Why Pete Best Was NOT Fired by Brian Epstein or The Beatles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มิ.ย. 2024
- Since 1962, fans have debated why Pete Best was fired by Brian Epstein and The Beatles. Until recently, this was a hotly discussed issue without a resolution. Find out more at www.beatlesshop.co.uk
When working on my book "Finding the Fourth Beatle" with Garry Popper, I finally discovered what had happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
The biggest conclusion was that Pete Best was never fired by Brian Epstein or The Beatles. He couldn't be fired!
Follow David Bedford as he goes through the evidence of what happened, plus the other drummers who were approached and turned down Brian Epstein and Bob Wooler.
David Bedford is a Beatles historian and author of several books on The Beatles, including his worldwide most popular book, “Liddypool: Birthplace of The Beatles”. Find out more about David at liddypool.com/
Brightmoon Liverpool is part of Brightmoon Media, an award-winning media production and broadcast company based in Liverpool, UK. Our recent works include the John Lennon feature documentary 'Looking for Lennon', as well as a number of specialist educational films for some of the UK's top universities.
Follow us to find out more about upcoming projects:
Twitter: bit.ly/3z5HivM
Instagram: bit.ly/2USqhq7
Facebook: bit.ly/3imDcc7
Brightmoon website: bit.ly/2Vi5Pzl
If you would like to work with us, please contact our founder and director Roger
Appleton at rappleton@live.co.uk - เพลง
Wow David, this is a masterpiece, the best piece of journalism on this subject ever, imo. Your analysis distinguishing John's great rock-n-roll-covers Beatles, with Pete, from the Fab Four hit machine with Ringo, rings true and makes absolute sense. It is possibly how they thought about it themselves. You also evoke the fervid atmosphere of the Liverpool scene on the verge of the explosion, and the tinge of darkness in the early Beatles which bordered on real nastiness at times. Your open minded but strictly evidence-led approach is admirable and productive, many could learn from this, and you've really dug deep to tease out available details. You've set a very high bar for anyone seeking to argue with your conclusions, and presented them clearly and convincingly. Bravo!
Thank you so much for those kind words. It is a very emotive subject and it is hard to be objective when analysing it, which is why I like to look at it forensically, with evidence, to come to a conclusion. So glad you liked it. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I'm just glad Pete ended up with some serious cash from the Anthology. He must have made a million just from that alone?
The Tree Beatles were cowards not to tell Pete in his face they didn't want him but they did it behind his back. Because the Beatles was jealous of his popularity that's why they couldn't tell him in Pete face why did they have to get rid of the drummer just because they thought they would not succeed no Pete didn't have the looks .
If u want to get rid of someone that means they want u fired
Pete did not have the personality to take the next step. Ringo was such a big part of the Beatles identity, the movie had Ringo as the lead. I love the Pete recordings but, big difference, same songs different drummers. One feels like the future.
One aspect not explored IMHO...the Beatles were able to rehearse in Pete's basement whenever they wanted (supported by a facilitating Mona Best), and it was also a venue to perform at, which was well attended by adoring crowds!! That is a super huge benefit for a developing band. I was in a band at the same age in the 70's, and the reality of finding space that 4 kids could afford to rent (convincing parents to spend the money), and the logistics of moving equipment to and from gigs was super huge. Getting a gig was very difficult...even if you played for free. Their circumstances allowed them to build confidence, and skill as players and performers. Immeasurable
That was very useful for sure and they kept the gear there even after Pete was kicked out. The Casbah was the birthplace of the Beatles. What a place!
Ringo was the right choice because of his personality as well as his drumming. The Beatles weren’t just musicians they were an act: their humour, cheek, cuteness were all part of what made them so successful.
+Michael Dunne Looking back Michael I don't think anyone would disagree with the change. Like with any group it is the whole being greater than just the sum of the individuals.And what a group!
Ringo was a distress choice. Being wise in hindsight always clouds history. There is nothing to say _The Beatles_ would have been less successful with Pete Best rather than Ringo.
cool poster
@@johnburns4017 You have overlooked that when the Beatles came back from Hamburg all of the Liverpool drummers were copying PETE'S style. The "Atomic Beat". Further after 50 years he began writing which he should have started 50 years ago.. Listen the the album "Haymans Green" by the Pete Best Band. It would appear that the muses has touched the 4 members in Hamburg...
Ringo was the biggest comedian of the bunch and he lightened things up and provided a focus for their movies. George and Paul were pretty serious. John had a wry sense of humor but was also serious about music. Ringo was a devil, but a great drummer. Lots of times a person like that makes it all fun and people want to stay together for that alone.
Ringo was two things for the Beatles. First he was an innovative, clever drummer that created instantly identifiable beats. So many Beatles' songs can be identified by the drum line alone; not many drummers are that original. Secondly, and maybe equally as important, he was the glue that held the band together. George, Paul, and especially John had a creative tension that no amount of meditation and chanting with gurus could resolve. Ringo was the mediator that kept the band grounded. Who knows how the "fickle finger of fate" works, but there would have been no Beatles without Ringo - the other three would have imploded or strangled each other.
Thank you, that is well put. He was the glue that held them together and his contribution musically was incredible and deserves full credit.
that's hilarious, they weren't at eah other's throats through 1957-1962, do they?
He was also the comic actor. You can say that he kind of stole the show on A Hard Day's Night firm. The name alone had that unusual part of it. Of course, the unique drumming style with his snare hand and grip was revolutionary. I also believe that it added to Paul McCartney's bass playing with the two parts of the rhythm section working while the guitars were doing their thing.
Well said.....Ringo definitely relieved alot of tensions throughout their career. Even John Lennon once said that Ringo was the heart of the Beatles. All four of them were very similar but also very different. But the most important thing that I feel added to their success was how close the 4 of them really were. Ringo said he was born an only child but then found his 3 brothers. The Beatles were brothers like a family. That is so important for a band in the early years to get through hard times and adversities. It does also help to have the greatest songwriting partnership of all time with Lennon / McCartney in the band also! 😆 that helped some too! But also having George Harrison who to me is one of the great songwriters of all time. He was very good musically and mastered that early chet Atkins style of guitar playing. Wasn't the greatest lead guitar player as far as speed and shredding and showing off with 10 minute long guitar solos go but the Beatles were never that kind of band. George added alot to the overall sound of the Beatles throughout all of their phases of music. He introduced the Indian sounds with the Sitar and brining in Indian musicians to play on a Beatles record. He also was the one who brought spirituality into the band and their songs. Within Without You to me is a masterpiece watershed moment in pop/musical history. Bringing East and West together. George also evolved into a very great slide guitar player later on in his career. Just amazing.
@@Bella-nt7ec Read "The Beatles - All These Years: Volume One: Tune In" by Mark Lewisohn. John, Paul & George were all pretty fickle in those early years. Not only opportunistic and manipulative, but from the behaviour of John and Paul, you could definitely refer to them as 'users' regarding their relationships with their peers and other people. Drummers are always on the periphery in any band unless a special chemistry exists with the others -Ringo case in point, they are leader of the gang' -Pete wasn't that type of personality, John was, or they have other talents vital to the band such as songwriter or strong (co-lead) vocalist.
It's water under the bridge. Pete Best was not the drummer, nor the personality, for a group like The Beatles.
Pete was the kind of drummer that played with more power than Ringo and wasn't at all animated when playing. His style wasn't quite right for the Beatles, plus his on-stage persona didn't match the other three, but despite what they tried to pass off about Pete being a bad drummer as the reason for him getting replaced, Pete was the better drummer later admitted to by John to Beatles historian Tony Barrett "Pete was a better drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle". This came after years of bagging on Pete and saying he was a lousy drummer. I think they would have still been just as popular with Pete, but no one can really say.
To me one of the most striking things between Pete and Ringo was Ringo's personality which seemed to fit in more with John Paul and George.
I think that helped massively. a group is about more than just musical ability. It is a team that has to work together and they gelled perfectly.
You ignore the fact that the change to Ringo was made just before they anticipated a transition from live performances to studio work. Pete may have been passable in a noisy club, but the few recordings I've heard clearly lack Ringo's subtle and nuanced touch.
Don't forget we can't consider Ringo's style and capability proved over several years as a Beatle. He, like Pete, was a live drummer and in Liverpool they were considered equal, but different. However, Ringo's experience playing in several different variety clubs and summer seasons meant he was used to playing different styles. He was more adaptable to the studio eventually, but John, Paul and George didn't know that then. We have the hindsight to appreciate Ringo's style and nuances. It was a gamble in August 62, but thankfully it worked out, as it always did with the Beatles! It was the right change.
As a musician off playing for fifty years, here's my opinion. Pete Best's playing on the recordings done with Tony Sheridan were adequate but pedestrian. Over the eight years Starr was with the group, he played to the song, always. Their success would not have happened with Best on drums. Listening to all the songs of the Beatles, the unusual input Ringo provided became legendary.
Thanks for your comments. Looking back, we can certainly see and hear what Ringo brought to The Beatles. In 1962, there was very little between Ringo and Pete, though they had different styles. There is also nothing really on the first 2 or 3 albums that Pete couldn't have coped with admirably. After that, as The Beatles evolved, Ringo's incredible ability to play the song, to improvise and synergise with the other 3 made him the legend that he is today.
Absolutely agree, everyone knows Ringo’s unique drum fills, they are part of the structure of every Beatles record, he indeed played the song. It’s taken years but people are giving him the respect he deserves. In short, where Pete played the drums, whereas Ringo fitted in perfectly, he was a Beatle, whereas Pete never mixed as well with the others. Very interesting post.
I’m not a musician, and I see it the same way. John one time said about Best, that he never improved.
It so annoys me these days when people keep comparing musicians' skills proclaiming one is better that another.
Not one of the other great drummers mentioned thru these past 60 years not named Ringo, would’ve fit in with the songs The Beatles wrote and recorded.
As a musician of many more years than you. Here's the truth.
I was there at the time and you were not. Pete was the most popular member.
All the groups watched Pete including Starkey. The pure power of Pete's drums, especially in the small confines of the Cavern was staggering, only Johnny Hutch came close. They image they had , the leather, the hair, the "anti" red Fender guitars the choice of songs, different to all the other bands, but the drums and bass hit you from the stage.. It all contributed to their popularity, and attracted the attention of Eppy.
If you missed the early Cavern Beatles you missed a real treat.
So to all the experts on TH-cam. If you didn't see Pete play with Beatles, all your comments are heresay.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I say bosh to the so called greatness of Ringo. He couldn't even do a drum roll. You wanna compare? Try Buddy Rich. Now that's a musician's drummer. Or Hal Blaine-- much more polished and versitile. Even John Lennon said Ringo wasn't technically good. Just that he could lay down a beat better than most. So don't give me that overrated Ringo stuff. Drummers like him aren't suppose to be "stars". He was in last name only. The main talent always stood in front of him singing and playing the hits. Hits made by their producer George Martin-- the real genius behind the Beatles not that fellow sitting behind John Paul and George who replaced Pete Best.
60 years today. Just by coincidence, over the last few days, I started listening to the Beatles again. They deeply inspire me.
60 years ago today was when Ringo made his debut with The Beatles! A good time to re-engage with the Fab Four! Enjoy them
I agree Blair, absolutely incredible! When I listen to the early albums, a shiver goes down my spine and I get goose bumps its so great!
It was down to timing ,Petes timing was variable ,George Martin saw it instantly
His timing wasn't a big problem, he was a typical live drummer. Ringo's timing was a problem for George Martin which is why Ringo was replaced by a session drummer.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool there is a clip on TH-cam of his drumming of Love me do. And the timing is awful. All over the place and the others have trouble to pull it together.
Yep. Pete was terrible. I refuse to subscribe to this awful revisionist historian’s channel of lies and BS. What a kid of shit
@@BrightmoonLiverpool No, that was not the reason. Martin simply didn't know Ringo well at that time and didn't want to risk a session. It was just a CYA action by Martin. Also, in your research you seem to neglect very important issues of how a live band operates and how important during a live performance various "silly" details are. Details like: eye contact for starters. Even such a "silly" thing as a drummer that could not be quickly cued during a concert can become a source of _major_ annoyance to other band members. Same with personality clashes. Those kind of things simply can simply crash the entire enterprise. What can you do?
@JanPBtest With Ringo, are you talking about why he was replaced by Andy White? That was because George Martin didn't think Ringo was good enough on 4th September and so brought White in the following week. Paul McCartney said that Ringo's timing wasn't that good at that moment but he improved.
Your other point about how a love band operates is interesting, as I have played in bands for 40 years. However, my research takes in comments and quotes by the other Beatles and that has never come up. Again, Paul McCartney said a few times that Pete was a great drummer playing live, so that didn't appear to be an issue. If you have any quotes I have missed, I would be interested to see them as I am always open to new information.
