The OBVIOUS REASON PETE BEST Was FIRED by the BEATLES |
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- The reasons for the Beatles sacking of Pete Best are plainly obvious to everyone in the world except Pete Best. This video backs up the reason the Beatles gave for "firing" Pete Best, which was because he wasn’t a good enough drummer for them. Get opinions from John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, George Martin and more.
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: rb.gy/nhcy3
The Beatles Anthology vol. 1 CD (fea. Pete Best tracks) amzn.to/3m63WP8
The Beatles All These Years: Tune In book by Mark Lewisohn: amzn.to/3lVaWxY
THE BEATLES MINUTE: Pete Best's Drumming on "Love Me Do"
• THE BEATLES MINUTE: Pe...
VIDEO Pete Best - Talks about The Beatles, Hamburg, Anthology & more
Radio Broadcast 01/19/2020: • Video
I met Pete Best at the Halifax Casino in the mid 90’s, and said to him, “it was probably a blessing in disguise it worked out the way it did.” He responded, almost tearing up, “I’ve had a great life, I’ve done well, the Anthology is taking care of me in retirement.”
He must have been pretty bad, cause Ringo was average at best
@@charlespious1073 Are you a drummer?
@@charlespious1073 Ringo is far from average.
And the last part of your handle probably says alot lol
@@charlespious1073 the greatest? Didn't he make HIS drums sing??
Wow. You really approached him as a stranger and said that ? That seems very rude.
McCartney: "We fell in love with Ringo's drumming."
Harrison: "Ringo just felt right."
Lennon: "We were sick of Pete. He was a lousy drummer." 😆
Speaking on the same subject, even decades apart, they still round each other out so well. I love it.
Hear Hear...Ringo was more Exciting...
When you get Lennon and McCartney agreeing on something in the 70s you know you're in trouble.
John also said Ringo was a" better Beatle "and immediately shaved his beard and was all in. Pete wanted to stay a Teddy..
Macca: Romantic
George: Spiritual
John: Direct and caustic
Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.
I love how brutally honest John Was . Don't sugar coat it , it only makes it worse . How does Pete think Marilyn Monroe's first husband felt ? Talk about something to cry about .
Just linked this to someone and re-watched it. Pete's alleged confusion whether intentional or not, is simply good marketing. If Pete finally admitted why he was sacked, nobody would ever interview him again, however, by acting dumbfounded it keeps the "mystery" alive and continues to attract interest. It also paints Pete as a perpetual victim which creates sympathy. Apparently whenever anyone spoke to Pete, they turned round first. Great video.
He knew very well even in 70s. He was interviewed on tonight show. He said "jealousy:
That could very well be.
@@zarni000 The crap from his mouth matches the crap from his drums.
@@zarni000that’s a vain lie. He wasn’t a good drummer, simple as that.
@@ExcitedAnacondaSnake-hg8ec also they didn't mesh well. He wasnot like the others. More of a 1950s guy
Groove is a hard thing to explain, so a lot of young musicians go for a few years with whatever drummer they met in high school, not knowing any better - and yes, the high school guy is fairly competent … but one day - another drummer who has a solid groove shows up, and sits in, and suddenly everybody goes: "What … Just … Happened?!?" … it's not like the groove guy was playing crazy chops or anything, it's just that he locks in so well, and suddenly everybody can just feel the difference - there's just no mistaking it, there's no denying it, and most important of all - there's no going back - that's what happened to Pete & The Beatles, and it's happened to tens of thousands of bands since.
Rush is a perfect example. Their first drummer was ok. Then Neil Peart showed up. We all know what happened next.
I can relate to this. I play drums and guitar. When I started high school it was at an arts school. I joined a band playing guitar. The guy playing drums had the heart but, drums is my first instrument and I loved it also. He just wasn't that good honestly, very sloppy in fact. But I knew he loved playing and I wasn't gonna take that from him. He started being really mean to me and I couldn't understand why... So, one night at a party a few months before, between sets, me and the lead guitarist were jamming with me on drums and everyone instantly noticed the difference and the actual drummer got jealous. A few years later he told me he was jealous, and that was the point at which he became jealous that's how I know. Me and that guitarist played in several bands together for the next 10-15 years. Our chemistry was great...Not because of my looks or popularity (because I was new to the school he'd been there for a while before me. I wasn't popular by a long shot. At least not before that party afterwords was another story.. lol) because of my feel. He claimed I stole his best friend and his band. So this goes to prove your point. And a good drummer is hard to find. Technical ability is one thing but, you must play for the song and you must have chemistry with the other musicians. I did both of those and Ringo did also that's clear. Me and the guitarist only stopped playing together because he moved to Arizona and I still live in Ohio. And whenever he comes home we still find a way to jam. Because we love music, not attention. I felt bad for a long time until the drummer told me why he'd been such a jerk to me. Then I just stopped hanging around him or anyone he associates with. Because he could be really messy and dramatic. All over my love for music. 🤦🏿♂️🤷🏾♂️
@@solomonlee5298 I know what you mean by being locked in with someone.
My cousin and I were 14 when he started playing guitar and I played drums. We played everything we could figure out back then (most rock of the mid 70's).
I got to the point of knowing intutivly knowing when breaks, changes, tempos were going to happen. Almost like reading each others minds...
@@artguti1551 Exactly. Like there's another person in the room as we musicians say right? That's awesome you guys started playing together so young. Makes for great times growing up. We learned 60s 70s 80s and 90s tunes. He's 34 and I'm 35 now. Grew up on Beatles, Black Sabbath and Nirvana.
Stavros TheHun Agree 100%. Her drumming gave them a certain sound. It would be interesting to hear their early stuff with a different drummer. I’m sure he has done the old White Stripe music live sans Meg.
If he was such a good drummer, why didn’t any other major bands hire him?
