Because of his drumming and his personality, they didn't get along. listen to the records of pete in the studio and compare them to ringo starr. Pete cannot keep time at all, ringo on the other hand could. Ringo was friends with the beatles long before he joined the band and he joined the Beatles in concerts when pete was sick or out. George Martin stated many times he didn't think Pete was a good enough drummer for recording PERIOD. Little known fact is that Ringo also didn't play on the first single, he was subject to tambourine. Ringo earned his spot because he was a good drummer, Pete wasn't a good enough drummer and didn't really fit in with any of the other beatles either. Pete has spent a lot of time pretending he doesn't know the reason why he was kicked from the beatles even though its as clear as day. I will say that the way it was executed and how there was no contact at all afterwards seemed like a rude jesture, but that probably says something about the lack of friendship aswell. Pete seems like a good person and must have went through a hell of a lot when the beatles became the biggest thing ever because i mean who can relate to that, im glad he finally got paid for the anthology project
@@knowmoreknowless another video is suggest if you want to know about Pete Bests reason for getting fired is the video about Pete best made by pop goes the 60s on TH-cam, have a nice day
@@rodog9465 Umm, no. That video is a hatchet job against Pete, filled with lies, half-truths, and out of context information. I can refute every single point that jackass made against Pete and his drumming. smfh
He only got paid for the Anthology project because The Beatles had a successful enough legacy to get those kinds of payouts at all 25 years after they broke up, only because Pete Best left the band to allow that to be the case
dont you think the host should have done even a small bit of research before this interview? questions like " who's Brian?" and " is pete still alive?" are just pathetic and shows zero preparation for this interview
I went into this interview purposefully ignorant, to learn as much as I could from David. That said, I still think he and I had a great chat. If you end up listening to the entire interview I hope you’ll agree. Thanks for watching! :)
@@knowmoreknowless i would say to that then let your audience know that upfront by saying i am not well versed in Beatles history so this will be a learning experience for me as well , or something along these lines, otherwise you just come off and totally unprepared
Hi Ralph! It’s in the episode listing as well as the audio intro to the episode guest. But if you listened to both of those and still expected something different, I’ll be sure to be more intentional and clear in the future for interviews like this. Thanks for your feedback and suggestion. Have a great weekend! :)
I think you got it a bit wrong. It's all explained in Mark Lewisons book, Tune In. When the Beatles first wanted to Pete Best out, Ringo Starr wasn't available because he was playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes in another part of the country. At this point Brian Epstein tried to find a replacement, probably temporary as the band wanted Ringo all along. The drummers Brian Epstein asked all said no and they eventually waited for Ringo to return.
So they said after dumping the man who was their drummer for 2 years once securing a recording deal - yet all three other drummers in question maintain they were offered a permanent role in the Beatles as Pete's replacement
@@RobSpencer-uq3og The Beatles wanted Ringo and the other drummers was only asked by Brian Epstein because Ringo wasn't available. Mark Lewisons writes that he doubts that it was for a permanent position, but it's difficult to say what would have happened if one of them had accepted. The bottom line is that Ringo was first choice not fourth choice. Maybe he could have been really unlucky that they found someone else while he was unavailable - or maybe the Beatles would have insisted on RIngo - hard to know what would have happened in an alternative timeline.
@@sortehuse sounds fishy to me based on all the circumstances. They had the bottle to insist Pete go (against Epstein's wishes, and we all know George Martin never insisted Pete be kicked out the group) but not then go the whole hog and insist the man they wanted be offered the job first. Dosen't tally up, and the three other drummers have nothing to gain from stating what appeared to them a clear offer - replace Pete in the band. While I have nothing against Ringo as a drummer, he had the talent for the role, the story presented as the "official" one from the Beatles seems one put together to show them in a best light possible
Not really "end of story" if we can "argue (or debate) all day." It means there is a discussion to be made. It certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for any former drummer of any band to appear at a convention, whatever the group is for fans who take an interest. And like everything to do with the Beatles such things are greatly amplified due to their immense popularity.
Of course you ARE correct Chris, the problem is these stupid "pete was cheated" myths continue to find new mouthpieces. Even more troubling is that some are now claiming the Beatles career would have been just as amazing with Pete in the fold! Crazy talk, complete fantasy.
@@charlyW34 The only fantasy here is the Beatles "couldn't have done it without Ringo" as if the Lennon - McCartney songbook wasn't strong enough without Ringo tapping the drums. 😂
@@RobSpencer-uq3og The major gap in your understanding has to do with the group dynamic. These guys toured hard and need the comradery of an affable, reliable and very solid guy on the kit. No way, NONE, would they have wanted a 'one guy live", "one guy studio" situation. The model made famous by Steely Dan was years away, and my god, if we are talking on THAT level, then Pete would not have a snowballs chance. Anyway, you can chock up another troll point for getting me to respond.
@@charlyW34 you talk a load of nonsense. Steely Dan were far from the inventors of the model you describe. Indeed session drummers were in demand long before the Beatles entered the studio. How do you think Andy White fed himself before and after "Love me do"
It has become a mythical part of Beatles "history" to portray Pete as a victim, but in the end he was not nearly as good as Ringo. Yes it was fairly standard practice to use studio musicians but listen to the Decca audition...his time-keeping is awful. Pete may have been dynamic live but he was not up to snuff for recording. End of story. He was not a victim of some foul conspiracy, he was just not good enough _ and did not fit in with the group dynamic - End of story. The way he was sacked was pretty cheap, but he was sacked because he wasn`t up to snuff musically, and didn`t fit on a personal level. Ringo was the best drummer for the Beatles, and he was there at the right time. End of story.
Robert - I can’t believe how much Beatlemania is still out there from super fans like you who know the history so well. It’s amazing. Thanks for watching and commenting! :)
Everything said in this post is correct. The really minor details of the language used or how it happened is a bit different, depending on which Beatle (or Beatle-related person) you listen to, as their stories differed slightly. The one thing not mentioned is that George Martin may have said they could keep Pete for live performances only, but that is also up for debate. What is NOT up for debate is what @robertfontaine356 said, and those are the most important facts anyway.
It's the way he was sacked that I think people have a problem with. They went behind his back and the three people he had been working with for 2 years did not have the guts to face him.
@@dazzle1933 I agree with you about the way it was done. It was gutless, but that`s one of the reasons they had Brian at that point, to do the dirty work. "You`re the manager, so manage !" On a human level, it was "cheap". I have met Pete several times, and had chats about the Hamburg days - my band opened for him in Canada - and he is a great person, and was treated badly in the sacking, but he was not up to snuff musically at that time, and that is the bottom line. When you become a working musician, you develop a thick skin, because this kind of thing happens all the time. Believe me.
Pete Best was a horrible drummer, he was a Mama's boy *(In a bad way)* , his so-called "fans" tried to punch Ringo in the face, and he stole the spotlight from John, Paul, and George.
@@boogeriewell, I was 14 back then, obviously never saw them perform, even though they played in my city, but I have heard Pete bests isolated music, and it’s dreadful…
@@RobSpencer-uq3og He's right. There's plenty of recordings with Pete on them - Tony Sheridan recordings, Decca tapes, BBC recordings, demos, etc. He even released an album with his own group. Pete never played outside of his snare drum. The same snare roll like every song. Even now when he does conventions he still does the same thing.
@@DoomTownGrafx complete rubbish. Plenty of Best playing more than that outside of his Beatles performances. He was often told to tone in down while in the Beatles, as the others didn't want the focus to be on him or his talents. Why do you think the three drummers they offered his job to above Ringo respected him enough to turn the offer down?
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Those other drummers were Epstein's choices when looking for a possible replacement - not the band's choice. At least one of the drummers turned it down because he hated Lennon. It makes no sense that they would tell Pete to tone it down but let Ringo shine. Ringo's playing is top notch on the Star Club tapes - far better than anything Pete was recorded doing. Why would that be? People claimed that Pete's playing was better and he had more star power than the others, but none of that seemed to translate over to his career after the Beatles. I think there's some exaggeration to people's stories and memories when looking back.
It's a clever angle for sure and I'm certain partially true. But even though Pete wasn't as bad as they've said, he didn't sync with the 'boys' psychologically.
I love how much discussion is still around this. As you alluded to, surely there’s a lot of partial truths that add up to how to actually happened. But seriously, poor guy!
@@lynnhubbard844 I thought of that as well, but I have a feeling there is some truth that he wasn't a good fit for the band, so this was their way to get him out. Otherwise it does seem rather silly that this is misunderstanding is the reason.
When The Beatles went back to EMI on September 4th with Ringo, George Martin hadn’t engaged a session drummer. However, once they had played and recorded a few songs Martin asked them to come back again the following week, 11th September. This time Martin had engaged a session drummer! Andy White! Ringo was handed a tambourine but Martin also recorded Ringo drumming on Live me Do. I believe Andy White plays in the single and Ringo on the LP. Check out “ Tune In” for confirmation.
Actually he had a great big beat. The whole “ Love Me Do” beat fiasco was the result of the Beatles arrangement they were attempting. There is a live version with Ringo where he does exactly what Pete Best wa doing on the 1962 demo for EMI.
What is the exact title of that video, and maybe give me the channel name, too, please? I'd ask you to post the link here, but YT often deletes such comments.
According to the Mark Lewisohn book from 1992, "A 4 September session at EMI yielded a recording of "Love Me Do" featuring Starr on drums, but a DISSATISFIED MARTIN HIRED DRUMMER ANDY WHITE for the band's third session a week later, which produced recordings of "Love Me Do", "Please Please Me" and "P.S. I Love You".
Correct. Had they not gotten Ringo, Andy White would have done the whole album, and Best would have had to step up his game live. Otherwise, he might never have played on a Beatles album anyway, as John said he never improved. As a drummer myself, listening to his performance on the Anthology version of Love Me Do... they were right to find a session drummer. That kind of playing would be awful these days, but back then, him going off time so wildly... that's some irresponsible playing. Had that been me playing that, I would be ashamed of that performance. The firing sounds like a misunderstanding and lack of communication, but regrettable as it was... Ringo was the right person for the job. The rest of the band did love his drumming better according to Paul, and it was George who went on record to say that he pressured the other guys to get Starr.
@@AlucardsQuest With respect to dhampste, the ACTUAL fact is, the version of Love Me Do he mentioned WAS the one used on the Beatles first Parlophone single, as well as in a few other countries, such as Canada. Pete Best had disturbed George Martin so much, he decided to have a session player at the ready. Ringo was a good soldier, and he played Tamobourine on the Andy White version. As time went on, it became more than clear, even to Martin, that Ringo did in fact have the chops to play studio sessions. The fact is, it soon became clear that Ringo was the LEAST likely of the four to mess up during studio sessions. To AlucardsQuest, I agree, because no band that wants to be a creative unit would want one drummer for studio work and another for live shows. It wasn't the Liverpool way of doing things, and, it would have cost them session money in excess of what a full time drummer would have amounted to. Ringo does NOT get enough credit for helping to create the correct band comradery and creativity to allow for the great strides the Beatles made in just a few short years.
@@AlucardsQuest Not really true. Session drummer Bernard Purdie revealed that he was on the album recordings on many of the early Beatles recordings and not Ringo. He also said that other drummers were brought in. Andy White being one of them.
@@charlyW34 If you hear the Ringo and Best versions of "Love Me Do", it's obvious that the Andy White version is the best one. That's why this version was released in America. Ringo's version went to number 17 on the British charts and White's version went no. 1 in the U.S.
@@dhampste As God is my witness, I don't see how that helps your argument. Are you attempting to say that both drummers were inadequate, and therefore Pete should have been kept around, because Ringo was not much of an upgrade? That is a non starter, and now I do know you are playing a game. Congrats on getting me to waste my time countering your woefully ill informed statements. You clearly do not have ANY grasp of the time line of Love Me Do in the US, as it was released as a single there at a time when ANYTHING with their name on it would have topped the charts. At the time the first single was released in England, they were still basically a regional band, barely known in the greater London area. Please, for the love all things reasonable, do a LOT more research before making silly declarations. (save your energy, I'm not keeping score, so I won't be reading your next post)
Both John, Paul and George Martin are on record that Pete Best was not a great drummer. He could not keep time or improvised as needed. When Pete was sick, Ringo, sat in for him for a few shows. Once the rest of the band played and heard Ringo on the drums, they knew what they were missing. Pete was out, Ringo was in. I am not sure where David Bedford is getting his facts, but I have never heard that "misunderstanding" before. George Martin had said, he would use a session drummer for the records because Pete did not have the "chops" to play.
