Although this definitely sad, what people don’t realise is that he is probably the luckiest beatle. Aside the fact he was the best looking bloke in the group, he has been happily married with a great family his whole life, he wasn’t murdered, he didn’t die of cancer and to top it off he became a millionaire a few years back from the release of the bands old recordings. It may have been awfully hard for him at the time, but you can’t say his life overall hasn’t been blessed. And to top it off he has a title: The worlds most unlucky musician. I hope Pete can find solace in knowing this at the least. I hope that one day, Paul, Ringo and Pete could catch up for coffee some time and put things right.
You make a lot of excellent points. Nobody can ever predict their own fame or what it will/may bring them. Since Pete and Ringo were never at odds with one another due to them never being in The Beatles at the same time, they could very well be on good terms today if they choose to reach out to one another. Paul could be a bit stubborn at times when it came to group dynamics, especially in the studio. But yeah, I don't see why Paul, Pete and Ringo couldn't meet up for a chat (on Zoom, given these times of social distancing) and catch up...briefly anyway.
You are so right. I met Pete twice and talked to him for a few minutes at the Town Crier in Pawling New York in October of 2007. Such a nice guy, humble, would talk to anyone and had nice things to say about Paul and told me he was closest to John. Then John has to kick him when he's down with "Pete Best was a shitty drummer, we always knew we would get rid of him if we made it big. " Talk about shitty, what a shitty friend you ( John) were to a guy who told me you were his close friend.
Exactly. He was never going to be in the final line up. It’s about dynamics within a band and they knew he wasn’t the one. Plus he’s made a fair whack off the back of the Anthology release.
Quote by GEORGE HARRISON ~ "I was quite responsible for stirring things up. I conspired to get Ringo in for good. I talked to Paul and John until they came round to the idea."
Despite his having fathered a child with Pete Best's mom, Neil Aspinall recognized the significance of George's role in getting Ringo in. Neil called it "the chain"-John brought in Paul, Paul brought in George, George brought in Ringo. Included in that order. Said in that order.
I just think Pete Bests personality didn’t fit with what the band represented. They knew what they wanted and just stuck with him until they found someone that would become the final piece of the jigsaw. In the movie ‘Eight Days A Week’ you see Paul McCartney become visibly emotional when he talked about Ringo joining the band and knew that this was the band that would be the true Beatles. The music was obviously very important with the band but the ‘other three’ also knew that Pete Best was not what they were looking for. They just outgrew him. Many other bands have similar stories regarding former members that just missed out. Unfortunately his band was The Beatles.
Listening to Pete songs vs Ringo songs, i feel Ringo has more variation. Pete is more straigth forward. But all in all, Pete was never a bad drummer. They just fell in love with Ringo
He should have taken his immediate fame and turned it into something. If he was as good as he claimed he was he could have turned that whole situation into something huge. But he didnt. Which leads me and many others to believe he really was just an average drummer at best. No pun intended with the name.
If Pete wasn't a great drummer then why was he: -rated as one of the best drummers in Liverpool at the time, -taken to two major label recording tests, -inspiring other local groups to have drummers who could play like him, -invited to join several local Liverpool groups when he was kicked out Surviving 60s Liverpool musicians who saw and knew him still don't have a bad word about his musicianship back then. The Beatles were only known in and around Liverpool and Hamburg and hadn't released their debut yet and weren't nationally famous yet, so Pete only had local fame to build on. He joined the locally popular Lee Curtis And The All-Stars who had good prospects and were later voted second in the 1962 Mersey Beat popularity poll behind The Beatles, so joining them was a sound move to make at the time. Pete and The All-Stars broke away in late 63/early 64 to become The Pete Best Four later Pete Best Combo. However through no fault of his own, they did not have the strong management nor the creative environment like The Beatles had. Although two of his bandmates had started writing songs, they didn't reach their full potential until they started having hits in the 70s
I love Ringo, and believe the Beatles made the correct choice. Still, there is no denying Pete's contribution to the group. FUN FACT: Pete played more live hours with the Beatles than Ringo did. Pete was with them when they honed their craft as a live band. During his two year tenure they became the hottest band in Hamburg & Liverpool, recorded 'My Bonnie' (w/ Sheridan), were signed to be managed by Brian, and earned a recording contract from G. Martin. There were HUGE Beatle milestones that Pete was a part of.
Ringo was and is a far more creative, subtle, and innovative drummer. Can anyone imagine Pete Best playing on She Loves You, Ticket to Ride, or Come Together?
Let's be honest, Ringo is only considered a great drummer because he was in a unique position to able to innovate some inventive drumming on the numerous original and progressive Beatles songs over the decade and he rightfully deserves the accolade because of that. Not because "he was a better drummer than Pete". On the other hand, we really don't know what Pete would have been capable of if he had stayed and been given the same facilities as Ringo to play on The Beatles' original songs. Or if his later bands also started playing similarly progressive material that pushed his boundaries as a drummer in the same way Lennon-McCartney songs did for Ringo. For all we know Pete could have been equally inventive but he didn't have the same opportunities, type of material or similar creative environment as Ringo at Abbey Road with George Martin to be able to show it afterwards. To compare either drummer based on the prowess of their output after 1962 isn't really objectively possible, since the musical paths they took and the material they were playing were both very different.
Like I said previously, we don't know what Pete would have been capable of if he stayed and had the circumstances to innovate his parts like Ringo did on The Beatles' later progressive material, such as the titles you mention.
@@TheMerseySound1 - No, Ringo ALSO deserves credit because he "innovated some inventive drumming on the numerous original and progressive Beatles songs" AND because "he was a better drummer than Pete".
Fuck Pete, he couldn't sing....so fuck him. Why didn't he start his own band and write his own material? Because he couldn't play an instrument. How do you write music with just drums. Pete is/ was a no talent. He could get laid....so what.
I think the issue was the influence of Mona Best. It is tragic and brutal in the manner they treated Pete. Mona Best treated the others like her sons . She got them the first booking at the Cavern after coming back from Hamburg . She supplied transport for them to gigs with Neil Aspinall ( Her secret Lover) being the driver .
If Pete was a different kind of musician, he would have said, "I've gotten thrown out because I'm not a good enough drummer--I've got to practice more!" But he wasn't that kind of person, unfortunately.
"Unfortunately", you don't know WTF you're talking about. Pete was a great drummer, who was sacked over jealousy, nothing more. But hey, if ya don't believe me, then take it from this guy. 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 Please go away. Nothing you say matters at all and it's not based on anything meaningful. Any drummer knows the difference between PB and RS and RS is light years better. Now go have a good cry buttercup.
I stand by Ringo as the far better drummer, Pete was adequate. I think more than anything it’s about chemistry. John, Paul, & George felt that they just naturally got on with Ringo, but never really Gelled with Pete.
Pete was betrayed by John, Paul and George over petty jealousy of his immense popularity with the fans and the press. They replaced him with Ringo...the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer with adequate skills they knew of...because Ringo wouldn't threaten any of their desired positions in the band. With Pete gone, John would be the face/leader of the band, Paul would be the cute one, and George would be elevated from being the 4th Beatle to the 3rd Beatle. But don't take it from me, listen to 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 - actually Paul McCartney said that Ringo was able to play the drum part to "What'd I Say", also that Ringo was considered by many to be the best (no pun intended) drummer in Liverpool at the time.
@@njiuma Pete was also considered by many to be the best drummer in Liverpool and Hamburg during his two years with The Beatles. So what's your point??
@@Cosmo-Kramer - The point is that Paul McCartney felt that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool at that time, that's what counted in the final decision - not what fans or other locals thought. You're not really hearing from John, Paul & George; also, you're not perceiving that the actual drumming of the two makes it clear that Ringo is by far superior to Pete on all levels as a drummer & musician.
@@njiuma If they felt that Ringo was the best drummer around, then why did they offer the job to TWO other drummers BEFORE offering it to Ringo, and ONE other drummer EVEN AFTER Ringo had received the offer and ACCEPTED it??? LOLOL Ringo only got the job because those other three...unlike Ringo...possessed moral compasses and turned the offer down, citing that they didn't think Pete should be replaced and wouldn't do the dirty on him.
What? Get your history straight. All George Martin said was he wanted to replace Pete for the Beatles first recording session. He never said, “Pete must go”. In fact he signed the Beatles to Parlophone with Pete in the band.
@@jasona9 it's the same result really anyway. Also the original poster didnt state George said 'pete must go' either. George is on record as saying he thought Pete wasnt a good drummer and it's neatly sidestepped by supporters of Pete. He has no malicious reason to say that but I'm sure people will fabricate one. The support of Pete as a musician to this day is really odd. As a person he seems like a good man but George Martin had no motivation to criticise him outside of his ability and besides there are plenty of recordings of him playing. He simply wasn't very good.
Ringo is far superior to Pete as a drummer, whether Pete can accept it or not. Granted they could’ve handled it much better, but saying Pete was better than a Ringo is frankly laughable.
Speaking here as a drummer myself, I've been put in a situation like this a couple of times. One band I was in I didn't fit the image too well as I liked blues and jazz while they were into metal. I was very quiet and polite / outspoken. The drummer they replaced me with had apparently tried to emulate my style and jazz fills but couldn't get it in time, I've watched a few of their live performances, but they guy fitted their image at the time. He was actually a friend too, we met when we took our motorcycle test together. Looking back now it's quite funny, but as a young lad just entering their 20s, it was the world to me as I had no interest in school or sports. I suppose it's different when you're younger. I ended up moving to Australia for a period and taught guitar and drums to young students and it was a great experience I'll hold dear for years to come, it's always good to say you did these things. The thought of what could have been and nostalgia is dangerous. Pete is lucky he survived, and still has some money and fame behind him. I say he's a brave guy to walk away from all that and carry on with his life. I'd love to meet the guy and have a good chat.
This kind of thing does happen all the time in bands. Pete's however was two pronged. Ringo was better for the image and a much better drummer. Pete was also becoming an issue to the point Martin wanted to use different drummers for recording. In any band at any level, that isnt sustainable.
The Paul McCartney 321 interview with Rick Rubin lays it out succinctly. One day, Pete didn’t show up, and Ringo was available. After one performance with Ringo as the drummer, the whole band was all in on Ringo. The chemistry and drumming was better.
Why doesn't anyone say what the real injustice was: they hired pete but didn't really intend he would be in the band permanently. But they didn't say that and less him on They should've been honest from the start. And then didn't have the courage to dismiss him to his face. I can see how he wasnt a good fit; he was more cool and suave and less sensitive and relatable.
I just don't understand why journalists haven't asked Pete Best why he refused to go along with The Beatles' new haircuts? Astrid Kirschher created the unique haircuts. Pete looked out of place alongside John, Paul and George. Pete looked like a 1950's Rock 'n' Roller in a 1960's Pop band! To this day, I empathize with Best in the way he was ejected from The Beatles but, to some degree, he brought this on himself in that he wouldn't conform to the new Beatles' look. I've never understood why it was necessary for John, Paul and George to treat Pete Best in such an inhumane, indifferent and cruel way! Pete Best is obviously a good, decent and respectful man. They left it to manager Brian Epstein to carry out the dirty deed and never again spoke to Pete afterwards. Just think Beatles fans, John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the same two people who were so cruel to Pete Best and wrote and sang "All You Need Is Love". Can you imagine how Pete Best felt when he first heard that song? I believe this is the darkest chapter in The Beatles' story.
raul macias , Basically he did not refuse to cut his hair, rather he was never asked to cut his hair. Pete wrote that at that time the ‘Beatle cut’ wasn’t an official group haircut yet. Neither Brian or any member of the band asked Pete to adopt a “fringe cut” as he called it. I recall Astrid once saying that the Beatle cut would not have worked on Pete anyway. His hair was too naturally wavy. She was the original Beatle barber 💈 and photographer 😂.
jasona9 Erm, you’ve lost me there. History quite clearly states that Pete was popular with the ladies hence them being rather upset when he was replaced. I use ‘looks’ in a very loose way and isn’t that what Bill Harry is saying ‘in a very loose way’ Your point seems pointless and rather narrow in its mindedness.
@@iggydip "Your point seems pointless and rather narrow in its mindedness"? MY POINT? I was quoting, Bill Harry the editor of the Merseybeat. FYI, Pete was well liked by both male and female Beatles fans. Your point that his popularity was solely based on "looks" is rather narrow.
In terms of personality , Ringo fit in perfect, and was a better drummer, but I like Pete's personality too, matter of fact and paints a colorful picture with few words, thoughtful .
My heart goes out to Mr. Best. For whatever reason he was given the sack, to be plucked away from international stardom just as they were about to pass through the threshold of success must have made him lose countless hours of sleep.
He was a good drummer for the local rock and roll scene playing small clubs, but as a recording artist with the greatest band of all time, ……….sorry Pete .
Pete’s drumming didn’t have any feel. Same beat for every single song. But if you listen to Ringo’s drumming isolated on any record you’d immediately be able to recognize the song. That’s the difference, ringo made a unique rhythm to fit each song but Pete just used the same monotonous formula all the time.
Lewisohn is right in his book; Pete could never admit that he wasn’t good enough; it’s obvious if you listen to early Beatles songs; he couldn’t keep time and had one beat. Not to mention, he wasn’t close at all w the other 3
@@jbsavluk6691 He did join another band, very shortly after being sacked. He turned down many offers before accepting that one. Get your facts straight.