Good point!!!
That's really good question. One question I've always been anxious to get answered is Bernard Purdie's claim that he played on some Beatles tracks; here we have a player who has absolute no need to 'pad his resume' at all mentioning that he 'fixed' a few tracks but can't remember which ones.
@@63Baggies There’s two versions of the Beatles backing Tony Sheridan on “My Bonnie” and “Ain’t She Sweet”. The original with Pete Best, and the version found on anthology with new drums overdubbed in the late 60s, presumably by Purdie. It’s my guess that once Beatlemania took off he may have been brought in to replace drums on some of the other Hamburg material to make it suitable for release. As far as him performing on Ringo-era Beatles music, I’d guess he’s either confused or full of hot air.
I saw him play in an ad hoc band at Chiller Theater in E. Rutherford, NJ over a decade ago. They played Helter Skelter. He was off then.
Ginger Baker, one of the best drummers ever. What did he do after Cream? One album with Blind Faith and then a whole lot of who cares. Pete Best soon left the music business and went into civil service where he became a regional training manager.
Pete: I was a better drummer than Ringo plus the Beatles were jealous of me.
Reporter: Who said that?
Pete: Me mum.
There's something called the name curse.
I guess Pete wasn't Best.
Oh snap that's harsh
"When I was a little boy, way back home in Liverpool, My Mama told me, I was Great!"- "I'm the Greatest" Ringo Starr.
@@leighfoulkes7297 Everybody's mum tells them that, but not when they're 20 year old and on national TV.
Snap and wack...plus in with the boot!!
I feel really bad for the guy, regardless of how good he is or isn't. It must be miserable to have every conversation of your life be centered around why you got replaced.
Indeed. Nice to see at least some people express some empathy for the guy here. Other than that, I think Paul and George put it best in the video and also quite diplomatically. With Ringo it just clicked and there was no going back
Knowing you just missed THAT boat must be huge drag also.
True, but if you can make a living from telling that story over and over again without having to be on the road playing venues like crazy the way the Beatles did for years, then you can feel a bit less bad about it.
Well, I think he loves it. It is his chance to keep on telling lies that they were jealous, because he is was more handsome and so on. And he earns money for that. No, people. He does it for living. And loves it. But...we can see him playing. Yes, he was not a good drummer at all. That is why he was replaced.
@@peach495 Come on, he had no idea the Beatles would be so famous. That was their first record! The Beatles also didn't know they would succeed. And maybe they would have flopped if Pete had remained. So, they are not to blame at all.
George is such a class act. He doesn't say Pete Best was crap, he just says Ringo was the Beatle. Sweet George.
The Beatles themselves had no problem with Pete or his drumming, but personality-wise I think Ringo was a better fit.
George could have said Ringo wasn't crap.
@@TuberOnTheLoosewatch the vid without dozing off lol
Paul too. Two of the most humble and grounded artists ever, especially for all of their genius and popularity.
@@TuberOnTheLoosewax was
The split tracks on Love Me Do says everything.
I absolutely agree with everything here. Was Ringo the most technically gifted drummer? No. However, Ringo was a gifted musician who played unique, memorable drum parts that most Beatles fans would recognize without the song! More amazingly, he did so without ever becoming self-indulgent or overbearing musically. He knew he was supporting three incredibly gifted singer, songwriter musicians and his role was to support the song. He may not be John Bonham or Ginger Baker, but he was a great drummer and he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. I really can't imagine anyone else behind the kit for that band.
Your comment is the most accurate I've seen. I know a drummer who thinks Ringo was a shit drummer. I don't think he's ever listened to Ringo's drumming! Ringo was an innovator. You are quite right about his rhythms being instantly recognisable. On his own terms he stands up against any rock drummer.
@@colinpumpernickel2605 The ONLY people who slag off Ringo, are non drummers!
Stupid SOB's with no taste or sense or rhythm.
As soon as anyone starts having a go at Ringo and bigging up Pete Best, you know they've never sat behind a drum kit in their entire life!
I agree with what you said, but at the time Pete Best was fired, there was no Ginger Baker or John Bonham - there was no star drummer in rock and roll or pop music. It was very typical for producers to use session drummers on pop recordings, and it was not unusual for management to sign the front man of a young band as a solo artist and back them on tours with seasoned pros. The fact that Ringo was good enough for a top producer like George Martin to play on the recordings of an unproven young pop band - which the Beatles were at that moment in time - says a lot. I could be wrong, but I think Martin only brought in a session drummer for Love Me Do and Please Please Me, which in retrospect was probably a good idea as an insurance policy.
I agree with almost all of that. I would raise my eyebrow at the 'was Ringo the most technical' you could say that about any drummer really as the most is one person. It suggests he wasn't technical which I disagree with. Ringo's timing is second to none but he plays for the music rather than himself.
It's interesting though, what makes a technical drummer? Is it the ability to find the heartbeat of a song and keep the band to a rock steady beat or the ability to explain what you were doing afterwards?
The great studio drummer, Bernard "Pretty" Perdie was used anonymously on dozens of Beatle tracks to replace the drum tracks Ringo had put down because Ringo's drumming was not considered to be up to par. Even Quincy Jones verified this. Quincy had no use for Ringo at all, and thought he was a horrible drummer.
But to me, more puzzling than the Pete Best incident is why the Rolling Stones got rid of Brian Jones - a founder of the band. No one ever accused him of being an inadequate musician. That situation suggested personality conflicts (particularly with Mick Jagger) more so than artistic differences. But nobody talks much about the Brian Jones incident, so not a lot of information about it (that I know of) is available concerning his firing from his own band.
The way Ringo approached the drums is pure genius. It’s not a matter of technical ability, Ringo’s playing elevated it to an art form. Just listen to ‘Ticket to Ride’. Understated brilliance. And his time is amazing. Steady, but smooth like butter. I’ve played drums professionally for 45 years and I can tell you that in the drumming community, Ringo is highly regarded as a unique and talented player.
