said "royalty", and if Best was waving a check for 13 mill, it was a prop.

My point is intact - Pete Best has never received a royalty from any Beatles recording

Edit - the UK certification for A1 is double platinum, or 600,000 units (possibly 1,200,000 not sure if it's per disc or per set), and the DVD box hasn't been certified, so it sold less than 25,000... all of which makes the alleged $13,000,000 payment even more impossible.

It's not I who claim he got $13 mil, it was portrayed that way on CNN.  The fact is that Pete Best has claimed he gets royalties in multiple interviews.  But you didn't research that did you?

Fact is, you aren't calling me a liar, your calling Pete Best one!  Maybe he is???

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Whatever you say, Yoko. 

Good one! LOL

BTW Carrie...please let me know if your husband plays in Atlanta again.  Had no idea that he had performed here recently until after the fact.  I would have definitely have gone had I known about it!

He will be back in Atlanta at some point...some of his solo band members are from ATL, so he'll be down there more often these days.  Check out Jez Graham’s playing, if you haven’t already…he's great!  I will let you know the next time David plays down there, though.  As far as the Best comparison, there’s no harm done. Mostly, I’m just happy that there are fewer people who feel that way today than did 10 years ago…and I’m optimistic that in another 10 years, the thought will be ancient history.

Carrie, speaking of David's talents, what's the scoops on his new album?  I posted in your Honored Guest thread but nadda.
Can't wait to buy it!

I don't really check the sub-pages very often...sorry.  But yes, he does have a CD coming out in early September called The Circle Continues.  All songs have been co-written by Stephen Kalinich. You will recognize some familiar names in the credits...nothing to the extent Al has on his CD, but there are few amazingly talented guest artists on there. There should be audio clips available in the next few weeks...I'll keep you posted!

I believe it's pretty hard in this day and age to jip someone out of royalties.

Like Jon said, he does get some.  But as it turns out, it is actually pretty easy to gyp someone out of their royalties.

Mahalo Carrie!  I had heard David didn't get everything he should.

Very exciting, the new album.  I really, really love David's voice and can't wait to get his new set.

Is their a release date set?

[Andrew G. Doe]

A check for $13,000,000 for five tracks on Anthology 1 and the videos ?

Sorry, that is simply impossible - for one thing, A1 didn't sell 13,000,000 units worldwide: couldn't have. In the US, by far the biggest market, it's certified as 6x platinum, which means it sold 3 million units. The DVD boxset is certified as 13x platinum (13... hmmm... seen that figure before somewhere  )- however that's not as impressive as it looks, as platinum certification is 200,000 units and every disc in a set counts as one unit and there are 5 DVDs in the set, thus each box counts as five units, thus  13x platinum equates to actual sales of 520,000 DVD box sets. And that was in 2003 ! So, total US sales of A1 are about 3.6 million. Even assuming that ROW sales were an impossible 9.4 million, does anyone here honestly think Best was on a royalty if $1 a set for five tracks ?

Simply... a "windfall" isn't a royalty - if it was, they'd have said "royalty", and if Best was waving a check for 13 mill, it was a prop.

My point is intact - Pete Best has never received a royalty from any Beatles recording

Edit - the UK certification for A1 is double platinum, or 600,000 units (possibly 1,200,000 not sure if it's per disc or per set), and the DVD box hasn't been certified, so it sold less than 25,000... all of which makes the alleged $13,000,000 payment even more impossible.

It's not I who claim he got $13 mil, it was portrayed that way on CNN.  The fact is that Pete Best has claimed he gets royalties in multiple interviews.  But you didn't research that did you?

Fact is, you aren't calling me a liar, your calling Pete Best one!  Maybe he is???

I'm saying, there's no way any check for that sum concerning that release at that (or any) time could be legitimate. The album/DVD simply hasn't sold anything like enough. And yes, I caw the initials CNN, just like everyone else here.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

I've just put Pete Best's name into the PRS (Performing Rights Society) database, which is used to calculate payments for the use of recorded music originated in the UK. He is listed as "performer" for the Decca and EMI audition tracks on "Anthology 1." This usually implies that he still gets royalties as a performer based on sales and radio airplay (albeit a dwindling amount with each year that passes. The EMI tracks may even be based on the royalty rate in the original 1962 contract - a farthing per record sold to be split five ways.) He is not listed as an individual performer on the Polydor tracks, in the same way that - say - Johnny Scott is not listed for his flute contribution to "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," as that was subject to a one-off fee.