I really wish it had been all about personality, and that PB had been able to go on to have his own incredibly successful career as a drummer. And he had a leg up on every drummer in the world, being a former Beatle. And a popular, attractive, one at that. But, unfortunately, it wasn’t just a personality thing.
Pete Best received between £1 and £4 million in 1995 for Anthology. Which is double in today's money. So up to £8 million. He has also made a lot of money from appearances, book and documentaries over the years. All on the back of The Beatles success.
@@im1who84u - Yes, of course. I was just pointing out that it wasn't all bad for Pete Best. He is very famous in Liverpool and he has made a lot of extra money over the years by telling his story. The payout from The Anthology was enough for him to retire from his normal job. Rory Storm (the leader of Ringo'ds band) is a much sadder story. They were massive in Liverpool and Rory was loved by the fans as he apparently had a great stage presence. He didn't write his own songs and Rory Storm and the Hurricanes only played covers. He kept performing locally and made a living playing weddings and holiday camps etc. Then when disco came along no one was interested in live bands anymore. He took his own life in 1972. So he saw his drummer go on to massive fame and fortune and he had been as big as any of the bands in Liverpool but never moved beyond that like many other Liverpool bands.
@@AnyoneCanSee _He took his own life in 1972. _ Speaking of Rory Storm of course. Wow! I didn't know that about Rory. Thank you for sharing that. I guess it can be tough being at the top and we all handle fame, sudden riches, and disappointments in life differently. It's my understanding also as you pointed out that Pete Best received a few million for his part in the Beatles Anthology. They didn't have to include him but I am thinking they did it as a sort of way to try and make what had happened in the past, right for him. In their hearts they probably felt bad about what they had done to Pete Best also. John said they were cowards and didn't even want to tell Pete to his face and made Brian Epstein do it. My thoughts are that Pete wasn't necessarily a bad drummer, but Ringo was a better fit to be a Beatle. Pete's drumming could have been easily taken care of in the studio and he played well enough to play live on stage. Some well known and successful bands didn't even play their own instruments on the recordings. The Monkees The Byrds The Associations The Beach Boys Boston The Dave Clark Five.... It was a well known fact and a not so well kept secret among people that traveled in those circles. They all just kept their mouths shut about it if they wanted to keep their careers and paychecks coming in.
@@AnyoneCanSee who says Pete would trade it all to have relived his life as a Beatle in their most successful years? Certainly not Pete. He's happy with the life and family he made, and wouldn't trade it to be the biggest star on the planet. Also just because he got a payout and some inflation calculator tells you inflation has gone up 100% since then doesn't mean his wealth has doubled. It doesn't work like that.
You missed an important detail. As George Martin told it in an interview in front of a camera and microphone in a Beatles documentary, he wanted a session drummer not because it was a normal thing to do. George Martin didn't think Pete was very good. He had trouble with certain parts of songs and his rhythm was off..he wasn't consistent. So, again as George Martin told it in this interview, he took Brian aside, not John, Paul, George, and Brian, but just Brian, and told him just that...and yes, if they want to use him for live shows that would be fine. George Martin then said that Brian told him they were thinking of sacking/firing/letting go of Pete anyway because there was this other drummer (who turned out to be Ringo) they liked better. They had seen Ringo play when he was with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes and were blown away at how good he was. Also, when John, Paul, and George changed their hairstyle to what became known as the Beatle cut, Pete refused to change his hairstyle. And when they would go to Hamburg, on their one day off (they would play 6 days a week), John, Paul, and George would hang out together and Pete would have none of that preferring to go off on his own. So...he was kinda alienating himself from the band as well as the other things.
If George Martin didn’t know the Beatles had changed their drummer why wasn’t the session drummer there for the 4th Sept session since he had told them he was going to use a session drummer instead of Pete?
@@andrewhudson8966 Andy White was there to play on the first recording session. He played on more than one session actually. Ringo was unsure of what the future held at this time, years later actually saying "I thought they were doing a Pete Best on me."
@@andrewhudson8966 I was unaware of that, and was going by Martin's interview I saw about the first time he met Ringo. If he indeed knew Ringo had replaced Pete prior to the Andy White sessions it just further shows there's a lot more to this than any of them ever let on.
@@RobSpencer-uq3og you have to be careful with what both Ringo and George Martin say about the Love Me Do sessions.What they have both said was proved to be wrong when Mark Lewisohn allowed access to EMI’s official documentation.They obviously didn’t do this deliberately,it was just faulty recollections about events that nobody at the time would have thought to be world changing and would have fan’s pouring over them 30,40,50,60 years later.
@@andrewhudson8966maybe so, but there are far too many so called 'false recollections' that have been given over the years, including the official story at the time. At one point Pete himself was forced to claim he left the band to start another when he appeared on US television as the shows makers didn't want to upset the Beatles. It's clearly never been as clear cut as the official story told
Like many people, I’m still not sure why this argument even exists. You’d be very hard-pressed to find a drummer with a good ear who would ever choose Pete over Ringo. Just listen to Pete’s version of some other guy to Ringo playing on live at the BBC. Ringo version swings like Hell and his roles propel the song even more. Pete is playing drums 101 and does nothing to add to the song. There are countless other examples, but if you are not a drummer, sit down with one and have them explain the difference.
Pete was never asked to change his hair, and it's not like it was a requirement to be a Beatle. The other 3 didn't get it at the same time, it wasn't a big deal at all back then, it was just a haircut. As for being an introvert, George was shy and reserved, too. But John and Paul didn't kick him out, because he wasn't stealing the spotlight from them like Pete was.
My show isn’t focused on Beatles or music knowledge. The interview was framed around my not being a Beatles fan or having any knowledge of their journey and wanting to know more. Perhaps be more curious and less quick to judgement and insult in the future. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Though Ringo has certainly been mythologised it's untrue to imply there was no issue with Pete from a Beatle point of view. John made it crystal clear in an interview that Pete was a "lousy drummer" and said he was sick of rumours to the contrary. I think ultimately Pete worked well live but he lacked the chops to up his game for studio recording. The one recording that could help us judge more completely is a live cavern recording with Pete bought by Paul at auction and not available to listen to.
If having session drummers was the norm why did George Martin allow Ringo to drum on anything after the first single release? Why not just keep using a session drummer (as they were prepared to if Pete had remained)?
Why was the bass drum taken away from Pete during the Sheridan sessions? Because he couldn’t keep a steady beat. This is proven later in the Decca and Emi sessions of 1962. End of story.
If Pete was good enough for the job why, after the band test, G. Martin asked to bring in a replace for him? It's obvious it didn't satisfy his expectations.
The four guys we know, as great as they were, were also human and could have been nervous, tired, hungover, or all three. One example... Paul's bass sounds odd each time he plays one particular note, maybe a new string, or slightly out of tune. Ringo plays fine, but not with his usual very solid confidence. Also, history tells us that on the early version of Love Me Do (ultimately issued on the first U.K. Parlophone singe), the band was thrown a curve as Paul took over the lead vocal from John so that John could play the harmonica lick unencumbered. The guys were quick on their feet, but it's understandable that a last minute change would be cause for a little hesitation in the performance.
All the money they made, and they couldn't spare a few quid for Pete. Surely, they must have known how hard it must have been for him, watching from the sidelines.
The Beatles would not have been nearly as good without Ringo. He was the right drummer at the right time. A session drummer or any other drummer would not have come up with the perfect drum parts that Ringo came up with. He was obviously good enough for George Martin or the session drummer would have stayed on after that first session. Sure Ringo is no Gene Krupa, but Gene Krupa would not be right for the Beatles.
Pete’s tracks on the anthology, the improvement of sound with Ringo and George Martin realizing Pete wouldn’t work out in the studio, musically the right decision.
@@garyrhone1395 Not really. We now know that Ringo did not play on many Beatle tracks. Session drummer Bernard Purdie revealed in 1978 that he played on many early Beatles tracks and that other session drummers were brought in. Andy White being one of them.
Warning to all Beatles fans who actually have taken the time to read a few books and have something of a musical ear.... There are a couple of folks responding to posts in this thread that are simply looking for irritated responses to their absurd assertions. Basic trolls. Don't waste your time....
No, they were the most POPULAR band in Liverpool, and that was down to the personalities and vocals of the front line...the musicians who actually played on the scene at the time are pretty unanimous the BEST band, just judged as musicians, was The Big 3.
@@lucasoheyze4597 You're misinformed, Pete's popularity...which was based on both his looks and his drumming...dwarfed the popularity of his Beatle bandmates. But don't take it from me, take it from this eye/ear witness. 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.
@@lucasoheyze4597 For several reasons, The Beatles were not at their best at the Decca audition, but among the four bandmembers Pete was the steadiest. The only song recording Pete struggled on was the EMI audition of, "Love Me Do". And the only reason he struggled on it is because the band was ambushed with a new arrangement by Martin, different from what they'd been rehearsing and playing in the clubs all along.
The simple question of who is the better drummer isn’t even debatable. Yes, the Beatles were the top band in Liverpool, but they were big fish in a small pool. They needed to replace Pete to move up to the next level because every engineer they worked with was unhappy with Pete. Even the most important men in their life, George Martin, quickly came to appreciate Ringo ability to lay down a solid beat and play each song needed.
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Yes, he made the band into a professional unit with his solid dependable drumming, something Pete couldn't do. Are you a drummer and can you disagree with that?
@@sulladrum I do disagree with that and think it's a ridiculous statement. Futhermore, I don't have to be a drummer to disagree with that. Just because someone (perhaps you) taps the drums in a small time band or plays in their garage every weekend annoying the neighbours doesn't make them a guru. That all said, just because I know how to play the flute, the trumpet, the piano, the violin, the bass and the guitar doesn't put me in a better position than someone who can't even whistle to offer an opinion on music.
@@RobSpencer-uq3og It does if you’re talking about musical ability. As for the insult that I’m tapping my drums down in my basement, that just shows that you are adept at making ignorant statements, especially since I’m trained musician. Disagreeing with the fact that Ringo Starr is a superior drummer to Pete. best makes one nothing more than a troll, which is what I believe I’m dealing with. Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t mean it has any validity, especially since you have no factual evidence to prove it. It’s not like your opinion that vanilla is better than chocolate. This is not about a subjective opinion, it’s about a fact. There’s another Fact: there is not one professional drummer who would claim that Pete best was good enough to continue with the Beatles and was a better drummer than Ringo. Don’t bother writing back.
@@sulladrum I'll write back if I wish , I won't be bullied by an egomaniac like you. You're a small time drummer no matter what you think of yourself, and an even smaller musician. You're talking out your bottom and your views hold no greater meaning than anyone's. The three drummers who turned down the role of Pete Best's replacement in the Beatles before Ringo got a look in all rated Pete. More importantly they were all also there at the time and therefore if anything their viewpoint holds more standing than anyone who comes after the event. If you don't want to converse further I suggest it is you who refrain from continuing with your utter crap
I don't know if Ringo or Pete was better. I've been told Ringo was better on the slower songs and Pete was better at fast rock. I wasn't there. To me it doesn't matter because either way the Beatles were popular with both of them. But both would be replaced by professional session drummers in the studio.
None of the Beatles were great musicians. Paul admitted that at the Tokyo Hilton in 1965 or 66! He said "We're not all that good musically. . .". Session drummer Bernard Purdie said he actually played on many of the early Beatles recordings! Twenty-one of them if I remember. I think he also said there were other session drummers on the albums. He said there were session guitarists that were brought in also! Purdie was vindicated when he played on the soundtrack for the 1978 film "SGT Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with GEORGE MARTIN AS THE MUSICAL DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER OF THE SOUNDTRACK!
If you read Spencer Leigh’s drummed out they were looking to replace Pete before their trip to Hamburg earlier in ‘62 long before they’re met George Martin
@@donaldlococo954 The only time Ringo kept was the right place, right time. He was 4th choice to replace Pete after the other three drummers turned it down out of respect for Pete.
Pete was an average drummer-not a bad one But the Beatles were successful because of their creativity and not their technical skills. Ringo was one of the most creative drummers in rock music history. Their sound was shaped by the four of them.
There is a small but extremely dedicated group of folks that, for whatever odd reasons, simply refuse to accept Mr. Best's musical shortcomings. It's as if they somehow feel Mr. Best was the all time most hard done by performer in the history of pop music. Every shred of recorded evidence indicates his departure was only a matter of time. George Martin's pronouncement that "Pete would never play on actual studio sessions" ( after the initial audition), was simply the final straw. Yes, the guys showed a lack of backbone when it came to telling Pete he was sacked, but they must have thought it was the sort of thing their manager was being paid to do. John's oft quoted statement is a perfect summation: "look, he was a crappy drummer and the producers did not want him. We only got him so we could be hired in Hamburg, and we couldn't find anybody else. Besides, history has shown that Ringo was our guy, he completed the Beatles". Yes, that is a paraphrased version, but the gist is accurate.