He most surely is! Ringo is one of the all time greats.
Yeah man Ticket to Ride is just such a heavy groove! And then you've got Tomorrow Never Knows, You're Going To
Lose That Girl with that crazy backbeat and his epic performance on A Day In The Life. Genius!!
Robert . I found out the other day , and this came from Richard , Ringo was lefty and and set his kit up as if he was righty . There have been slight delays in some of the rolls he did .It was great and It made his sound different . A guitar player asked him , on his show , how he got this sound that other drummers could not copy . It was because he would over compensate . Instead of going from the tom tom on the bass drum and then to the floor tom tom , he did the opposite ? Now there is some drumming . Everything happens for a reason . Richard was better ! Not to mention , but I will , they had no monitors back then . With the sound of the huge amps and girls screaming and the huge venues , Richard had to concentrate on the keeping the flow .
My thought is, first, life is tough. I'm sorry for Best, but he could have spared himself a lot of pain if he'd had the intelligence to recognize before he was fired that Ringo was better and had a chemistry with the others which he lacked, and quit. He didn't see it coming because he isn't very bright. And he was no Beatle.
@@lonnietoth5765 yeah that's exactly right about Ringo being a lefty playing a right-handed kit. It did allow him to come up with some really unique patterns and he seemed a lot of times to play just a hair behind the beat which sort of gave the music a little bit of a push-pull effect which was just wonderful. After listening to some of the takes of Pete Best drumming I didn't realize that he was such a poor player. The guy was all over the place so it really is a no-brainer that the Beatles scored the number one drummer in Liverpool at the time. Imagine if the Beatles just had a straight lace on the beat drummer. Their sound just wouldn't have been the same at all.
It takes a lifetime of experience to realize that it's about the journey, not the destination. After the Beatles got famous they too eventually faced dark times that the rest of us could only imagine. Everyone travels their own distinct path. Pete's was harsh in it's own way but none of us are exempt from life's trials and tribulations. I'm glad that Pete seems to have come to a place of genuine peace and acceptance for his unique fate. I'm also glad that he finally got recognition and pay for the part he played in the Beatles history. He got to play with the greatest band of all and nothing can change that. He is alive, he is still playing music, he had a good career job and a pension. He has lived a good life. Good for him.
I saw Pete Best in Hamburg with his band after he earned some money with the Anthology I which amounted up to a few million as far as I know. So he got his „Trostpflaster“ eventually. But to see him drumming underlines the fact that he could only play one pattern (and kept the time fairly well for a change) no matter what the music required. One could say it was tasteless and totally uninspired. And I heard the Decca tapes where the lack of inspiration from his drumming affected the others and you could hear that especially John Lennon really lost his motivation to sing and play on those records. No wonder that Decca didn‘t sign them but they were lucky enough to meet George Martin who recognized their talent and their personalities and knew to distinguish between them and Pete. He really should acknowledge that he missed out on improving his playing and take ownership for it. The Beatles never would have made it with him on drums becasue his personality simply didn‘t fit in.
Exactly he was the wrong style for them in every department.
he didn’t write any of the material he didn’t get millions for anthology. not even paul earned that much from anthology. clearly you don’t know how royalties work.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369
How much did Pete get from Anthology?
@@rudolphguarnacci197 When the compilation album Anthology 1 was released in 1995, Best received his share of royalties. He never mentioned the amount but some speculated that he got somewhere around $9 million or more.
@@Imachowderhead In this video he says it was between 1 and 6 million pounds. I don’t know the dollar equivalent at the time would have been.
“So, what have you been up to last 60 years?”
“Wringing out this bloody hanky.”
@rayrayfad....😅😅😅👍👏
I wonder how you’d get over it
he's kept Kleenex in business for years!
So, if a person speaks up for themselves At All, they're "ringing out a bloody hanky".
Good luck being on the other side of that....
Brian Epstein did offer Peter a separate contract but he chose to be managed by his mother, Mona Best, but unlike Brian she did not have the contacts ... who knows he could have made it ..
A drummer with imperfect timing is death to any band.
And in that he was the opposite of Ringo!
@clifford heywood where did you get that idea from?
@clifford heywood I've done that, and what I find is the opposite of what you say (besides listening to the records, of course!).
So, I ask again, where did you get that 'info' from? Or is it just your opinion?
Chris you’re right about that when you’re pressed for time and there’s money involved you don’t want to chance it that’s why Brian Wilson used Studio Musicians to lay down the music for The Beach Boys albums and used Dennis for appearances. It was also a common practice at the time. He didn’t fire his brother cause he couldn’t keep time well or just couldn’t perform the way Brian wanted in the studio. Pete’s Mom was too involved in the band’s doings and was always pestering Brian Epstein to the point he considered assigning the management of The Beatles to an associate. Pete was delegated by the other Beatles to book their gigs and was working in conjunction with Brian so right their you could see how that would cause an issue in the power structure of the band. Pete’s not fitting in as a suitable drummer for The Beatles wasn’t the main reason that was just an excuse for the real problem. Why was Pete’s firing a shock to him because the other members never told him. If they had voiced their concerns to him early on he would have expected it. Yet they were plotting all along to get rid of him behind his back. Correct me if I’m wrong but after all that he went through with them in Hamburg that’s just pure disgusting and it reflects poorly on the character of John, Paul, and George who mainly championed the idea to replace Pete with Ringo to the others. George had become really close to Ringo in Germany. So in summation it’s like the JFK assassination a lot of people had something to gain from getting rid of him.
@@ramilopez6921 i agree with you....it is also pretty well established that at their shows, the girls like Pete Best...... BEST !....more than they liked the other 3.......that causes jealousy
People who can't keep time, can't hear that they can't keep time. If they could hear it, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Well said, Jack.