Mark Lewisohn has a very Anti-Pete Best agenda. The Beatle recordings with Pete Best are a very small sample size. Furthermore, none of the Beatles played particularly well on them.
Well, no. He wasn't as good a drummer as Ringo. He wasn't a bad drummer, but he wasn't learning, it was the same every song, and it was just rock drumming. Ringo was better, changed up each song, and was a supporting player. AND he didn't skip rehearsals or bookings.
True. A band is only as good as its weakest member. Ringo was a fucking champion on the drums for what The Beatles needed. Had Pete stayed on, how long before he realised his differences without the opinion of the band?
I have it on good authority that George was the one who was late and missed the most gigs. Pete usually arrived and left with Neil Aspinall in the van with all the gear and proved in court when he sued them for libel that he only missed less than five shows and gave them notice in advance
Fact remains that Ringo was the better drummer. And their sound changed for the better when they got Ringo in. Perhaps they thought Ringo was more consistent and reliable as well, and would make the better Beatle from a personality standpoint
Pete was alright for a club full of drunk punters who want to dance to rock and roll, but that's about it. The other three outgrew him, and Ringo was already on their level, in both personality and musicianship. Sucks for Pete, but it was obviously the right thing to do for the band
@@angelicagonzalez151 No, but laughing and joking around with the rest of the band is. Coming up with funny titles like A Hard Days Night and Tomorrow Never Knows is. Having plenty of witty one-liners at press conferences is. I could go on
Drummers in rock bands MUST be tight. It’s the backbone of the band. And Pete’s early records show that he wasn’t good enough. The Beatles wouldn’t have become ‘The Beatles’ with a weak link. Lovely man, it seems.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - ironically, yes - they could easily last for 8 hours a day with a lousy drummer - playing for long hours doesn't guarantee that you'll be great, you have to also work on improvement simultaneously - that's what makes the "10,000 hour" theory work - otherwise, you simply play poorly for 10,000 hours th-cam.com/video/5eHa9n4jbGw/w-d-xo.html
The best drummer in Liverpool was someone with the last name Hutchison, yet he rejected joining the band and he was mad because of bests departure from The Beatles
Ringo was very well respected among Liverpool musicians, but he wasn’t known as the one and ONLY “best drummer 🥁 in Liverpool”. I love ❤️ Ringo, but this is a myth.
@@creeperkiller9795 You’re right, Fred Marsden the drummer 🥁 in Gerry and the Pacemakers said that Johnny Hutch from the BIG THREE was likely the best drummer in Liverpool. Hutch was more technical than Ringo and routinely did elaborate solos.
Time mark 47 secs "he was just as good a drummer as Ringo if not better" ... are you kidding???? Listen .. I love Pete. He's an adequate drummer .. but that's just it .. he was just adequate. John, Paul and George were starting to excel as musicians and Pete would have never been able to come up to the standards that the Beatles ultimately needed in a drummer.
I buy the reason why he was sacked is due to Best was so distant to John,Paul, and George.The 3 lads are committing murder while Best was snooring in the basement. John is correct they must be a solid unit.
Neil aspinall- Pete's friend, the same age as him - had a long relationship with Pete's mother and got her pregnant. I never knew what she looked like assuming she was some 'dolly bird' type. Obviously not! So pete had a half brother by his mate and his mum.
And when Lee Curtis got his recording contract the All Stars were left high and dry. Life can be “unfair”! Pete’s biggest mistake was NOT joining the MerseyBeats! They were a hot up and coming band in the Epstein stable and had a good recording career. Pete was offered a chance to be part of that and chose to join Lee Curtis….
I would have sacked Pete just for taking his mother to a television interview and then allowing her to do all the talking. We’ve heard the recordings with Pete Best on Anthology I. Pete was a shite drummer who couldn’t keep a steady four beat pattern at a consistent speed. Ringo was the perfect drummer for John, Paul and George and he just got better with them. There is no shame at not keeping up with John, Paul and George - not many could and definitely not Pete Best.
It was totally appropriate for Pete's mom to join him on that TV program, as she had been the band's unofficial manager and booking agent on and off for 3 years, even a year before Pete joined the band. If you're implying that Pete was some kind of a wuss, you're grossly mistaken. After one gig two girls ran into the venue where John, Paul, Pete, and George were packing up their equipment, screaming that Stu was being attacked by Teddy Boys in the alley. John and Pete ran outside and fought off the thugs, very possibly saving Stu's life. Paul and George?? Um, yeah, no...they just stayed safely inside. Talk about a couple of wusses!
Best was ok on stage, playing 4/4, but had zero variety in his playing. Listen to the Decca tapes. He butchered Love Me Do. Could you imagine Best trying to play a complex pattern like “I Feel Fine?” He couldn’t and that pattern set the song.
Yeah, the Beatles made him a millionaire! One could argue that Pete didn't deserve that money, but John, Paul and George needed a regular drummer to 'pay their dues' with to 'hone their craft' with. Until they recruited Pete Best, they never had that in a drummer.....
I don't know why there's so much overthinking of this. It's been well documented both through anecdote and archival recordings that Pete's drumming was an Achilles hell and also personality wise he wasn't a fit. End of story. Sure, it plays like a Shakespearian tragedy from Best's perspective; but there's no dark conspiracy here.
I've never heard of a band member being sacked by a producer. George Martin told Brian Epstein that Pete Best was good enough for the cavern, but they needed a session musician for the records. After August 1966 with all the drugs that the Fab Four were taking, it was hard to keep a steady beat or keep a rhythm going on the guitar. Session musicians quite often were used to add another layer on top of any music that was played. Pete Best played 8 hours a day for 2 years. If he was a lousy drummer he wouldn't have lasted that long. Few young musicians had the "chops" to play as a studio musician. Even George Harrison had to let Eric Clapton play on "Something" . He may have written the guitar part , but wasn't good enough to play it in a studio session.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY Had to let Clapton play on 'Something'?!?!?!? George brought in Clapton to play the solo on 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'. But George wrote and played the solo on 'Something'. Here's a quote from the sound engineer on the Abbey Road album, Geoff Emerick... Harrison also rerecorded his guitar solo in Studio Two at this session. According to details on the tape box, the solo was recorded after the orchestra session was completed, but Emerick maintains that the solo was cut simultaneously with the orchestra and on one or both of the same tracks. "George certainly rose to the occasion and pulled it off brilliantly," Emerick says. Emerick was present at the recording. Where did you get your bit of misinformation from?
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - that' not entirely accurate, Harrison invited Clapton because they were friends & he wanted him to play, not because Harrison was inadequate.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY You're mistaken about, "Something", it was, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and the only reason George brought Eric in to do it was because he knew John and Paul would never reject the song being on the album if Eric was on it. Very shrewd move by George, and necessary one, as John and Paul were very stingy about giving up album space to George. Enlisting Clapton worked like a charm. HOWEVER, you are 100% correct about Pete Best and George Martin. Martin signed The Beatles with Pete Best as their drummer, 2 months before Pete was sacked. He told Brian that for the first record he wanted to use a session man, that it was commonplace, and no one would ever know. He said Pete was plenty good enough for live performances and there's no reason why he shouldn't remain The Beatles drummer. Later on, after Ringo joined the group, Martin said, *"Pete Best had a sullen charm, and I was surprised to learn he'd been replaced. Pete was the best-looking Beatle, and the most marketable of the bunch."*
Steve Jones, You make a good point. I personally think Pete was fired not just because of his drumming, but for "personality conflicts". After reading Pete's book, he basically admitted that he never had a strong friendship with either Paul or George. They were friendly bandmates, but never friends. Pete always claimed to have a strong friendship with John, but I never heard John substantiate that. George Harrison said, "History showed Ringo to be the member of the band". That pretty much sums it up....
Personality clashes are a tragic element of the human condition. But extroverts tend to be very unforgiving of introverts' different personas. It's very unfortunate.
tim nolan, Do you know that the Best Family Home was the Beatle headquarters? Their equipment was kept there and they would leave from there before heading out to gigs. The Best Family Home was the ONLY Beatle home that had a telephone, and prior to Brian Epstein becoming their manager Pete and his mother (Mona Best) handled the bulk of the Beatle management duties. She was the "little league parent" that WAS THE COACH. Mona Best worked on behalf of her sons band like any reasonable parent would do in her position.
@@jasona9 Look, I wasn't looking to offend, just making a light hearted comment about how most people are familiar with the archetype parent who thinks their child is the "star". I would like to think I can crack a mild joke on TH-cam of all things. Of all the vile hatred and trolling on this ENTERTAINMENT channel , you must be really busy. I wish u the best:))
@@timnolan4587 , You didn't "offend" me with your comment. You ended your first comment with a question mark, so I thought I would explain why Mona Best wasn't a "Little League Parent". She often gets a bad rap from Beatle fans, but after reading many books including Pete's Bio, she worked hard on behalf of the band.
I saw Pete Best in concert 1995 in Hamburg with Tony Sheridan. There was little more than a simpe 4 bar pattern he played all evening. Something you learn in the first week of drumming. Apart from that Ringo‘s personality sat extremely well with the others.
I heard a clip here on TH-cam where John said he wanted to dispel the myth that Pete Best was a good drummer. He said something like, "We were always planning to dump him. He never improved, you know?" They went on to sell more albums and singles than any band in history and these dumb asses still insist on second guessing John and Paul and imagining that they know what was best for THEIR band. Do you think Pete Best could have handled everything The Beatles threw at him--all the experimental music and the sheer variety of their catalog, with all of its unusual tempos and time signatures--and handled it as deftly as Ringo did? I don't and I suspect you'd agree with me. On top of that, I've read that when Mark Lewisohn was doing research for his definitive set of books about The Beatles he had access to the logs kept at Abbey Road studios and literally listened to every single one of their recording sessions. You know how a band will start a song and then have to stop because someone made a mistake? According to Lewisohn, in 8 years worth of recording, The Beatles only had to stop--quote--fewer than a dozen times due to a mistake on Ringo's part. Fewer than a dozen is 11 or less. Do you know what 11 mistakes in 8 years averages out to? It means that for 3 years Ringo made 2 mistakes per year and for 5 years he made 1 mistake per year. Now bear in mind that The Beatles probably had at least 200 recording sessions and that a session could last all day.
@@Achime03 As for what you said about seeing Pete Best, I've seen clips of him playing sometime within the past 10 years and he had to have another drummer playing alongside him. I realize he's not a young guy but for someone who's been drumming since the 1950's, he ought to be good enough to handle the drums by himself at a minimum. Another question worth asking is why he didn't have a successful recording career once he left The Beatles? Brian Epstein set him up with another band and they even recorded an album but it never came to anything. I get so tired of all of these idiots who can't seem to take something at face value. They always try to imagine there's some angle to something that's actually cut and dried.
Just listening to the Decca Tapes with Pete on drums. It appears to me that he is not doing the job a drummer ought to do: To be the whip of the band. That’s what the guys before your drums need and what you need to give them. He is holding back all the time. I appreciate the situation but the others are boldly trying their best to save it with their voices but to little avail. Maybe it was meant to be like this otherwise they hadn’t met George Martin. :-)
@@Achime03 I don't know enough about drumming to understand what's going on but I know that Ringo made the songs exciting. I heard their Decca demo and it lacked something. And I've listened to a clip on TH-cam where a guy plays the Pete Best version of "Love Me Do" with subtitles explaining how Best is playing too fast or too slow or varying the beat. DJ Fontana--himself considered one of the greatest of rock and roll drummers--said Ringo "never varied from that tempo. He had the greatest conception of tempo I've ever heard in my life. I have never heard anybody play that steady in my life, and that's a long time." I've also read that Ringo's playing was so precise and consistent that George Martin found it easy to piece together various takes of songs and make it sound like one the only version recorded.
I've heard this lame story many times over the years. I do feel for him because he missed out on the fame and money but the bottom line is he just wasn't that good of a drummer. George Martin had every intention of replacing him in the studio and it even affected his opinion of Ringo later. He just assumed it was going to be the same problem as it was with Pete and then Ringo proved him wrong. Lennon was brutally honest for the most part and if Best had been fired for personality or jealousy reasons, he would have said so at least once in interviews. His story was consistent over the years- Ringo was just a better drummer and made them better as a group.
Pete Best always seems like a nice fellow, but personality counts at times, and Pete was a little too shy for the Beatles, and if he had a pushy Mother could you imagine how that would have worked out when the Beatles became huge ? Pete got a nice royalty cheque when Anthology came out, so he got paid some long overdue wages.
Pete and Ringo could have easily swapped bands at that time. Just as the Beatles hired Ringo to replace Pete, Ringo's former band The Hurricanes could have hired Pete Best to replace Ringo. It would have been a win-win.
dagenhamdave Astrid the original Beatle Barber 💈 (and photographer) stated that Pete had naturally wavy hair, and the ‘Beatle cut’ wouldn’t have worked on him well. Pete stated that neither Brian or any member of the band asked him to change his haircut. Pete insists the ‘mop top’ wasn’t an official group cut at that time, so he kept the style he had.