A lot of bad stuff happened on August 16th. Pete Best got sacked, Elvis died, Madonna was born. LOL
Elvis’ manager, Col. Tom Parker, said in a press conference shortly after his death: “Elvis didn’t die. The body did. We’re keeping up the good spirits. We’re keeping Elvis alive. I talked to him this morning and he told me to 'carry on.’” (Elvis did not die and he wanted out. - Col. Tom Parker. 1977) After hearing so many stories about the death of Elvis Presley, I have decided to tell the world the real story on the facts concerning that day in August, 1977. Yes, that day, the 16th of August. Is it a coincidence that a person born on that January 8, first month, eighth day, would perish on the 8th month and the 16th day? Probably if two (2) people were born on that day it makes more sense. You see, numerology always played an important part of my life and still does today. So many people have written or spoke about my death as a hoax. It was not a hoax! I decided to reinvent myself in the form of my brother (Jesse Garon) and yes, Elvis Presley did die that day. But after much searching for the right people, I found several people from different states who I consider my most loyal and trustworthy friends. To some people this book will be just another scandalous piece of fiction, but when you are done I think you will think otherwise. I always felt my brother deserved to live and what better way to let him live his life than to end mine. I was lonely, depressed, in bad health and my numerology chart said that this was the time for it to come to end. Anyone who studies numerology will understand, those who don't may want to look into it. All of the facts (and there are many) even the experts will say they are more than coincidences. I no longer give away Cadillacs or expensive pieces of jewelry because I am nothing more than a man who had a very famous brother. I am not a great literate (I never wrote my own songs), but I am not illiterate either. The perfect day August 16, 1977, 1 + 9 + 7 + 7 = 24, my age backwards (42), the facts go on and on. But my true reasons for the book are for my fans. My death was not a hoax! To my fans, please forgive me, my brother deserved to live, he was with me constantly (spiritually). My life would not be the same had he lived at birth. This was my way of giving him life, and corny as it sounds. The Colonel took this secret to his grave. He was a loyal friend. But I will no longer stand by and have people like Gail Brewer tell you stories that are pure fiction. This book written by a true friend will help you realize why I did what I did. - The Truth About Elvis Aron Presley In His Own Words. (2001). My fascination with the idea of a hoax about death was when Jim Morrison died July 3rd, 1971. Although I saw no correlation (he died at age 27) I was astounded that as famous as he was the body was just closed up and shipped out. Now I don't know all the facts concerning his death. I thought it awfully strange that no autopsy was performed (or so I thought) and just forgotten about. There were a lot of rumors about his death. I noticed he was born on the 8th day. Born in 1944 = 1-8 and died in 1971 = 1-8. Remember my comeback in 1968? 1+9+6+8 = 24. Obviously, I was no longer 24, so I reversed the age to 42. The next time that number had any relevance was 1977 (1+9+7+7 = 24 when I would be 42. Numerology can and does play an important part of my life and we knew that would have to be the date. Most people if they know what to look for will find significance in the forms of numbers in all of my movies! Example: gravestone in " Loving You" (year) 1878 = ? (1+8+7+8 = 24). You have to look at the movies. My hero James Dean died at the age of 24, but I was on top of the world then and wanted to live. - The Truth About Elvis Aron Presley In His Own Words. (2001). I will start about 1974 when the thought first came to me about faking my death. I have always been fascinated with the occult and other spiritual things. When I first saw a wax dummy of myself made by a Mr. Cooper I was fascinated with it. For some time I had thought if it was possible? Could I pull this thing off? I had asked Mr Cooper if he could make another wax dummy for me. He said he could. I in turn said I wanted him to do it and keep it strictly confidential. When I had mentioned it to a very few close friends (Joe Esposito, Larry Geller) they did not think I was serious. I was tired of being Elvis Presley, my health was deteriorating. I just couldn't keep up. My finances were floundering because of my daddy's poor business ventures. I was at my wit's end. As the years progressed I had my ups and downs which are pretty well documented in other books. I also had two detectives from Colorado who I trusted immensely. Originally the date was 1976 according to my numerology charts but I chickened out. A pact was made on the grounds of Graceland one night, hands placed over hands that this secret would never be spoken of outside this room. I picked four (4) of us initially and to this day all have kept the secret. I also know when this book reaches the bookstores people (my loyal friends) will be heartbroken. They took care of me and convinced others that I was no longer alive. In reality Elvis Presley died that day and my twin brother "Jesse" came to life, living in hiding but as a normal human being. I skip around because I am writing stream of consciousness. My own Daddy bless his soul never knew the truth. Little Lisa was told months later and explained to her she would not see me much. The Colonel took this secret to his grave. Many people believe me to still be alive but I was told in the beginning there would be no contact in order for this to work. I go thru a lot of ups and downs since 1977 and have lived in many states but I insisted I needed to be in a warm climate. My personal thoughts are that my fans will understand. That is very important to me. I just could not face myself any more after seeing myself in the mirror and that is where Larry Geller came in. He asked if he could write a book, and I gave him my blessing. "If I Can Dream" is the title and I like his book. He had filled my head with spiritual thoughts and made me believe we could pull this off. If I had stayed longer I think I would have been booed off the stage. That is why I chose the date 8-16-77. Do you know how many famous people passed away on that date? The great Robert Johnson died on 8-16 and he was born in 1935! Babe Ruth, and Bela Lugosi and many others. I must say I was very nervous that day 8-16. But it had to be done before I went on the road where I would not have been able to pull it off. Did you know there are secret compartments in Graceland that very few people know about! A few like Vester would joke about my being alive but no one took him serious. Many of my friends would ask if I were still alive and they have their doubts but as it was I might have died broke and just a shell of myself. I was given an injection that looked like I was dead but the people closest to me knew better. Believe me I had my doubts that this could be pulled off. But it did and I became Jesse, just a poor white southern boy who didn't sing a lick of anything. I feel bad my Daddy wasn't allowed to know but it just couldn't be done. I better go now and collect my thoughts to tell you the rest next time. - The Truth About Elvis Aron Presley In His Own Words. (2001). You Found Me By Pastor Bob Joyce th-cam.com/video/WUI7_rZpl8c/w-d-xo.html
😀
I was washing dishes when the radio which the guys listened to about horse racing scores interrupted saying Elvis just died, I was 15. Summer job
Fascinating video, thanks much !! Incredible evidence that you dug up, it all sounds so logical. Definitely the best explanation I've ever heard. I can't help but wonder, what would have happened if during Pete's "sacking" by Brian, Pete remembered that he had a signed contract agreement with the boys, and told Brian that he was going to speak with a lawyer about it...
Thank you. Pete did consult a lawyer but got bad advice. His lawyer tried to sue Brian for wrongful dismissal, which of course he could not have done, as Brian didn't employ Pete - Pete employed Brian!
My thoughts exactly,my fellow Robin!!
Really enjoyed your presentation. I have studied all of this for a long time. There is a video (easily found online) of Johnny Guitar clearly stating in some detail, from first-hand knowledge, that John Lennon and Paul McCartney did show up at the holiday camp and spoke to Ringo about joining The Beatles. He also speaks on Rory's reaction to Ringo quitting on him. In Gerry Marsden's autobiography, called, "You'll Never Walk Alone", Gerry reveals, from his own first hand knowledge, that a number of drummers were asked to replace Pete Best before Ringo was asked. Gerry reports that his brother, the drummer for his Pacemaker's group, was also asked by George Harrison to replace Pete Best in The Beatles before Ringo was asked. Being a mate of Pete's, Gerry's brother refused to (as Gerry worded it) "do the nasty" to Pete and so he had no interest in replacing Ringo in The Beatles. I do think you are wrong in your conclusion that the notion of getting rid of Pete came only after George Martin spoke of replacing Pete on the recording sessions. True, there was a contract that tied Pete to his bandmates, but an intolerable, unexpected problem arose afterward for the core members of the group. Pete was fast becoming the most popular member of the group. I think that is undeniable. The very long cues to see The Beatles at their club shows, by most reports, were primarily Pete fans. The Beatles had been asked, at The Cavern Club, to bring Pete out in front on stage. Pete himself admits, in his own autobiography, that his bandmates and even Paul's father, who scolded Pete, accusing him of putting himself above his bandmates, were seeing the fan adoration of Pete as a growing problem. Pete also reported having his own suspicions aroused, when, well before his EMI audition, someone close to Brian, out of the blue, told Pete how sorry he was that his bandmates were letting him go. Would Pete fabricate such a thing that had startled him when it happened? Another clue was Pete's recollection that he was never told by his bandmates that Decca had turned the group down, discovering that they had known of it themselves al along. But when George Martin related that he would be using a session drummer, John, Paul and George finally had an excuse they could use to conceal that wanting Pete out was partially based on jealousy. As you rightly concluded, had Pete's drumming ever been an issue, he wouldn't have lasted a week in the group. But we also have Brian Epsien's own account that what attracted him to The Beatles was "their beat". Was he attracted to a group that could not keep time? Would The Beatles fan base go through the roof if they had "a lousy drummer", as Lennon once remarked Pete was? Lennon also said McCartney was nothing but "muzak" and that beyond the song, "Yesterday", Paul had nothing to offer. The fact is, as you pointed out, Lennon, without knowing it, had defended Pete as a being great drummer, because he said their best era was when Pete was the drummer. You cannot have a great band, not at all, unless you have a great drummer. So why would he call Pete "a lousy drummer"? Lennon was still holding a grudge over all of the mayhem caused by Pete's removal, for which the group blamed Pete. The period just after Pete left the group was far worse than is widely known, with fans walking out on the Beatles' gigs, chanting Pete's name at gigs, writing letters for weeks in support of Pete, protests, altercations in and around the gigs, including George Harrison's black eye, fans camped out at Pete's house. Gerry Marsden reported a completely distraught Brian Epstein being beside himself in tears, not being seen without security people he hired for his own protection. And all of this was considered Pete's fault. And when Pete sued The Beatles, George Harrison's opinion about Pete, I believe, was expressed in the one song George wrote, where he mentioned in his autobiography, that he admitted it was written about a real person, but that he could not remember who it was. "I left you far behind the ruins of the life that you have in mind. (Pete was on tour with his own band at the time.) And though you still can't see, I know you're mind's made up, you're gonna cause MORE misery..." again blaming Pete for their misery of bad publicity after Ringo told Playboy Magazine that Pete was a pill popper which led to that lawsuit that Pete was using to promote his tour with. The person in that song, "Think For Yourself" is described exactly the way the Beatles have always described Pete after his removal. "Although your mind's opaque, try thinking more, if just for your own sake. The future still looks good, and you've got time to rectify all the things that you should. Do what you want to do... you're telling all those lies..." etc. The fact that George said this song was about a real person lets me know why he claimed he forgot who the song was about, having been written just when Pete's lawsuit was in the press. So yes, I believe they held it against Pete for the "misery" The Beatles had suffered after his removal. But more than that, they had to justify replacing Pete with Ringo in particular. They all kept it quiet for a long time that George Martin had also refused to use Ringo on the sessions. But having made the move of replacing Pete, now they had to justify that move by creating the myth that Pete couldn't play drums, when Mersey Beat, in writing, fall 1962, actually reports that George Martin was TEACHING Ringo how to play drums. Am I making that up? I named the issue. It is easy to look up. So, before you conclude that Ringo was the great drummer who filled the void, one needs to consider the edge that Pete Best would have had in the group, if George Martin had been as kind to Pete in arranging for proper drum instruction for Pete as he had for Ringo. That is a fact. Now, what was Ringo's track record as the new drummer in The Beatles? First session with Ringo: "How Do You Do It" - shelved., "Love me Do" - shelved. "P.S. I Love You" - shelved. And even weeks later, with Ringo on drums: "One After 909" - shelved. "The slated "B" side for "Please Please Me", an original called, "From a Window" - shelved. George Martin didn't even let them record it. He said it did not sound right when they played it for him. So, no... Ringo Starr was not having an easy time proving himself as the premiere drummer of Merseyside, living up to all of the accolades being chanted about him by his new band mates that were designed to justify the switch. To this day Ringo Starr still says it is him on drums on "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" on the album. Those who know the history know better than that. And we also know to dismiss it when John Lennon claims that the plan was always to get rid of Pete. He was still lying about Pete's removal into the 1970s. Lennon admitted to Beatles' biographer Hunter Davies, that they gave Brian the job of getting rid of Pete because they were afraid it would have turned into a fight had they done it themselves. And they had good reason to believe just that. When Tony Sheridan, at the time The Beatles were Tony's backup band, tried to demand Pete change his playing on a particular song, finding fault with Pete's drumming, that turned into a 30-minute fist fight between Tony and Pete after Pete defended his drumming, flatly refusing to change his playing on the song in question. This is no rumor. Both Pete and Tony have openly talked about it as having been a real event. And that is what would have crossed the minds of John, Paul and George when the thought came to them, of facing Pete themselves with the lie that Ringo was replacing him because they felt Ringo was a better drummer. Pete certainly didn't believe that Ringo was better than he was, so he absolutely would have considered the "reasoning" they offered, for replacing him, as being a total lie. Ringo was given drum lessons just after he joined the group, during the period when every track Ringo played on was being SHELVED. These are facts you did not cover. - There's much more I could add, as to the subject of Pete having been replaced. It is not as simple a matter as you make it out to be. But, I do think your presentation was excellent. I just think there's much too much that you left out that could fill in other aspects of what happened and why. But Klaus Voorman, to this day, swears that The Beatles never sounded better than when Pete AND STUART were in the group. Is Klaus tripping? No. He was there. *We* are tripping if we believe a lot of the false history that was created, that was designed to conceal the petty jealousies that were real and that helped to lead to changes in the group that later, in order to save face, had to be swept under the rug.