It's a focusing issue. He needed to stop thinking about his looks and pay attention to his drumming.
I started out as a drummer and was bragged on a lot. But I began to get critized by better musicinas that my chops were good but my timing was crap. I could NOT hear that my timing was crap until we started recoding gigs. Then I heard it. I fixed that when I started using a click track for all my gigs. Timing supersedes technique every time.
Pete Best is the only person in the world who doesn't know why Pete Best was sacked.
Well said!
"Stob shouting those animoles!" :)
Wikipedia's new definition of Bias; "Pete Best and his mother thinking Pete Best was the best drummer for the Beatles"
He wasn't the Best.
He was hired as an emergency drummer to go to Hamburg. They knew him from his mothers club that she had in her house where they jammed a couple times. He kept not showing up for gigs in Hamburg ‘cause he was having A fling with a prostitute. And every time he missed a gig Ringo and sit in. That’s it. They Got tired of his bullshit. Not showing up. And he wasn’t that good. When John Paul and George played with ringo they all looked at each other and said WOW. Plus Ringo had a beard and a Zephyr zodiac. Plus He had a really really strong accent. Plus he had his hair flipped back instead of a mop top
Very convincing presentation. I'm a lifelong drummer who took several years of professional lessons. You must control your adrenaline. Keeping the beat/time is number one. Ringo is one hell of a drummer.
spot on . Completley agree.
"Sir Richard", cool, eh? -Yep, he is one the greats.
Ringo is all about taste and *swing!* He’s got the groove in spades!! ♠️ ♠️ ♠️♠️!!
I've played in covers bands in the past and there always seemed to be a tendency for the drummer to play a little fast. Near the end of the 1st set the drummer calmed down.
Lol. He's pocket.
The bottom line is Pete wasn’t a good enough drummer. And he wasn’t a Beatle. Ringo was the final piece of the puzzle. And Ringo was a Beatle.
you're stupid to think Ringo was a better drummer
@@jamesnaumof1657 Ringo was and always will be a better drummer than Pete Best.
James go and actually listen to him.
@@jamesnaumof1657 oh c'mon George Martin even said that Pete was no good. What are your credentials compared to Martin? Thought so
Been an instuctor and music promoter more than 40 yearsFar as knowledge of drumming I knew Buddy Rich.Want to argue with the greatest drummer of all time@@jennyandrichiezbras
My assessment is that if Pete Best was such a great drummer then he would have been successful in another band. History proves otherwise.
Especially when he already has the advantage of name recognition to push the PR for a new band. And yet he never was recruited by any band seeking a good drummer. Ever.
Thank you.
Nobody said he was a great drummer. The question is whether he was so bad that he must've been sacked.
Now, as for his abilities: if you listen to the recording of Love Me Do, it's obvious he was unstable. However, his drumming pattern is much more exciting than what Andy White or Ringo played.
Ginger Baker never was without a gig, s'all I'm saying. @@majorrgeek
The truth is Pete was fired, but he wasn't blackballed from the music industry. If he had talent he would had been sought after by other bands, particularly having the reputation of being an original member of the Beatles. That does not seem to be the case.@@majorrgeek
To use a bad turn of phrase, Ringo put “The Beat” in The Beatles. Ringo had such rock solid timing that George Martin could splice together tape from different takes of the same song, and the beat would be spot on. Pete Best was your average bar band drummer. I feel for the guy. It must have sucked to watch your former bandmates skyrocket to “the toppermost of the poppermost”. But he’s made a decent living off of telling his sad tale for the better part of 60 years now. Anyone with a lick of musical timing knows Ringo Starr is a vastly superior drummer, with a unique style. And in his most private moments I’m sure Pete Best knows it too. Having said that, I’m glad the man got a nice chunk of change from the Anthology series. Bands axe members all the time, for a variety of reasons, from ability to personality clashes. If this was any band, other than The Beatles, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion. Particularly 6 decades after the fact.
As a drummer for 53 years, I agree. But Ringo was George Martin's studio boy, a pocket drummer with great timing. He could have played every Beatle song in those early days with a kick, a snare, a ride and a hi-hat, that's all he needed and that's basically all he used. But his style sold him to the powers that be. Ringo is the reason drums became popular with guys like me.
Pete Best became a millionaire when Anthology 1 was being made. Capital couldn't release it without paying Best as he was all over the album.
@@austinteutsch sorry, austin, you and kato are both wrong..Ringo, although a great inventive drummer, was not a human metronome. Martin has said his meter drifted..but in a musical way that served the song.
@@chipgaasche4933 And to reinforce this, listen to "You Can't Do That" here on TH-cam. Ringo damned near falls over rushing that drum break after "I told you before..."
@@JR-zv6qm Paul said he asked them to include Best.
Ringo is in fact a highly underrated drummer. Besides having rock-solid time, he has created some outstanding grooves and always also had great tone.
The drum part on Come Together...who else would even think of doing that? He's not underrated by any drummer I know. Ringo's playing is perfect for the Beatles, he always serves the song above all else. Magic!
@@GoDamnWeird that's right and we also have to acknowledge his patterns on Ticket to Ride and Tomorrow Never Knows and of course his epic playing on A Day In The Life!
@@GoDamnWeird good point
Ringo is not underrated by anyone who knows anything about music.
@@banba317 he’s no Tony Meehan…………I know a lot about music
Why is there even a controversy? It''s obvious Ringo was a perfect match? Lennon: "P.B's drumming was lousy" Great music engines can't run smoothly with a misfiring spark plug.
It's a controversy because stupid, suspicious-minded people can't take anything at face value and can't take The Beatles and George Martin at their word. It doesn't help that Pete Best breathes new life into this crap whenever he sees a microphone.