First of all, any Beatles fan who is familiar with all the recordings knows that Pete was not cutting it for a band that was progressing. He might have been good enough to start, but he didn't grow with the others. It's all there, just listen to the first go at Love Me Do in June 1962. Secondly, it's claimed here that the drumming was "used as an excuse." Tell me, what motivation did George Martin have to keep Pete off of recordings if not his lack of ability to cut it in a recording studio? All this said, I think Pete's album Hayman's Green is bloody brilliant.
In my humble opinion, Pete Best did a fine job on The Beatles first recording session at EMI Studios on June 6,1962. The Beatles recorded "Besame Mucho", "Love Me Do", "P.S. I Love You" and "Ask Me Why" Only Besame Mucho and Love Me Do have survived the years and we're released on Anthology 1. I especially like "Besame Mucho".
Pete played well enough to help the Beatles get the record deal, but not good enough to record with them. He could have continued to play live without recording, but John, Paul & George preferred Ringo for both recording & live. Ultimately, Ringo proved himself to be the superior drummer to Pete for both live & recorded Beatles' songs.
True, Pete never improved and as John simply said Ringo made a better Beatle. But here's something that nobody has brought up. British bands did not want that "bum" group The Beatles in Hamburg because they were really bad. Without a drummer they couldn't go to Hamburg. Without Pete, The Beatles would not have improved and never have made the big time. Pete's a hero not a zero.
The one speaker is incorrect. Pete Best missed gigs not because he was sick but because he headed back to Liverpool early a few times or came back a bit late
Sweet guy, maybe his drumming wasn't the greatest but he was still a member of the band for two years. It's not that they got rid of him it's HOW they did it. He deserved a face to face explanation from the group as to why they were replacing him and a farewell. The way they got rid of him was real two faced, back door shit. They didn't have the guts to face him so they made Brian epstein do it. To this day, McCartney still won't talk to the guy, but pete has never spoke ill about any of them publicly even though he's had every right to.
Epstein was the manager - it’s his job to do things like inform one member he’s been sacked. And why does anyone have to stay in touch with Pete - they weren’t close friends. Just one of those people who is in your life for a while but then leaves it.
Whatever the pros and cons the fact is Ringo was the right piece in the jigsaw that Made 4 naturally talented musicians who were more than the som of there parts and when John Paul or George took a song into the studio the other 3 were all willing to help and don’t forget there was often not much to go on it was there natural collective musical contribution that made the song end up the way they did and that means all of them it simply A NATURAL ACT! Pete deserved his money but RINGO made the band more solid ask any bass player I am one!
Sir George made the decision not to use him in the studio - go listen to the analysis of his playing on the initial take of Love Me Do to see how bad he really was.
Rubbish. The only reason Pete struggled with, "Love Me Do", at the EMI audition was because George Martin abruptly changed the arrangement, ditching the skip-beat Pete had been playing it with in the clubs. EMI sound engineer working the session, Norman Smith, said, *"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather what he was being told to play with the new arrangement."* The Beatles recorded 4 songs that day, but recordings of only two of those songs survive today. The other one being, "Besame Mucho", which Pete nails. ps~Paul McCartney was livid that Martin changed the arrangement on, "Love Me Do", as not only did it throw Pete off, but it completely threw Paul off his vocals.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Cosmo, I've been watching some videos on Pete Best here on youtube. This is very interesting information. Changing arrangements takes time for any musician. Do you have any other "tidbits" from the Beatles or other rock bands and studio record making? If you've been playing a song one way and have to change it because of some record producer dictator, you need some time to practice it. The Beatles were young and didn't have many years of playing under their belt. Playing in Germany for over 2 years taught them a lot. The 10,000 hour learning curve. If Pete Best hadn't come along, the Beatles would have been any other mediocre Wedding Party band for the next few years.
@@Cosmo-Kramer - there is literally no evidence to substantiate what you're saying here what is obvious is Ringo's superior drumming to Pete's PB - th-cam.com/video/e3Oc67FdcpY/w-d-xo.html Ringo - th-cam.com/video/7uQuX1sOYk4/w-d-xo.html Clearly, Ringo's is stronger - used for their first single as well. Ironically (and strangely), the studio drummer Andy White's is equally as strong as Ringo's & was used in the PPM album at the time - th-cam.com/video/0pGOFX1D_jg/w-d-xo.html The Andy White version is arguably superior to them all, but not because of his drumming - rather, because the overall recording is more in tune & more tightly mixed, compressed & recorded.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - Ringo was able to work with immediate studio changes on the fly - that's how they recorded - Best simply didn't have the skills that RIngo had - th-cam.com/video/2hHE0i4uIJI/w-d-xo.html
@@njiuma Actually, what I posted is common knowledge for any real Beatles fan. You're just uncommonly ignorant. Martin did indeed ambush the lads with a new arrangement for, "Love Me Do", that day and Norman Smith did say what I quoted for him above, that Pete's drumming wasn't the problem, it was the new arrangement. One other song survives from the audition, "Besame Mucho", and Pete nailed it. It's on Anthology, go listen to it and educate yourself.
i agree youre not a bad drummer sir pete, youre just having bad luck cause you happened to be with the greatest band ever, one of the best composer writer musician is with the band so they expect you to be the best same as them thats the one reason you are out , in my opinion.
I've been playing drums for 13 years 14 this month. And one thing that I've learned when it came to the Beatles and the whole Pete best and Ringo thing is it's a very simple reason and we keep forgetting that we should be focusing on Paul McCartney in the situation business-wise, I'm a Beatles fan not a huge Beatles fan but I respect them and I love some of their work I do I'm a Pink Floyd guy King crimson for me as bandersnatch. But Pink Floyd most of all for their experimentation and their sound really pre Gilmore and also with David Gilmore of course. When they sack Pete we need to remember that he was playing for two years straight and live environments really never had a chance from what I read to play in the studio professionally. So now we speed it up to the auditions with emi before they became part of eMI they're playing in an environment that is built for a classical recording and the recording equipment in the studio is for classical music. So why this is important to remember is because these are only 100 amp four-track recording systems meaning the PA system is no more than probably a hundred Watts I believe at that time in 1962 maybe more. And that whole entire time Pete is playing live you have to remember he has to make up for a poor bass player tiny amplifier systems and s***** stage environments and he has to be an explosive drummer for 7 hours a night. This would add wear and tear on any drummer I don't care how young you are how many amphetamines you take how much coke you're blowing you're going to get tired and you're going to get pretty distant. But while these auditions are happening Pete doesn't have time to get used to that environment Pete doesn't have time to look at the size of his studio how high the ceilings are why??? because when you're drumming on on tape real to real you have to remember that if those acoustics are heavy therebis no dampening available yet. which means while Pete is drumming the best he can it's hard as he can that studios recording equipment are getting distorted sounds and you can't turn the sound down on tape you can only adjust it not volume sound. So by the time they're done with their auditions George Martin's going over everything, overly distorted as well as an extremely explosive drumming track over the other guys and no matter how much you mix that you're not going to be able to put that all together unless you drowned it out with reverb. Another reason why Pete got sacked not only because he was late and you can look at this online you can look at the Abbey road log books. I think Paul McCartney and Brian Epstein were the backbone of this because again Ringo not only was he a better drumme, at that time in terms of volume musicianship and mechanics he had a lot of publicity every band in Liverpool waned Ringo so what does Paul McCartney do him and Brian Epstein and the rest of the band come up with an excuse and therefore pushes Pete out of the band was Ringo Starr a better drummer than Pete well I've listened to my Bonnie I've listened to Love Me do they both have about have the same ability so I'm not going to say whether or not Ringo at that time was better than Pete Ringo was more of an adequate. And versatile drummer overall because you could use him in a studio and you could use Ringo live and you can always look behind you and have a drummer keeping the beat each and every time all the time because Ringo was playing a couple years longer than Pete was before Pete started with the Beatles And when Pete started with the Beatles he didn't know how to play very well at all like the rest of the boys so I'm making my point and this is my opinion because of my own experiences and my own journey drumming and what I've learned for the past 13 years is that when you put money in the band together and you add that record company that's when the drama starts and you have to have a thick skin in this kind of business and Pete really didn't have it Pete was quiet which is okay what I don't agree with is with Mona riding Brian Epstein and trying to you know overpower him when the decision was made with very adequate and logical reasons she was looking at it from an emotional standpoint. I don't think it was right either but at the end of the day we got to remember too that Pink Floyd had the similar situation with yd Barrett! and at least the band paid homage to the mate and didn't take them a million years to get syds royalties after he left the group or excuse me sacked, what takes away from me being an overall fan of The Beatles is that simple fact right there they didn't even have the common courtesy to say it to Pete's face that's how I roll anyway I've been sacked twice in my 13 years of drumming so I could learn from my mistakes and that's what the band is always done for me any band that I play with come to my door and tell me to my face you know. And to be truth be honest with it every Beatles fan on here yes it's very true that as you get older because again we do need to remember when the Beatles started playing they were kids too, and again at this point in musical evolution probably one of the hottest things that you would ever try in your life is being a rock and roller I loved playing on stage I I sacrifice growing up for relationships being on stage over that that's how much I love music I'm married with two kids now so obviously my music has gotten more serious and I'm still working on certain tracks before I post them if you guys want the Facebook page where you can hear my beats instrumentals and other recordings just ask in the comment reel, you grow apart eventually and Ringo needed to be in there that was part of the Beatles in there journey Ringo was going to be that drama and I like Ringo I love his drumming because I'll be honest with everybody I learned throughout my years and drumming my volume and my disciplining carrying a steady beat with three to six minutes by listening to Ringo's drum tracks Ringo is important to rock and roll cuz I do disagree with the majority of the community I think that Keith Moon is the best drummer in rock and roll personally I guess if you're thinking about popular rock and roll which The Beatles were they were pop group but Ringo earned it and that's awesome.
Jesus Christ dude, did you ever hear of PARAGRAPHS?! lol Seriously, man, trying to read your GIANT BLOCK OF TEXT is enough to give someone a splitting headache! I suggest you edit it and break it up into multiple paragraphs. I was able to scan it with my eyes and I did see one thing in particular you're dead wrong about, and that is the notion that Ringo was more versatile because he could play well live AND in the studio, whereas Pete was only experienced and a solid performer in live settings. Ummm...George Martin rejected Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", the same as he had rejected Pete's.
If you listen to the interviews given by the others George was the first one who wanted to replace Pete with Ringo. Brian is the MANAGER and ultimately sacked Pete because the other three wanted Pete gone, and didn’t have the courage to tell him themselves ( and it may have ended up in a physical altercation). And your crap about not being able to perform a consistent four beat pattern is crap. Pete just didn’t get better technically and musically while the others did.
@@donna25871 Oh really?? Well this drummer disagrees. 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 - actually, they used Ringo's version for the LMD Single (their first release). they did use Andy White's version for the PPM album Ringo - th-cam.com/video/7uQuX1sOYk4/w-d-xo.html Andy White - th-cam.com/video/0pGOFX1D_jg/w-d-xo.html
John Lennon had no Guts to tell Pete himself. Nor Paul, Nor George. With Friends like those you don’t need any enemies. Beatle fans. Also one last thing it was said by John Lennon himself In an interview said that ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles so what does that tell you, no integrity no loyalty.
@@christopherstarr8050 , You're right, "He (Ringo) isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles" is a MYTH. John Lennon never said that. John however did say some horrible things about Pete Best. Lennon never had the stones to "talk shit" to Pete's face, just behind his back. The "No guts" comment? I agree.
Sector 7 G, Pete Best was with the Beatles for two-years. August 1960 to August 1962. Pete wasn't used for "a tour". Furthermore, the Beatles had the opportunity to replace him earlier than they did, but chose to keep him.
There is still truth in this though. An opportunity came up to get Ringo, they took it because he was a better drummer. It really is that simple and happens in bands all the time. Its just unfortunate for Pete that they went on to be the biggest band ever.
@@paulmallon9292 , I agree with everything you wrote, yet feel sorry for Pete Best because too many Beatle fans remember him as an "anti-social misfit" or "musical incompetent" or "an unprofessional that deliberately missed gigs". The facts are that the Beatles became the hottest group in Liverpool and Hamburg with Pete on drums, and they had opportunities to replace him at least a year before they did.
Sorry, no Pete was not that good of a drummer. He was an okay drummer. Ringo Starr was one of the most in demand drummers in Liverpool at the time. Ringo played everywhere and anywhere and never missed a gig. Playing with 3 bands at the same time sometimes. Pete had trouble getting to all the Beatles gigs in Liverpool and Hamburg
Ringo did miss some gigs in Europe, Hong Kong, and Australia in 1964 as he was ill. He was briefly replaced by Jimmie Nicol. Ringo didn’t play drums on LMD (Album) and PSILY as George Martin thought that he’s “Crazy” and brought Andy White to play drums on the Beatles first single
@@beatlesfan2884 George Martin didn't reject Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", because he thought he was crazy. WTF does that even mean??? He rejected it because Ringo's timing was not good enough--which Paul McCartney agreed with, by the way.
@@beatlesfan2884 - no, Ringo did play on their first Official release "Love Me Do" (LMD). White played on the version on the originally released PPM album. There was no " LMD (Album)". Ringo played on all their other recorded material with a few minor exceptions. Andy White DID play on "P.S. I Love You" (PSILY) - that is true. That's about it, not a lot there.
