Nice! Another good one.
How’s your stamina?
We’re not talking primarily about physical stamina here, although that’s part of it. In a lot of shops, the workload can grind people down if they aren’t strong enough to handle it. It’s important to let candidates know that a position will be demanding-as well as to see how they rate themselves in the fortitude department.
2: How hard have you been working lately?
Even the most industrious employees can lose the habit of working hard if they’ve been in a situation that doesn’t require it. And a candidate who’s fallen into “coasting” mode may have trouble ramping up for the effort you require. Conversely, a candidate who speaks enthusiastically about being engaged in challenging projects may well be a self-starter who could energize your team with his or her commitment and work ethic.
Wow...this has been hashed out on every drum forum,ad nausium.It's a lie,it has been proven a lie,over and over.He may be a great drummer,but a lousy liar.The story has changed over the years as to how many and cuts,which ones and where they were done,here or in the UK.
Mr Purdie never learned the the first rule of a lie.That is you have to remember it,exactly the same way you told it,the first time you told it....forever.
Secondly...if this B.S. were true,someone,anyone would have come foward by now to confirm this ruse as true or not.They also would have done so in their own Beatles tell all books,of which there have to be at least a hundred.
If Ringo was so terrible,then why did the keep him?If Ringo didn't cut it,he would have met the same fate as Pete Best.Just watch the live footage of Ringo's playing and tell me this guy wasn't a pro,who actually made much less mistakes then the other three Beatles.
Why didn't the Beatles keep Purdie,and chuck Ringo...like they did with Pete Best?
Remember...the Beatles recruited Ringo...they wanted him in the band,and not the other way around.
Lastly,if Ringo was a talentless as Mr.Purdie suggests,then why did Ringo play on Lennons first two solo albums,seven George Harrison albums,and four Macca albums.
Ringo also played on around 35 other artists studio albums including Peter Franpton,Jeff Lynn,Tom Petty,BB King and many others.
Seems the "he was only a good drummer for the Beatles" is just the classic argument from ignorance.Tell Steve Jordan,Steve Smith or Greg Bissonette Ringo is talentless and Purdie actually played on say, " She Loves You"(yeah yeah yeah as Purdie claims),and the'll to a man laugh in your face.
Put this nonsense to bed.The only story that will change will be Purdies....once again,who will talk about the B.S. to anybody who'll listen.
Steve B
Just as another aside to Purdies claim that he replaced Ringo in the studio for the first three albums.
Firstly,he would have had to done this at Abbey Road ,and played live in the studio with the Beatles,because that's how they recorded
Secondly,There are 41 songs on the first three Beatle albums in total,not 21.Alan White played on the single version of "Love Me Do"Purdie is as bad at math,as he is at lying.
Lastly,listen to Ringo performance with the Beatles live.His time and fills are spot on.Speaking of fills,it's also obvious that they were played by Ringo both live and in the studio.
Steve B
And using my very same analogy as before......to my five year old daughter, Santa Claus is a reality. He gave her presents last December.....I mean, she's playing with them now......doesn't get any more "real" than that does it? Perception doesn't always equal reality, my friend.
You're calling yourself the journo here......how about you "get off your balls" and do some journalism? The real kind......the old fashioned kind. You know, where you research the facts and provide some evidence, instead of taking someone's word purely because of "just how good" he is.
Oh sorry, I forgot....this is the internet. The new age. Facts no longer count for squat......things no longer need to be proven. At least, not now that anyone who can type to a basic grade three level can sit on a computer and spout opinions, do they?
Come on dude........go to work, get something tangible, convince me I'm wrong. Show me some concrete evidence to back the claims. Who knows, you may just make a legitimate name for yourself in doing so. Blow open one of rock's greatest conspiracies. Beat Chuck Rainey to the punch. What say you? Up to the challenge?
Controversial nonsense is good for ratings.
Based on a cursory look at the home page, the promotion of his site appears to be a not-for-profit venture, and he's got a bunch of great interviewees there, not just drummers. I think the information available outweighs the promotional tactics, although there is a limit as to how often we need to see the links.
Bermuda
I can't believe I'm going to continue on with this but...
Have you read this?
"Apparently it's what they were doing..." blah blah is irrelevant and doesn't prove anything in this case. You can't just take Purdie's word without examining it against what's actually possible and what's just logistically ridiculous. Unless you're saying that everything we know about the Beatles' timeline and recording methods is false and a cover-up?
Hey, maybe he did the sessions and they were never used and that's why we don't hear him on the tracks. In which case, who f***ing cares?