Because it's never been clear why they got rid actually of Pete.
The main excuse has been drumming however it's very unlikely.
He was very popular with fans when he was with The Beatles, his drumming was crucial to the early Beatles sound and was rated as one of the best in Liverpool.
Ringo was considered a good, competent drummer but nowhere near the same league as Pete and the aforementioned drummers.
Recently a member of early Liverpool group The Corvettes said:
"I remember exactly where I was when the news broke that Ringo was the new Beatles drummer. We were amazed because Ringo was NOT rated at all for his drumming at the time".
Pete had several invites from local groups to join their bands and The Searchers drummer Chris Curtis said in an interview in the 90s he had considered switching to guitar to get Pete in the band. Today, the vast majority of Liverpool musicians who saw Pete back then do not have a bad word about his prowess as a drummer at the time.
@@TheMerseySound1 th-cam.com/video/1H_SUTWs3qk/w-d-xo.html
@@swisscottagecleanairaction Lennon also said "Pete Best was a great drummer, but Ringo was a great Beatle."
@@TheMerseySound1
Even if we were to say Pete was a fantastic drummer, that still doesn't automatically mean he was the right choice for the band. In the same way that someone like Keith Moon wouldn't have been the right fit either. And regardless of how good Pete may or may not have been, and what reputation either of them may have had, Ringo's drumming fits the Beatles' music absolutely perfectly. If on top of that, they found it more enjoyable to play with Ringo, and to be around Ringo, then they made the right choice. No questions left to ask.
As a Beatles aficionado ,amateur expert and a former Drummer, I'd say that this short documentary/ podcast is just about right. Poor old P.B. wasn't the drummer Ringo was, and certainly not the drummer The Beatles would need throughout the band's time. And probably just as important,- he was a square peg in a round hole personality wise. Heartbreaking story though, can you imagine what it was like to be P.B. watching The Fabs on the Ed' Sullivan Show, or being screamed over by 60,000 fans at Shea stadium!!!. Tough tough break!.
We’ll put - a square peg in a round hole.
If the Beatles flopped, we wouldn't be talking about this
If Pete Best had stayed in The Beatles, this discussion would not exist because they would never have been famous.
Pete Best is more famous and much richer today because he had played with, and then released by, the Beatles. What other mediocre drummer can make that claim? He should be thankful.
if the moon had fallen from the sky we wouldn't be talking about that either.
@@senhorpescador maybe so...but the other night new moon I saw a little piece fall off at the ..chin!
@@senhorpescador You missed your chance to be clever
Excellent journalism! I've never seen the unequivocal facts laid out so clearly and in such an organized fashion. Pete wasn't good enough, but I am glad he finally got paid.
agree Michael . Great video
The key to a good band is finding the right drummer , not necessarily the most skilled drummer. Keith Moon wouldn't have fit well in the Cream and Ginger Baker wouldn't have worked in the Who. The Beatles found the right guy in Ringo. He understood what they were doing and he was perfect for it.
Bang on.
You're not wrong on this, but people continuously underestimate Ringo's skill because, imo, they also underestimate his subtlety, Moon and Baker might be more in your face impressive than Ringo, but I'd easily put Ringo as the most skilled of those three.
@@pietzsche so would I. He speaks his mind with his instrument. There's a character to his playing that really shows. His personality comes through. It got my attention the first time I heard him play.
@@Cincinnatus1869 There's such a mythology about Ringo not being a good drummer that I feel obliged to point out he's an actual genius, one of the real greats imo
@@Cincinnatus1869 👍the Beatles were all about the song & Ringo played for the song . He’s said he often followed the vocals, can’t think of another drummer who’s ever said that.
I can't imagine the heartbreak this guy went through..., irrespective of "why" he was dropped..., truly a better and stronger man than me. 😢
Life's hard, get over it. The dude didn't try.
Listen to his drumming on the Decca audition tapes. They Beatles sounded muddy. Ringo brought the Beatles to life.
Agree absolutely! Pete usually hit the bass drum on all 4 beats - and produced an imprecise strudel of sound above it that gets more and more annoying the longer you listen to it - it´s immensly boring.
I cannot imagine what a mess it would have been if Pete had played on She Loves You or I Feel Fine, not to talk about Rain ...
I admit having underrated Ringo myself for a long time, but the more I listen to his playing the more I admire him. He always found the perfect rhythm for every song, he never covered the vocal lines, he left space for the others and set his accents perfectly - each break was different and spot on.
It doesn´t matter at all if he was technically the best drummer, he was the best for the band and contributed immensely to the songs with his feeling and creativity.
That’s down to the studio engineers if it sounds muddy, not the band
@@TheMerseySound1 No, one reason was the imprecise playing of Pete, made worse by his attitude of playing much to much toms and bass drum, often drowning the sound of the band. He left no space for the others - like Ringo did so perfectly. It´s also hard to play precisely with an unprecise drummer! It´s very telling that in Hamburg the engineer (recording Tony Sheridan) took Pete´s bass drum and toms from the kit, only left snare and hi-hat for him to play.
@@mp-dd7pnA studio engineer's job is to capture the sound of each instrument by placement and distance of microphones and levels on the mixing desk. If one instrument is too quiet or loud, move the mic or change the level on the desk. Pete's drums become more audible with each track as the Decca engineers worked out the levels. It's nothing to do with how Pete is playing, it's the people capturing the sound.
This video conveniently leaves out that Mike Smith was the producer at the Decca audition (not junior engineer Mike Savage) who rated Pete's ability over Ringo his whole life and produced The Pete Best Four single making his drums loud in the mix. Before that Pete had played on Lee Curtis And The All-Stars' single, so the session drummer comment doesn't hold up at all.
@@TheMerseySound1 ">>It's nothing to do with how Pete is playing, it's the people capturing the sound.