What BS. Fact and on tape: After the audition with George Martin he told Brian Epstein that Pete best had to go. This why there are 3 recordings of Love Me Do. Best, session drummer, then Ringo. Lennon interview also said Pete was not good then.
I've heard the early recordings with Pete Best on drums and the evidence is there, he wasn't a strong drummer. John Lennon even said that in order for them to get to Hamburg they needed a drummer. Hearing Pete say that he's this great drummer well I look at it this way if he is really this great drummer then why didn't anyone else hire him. Also during Beatle mania they never talked about his drumming so maybe in the end they were trying to spare him the embarrassment of being a bad drummer.
After Pete was sacked he joined a few other bands, until the Liverpool music scene died out and he grew up and got a real job. He never grew his hair long in his 20's and 30's . His hair in 1962 was the same length as the Everly Bros. A little long but not "mop top" . Elvis also back in the late 50s and early 60s had that hair do. The Fab Four had 4 "HAIR DON'TS".
Pete Best did not fit in. He may have been cuter than Ringo, but he did not even sport the Beatles' hair style. It was not a question of who is the better drumner....it is who would fit the band as a perfect Beatle...musically and personality wise.
Hair style? They were a well managed and produced boy band? Matching outfits. Witticisms . Well the British media really hyped them up. Briana Epstein paid girls who had never heard their music to wait for their plane in New York City in February 1964? Media hype? Just like the British media did with the Spice Girls or One Direction.
I don't think he is, it's probably his first time in front of a TV camera and being nervous. Mona Best was basically managed The Beatles in the period between coming home from Hamburg and Brian Epstein signing them. The Best home was Beatles HQ where they kept the gear; assembled and left in the van to go to gigs and was the only Beatle house with a telephone to book gigs. Considering her connections to the band she's quite right to be there and Pete says his mind in the same interview, which we see later in this video
Heh interesting but this was decided almost 60 years ago. Ringo got the Job. If you think Ringo is not a great and innovative drummer try to duplicate his parts..He played what the song required. I love John Bonham but he wouldn't have fit with the Beatles. He play with McCartney on some stuff, listen to a wings demo that Bonhams playing on a song called Beware my love. Bonhams Playing is great but (busy)listen to the version that was released, the drums fit the song better. The drummer has to fit the song and his personality has to fit the band..in the End that was Ringo!
The unceremonious and clumsy firing of Pete Best would never have become such a big deal IF The Beatles had not become such a hugely big deal ~> THE most commercially successful and influential band/group in music history! The decision has been proven by history itself to have been most fortuitous... We should all remember the context and the time in which this occurred... it was 1962... The Beatles had not yet conquered the world -- and they were young, immature and overwhelmed with the desire and opportunity to become something really big... It's OK to criticize the way it was handled as cold and callous... but history has proven that the decision was the right one at the right time ~ and the combination of John, Paul, George and Ringo has proven to be the magical formula for them to have become the most commercially successful and influential band/group in music history! There's little room for argument about THAT.
I do believe Mr. Best got the worst treatment in show biz history, not to mention the damage of his reputation. And I appreciate that his mom gave The Beatles a place to play, and that Pete may have been depressed after being let go, but it's better for a man to defend himself rather than have his mom defend him by his side on television.
Haha, this is so ridiculous. If you listen to the recordings with Pete, you get the answer: He can't hold rhe time and he has no fantasy. A boring drummer. If you're not capable to hear this, ask John, Paul and George why they wanted Ringo instead of Pete. There's a lot of interviews. The greatest band in the world with such great musicians, but still you don't trust them. Instead there's all this rubbish about why they fired the poor guy. Let's face it. He wasn't good enough. Simple as that.
If Pete Best was a great drummer he would have been sought out by other bands and would have made a name for himself. He didn’t. Pete Best became a character in the Beatles’ story
Massive uproar when Pete got sacked, he was massively popular, girls sleeping in his front garden, According to Pete Best and a few of his friends that is. Reality check, he was in other bands and they failed to make it, even with the legendary Pete Best Fronting the bands, I guess his huge fan base was really only in his mind
Albert Tatlock, "In Liverpool Pete Best was the most popular member of the Beatles, especially with the girl fans" - BILL HARRY (Editor of the Merseybeat Newspaper)
@@Wired4Life2 , I love the Beatles and RINGO! He was the perfect drummer for that group. Both you and Albert are entitled to your opinions, not your facts. The facts are that Brian Epstein needed a bodyguard to leave his office after he fired Pete Best. George Harrison received a black eye. In additions hundreds of Liverpool Beatle fans signed a petition demanding his reinstatement. The protests lasted longer than a week.
@@jasona9 Not according to _Tune In_ by Mark Lewisohn (page 682 of 2013 American abridged version): - "While a posse of disgruntled teenage girls did make their feelings known, the situation was never quite as inflamed as hindsight would suggest. Pete had plenty of fans but never the majority, and while Ringo himself would sensationalize by claiming there were 'riots in the streets' over his appointment, this storm passed quickly: broad consensus confirms it was all over between one and two weeks later." - And that excerpt is surrounded by primary source quotes and diary/journal entries of Cavern attendees at the time.
@@Wired4Life2 , Mark Lewisohn has a very anti-Pete Best Agenda. I would not take his work as gospel. What I wrote in my previous posts are documented facts. Brian demanded a bodyguard, a petition was created, Harrison's black-eye, Bill Harry calling Pete the "most popular Beatle". Lewisohn can write what he wants, but those things happened according to the people that were there. Mark Lewisohn it too young to say he was there. You mention, "excerpt is surrounded by primary source quotes". Lewisohn wasn't there, and likely "cherry picks" quotes to fit his agenda.
Perhaps Pete was indeed not too skilled drummer and not a good fit for late 1962 Beatles, but his contribution into initial development of the band is unquestionable. Definitely he did not deserve that deal of hatred and negativity including his former bandmates. Obviously the way he had been fired from the band was mean, ignominious, unethical and unprofessional. Okay, whatever happened, happened. But I've always been asking myself a question: why did Pete himself let this episode become a shaping factor of his whole further life?! Why didn't he get into a university, perhaps move to the States, become a lawyer, an engineer, a physician or a businessman? He is a smart guy, certainly he could've succeeded and forgot all that beatlejuice stuff forever and ever. Instead, he's been keep focusing on Beatles' success, trying to catch up with them and only wasted out much of his energy and sinking in depression to the point of attempting suicide. And why did he, a grown up young man, continued to stay in this Liverpool with his mommy? Well, at least he finally got pretty good royalties (we all know that) and became financially secured and happy since 1990s. At least he can safely say: "been there, done that".
Exactly. Without Pete the Beatles story doesn’t happen. They don’t go to Hamburg and they don’t become famous. Whether you think he was a rubbish drummer or not. I’ve listened to all his recordings on Anthology 1 and he’s no where near as bad as everyone makes out. His drumming on Ain’t She Sweet is very good.
Like no one has been fired from a band! I've read so much about The Beatles and for one thing, George Martin was not impressed with Pete Best! Maybe the way it was done was not the right way OK but again a lot of musicians have been fired from a band and they didn't go on and on about it! Ozzy Osborne was kicked out of his band, he didn't go on and on and didn't say he didn't understand why. He also didn't have his mum come to his defence publicly with him and state: 'Oh why was I let go, I don't understand' oh my God come on! Also, I have seen so many interviews with Pete Best and he has changed his story a few times. This is only my opinion.
@@L0REN0R2Z0RR0 Untrue, Pete did some whining in the 1980's (his appearance on the David Letterman Show), but since then he has been very gracious in interviews. Why not, his two-year association with the Beatles made him a MILLIONAIRE.
Geo Martin always comes across as reliable. I dont see him ever having said something outrageous. McCartney's stories are always questionable. Lennon could be very mean. etc.
Martin rejected Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", because Martin deemed his timing to be not good enough. Macca agreed. One week later, Martin brought in session drummer, Andy White, to do the official recording of the song.
Well could you imagine Pete wearing a Neru jacket, love beads, smokin' weed, etc.? I think that he was a bit too much of a traditionalist to fit in to what The Beatles had in mind. He wouldn't even change his hair style, let alone put on psychadelick garb. Ringo was lucky, but he was also the right guy for the job.
@@TuberOnTheLoose No, later you saw Pete with long hair (and a mullet.) It would have been a bit more of a challenge with wavy hair, but he could have done it.
Pete Bess wasn’t a bad drummer, he just wasn’t the style that the rest of the Beatles wanted. Pete was much more straightforward with a punk/surf style of playing, unfortunately the Beatles were going for a more pop sound.
The Beatles did Best a favor. Paul was so controlling that George almost quit the band and John physically put Yoko between himself and the bassist as a passive-aggressive way of saying, "Back off!"
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
Although this definitely sad, what people don’t realise is that he is probably the luckiest beatle. Aside the fact he was the best looking bloke in the group, he has been happily married with a great family his whole life, he wasn’t murdered, he didn’t die of cancer and to top it off he became a millionaire a few years back from the release of the bands old recordings. It may have been awfully hard for him at the time, but you can’t say his life overall hasn’t been blessed. And to top it off he has a title: The worlds most unlucky musician. I hope Pete can find solace in knowing this at the least. I hope that one day, Paul, Ringo and Pete could catch up for coffee some time and put things right.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I think that if it can be done by John and Paul very quietly, it will probably happen.
You make a lot of excellent points. Nobody can ever predict their own fame or what it will/may bring them. Since Pete and Ringo were never at odds with one another due to them never being in The Beatles at the same time, they could very well be on good terms today if they choose to reach out to one another. Paul could be a bit stubborn at times when it came to group dynamics, especially in the studio. But yeah, I don't see why Paul, Pete and Ringo couldn't meet up for a chat (on Zoom, given these times of social distancing) and catch up...briefly anyway.
You are so right. I met Pete twice and talked to him for a few minutes at the Town Crier in Pawling New York in October of 2007. Such a nice guy, humble, would talk to anyone and had nice things to say about Paul and told me he was closest to John. Then John has to kick him when he's down with "Pete Best was a shitty drummer, we always knew we would get rid of him if we made it big. " Talk about shitty, what a shitty friend you ( John) were to a guy who told me you were his close friend.
i realize I am quite off topic but does anyone know a good site to watch newly released tv shows online?
Even if I was fired from the Beatles, what a cool thing to tell people.. I was fired from the Beatles"
@Big Paulie, exactly. How ever brief, he was part of their history.
Exactly. He was never going to be in the final line up. It’s about dynamics within a band and they knew he wasn’t the one. Plus he’s made a fair whack off the back of the Anthology release.
True. And the guy is more famous for getting fired than most good musicians will ever hope to be...
Get the T shirt.
I’m still planning to get my own made up: “ I was Dissed by John McEnroe!!
“I was in the Beatles” is cooler
Quote by GEORGE HARRISON ~ "I was quite responsible for stirring things up. I conspired to get Ringo in for good. I talked to Paul and John until they came round to the idea."
Well, thanks to Harrison. Can you imagine how less of a band they’d have been with Best?
Despite his having fathered a child with Pete Best's mom, Neil Aspinall recognized the significance of George's role in getting Ringo in. Neil called it "the chain"-John brought in Paul, Paul brought in George, George brought in Ringo. Included in that order. Said in that order.
@@Wired4Life2 No kidding, never heard that before
I just think Pete Bests personality didn’t fit with what the band represented. They knew what they wanted and just stuck with him until they found someone that would become the final piece of the jigsaw. In the movie ‘Eight Days A Week’ you see Paul McCartney become visibly emotional when he talked about Ringo joining the band and knew that this was the band that would be the true Beatles. The music was obviously very important with the band but the ‘other three’ also knew that Pete Best was not what they were looking for. They just outgrew him. Many other bands have similar stories regarding former members that just missed out. Unfortunately his band was The Beatles.
I remember a Parkinson interview with George Harrison where George said about them..... "Pete was a drummer, Ringo was a Beatle".
Listening to Pete songs vs Ringo songs, i feel Ringo has more variation. Pete is more straigth forward. But all in all, Pete was never a bad drummer. They just fell in love with Ringo
and pete best is known because of the Beatles and that has been good to him
Pete was a brutally limited drummer- sort of a one trick pony
it must have been terrible to be pete during that time seeing the boys become world wide superstars while he was working in a mundane 9-5 job
He should've practiced more then lol. He wasn't a good drummer.
He should have taken his immediate fame and turned it into something. If he was as good as he claimed he was he could have turned that whole situation into something huge. But he didnt. Which leads me and many others to believe he really was just an average drummer at best. No pun intended with the name.
If Pete wasn't a great drummer then why was he:
-rated as one of the best drummers in Liverpool at the time,
-taken to two major label recording tests,
-inspiring other local groups to have drummers who could play like him,
-invited to join several local Liverpool groups when he was kicked out
Surviving 60s Liverpool musicians who saw and knew him still don't have a bad word about his musicianship back then.
The Beatles were only known in and around Liverpool and Hamburg and hadn't released their debut yet and weren't nationally famous yet, so Pete only had local fame to build on.
He joined the locally popular Lee Curtis And The All-Stars who had good prospects and were later voted second in the 1962 Mersey Beat popularity poll behind The Beatles, so joining them was a sound move to make at the time.