But it's now acknowledged that Ringo did not play on many Beatles recordings! Session drummers were brought in. Also, the famous producer Quincy Jones said this about working with the Beatles: “That they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo? Don’t even talk about it.”
@@dhampste Hi...O.K., I now have to believe I'm caught up in a trolling game to see how angry a response I can give to some really dumb statements. If that is how you get your kicks, you should look for a better hobby. "session drummers were brought in" ? Complete b.s. on a Trumpian level. Other than the very early session, well documented, the only other "drummer" that played on Beatles era recordings was Paul McCartney, who played on 3 or 4 songs maximum. If you are referring to Ringo's own solo albums, he literally was a mega star by then and had every right to get others to sit behind the kit during the sessions that could get quite long and drawn out. Ringo was "the talent" in that scenario, the lead vocalist, and the personality that was going to sell the albums, not drummers like the great Jim Keltner! The myth that Ringo was crappy was born out of the late 1960's penchant for oversized drum kits, prog rock excesses and waste of time extended drum solos. Sadly, that myth still circulates today because of non musician and ill informed fans that enjoy the "conspiracy" drenched world we live in today.
@@charlyW34 You said that "the only other 'drummer' that played on Beatles era recordings was Paul McCartney". Nonsense. Do your research. Well respected session drummer Bernard Purdie said in 1978 he actually played on many of the early Beatles recordings! Twenty-one of them. He also said there were other session drummers on the albums. He said there were session guitarists that were brought in also! Purdie was vindicated when he played on the soundtrack for the 1978 film "SGT Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with GEORGE MARTIN AS THE MUSICAL DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER OF THE SOUNDTRACK!
@@dhampste Wow oh wow. I really hope at least a few other serious Beatle fans are following this ever more ridiculous back and forth. Bernard Purdie has been so completely refuted in this absurd claim as to rank even higher in the pantheon of insane Beatles myths than the Paul is Dead lunacy. Are you by any chance part of a "crazy things that make Beatles fans angry" on line group, because you could start one.
@@charlyW34 Nice try. Lumping well-respected session drummer Purdie in with the "Paul is dead" psyop that was orchestrated by British Intelligence. Guilt by association. Not only was Purdie not refuted, but George Martin hired him to play on the "Sgt Pepper" movie soundtrack in 1978, around the same time that Purdie made his initial revelations!
David Bedford might have written a book, he can't re-write actual history, Pete, while a nice guy, was a sub-par drummer at best. (No pun intended) This is his opinion only, and certainly not based in facts, or opinion of the other members of the Beatles, or their management. Pete also didn't fit in socially with the John, George and Paul. Which in a band, especially a touring band is a big deal. Listen to interviews and read the statements from the band, Brian Epstein, and George martin, then you'll know the real reason.
They had two good drummers before Pete. Tommy Steele was given a choice by his girlfriend to quit the Beatles in order to keep his job as a forklift driver at the garston bottle works. So he quit the band George said he was the best drummer they ever had. Norman Chapman was a good drummer who was called up to do national service. You don't hear them whining
Pete was certainly not as good a drummer as Ringo. So whatever the reason or indeed if it was by mistake, Pete was sidelined for Ringo. Delighted for Pete that he got a million £ pay day when the anthology tapes were released.
Pete Best left the beatles to form a group of his own. Paul and the others were devasted. They knew ringo and got him to join as they had to have a drummer. But they got stuck with him😮 Years later the beatles begged Pete Best to produce the Let It Be album, but he said no as he was in Japan as part of his World Tour. That album could have been great with Pete in charge...
He was a lousy drummer. He whined for years. Why he couldnt be happy with the thrill of drumming for the beatles is mystifying. He finally got anywhere from 600k to a million bucks from his royalties on the anthology series.
The reason I invited David on the show is because I admittedly wasn’t a Beatles fan and wanted to learn more. I’m glad I did as it’s such a unique journey. Thanks for watching!
@@knowmoreknowless I forget sometimes, not everybody grew up watching the Documentaries and reading Bios and Beatles history books haha I did enjoy the interview thanks for the reply
Bernard Purdie said several times over the years that he played on 21 early Beatles tracks. He stated that there were 3 other session drummers that played. Obviously Andy White was one of them. Some folks say that he was discredited. Oh sure! So discredited that George Martin himself hired Purdie to play on the Sgt Pepper soundtrack around the same time that Purdie made his Beatle statements!
Pete wasn't so good and they wanted another drummer and Ringo was their first choice but if it hadn't worked out that way they still wanted another drummer and George Martin wasn't impressed either and they had a chance to be on TV and they wanted all the members in place for the appearance so the time was right.
Dumb rationalized idea...Pete was completely incompetent... Anyone who has heard Pete on anything with the Beatles and thinks he was even serviceable knows less than nothing about time and exrcution that are a must in music...I would hazard a guess that the guy defending Pete in this video is a personal friend of his....
David, my guest, is a Beatles historian having written several books on the Fab Four and also comes from the same part of England. Please check out the video description for David’s full history and the titles of his popular books. Thanks for watching.
Who is this guy and how the fook would he know ??? He's just trying to change the story from what ever ones been told , maybe to make a TH-cam channel for himself , or get in the limelight or something like that .
There's no doubt they were jealous of Pete, it's the only logical explanation. Why else would they choose Ringo? If anything, the Beatles would have gone even bigger with Pete in the group
I don't think that is logical at all. The Beatles had been trying to get signed to a record contract for a long time and wanted to be successful. If Pete was a great drummer and popular with girls why would they risk money and success for petty jealousy? If they were a hit band plenty of girls would be interested in the other three. It makes far more sense that they felt Pete's ability threatened their success. The guy in this video claims that getting a session drummer was standard however George Martin said he got a session drummer as he didn't think Pete was good enough. Once Martin heard Ringo he never got a session drummer again. That seems to be clear-cut proof that it as mainly about ability.
@@AnyoneCanSee then why wasn't the change made when Decca rejected their audition? The dude said groups with guitars are on the way out Mr Epstein. Didn't mention the drummer. Pete said they never told him about the rejection, they just let it slip out during a conversation, which shows they were waiting till they got a contract til they fired him. George Martin said Pete could have stayed in the band and played on stage. And when Epstein had to tell him the news, he said the other boys wanted him out and Ringo in
@@ErikLarson-v6w - After the Decca rejection The Beatles were an unsigned band that earned 3 pounds and 15 shillings a concert at the Cavern spit four ways. Ringo was earning £25 a week with Rory Storm performing at Holiday camps. So Ringo was earning more than the entire Beatles earned for performing 7 days a week. He only left Rory Storm because they had a record contract. So they were stuck with Best until they were signed and could attract a better drummer like Ringo.
@@AnyoneCanSee Wrong, Martin heard Ringo and rejected his recording of, "Love Me Do", citing poor timing -- an assessment agreed with by Paul McCartney. The next week Martin hired session drummer, Andy White, to fill-in for Ringo on the official recording session. Martin was not impressed with Ringo, as he expressed in this quote some years later: *"I didn't rate Ringo highly when I first met him. He couldn't do a drum roll, in fact, he still can't."*
Some of the comments here are ridiculous. That's right: Pete was a lousy drummer, Not good at all. Terrible. Couldn't keep the beat. Right. Except that The Beatles were the biggest group in Liverpool and across northern England with Pete on drums, and with the fans screaming (mostly for Pete, that is) with Beatlemania breaking out across that region --- right, because Pete was "a terrible drummer" who couldn't keep the beat. Sure. Whatever you say. After the misconstrued (and hilariously misunderstood) comments by George Martin (regarding the standard practice in 1962 of using a session drummer on recordings), it's a fact that the others then asked three drummers to join the Beatles. And all three said no. Ringo was a distant fourth choice. Hello! end
I don’t have a dog in this rock history fight, but it’s nice to finally have a comment sticking up for poor Pete Best. 😂 Poor guy is getting dragged on my channel comments so thanks for your input!
The problem is that Ringo did not play on many Beatle songs. The famous record producer Quincy Jones and well-respected session drummer have separately stated that Ringo was replaced by session drummers!
@@philipbrackpool-bk1bm Can you name the interview where Purdie backed off. I can see where he might have some plausible deniability to protect himself perhaps. He's said that he's received death threats for his statements. But remember that at around the same time he made his initial revelations, George Martin himself hired Purdie to play on the "Sgt Pepper" movie soundtrack in 1978! Vindication!
@@dhampste the Bee Gees were in that , but they didn’t sing on Beatles songs, lots of session players were on the soundtrack of that film, it means nothing.
A session drummer played on the best version of "Love Me Do". Not Ringo or Pete. Neither is a great drummer. Like Bedford says, it was normal to have session musicians play on the records. We now know that Ringo did not play on many of the Beatles recordings!