Ringo was a super drummer. I watched a documentary of his style. He was mightily talented and Ringo fitted into the band better. Sometimes things don't go for you in life.
thank you ringo
@@alane7896 hank you ringo
Thank goodness we have Ringo Starr as the drummer and as a Beatle. ☺️ Peace and Love! ✌️&💗
Competent, but he said he was the best rock and roll drummer.
Thank you for this information. Here you have Paul , John and George. Three incredibly talented, focused , driven , passionate and dedicated and strong individuals who knew they were something outside the realm. Knowing the band was missing that one puzzle piece . They solved what they needed . Smart .
You mean John, Paul and George, right?
@@hueytlatoani1177 or George John and Paul ... and Ringo all greats
He was sacked because his chemistry and ability on the drums wasn’t good enough.
He was sacked because he could not professionally drum. It was scary obvious. The Pub is a LONG way from the studio.
Remember, Sir George did not allow Sir Richard to play on "Love Me Do". They made an alternate take with Andy White (the released single) and Ringo's version was only discovered on an acetate in 1994.
I was just comparing the 2 versions last night! Sir Richard's work is excellent, but Andy White version had a stronger kick and more professional elan. White, obviously pushes the band forward. Sir Richard was still fresh and unrehearsed; hence, Sir George played it safe, and -rightly so. Sir Richard simply need a little time to gel with the band.
@@BixLives32 Yes. Listen to the early demos he played on it was like John said" He was a lousy drummer, he never improved." He seems like a nice guy, but it's obvious he is not a very good drummer.
th-cam.com/video/G41d-2mzLvw/w-d-xo.html
Pete's AND Mona's chemistry with the band would become a problem.
@@BixLives32 actually Ringo’s version was released as a single at the time ( I’ve got a copy ) Andy’s version appears on the LP. George Martin
has said it wasn’t a conscious decision to release Ringo’s version of LMD .
@@BixLives32 Horrible example. Using Andy White on Love Me Do was mistake. George Martin himself said that.
It’s clear they just didn’t like him as a drummer and just as importantly as a member of the band. He was duller and not as quick witted like the other 3. Ringo fit right in as a drummer AND clicked immediately personality wise.
It’s all about team-fit. Can you imagine being stuck with someone day in day out who just wasn’t "getting it". Ringo got it straight away. Hard Day’s Night was his phrase. John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them.....step up to the plate, Ringo, you’re the one.
I'm not a Peter Best expert by any standards; but I've never heard an interview with him where he was dull or not quick-witted. Please point those moments out. Thank you.
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
@@frizzell4321 , I don't think you quite realize what you said; you said "John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them".
Really? They needed a good drummer, who didn't "eclipse" them. That doesn't make a very good statement about them, as it means they didn't want someone better than them who wouldn't upstage them.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Ringo was a good drummer. Best was not. Case continued closed.
Thanks for your research on this. Like most Beatles fans, I feel sorry for what happened to Pete. But back then personnel changes were probably quite common in British club bands as musicians strove to find others they meshed with for a unified sound. Still, I've always felt that if Pete was a competent drummer he could have gone to George Martin or Brian Epstein and asked to be put in another band. By 1964 record companies were scrambling to sign any English group they felt was capable of putting out a hit record, and having a former Beatle in a band would have given it instant recognition.
Thank you for the comments, Jon. Much appreciated.
They did assign him to another quite popular group.
Because of the British Invasion, promoters were scrambling for anyone who could even look or talk like a British rock musician, regardless of ability.
@@carlrudd1858 That's why no one has ever heard of them.
@@tehapu7358 in the states, yes.
For me, hearing the example of Pete’s drumming to show how inconsistent he was really closed the book on this story. If you were an attorney representing the Beatles in court they would have been found not guilty of firing Pete Best without just cause.
Great job.
Absolutley spot on Jimmy . People still look for hidden reason though !
A good recording to listen to is "I saw her Standing There", first with Pete (recorded at the Cavern Club) and then with Ringo. With Pete it's just a one style beat and doesn't sound like much. With Ringo it rockets out of the speakers and you can't help but dance to it.
As drummers like Stewart Copeland, Max Weinberg, Dave Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, ... said in the tribute to Ringo, Ringo sits in the song and plays the feel.
As we sit here 59 years later, lots of recordings have emerged from the pre-fame days and more than a few with Pete playing something later recorded by Ringo. The evidence is in the recordings.
While I totally agree that Ringo was much better, as a musician and audio engineer, I thought that this test was absurd. Yeah it sounds really bad when you play these things on top of each other, but that's because NOBODY plays like a metronome (that's not a bad thing...there is a strong argument that modern music looses something by having everything "on the grid"). As rock solid as Ringo is, I doubt he would fare much better in this unpassable test. (EDIT: I just threw an isolated Ringo track I found on youtube into my software and recreated this test and to no surprise, Ringo sounded as bad as Pete)
Unless you're playing to a click, EVERY drummer will sound like that. Even the greatest drummers will. I've done audio processing to put non-click performances to the grid and even the tightest bands can only sync up perfectly for 16 or 32 bars at the MOST before they start sounding wobbly and way off from the metronome and you have to start stretching audio to sync them back up to the click.
I agree with the premise. Pete wasn't a great drummer, but this is a test nobody could pass.
@@kevdmiller Great point! Rick Beato has done several videos on how quantizing and auto-tune have sucked the soul out of modern music.
But they didn't do the same test on the Ringo version. I can tell you that most recordings -- even megahits -- prior to the computer age varies in bpm. I have no opinion on Pete or Ringo, but did notice what appears to be a one-sided comparison in this video, plus only done on one take of one song.
It has always baffled me that Pete got his mother to go for bat for him around this time. If that isnt a source of huge embarrassment for him it should be really.