Pete and The All-Stars broke away in late 63/early 64 to become The Pete Best Four later Pete Best Combo.
However through no fault of his own, they did not have the strong management nor the creative environment like The Beatles had. Although two of his bandmates had started writing songs, they didn't reach their full potential until they started having hits in the 70s
I love Ringo, and believe the Beatles made the correct choice. Still, there is no denying Pete's contribution to the group. FUN FACT: Pete played more live hours with the Beatles than Ringo did. Pete was with them when they honed their craft as a live band. During his two year tenure they became the hottest band in Hamburg & Liverpool, recorded 'My Bonnie' (w/ Sheridan), were signed to be managed by Brian, and earned a recording contract from G. Martin. There were HUGE Beatle milestones that Pete was a part of.
That's one of the most accurate statements about the PB/RS situation with the Beatles so far.
Ringo was and is a far more creative, subtle, and innovative drummer. Can anyone imagine Pete Best playing on She Loves You, Ticket to Ride, or Come Together?
Let's be honest, Ringo is only considered a great drummer because he was in a unique position to able to innovate some inventive drumming on the numerous original and progressive Beatles songs over the decade and he rightfully deserves the accolade because of that. Not because "he was a better drummer than Pete".
On the other hand, we really don't know what Pete would have been capable of if he had stayed and been given the same facilities as Ringo to play on The Beatles' original songs. Or if his later bands also started playing similarly progressive material that pushed his boundaries as a drummer in the same way Lennon-McCartney songs did for Ringo.
For all we know Pete could have been equally inventive but he didn't have the same opportunities, type of material or similar creative environment as Ringo at Abbey Road with George Martin to be able to show it afterwards.
To compare either drummer based on the prowess of their output after 1962 isn't really objectively possible, since the musical paths they took and the material they were playing were both very different.
Imagine Pete on Rain, Tomorrow never knows, and a host of others. Time to get over it. The boys don't want you.
Like I said previously, we don't know what Pete would have been capable of if he stayed and had the circumstances to innovate his parts like Ringo did on The Beatles' later progressive material, such as the titles you mention.
@@TheMerseySound1 - No, Ringo ALSO deserves credit because he "innovated some inventive drumming on the numerous original and progressive Beatles songs" AND because "he was a better drummer than Pete".
Nonsense
poor man imagine seeing the band u were in changing the world
Fuck Pete, he couldn't sing....so fuck him. Why didn't he start his own band and write his own material? Because he couldn't play an instrument. How do you write music with just drums. Pete is/ was a no talent. He could get laid....so what.
@@BryceDAnderson1952 Fuck off troll
I think the issue was the influence of Mona Best. It is tragic and brutal in the manner they treated Pete. Mona Best treated the others like her sons . She got them the first booking at the Cavern after coming back from Hamburg . She supplied transport for them to gigs with Neil Aspinall ( Her secret Lover) being the driver .
If Pete was a different kind of musician, he would have said, "I've gotten thrown out because I'm not a good enough drummer--I've got to practice more!" But he wasn't that kind of person, unfortunately.
"Unfortunately", you don't know WTF you're talking about. Pete was a great drummer, who was sacked over jealousy, nothing more. But hey, if ya don't believe me, then take it from this guy. 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-Krameryou are everywhere. Are you Pete best? The truth was he wasn’t a good drummer. Evidence is the recordings.
@@ExcitedAnacondaSnake-hg8ec There's nothing in Pete's recordings to suggest he wasn't a good drummer. Clean your ears out, they're full of hate.
He wouldn’t even have the iconic haircut, he didn’t mix with the other lads…socially
@@Cosmo-Kramer Please go away. Nothing you say matters at all and it's not based on anything meaningful. Any drummer knows the difference between PB and RS and RS is light years better. Now go have a good cry buttercup.
I stand by Ringo as the far better drummer, Pete was adequate.
I think more than anything it’s about chemistry. John, Paul, & George felt that they just naturally got on with Ringo, but never really Gelled with Pete.
Pete was betrayed by John, Paul and George over petty jealousy of his immense popularity with the fans and the press. They replaced him with Ringo...the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer with adequate skills they knew of...because Ringo wouldn't threaten any of their desired positions in the band. With Pete gone, John would be the face/leader of the band, Paul would be the cute one, and George would be elevated from being the 4th Beatle to the 3rd Beatle. But don't take it from me, listen to 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 - actually Paul McCartney said that Ringo was able to play the drum part to "What'd I Say", also that Ringo was considered by many to be the best (no pun intended) drummer in Liverpool at the time.
@@njiuma Pete was also considered by many to be the best drummer in Liverpool and Hamburg during his two years with The Beatles. So what's your point??
@@Cosmo-Kramer - The point is that Paul McCartney felt that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool at that time, that's what counted in the final decision - not what fans or other locals thought.
You're not really hearing from John, Paul & George; also, you're not perceiving that the actual drumming of the two makes it clear that Ringo is by far superior to Pete on all levels as a drummer & musician.
@@njiuma If they felt that Ringo was the best drummer around, then why did they offer the job to TWO other drummers BEFORE offering it to Ringo, and ONE other drummer EVEN AFTER Ringo had received the offer and ACCEPTED it??? LOLOL Ringo only got the job because those other three...unlike Ringo...possessed moral compasses and turned the offer down, citing that they didn't think Pete should be replaced and wouldn't do the dirty on him.
George Martin of course, didn't rate Pete's drumming and replaced him when he first recorded him. In some ways that's all that needs to be said!
What? Get your history straight. All George Martin said was he wanted to replace Pete for the Beatles first recording session. He never said, “Pete must go”. In fact he signed the Beatles to Parlophone with Pete in the band.
@@jasona9 it's the same result really anyway. Also the original poster didnt state George said 'pete must go' either. George is on record as saying he thought Pete wasnt a good drummer and it's neatly sidestepped by supporters of Pete. He has no malicious reason to say that but I'm sure people will fabricate one. The support of Pete as a musician to this day is really odd. As a person he seems like a good man but George Martin had no motivation to criticise him outside of his ability and besides there are plenty of recordings of him playing. He simply wasn't very good.
Ringo is far superior to Pete as a drummer, whether Pete can accept it or not. Granted they could’ve handled it much better, but saying Pete was better than a Ringo is frankly laughable.
Speaking here as a drummer myself, I've been put in a situation like this a couple of times. One band I was in I didn't fit the image too well as I liked blues and jazz while they were into metal. I was very quiet and polite / outspoken. The drummer they replaced me with had apparently tried to emulate my style and jazz fills but couldn't get it in time, I've watched a few of their live performances, but they guy fitted their image at the time. He was actually a friend too, we met when we took our motorcycle test together. Looking back now it's quite funny, but as a young lad just entering their 20s, it was the world to me as I had no interest in school or sports. I suppose it's different when you're younger.
I ended up moving to Australia for a period and taught guitar and drums to young students and it was a great experience I'll hold dear for years to come, it's always good to say you did these things. The thought of what could have been and nostalgia is dangerous. Pete is lucky he survived, and still has some money and fame behind him. I say he's a brave guy to walk away from all that and carry on with his life. I'd love to meet the guy and have a good chat.
This kind of thing does happen all the time in bands. Pete's however was two pronged. Ringo was better for the image and a much better drummer. Pete was also becoming an issue to the point Martin wanted to use different drummers for recording. In any band at any level, that isnt sustainable.
The Paul McCartney 321 interview with Rick Rubin lays it out succinctly. One day, Pete didn’t show up, and Ringo was available. After one performance with Ringo as the drummer, the whole band was all in on Ringo. The chemistry and drumming was better.
Why doesn't anyone say what the real injustice was: they hired pete but didn't really intend he would be in the band permanently. But they didn't say that and less him on
They should've been honest from the start. And then didn't have the courage to dismiss him to his face. I can see how he wasnt a good fit; he was more cool and suave and less sensitive and relatable.
I just don't understand why journalists haven't asked Pete Best why he refused to go along with The Beatles' new haircuts? Astrid Kirschher created the unique haircuts. Pete looked out of place alongside John, Paul and George. Pete looked like a 1950's Rock 'n' Roller in a 1960's Pop band! To this day, I empathize with Best in the way he was ejected from The Beatles but, to some degree, he brought this on himself in that he wouldn't conform to the new Beatles' look. I've never understood why it was necessary for John, Paul and George to treat Pete Best in such an inhumane, indifferent and cruel way! Pete Best is obviously a good, decent and respectful man. They left it to manager Brian Epstein to carry out the dirty deed and never again spoke to Pete afterwards. Just think Beatles fans, John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the same two people who were so cruel to Pete Best and wrote and sang "All You Need Is Love". Can you imagine how Pete Best felt when he first heard that song? I believe this is the darkest chapter in The Beatles' story.
raul macias Pete addressed the haircut 💇♂️ question in his autobiography.
jasona9 I'm very curious, what did Pete Best say, in his autobiography, about his refusal to adopt the new Beatles hairstyle?
raul macias , Basically he did not refuse to cut his hair, rather he was never asked to cut his hair. Pete wrote that at that time the ‘Beatle cut’ wasn’t an official group haircut yet. Neither Brian or any member of the band asked Pete to adopt a “fringe cut” as he called it. I recall Astrid once saying that the Beatle cut would not have worked on Pete anyway. His hair was too naturally wavy. She was the original Beatle barber 💈 and photographer 😂.
Raul Macias 👍
@lucy bond me too
"In Liverpool Pete Best was the most popular member of the Beatles, particularly with the girl fans" - Bill Harry Editor of The Mersey Beat
jasona9 Obviously looks aren’t everything......
@@iggydip , Where in Bill Harry's quote does he reference Pete's "looks"?
jasona9 Erm, you’ve lost me there. History quite clearly states that Pete was popular with the ladies hence them being rather upset when he was replaced. I use ‘looks’ in a very loose way and isn’t that what Bill Harry is saying ‘in a very loose way’ Your point seems pointless and rather narrow in its mindedness.
@@iggydip "Your point seems pointless and rather narrow in its mindedness"? MY POINT? I was quoting, Bill Harry the editor of the Merseybeat. FYI, Pete was well liked by both male and female Beatles fans. Your point that his popularity was solely based on "looks" is rather narrow.
In terms of personality , Ringo fit in perfect, and was a better drummer, but I like Pete's personality too, matter of fact and paints a colorful picture with few words, thoughtful .
See if he turns round, then he'll tell you.
Bandmates should have chemistry with each other. That's the way it works... And Ringo fitted them much better. Still... VERY sour for mr. Best. :(
My heart goes out to Mr. Best. For whatever reason he was given the sack, to be plucked away from international stardom just as they were about to pass through the threshold of success must have made him lose countless hours of sleep.
Have you considered that the Beatles may not have become so famous if they kept Best?
@@pollythefarmer9246 you're absolutely right. Still got to sting but he's still famous
He was a good drummer for the local rock and roll scene playing small clubs, but as a recording artist with the greatest band of all time, ……….sorry Pete .
Pete’s drumming didn’t have any feel. Same beat for every single song. But if you listen to Ringo’s drumming isolated on any record you’d immediately be able to recognize the song. That’s the difference, ringo made a unique rhythm to fit each song but Pete just used the same monotonous formula all the time.
Lewisohn is right in his book; Pete could never admit that he wasn’t good enough; it’s obvious if you listen to early Beatles songs; he couldn’t keep time and had one beat. Not to mention, he wasn’t close at all w the other 3
Well he always says he's a good drummer, the way I look at it if Pete was this amazing drummer then why didn't anyone else hire him.
@@jbsavluk6691 He did join another band, very shortly after being sacked. He turned down many offers before accepting that one. Get your facts straight.
Mark Lewisohn has a very Anti-Pete Best agenda. The Beatle recordings with Pete Best are a very small sample size. Furthermore, none of the Beatles played particularly well on them.
Well, no. He wasn't as good a drummer as Ringo. He wasn't a bad drummer, but he wasn't learning, it was the same every song, and it was just rock drumming. Ringo was better, changed up each song, and was a supporting player. AND he didn't skip rehearsals or bookings.
True. A band is only as good as its weakest member. Ringo was a fucking champion on the drums for what The Beatles needed. Had Pete stayed on, how long before he realised his differences without the opinion of the band?
I have it on good authority that George was the one who was late and missed the most gigs. Pete usually arrived and left with Neil Aspinall in the van with all the gear and proved in court when he sued them for libel that he only missed less than five shows and gave them notice in advance
@@TheMerseySound1 How'd the libel suit go?
Look at the earlier videos of Pete he and Paul Reiser are like twin brothers born 20 years apart.
Fact remains that Ringo was the better drummer. And their sound changed for the better when they got Ringo in. Perhaps they thought Ringo was more consistent and reliable as well, and would make the better Beatle from a personality standpoint
Pete was alright for a club full of drunk punters who want to dance to rock and roll, but that's about it. The other three outgrew him, and Ringo was already on their level, in both personality and musicianship. Sucks for Pete, but it was obviously the right thing to do for the band
Personality? Sorry but get drunk after a gigi is not personality
@@angelicagonzalez151 No, but laughing and joking around with the rest of the band is. Coming up with funny titles like A Hard Days Night and Tomorrow Never Knows is. Having plenty of witty one-liners at press conferences is. I could go on
Bang on👍⭐
@@angelicagonzalez151 Or using LSD as the Fab Four did often. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. LSD.