Thank you for this very important information. It makes sense. Yes I always suspected jealousy and I did hear a recording of the fans yelling for Pete after he was replaced and Lennon says YES to them. I dont know where that recording is but I listened to it many times twenty years ago... as I couldnt believe what I was hearing..the screams from the audience demanding Pete. I had no idea it went down like this.
@@barbj9785 Thanks for your interesting response! Yes, I remember hearing "We want Pete!" from the audience. Pete was there at The Cavern that night eating his heart out, watching as the group made their first tv appearance. Ironically, it was Pete's mother, Mona who got that tv appearance arranged. As it happened, that performance of "Some Other Guy" was filmed just days after Pete was let go. But the calls for Pete went on for weeks. Gerry Marsden reported that Ringo was a nervous wreck during that period, saying he should never have joined The Beatles. Gerry personally confronted Brian Epstein demanding to know how he could pull such a stunt on Pete. Pete could not actually be fired by his own representative. Pete was conned off of his drum throne. Brian just shouted back at Gerry, "You wouldn't understand!"
I wonder where that clip is..hearing the crowds yell for Pete.. I recall Lennon shouted YES.
@@barbj9785 It's here, but Lennon's remark ks not included.Start at # 4:00 when you get there. th-cam.com/video/nisU8XDl-dM/w-d-xo.html
@@justmaitake5910 Thanks, just watched it. So glad this was filmed..what a treasure. Thanks for sharing.
"There's room at the top, they're telling you, still. But first you must learn how to smile when you kill." Chilling in this context...
From my understanding, when The Beatles were in Hamburg, there were times when Pete wouldn’t show up for gigs and Ringo filled in for him.
Hi Randy, not in Hamburg. Pete asked Ringo to sit in for him at the end of 61 in Liverpool and then on 3 further occasions in early 62, Ringo sat in for Pete when he knew he couldn't make it. Ringo did once say that Pete didn't show up for gigs and even suggested Pete took pills to make himself ill. Ringo got sued successfully by Pete as it wasn't true. Pete never didn't show up. If he was ill or in one case was in court, he let the others know and so if Ringo was around he sat in.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Hi David, do you happen to have the exact dates of the 4 occasions where Ringo subbed for Pete? I would be much obliged.
Subscribed Brightmoon Liverpool, great information, never heard of this before, thanks!
According to the contract they signed with Brian, a majority vote of the Beatles could vote a member out of the band. So J, P and G were more than welcome to sack Pete.
No sorry, the contract they signed with Brian was a management contract, appointing him as their manager and agent. That has nothing to do with the musicians as a group. I discovered they had signed a partnership agreement between J, P, G and Pete and under UK law, you cannot sack a partner, you have to dissolve the partnership and they didn't want to do that. I have that from Brian's lawyer who explained the whole process to me. I am also qualified in UK Contract Law, but I wanted it independently verified by the man who advised Brian.
In the studio, there is proof that Pete Best couldn't keep a consistent beat. He would speed-up or slow down. He couldn't keep time. There is a production on TH-cam with Pete Best in the studio that proves this.
Ringo had the same problem, as his recording of, "Love Me Do", was rejected by George Martin for the same reasons. Both drummers were great live performers with little experience in the studio in the summer of '62. The difference was, JP&G were jealous of Pete, wanted him out and used Martin's rejection of Pete's recording as the pretext they'd been waiting for to sack him. Whereas with Ringo, they wanted him in, and when he was also rejected by Martin, they fought the EMI A&R man like hell to allow Ringo more chances--which is got, and made the most of. Pete would have, too, given that he got a record deal by Decca with his new band soon after being sacked by The Beatles, and no session drummers were required. Pete's sacking was a despicable betrayal of the drummer who'd saved The Beatles two years earlier, defined their sound with his Atom Beat, and drove them to the verge of stardom with his leading-man looks and immense popularity.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Wrong. Lennon stated more than once that Pete was an awful drummer and they were planning to sack him long before they actually did. You just seem to blindly think PB is a great drummer, which he is not, he really is terrible and it's obvious. But sure turn it into a personality and jealousy thing only, or about his looks, which never got him anywhere either - he was a dullard.
Lennon is considered a brilliant rhythm guitarist by many - do you really think that he did not have an innate sense about timing and what good drumming was? I was there for many of their early appearances, both with Pete and Ringo and Ringo was the change that was needed and it was an epic moment, no one of my friends at the time in Liverpool could figure out what the F Pete was doing on stage - he was not good.
You write as if you're a PB propagandist and plant - are you?
@@bingohhhhhhhhhhhh You're a lying POS, lol, you weren't in Liverpool then watching The Beatles with Pete! Because NO ONE thought he was a crappy drummer, on the contrary, he was widely considered one of the best drummers in the entire Liverpool-Hamburg circuit. His Atom Beat revolutionized rock drumming, to the point that every drummer in those two cities tried to copy it, including Ringo. One bandleader, Faron of Faron's Flamingos kept firing drummers because they, *"couldn't sound like Pete Best".* So now that we've established that YOU weren't actually there, let's listen to someone who was. 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 thought that Pete's drumming on recording came into question in the sessions the band did backing Tony Sheridan - he was said to be poor on coordinating snare and kick drum with hi hat. Also I've heard Lennon quoted as saying they needed someone to fill the chair when they went to Hamburg and Pete was chosen for availability rather than suitability ?
His drumming wasn't questioned by Kaempfert at the Sheridan sessions for competence. It was that the Beatles were a rock n roll group, and Kaempfert didn't do rock n roll. He did easy listening schlager music with soft drums. So Kaempfert asked Pete to only play the snare and cymbals. He does a really good job, too, performing a fast drum roll at speed, which is technically difficult.
Yes, Best was hired last-minute to go to Hamburg. But they could have got rid of him anytime, but didn't. When they felt Stuart Sutcliffe wasn't up to scratch, Paul ensured he jumped before he was fired! They never tried it with Pete.
If he was no good, they would have got rid of him straight away. Not after 2 years!
Tony Sheridan himself says in a video interview that Pete was not that good a drummer and that is why they barely used him for the recording sessions.
first time with your channel; wow, what an unbiased approach; I'll stay and have a closer look :)
Thank you - enjoy our videos
I hope Pete Best sees this video. Thoroughly well researched, and clears up the complicated situation that's been debated and discussed and mysterious for over 50 years! I never considered the situation this way. Excellent job on the research, interviews, and piecing together all the pieces.
Definitely earned yourself a new subscriber. :D
Thank you so much for the kind words. I have given Pete a copy of my book with all the research, so I hope he has read it, or sees this video too. Thanks for the support. David
May have cleared up the reason for his departure but it’s ridiculous to say he was a real good drummer when he was only adequate
@@sg-yq8pm I have seen Pete live when he was promoting hymans green album .and met him at the fest for Beatles fans . On the date 1962 it wasn’t his best drumming . He is a good person and better drummer now .
@@neilafacci5833 What's "ridiculous" is your assertion that The Beatles transformed from a bum band when Pete joined them, into the hottest ticket in two cities just 4 months later, with only having an "adequate" drummer. If you think that happens with an "adequate" drummer, you know nothing about music.
@@Cosmo-Kramer
Pete was with _The Beatles_ for *two years.* The two years when they went from a bunch of kids banging out badly their favourite records, to a slick professional band that commanded attention.
Brilliant research Dave. Totally fascinating and what an amazing conclusion...the end of 'The Beatles' and the start of the Fab Four!
Thank you. Just makes sense to me.
When I listen to the DECCA auditions, I can hear Pete speed up and slow down. This was very interesting.
Thanks Criss - the Decca audition I have commented on above - see full answer to makrde - as none of them performed well that day. Pete like all live drummers would speed up and slow down, they all did. That was a problem for Ringo too initially. Glad you found it interesting, thanks.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Ringo sounded just fine on August 22nd of 1962. In reality, he completely changed the sound of the band-FOR THE BETTER.
@@gringo557 David is saying that speeding up and slowing down was a problem for Ringo as well initially *in the studio.* When Ringo did a recording to, "Love Me Do", at EMI on September 4th, 1962, it was rejected by George Martin as not being good enough for the official recording due to poor timing--an assessment Paul McCartney agreed with. One week later, Martin brought in session drummer, Andy White, to do the official recording. Ringo was livid, and never forgave Martin.
They played well into the Morning at the Cavern at a pre new years bash on the 30th, spent 10 hours with their equipment riding in the back of van with no heat from Liverpool to London on the 31st then indulged in a bit of New years. The audiution was the morning of January 1st 1962.
As a lifelong Beatles fan since I was a teenager back in the '60s, from the very beginning of their career --- all these years later the debate about Pete Best vs. Ringo Starr still amazes me. Whatever happened in the final analysis is irrelevant, because when I look at the Fab Four I see something beyond human understanding. To me, their combined talents and personalities were so marvelous, extraordinary, incredible and fantastic that I put it down to Divine Intervention. It's called "Destiny". Some people have it, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.... and the Beatles. It's mysterious and inexplicable. George Martin once said "When the four of them are together, something happens that's impossible to explain". Ringo Starr was meant to be a Beatle, and when he joined them they became the band we all know and love today. Pete was a good drummer --- how could anyone not be playing behind the greatest front line in rock and roll history? ---- but Ringo had a style and a creative touch and perfect time that was superior. And a warm, loveable personality that completed the lineup. End of story.
That's what I've been trying to say for years. We don't need to change history, but appreciate both for what they did.
Very enlightening. Thank you so much for posting this and your other similar videos.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you
Ringo was a very subdued, yet brilliant with his chops. Ringo was a great Beatle and played what the songs needed. Not all songs are 4/4, you need better chops.
In hindsight, we can all agree that Ringo was the perfect fit and thankfully they got the right replacement.
Ringo also had the cheeky Beatles whit, making really pointed comments in a way that appeared humorous rather than snide.
Pete is a very nice man. I met him. Low keyed, soft spoken and kind. But he didn't conform. He refused to have a Beatles haircut. The Beatles really became the Beatles when Ringo joined. My evidence: Listen to his very first live performance which is available on TH-cam. They are playing 'Some Other Guy' at the Cavern. And you could hear how 'tight' they are with Ringo. Plus he agreed to conform. He put his hair into a Beatles style plus his personality is perfect.
The not conforming with the haircut is a red-herring and no reason to make a change. He was never asked to change it.
Being quieter wasn't a reason. Ringo was quiet for a while after joining them. The Beatles with Pete were tight, having played hundreds of hours over the 2 years he was with them. There was no reason to get rid of him, and nothing happened until George Martin told Brian he was going to use a session drummer.
Paul also commented that after Ringo joined initially he wasn't that tight on keeping time but became so regular.
It is the problem of trying to look at history when we know the events that took place. In hindsight, the Beatles needed to change their style and become a pop group recording original songs, which was different to the covers band they had been. Ringo was the perfect new drummer and he was and is one of the greatest drummers of all time.
Great video, David. Very well researched and explained.
Glad you liked it!
Thank you for setting the record straight that Pete was not "a lousy drummer", as Lennon years later had claimed, obviously as a means of justifying replacing him with Ringo. Unfortunately, so many Ringo apologists on TH-cam quote Lennon's nasty, dishonest remark as evidence that Pete was a hack with the sticks who "could barely move them up and down four in a bar" (another part of Lennon's infamous, disparaging quote). It's absolutely incredulous to suggest that Pete could have been anything less than a solid drummer to have lasted two years with a band--a band made up of perfectionists. And he was more than solid, he was actually, as you said, a great drummer. Now then, I do have several points to challenge you on, but will save those for another time. In my first comment, I wanted to just thank you for your research and sharing it with us--in particular, debunking the myth (lie) that Pete was not a good drummer. Well done. I'll be back.
Thank you, very well said, and very happy to take your questions too.
All we can ascertain about Pete's drumming ability is that George Martin wanted a session drummer.
There are 2 possibilities of what follows:
1 When Pete was replaced by Ringo, George also wanted a session drummer, but he couldn't be bothered to cause the same problem twice.
2 George felt Ringo was a better for recording so no need for s session drummer.
3 (some silly idea that none of the Beatles ever played any instruments on any of their albums, it was all session players)
Which was it ?
@@TimLondonGuitarist Ringo recorded LMD on September 4th. Both Martin and McCartney said it was not good enough for the official recording. One week later, on September 11th, Martin hired session drummer, Andy White, to do the official recording. Ringo was livid standing in the control room watching, so EMI threw him a bone...well, a tambourine, actually...so that he'd stop sulking and could join his band.