I have a great deal of respect for David, but he's mistaken about two things he said in this clip. One, David said that producer George Martin pulled Lennon, McCartney and Harrison aside at the end of the audition, along with Beatles manager Brian Epstein, and told them all that he'd want to use a session drummer in place of Pete. That isn't true. Martin only told that to Epstein, who later relayed the info to Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. And the second thing David's wrong about is this notion that Epstein, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the false impression that Martin had said to replace Pete or else no contract. The fact is, Martin explicitly told Epstein that his use of a session drummer would have no impact on the band, that session musicians were uncredited on records, and so no one would ever know. Martin told Epstein that Pete would remain The Beatles drummer and do all the live performances. When Epstein turned around and told that to Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, there was NO misunderstanding. The Beatles knew what session musicians were, for Heaven's sake, they had all been session musicians themselves twice in the previous two years, receiving no name credits, on Tony Sheridan recordings. As David said, the use of session musicians, particularly drummers, was commonplace in that era. The idea that The Beatles were somehow unaware of that fact is bonkers to me. The "misunderstanding" argument also falls apart because Epstein fought Lennon, McCartney and Harrison on their decision to replace Pete, even to the point of enlisting help from other Beatles confidantes like Cavern DJ Bob Wooler, to try to talk them out of replacing Pete. So Epstein clearly knew Martin wasn't requiring Pete to be replaced. And if David wants to suggest that Epstein knew but the misunderstanding was in the minds of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, well, I'm sorry to my friend David, but that just doesn't pass the giggle test. IFFFFFF Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the impression that Martin was insisting Pete be replaced in the band, not just the studio, then that misunderstanding would've immediately been cleared up when Epstein and Wooler tried talking them out of replacing Pete. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that...hell, let's say ALL of them, Epstein, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the impression that producer Martin was insisting that Pete be kicked out of the band, or else no contract. Well, Epstein received the official signed contract back from Martin A MONTH BEFORE they sacked Pete, or even had a replacement lined up to take his place. That contract has The Beatles as John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison & Pete Best, with all of their signatures on it. There is no stipulation in the contract that it is contingent in any way, shape or form upon Pete being sacked from the band. So ALL of them knew, AT THE VERY LEAST A MONTH BEFORE SACKING PETE AND FINDING HIS REPLACEMENT that they had a record deal and Pete did not have to be sacked. But they sacked him, anyway. Why?? Because Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were extremely jealous of Pete's status the best-looking and far and away most popular Beatle Not just with the fans, but with the club managers who Pete special treatment, and the press who featured Pete in articles about the band, virtually ignoring his bandmates. John, Paul and George were artsy dorks, whereas Pete had been an athlete in school, excelling in boxing and rugby. This was an ultimate case of Revenge of the Nerds. Plain and simple. They'd wanted to sack Pete long before they ever auditioned for Martin, but were using him and his popularity to help them get a record deal. Well, as soon as they got the deal, they had no need for Pete anymore, and kicked him to the curb. Don't get me wrong, they were VERY worried about doing it, because Pete's fan club was WAY bigger than theirs. But the producer Martin gave them the cover they needed to move against Pete. Martin, unwittingly, served himself up on a silver platter for Lennon, McCartney and Harrison to make him the scapegoat. They spread the word (lie) that the producer down in London made them do it, they didn't want to do it, but had to or else no record deal. Ha! What a crock of schit. It was a hideous betrayal. smfh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not agree with the dichotomy that you presented of Lennon and McCartney being dorks and Best not. Best was actually considered to have too much of a sensible personality by McCartney's standards. Best would refuse drugs, would not turn up to social events, would not be wild enough. Best will always big up the idea that he was very good friends with them and then got betrayed, but he would say that. It is very plausible that Best was the odd one out personality-wise, which would frustrate the rest of the band after a while when the chemistry continued to not fit and you are living with a personality clash. You are also missing another point that The Beatles and their management also wanted to cut ties with Mona Best, who had some hangover management/contractual entanglements left to resolve with the band. Cutting ties with Pete Best would also mean Mona Best would be out the picture for good, who was an outspoken and controlling type of woman that caused on-off difficulties with The Beatles and later Epstein right from the beginning. Also, if I am not mistaken, Harrison was the one who convinced Lennon and McCartney to get off the fence and eventually go through with sacking Best. It might not be such a simple case of clear reasoning, clear agenda. There were a multitude of reasons, and it involved a multitude of people. In the end, five men (band and manager) collectively settled on sacking Best based on a collective merging of reasons with all five influencing each other in different ways and directions
@@TheJthom9 Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were dorks. Paul said as much when he said, *"Pete wasn't artsy like us, we were attending art school, and he was the more sensible type."* It's a typical tale of nerds vs. the jock. Pete was an athlete in school, excelling in boxing and rugby. He was also very bright, though, and was the only Beatle to score high enough on his exams to get into a proper university -- a path he sacrificed to join The Beatles. But Pete was plenty wild. He drank like a fish with the lads, and got into all kinds of mischief. Him and John, mostly. They would roll drunken sailors. If you don't know, that means beat them up and steal their money. John was the least dorky of the Fab 3, and that's a big reason why he became close mates with Pete. John wasn't as intimidated by Pete as Paul and George were. But yeah, when two girls came running into the venue after a show screaming that Stu was being attacked by Teddy Boys in the alley, John and Pete dropped the gear they'd been gathering and ran outside and beat up the Teddy Boys, John suffering a broken thumb in the process, while the wusses Paul and George stayed safely inside. Mona Best had no remaining contractual rights or obligations with the band. She willingly and enthusiastically supported the lads when they asked her if she thought they should hire Brian. Did Brian feel threatened by her? Sure, she was their previous de facto manager. But he was as a paranoid a character as there ever was. The fact is, Brian FOUGHT the Fab 3 when they said they wanted to sack Pete. Brian liked Pete (he tolerated his mother), he knew Pete was the far and away most popular Beatle and would be their most marketable asset going forward. And he knew what a great drummer Pete was, having revolutionized rock drumming with his signature Atom Beat, that every other drummer in Liverpool and Hamburg (including Ringo) tried to copy. One band leader, Faron, kept firing drummers because they didn't sound enough like Pete Best. No, Brian actually enlisted the help of Cavern DJ and longtime Beatles confidante, Bob Wooler, to try to talk the Fab 3 out of sacking Pete, but they wouldn't budge. So just get that idea out of your head. Mona Best never caused any difficulties with the band, just in Brian's paranoid mind once in while, because she would still get the boys gigs when she saw opportunities, including their first time in front of TV cameras -- an event that Mona had organized months earlier but took place just 6 days after Pete was sacked. That's right, the Fab 3 deliberately waited 'til then, presumably when it would be too late for Mona to cancel the crew from Granada TV showing up. smh Yes, Harrison was the initiator of the idea to sack Pete. But Paul didn't need any convincing. The only thing the calculating Paul wanted was to wait until they had a signed recording contract before dropping the axe on Pete. Lennon was the toughest sell, because he liked Pete, they had hit it off personally, and John opened up to Pete like he had with few other people. John also had a certain pride in having a stud drummer like Pete in his band. Pete wasn't just the most popular Beatle, he was the most popular rocker in the entire Liverpool-Hamburg circuit. And he was a Beatle! John dug that. Well, until the end, that is, when Pete's fans took things too far. They began putting up homemade posters and flyers all over Liverpool reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John (and Paul & George) were also overhearing fans in the clubs referring to the band that way. And that was more than John could tolerate. This was JOHN'S band, and he was going to be damned if he was going to let some drummer, late-comer to the group, be the face and leader of HIS band. John was scared to death that once studio execs got a look at Pete that they would predominantly feature him in the band's promotions, that the gap between Pete's popularity and theirs would continue to widen, and that he and Paul and George would forever be under Pete's colossal shadow. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are still putting Pete Best down, i don't think some of these people have even heard Pete playing drums they just going for the liars Lennon told.
Here's the story of how Pete Best was kicked out: John, Paul, and George needed a drummer in order to go to Hamburg, Germany. Pete had a drum kit, his mom Mona Best had a cafe at their home, and Pete was well known with the ladies. Only they didn't know Pete outside the music that much and pretty soon, he was beginning to steal most of the spotlight when they were performing at the Cavern Club. John, Paul, and George felt like they were now in Best's shadow and it was starting to feel like the band was Pete's. While in Hamburg, the boys discovered a much better drummer from another band who was also from Liverpool. His name was Ringo Starr and he was in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. At first the boys were scared of Ringo but found out he was a nice guy even of his appearance *(Gray sideburn and was growing a beard.)* . John, Paul, and George got to know Ringo more outside of the music, he got to play with them on nights when Pete couldn't perform, and they even wanted to trade Pete for Ringo. But Pete objected. When Brian Epstein discovered The boys at the Cavern Club at November 1961, he wanted to manage them and help them get a record deal. Only there were some rules to it and that included appearances; hair and clothing. The boys got their mop-top haircuts except Pete, Pete kept his teddy boy hair. After a few objections, Parlaphone accepted the boys and that's where they met George Martin, their music producer. While recording the song _Love me Do_ , the drumming in it was very lousy but the rest of it like the lyrics and guitar playing was good. In August 16th 1962, that was when the boys had enough. They wanted Pete out of the band because of his lousy drum playing and him stealing the spotlight. Only they were worried that if they told him the news, a fight would start and they also wanted to spare Pete the embarrassment. So they went up to George Martin and told him to go and tell Pete the news that they wanted him out. Mr. Martin couldn't do it either, that is when he went up to Brian and told him the situation. Mr. Martin told Brian he would find a new drummer in the process while Best gets to be told he is out. After Pete was out, that was when the boys had their chance to go tell Brian to go and hire Ringo as their new drummer. In August 18th 1962, Ringo was brought in after playing one last gig with his old band and thus The Beatles were truly born.
@@andrewhudson8966 No. They had their teddy boy hair. Pete kept his while the boys got their haircut because he didn't want it. Look at some pre-Beatle pictures and you'll see they had their teddy bear hair. Edit: They might've gotten their haircut before they changed from leather jackets and jeans to the suits.
Get over it already, the guy wasn,t good enough so the guys replaced him by a better one. It Pete was that good he would have find an other band, someone would have make him an offer, but it didn,t happen. So stop rewriting history. This thing is really pathetic.
Brain Epstein offered to form another band around Pete the day he fired him from the Beatles. Pete declined the offer. Going by your logic everyone who makes it has talent and everyone who fails has none. Did you ever enjoy a Hanson album?
@@RobSpencer-uq3og well yeah, usually those who has talent tend to make it more than those who has no talent. And nobody came to get Pete for their band after, Brian offered to form a band around him to softened the blow, and give himself good conscience. And no I don't care for Hanson, I will leave it to you.
@@pascaldeslongchampsmoncton1490 No ... Hanson were "more likely talented" by your logic , not mine. Even though you claim "not to care for them" really showing a great hypocrisy there. Not so in my case. I accept many talented people never reach their full potential, and those with much less talent can still make it successful. Your tale of Pete's dismissal and Brian's offer is the one to suit your own agenda, and not factual based. I think all the members of the fourmost know more about it than you ever would do, seeing as they were sitting outside Brain's office at the time as they had a meeting with him right after Pete. A meeting he cancelled because he was too distraught after Pete left. But why bother with facts and testimony from those who were there and know what happened? Including the three drummers that the Beatles asked to be Pete's replacement, before choice number 4 - Ringo Starr! While I see the value of actual fact, so many prefer the version "that suits" rather than the truth!
@@RobSpencer-uq3og wow you one angry history revisionist, first where do you took that the other guys were outside Brian's office when he announced to Pete that he was out, the only one who came with Pete was the guy who was driving the van to their gigs, Mal Evans, who wanted to quit, after Pete gave him the news, but didn't. What was the name of the 4 other drummers they offer the job to before asking Ringo? What agenda would I have by the way? You seam to take it hard buddy, and you,re the one who brought the Hanson not me. And my tail of the events has been corroborate by a lot of people who were there too, so get your facts straight my poor man. Take your medication, go to bed, and have a rest, you need it, and you,ll see tomorrow will be a different day.
@@pascaldeslongchampsmoncton1490 no, I'm not a history revisionist at all. All I say has been well documented in the Beatles book of lists (such as the fourmost WHO WERE waiting outside Eppy's that day for the FOLLOWING MEETING - they didn't come with him). There were three other drummers who they offered the job to before Ringo, the first of which was the big three's Johnny Hutchinson, who turned it down instantly, because not only was he a good friend of Pete Best. He also had very little respect for the other Beatles, a view he still held in all the years that followed. I've revised nothing and stand by the facts. You clearly haven't an understanding of them - especially as you didn't even know other drummers were asked first!
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Bert Kaempfert didn't like his drumming, Decca didn't like his drumming and George Martin didn't like his drumming. The writing was on the wall.
@@steveleblanc7983 complete rubbish
Because of his drumming and his personality, they didn't get along. listen to the records of pete in the studio and compare them to ringo starr. Pete cannot keep time at all, ringo on the other hand could. Ringo was friends with the beatles long before he joined the band and he joined the Beatles in concerts when pete was sick or out. George Martin stated many times he didn't think Pete was a good enough drummer for recording PERIOD. Little known fact is that Ringo also didn't play on the first single, he was subject to tambourine. Ringo earned his spot because he was a good drummer, Pete wasn't a good enough drummer and didn't really fit in with any of the other beatles either. Pete has spent a lot of time pretending he doesn't know the reason why he was kicked from the beatles even though its as clear as day. I will say that the way it was executed and how there was no contact at all afterwards seemed like a rude jesture, but that probably says something about the lack of friendship aswell. Pete seems like a good person and must have went through a hell of a lot when the beatles became the biggest thing ever because i mean who can relate to that, im glad he finally got paid for the anthology project
Thanks for this and for watching. I plan to watch the anthology series now as well.
@@knowmoreknowless another video is suggest if you want to know about Pete
Bests reason for getting fired is the video about Pete best made by pop goes the 60s on TH-cam, have a nice day
@@rodog9465 Umm, no. That video is a hatchet job against Pete, filled with lies, half-truths, and out of context information. I can refute every single point that jackass made against Pete and his drumming. smfh
Ringo did indeed play on their first single. The more known version you've mentioned was recorded a week later.
He only got paid for the Anthology project because The Beatles had a successful enough legacy to get those kinds of payouts at all 25 years after they broke up, only because Pete Best left the band to allow that to be the case
This guy is the one changing the facts.
A fact can only be a fact if it is the truth. Nor can they be "changed" for anything else.
dont you think the host should have done even a small bit of research before this interview? questions like " who's Brian?" and " is pete still alive?" are just pathetic and shows zero preparation for this interview
I went into this interview purposefully ignorant, to learn as much as I could from David. That said, I still think he and I had a great chat. If you end up listening to the entire interview I hope you’ll agree. Thanks for watching! :)
@@knowmoreknowless i would say to that then let your audience know that upfront by saying i am not well versed in Beatles history so this will be a learning experience for me as well , or something along these lines, otherwise you just come off and totally unprepared
Hi Ralph! It’s in the episode listing as well as the audio intro to the episode guest. But if you listened to both of those and still expected something different, I’ll be sure to be more intentional and clear in the future for interviews like this. Thanks for your feedback and suggestion. Have a great weekend! :)
I believe Ringo. He was just a better drummer. End of story.
@@LarryStang Nah .. Pete forever, Ringo never
The Beatles became the Fab Four after Ringo joined….That’s it… history is made
Eeyup! As soon as Ringo joined the band and played at the Cavern Club on August 22nd, The Beatles were truly born.
I think you got it a bit wrong. It's all explained in Mark Lewisons book, Tune In. When the Beatles first wanted to Pete Best out, Ringo Starr wasn't available because he was playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes in another part of the country. At this point Brian Epstein tried to find a replacement, probably temporary as the band wanted Ringo all along. The drummers Brian Epstein asked all said no and they eventually waited for Ringo to return.