Isn`t it time to leave this , Pete was a very bad drummer and Ringo was the drummer the Beatles needed . End of the story .
Drummers in rock bands MUST be tight. It’s the backbone of the band. And Pete’s early records show that he wasn’t good enough. The Beatles wouldn’t have become ‘The Beatles’ with a weak link. Lovely man, it seems.
They wouldn't have lasted playing 8 hours a day for 2 with a "lousy " drummer.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - ironically, yes - they could easily last for 8 hours a day with a lousy drummer - playing for long hours doesn't guarantee that you'll be great, you have to also work on improvement simultaneously - that's what makes the "10,000 hour" theory work - otherwise, you simply play poorly for 10,000 hours
th-cam.com/video/5eHa9n4jbGw/w-d-xo.html
@@PIANOPHUNGUY Hi are you Pete? President of the fan club? Like to say "turned round" a lot? Hmmmmm???
Best was a momma's boy and at that time Ringo was well known as one of the best drummers in Liverpool.
The best drummer in Liverpool was someone with the last name Hutchison, yet he rejected joining the band and he was mad because of bests departure from The Beatles
Ringo was very well respected among Liverpool musicians, but he wasn’t known as the one and ONLY “best drummer 🥁 in Liverpool”. I love ❤️ Ringo, but this is a myth.
@@creeperkiller9795 You’re right, Fred Marsden the drummer 🥁 in Gerry and the Pacemakers said that Johnny Hutch from the BIG THREE was likely the best drummer in Liverpool. Hutch was more technical than Ringo and routinely did elaborate solos.
Rubbish
Why do you say Pete was a momma's boy? What does that even mean? And what is its relevance to his suitability as The Beatles' drummer?
Time mark 47 secs "he was just as good a drummer as Ringo if not better" ... are you kidding???? Listen .. I love Pete. He's an adequate drummer .. but that's just it .. he was just adequate. John, Paul and George were starting to excel as musicians and Pete would have never been able to come up to the standards that the Beatles ultimately needed in a drummer.
I buy the reason why he was sacked is due to Best was so distant to John,Paul, and George.The 3 lads are committing murder while Best was snooring in the basement.
John is correct they must be a solid unit.
Neil aspinall- Pete's friend, the same age as him - had a long relationship with Pete's mother and got her pregnant. I never knew what she looked like assuming she was some 'dolly bird' type. Obviously not!
So pete had a half brother by his mate and his mum.
mona was so attractive woman. the ways she talks and her manner could understand to a young boy could fell in love with her
Pete doesn’t talk about the poor Bernie Rogers who was sacked from Lee Curtis and the All Stars so he could join…….”unfairly.”
He arguably did better with his next group Denny Seyton And The Sabres
And when Lee Curtis got his recording contract the All Stars were left high and dry. Life can be “unfair”! Pete’s biggest mistake was NOT joining the MerseyBeats! They were a hot up and coming band in the Epstein stable and had a good recording career. Pete was offered a chance to be part of that and chose to join Lee Curtis….
I would have sacked Pete just for taking his mother to a television interview and then allowing her to do all the talking. We’ve heard the recordings with Pete Best on Anthology I. Pete was a shite drummer who couldn’t keep a steady four beat pattern at a consistent speed. Ringo was the perfect drummer for John, Paul and George and he just got better with them. There is no shame at not keeping up with John, Paul and George - not many could and definitely not Pete Best.
It was totally appropriate for Pete's mom to join him on that TV program, as she had been the band's unofficial manager and booking agent on and off for 3 years, even a year before Pete joined the band. If you're implying that Pete was some kind of a wuss, you're grossly mistaken. After one gig two girls ran into the venue where John, Paul, Pete, and George were packing up their equipment, screaming that Stu was being attacked by Teddy Boys in the alley. John and Pete ran outside and fought off the thugs, very possibly saving Stu's life. Paul and George?? Um, yeah, no...they just stayed safely inside. Talk about a couple of wusses!
It would have been cool to have had both of them in the band at the same time haha.
One the handsome drummer and the other one the better drummer.
Best was ok on stage, playing 4/4, but had zero variety in his playing. Listen to the Decca tapes. He butchered Love Me Do.
Could you imagine Best trying to play a complex pattern like “I Feel Fine?” He couldn’t and that pattern set the song.
With his looks he could have made it by himself, he's a great looking lad.
God, what a mama's boy he was back then. I'll bet she did his pretty hairdo in that early clip where she also did 90% of the talking for him.
You can tell he's a wuss and Mama's boy and he sucked!
No matter how they belittled Pete he was a part of the Beatles
Yeah, the Beatles made him a millionaire! One could argue that Pete didn't deserve that money, but John, Paul and George needed a regular drummer to 'pay their dues' with to 'hone their craft' with. Until they recruited Pete Best, they never had that in a drummer.....
I don't know why there's so much overthinking of this. It's been well documented both through anecdote and archival recordings that Pete's drumming was an Achilles hell and also personality wise he wasn't a fit. End of story. Sure, it plays like a Shakespearian tragedy from Best's perspective; but there's no dark conspiracy here.
I've never heard of a band member being sacked by a producer. George Martin told Brian Epstein that Pete Best was good enough for the cavern, but they needed a session musician for the records. After August 1966 with all the drugs that the Fab Four were taking, it was hard to keep a steady beat or keep a rhythm going on the guitar. Session musicians quite often were used to add another layer on top of any music that was played. Pete Best played 8 hours a day for 2 years. If he was a lousy drummer he wouldn't have lasted that long. Few young musicians had the "chops" to play as a studio musician. Even George Harrison had to let Eric Clapton play on "Something" . He may have written the guitar part , but wasn't good enough to play it in a studio session.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY Had to let Clapton play on 'Something'?!?!?!? George brought in Clapton to play the solo on 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'. But George wrote and played the solo on 'Something'. Here's a quote from the sound engineer on the Abbey Road album, Geoff Emerick...
Harrison also rerecorded his guitar solo in Studio Two at this session. According to details on the tape box, the solo was recorded after the orchestra session was completed, but Emerick maintains that the solo was cut simultaneously with the orchestra and on one or both of the same tracks.
"George certainly rose to the occasion and pulled it off brilliantly," Emerick says.
Emerick was present at the recording. Where did you get your bit of misinformation from?
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - that' not entirely accurate, Harrison invited Clapton because they were friends & he wanted him to play, not because Harrison was inadequate.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY You're mistaken about, "Something", it was, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and the only reason George brought Eric in to do it was because he knew John and Paul would never reject the song being on the album if Eric was on it. Very shrewd move by George, and necessary one, as John and Paul were very stingy about giving up album space to George. Enlisting Clapton worked like a charm. HOWEVER, you are 100% correct about Pete Best and George Martin. Martin signed The Beatles with Pete Best as their drummer, 2 months before Pete was sacked. He told Brian that for the first record he wanted to use a session man, that it was commonplace, and no one would ever know. He said Pete was plenty good enough for live performances and there's no reason why he shouldn't remain The Beatles drummer. Later on, after Ringo joined the group, Martin said, *"Pete Best had a sullen charm, and I was surprised to learn he'd been replaced. Pete was the best-looking Beatle, and the most marketable of the bunch."*
They simply CLICKED with Ringo. Quiet people hold back extroverted people. I know as that’s me.
Steve Jones, You make a good point. I personally think Pete was fired not just because of his drumming, but for "personality conflicts". After reading Pete's book, he basically admitted that he never had a strong friendship with either Paul or George. They were friendly bandmates, but never friends. Pete always claimed to have a strong friendship with John, but I never heard John substantiate that. George Harrison said, "History showed Ringo to be the member of the band". That pretty much sums it up....
Personality clashes are a tragic element of the human condition. But extroverts tend to be very unforgiving of introverts' different personas. It's very unfortunate.
Was Pete's mom the little league parent riding the coach for making her kid the starting pitcher?
tim nolan, Do you know that the Best Family Home was the Beatle headquarters? Their equipment was kept there and they would leave from there before heading out to gigs. The Best Family Home was the ONLY Beatle home that had a telephone, and prior to Brian Epstein becoming their manager Pete and his mother (Mona Best) handled the bulk of the Beatle management duties. She was the "little league parent" that WAS THE COACH. Mona Best worked on behalf of her sons band like any reasonable parent would do in her position.
@@jasona9 Look, I wasn't looking to offend, just making a light hearted comment about how most people are familiar with the archetype parent who thinks their child is the "star". I would like to think I can crack a mild joke on TH-cam of all things. Of all the vile hatred and trolling on this ENTERTAINMENT channel , you must be really busy. I wish u the best:))
@@timnolan4587 , You didn't "offend" me with your comment. You ended your first comment with a question mark, so I thought I would explain why Mona Best wasn't a "Little League Parent". She often gets a bad rap from Beatle fans, but after reading many books including Pete's Bio, she worked hard on behalf of the band.
@@jasona9 But this also could be a reason they fired Best. They were tired of him mom.
I saw Pete Best in concert 1995 in Hamburg with Tony Sheridan. There was little more than a simpe 4 bar pattern he played all evening. Something you learn in the first week of drumming. Apart from that Ringo‘s personality sat extremely well with the others.
I heard a clip here on TH-cam where John said he wanted to dispel the myth that Pete Best was a good drummer. He said something like, "We were always planning to dump him. He never improved, you know?" They went on to sell more albums and singles than any band in history and these dumb asses still insist on second guessing John and Paul and imagining that they know what was best for THEIR band. Do you think Pete Best could have handled everything The Beatles threw at him--all the experimental music and the sheer variety of their catalog, with all of its unusual tempos and time signatures--and handled it as deftly as Ringo did? I don't and I suspect you'd agree with me.
On top of that, I've read that when Mark Lewisohn was doing research for his definitive set of books about The Beatles he had access to the logs kept at Abbey Road studios and literally listened to every single one of their recording sessions. You know how a band will start a song and then have to stop because someone made a mistake? According to Lewisohn, in 8 years worth of recording, The Beatles only had to stop--quote--fewer than a dozen times due to a mistake on Ringo's part. Fewer than a dozen is 11 or less. Do you know what 11 mistakes in 8 years averages out to? It means that for 3 years Ringo made 2 mistakes per year and for 5 years he made 1 mistake per year. Now bear in mind that The Beatles probably had at least 200 recording sessions and that a session could last all day.
Keith Novinski - absolutely agree with that. Best wasn’t up to the Beatles.
@@Achime03 As for what you said about seeing Pete Best, I've seen clips of him playing sometime within the past 10 years and he had to have another drummer playing alongside him. I realize he's not a young guy but for someone who's been drumming since the 1950's, he ought to be good enough to handle the drums by himself at a minimum. Another question worth asking is why he didn't have a successful recording career once he left The Beatles? Brian Epstein set him up with another band and they even recorded an album but it never came to anything. I get so tired of all of these idiots who can't seem to take something at face value. They always try to imagine there's some angle to something that's actually cut and dried.
Just listening to the Decca Tapes with Pete on drums. It appears to me that he is not doing the job a drummer ought to do: To be the whip of the band. That’s what the guys before your drums need and what you need to give them. He is holding back all the time. I appreciate the situation but the others are boldly trying their best to save it with their voices but to little avail. Maybe it was meant to be like this otherwise they hadn’t met George Martin. :-)
@@Achime03 I don't know enough about drumming to understand what's going on but I know that Ringo made the songs exciting. I heard their Decca demo and it lacked something. And I've listened to a clip on TH-cam where a guy plays the Pete Best version of "Love Me Do" with subtitles explaining how Best is playing too fast or too slow or varying the beat. DJ Fontana--himself considered one of the greatest of rock and roll drummers--said Ringo "never varied from that tempo. He had the greatest conception of tempo I've ever heard in my life. I have never heard anybody play that steady in my life, and that's a long time." I've also read that Ringo's playing was so precise and consistent that George Martin found it easy to piece together various takes of songs and make it sound like one the only version recorded.
I've heard this lame story many times over the years. I do feel for him because he missed out on the fame and money but the bottom line is he just wasn't that good of a drummer. George Martin had every intention of replacing him in the studio and it even affected his opinion of Ringo later. He just assumed it was going to be the same problem as it was with Pete and then Ringo proved him wrong. Lennon was brutally honest for the most part and if Best had been fired for personality or jealousy reasons, he would have said so at least once in interviews. His story was consistent over the years- Ringo was just a better drummer and made them better as a group.
Pete Best always seems like a nice fellow, but personality counts at times, and Pete was a little too shy for the Beatles, and if he had a pushy Mother could you imagine how that would have worked out when the Beatles became huge ? Pete got a nice royalty cheque when Anthology came out, so he got paid some long overdue wages.
I'm sure Pete and Mona were not on the best of terms much of his adult life due to her helicopter ways.
Pete and Ringo could have easily swapped bands at that time. Just as the Beatles hired Ringo to replace Pete, Ringo's former band The Hurricanes could have hired Pete Best to replace Ringo. It would have been a win-win.
Lewisohn said that Pete was offering the drumming job with the Hurricanes right after he was fired but he turned them down.
Pete Best should have created his own band and live his life.
he did , you mean you never heard of them ?