@@Cosmo-Kramer so Ringo was useless for studio work also, so convincing Pete he was sacked achieved nothing. Obviously these Liverpool drummers were not up to it
@@TimLondonGuitarist Not at all. Ringo was good drummer. As good, or nearly as good as Pete. But both drummers were inexperienced in the studio, and needed more time in there to polish their game. Ringo got better and drummed on almost all of The Beatles tracks through the 8 years to their breakup. And Pete went with another band after getting sacked, and they got a record deal from Decca--no session drummers were required. (Mike Smith at Decca never did have a problem with Pete's drumming.)
Best's drumming was rubbish. All you need is a pair of ears and a smidge of music appreciation to discern that. You pull one Lennon quote where he thinks the Beatles were best in Hamburg (by the way, the famous Star Club tapes were with Ringo!), when Lennon directly panned Best's drumming in no uncertain terms.
Music is subjective and who you like or don't like is subjective. You may not like Pete's drumming but you can't say anyone with ears and an appreciation of music can discern that. Did you see the Beatles with Pete? I have spoken to many people who saw Pete live with the Beatles, fans, musicians including drummers, who all rated him as a great love drummer. May not be to your taste. Funny you should mention the Star Club Tapes - the Beatles never wanted them released! There is a recording in the Cavern around October 1962 where they were rehearsing and John is shouting at Ringo. Happens to all bands. Have to look at it in a balanced way.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool It's got little to do with taste. There are tons of drummers, whose work I don't particularly enjoy, but who are competent. You don't have to *see* music, you can hear it on recordings. The Beatles being against releasing the Star Club tapes is a red herring. Nothing to do with drumming and everything to do with poor audio quality.
What I think is that you have three guys who are all guitarists and harmony singers. They had to work very closely together to improve, which they did. They needed a drummer whose style would help showcase the guitar work and singing and they needed a personality, a character, that fit the 4-person 'package.' Ringo fit the bill in all of the above criteria.
You are one of the best Beatles channels! Don’t know how you get your information, but I really think it’s all true. Thanks, from across the pond.
Thanks Anne, I have been researching and writing about The Beatles for over 20 years now in Liverpool and interviewing so many people connected to The Beatles too. Roger, our film director, has been interviewing people from the Liverpool music scene for many years too, so between us, we have made so many contacts. Glad you are enjoying our videos. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thank you. I find it disappointing to this day Paul wont come clean about what happened.
Great analysis! Thank you:)
Listen to Best's drumming on the Decca Audition sessions. He couldn't maintain a steady beat.
Hi George although this wasn't a video on Pete's drumming, it does crop up. Please see my comments in answer to markede above. If we are going to judge Pete by Decca, then we judge them all, and none of them performed well that day. Have a read and see what you think?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool It's one thing to have a bad day. It's quite different for every day to be a bad day. Bert Kaempfert didn't use Best on the "My Bonnie" session because he just wasn't good enough. The simple truth is one cannot discuss Best being sacked from the Beatles without addressing Best's skills or lack thereof. It's too bad that all of this occurred in the early 1960's and not today. Had this happened today, there would be a plethora of cell phone video recordings of the Beatles.
@@MrErdner Fine, but then raising Decca ALONE is a weak argument.
Pete was a terrible drummer. I'm a drummer I hear his playing straight bass drum 1234 most of the time. Ringo was the best drummer in the beatles circle and when he sat in and played "What'd I Say" with the band with the correct feel for the song they all knew.... Pete was toast. The Beatles had a recording contract and first chance they got, they convinced Ringo to quit Rory Storm or whoever he was playing with to quit and join up. Ringo is an amazing drummer just watch the early shows like the Washington DC gig right after Sullivan he kicked the **** out of the drums! Pete got his money in the 90s with the anthology records so he should be set for life since then.
Thank you for that information.
Fascinating. As always mate.. thank you
Thank you.
I watched an interview with John Lennon a few years ago (As I remember it was John). He said that Pete Best didn't have a good bass drum foot and would usually play straight 1, 2, 3, 4. This worked fine when they were playing Rock & Roll covers in the clubs. Ringo was more refined and had a good bass drum foot. I don't think Pete could properly play the original numbers on their first LP. Those numbers required a proper bass drum.
Ironically, it was Pete's thumping bass drum that made the Beatles sound in those 2 years. It was called the Atom Beat. Ringo had a wider variety of techniques and styles from his years in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes indeed!
The comments were all over the place even from the Beatles themselves. Bottom line I don't think Pete Best could have out performed Ringo.
Excellent presentation.
Can only thank you for this. Answers a lot of questions. Your research and conclusions are thorough and convincing. Wonderful 💜
Thank you kindly. David
Anybody with ears can tell from the Decca tape how poor the drumming is surely? Keeping time is the absolute bottom line for a drummer.
I've heard that said, and, as I play guitar/bass/piano and not drums, I asked 3 independent drummers who were about 19, 50 and 70 to listen to the Decca audition and tell me what they thought. They were very positive about Pete's drumming and maybe he could have added some variation, but that was how they played the songs live. If we are going to examine each of The Beatles at the Decca audition, Paul's bass is clunky - as noticed by the producer Mike Smith - and singing was poor; George's singing was the best but his lead guitar work was not great. John's voice was a bit shaky and his rhythm guitar work was a bit pedestrian. So we could criticise them all.
As you say, keeping time is essential for a drummer. I have played with many drummers and you know very quickly who can and can't keep time. Playing live brings some variation in speed, naturally, as any band knows. Playing in the studio requires a different skillset. As you probably know, when Ringo turned up at EMI on 4th September, George Martin was expecting Pete to walk through the door. Ringo didn't play well so George Martin replaced him with a session drummer. His problem? Paul said later that Ringo wasn't that steady on time then but he soon improved and became so reliable.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is so easy to listen to Ringo's incredible drumming throughout the 1960s with The Beatles and compare it to a poor band performance made in their first ever visit to a recording studio as young men. Nobody really would have signed them based on that performance.
I was determined to be as objective as I could, which is why I contacted those 3 independent drummers for their opinion. I hope I have been able to show that independence and objectivity here for you.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on the video. David
Marc Lewisohn , the most recognized Beatle historian, says when the Beatles went to .Abbey Road in June 1962 - they were a signed band. He said even saw the signed contract in the EMI archives. He said it was NOT an audition. He said it corrected everything he thought for decades - that it was an audition. It was not.
Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, Mark was mistaken in his conclusion, using one form as his evidence, which a historian would. However, I studied English Law and Contract Law and knew that they weren't under contract. However, as I am not a lawyer, I consulted a lawyer who was the most senior lawyer in Liverpool, who explained clearly why The Beatles were not under contract.
Ironically, the conclusive paperwork was provided by Mark in one of his earlier books, "The Beatles Chronicles", which shows that Parlophone didn't sign their side of the contract until around 18th June.
To find out more, watch this video where I explained it th-cam.com/video/5C73wCMHON4/w-d-xo.html
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Very interesting, thank you.
Pete had signed a contract with the Beatles, could he have just sat back and received a fifth of the royalites as long as he didn't join another group?
@@blueycarlton That was the situation they had to avoid, because he would still have been a part of the group. It happened with Don Felder and the Eagles. Their manager was sent to sack him, his lawyer confirmed he was a partner, and it took years to resolve it just before it got to court!
@@blueycarlton Great Point! But he didnt know that at the time.
i sat and watched this vid all the way through. well done in putting it across.😀
Thank you very much.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool you're welcome 😀I subbed and i'll check out more. This vid stopped me making a Pete Best vid. What you said about the contract was intriguing. After all these years I always thought he was fired. But he couldn't have been. Intriguing to think what would have happened if Pete had had someone in his corner who knew about the legalities.
@TheBeatlesZone Thanks. Yes, the legal stuff is fascinating. Pete's lawyer tried to sue Brian for wrongful dismissal, but it was no good, because Brian didn't employ him!
I got all of this info from Brian Epstein's lawyer. A great guy to meet and talk to. Glad you found it interesting.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I guess the strange thing is that even Pete’s lawyer didn’t know he was trying to sue the wrong person. I would have thought he would have seen the contract stating Pete’s position.
Excellent work. Your Beatles videos are so watchable, well done.
Thank you so much
Brilliantly compiled and, for me, this is the one story that makes the most sense. Pete never seemed to fully come to terms with what had happened to him in various interviews that I've seen and, even to this day, seems unsure of the real reasons behind the decision. The legal aspect of the contract is very interesting.
I feel that the one real winner of this story is the solidarity that seems to have been displayed by his fellow drummers and friends to him and also Pete's loyalty to Neil Aspinall. He always comes across as a very decent guy and I found that quite heartwarming to be honest. Great work and thanks!!!
Thanks Robbie. Yes, Pete has always behaved with dignity and his loyalty to Neil is admirable. Decent guy for sure.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Hi David, thanks for getting back. I have always looked forward to seeing your videos )) I live not too far from the Grosvenor ballroom, which you might be aware of ))
Great presentation. Try to imagine Pete on "It Won't Be Long"; wouldn't have worked.
You summation atvery end IMO is spot on!
Thank you.
that Sir is a first class doco, very well done and most enjoyable , thanks for sharing. best wishes NZ
Thanks Dave - greetings from Liverpool from another Dave!
Thanks for making the Beatles drummer situation clear. The thing that narks me most is that Pete was with them for two years when Lennon says, that's when they were the real Beatles. It's documented that Lennon said that Pete was a lousy drummer drummer. He wasn't a personality fit either. It's a complicated situation.
Lennon said horrible things about different people all the time. He said he thought George Martin ruined the songs and he wanted to re-record them all! He said things on a whim, in hindsight, so you have to look at the context. Hos comment you mentioned is the best evidence I think because we know he loved rock n roll and Pete was a great rock drummer. Very complicated situation but it worked itself out eventually.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool And I recall George Martin said Lennon was never happy with his voice..sometimes he wanted to double track it. Look at Strawberry Fields..sung in 2 different keys and splicer together...different speeds too.
Very interesting research. I wasn't aware of the fact that other drummers were asked to replace Pete Best. I had always thought that Ringo was the obvious choice. The whole business must have been very awkward for Neil Aspinall, seeing his mate (who was also his girlfriend's son) getting kicked out of the band.
A lot of people don't realise there were other drummers approached, but, thankfully, Ringo joined and everything worked out right. It really put Neil in an awkward position - Pete helped him out.
Brian took it upon himself to ask these other drummers because he didn't like Ringo. Thought he was too flashy or something.
@@alanm.8472 Yes, I'm pretty sure that John, Paul and George didn't want anybody else than Ringo.
@@LapsangTe Brian admitted later that The Beatles were right about Ringo. At one point Brian even asked a piano player that The Beatles were jamming with to join without The Beatles knowledge. He turned Brian down because he had his own act. Brian did overstep.
@@alanm.8472 Yes, that's why they gradually alienated themselves from Brian. He was very important for them in the early days, but later on they wanted to be their own boss. When Brian died he had more or less lost controll over The Beatles.
This is really interesting. Lots of insight into one of the great mysteries of music.
You're right... the missing pieces of this puzzle are practically unmentionable. Nobody would ever believe the true stories of the real members of the Beatles
And what a story it is! Still more to learn everyday
Hi Did you ever see the Beatles Live ? with Pete and with Ringo ,if you did and and you know anything about music / Musicians you would not need to ask the question!
I didn't as I'm too young but I know plenty who did and they are the ones, both fans and musicians, who cannot understand the criticism of Pete Best. I am also a musician who has played with plenty of drummers of varying abilities and you spot a poor drummer very quickly. Pete was not a bad drummer.
It happened the way it was suppose to happen.
Totally agree. What happened...happened.
Outstanding work. Thank you.
Thanks for the support
hi Dave nice vid are you planning or did a vid on the 2 Pauls question as your style of research could shed more light on this puzzle. thanks
Sorry, Pete was not a “really good drummer” by any standard. He kept a basic 4/4 beat going but that’s about it. He seems like a nice guy, but his drumming is mediocre. Ringo, on the other hand, had flare, charisma, and stage presence. Ringo’s unique beats on songs like She Loves You and Ticket To Ride are iconic.
Here is a quote from Paul McCartney on Pete's drumming:
Paul stated in an interview in Wingspan "We had Pete Best who was a really good drummer, but there was just something; he wasn’t quite like the rest of us.……”
John, Paul and George thought Pete was a really good drummer and they produced a fantastic sound which Lennon stated was when The Beatles were at their best before they went into suits.
I'm not knocking Ringo and will keep repeating that too. Ringo was a fantastic drummer and made a huge contribution to the Beatles music and nobody else could have done that.
But Pete deserves his credit for what he did too.
Paul was being polite. John, on the other hand, was less diplomatic. I’ve listened to the DECCA recordings, watched Pete live on TH-cam, and watched the video “The obvious reason Pete Best was fired from the Beatles” and you can plainly hear how inconsistent his drumming is. It’s a shame that no one thought to video tape or record the Beatles in Germany when they were just a kickass cover band.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Paul was being very diplomatic. That is who Paul is. And as soon as they heard Ringo they realized they could have much better but they had nothing to offer him at the time.