So they said after dumping the man who was their drummer for 2 years once securing a recording deal - yet all three other drummers in question maintain they were offered a permanent role in the Beatles as Pete's replacement
@@RobSpencer-uq3og The Beatles wanted Ringo and the other drummers was only asked by Brian Epstein because Ringo wasn't available. Mark Lewisons writes that he doubts that it was for a permanent position, but it's difficult to say what would have happened if one of them had accepted.
The bottom line is that Ringo was first choice not fourth choice. Maybe he could have been really unlucky that they found someone else while he was unavailable - or maybe the Beatles would have insisted on RIngo - hard to know what would have happened in an alternative timeline.
@@sortehuse sounds fishy to me based on all the circumstances. They had the bottle to insist Pete go (against Epstein's wishes, and we all know George Martin never insisted Pete be kicked out the group) but not then go the whole hog and insist the man they wanted be offered the job first. Dosen't tally up, and the three other drummers have nothing to gain from stating what appeared to them a clear offer - replace Pete in the band. While I have nothing against Ringo as a drummer, he had the talent for the role, the story presented as the "official" one from the Beatles seems one put together to show them in a best light possible
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Mark Lewisons has done a lot of research and doesn't just go with the "official" story, but of course he could be wrong.
@@sortehuse He certainly could and I wouldn't be surprised for that to be the case, particularly when you add other voices to the mix
We can argue all
Day but it’s doesn’t change history it it what it is end of story
Not really "end of story" if we can "argue (or debate) all day." It means there is a discussion to be made. It certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for any former drummer of any band to appear at a convention, whatever the group is for fans who take an interest. And like everything to do with the Beatles such things are greatly amplified due to their immense popularity.
Of course you ARE correct Chris, the problem is these stupid "pete was cheated" myths continue to find new mouthpieces. Even more troubling is that some are now claiming the Beatles career would have been just as amazing with Pete in the fold! Crazy talk, complete fantasy.
@@charlyW34 The only fantasy here is the Beatles "couldn't have done it without Ringo" as if the Lennon - McCartney songbook wasn't strong enough without Ringo tapping the drums. 😂
@@RobSpencer-uq3og The major gap in your understanding has to do with the group dynamic. These guys toured hard and need the comradery of an affable, reliable and very solid guy on the kit. No way, NONE, would they have wanted a 'one guy live", "one guy studio" situation. The model made famous by Steely Dan was years away, and my god, if we are talking on THAT level, then Pete would not have a snowballs chance. Anyway, you can chock up another troll point for getting me to respond.
@@charlyW34 you talk a load of nonsense. Steely Dan were far from the inventors of the model you describe. Indeed session drummers were in demand long before the Beatles entered the studio. How do you think Andy White fed himself before and after "Love me do"
It has become a mythical part of Beatles "history" to portray Pete as a victim, but in the end he was not nearly as good as Ringo. Yes it was fairly standard practice to use studio musicians but listen to the Decca audition...his time-keeping is awful. Pete may have been dynamic live but he was not up to snuff for recording. End of story. He was not a victim of some foul conspiracy, he was just not good enough _ and did not fit in with the group dynamic - End of story.
The way he was sacked was pretty cheap, but he was sacked because he wasn`t up to snuff musically, and didn`t fit on a personal level. Ringo was the best drummer for the Beatles, and he was there at the right time. End of story.
Robert - I can’t believe how much Beatlemania is still out there from super fans like you who know the history so well. It’s amazing. Thanks for watching and commenting! :)
Everything said in this post is correct. The really minor details of the language used or how it happened is a bit different, depending on which Beatle (or Beatle-related person) you listen to, as their stories differed slightly. The one thing not mentioned is that George Martin may have said they could keep Pete for live performances only, but that is also up for debate. What is NOT up for debate is what @robertfontaine356 said, and those are the most important facts anyway.
It's the way he was sacked that I think people have a problem with. They went behind his back and the three people he had been working with for 2 years did not have the guts to face him.
@@dazzle1933 I agree with you about the way it was done. It was gutless, but that`s one of the reasons they had Brian at that point, to do the dirty work. "You`re the manager, so manage !"
On a human level, it was "cheap".
I have met Pete several times, and had chats about the Hamburg days - my band opened for him in Canada - and he is a great person, and was treated badly in the sacking, but he was not up to snuff musically at that time, and that is the bottom line. When you become a working musician, you develop a thick skin, because this kind of thing happens all the time. Believe me.
@@robertfontaine356 I am partially tone deaf so I can't judge on the drumming capabilities
Tired of hearing about poor little Pete. He wasn't good enough. End of story.
Pete Best was a horrible drummer, he was a Mama's boy *(In a bad way)* , his so-called "fans" tried to punch Ringo in the face, and he stole the spotlight from John, Paul, and George.
@@lisettegarcia7013 rubbish
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Everything I said was rubbish, or Pete stealing the spotlight from the boys and being a "mama's boy".
That's interesting because I'm sick of hearing that "Pete was a lousy drummer" by people whose parent's weren't alive back then!
@@boogeriewell, I was 14 back then, obviously never saw them perform, even though they played in my city, but I have heard Pete bests isolated music, and it’s dreadful…
Pete Best could not keep time. He did not improve. Listen.
They're not particularly for drumming, you know
Ringo plays other The Beatles before being asked to join.
Yeah on the few nights Pete Best wasn't able to play. Johnny Hutchinson also stepped in on the drums as well, and he was offered the job before Ringo
Pete's only trick was that lame shuffle. He had no other drum skills. They KNEW what Ringo could do.
Ringo was also 'famous', too
@@LanceHall believe the BS if you want
@@RobSpencer-uq3og He's right. There's plenty of recordings with Pete on them - Tony Sheridan recordings, Decca tapes, BBC recordings, demos, etc. He even released an album with his own group. Pete never played outside of his snare drum. The same snare roll like every song. Even now when he does conventions he still does the same thing.
@@DoomTownGrafx complete rubbish. Plenty of Best playing more than that outside of his Beatles performances. He was often told to tone in down while in the Beatles, as the others didn't want the focus to be on him or his talents. Why do you think the three drummers they offered his job to above Ringo respected him enough to turn the offer down?
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Those other drummers were Epstein's choices when looking for a possible replacement - not the band's choice. At least one of the drummers turned it down because he hated Lennon. It makes no sense that they would tell Pete to tone it down but let Ringo shine. Ringo's playing is top notch on the Star Club tapes - far better than anything Pete was recorded doing. Why would that be? People claimed that Pete's playing was better and he had more star power than the others, but none of that seemed to translate over to his career after the Beatles. I think there's some exaggeration to people's stories and memories when looking back.
It's a clever angle for sure and I'm certain partially true. But even though Pete wasn't as bad as they've said, he didn't sync with the 'boys' psychologically.
I love how much discussion is still around this. As you alluded to, surely there’s a lot of partial truths that add up to how to actually happened. But seriously, poor guy!
why didn't they just go back and say they made a mistake and bring him back in?@@knowmoreknowless
@@lynnhubbard844 I thought of that as well, but I have a feeling there is some truth that he wasn't a good fit for the band, so this was their way to get him out. Otherwise it does seem rather silly that this is misunderstanding is the reason.
“Ringo was a better Beatle”, as one of them said.
@@Emanresuadeen better for them to get more chicks
In a band there’s two things. Skill and personality. Pete had neither.
When The Beatles went back to EMI on September 4th with Ringo, George Martin hadn’t engaged a session drummer. However, once they had played and recorded a few songs Martin asked them to come back again the following week, 11th September. This time Martin had engaged a session drummer! Andy White! Ringo was handed a tambourine but Martin also recorded Ringo drumming on Live me Do. I believe Andy White plays in the single and Ringo on the LP. Check out “ Tune In” for confirmation.
@@thegravelcamp-official5465 it’s the other way round,Ringo is on the original single release and Andy White is on the Lp version.
They already had a record contract when pete was their, they recorded 2 songs already
Thankyou for telling it like it is x
Can I please ask. Where did the quote from Paul come from. Doc, book etc?
It might be from one of my guest’s books on the Beatles. He has written a few But I’m not sure. 🤔
Actually he had a great big beat. The whole “ Love Me Do” beat fiasco was the result of the Beatles arrangement they were attempting. There is a live version with Ringo where he does exactly what Pete Best wa doing on the 1962 demo for EMI.
What is the exact title of that video, and maybe give me the channel name, too, please? I'd ask you to post the link here, but YT often deletes such comments.
According to the Mark Lewisohn book from 1992, "A 4 September session at EMI yielded a recording of "Love Me Do" featuring Starr on drums, but a DISSATISFIED MARTIN HIRED DRUMMER ANDY WHITE for the band's third session a week later, which produced recordings of "Love Me Do", "Please Please Me" and "P.S. I Love You".
Correct. Had they not gotten Ringo, Andy White would have done the whole album, and Best would have had to step up his game live. Otherwise, he might never have played on a Beatles album anyway, as John said he never improved. As a drummer myself, listening to his performance on the Anthology version of Love Me Do... they were right to find a session drummer. That kind of playing would be awful these days, but back then, him going off time so wildly... that's some irresponsible playing. Had that been me playing that, I would be ashamed of that performance. The firing sounds like a misunderstanding and lack of communication, but regrettable as it was... Ringo was the right person for the job. The rest of the band did love his drumming better according to Paul, and it was George who went on record to say that he pressured the other guys to get Starr.
@@AlucardsQuest With respect to dhampste, the ACTUAL fact is, the version of Love Me Do he mentioned WAS the one used on the Beatles first Parlophone single, as well as in a few other countries, such as Canada. Pete Best had disturbed George Martin so much, he decided to have a session player at the ready. Ringo was a good soldier, and he played Tamobourine on the Andy White version. As time went on, it became more than clear, even to Martin, that Ringo did in fact have the chops to play studio sessions. The fact is, it soon became clear that Ringo was the LEAST likely of the four to mess up
during studio sessions. To AlucardsQuest, I agree, because no band that wants to be a creative unit would want one drummer for studio work and another for live shows. It wasn't the Liverpool way of doing things, and, it would have cost them session money in excess of what a full time drummer would have amounted to. Ringo does NOT get enough credit for
helping to create the correct band comradery and creativity to allow for the great strides the Beatles made in just a few short years.
@@AlucardsQuest Not really true. Session drummer Bernard Purdie revealed that he was on the album recordings on many of the early Beatles recordings and not Ringo. He also said that other drummers were brought in. Andy White being one of them.
@@charlyW34 If you hear the Ringo and Best versions of "Love Me Do", it's obvious that the Andy White version is the best one. That's why this version was released in America. Ringo's version went to number 17 on the British charts and White's version went no. 1 in the U.S.
@@dhampste As God is my witness, I don't see how that helps your argument. Are you attempting to say that both drummers were inadequate,
and therefore Pete should have been kept around, because Ringo was not much of an upgrade? That is a non starter, and now I do know you are playing a game. Congrats on getting me to waste my time countering your woefully ill informed statements. You clearly do not have ANY grasp of the time line of Love Me Do in the US, as it was released as a single there at a time when ANYTHING with their name on it would have topped the charts. At the time the first single was released in England, they were still basically a regional band, barely known in the greater London area. Please, for the love all things reasonable, do a LOT more research before
making silly declarations. (save your energy, I'm not keeping score, so I won't be reading your next post)
Both John, Paul and George Martin are on record that Pete Best was not a great drummer. He could not keep time or improvised as needed. When Pete was sick, Ringo, sat in for him for a few shows. Once the rest of the band played and heard Ringo on the drums, they knew what they were missing. Pete was out, Ringo was in. I am not sure where David Bedford is getting his facts, but I have never heard that "misunderstanding" before. George Martin had said, he would use a session drummer for the records because Pete did not have the "chops" to play.
I really wish it had been all about personality, and that PB had been able to go on to have his own incredibly successful career as a drummer. And he had a leg up on every drummer in the world, being a former Beatle. And a popular, attractive, one at that.
But, unfortunately, it wasn’t just a personality thing.
Pete Best received between £1 and £4 million in 1995 for Anthology. Which is double in today's money. So up to £8 million. He has also made a lot of money from appearances, book and documentaries over the years. All on the back of The Beatles success.
@@AnyoneCanSee He would gladly trade all of that away to have been the drummer for The Beatles all those years and had _The Beatle_ experience.
@@im1who84u - Yes, of course. I was just pointing out that it wasn't all bad for Pete Best. He is very famous in Liverpool and he has made a lot of extra money over the years by telling his story. The payout from
The Anthology was enough for him to retire from his normal job.