@@christopherstarr8050 no, not good enough. I've heard of the rolling stones though
@@blicky2blacky Not all the good bands get the breaks
pete didn't look right he never even had a beatle hair cut
Neither did the other Beatles at the time
@@eitanostrovsky6335 Pete stayed with the 50's style pompadour looking part from the other BeaTles.
dagenhamdave Astrid the original Beatle Barber 💈 (and photographer) stated that Pete had naturally wavy hair, and the ‘Beatle cut’ wouldn’t have worked on him well. Pete stated that neither Brian or any member of the band asked him to change his haircut. Pete insists the ‘mop top’ wasn’t an official group cut at that time, so he kept the style he had.
Always been fascinated by the way he talks.I need subtitles because his lips barely move!
First of all, any Beatles fan who is familiar with all the recordings knows that Pete was not cutting it for a band that was progressing. He might have been good enough to start, but he didn't grow with the others. It's all there, just listen to the first go at Love Me Do in June 1962. Secondly, it's claimed here that the drumming was "used as an excuse." Tell me, what motivation did George Martin have to keep Pete off of recordings if not his lack of ability to cut it in a recording studio? All this said, I think Pete's album Hayman's Green is bloody brilliant.
In my humble opinion, Pete Best did a fine job on The Beatles first recording session at EMI Studios on June 6,1962. The Beatles recorded "Besame Mucho", "Love Me Do", "P.S. I Love You" and "Ask Me Why" Only Besame Mucho and Love Me Do have survived the years and we're released on Anthology 1.
I especially like "Besame Mucho".
Pete played well enough to help the Beatles get the record deal, but not good enough to record with them. He could have continued to play live without recording, but John, Paul & George preferred Ringo for both recording & live.
Ultimately, Ringo proved himself to be the superior drummer to Pete for both live & recorded Beatles' songs.
True, Pete never improved and as John simply said Ringo made a better Beatle. But here's something that nobody has brought up. British bands did not want that "bum" group The Beatles in Hamburg because they were really bad. Without a drummer they couldn't go to Hamburg. Without Pete, The Beatles would not have improved and never have made the big time. Pete's a hero not a zero.
The one speaker is incorrect. Pete Best missed gigs not because he was sick but because he headed back to Liverpool early a few times or came back a bit late
That's false. And no Beatle has ever said what you're claiming. STFU and do your homework, punk.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Lennon when he was pissed off called him Best the worst drummer and ranted about how he missed so many gigs. Looks into
@@jtshark9283 He never said what you claimed, so STFU, or post the quote proving your claim.
@@Cosmo-Kramer look on youtube. Lennon goes off on him missing gigs and not being good. Lennon even said, they had no idea why he missed some gigs
@@Cosmo-Kramer Quote "He was a terrible drummer that could only keep one beat going long enough ..." - right off the recording of Lennon.
Ringo sounds so much like his Dad. That slightly monotone voice.
I think that's his stepdad, but yeah hahaha
Sweet guy, maybe his drumming wasn't the greatest but he was still a member of the band for two years. It's not that they got rid of him it's HOW they did it. He deserved a face to face explanation from the group as to why they were replacing him and a farewell. The way they got rid of him was real two faced, back door shit. They didn't have the guts to face him so they made Brian epstein do it. To this day, McCartney still won't talk to the guy, but pete has never spoke ill about any of them publicly even though he's had every right to.
Paul or is it Faul? McCartney is still a coward to this very day? Well checks out.
Epstein was the manager - it’s his job to do things like inform one member he’s been sacked. And why does anyone have to stay in touch with Pete - they weren’t close friends. Just one of those people who is in your life for a while but then leaves it.
Whatever the pros and cons the fact is Ringo was the right piece in the jigsaw that Made 4 naturally talented musicians who were more than the som of there parts and when John Paul or George took a song into the studio the other 3 were all willing to help and don’t forget there was often not much to go on it was there natural collective musical contribution that made the song end up the way they did and that means all of them it simply A NATURAL ACT! Pete deserved his money but RINGO made the band more solid ask any bass player I am one!
"He's not even the Best drummer in the Beatles."
That quote is a myth. There is no evidence that John Lennon ever said that. John called Ringo, "A damn good drummer". Now that quote is documented.
Sir George made the decision not to use him in the studio - go listen to the analysis of his playing on the initial take of Love Me Do to see how bad he really was.
Rubbish. The only reason Pete struggled with, "Love Me Do", at the EMI audition was because George Martin abruptly changed the arrangement, ditching the skip-beat Pete had been playing it with in the clubs. EMI sound engineer working the session, Norman Smith, said, *"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather what he was being told to play with the new arrangement."* The Beatles recorded 4 songs that day, but recordings of only two of those songs survive today. The other one being, "Besame Mucho", which Pete nails. ps~Paul McCartney was livid that Martin changed the arrangement on, "Love Me Do", as not only did it throw Pete off, but it completely threw Paul off his vocals.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Cosmo, I've been watching some videos on Pete Best here on youtube. This is very interesting information. Changing arrangements takes time for any musician. Do you have any other "tidbits" from the Beatles or other rock bands and studio record making? If you've been playing a song one way and have to change it because of some record producer dictator, you need some time to practice it. The Beatles were young and didn't have many years of playing under their belt. Playing in Germany for over 2 years taught them a lot. The 10,000 hour learning curve. If Pete Best hadn't come along, the Beatles would have been any other mediocre Wedding Party band for the next few years.
@@Cosmo-Kramer - there is literally no evidence to substantiate what you're saying here
what is obvious is Ringo's superior drumming to Pete's
PB - th-cam.com/video/e3Oc67FdcpY/w-d-xo.html
Ringo - th-cam.com/video/7uQuX1sOYk4/w-d-xo.html
Clearly, Ringo's is stronger - used for their first single as well.
Ironically (and strangely), the studio drummer Andy White's is equally as strong as Ringo's & was used in the PPM album at the time - th-cam.com/video/0pGOFX1D_jg/w-d-xo.html
The Andy White version is arguably superior to them all, but not because of his drumming - rather, because the overall recording is more in tune & more tightly mixed, compressed & recorded.
@@PIANOPHUNGUY - Ringo was able to work with immediate studio changes on the fly - that's how they recorded - Best simply didn't have the skills that RIngo had - th-cam.com/video/2hHE0i4uIJI/w-d-xo.html
@@njiuma Actually, what I posted is common knowledge for any real Beatles fan. You're just uncommonly ignorant. Martin did indeed ambush the lads with a new arrangement for, "Love Me Do", that day and Norman Smith did say what I quoted for him above, that Pete's drumming wasn't the problem, it was the new arrangement. One other song survives from the audition, "Besame Mucho", and Pete nailed it. It's on Anthology, go listen to it and educate yourself.
i agree youre not a bad drummer sir pete, youre just having bad luck cause you happened to be with the greatest band ever, one of the best composer writer musician is with the band so they expect you to be the best same as them thats the one reason you are out , in my opinion.
Karma: Paul later blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed.
Shut it......
I've been playing drums for 13 years 14 this month. And one thing that I've learned when it came to the Beatles and the whole Pete best and Ringo thing is it's a very simple reason and we keep forgetting that we should be focusing on Paul McCartney in the situation business-wise, I'm a Beatles fan not a huge Beatles fan but I respect them and I love some of their work I do I'm a Pink Floyd guy King crimson for me as bandersnatch. But Pink Floyd most of all for their experimentation and their sound really pre Gilmore and also with David Gilmore of course. When they sack Pete we need to remember that he was playing for two years straight and live environments really never had a chance from what I read to play in the studio professionally. So now we speed it up to the auditions with emi before they became part of eMI they're playing in an environment that is built for a classical recording and the recording equipment in the studio is for classical music. So why this is important to remember is because these are only 100 amp four-track recording systems meaning the PA system is no more than probably a hundred Watts I believe at that time in 1962 maybe more. And that whole entire time Pete is playing live you have to remember he has to make up for a poor bass player tiny amplifier systems and s***** stage environments and he has to be an explosive drummer for 7 hours a night. This would add wear and tear on any drummer I don't care how young you are how many amphetamines you take how much coke you're blowing you're going to get tired and you're going to get pretty distant. But while these auditions are happening Pete doesn't have time to get used to that environment Pete doesn't have time to look at the size of his studio how high the ceilings are why??? because when you're drumming on on tape real to real you have to remember that if those acoustics are heavy therebis no dampening available yet. which means while Pete is drumming the best he can it's hard as he can that studios recording equipment are getting distorted sounds and you can't turn the sound down on tape you can only adjust it not volume sound. So by the time they're done with their auditions George Martin's going over everything, overly distorted as well as an extremely explosive drumming track over the other guys and no matter how much you mix that you're not going to be able to put that all together unless you drowned it out with reverb. Another reason why Pete got sacked not only because he was late and you can look at this online you can look at the Abbey road log books. I think Paul McCartney and Brian Epstein were the backbone of this because again Ringo not only was he a better drumme, at that time in terms of volume musicianship and mechanics he had a lot of publicity every band in Liverpool waned Ringo so what does Paul McCartney do him and Brian Epstein and the rest of the band come up with an excuse and therefore pushes Pete out of the band was Ringo Starr a better drummer than Pete well I've listened to my Bonnie I've listened to Love Me do they both have about have the same ability so I'm not going to say whether or not Ringo at that time was better than Pete Ringo was more of an adequate. And versatile drummer overall because you could use him in a studio and you could use Ringo live and you can always look behind you and have a drummer keeping the beat each and every time all the time because Ringo was playing a couple years longer than Pete was before Pete started with the Beatles And when Pete started with the Beatles he didn't know how to play very well at all like the rest of the boys so I'm making my point and this is my opinion because of my own experiences and my own journey drumming and what I've learned for the past 13 years is that when you put money in the band together and you add that record company that's when the drama starts and you have to have a thick skin in this kind of business and Pete really didn't have it Pete was quiet which is okay what I don't agree with is with Mona riding Brian Epstein and trying to you know overpower him when the decision was made with very adequate and logical reasons she was looking at it from an emotional standpoint. I don't think it was right either but at the end of the day we got to remember too that Pink Floyd had the similar situation with yd Barrett! and at least the band paid homage to the mate and didn't take them a million years to get syds royalties after he left the group or excuse me sacked, what takes away from me being an overall fan of The Beatles is that simple fact right there they didn't even have the common courtesy to say it to Pete's face that's how I roll anyway I've been sacked twice in my 13 years of drumming so I could learn from my mistakes and that's what the band is always done for me any band that I play with come to my door and tell me to my face you know. And to be truth be honest with it every Beatles fan on here yes it's very true that as you get older because again we do need to remember when the Beatles started playing they were kids too, and again at this point in musical evolution probably one of the hottest things that you would ever try in your life is being a rock and roller I loved playing on stage I I sacrifice growing up for relationships being on stage over that that's how much I love music I'm married with two kids now so obviously my music has gotten more serious and I'm still working on certain tracks before I post them if you guys want the Facebook page where you can hear my beats instrumentals and other recordings just ask in the comment reel, you grow apart eventually and Ringo needed to be in there that was part of the Beatles in there journey Ringo was going to be that drama and I like Ringo I love his drumming because I'll be honest with everybody I learned throughout my years and drumming my volume and my disciplining carrying a steady beat with three to six minutes by listening to Ringo's drum tracks Ringo is important to rock and roll cuz I do disagree with the majority of the community I think that Keith Moon is the best drummer in rock and roll personally I guess if you're thinking about popular rock and roll which The Beatles were they were pop group but Ringo earned it and that's awesome.
Jesus Christ dude, did you ever hear of PARAGRAPHS?! lol Seriously, man, trying to read your GIANT BLOCK OF TEXT is enough to give someone a splitting headache! I suggest you edit it and break it up into multiple paragraphs. I was able to scan it with my eyes and I did see one thing in particular you're dead wrong about, and that is the notion that Ringo was more versatile because he could play well live AND in the studio, whereas Pete was only experienced and a solid performer in live settings. Ummm...George Martin rejected Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", the same as he had rejected Pete's.
I think Hal Blaine was better than Ringo Starr and Keith Moon. Hal Blaine played on many, many records of many bands.
If you listen to the interviews given by the others George was the first one who wanted to replace Pete with Ringo. Brian is the MANAGER and ultimately sacked Pete because the other three wanted Pete gone, and didn’t have the courage to tell him themselves ( and it may have ended up in a physical altercation). And your crap about not being able to perform a consistent four beat pattern is crap. Pete just didn’t get better technically and musically while the others did.
@@donna25871 Oh really?? Well this drummer disagrees. 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 - actually, they used Ringo's version for the LMD Single (their first release). they did use Andy White's version for the PPM album
Ringo - th-cam.com/video/7uQuX1sOYk4/w-d-xo.html
Andy White - th-cam.com/video/0pGOFX1D_jg/w-d-xo.html
John Lennon had no Guts to tell Pete himself. Nor Paul, Nor George. With Friends like those you don’t need any enemies. Beatle fans. Also one last thing it was said by John Lennon himself In an interview said that ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles so what does that tell you, no integrity no loyalty.
there is actually no record of lennon ever saying that .
@@christopherstarr8050 , You're right, "He (Ringo) isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles" is a MYTH. John Lennon never said that. John however did say some horrible things about Pete Best. Lennon never had the stones to "talk shit" to Pete's face, just behind his back. The "No guts" comment? I agree.