This list of "evidence number one, evidence number two" isn't evidence it's just claims. Some he attempts to back up, but most not.
More a case of hearsay.
Which ones do you think I did not provide evidence for? Happy to clarify it for you.
Great historical information... really enjoyed this.
According to John Lennon that " Pete best was a lousy drummer. He never improved. The only reason he got in the group in the first place was he had kit and we needed a drummer." "We grabbed him and he could keep one beat going long enough so we took him to Germany." "We were always going to dump him when we found a decent drummer." Here is a link to the interview th-cam.com/video/G41d-2mzLvw/w-d-xo.html Your comment?
Thanks, yes this is a well-known quote, but it is a one-off comment from John, many years later, when he didn't even believe in Beatles! John also said that the Beatles were at their best when they were doing straight rock in the clubs in Hamburg and Liverpool. That was with Pete. You have to balance them all.
Paul has said a few times that Pete was great playing live too.
Also, if Pete couldn't play, how did he last for 2 years with musicians of the calibre of John, Paul and George? It doesn't add up. Needs a balanced view of all of the comments and quotes.
This is an excellent video and I wouldn't disagree with you on any of the facts but I think you are being a little kind on the more subjective subject of Pete's drumming. George Martin was only the latest Producer/Recording Engineer to have a problem with Best's drumming. Bert Kaempfert had had to remove the bass drum altogether, which is why the percussion on the original Tony Sheridan recordings sounds so thin. Sheridan himself, who was much more experienced than The Beatles at the time, was scathing about the drumming. Decca recording staff have said that they wouldn't have been able to use Best on recordings even if they had signed the group.
The drumming might have passed muster in a loud sweaty cellar or a bar in front of drunken rowdies where technical capabilities were secondary, but recording cruelly exposes deficiencies. Even live, more prestigious venues with better acoustics, would have shown up shortcomings more readily. There could have been no idea at that stage that screaming would have drowned out practically everything.
It's ultimately noticeable that groups don't appear to have been clamouring to hire Best after he left The Beatles, even though competent beat drummers were in short supply at the time. Epstein was offering Best gigs with bands he managed. I've not seen any evidence that groups were pursuing Best, even though his personal popularity with local fans might have been seen as a benefit.
On a human level this is a sad story, but I can't blame anyone who had to make the difficult decisions at the time. Trying to analyse situations like this in retrospect is always going to be messy and ultimately unsatisfying because we are talking about human beings and the more human beings involved in a complex situation there are, the messier it gets.
This is the truth about Pete's drumming. He couldn't keep time and it showed when trying to record.
Hi John, thanks for your comments. I can tell which book you are referencing this from, which does rely on some unreliable witnesses. Kaempfert didn't remove Pete's bass drum - he asked him not to play it, as Kaempfert's style of music was "light" on the drums, and he never had a rock 'n' roll drummer ever. That is why Pete was restricted as to which drums he played. If you listen to Pete's drumming on "My Bonnie", it is fantastic. Unfortunately, Tony Sheridan and Pete Best didn't get on and ended up fighting in Hamburg, so he has a score to settle there.
At Decca, it was noticeable that Mark Lewisohn didn't quote the Producer Mike Smith, but found some little tea-boy who nobody had heard of before trying to speak for Decca. Mike Smith has stated that he never had a problem with Pete - he did have a problem with Paul by the way. In fact, Mike Smith liked Pete so much that he signed the group Pete joined after The Beatles and recorded with Pete for a couple of years before Pete gave up.
Pete was in demand - Rory Storm & The Hurricanes would have welcomed him, but he joined the new supergroup Lee Curtis & The All Stars, who by the end of the year were a close second to the Beatles in popularity. He could have joined any group he wanted.
It is a sad story and, as John said, they were cowards in the way they did it.
Thanks for the feedback. David
Chris Curtis stated in an interview with Spencer Leigh that he seriously considered taking up the guitar and hiring Pete as the Searchers drummer.
I agree. Matt Williamson, on his youtube channel "Pop Goes the 60s" covers this info very well about Pete's drumming skills. Also, J, P & G each speak about Pete's drumming and how they were not happy with him. Pete was not "one-of-them." He did not hang out with them outside of performing. Ringo was a better drummer. He also shared many interest and had a similar sense of hummer. As George said in Anthology: "Ringo was a Beatle. He just did join until then (August 1962)."
I do not doubt for one moment Ringo's ability and he was the perfect fit for The Beatles. However, that is making judgements in hindsight and not looking at the evidence that was available in 1962. There were personality differences I'm sure and it proved to be the right choice in Ringo in the following years, but that was what they hoped for, but not what they knew. It always worked out for the best (pardon the pun) with The Beatles story. As Ringo said, it took him over 12 months to join them as a Beatle, to break through that brotherhood that John Paul and George had. But he did it and he was the right man. I just believe that we need to get the history right and give credit where it is due.
I always thought Mr. Brian Epstein called Pete Best into his office and fired him in 1962 because John Lennon and the other Beatles were too nervous or embarrassed to fire Pete themselves. At least this is what I heard Pete Best say in one of his interviews.
Also I do think that Pete Best probably was not a great drummer. He was probably a good drummer but had he in fact been a great drummer Pete would have been in demand and sought after by many other bands. Pete Best though I don't think lasted long in showbusiness after he was fired from the Beatles. John Lennon himself years later said that the only reason they hired Pete to be the Beatles drummer in the first place back in 1960 was because the band got offered a contract to play gigs in Hamburg Germany and they didn't have a drummer at the time and they couldn't play in Hamburg if they didn't have one. So the Beatles quickly asked Pete Best if he would join the group because Pete was the only one that the Beatles knew who already owned a full drum set. Drum sets were a hard and rare commodity to come by back in 1960. If you listen to the Beatles audition tape for Decca records on Jan 1st 1962 Pete Best's drumming was ok but very one dimensional. Ringo Starr was a much more inventive drummer and much more versatile and talented. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the 3 songwriters John , Paul , and George in the Beatles. Plus according to the other 3 Beatles personality and band chemistry played a part in the Beatles wanting Pete Best out and Ringo Starr in. Pete never wanted to change his hairstyle from the slicked back greasy James Dean and Elvis Presley look with sideburns to the infamous early Beatle haircut that the whole world grew to know and love later as the Beatles conquered the world. In the end its sad that it would never be meant to be for Pete as a Beatle but I'm glad that ever since the mid 1990's with the release of the Beatles anthology albums Pete has made millions of dollars in royalties. So everything worked out in the end as they say. 😉
Pete was never asked to don the mop-top, and that's because the woman behind it, Stu's girlfriend Astrid Kircherr, said it wouldn't work with Pete's thick and curly hair. There's an interview of her on YT saying this, if you don't believe me.
The point with this whole video was to say that Pete couldn't be fired from the band - he was in a written partnership with them. So no, the other Beatles couldn't just go to him and say "you are fired!" He unfortunately didn't realise that he held some pretty strong cards in his hand and could have benefited much more financially from an agreement to leave the band had he been more prone to stand up for himself...
@@Cosmo-Kramer oh wow....I see. I had never heard that before. Sounds reasonable to me. But the other Beatles also said personality wise Pete Best was not similar to them as far as humor and quick wit. Don't know how true this is because I wasn't there.... 😆....but this is what the other Beatles claimed. Or as the Beatles used to say or used to call it....they thought Pete was a bit " thick ". Paul even said decades later that Pete was a nice guy but in a band there's a fine line to where you fit in or not as far as band chemistry goes. But again there are many stories about this topic. Another one is that Paul was jealous of Pete because early on more girls would scream and shout and love on Pete instead of him! And Paul was the cute Beatle right? 😉😜
@@Fritha71 ok...I see what your saying. Had Pete been more aware of the business side he could have known they couldn't fire him because he had signed a contract. Thanks for clarification. 👍
@@jasonmardoniomeza1711 Paul wasn't just jealous "early on", he always coveted the role of *the cute one.* If you wanna know what really was behind Pete's sacking, it had *nothing* to do with Pete's drumming ability. Pete's *"Atom Beat"* DEFINED The Beatles' sound, and was copied by every drummer (including Ringo) in Hamburg and Liverpool. Pete was betrayed by John, Paul, George, and yes, Ringo. Read my descriptions below of The Beatles social dynamics over the course of their 6 lineups, and you'll understand what really went on, and why Pete was sacked:
*John and Paul:* everything's honky-dory, two peas in a pod
*John, Paul, and George:* two's company and three's a crowd--George feels like that third wheel
*John, Stuart, Paul, and George:* John and Stu are best mates, Paul is jealous (which he's admitted), and George feels better now that he has Paul
*John, Stuart, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's still jealous of Stu, but now he's not "the cute one" anymore, and becomes jealous of Pete for getting all the girls.
*John, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's thrilled that Stu is gone and he has John back, dorky young George feels left out again because he lost Paul and Pete was unavailable as he was always surrounded by girls after gigs. George knew he was the 4th Beatle, and didn't like it. He was ignored socially by John and Paul, and dismissed as a songwriter by them. That left Pete as his only potential pal, but Pete was not about to pass up the hottest young tail in two cities to hang out with the young dork George talking about his guitar all night. John by at least this time, is jealous of Pete because he is fast becoming the face of the band--the band that JOHN created! They get a record deal, and make the cover of the Merseybeat! But guess whose picture is featured. Pete Best. Other articles on the band highlighted Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and never even mentioned the names of the other 3 lads. The managers at the Cavern Club instructed John, Paul, and George to SIT on the front of the stage, so as to not block the fans' views of Pete! They even moved Pete's kit to the front of the stage, forcing the other 3 to play behind him! In Liverpool, the band was becoming known as, *Pete Best & The Beatles!!* And you're trying to tell me that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison were OKAY with all that??!! Awww HELLS NAW!!! Pete was a dead man walking for most, if not all, of two years. They USED and BETRAYED him.
*John, Paul, George, and Ringo:* Ahhh, harmony (no pun intended). The petty jealousies vanished. John and Paul had each other, and George had his little dorky buddy to hang out with. Ringo posed no threat to Paul for the affections of the ladies, and Ringo posed no threat to John to become the face of his band. Epstein knew Ringo was the same caliber drummer as Pete, and even though that's who the lads wanted, he was afraid that Ringo would underwhelm Martin in the studio just as Pete had (and he was right--Martin rejected Ringo's version, the same as he had rejected Pete's). And because John, Paul, and George made it clear in their pitch to Epstein to bring in Ringo, that they did not want any session musicians on their recordings, Epstein, without telling the lads, and armed with a record deal in his pocket, invited Johnny "Hutch" Hutchinson, the best drummer in Liverpool, to take Pete's place in the band. Hutch said, *"Pete and I are mates. I won't do the dirty on him."* The next day, Pete was sacked, and Ringo was in. The thing is, Ringo and Pete were also mates, which speaks volumes about the characters of Hutch and Ringo.
Pete Best was an incredible Beatle during his 2 years--the most popular in the band, by far. And he would've been an incredible Beatle had he remained with the band throughout their 8 professional years together. The betrayal and sacking of Pete is a hideous, indelible stain on The Beatles legacy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow... thanks david. have to watch it again to take this all in. we will have some chat about it. I subscribed... Great. Many regards mate! Cheers! Arno.
Thanks Arno, glad you enjoyed it
Excellent journalism. This makes sense. Had Pete known where the Beatles would be headed and the legal issue in favor of Pete, he should have stayed with the Beatles and refused to join another band. Hindsight...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
That was so interesting, I love Ringo, I'm so glad he became one of the Beatles
+Toni Connor Thanks Toni, I think we are all so happy Ringo became a Beatle. A great drummer and great guy too.
You claim that Lewisohn offers no evidence that Brian’s offer to Graham was only temporary, but offer no evidence yourself that the offer was permanent--you mention having talked to Graham's manager but that's decades after the fact and I'd like to know what that manager said *precisely* about the offer being permanent. At the very least, we have indications from interviews/statements given by the Fabs themselves that the other three had already informed Epstein that Starr was their first choice, which is likely why Lewisohn assumes the offers to Graham, Hutchinson, etc. in July/August of ’62 had to have been temporary (either that, or Epstein was going against their recommendation). Starr mentions that just after the late March gig at the Cavern where he filled in for Best, George had approached him about joining the band and discussed it with John and Paul on the spot. Then in late May ’62 at the recording session with Kaempfert in Hamburg, Roy Young remembers the others asking his opinion of Ringo joining their band (Young says he enthusiastically approved). Given this, I consider Lewisohn’s theory quite plausible that the other offers to Graham and Hutchinson were temporary and/or contingency plans (if it's a contingency plan, that might also account for why Brian may have made the offers seem permanent), on account of Ringo being committed to playing Butlin’s until September and also possibly the news that he had already agreed to join Kingsize Taylor-so it was up in the air whether he’d be able to join them in time for when they’d agreed to get rid of Best (before the Aug 22 Granada TV shoot at the Cavern). Lewisohn mentions that John and Paul specifically traveled all the way to Butlin’s at the tail end of July to visit Ringo and persuade him to join The Beatles instead of The Dominoes (plus come back early from Butlins) and that finally cleared the way for him to join, and not have to ask anyone else. All four Beatles have said that Ringo was the drummer they wanted--which you seem to ignore or dismiss, even though it's from the horse's mouth--and Epstein confirmed in interviews that was their first choice after Martin said he wanted someone else for the studio records.