Rory Storm (the leader of Ringo'ds band) is a much sadder story. They were massive in Liverpool and Rory was loved by the fans as he apparently had a great stage presence. He didn't write his own songs and Rory Storm and the Hurricanes only played covers. He kept performing locally and made a living playing weddings and holiday camps etc. Then when disco came along no one was interested in live bands anymore. He took his own life in 1972.
So he saw his drummer go on to massive fame and fortune and he had been as big as any of the bands in Liverpool but never moved beyond that like many other Liverpool bands.
@@AnyoneCanSee _He took his own life in 1972. _
Speaking of Rory Storm of course.
Wow! I didn't know that about Rory.
Thank you for sharing that.
I guess it can be tough being at the top and we all handle fame, sudden riches, and disappointments in life differently.
It's my understanding also as you pointed out that Pete Best received a few million for his part in the Beatles Anthology.
They didn't have to include him but I am thinking they did it as a sort of way to try and make what had happened in the past, right for him.
In their hearts they probably felt bad about what they had done to Pete Best also.
John said they were cowards and didn't even want to tell Pete to his face and made Brian Epstein do it.
My thoughts are that Pete wasn't necessarily a bad drummer, but Ringo was a better fit to be a Beatle.
Pete's drumming could have been easily taken care of in the studio and he played well enough to play live on stage. Some well known and successful bands didn't even play their own instruments on the recordings.
The Monkees
The Byrds
The Associations
The Beach Boys
Boston
The Dave Clark Five....
It was a well known fact and a not so well kept secret among people that traveled in those circles. They all just kept their mouths shut about it if they wanted to keep their careers and paychecks coming in.
@@AnyoneCanSee who says Pete would trade it all to have relived his life as a Beatle in their most successful years? Certainly not Pete. He's happy with the life and family he made, and wouldn't trade it to be the biggest star on the planet. Also just because he got a payout and some inflation calculator tells you inflation has gone up 100% since then doesn't mean his wealth has doubled. It doesn't work like that.
You missed an important detail. As George Martin told it in an interview in front of a camera and microphone in a Beatles documentary, he wanted a session drummer not because it was a normal thing to do. George Martin didn't think Pete was very good. He had trouble with certain parts of songs and his rhythm was off..he wasn't consistent. So, again as George Martin told it in this interview, he took Brian aside, not John, Paul, George, and Brian, but just Brian, and told him just that...and yes, if they want to use him for live shows that would be fine. George Martin then said that Brian told him they were thinking of sacking/firing/letting go of Pete anyway because there was this other drummer (who turned out to be Ringo) they liked better. They had seen Ringo play when he was with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes and were blown away at how good he was. Also, when John, Paul, and George changed their hairstyle to what became known as the Beatle cut, Pete refused to change his hairstyle. And when they would go to Hamburg, on their one day off (they would play 6 days a week), John, Paul, and George would hang out together and Pete would have none of that preferring to go off on his own. So...he was kinda alienating himself from the band as well as the other things.
If George Martin didn’t know the Beatles had changed their drummer why wasn’t the session drummer there for the 4th Sept session since he had told them he was going to use a session drummer instead of Pete?
@@andrewhudson8966 Andy White was there to play on the first recording session. He played on more than one session actually. Ringo was unsure of what the future held at this time, years later actually saying "I thought they were doing a Pete Best on me."
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Andy White didn’t play on the first session on the 4th Sept,he only played on the second session on the 11th
@@andrewhudson8966 I was unaware of that, and was going by Martin's interview I saw about the first time he met Ringo. If he indeed knew Ringo had replaced Pete prior to the Andy White sessions it just further shows there's a lot more to this than any of them ever let on.
@@RobSpencer-uq3og you have to be careful with what both Ringo and George Martin say about the Love Me Do sessions.What they have both said was proved to be wrong when Mark Lewisohn allowed access to EMI’s official documentation.They obviously didn’t do this deliberately,it was just faulty recollections about events that nobody at the time would have thought to be world changing and would have fan’s pouring over them 30,40,50,60 years later.
@@andrewhudson8966maybe so, but there are far too many so called 'false recollections' that have been given over the years, including the official story at the time. At one point Pete himself was forced to claim he left the band to start another when he appeared on US television as the shows makers didn't want to upset the Beatles. It's clearly never been as clear cut as the official story told
Like many people, I’m still not sure why this argument even exists. You’d be very hard-pressed to find a drummer with a good ear who would ever choose Pete over Ringo. Just listen to Pete’s version of some other guy to Ringo playing on live at the BBC. Ringo version swings like Hell and his roles propel the song even more. Pete is playing drums 101 and does nothing to add to the song. There are countless other examples, but if you are not a drummer, sit down with one and have them explain the difference.
Pete didn't want to change his hair and he was introverted unlike the others.
He was never asked to change his hair … and even Astrid said his hair was too curly anyway
Pete was never asked to change his hair, and it's not like it was a requirement to be a Beatle. The other 3 didn't get it at the same time, it wasn't a big deal at all back then, it was just a haircut. As for being an introvert, George was shy and reserved, too. But John and Paul didn't kick him out, because he wasn't stealing the spotlight from them like Pete was.
@@Cosmo-KramerLol!!! You talk as if you're there!!!
@@arlene8938 A lot of research, darlin'. You could learn a thing or two from my posts.
@@Cosmo-Kramer I've done decades of research, too, but this one seems so simple to correct...so many theories
Host asks 'Hold on a sec, Brian is...?' Hello, basic research? 'Is Pete Best still alive?' David deserves a better interviewer.
My show isn’t focused on Beatles or music knowledge. The interview was framed around my not being a Beatles fan or having any knowledge of their journey and wanting to know more. Perhaps be more curious and less quick to judgement and insult in the future.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Anything I need to know about Pete Best and The Beatles I get from Stevie Riks 😜
Pete was all snare drum, while Ringo played the entire kit. The difference between the two is like night and day.
@@DoomTownGrafx pmsl 😂
Though Ringo has certainly been mythologised it's untrue to imply there was no issue with Pete from a Beatle point of view. John made it crystal clear in an interview that Pete was a "lousy drummer" and said he was sick of rumours to the contrary. I think ultimately Pete worked well live but he lacked the chops to up his game for studio recording. The one recording that could help us judge more completely is a live cavern recording with Pete bought by Paul at auction and not available to listen to.
If having session drummers was the norm why did George Martin allow Ringo to drum on anything after the first single release? Why not just keep using a session drummer (as they were prepared to if Pete had remained)?
Because Ringo threatened to quit the band, so JP&G pressured Martin to let him record.
@@Cosmo-KramerSo much for them having no say in recording matters...
Why was the bass drum taken away from Pete during the Sheridan sessions?
Because he couldn’t keep a steady beat.
This is proven later in the Decca and Emi sessions of 1962.
End of story.
If Pete was good enough for the job why, after the band test, G. Martin asked to bring in a replace for him? It's obvious it didn't satisfy his expectations.
The four guys we know, as great as they were, were also human and could have been nervous, tired, hungover, or all three. One example... Paul's bass sounds
odd each time he plays one particular note, maybe a new string, or slightly out of tune. Ringo plays fine, but not with his usual very solid confidence. Also, history tells us that on the early version of Love Me Do (ultimately issued on the first U.K. Parlophone singe), the band was thrown a curve as Paul took over the lead vocal from John so that John could play the harmonica lick unencumbered. The guys were quick on their feet, but it's understandable that a last minute change would be cause for a little hesitation in the performance.
How about Pete was to pretty for the Beatles, the story goes on, and on and on.......will never stop?
All the money they made, and they couldn't spare a few quid for Pete. Surely, they must have known how hard it must have been for him, watching from the sidelines.
The Beatles would not have been nearly as good without Ringo. He was the right drummer at the right time. A session drummer or any other drummer would not have come up with the perfect drum parts that Ringo came up with. He was obviously good enough for George Martin or the session drummer would have stayed on after that first session. Sure Ringo is no Gene Krupa, but Gene Krupa would not be right for the Beatles.
Pete’s tracks on the anthology, the improvement of sound with Ringo and George Martin realizing Pete wouldn’t work out in the studio, musically the right decision.
That improvement of sound was from the session drummers that George Martin brought in. It wasn't the lame Ringo drumming.
@@dhampste Yes and it continued with Ringo , after the session drummer left after two tracks. Love Me Do and Ps I love you.
@@garyrhone1395 Not really. We now know that Ringo did not play on many Beatle tracks. Session drummer Bernard Purdie revealed in 1978 that he played on many early Beatles tracks and that other session drummers were brought in. Andy White being one of them.
@@dhampste and Paul is dead
@@garyrhone1395 Great response! I take back everything I said. Bernard Purdie is not real and Ringo is the greatest drummer of all-time. Ha!
Warning to all Beatles fans who actually have taken the time to read a few books and have something of a musical ear.... There are a couple of folks responding to posts in this thread that are simply looking for irritated responses to their absurd assertions. Basic trolls.
Don't waste your time....
With Pete they were theee best band in Liverpool !!
That is until Pete Best got all the attention from everyone and the three boys were standing in his shadow.
Pete Best NEVER! Ringo Starr FOREVER!!
No, they were the most POPULAR band in Liverpool, and that was down to the personalities and vocals of the front line...the musicians who actually played on the scene at the time are pretty unanimous the BEST band, just judged as musicians, was The Big 3.
@@lucasoheyze4597 You're misinformed, Pete's popularity...which was based on both his looks and his drumming...dwarfed the popularity of his Beatle bandmates. But don't take it from me, take it from this eye/ear witness. 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.
@@Cosmo-Kramer the Decca auditions and early EMI recordings prove otherwise. He was a popular drummer, not a good one.
@@lucasoheyze4597 For several reasons, The Beatles were not at their best at the Decca audition, but among the four bandmembers Pete was the steadiest. The only song recording Pete struggled on was the EMI audition of, "Love Me Do". And the only reason he struggled on it is because the band was ambushed with a new arrangement by Martin, different from what they'd been rehearsing and playing in the clubs all along.
He isn't a bad drummer , I believe but was a misunderstanding
The simple question of who is the better drummer isn’t even debatable. Yes, the Beatles were the top band in Liverpool, but they were big fish in a small pool. They needed to replace Pete to move up to the next level because every engineer they worked with was unhappy with Pete. Even the most important men in their life, George Martin, quickly came to appreciate Ringo ability to lay down a solid beat and play each song needed.
@@sulladrum yeah Ringo made the band didn't he? Lol
@@RobSpencer-uq3og Yes, he made the band into a professional unit with his solid dependable drumming, something Pete couldn't do. Are you a drummer and can you disagree with that?
@@sulladrum I do disagree with that and think it's a ridiculous statement. Futhermore, I don't have to be a drummer to disagree with that. Just because someone (perhaps you) taps the drums in a small time band or plays in their garage every weekend annoying the neighbours doesn't make them a guru. That all said, just because I know how to play the flute, the trumpet, the piano, the violin, the bass and the guitar doesn't put me in a better position than someone who can't even whistle to offer an opinion on music.
@@RobSpencer-uq3og It does if you’re talking about musical ability. As for the insult that I’m tapping my drums down in my basement, that just shows that you are adept at making ignorant statements, especially since I’m trained musician.
Disagreeing with the fact that Ringo Starr is a superior drummer to Pete. best makes one nothing more than a troll, which is what I believe I’m dealing with. Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t mean it has any validity, especially since you have no factual evidence to prove it. It’s not like your opinion that vanilla is better than chocolate. This is not about a subjective opinion, it’s about a fact. There’s another Fact: there is not one professional drummer who would claim that Pete best was good enough to continue with the Beatles and was a better drummer than Ringo. Don’t bother writing back.
@@sulladrum I'll write back if I wish , I won't be bullied by an egomaniac like you. You're a small time drummer no matter what you think of yourself, and an even smaller musician. You're talking out your bottom and your views hold no greater meaning than anyone's. The three drummers who turned down the role of Pete Best's replacement in the Beatles before Ringo got a look in all rated Pete. More importantly they were all also there at the time and therefore if anything their viewpoint holds more standing than anyone who comes after the event. If you don't want to converse further I suggest it is you who refrain from continuing with your utter crap
george martin tells them pete is sub par and can't play on the records ,so why keep him ? time for an upgrade
I don't know if Ringo or Pete was better. I've been told Ringo was better on the slower songs and Pete was better at fast rock. I wasn't there. To me it doesn't matter because either way the Beatles were popular with both of them. But both would be replaced by professional session drummers in the studio.
None of the Beatles were great musicians. Paul admitted that at the Tokyo Hilton in 1965 or 66! He said "We're not all that good musically. . .". Session drummer Bernard Purdie said he actually played on many of the early Beatles recordings! Twenty-one of them if I remember. I think he also said there were other session drummers on the albums. He said there were session guitarists that were brought in also! Purdie was vindicated when he played on the soundtrack for the 1978 film "SGT Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with GEORGE MARTIN AS THE MUSICAL DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER OF THE SOUNDTRACK!