What Best has in common with Scott is that he has no right of veto or editorial judgement as to how the Beatles recordings in which he participated are used. As essentially as "session musician with added privileges" I imagine his much-publicised pay-off was a combination of royalties from "Anthology 1" and a further fee to prevent him objecting to the exploitation of these recordings at any time in the future.

Anyway, he's there. If he wasn't getting residuals from the recordings, it would be very unusual for him to be listed without there being a specific note about it.

Hope this helps.

Makes sense.  Too bad certain people ALWAYS have to be right (AGD).  Reminds me of the Captain of the Titanic - gripping the ship's wheel as it went down and still believing his ship couldn't sink.

Captain of the Titanic did no such thing, no did he say the ship was unsinkable. That was a deckhand to a passenger: evidently, he was wrong. 

New evidence says that Best may get royalties - cool, I have no problem accepting that and saying I was in error. But, the CNN check is undoubtedly a prop, and going back to the origin of this thread, to compare David with Pete is, frankly, ludicrous in all particulars.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

I've just put Pete Best's name into the PRS (Performing Rights Society) database, which is used to calculate payments for the use of recorded music originated in the UK. He is listed as "performer" for the Decca and EMI audition tracks on "Anthology 1." This usually implies that he still gets royalties as a performer based on sales and radio airplay (albeit a dwindling amount with each year that passes. The EMI tracks may even be based on the royalty rate in the original 1962 contract - a farthing per record sold to be split five ways.) He is not listed as an individual performer on the Polydor tracks, in the same way that - say - Johnny Scott is not listed for his flute contribution to "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," as that was subject to a one-off fee.

What Best has in common with Scott is that he has no right of veto or editorial judgement as to how the Beatles recordings in which he participated are used. As essentially as "session musician with added privileges" I imagine his much-publicised pay-off was a combination of royalties from "Anthology 1" and a further fee to prevent him objecting to the exploitation of these recordings at any time in the future.

Anyway, he's there. If he wasn't getting residuals from the recordings, it would be very unusual for him to be listed without there being a specific note about it.

Hope this helps.

Makes sense.  Too bad certain people ALWAYS have to be right (AGD).  Reminds me of the Captain of the Titanic - gripping the ship's wheel as it went down and still believing his ship couldn't sink.

Captain of the Titanic did no such thing, no did he say the ship was unsinkable. That was a deckhand to a passenger: evidently, he was wrong. 

New evidence says that Best may get royalties - cool, I have no problem accepting that and saying I was in error. But, the CNN check is undoubtedly a prop, and going back to the origin of this thread, to compare David with Pete is, frankly, ludicrous in all particulars.

Thank you AGD!  Totally agree that Pete Best in no David Marks!!!!!!!!!  And I agree, the $13 mil is someone's fabrication.

[Paulos]

Wan't this thread supposed to be about the potential 50th anniversary?

[The Shift]

Wan't this thread supposed to be about the potential 50th anniversary?

Pete Best could join the re-united Beach Boys on-stage maybe?  Fo a one-off payment of course...

[Jason]

David Marks comparable to Pete Best? Let me answer this question with a question.

Why do Beach Boys fans always feel the need, even the urge, to compare the Beach Boys to the Beatles, in any capacity, in the most godfuckingdamned asinine ways? I mean, really now. There are so many fans who go on and on about "the Beach Boys are the best band ever" and "Brian Wilson is a genius" and "Pet Sounds is the best album ever" but feel like they need to justify those feelings by drawing innumerable comparisons with the Beatles, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME WITH THE GREATEST MUSICAL GENIUSES AND THE GREATEST SONGS AND ALBUMS OF ALL TIME.