What I think you really get wrong here, however, is your glowing opinion of Best's drumming. You get that from what John said about them being at their best in 60/61 in Hamburg and Liverpool, but even John has talked about how Best was no good as a drummer (there are direct quotes others have already posted in these comments). So obviously John was referring to **John, Paul, and George** being at their live best during that period, with Pete (and Stu) just kind of being good *enough* to support them--not that Pete is what made the band so magnificent during that time. John never said or even implied THAT, indeed he implied quite the opposite, that Best was only tolerated. I mean, Stu was in the band during this golden period John talks about and yet no-one thinks John was implying Stu was a magnificent bassist, and the same is true of Best. John is clearly speaking about him, Paul, and George. It's so obvious when you hear the few surviving recordings with Best that he wasn't half the drummer Ringo was (and I don't need interviews with other drum "experts" to tell me what my ears already hear on these recordings, plus there's plenty of experts and witnesses at the time who say Pete was merely average)--he was somewhat competent, yes, and could keep the beat, but not brilliant. Maybe he was better live than in the studio or at the BBC, but he couldn't have been *that* much better.
The only other reason you give for why Pete had to have been great is that the group kept him around for two years, and you say they wouldn't have done so had they not thought he was great. That leaves out much of the context--as Lewisohn and others point out, Mona Best was CRUCIAL to getting the band gigs in the early days, plus, drummers were thin on the ground in 60/61 and there wasn't a lot of choice out there (it was lucky they got Best to begin with, as they had been without a permanent drummer for about nine months at that point!). They kept Best around for two years because a) they needed that connection with Mona and b) Pete was good *enough* to keep around considering that they didn't have a lot of choices for a replacement in 60/61. By 1962, however, everything had changed: they had a new manager who was getting them all the gigs they needed, they were about to sign a recording contract (with the producer explicitly telling them he wouldn't use Best), and they were now Liverpool's biggest band and had a much better pick of people to choose from (interesting, however, how the other drummers they approached STILL turned them down, so clearly finding a drummer wasn't easy even at that point!). I agree that the turning point in getting rid of Best was when George Martin told them he would be using a session drummer if they didn't find someone else, but there is clear evidence they had their eyes on Ringo that spring, even before Martin spoke up. All three Beatles have said in interviews that Best wasn't the greatest drummer and that they'd always been waiting patiently for the opportunity to replace him with someone better--yet somehow you don't take THAT as evidence in this clip even though it's literally from the primary source. If they really thought Best was magnificent and the "only one" for them, they would have rejected George Martin's ultimatum or maybe used a studio drummer but kept Best on for live shows (as Martin originally even suggested)--the fact that they fired him *completely* not just in the studio but on stage, and not only that but in the relatively cold manner that they did, suggests that they were quite happy getting rid of him.
Top post.
I literally just heard a video with George Harrison where he said "the real reason we fired Pete, was we wanted Ringo in the band" and he says whenever Pete couldn't make it or whatever, they would have Ringo sit in. He says Paul and Lennon said wouldn't it be great if we could have a drummer who hit like Ringo. So they made the choice to fire Pete. They made their manager earn his 15% and made him do it, as you do. Even if Pete's mother took issue with that. But she was used to dealing with 16 year old boys, these were the Beatles and they had a manager. Anyhoo, if you're interested in where I heard the interview, let me know I can hook ya up. Peace brother, I love your content.
Thanks. Yes, I know the interview and it is what I would call revisionist history, in the way you want it to be known. Pete only missed 4 gigs where Ringo sat in, at Pete's request! So it was quite a normal thing for groups to do. George developed a friendship with Ringo in early 1962, but he had to convince John and Paul it was the right move. As I always say, however it happened, Ringo was the right man to come in. Can't see it working the same with anyone else. Glad you're enjoying the content, thank you for the feedback.
yes, but didn't Paul say that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool? I myself remember seeing that interview
Years later he did, but what would you expect him to say? I think he said that in their opinion he was the best drummer in Liverpool. Johnny Hutchinson was the recognised best drummer by musicians and fans alike. Ringo and Pete just behind him.
Very well researched..incredible detail and, for me, a very surprising chain of events. Personally I think one of Ringo's greatest qualities is his character..impossible to imagine The Beatles without those legendary quips Ringo made besides his ability on the drums..but just his presence alone made them into a tour de force..when friends of mine discuss the various drummer options open to the Fabs when looking for Pete replacement, they never take into account Ringo's affability and, as was mentioned here in this excellent video..the ability to get along with everyone including a very awkward John Lennon..who I'm sure I would have clashed with..try and imagine Beatles without Ringo..it just couldnt happen
You summed up Ringo perfectly! Cannot imagine the Fab Four without him working as well with any other drummer. He was perfect!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool John was the difficult one to get along with. Yet, Pete was closer to John than to the other 2, and John would not have put up with a poor drummer for 2 years. IMO John said what he said out of guilt and defense.
@@paulnicosia8804
John said they were _cowards_ they way they handled Pete.
Thank you very much for your brilliant analysis on those legalistic terms concerning Pete's "firing"!
Myself I always dug Pete's drumming on those early recordings of the Beatles like " Cry for a shadow "😊 Pete's books on those years are a real treasure and are highly recommended🎉
Thank you. I agree that he was a really good drummer and the evidence is there.
Another excellent bit of sleuthing there David! Thoroughly enjoyed watching. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
You did an excellent job presenting the evidence. The quote by John about them playing in Hamburg and Liverpool, I always thought that was when Ringo was playing with them and NOT Pete. Please clarify. Thx.
Thank you. The only time Ringo played with them in Hamburg was in November and December 1962 (and 1966 of course). What John, and George, both referred to was when they were playing rock n roll, before Brian put them into suits in 1962, and they changed.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool therefore, John had to be pleased with Pete’s playing at that point. Thank you for the clarification.
I love your channel however I understand from that very famous tome that The Beatles were already signed to EMI when they first played for George Martin so it was not an audition. This seems to be a controversial issue. Apparently even George Martin was unsure of the situation but this again could be wrong. Anyway your research and authority is brilliant. Many thanks for it.
Thank you Christopher. If you check out this video th-cam.com/video/5C73wCMHON4/w-d-xo.html I proved that the Beatles were not under contract on 6th June once and for all. Glad you are enjoying the channel. David
He wasn't a good enough drummer for recording. George Martin saw this immediately. They got Ringo in and GM was still not satisfied. He eventually hired Andy White for the sessions until Ringo could get up to speed.
You have to understand, the drummer is the most important member of the band when it comes to recording. Pete and Ringo had almost no experience in the recording studio. Ringo was a better drummer than Pete, but more importantly, his playing and personality better suited the band.
I think you have summed it up well.
Who would be the Best drummer for the Beatles? Well it was always written in the Starr's. Great to hear these Beatles stories fantastic journalism.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
great job David. you broke it down to a tee my friend
Thanks Nick - good to hear from you too! David
So what you're saying is that the reason for Pete being forced out (however you want to describe it) WAS George Martin saying he didn't think much of his drumming. How ironic then that he reportedly didn't think much of Ringo's drumming either (hence the use of session drummer Andy White on the single version of Love Me Do). But then he obviously came to accept Ringo because he did become and was The Beatles' drummer ever after. Makes you wonder if the same might have happened if Ringo was the drummer that The Beatles initially arrived with at EMI and George Martin didn't think much of him, might he have been the one to get pushed out? But then again, as you say, The Beatles may never have been The Beatles with any drummer other than Ringo.
A very good point Robert. Yes, George Martin didn't rate Ringo on 4th September and was surprised when a different drummer turned up! Nobody told him Pete had been replaced. Amazing how many twists there are in the Beatles' story?
I could be wrong, but the way I understood it was that George Martin had already hired Andy White for the session, so even though he was unaware that Pete had been replaced, when they turned up with Ringo, he said well I've already booked Andy so I still want to use him. Is there any evidence that George Martin heard Ringo's drumming and still decided not to let him play?
@@Valveus George Martin hadn't heard Ringo at that point. The fact that Ringo played on the records from then on shows George Martin was fine with Ringo's playing. As for Best, you only have to listen to the Decca tapes (which were audition tapes not meant for release) and Ringo on the songs and it is clear Ringo was a big upgrade. Tempos are better, the time is better and the band plays better as a whole. Remember that first album was done in a day.
George Martin could work with Ringo but didn't have the time or money to spend getting Ringo up to speed on the Love Me Do sessions. It wasn't known if The Beatles would be worth more recordings. There was no way he could work with Pete.
@@Valveus I saw an interview with Ringo in which he said that he "tried to do too much" in his first recording of LMD, and thought he'd get a second crack at it the next week, but was livid to find Andy White there to take his place. He said he never forgave Martin for that snub. But Macca had agreed with Martin that Ringo's timing was not good enough on his September 4th recording to be used as an official release.
I've been in bands where it's obvious that maybe one of the musicians is not on the same level as the others. Contrary to what say about the beatles not putting up with below par ability, when bands start out and are learning their instruments they take whoever they can get, mates from school, etc..As the band progresses it becomes apparent that some may not be able to 'keep up' with rest of the band. that can generally make for a very difficult situation. I've seen somewhere, Pete ( many years after) , saying the beatles never told him why he was "sacked". After j saw on TH-cam someone had taken a demo of pete playing with the beatles comparing edits from different parts of the same song and it was apparent to me why they never explained to pete why he was out. He could not keep time, speeding up, etc, who was going to crush this guy by saying you are not a very good drummer? So they said nothing. I've told someone in a band lt was anything I could but the real reason they could not be in the band.Also, in my experience, finding good drummers or Vocalists were much more difficult to replace than guitar or bass players, for various reasons. So what do you do, you put it on the back burner until, you find a replacement? Then how do you tell him?
That video is of Pete's infamous EMI recording of, "Love Me Do". The problem with that biased breakdown is that it's never mentioned that Pete was ambushed that day with a new arrangement to the song--it's no wonder he struggled with it. Paul also struggled with the new arrangement, which was forced on them by know-it-all George Martin.
@@Cosmo-Kramer well I don't mind being wrong and it is somehow unpleasant saying,(as I said before), to someone your not up to it. However, John, George and Paul are on record as saying he wasn't right for the band, John saying something like" it was that Pete was not able to cut it in the studio, as well as several producers.
In my mind it makes more sense that was the reason.
After all, if you have a spectacular musician in the band, you are on the verge of a record deal, and big exposure, why would you sack him?
It would have to be a huge reason because you are faced with rehearsing with the new member, at a time that is the last thing you could do with, isn't it?
@@mrmanch204 There is a lot of misinformation out there, dishonestly propagated by Ringo apologists. George Martin at EMI is the *only* producer who said Pete's drumming was not polished enough for the studio. Mike Smith at Decca had no issues with Pete's drumming, in fact, he signed Pete's new band to record deal after he was sacked by The Beatles, and no session drummers were required. And as for Bert Kaempfert, the only reason he removed some of Pete's kit is because he was an "easy listening" producer and was turned off by Pete's thunderous Atom Beat. Now then, you posed the question, *"...if you have a spectacular musician in the band, you are on the verge of a record deal, big exposure, why would you sack him?".* Before I answer that question in great detail for you, let me address it by means of sharing with you the following quote from a contemporary of Pete's, who was asked in an interview, *"What did you think of Pete Best?"* He responded:
*"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 big in the US with the hit, "Love Potion # 9, saw Pete Best play many times in both Hamburg and Liverpool.
Now, let me give you my answer to your question. Pete's *"Atom Beat"* DEFINED The Beatles' sound, and was copied by every drummer (including Ringo) in Hamburg and Liverpool. Pete was betrayed by John, Paul, George, and yes, Ringo. Read my descriptions below of The Beatles social dynamics over the course of their 6 lineups, and you'll understand what really went on, and why Pete was sacked:
*John and Paul:* everything's honky-dory, two peas in a pod
*John, Paul, and George:* two's company and three's a crowd--George feels like that third wheel
*John, Stuart, Paul, and George:* John and Stu are best mates, Paul is jealous (which he's admitted), and George feels better now that he has Paul
*John, Stuart, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's still jealous of Stu, but now he's not "the cute one" anymore, and becomes jealous of Pete for getting all the girls.