I’m reading Mona was rubbing Brian up the wrong way by still trying to meddle with things once Brian signed them . She probably made his life hell once Pete had been sacked.
Having your own mother have an affair with your best friend and being ok with it has got to be the ultimate embarrassment.
I very much doubt that this was Best's choice. His mother made all the running and he couldn't say "No" is how I see it.
@@johnnhoj6749 That's even worse ffs.
THIS is the BEST Story - Beatle Roadie, Neil Aspinall became good friends with Pete and subsequently rented a room in the Bests' home. Aspinall became romantically involved with Pete's mother Mona, and during this period, he fathered a child with Mona - Vincent "Roag" Best. Roag was born on 21 July 1962, and just three weeks later, on 16 August 1962, Pete was dismissed from the Beatles.
Wow. I did not know that.
On researching I speculate that there was also a significant class difference between Best and the other three.
One can easily imagine the perception by working class lads that they were being exploited by Mrs Best, who lived in a big house and was making money off them and decided that they did not need the help of her or her son
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Best
Who’s Neil Aspinall?
Neil Aspinall = Beatle Roadie - sets up the bands equipment for a gig.
@@ricklevine3571 and vice president of Apple until his death.
@Douglas Farshtey John was the only middle class one. Paul, George and RIngo were working class through and through.
It's hard to imagine being how good Paul, John and George are that it would never have rose to that level if not for Ringo but I feel Ringo was such an integral part on every level for them that they may not have become such cultural icons or did what they did to near this level without him. Not just his playing which was critical but the personality too and even looks. All that matters with pop.
Great comment 👌🏽
Someone suggested to John that the Beatles were three superstars and Ringo. John said that was ridiculous. He said that the Beatles were going nowhere until Ringo joined the band. Also said that Ringo would have been a major star on his own if he hadn't joined the Beatles. Ringo always had the perfect beat for each song. He wasn't banging away like Keith Moon but his drumming was so precise and always perfect for each song. Don't know why Pete Best can't just accept his fate, his life turned out just fine.
Could you imagine Pete Best in A Hard Day's Night or Help? Boring. John was right, Ringo was a better drummer and Beatle. No need to feel sorry for Pete. He was in the Beatles!!!
Or A Day In The Life.
Not just that..he didnt have Beatle hair like the others or personality!
Yep , Ringo got the most time in AHDN & was the lead actor in Help!
"Are you a Mod or a Rocker"? "I'm a Mocker". LMAO.
Excellent analysis. Thank you - I too found this most helpful.
Ringo was already an active part of the Beatles when I first heard their music.
This video clarifies what had continued to be unclear to quite a few of us.
All you need to do is listen to Pete's drumming on the first Anthology disc. Make up your own mind.
in a nutshell. people still seem desperate to look for alternative reasons that are not there though . Baffling !
@@stuartshire Well, that and he refused to comb his hair forward. Lol
If Pete Best remained the drummer for the Beatles it just wouldn't have been the same. The four Beatles had a chemistry and I love what Ringo added to the group! If Pete Best was the drummer the music we love and treasure probably would have never been created! Ringo's contribution was just as important as the other three Beatles, he was the heartbeat of the music and a main catalyst of the charisma and personality that was the Beatles.
They wouldn't have made it unless of course Pete played nothing in the studio.
@@gutenbird he should know why he got sacked by now after all these years !!
@@vincentl.9469 Poor guy. He made millions but the Beatles would have kind of sucked without Ringo.
@gutenbird, that is what George Martin told them, you can do what you want with him, but I'll have a professional drummer in the studio. Not an exact quote, so no quote marks, but that is the gist of what he was saying. If they wanted to keep their pretty boy drummer for live gigs, they were welcome to do it but he wasn't going to waste his (and EMI's) money on recording something he couldn't release. I do feel sorry for the guy but it just wasn't meant to be.
spot-on. i still say to this day, if you took the 4 of them, kept everything as it was, music, suits, instruments & swapped only the 4 of them with say, Gerry & the Pacemakers, it would be Gerry & co that we'd be talking about 50+ yrs later..
What I heard back in the day was that the lads thought Ringo was a serious pro, and Pete less so. I imagine personal chemistry played a big part. I can't believe Pete played the Mom "card."
It must be rough to get sacked from the band that shortly afterwards becomes the most famous band of all time. Ringo can keep a beat. Sometimes life gives you lemons. At least he made some money on the Anthology and isn’t homeless or a loser. And how many people can tell their kids that he played in the Beatles? Hoping your doing well Mr. Best.
Just looking at the personalities, I can see that Ringo's easy-going personality would have blended better (and did) with the personalities of John and Paul and George. Ringo was a well known drummer at the time before he started with the Beatles, for a different band, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. They heard what he was capable of before he came onboard.
Rory’s band were extremely popular when the ( silver ) Beatles had Tommy Moore as their drummer . When John, Paul & George started to hang out with Ringo in Hamburg, Pete’s days were numbered. When Rory paid for a recording session for his cousin, he used John,Paul George & Ringo to back him .....there’s a moment in history.
Ringo was/is as funny as the other three. That had a lot to do with it.
He was also a friend because of theirs, so guess it all helped in taking a gamble at a critical point early in their career.
True. You can listen to Pete talk and you can see he's not like the other three at all.
When you listen to Pete talk and see his personality you can tell he's not a Beatle. He was just not one of them.
Speaking of personality, Paul McCartney does mention in his documentary called "Wingspan" that while Pete's drumming ability did play a role in his demise, his personality and chemistry played an equal role in his sacking. Paul did mention that there were several band members of his Post-Beatle Band, "The Wings" that got let go due to band chemistry and personality as well as ability. Cynthia Lennon mentions in her 2005 book that Pete never socialized with the band and he was more series and straight lased compared to the other members. Remember, Stu Sucliff wasn't that good of a bassist, but the Beatles liked and respected Stu and they didn't fire him. Of course he left to presume an art career and stay with Astrid.