How about all of the shows he had missed playing with them for one reason or another. For Pete’s sake and he’s very thick. He’s not a Beatle. Period
If you read Spencer Leigh’s drummed out they were looking to replace Pete before their trip to Hamburg earlier in ‘62 long before they’re met George Martin
Of course they were - but no one even Ringo "I'll jump in now cause there is a record deal on the table" Starr wanted to replace him then
He couldn't keep time. Ringo could. Period.
@@donaldlococo954 The only time Ringo kept was the right place, right time. He was 4th choice to replace Pete after the other three drummers turned it down out of respect for Pete.
Pete was an average drummer-not a bad one But the Beatles were successful because of their creativity and not their technical skills. Ringo was one of the most creative drummers in rock music history. Their sound was shaped by the four of them.
There is a small but extremely dedicated group of folks that, for whatever odd reasons,
simply refuse to accept Mr. Best's musical shortcomings. It's as if they somehow feel Mr. Best was the all time most hard done by performer in the history of pop music. Every shred of recorded evidence indicates his departure was only a matter of time. George Martin's pronouncement that "Pete would never play on actual studio sessions" ( after the initial audition), was simply the final straw. Yes, the guys showed a lack of backbone when it came to telling Pete he was sacked, but they must have thought it was the sort of thing
their manager was being paid to do. John's oft quoted statement is a perfect summation:
"look, he was a crappy drummer and the producers did not want him. We only got him so we could be hired in Hamburg, and we couldn't find anybody else. Besides, history has shown that Ringo was our guy, he completed the Beatles". Yes, that is a paraphrased version, but the gist is accurate.
But it's now acknowledged that Ringo did not play on many Beatles recordings! Session drummers were brought in. Also, the famous producer Quincy Jones said this about working with the Beatles: “That they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo? Don’t even talk about it.”
@@dhampste Hi...O.K., I now have to believe I'm caught up in a trolling game to see how angry a response I can give to some really dumb statements.
If that is how you get your kicks, you should look for a better hobby.
"session drummers were brought in" ? Complete b.s. on a Trumpian level.
Other than the very early session, well documented, the only other "drummer" that played on Beatles era recordings was Paul McCartney, who played on 3 or 4 songs maximum. If you are referring to Ringo's own solo albums, he literally was a mega star by then and had every right to get others to sit behind the kit during the sessions that could get quite long and drawn out.
Ringo was "the talent" in that scenario, the lead vocalist, and the personality that was going to sell the albums, not drummers like the great Jim Keltner! The myth that Ringo was crappy was born out of the late 1960's penchant for oversized drum kits, prog rock excesses and waste of time extended drum solos. Sadly, that myth still circulates today because of non musician and ill informed fans that enjoy the "conspiracy" drenched
world we live in today.
@@charlyW34 You said that "the only other 'drummer' that played on Beatles era recordings was Paul McCartney". Nonsense. Do your research. Well respected session drummer Bernard Purdie said in 1978 he actually played on many of the early Beatles recordings! Twenty-one of them. He also said there were other session drummers on the albums. He said there were session guitarists that were brought in also! Purdie was vindicated when he played on the soundtrack for the 1978 film "SGT Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with GEORGE MARTIN AS THE MUSICAL DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER OF THE SOUNDTRACK!
@@dhampste Wow oh wow. I really hope at least a few other serious Beatle fans are following this ever more ridiculous back and forth. Bernard Purdie has been so completely refuted in this absurd claim as to rank even higher in the pantheon of insane Beatles myths than the Paul is Dead lunacy. Are you by any chance part of a "crazy things that make Beatles fans angry" on line group, because you could start one.
@@charlyW34 Nice try. Lumping well-respected session drummer Purdie in with the "Paul is dead" psyop that was orchestrated by British Intelligence. Guilt by association. Not only was Purdie not refuted, but George Martin hired him to play on the "Sgt Pepper" movie soundtrack in 1978, around the same time that Purdie made his initial revelations!
People often get booted out of bands, nothing revelatory there. Of course everything's of biblical proportions regarding the Beatles.
David Bedford might have written a book, he can't re-write actual history, Pete, while a nice guy, was a sub-par drummer at best. (No pun intended)
This is his opinion only, and certainly not based in facts, or opinion of the other members of the Beatles, or their management.
Pete also didn't fit in socially with the John, George and Paul. Which in a band, especially a touring band is a big deal.
Listen to interviews and read the statements from the band, Brian Epstein, and George martin, then you'll know the real reason.
Bollocks! Lennon already says they wanted to get rid of him for some time,macca,said he didn't fit in with their sense of humor!
They had two good drummers before Pete. Tommy Steele was given a choice by his girlfriend to quit the Beatles in order to keep his job as a forklift driver at the garston bottle works. So he quit the band George said he was the best drummer they ever had. Norman Chapman was a good drummer who was called up to do national service. You don't hear them whining
Tommy Moore
@hertstraveller Yes it was Moore. Thanks .
Best was just not as perfect for the Beatles as Ringo was
Pete was certainly not as good a drummer as Ringo. So whatever the reason or indeed if it was by mistake, Pete was sidelined for Ringo. Delighted for Pete that he got a million £ pay day when the anthology tapes were released.
Pete was a better drummer than Ringo, but he was sacked for being the most popular Beatle, and Ringo was the band's 4th choice to replace him.
Peat was heavy-handed and didn't have Ringo,finesse.
Pete Best left the beatles to form a group of his own. Paul and the others were devasted. They knew ringo and got him to join as they had to have a drummer. But they got stuck with him😮
Years later the beatles begged Pete Best to produce the Let It Be album, but he said no as he was in Japan as part of his World Tour.
That album could have been great with Pete in charge...
Rubbish.
@@Cosmo-Kramer whats rubbish???
@@DeeLee-p8c Everything you wrote.
He was a lousy drummer. He whined for years. Why he couldnt be happy with the thrill of drumming for the beatles is mystifying. He finally got anywhere from 600k to a million bucks from his royalties on the anthology series.
“ Im sorry, Brian is who?” 🤦♂️
The reason I invited David on the show is because I admittedly wasn’t a Beatles fan and wanted to learn more. I’m glad I did as it’s such a unique journey. Thanks for watching!
@@knowmoreknowless I forget sometimes, not everybody grew up watching the Documentaries and reading Bios and Beatles history books haha I did enjoy the interview thanks for the reply
Ringo was not a good drummer either even the rest of the beatles said this
Bernard Purdie said several times over the years that he played on 21 early Beatles tracks. He stated that there were 3 other session drummers that played. Obviously Andy White was one of them. Some folks say that he was discredited. Oh sure! So discredited that George Martin himself hired Purdie to play on the Sgt Pepper soundtrack around the same time that Purdie made his Beatle statements!
Pete wasn't so good and they wanted another drummer and Ringo was their first choice but if it hadn't worked out that way they still wanted another drummer and George Martin wasn't impressed either and they had a chance to be on TV and they wanted all the members in place for the appearance so the time was right.
Apparently neither Pete nor Ringo were very good since George Martin preferred session drummer Andy White's version of "Love Me Do".
Dumb rationalized idea...Pete was completely incompetent... Anyone who has heard Pete on anything with the Beatles and thinks he was even serviceable knows less than nothing about time and exrcution that are a must in music...I would hazard a guess that the guy defending Pete in this video is a personal friend of his....
David, my guest, is a Beatles historian having written several books on the Fab Four and also comes from the same part of England.
Please check out the video description for David’s full history and the titles of his popular books. Thanks for watching.
Who is this guy and how the fook would he know ???
He's just trying to change the story from what ever ones been told , maybe to make a TH-cam channel for himself , or get in the limelight or something like that .
I watched the whole 4 minutes & 52 seconds. Nothing here I did not already know. 🙄
Thanks for watching!
There's no doubt they were jealous of Pete, it's the only logical explanation. Why else would they choose Ringo? If anything, the Beatles would have gone even bigger with Pete in the group
I don't think that is logical at all. The Beatles had been trying to get signed to a record contract for a long time and wanted to be successful. If Pete was a great drummer and popular with girls why would they risk money and success for petty jealousy? If they were a hit band plenty of girls would be interested in the other three. It makes far more sense that they felt Pete's ability threatened their success.
The guy in this video claims that getting a session drummer was standard however George Martin said he got a session drummer as he didn't think Pete was good enough. Once Martin heard Ringo he never got a session drummer again. That seems to be clear-cut proof that it as mainly about ability.
@@AnyoneCanSee then why wasn't the change made when Decca rejected their audition? The dude said groups with guitars are on the way out Mr Epstein. Didn't mention the drummer. Pete said they never told him about the rejection, they just let it slip out during a conversation, which shows they were waiting till they got a contract til they fired him. George Martin said Pete could have stayed in the band and played on stage. And when Epstein had to tell him the news, he said the other boys wanted him out and Ringo in
@@ErikLarson-v6w - After the Decca rejection The Beatles were an unsigned band that earned 3 pounds and 15 shillings a concert at the Cavern spit four ways. Ringo was earning £25 a week with Rory Storm performing at Holiday camps. So Ringo was earning more than the entire Beatles earned for performing 7 days a week. He only left Rory Storm because they had a record contract. So they were stuck with Best until they were signed and could attract a better drummer like Ringo.
@@AnyoneCanSee Wrong, Martin heard Ringo and rejected his recording of, "Love Me Do", citing poor timing -- an assessment agreed with by Paul McCartney. The next week Martin hired session drummer, Andy White, to fill-in for Ringo on the official recording session. Martin was not impressed with Ringo, as he expressed in this quote some years later: *"I didn't rate Ringo highly when I first met him. He couldn't do a drum roll, in fact, he still can't."*
Some of the comments here are ridiculous. That's right: Pete was a lousy drummer, Not good at all. Terrible. Couldn't keep the beat.
Right.
Except that The Beatles were the biggest group in Liverpool and across northern England with Pete on drums, and with the fans screaming (mostly for Pete, that is) with Beatlemania breaking out across that region --- right, because Pete was "a terrible drummer" who couldn't keep the beat.
Sure. Whatever you say.
After the misconstrued (and hilariously misunderstood) comments by George Martin (regarding the standard practice in 1962 of using a session drummer on recordings), it's a fact that the others then asked three drummers to join the Beatles. And all three said no. Ringo was a distant fourth choice. Hello!
end
I don’t have a dog in this rock history fight, but it’s nice to finally have a comment sticking up for poor Pete Best. 😂 Poor guy is getting dragged on my channel comments so thanks for your input!
Ringo was a better drummer, but more importantly he was the final piece of the Beatles jigsaw.
The problem is that Ringo did not play on many Beatle songs. The famous record producer Quincy Jones and well-respected session drummer have separately stated that Ringo was replaced by session drummers!
Session drummer Bernard Purdie, I mean.
@@dhampste I think that’s nonsense, when Bernard Purdie was challenged face to face about that claim he backed off.
@@philipbrackpool-bk1bm Can you name the interview where Purdie backed off. I can see where he might have some plausible deniability to protect himself perhaps. He's said that he's received death threats for his statements. But remember that at around the same time he made his initial revelations, George Martin himself hired Purdie to play on the "Sgt Pepper" movie soundtrack in 1978! Vindication!
@@dhampste the Bee Gees were in that , but they didn’t sing on Beatles songs, lots of session players were on the soundtrack of that film, it means nothing.
This guy doesn't know shit.
A session drummer played on the best version of "Love Me Do". Not Ringo or Pete. Neither is a great drummer. Like Bedford says, it was normal to have session musicians play on the records. We now know that Ringo did not play on many of the Beatles recordings!
He was crap and a misery
I have a great deal of respect for David, but he's mistaken about two things he said in this clip. One, David said that producer George Martin pulled Lennon, McCartney and Harrison aside at the end of the audition, along with Beatles manager Brian Epstein, and told them all that he'd want to use a session drummer in place of Pete. That isn't true. Martin only told that to Epstein, who later relayed the info to Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. And the second thing David's wrong about is this notion that Epstein, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the false impression that Martin had said to replace Pete or else no contract. The fact is, Martin explicitly told Epstein that his use of a session drummer would have no impact on the band, that session musicians were uncredited on records, and so no one would ever know. Martin told Epstein that Pete would remain The Beatles drummer and do all the live performances. When Epstein turned around and told that to Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, there was NO misunderstanding. The Beatles knew what session musicians were, for Heaven's sake, they had all been session musicians themselves twice in the previous two years, receiving no name credits, on Tony Sheridan recordings. As David said, the use of session musicians, particularly drummers, was commonplace in that era. The idea that The Beatles were somehow unaware of that fact is bonkers to me.