All bullshit. Pete was used for a tour. A better drummer replaced him. Thats it.
Sector 7 G, Pete Best was with the Beatles for two-years. August 1960 to August 1962. Pete wasn't used for "a tour". Furthermore, the Beatles had the opportunity to replace him earlier than they did, but chose to keep him.
he was two years in the band, from 1960 to 1962, that was more than a tour
There is still truth in this though. An opportunity came up to get Ringo, they took it because he was a better drummer. It really is that simple and happens in bands all the time. Its just unfortunate for Pete that they went on to be the biggest band ever.
@@paulmallon9292 , I agree with everything you wrote, yet feel sorry for Pete Best because too many Beatle fans remember him as an "anti-social misfit" or "musical incompetent" or "an unprofessional that deliberately missed gigs". The facts are that the Beatles became the hottest group in Liverpool and Hamburg with Pete on drums, and they had opportunities to replace him at least a year before they did.
Sorry, no Pete was not that good of a drummer. He was an okay drummer. Ringo Starr was one of the most in demand drummers in Liverpool at the time. Ringo played everywhere and anywhere and never missed a gig. Playing with 3 bands at the same time sometimes. Pete had trouble getting to all the Beatles gigs in Liverpool and Hamburg
Ringo did miss some gigs in Europe, Hong Kong, and Australia in 1964 as he was ill. He was briefly replaced by Jimmie Nicol. Ringo didn’t play drums on LMD (Album) and PSILY as George Martin thought that he’s “Crazy” and brought Andy White to play drums on the Beatles first single
@@beatlesfan2884 George Martin didn't reject Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", because he thought he was crazy. WTF does that even mean??? He rejected it because Ringo's timing was not good enough--which Paul McCartney agreed with, by the way.
@@Cosmo-Kramer What I mean was that George Martin wasn’t sure to have a drummer to play drums and percussion like Maracas at the same time
@@beatlesfan2884 Dude, what in God's name are you talking about? You are seriously confused on this matter. Explain yourself.
@@beatlesfan2884 - no, Ringo did play on their first Official release "Love Me Do" (LMD). White played on the version on the originally released PPM album.
There was no " LMD (Album)". Ringo played on all their other recorded material with a few minor exceptions.
Andy White DID play on "P.S. I Love You" (PSILY) - that is true.
That's about it, not a lot there.
John Lennon couldn't stand being bossed around by Mrs Best, Pete's mother.
What BS. Fact and on tape: After the audition with George Martin he told Brian Epstein that Pete best had to go. This why there are 3 recordings of Love Me Do. Best, session drummer, then Ringo. Lennon interview also said Pete was not good then.
I've heard the early recordings with Pete Best on drums and the evidence is there, he wasn't a strong drummer. John Lennon even said that in order for them to get to Hamburg they needed a drummer. Hearing Pete say that he's this great drummer well I look at it this way if he is really this great drummer then why didn't anyone else hire him. Also during Beatle mania they never talked about his drumming so maybe in the end they were trying to spare him the embarrassment of being a bad drummer.
After Pete was sacked he joined a few other bands, until the Liverpool music scene died out and he grew up and got a real job. He never grew his hair long in his 20's and 30's . His hair in 1962 was the same length as the Everly Bros. A little long but not "mop top" . Elvis also back in the late 50s and early 60s had that hair do. The Fab Four had 4 "HAIR DON'TS".
@@PIANOPHUNGUY That's not an answer dipshit.
Pete Best did not fit in. He may have been cuter than Ringo, but he did not even sport the Beatles' hair style. It was not a question of who is the better drumner....it is who would fit the band as a perfect Beatle...musically and personality wise.
Hair style? They were a well managed and produced boy band? Matching outfits. Witticisms . Well the British media really hyped them up. Briana Epstein paid girls who had never heard their music to wait for their plane in New York City in February 1964? Media hype? Just like the British media did with the Spice Girls or One Direction.
They got rid of him because of his mom is what they’re saying. Who does a press conference and let’s their mom speak for them?
Who's "they"???? smh What a nitwit comment.
He looks so embarrassed with his mum doing the talking for him.
I don't think he is, it's probably his first time in front of a TV camera and being nervous.
Mona Best was basically managed The Beatles in the period between coming home from Hamburg and Brian Epstein signing them.
The Best home was Beatles HQ where they kept the gear; assembled and left in the van to go to gigs and was the only Beatle house with a telephone to book gigs.
Considering her connections to the band she's quite right to be there and Pete says his mind in the same interview, which we see later in this video
Heh interesting but this was decided almost 60 years ago. Ringo got the Job. If you think Ringo is not a great and innovative drummer try to duplicate his parts..He played what the song required. I love John Bonham but he wouldn't have fit with the Beatles. He play with McCartney on some stuff, listen to a wings demo that Bonhams playing on a song called Beware my love. Bonhams Playing is great but (busy)listen to the version that was released, the drums fit the song better. The drummer has to fit the song and his personality has to fit the band..in the End that was Ringo!
Ringo added the same level of creative force to the group that the other three did. Pete never achieved that level of magical potential.
Good looking
The unceremonious and clumsy firing of Pete Best would never have become such a big deal IF The Beatles had not become such a hugely big deal ~> THE most commercially successful and influential band/group in music history! The decision has been proven by history itself to have been most fortuitous...
We should all remember the context and the time in which this occurred... it was 1962... The Beatles had not yet conquered the world -- and they were young, immature and overwhelmed with the desire and opportunity to become something really big...
It's OK to criticize the way it was handled as cold and callous... but history has proven that the decision was the right one at the right time ~ and the combination of John, Paul, George and Ringo has proven to be the magical formula for them to have become the most commercially successful and influential band/group in music history! There's little room for argument about THAT.
I do believe Mr. Best got the worst treatment in show biz history, not to mention the damage of his reputation. And I appreciate that his mom gave The Beatles a place to play, and that Pete may have been depressed after being let go, but it's better for a man to defend himself rather than have his mom defend him by his side on television.
He simply wasn’t a good drummer. He was lucky to have ever played with a touring band.
Haha, this is so ridiculous. If you listen to the recordings with Pete, you get the answer: He can't hold rhe time and he has no fantasy. A boring drummer. If you're not capable to hear this, ask John, Paul and George why they wanted Ringo instead of Pete. There's a lot of interviews. The greatest band in the world with such great musicians, but still you don't trust them. Instead there's all this rubbish about why they fired the poor guy. Let's face it. He wasn't good enough. Simple as that.
If Pete Best was a great drummer he would have been sought out by other bands and would have made a name for himself. He didn’t. Pete Best became a character in the Beatles’ story
I was thinking the same thing
Massive uproar when Pete got sacked, he was massively popular, girls sleeping in his front garden, According to Pete Best and a few of his friends that is.
Reality check, he was in other bands and they failed to make it, even with the legendary Pete Best Fronting the bands, I guess his huge fan base was really only in his mind
The uproar in the Cavern was probably only for the first week or so.
Albert Tatlock, "In Liverpool Pete Best was the most popular member of the Beatles, especially with the girl fans" - BILL HARRY (Editor of the Merseybeat Newspaper)
@@Wired4Life2 , I love the Beatles and RINGO! He was the perfect drummer for that group. Both you and Albert are entitled to your opinions, not your facts. The facts are that Brian Epstein needed a bodyguard to leave his office after he fired Pete Best. George Harrison received a black eye. In additions hundreds of Liverpool Beatle fans signed a petition demanding his reinstatement. The protests lasted longer than a week.
@@jasona9 Not according to _Tune In_ by Mark Lewisohn (page 682 of 2013 American abridged version):
-
"While a posse of disgruntled teenage girls did make their feelings known, the situation was never quite as inflamed as hindsight would suggest. Pete had plenty of fans but never the majority, and while Ringo himself would sensationalize by claiming there were 'riots in the streets' over his appointment, this storm passed quickly: broad consensus confirms it was all over between one and two weeks later."
-
And that excerpt is surrounded by primary source quotes and diary/journal entries of Cavern attendees at the time.
@@Wired4Life2 , Mark Lewisohn has a very anti-Pete Best Agenda. I would not take his work as gospel. What I wrote in my previous posts are documented facts. Brian demanded a bodyguard, a petition was created, Harrison's black-eye, Bill Harry calling Pete the "most popular Beatle". Lewisohn can write what he wants, but those things happened according to the people that were there. Mark Lewisohn it too young to say he was there. You mention, "excerpt is surrounded by primary source quotes". Lewisohn wasn't there, and likely "cherry picks" quotes to fit his agenda.
Bruh, try listening Ringo’s drumming in “rain” no way Pete can do that.
Koala,ascolta la versione di " Kansas city" e dimmi dei due chi ha suonato quella più bella, sicuramente il batterista originale.......
Being from India, I always expected him to talk with more of an Indian accent.
idiot,,,, they had Irish ancestry and raised in liverpool
Perhaps Pete was indeed not too skilled drummer and not a good fit for late 1962 Beatles, but his contribution into initial development of the band is unquestionable. Definitely he did not deserve that deal of hatred and negativity including his former bandmates. Obviously the way he had been fired from the band was mean, ignominious, unethical and unprofessional. Okay, whatever happened, happened. But I've always been asking myself a question: why did Pete himself let this episode become a shaping factor of his whole further life?! Why didn't he get into a university, perhaps move to the States, become a lawyer, an engineer, a physician or a businessman? He is a smart guy, certainly he could've succeeded and forgot all that beatlejuice stuff forever and ever. Instead, he's been keep focusing on Beatles' success, trying to catch up with them and only wasted out much of his energy and sinking in depression to the point of attempting suicide. And why did he, a grown up young man, continued to stay in this Liverpool with his mommy? Well, at least he finally got pretty good royalties (we all know that) and became financially secured and happy since 1990s. At least he can safely say: "been there, done that".
Nikitas1978 Did he really get enough royalties to be set? How well?
@@ellonysman afaik a few million usd/pounds from anthology 1, in mid 1990s.
Exactly. Without Pete the Beatles story doesn’t happen. They don’t go to Hamburg and they don’t become famous. Whether you think he was a rubbish drummer or not. I’ve listened to all his recordings on Anthology 1 and he’s no where near as bad as everyone makes out. His drumming on Ain’t She Sweet is very good.
I love how he has the audacity to say "I'm not a bad drummer" 🤣
We can all hear his drumming
Like no one has been fired from a band! I've read so much about The Beatles and for one thing, George Martin was not impressed with Pete Best! Maybe the way it was done was not the right way OK but again a lot of musicians have been fired from a band and they didn't go on and on about it! Ozzy Osborne was kicked out of his band, he didn't go on and on and didn't say he didn't understand why. He also didn't have his mum come to his defence publicly with him and state: 'Oh why was I let go, I don't understand' oh my God come on! Also, I have seen so many interviews with Pete Best and he has changed his story a few times. This is only my opinion.
He got sacked in 1962 and has dined out on it since
@Peter Grahame It's okay, but he's still whining about it.
@@L0REN0R2Z0RR0 Untrue, Pete did some whining in the 1980's (his appearance on the David Letterman Show), but since then he has been very gracious in interviews. Why not, his two-year association with the Beatles made him a MILLIONAIRE.
Albert Tatlock, sure he may have "dined out on it since", but he earned that meal.
I’ll take George Martins version. Pete Best couldn’t keep time very well. Nobody said he was terrible !! Just couldn’t keep a proper beat !!
That usually makes a drummer terrible, if he couldnt keep time
Geo Martin always comes across as reliable. I dont see him ever having said something outrageous. McCartney's stories are always questionable. Lennon could be very mean. etc.
Martin rejected Ringo's version of, "Love Me Do", because Martin deemed his timing to be not good enough. Macca agreed. One week later, Martin brought in session drummer, Andy White, to do the official recording of the song.
I believe Pete does,receive a royalty check from the Beatles because I think he's recorded on a song or two.
@@driesvandongen1803 Anthology
Wasn't he a mummy's boy.
Is there anybody here that knows the names of the people talking in this video?
Well could you imagine Pete wearing a Neru jacket, love beads, smokin' weed, etc.? I think that he was a bit too much of a traditionalist to fit in to what The Beatles had in mind. He wouldn't even change his hair style, let alone put on psychadelick garb. Ringo was lucky, but he was also the right guy for the job.
He couldn't do the hairstyle because he had wavy hair. You need straight hair for the Beatles cut.
@@TuberOnTheLoose No, later you saw Pete with long hair (and a mullet.) It would have been a bit more of a challenge with wavy hair, but he could have done it.
Pete was way more handsome than the rest of the Beatles
No doubt
The three Beatles should have the guts to tell Pete to his face
Lets go to the comments and see what the experts think
Pete Bess wasn’t a bad drummer, he just wasn’t the style that the rest of the Beatles wanted.
Pete was much more straightforward with a punk/surf style of playing, unfortunately the Beatles were going for a more pop sound.
The funny thing is that Ringo is better than Best.
The Beatles did Best a favor. Paul was so controlling that George almost quit the band and John physically put Yoko between himself and the bassist as a passive-aggressive way of saying, "Back off!"
It looks like the wifey is the culprit. And I don't mean Mrs. Best. Just that the band would be successful if they are all unstringed.