*John, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's thrilled that Stu is gone and he has John back, dorky young George feels left out again because he lost Paul and Pete was unavailable as he was always surrounded by girls after gigs. George knew he was the 4th Beatle, and didn't like it--especially since he was the 3rd to join the band. He was ignored socially by John and Paul, and dismissed as a songwriter by them. That left Pete as his only potential pal, but Pete was not about to pass up the hottest young tail in two cities to hang out with the young dork George talking about his guitar all night. John by at least this time, is jealous of Pete because he is fast becoming the face of the band--the band that JOHN created! They get a record deal, and make the cover of the Merseybeat! But guess whose picture is featured. Pete Best. Other articles on the band highlighted Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and never even mentioned the names of the other 3 lads. The managers at the Cavern Club instructed John, Paul, and George to SIT on the front of the stage, so as to not block the fans' views of Pete! They even moved Pete's kit to the front of the stage, forcing the other 3 to play behind him! In Liverpool, the band was becoming known as, *Pete Best & The Beatles!!* Do you really think that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison were OKAY with all that??!! Awww HELLS NAW!!! Pete was a dead man walking for most, if not all, of his two years. They USED and BETRAYED him.
*John, Paul, George, and Ringo:* Ahhh, harmony (no pun intended). The petty jealousies vanished. John and Paul had each other, and George had his little dorky buddy to hang out with. Ringo posed no threat to Paul for the affections of the ladies, and Ringo posed no threat to John to become the face of his band. Epstein knew Ringo was the same caliber drummer as Pete, and even though that's who the lads wanted, he was afraid that Ringo would underwhelm Martin in the studio just as Pete had (and sure enough, he was right--Martin rejected Ringo's version, the same as he had rejected Pete's). And because John, Paul, and George made it clear in their pitch to Epstein to bring in Ringo, that they did not want any session musicians on their recordings, Epstein, without telling the lads, and armed with a record deal in his pocket, invited Johnny "Hutch" Hutchinson, the best drummer in Liverpool, to take Pete's place in the band. Hutch said, *"Pete and I are mates. I won't do the dirty on him."* The next day, Pete was sacked, and Ringo was in. The thing is, Ringo and Pete were also mates, which speaks volumes about the characters of Hutch and Ringo.
Pete Best was an incredible Beatle during his 2 years--the most popular in the band, by far. And he would've been an incredible Beatle had he remained with the band throughout their 8 professional years together. The betrayal and sacking of Pete is a hideous, indelible stain on The Beatles legacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer Well, you have demonstrated that you not only are very well read on this episode, but you are very compassionate about as you see an injustice towards Pete Best.
All, I can say is really what I said before, that it resonates with my own experience in bands since the early 70s.
In addition, after watching (what I considered a balanced view and well researched presentation of facts, together with comments and quotes from the Beatles and others from the time. I think it is very likely.
This is the video..(I am sure you are aware of it and dont agree with it)
The obvious reason Pete Best was fired by The Beatles.
Pop go the 60s (youtube channel).
I don't feel anywhere near the passion you appear to have concerning this episode, but as I grew up with the Beatles as the back drop to my life, I reckon I feel just as much passion for the Beatles and of course their music.
I don't know if Pete would have been as good as Ringo, maybe the others were jealous of Pete. But with that tension and social dynamic within the band maybe they would never have gelled and thus just disappeared after their first single and we would be in that unfortunate world portrayed in the film 'Yesterday'.
This is of course my opinion and after all it was a long time ago, so maybe we only ever have our opinions.
I was almost 13 years old when the Beatles came to America. I became a fan, got a guitar and played in garage bands like most of the guys I knew. Back then I read all of the teen magazines and articles written about the Beatles. When their popularity grew the story of Pete Best came out and how he had been months away from being in the greatest pop/rock band of all time but was replaced. At that time I know I read a story that the reason Pete was replaced by Brian Epstein was because He didn't have "the look" of the other three Beatles. He looked out of place. Brian wanted to manage a band and was putting together his vision of that band. If you look at the promotional photos of the band with Pete before Ringo, maybe there is something to it. I read the story 60 years ago and frankly I believe the original story because things were more real back then. Over the years people like to change or modify history to fit a new narrative.
Hello again David,
I just pulled out my "Mono" CD of The Beatles "Please Please Me" and I was listening to the album. Ringo's genius was truly adding to the recordings of Beatles songs like the Drum pattern on Anna (Go To Him). It's actually hypnotizing!
There's no comparison between Ringo's Drumming on Please Please Me and the Andy White version. Ringo's Snare Drum rolls at the end of the song are so distinct. So inventive!
I've always loved Ringo's Drumming on Baby It's You! He is spot on. Perfection! Ringo's a metronome and doesn't over play but during George's Guitar break in unison, with Producer George Martin on Acoustic Piano, Ringo does an inventive shuffle beat which again adds to the song. Very cool stuff!
You see Ringo was a very good listener! He responded to what he was listening to in what John, Paul and George were playing.
Ringo's Drum pattern on the Waltz A Taste Of Honey is very tasty and almost Jazzy. When Paul sings "I will return", Ringo goes into a very cool shuffle beat.
What can I say?, Ringo's Drumming on There's A Place is simply beautiful! He propels the song forward.
Ringo's Drumming on Twist And Shout is mind blowing like on I Saw Her Standing There!
I must say that February 11,1963 EMI session was the most explosive The Beatles ever recorded! They were playing as a unit.
In retrospect, I wish they had also recorded "Some Other Guy."
You have captured Ringo's genius well. He had a natural ability to play the right beat at the right time for the right song. You can't teach that. He had listened to and learned to some of the great records and improvised and improved on them. No wonder the other 3 trusted him, as did George Martin after the Please Please Me session.
Having fronted a band..........sometimes when you play with a "new" musician.....it just FITS better, or has better mojo. I've heard some of Pete's later records, and they were fine. I figure it was just a situation where Ringo was the best fit for the others.
Absolutely right. As Paul once said, none of them were considered the best at their instrument, even in Liverpool. But as a team, they were untouchable and it worked perfectly with Ringo.
Thanks Dave for a very interesting video.
Firstly on a legal point,can you explain why Epstein was still obliged to find Pete work if he hadn't signed the management contract,and who was the contract between?
Also i have read Ringo saying that Paul didn't think much of his drumming.Apparently he would nip to the toilet and when he got back Paul would would be on the drums himself.
Keep up the good work
Neil Coyle
Thanks Neil. Although Brian didn't sign the management contract, The 4 Beatles did. In law, Brian could not enforce the contract on The Beatles, but they could enforce the contract on Brian. It wasn't an illegal or invalid contract, it was just not enforceable by Brian. As The Beatles signed the contract individually, they each employed Brian as their manager/ agent. Pete could enforce the contract meaning he still employed Brian as his agent to find him work. A bit simplified, which I explain fully in my book if you want the fine detail! It was fascinating doing the research!! David
And remember during the White Album Paul wasnt happy how Ringo was playing the drums so Paul played the drums himself to show Ringo how it was to be done. Ringo was insulted and left. The Beatles put flowers on Ringo's drumkit when he returned.
Not watching so I can predict who fired PB.
Every person paying attention in a recording studio where Pete Best was playing …. producer, engineer…. everyone with musical ears heard he had no feel or time.
If you don't watch it you miss the whole point. Nobody fired him!
and don't get drawn into the many myths out there about producers having problems with him. George Martin is the only one who questioned his drumming in a studio. Kaempfert didn't, Mike Smith complimented Pete and later worked with him too. Producer at BBC Radio had no problem with him and the engineers at the June 62 audition also couldn't see the problem.
The only evidence to question Pete's playing is from George Martin and his assistant Ron Richards.
Im glad I watched this..excellent
I still can't get over the fact that they never spoke to Pete after that nor help him out financially, if they were so hugely popular in Liverpool in Hamburg then he certainly deserved a big giant pile of money when they finally made it
Well said. They never looked after any of those who helped them on their journey. A shame.
That's not true, he's recieved a large amount of royalties, (7 figures) especially after the anthology series. More so after the Get Back film. Not bad for a guy who was fired 50 years ago. A lot more money than you or I will probably ever see...
@@jdemarco He did eventually get royalties from Anthology, after some arguing. But that wasn't a favour, that was royalties based on the fact that he contributed to several tracks on the CDs. He wouldn't benefit from Get Back as he was not involved. I think the point being made is that they should have helped him out voluntarily. History shows that they never did this for anyone, including people like Alistair Taylor who was with them and Brian from the start and ended up running Apple. When he was kicked out by Klein, none of the Beatles would even speak to him.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Okay, point taken. But none of us were really there for these events, so we shouldn't be so quick to judge. There could be more to these stories that we'll never know...
@@jdemarco absolutely right, it is always that way with history, which gets written first by the victors. It is never straightforward!
WOW - Thank u very much for the detailed historical day-to-day lead up to Ringo becoming one of the 'Fab Four'! BTW: I met Pete, and spent a few hrs w/him & Rogue in NYC 15 yrs ago; His 'personality' (or lack thereof) solidified the fact that he was not suitable; Albeit a very respectful & low key gentleman - I 'in a way' did feel kinda bad for him...
Pete is a gentleman for sure, but didn't have that ruthless streak which John, Paul and George had. It took Ringo a while to settle in, but he was the perfect fit.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Ruthless?
Perhaps Pete just didn't care for you, and was bored by your company. Because Pete Best has one of the most amiable, charming and funny personalities one could hope to find in a person. I've watched scores of interviews of him, and he's witty, engaging, self-deprecating, and funny. Have you heard him tell the story of George's vomit mess, which the lads named, "Thing"? It's hilarious! Pete's a fantastic storyteller! Was he on the reticent side when he was a Beatle? Sure. (He was playing up the Brando/Dean cool guy persona, which thrilled the girls and the media.) But don't try to tell us that the Pete we know from the last 40 years (since his Letterman appearance), is anything but a delightful, fun personality.
Gotcha - maybe he was tired, or whatever. I measured him up to Ringo's 'personality'; He was, as I stated VERY respectful, and could've told me to fk off - since the 3 of us were sittin at the same table; We spoke bout doin a remake of 'If You've Got Troubles' (the Ringo tune on Anthology) w/him on drums !!! *Never mentioned the George 'Thing' lol
@@jismism9515 How could you measure Pete up to Ringo's personality given you've never sat down with Ringo for a couple hours? Ringo may've been equally disinterested in you. I've only spent a couple of minutes corresponding with you and I'm already bored.
So, if the other three guys said they didn't want me anymore, I don't guess I'd want to be in that band anymore. I guess I'd just quit. Which is what Pete Best said about it in the 60s, on "What's My Line?" He said he didn't think they were going to be as big as they are. I've always figured Pete quit, exactly because Brian never said "You're sacked."
Exactly right Greg. That was the same thing I spotted and realised we were being told a wrong story, so I had to get to the bottom of it.
Very interesting, great research, got yourself another sub Between all the misunderstandings, timing, and such, it's as if an invisible hand directed The Beatles not only to Ringo, but also George Martin earlier. And they proved the absolute right team, though I feel for Pete, and the classy way he handled it has greatly elevated my respect for him.
Thank you. All the way through the story, the right things and right people appear at the right time. It was meant to be!
Another great video David, thank you (I'm going to have to purchase your book!) I myself am still slightly perplexed as to why Pete was singled out at the time as the 'weak link' because, as previously noted, none of the boys were exactly great musicians at this point, I still think that Mrs Best's 'interfering' in the band's affairs might have had something to do with it? I believe that, like Ringo, Pete would have progressed and developed with the rest of the band had he remained with The Beatles...Regarding Ringo's oft mentioned 'unusual' style, I'm almost certain this was on account of the fact that he is a naturally left-handed player but playing right-handed on a right-handed set up, a lot of folk perceive the resulting playing style as ham-fisted or clumsy but, in conjunction with some of the greatest pop songs ever written, it is a perfect complimentary fit.
Thank you - and enjoy the book when it arrives!
Pete has been a useful scapegoat for many, including the Fab Four, who have felt the need to denigrate Pete to justify bringing Ringo in, when there is no need.
Mona annoying Brian was a secondary issue and would be one that John Paul and George used to justify it to Brian, but not the primary cause.
Definitely part of RIngo's style was being a left-hander on a right-handed kit. I interviewed someone who was also a leftie playing on a right-handed kit, which was fascinating in trying to understand why he was so great and the perfect fit.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I think Pete maybe didn't have the charisma or confidence of Ringo but, at the risk of being hung by all the Ringoettes, I'm pretty sure he could/would have done as good a job as Ringo if given the opportunity...I mean, let's face it Paul McCartney did as good a job as Ringo on a few tracks....Can you imagine Sting sitting in for Stewart Copeland?
That Pete was "not fired" is (as you yourself say) just semantics. Lewisohn documented exactly what happened in the "Tune In" bio - and he's a historian and a stickler for accuracy. To his account you add the proposition that two other drummers were asked to permanently replace Pete before they asked Ringo. But you don't verify this in any way. Hearsay is not something real historians use. And btw, Pete WAS a crap drummer and the audition tapes prove this.