Sure, I discovered (as in really explored) the Beatles first. The Beach Boys came later. Sure, I'd seen the Paul McCartney statements about Pet Sounds. It didn't faze me one bit. I was hip to Pet Sounds in 1993 as a 9 year old kid, at the tail end of the whole "the Beach Boys suck" thing that was so prevalent in the USA, LONG before I was into the Beatles. When I dove headfirst into the Beach Boys' wonderful world of music, I had no hype going into it beyond Pet Sounds and any number of the hits. The Beatles may have blown my mind, but the Beach Boys knocked me on my ass. To this day I haven't found better. And I haven't felt the need to go around trying to justify my feelings that the Beach Boys are, in my opinion, the greatest rock band ever to walk this planet. I sure as hell wasn't interested in trying to prove it to the masses of elitist Beatles fans, let alone anyone else. Anyone with a brain can make their own choices and decide if they like something. I spent a semester on college radio (specifically, a modern rock station) in 2003. The general taste of the people at Cabrini College ranged from indie rock to death metal to gangsta rap. A good number of those folks couldn't have given two shits about the Beatles. But when I began doing Beach Boys-themed shows on the radio, people from those walks of musical life took notice. Some of them even became fans. I couldn't begin to imagine how many copies of Beach Boys music I gave to people who asked. They never had to justify their fandom.

If you're going to spend your time going on and on about the Beach Boys but always feel the need to justify it by comparing them to the Beatles, you should put your Beach Boys collection in the trash and just listen to the Beatles because it will probably be better for your mental health.

[drbeachboy]

I totally agree with your post. I have long given up justifying to people why The Beach Boys are my favorite band. I'm not sure if this is still prevalent in the USA or not, but growing up in the 60's and 70's,  it was always a Beach Boys vs. Beatles mentality. The two were always compared to each other. They could never co-exist together in the fandom world. You liked one or the other, but not both. I'm 52 years old and it is only in the last 15 years or so that I finally really listened to The Beatles. I dare say that I like them now almost as much as I like The Beach Boys. To this day though, in my head, in the back of my mind, I still compare the two bands, especially their output by each year. In regard to David Marks, I never really thought of him in comparison to anybody. He was just the first Beach Boy to quit and be replaced by Al (Though we now know that wasn't really the case). I regard myself as the true blue fan; who never stopped listening to them, even when it was most uncool to do so. Music is such a personal thing and nothing or no one was going to change my tastes, not even with teasing (light) and sometimes ridicule (harsh). These days, most people have a certain respect for The Beach Boys even if they know nothing more than the hits. These days, the only real knocks that I hear about the band are from us fans who feel a need to take sides with either Brian, Al, Mike and Bruce. I hope the reunion tour (whatever shape it takes) will quell that tide, as well. I have always been interested in their band politics, but my passion has always been their music.

[mtaber]

The Beach Boys are way better than Mott the Hoople...

[punkinhead]

So are we gonna compare Billy Preston and Billy Hinche too? Or should it be Ricky and Blondie?

though my favorite is that George Martin (on the BW Tribute) compares Brian to John/Paul's writing, George and Ringo's performing and George Martin's producing....Brian IS the whole band, he's the Beach Boys!, they're rest are the f-ing messengers.   

[Awesoman]

David Marks comparable to Pete Best? Let me answer this question with a question.

Why do Beach Boys fans always feel the need, even the urge, to compare the Beach Boys to the Beatles, in any capacity, in the most godfuckingdamned asinine ways? I mean, really now. There are so many fans who go on and on about "the Beach Boys are the best band ever" and "Brian Wilson is a genius" and "Pet Sounds is the best album ever" but feel like they need to justify those feelings by drawing innumerable comparisons with the Beatles, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME WITH THE GREATEST MUSICAL GENIUSES AND THE GREATEST SONGS AND ALBUMS OF ALL TIME.

Let me answer your question with yet another question: why not?  There's nothing wrong with making a comparison.  I like both bands fine and don't really have a favorite between the two.

And by the way, there was hardly a grand scheme behind my attempt to compare David Marks with Pete Best.  I simply saw a similarity between the two people (ie - basically their short careers with respective bands) and commented on it.  The comparison was over-scrutinized and ultimately frowned upon.  It really had *nothing* to do with comparing both bands as a whole. 

[runnersdialzero]

agfagfas

[SurfRiderHawaii]

There are no live Hamburg tracks featuring Pete Best in existence. The oft-bootlegged Star Club tracks were recorded in December 1962, over four months after Best was canned and the band was subsequently signed to Parlophone. The Decca tapes were always fully owned by the group -- in actuality, originally NEMS.

Best's payoff from the Anthology tracks was indeed Apple doing him a solid, and was entirely and completely due to Neil Aspinall taking care of his family.

Incidentally, Ringo Starr has earned far more money from Best's Anthology performances than he will in 82 lifetimes.

Howie - You forget about "Cry for a Shadow" which was recorded live in Hamburg and features Pete Best on drums.

And it was on Anthology 1.