The "misunderstanding" argument also falls apart because Epstein fought Lennon, McCartney and Harrison on their decision to replace Pete, even to the point of enlisting help from other Beatles confidantes like Cavern DJ Bob Wooler, to try to talk them out of replacing Pete. So Epstein clearly knew Martin wasn't requiring Pete to be replaced. And if David wants to suggest that Epstein knew but the misunderstanding was in the minds of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, well, I'm sorry to my friend David, but that just doesn't pass the giggle test. IFFFFFF Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the impression that Martin was insisting Pete be replaced in the band, not just the studio, then that misunderstanding would've immediately been cleared up when Epstein and Wooler tried talking them out of replacing Pete.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that...hell, let's say ALL of them, Epstein, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were under the impression that producer Martin was insisting that Pete be kicked out of the band, or else no contract. Well, Epstein received the official signed contract back from Martin A MONTH BEFORE they sacked Pete, or even had a replacement lined up to take his place. That contract has The Beatles as John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison & Pete Best, with all of their signatures on it. There is no stipulation in the contract that it is contingent in any way, shape or form upon Pete being sacked from the band. So ALL of them knew, AT THE VERY LEAST A MONTH BEFORE SACKING PETE AND FINDING HIS REPLACEMENT that they had a record deal and Pete did not have to be sacked.
But they sacked him, anyway. Why?? Because Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were extremely jealous of Pete's status the best-looking and far and away most popular Beatle Not just with the fans, but with the club managers who Pete special treatment, and the press who featured Pete in articles about the band, virtually ignoring his bandmates. John, Paul and George were artsy dorks, whereas Pete had been an athlete in school, excelling in boxing and rugby. This was an ultimate case of Revenge of the Nerds. Plain and simple. They'd wanted to sack Pete long before they ever auditioned for Martin, but were using him and his popularity to help them get a record deal. Well, as soon as they got the deal, they had no need for Pete anymore, and kicked him to the curb. Don't get me wrong, they were VERY worried about doing it, because Pete's fan club was WAY bigger than theirs. But the producer Martin gave them the cover they needed to move against Pete. Martin, unwittingly, served himself up on a silver platter for Lennon, McCartney and Harrison to make him the scapegoat. They spread the word (lie) that the producer down in London made them do it, they didn't want to do it, but had to or else no record deal. Ha! What a crock of schit. It was a hideous betrayal. smfh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not agree with the dichotomy that you presented of Lennon and McCartney being dorks and Best not. Best was actually considered to have too much of a sensible personality by McCartney's standards. Best would refuse drugs, would not turn up to social events, would not be wild enough. Best will always big up the idea that he was very good friends with them and then got betrayed, but he would say that. It is very plausible that Best was the odd one out personality-wise, which would frustrate the rest of the band after a while when the chemistry continued to not fit and you are living with a personality clash.
You are also missing another point that The Beatles and their management also wanted to cut ties with Mona Best, who had some hangover management/contractual entanglements left to resolve with the band. Cutting ties with Pete Best would also mean Mona Best would be out the picture for good, who was an outspoken and controlling type of woman that caused on-off difficulties with The Beatles and later Epstein right from the beginning.
Also, if I am not mistaken, Harrison was the one who convinced Lennon and McCartney to get off the fence and eventually go through with sacking Best. It might not be such a simple case of clear reasoning, clear agenda. There were a multitude of reasons, and it involved a multitude of people. In the end, five men (band and manager) collectively settled on sacking Best based on a collective merging of reasons with all five influencing each other in different ways and directions
@@TheJthom9 Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were dorks. Paul said as much when he said, *"Pete wasn't artsy like us, we were attending art school, and he was the more sensible type."* It's a typical tale of nerds vs. the jock. Pete was an athlete in school, excelling in boxing and rugby. He was also very bright, though, and was the only Beatle to score high enough on his exams to get into a proper university -- a path he sacrificed to join The Beatles. But Pete was plenty wild. He drank like a fish with the lads, and got into all kinds of mischief. Him and John, mostly. They would roll drunken sailors. If you don't know, that means beat them up and steal their money. John was the least dorky of the Fab 3, and that's a big reason why he became close mates with Pete. John wasn't as intimidated by Pete as Paul and George were. But yeah, when two girls came running into the venue after a show screaming that Stu was being attacked by Teddy Boys in the alley, John and Pete dropped the gear they'd been gathering and ran outside and beat up the Teddy Boys, John suffering a broken thumb in the process, while the wusses Paul and George stayed safely inside.
Mona Best had no remaining contractual rights or obligations with the band. She willingly and enthusiastically supported the lads when they asked her if she thought they should hire Brian. Did Brian feel threatened by her? Sure, she was their previous de facto manager. But he was as a paranoid a character as there ever was. The fact is, Brian FOUGHT the Fab 3 when they said they wanted to sack Pete. Brian liked Pete (he tolerated his mother), he knew Pete was the far and away most popular Beatle and would be their most marketable asset going forward. And he knew what a great drummer Pete was, having revolutionized rock drumming with his signature Atom Beat, that every other drummer in Liverpool and Hamburg (including Ringo) tried to copy. One band leader, Faron, kept firing drummers because they didn't sound enough like Pete Best. No, Brian actually enlisted the help of Cavern DJ and longtime Beatles confidante, Bob Wooler, to try to talk the Fab 3 out of sacking Pete, but they wouldn't budge. So just get that idea out of your head. Mona Best never caused any difficulties with the band, just in Brian's paranoid mind once in while, because she would still get the boys gigs when she saw opportunities, including their first time in front of TV cameras -- an event that Mona had organized months earlier but took place just 6 days after Pete was sacked. That's right, the Fab 3 deliberately waited 'til then, presumably when it would be too late for Mona to cancel the crew from Granada TV showing up. smh
Yes, Harrison was the initiator of the idea to sack Pete. But Paul didn't need any convincing. The only thing the calculating Paul wanted was to wait until they had a signed recording contract before dropping the axe on Pete. Lennon was the toughest sell, because he liked Pete, they had hit it off personally, and John opened up to Pete like he had with few other people. John also had a certain pride in having a stud drummer like Pete in his band. Pete wasn't just the most popular Beatle, he was the most popular rocker in the entire Liverpool-Hamburg circuit. And he was a Beatle! John dug that. Well, until the end, that is, when Pete's fans took things too far. They began putting up homemade posters and flyers all over Liverpool reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John (and Paul & George) were also overhearing fans in the clubs referring to the band that way. And that was more than John could tolerate. This was JOHN'S band, and he was going to be damned if he was going to let some drummer, late-comer to the group, be the face and leader of HIS band. John was scared to death that once studio execs got a look at Pete that they would predominantly feature him in the band's promotions, that the gap between Pete's popularity and theirs would continue to widen, and that he and Paul and George would forever be under Pete's colossal shadow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are still putting Pete Best down, i don't think some of these people have even heard Pete playing drums they just going for the liars Lennon told.
Nice to finally see someone Pro Pete Best in the comments. 😂
Here's the story of how Pete Best was kicked out: John, Paul, and George needed a drummer in order to go to Hamburg, Germany. Pete had a drum kit, his mom Mona Best had a cafe at their home, and Pete was well known with the ladies. Only they didn't know Pete outside the music that much and pretty soon, he was beginning to steal most of the spotlight when they were performing at the Cavern Club. John, Paul, and George felt like they were now in Best's shadow and it was starting to feel like the band was Pete's.
While in Hamburg, the boys discovered a much better drummer from another band who was also from Liverpool. His name was Ringo Starr and he was in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. At first the boys were scared of Ringo but found out he was a nice guy even of his appearance *(Gray sideburn and was growing a beard.)* . John, Paul, and George got to know Ringo more outside of the music, he got to play with them on nights when Pete couldn't perform, and they even wanted to trade Pete for Ringo. But Pete objected.
When Brian Epstein discovered The boys at the Cavern Club at November 1961, he wanted to manage them and help them get a record deal. Only there were some rules to it and that included appearances; hair and clothing. The boys got their mop-top haircuts except Pete, Pete kept his teddy boy hair. After a few objections, Parlaphone accepted the boys and that's where they met George Martin, their music producer. While recording the song _Love me Do_ , the drumming in it was very lousy but the rest of it like the lyrics and guitar playing was good.
In August 16th 1962, that was when the boys had enough. They wanted Pete out of the band because of his lousy drum playing and him stealing the spotlight. Only they were worried that if they told him the news, a fight would start and they also wanted to spare Pete the embarrassment. So they went up to George Martin and told him to go and tell Pete the news that they wanted him out. Mr. Martin couldn't do it either, that is when he went up to Brian and told him the situation. Mr. Martin told Brian he would find a new drummer in the process while Best gets to be told he is out.
After Pete was out, that was when the boys had their chance to go tell Brian to go and hire Ringo as their new drummer. In August 18th 1962, Ringo was brought in after playing one last gig with his old band and thus The Beatles were truly born.
Um No Lennon hated Pete's drumming and said it was terrible. I;ve heard Pete play and he can't play.
@@lisettegarcia7013 they had the mop top haircuts before Epstein
@@andrewhudson8966 No. They had their teddy boy hair. Pete kept his while the boys got their haircut because he didn't want it. Look at some pre-Beatle pictures and you'll see they had their teddy bear hair.
Edit: They might've gotten their haircut before they changed from leather jackets and jeans to the suits.
Great???
Jimmy Nichols was a way better drum player
Than Pete !
Ringo had a bigger nose than both, but still couldn't sing as good as Barry Manilow
Love the song Copa Cabana by Barry M!
@@davidfalconbridge8878 nothing against Barry.
No. I'm not even going to watch the video
Get over it already, the guy wasn,t good enough so the guys replaced him by a better one. It Pete was that good he would have find an other band, someone would have make him an offer, but it didn,t happen. So stop rewriting history. This thing is really pathetic.
Brain Epstein offered to form another band around Pete the day he fired him from the Beatles. Pete declined the offer. Going by your logic everyone who makes it has talent and everyone who fails has none. Did you ever enjoy a Hanson album?
@@RobSpencer-uq3og well yeah, usually those who has talent tend to make it more than those who has no talent. And nobody came to get Pete for their band after, Brian offered to form a band around him to softened the blow, and give himself good conscience. And no I don't care for Hanson, I will leave it to you.
@@pascaldeslongchampsmoncton1490 No ... Hanson were "more likely talented" by your logic , not mine. Even though you claim "not to care for them" really showing a great hypocrisy there. Not so in my case. I accept many talented people never reach their full potential, and those with much less talent can still make it successful. Your tale of Pete's dismissal and Brian's offer is the one to suit your own agenda, and not factual based. I think all the members of the fourmost know more about it than you ever would do, seeing as they were sitting outside Brain's office at the time as they had a meeting with him right after Pete. A meeting he cancelled because he was too distraught after Pete left. But why bother with facts and testimony from those who were there and know what happened? Including the three drummers that the Beatles asked to be Pete's replacement, before choice number 4 - Ringo Starr! While I see the value of actual fact, so many prefer the version "that suits" rather than the truth!
@@RobSpencer-uq3og wow you one angry history revisionist, first where do you took that the other guys were outside Brian's office when he announced to Pete that he was out, the only one who came with Pete was the guy who was driving the van to their gigs, Mal Evans, who wanted to quit, after Pete gave him the news, but didn't. What was the name of the 4 other drummers they offer the job to before asking Ringo? What agenda would I have by the way? You seam to take it hard buddy, and you,re the one who brought the Hanson not me. And my tail of the events has been corroborate by a lot of people who were there too, so get your facts straight my poor man. Take your medication, go to bed, and have a rest, you need it, and you,ll see tomorrow will be a different day.
@@pascaldeslongchampsmoncton1490 no, I'm not a history revisionist at all. All I say has been well documented in the Beatles book of lists (such as the fourmost WHO WERE waiting outside Eppy's that day for the FOLLOWING MEETING - they didn't come with him). There were three other drummers who they offered the job to before Ringo, the first of which was the big three's Johnny Hutchinson, who turned it down instantly, because not only was he a good friend of Pete Best. He also had very little respect for the other Beatles, a view he still held in all the years that followed. I've revised nothing and stand by the facts. You clearly haven't an understanding of them - especially as you didn't even know other drummers were asked first!
Tired of hearing about poor little Pete. He wasn’t good enough. End of story.