Thanks for your comments. Mark Lewisohn did give his evidence in Tune In and, if you see my bio and comments on TH-cam too, you will see that I have been a Beatles historian for over 20 years, have published 8 books on The Beatles and am also known for my accuracy too.
The other drummers who were asked I did provide corroboration in the video and go into more depth in my book "Finding the Fourth Beatle". For Bobby Graham - whom Mark Lewisohn mentions - I corroborated that it wasn't a temporary offer but a permanent offer by speaking with Bobby Graham's manager who worked with him for many years. For Ritchie Galvin, I have the testimony of his wife as well as several former bandmates who could confirm that he was approached by Brian Epstein and Bob Wooler and offered the job, which he turned down.
For Johnny Hutchinson, I interviewed him on several occasions and got to know him well and he confirmed the story. He did tell the same story to Mark Lewisohn though he didn't accept what he was told, even though the evidence was there. That is not for me to decide who writes what in their book and who doesn't. Johnny Hutchinson had no axe to grind and no reason to lie. He was very clear on the story and it had to be that day, the day that Pete was told to leave. Johnny sat in with The Beatles that night in Chester and that is when Brian and Bob Wooler approached him. It could only have been that night.
I have provided evidence and corroborated it too for everyone in this story. For every part of this story I can provide corroborated evidence. Happy to be shown other evidence that can disprove it.
As for Pete being a "crap" drummer, musicianship is always subjective, but if Pete was so crap, why were The Beatles with Pete the most popular group in Liverpool and Hamburg? Why did John say that The Beatles were at their best in the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg before Brian put them in suits? That was with Pete. Or do you believe that John, Paul and George would put up with a crap drummer for 2 whole years before suddenly deciding he couldn't drum? I don't know if you are a musician, but I have played with many drummers over the years and you know very quickly if your drummer can't keep time or is not good enough. That was never a problem for The Beatles with Pete until George Martin said that he would use a session drummer. Paul McCartney said that Pete was a great drummer in the clubs and dance halls but if the producer says he won't use him, we have to replace him. It was only after that June audition that they considered replacing Pete. This is evidenced by Brian's lawyer who was approached in June to consider how to replace Pete Best.
What I have been trying to show is what happened in history, not to change it or even question it, but to simply explain what happened. As I have stated, The Beatles needed to change as they were becoming a recording pop group, not a covers rock n roll group. Even though 3 other drummers were approached, I believe it could only have worked with Ringo and he was by far the right man for the job and helped take The Beatles to a whole new level. Pete was great at what he did in those 2 years with The Beatles and deserves credit for what he did. But John, Paul and George needed to make the right change and they made it with Ringo.
The fact that Lewisohn claims that the only drum that Pete was allowed to play at the Polydor sessions was the snare drum, and that this is VERY easy to disprove, strongly suggests that when it comes to the subject of Pete Best, "accuracy" is irrelevant.
If what Pete played was bad on drums then so too was Lennon on the guitar. But nobody kicked Lennon out. They all were just good enough for concerts but none were the caliber of trained studio musicians which are what were really used on early Beatle recordings. Making a record is expensive so it must be done efficiently and in a timely manner. NONE of the Beatles were that. The closest was George. They were never good at being organized. That's what a producer does. It took a George Martin to show them the way. They got screwed financially cause they didn't know contracts and how business works. If a drummer was really needed to replace Pete someone should have called Dave Clark of the Dave Clark 5 not Ringo the dummy. Dave owns everything he ever did with his group cause he knew business and contracts. It took Paul McCartney over 50 years to get his Beatles songs back.
@@kentduryea1741 Dave Clark had a handler to walk him through "what to do." He didn't figure all of this out on his own. The whole I "started a band to raise money for a football team" is all bs. No one really knows his real story because it's never been told.
@@kentduryea1741
If you claim none of the Beatles were recording grade musicians able to record quickly and efficiently, then how come they recorded their first album in a single day?
A most revealing insight putting the final pieces of the story together.
It was so right that years later Pete at last reaped some of The Beatles income though the release of Anthology in 1995 where he received royalties from the Decca sessions. I read an Pete Best interview some years back saying Paul had called him for the first time they had spoken since 62 and said do you want in? Pete graciously accepted. A well overdue six figure sum and still it comes in for him today.
John Lennon said in one of his final interviews that Pete was a good drummer, but Ringo was just a better Beatle.
First of all, you're wrong, Paul did *not* call Pete about The Anthology, Neil Aspinall did. To this day, Pete has not spoken to or been in any form of communication with the men who betrayed him, JPG&R, since the night before he was sacked from the band. Regarding your confusion as to WHY they sacked him, let me lay it out for you. Pete's *"Atom Beat"* DEFINED The Beatles' sound, and was copied by every drummer (including Ringo) in Hamburg and Liverpool. Pete was betrayed by John, Paul, George, and yes, Ringo. Read my descriptions below of The Beatles social dynamics over the course of their 6 lineups, and you'll understand what really went on, and why Pete was sacked:
*John and Paul:* everything's honky-dory, two peas in a pod
*John, Paul, and George:* two's company and three's a crowd--George feels like that third wheel
*John, Stuart, Paul, and George:* John and Stu are best mates, Paul is jealous (which he's admitted), and George feels better now that he has Paul
*John, Stuart, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's still jealous of Stu, but now he's not "the cute one" anymore, and becomes jealous of Pete for getting all the girls.
*John, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's thrilled that Stu is gone and he has John back, dorky young George feels left out again because he lost Paul and Pete was unavailable as he was always surrounded by girls after gigs. George knew he was the 4th Beatle, and didn't like it. He was ignored socially by John and Paul, and dismissed as a songwriter by them. That left Pete as his only potential pal, but Pete was not about to pass up the hottest young tail in two cities to hang out with the young dork George talking about his guitar all night. John by at least this time, is jealous of Pete because he is fast becoming the face of the band--the band that JOHN created! They get a record deal, and make the cover of the Merseybeat! But guess whose picture is featured. Pete Best. Other articles on the band highlighted Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and never even mentioned the names of the other 3 lads. The managers at the Cavern Club instructed John, Paul, and George to SIT on the front of the stage, so as to not block the fans' views of Pete! They even moved Pete's kit to the front of the stage, forcing the other 3 to play behind him! In Liverpool, the band was becoming known as, *Pete Best & The Beatles!!* And you're trying to tell me that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison were OKAY with all that??!! Awww HELLS NAW!!! Pete was a dead man walking for most, if not all, of two years. They USED and BETRAYED him.
*John, Paul, George, and Ringo:* Ahhh, harmony (no pun intended). The petty jealousies vanished. John and Paul had each other, and George had his little dorky buddy to hang out with. Ringo posed no threat to Paul for the affections of the ladies, and Ringo posed no threat to John to become the face of his band. Epstein knew Ringo was the same caliber drummer as Pete, and even though that's who the lads wanted, he was afraid that Ringo would underwhelm Martin in the studio just as Pete had (and he was right--Martin rejected Ringo's version, the same as he had rejected Pete's). And because John, Paul, and George made it clear in their pitch to Epstein to bring in Ringo, that they did not want any session musicians on their recordings, Epstein, without telling the lads, and armed with a record deal in his pocket, invited Johnny "Hutch" Hutchinson, the best drummer in Liverpool, to take Pete's place in the band. Hutch said, *"Pete and I are mates. I won't do the dirty on him."* The next day, Pete was sacked, and Ringo was in. The thing is, Ringo and Pete were also mates, which speaks volumes about the characters of Hutch and Ringo.
Pete Best was an incredible Beatle during his 2 years--the most popular in the band, by far. And he would've been an incredible Beatle had he remained with the band throughout their 8 professional years together. The betrayal and sacking of Pete is a hideous, indelible stain on The Beatles legacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer Spot on!
And a major loss for the music that was never created...
Udida very good job on the Beatles I was not a ware of the information that u told very good thanks a Beatles fan
Thank you
I met Pete in 2002 when he was working on "The Pete Best Story" programme for the BBC. We talked about those three months between the June 6th audition and his "sacking" on August 16th. To give Pete his due, he was happy then and had enjoyed his musical career since retiring from the civil service. What we discussed was, after the audition on June 6th George Martin thought long and hard about whether to offer The Beatles a contract. He had told Brian Epstein in a private conversation that if he were to record The Beatles he would likely use a session drummer. However when George Martin asked The Beatles to go back to EMI on the 4th September he had not engaged a session drummer and fully expected Pete to be with the band. After this recording session he asked them to come back again the following week on September 11th and when they arrived George had engaged Andy White to play on the session. So, was George Martin just set on using a session drummer no matter who was the band drummer or was it Ringo's drumming he didn't like specifically? Pete and I had quite a laugh over this as it seemed that George Martin was determined to replace not only Pete but also Ringo!! We will never know the full story but it is intriguing stuff!!
George Martin knew nothing about Ringo and I don't think John Paul or George told Ringo he wouldn't be playing on the record. Ringo on 4th September just reinforced what George Martin was always going to do. Ringo wasn't good enough for George Martin then. But he won him over.
Although Martin never said the band should replace Pete Best with a better drummer, Martin did tell Brian Epstein he would employ a session drummer for recording. Best could remain the band's drummer for in-person/stage appearances. In September, Martin was surprised to see the Beatles had a new drummer (Ringo) whom Martin did not know. Hence, Martin had session drummer Andy White ready.
@Daniel Golus That's right Daniel. George Martin was surprised to see Ringo on 4th September because nobody told him about the change. He put Ringo through his paces but he didn't rate Ringo either and so on 11th September, Andy White came in to drum on the first single. John, Paul and George didn't tell Ringo he was being replaced! Not very good at communicating were they?
George Martin didn't like Ringo's drumming. Paul McCartney said that at that time, Ringo's timing wasn't good enough, but he soon improved after that.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool No, that is wrong actually,.... When Ringo attends Abbey road for the first time,Andy White is there!. This detail is an easy piece of research, just listen to George Martin and Ringo's recollections there identical!, It's all there , even the call sheets for the date of the session confirms that!.
Paul, John (and George) would have made it big with just about any drummer, because the songs were just great. There are so many songs in the world that we remember, but who remembers the drummer? Drummers are important all right..but The song is main thing. Paul knew that, John and George knew that, and of course Ringo knew that too, and that is why he was important Beatle - because he knew that the song is what counts.
Absolutely right - they were that little bit better because Ringo was with them and added so much.
Wrong! Ringo Starr is a kicking ass good drummer. As McCartney said when Ringo sat down behind the drums it was "wow", just kicked it into a higher gear.
@@jimii2294 True. But people areound the world were humming the melodies, not drum beats.
@@jimii2294 Rubbish. The Beatles were already in their highest gear with Pete Best on drums. Lennon said it himself. smh
Listen to Haymans Green..And lament the songs that were LOST & NOT written over the past 50 years...
Amazing info. i can see a Amazon prime movie coming from this.i have met Mr. Best & you a number of times. if anything i still feel bad for Mr. Best. Super lovely gentleman and has a great band. Henry O. N.Y.C.
Great to hear from you Henry, hope you are keeping well? David
4:49 Interesting machine. For wich song was it used?
I've had to work with crappy drummers out of desperation before, and that's exactly what the Beatles did. Pete's mom owned the club they worked in, and he had a drum set. They needed a drummer to go to Hamburg, and Pete was all they could get. He was only supposed to be temporary. George Martin wanted him gone as well. They knew they would fire him as soon as they could get a "real" drummer, and that's what they did. It's a scenario as common as they come in bands, and every musician knows all about it.
They were cowards thats it they had the balls to kick a sailor and run away but not to tell the truth i am a fan but is sad that his actitud was like that
@@angelicaquirarte Sorry you're hurt by all this buttercup. They were kids imbecile.
Ringo and Charlie Watts are great drummers. All drive of the Beatles and the Stones comes from their great, brilliant drummers.
Most definitely. You need the drummer to drive the band!
R.I.P. Charlie Watts
Charlie watts ,you are obviously not a musician ,there are drummers and then there are drummers ,Charlie watts was not good ,look at the likes of the drummers Toto have had including Phillips ,neither Ringo or Charlie watts could carry their sticks ,And I like Ringo
Drummers yes ,brilliant ? I don’t think so .
R.I.P. Charlie Watts
Congratulations on presenting a fine video!
Thank you
Thanks.. . a well researched gathering of facts and clear presentation of the timeline of known events. I never stopped listening and get a kick out of playing Beatle songs for young peeps who are unfamiliar with the Beatles.. Always a kick when I find someone unfamiliar with the Beatles.. I understand those who don't know Donovan.
Time flies and my whole life seems like yesterday - yes like the song too.. I do believe in Yesterday..
loved playing a solo version on guitar and singing it, even if I was a hack all along.. I had to fire myself from my own band LMAO
Ha ha! I've been in a band like that and now I'm solo - so low you can't hear me!!!
The Beatles music and that if the late 50s and 60s is timeless to me.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I always wanted to play on stage so badly.. then I achieved the dream, I played on stage so badly.. 😀
@@admiralcigneous3314 I know the feeling!!! 😂