The he died of a brain hemorrhage a short while later.
Geoff Britton. I remember that drummer. He got in fights with Jimmy McCullough all the time... inmediately Joe English took his place when Geoff was out.
Most people (especially non-musicians who've never played in a band) don't realize how important personality and chemistry are within a band.
They probably would have overlooked his deficiencies as a drummer if they liked him enough. They knew Sutcliffe couldn’t play bass but Lennon liked him and thought he made the band look better so he got a pass.
yeah but did john kill stu
I would fire myself if I knew how good Ringo was gonna make them.
Picture this: Pete Best watching footage of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Seeing those lads he had - so recently, it must have seemed - shared dingy Hamburg digs with, up on the big stage. And then picture him reading reports of how '73M people watched the Beatles on Ed Sullivan'. Reading that 'so many people watched it that crime rates plummeted during their performance'. I'd hazard to say that no-one in human history has felt quite the same bizarre set of emotions that Pete Best must have felt at such moments.
Dear God, I hope there's a special place reserved in Heaven for Mr Best. Because just thinking about the above has given me goosebumps.
Pete was brought in simply because the club owner in Hamburg wanted a 5 piece band, and Paul had been playing drums at that point. They needed a drummer at the last second, and Pete was who they found. They didn't ask him to join because he was good, they did it out of desperation and he could play ok enough to get by. After they were signed, George Martin immediately requested they get a new drummer and their first choice was Ringo because he was playing in the Hamburg scene with them and they thought he was great. They also liked him as a person, and felt his personality was much more that of a Beatle than Pete, who really had no personality at all.
To my knowledge Paul played guitar... He switched to bass when Stu left.. I don't remember hearing or reading Paul played drums at that particular time... He did in later years..
They got rid of Pete because Ringo was actually Best.
Better..
@@lobbydoser1355 No The got rid of Pete because McCartney was jealous that Pete was better looking and got more women.
Thats a bunch of crap even John acknowledged that after he went solo with yoko
@@holden190 Right, because musicians find it so hard to get women. Sure. And Paul was better looking than Pete anyway.
His mother had an old house converted into a nightclub.
They had him for that reason.
John said it all, "he didn't improve". For like 2 years in the band, and he never got better? Who's fault is that? I've watched Sina (here on you tube), for 5 years or more, and she's been an amazing drummer all along, and yet, even still continues to improve all the time. Perhaps Pete just didn't take his role in the band seriously enough!
Sina is amazing. She has talent and you can tell she works hard. If Pete did his "best" it's a shame, but that's life. If you have a love of your work that will help to make you adequate, but not necessary amazing. The drummer is the backbone of a band, anything less than perfect will not a great band make. There are few in the world who can do that.
That's a great point.
@@kevinwilson9589 The Who lost some of their punch after Keith Moon passed away. Getting rid of Liberty DeVito was a bad decision by Billy Joel. Just two random thoughts on the subject.
Sina rocks!!!!
Its because he wasn’t going to get any better and the band knew it , he sucked
I cannot imagine the Beatles without Ringo. We are so lucky that these four guys got together and stayed long enough to give us the music that they did. How did it happen? Well sometimes it just does and boy am I thankful.
"Mama's boy" is the key.
And John without mother and father. Two worlds.
When I was in a band back in the sixties we had to kick one of founding members out because he was socially inept and had some personal problems that would not resolve. When we gave him the word one day at band practice, we simply told him that his playing was not good enough (he did screw up at times too often). I liked him, but we all agreed he had to go. He was never told the real reason why because of his emotional instability. Most likely, Pete would not have been able to handle the truth whatever it was. From what I heard on the few recordings of him with the Beatles his playing was plodding and lacked the life they needed.
In some of those interviews, Pete Best looked close to crying. I can't really blame him for that. I mean how many times can you take being asked why you got kicked out of the greatest band in the world. I feel like he lacked that influence in his life who really tried to steer him in the direction of improvement. But since the other Beatles admittedly didn't attempt to confront him about it, it's a possible indicator that he never really felt at home with the Beatles, and thus, never really had the incentive to improve his drumming skills.
Imagine, you work toward a goal and just as your chit is about to be cashed in, The "man" takes your chit, shoves you out of the line and inserts another bloke in your place and you get to watch stupidly as he gives your GOLDEN TICKET to someone ELSE. Yeah, I might CRY too at his age.
This is one of my favorite episodes of Pop Goes the 60s. The story of Pete Best and anything about the Beatles, is fascinating and enthralling for me. I especially like the last comment about there being no shame in not being a good enough drummer for the Beatles, as Matt correctly stated, "...few people are", and as George stated, Ringo was the "member of the band".
There are some good lessons in this video. Thanks Matt!
It's a terrific video and Matt hits the nail on the head.
I'm a drummer and have been since 1964. The answer is simple. Ringo is the only drummer who could have made the Beatles sound like they did. No, Ringo is not technically a great drummer as far as knowing all the skills. He couldn't even roll around the drum kit and he didn't know why at first. Just a few years ago in an interview on TV, he described how he learned to play on a kit set up for a right-handed drummer because he copied other drummers who all happened to be right-handed. Being left-handed, he did not realize how this limited him in being able to move around the set from left to right while his dominant hand wants to go in the opposite direction (If you're a drummer, you will understand this.) By the time he figured this out, he did not want to start all over, relearning the "muscle memory", and just accepted it. This does not mean that Ringo is a bad drummer. What he does play is excellent. He is a living metronome. His parts in the Beatles' songs as they grew creatively, are perfect. No other drummer could have done this. I can't imagine the Beatles songs with any other drummer. I sure would not have wanted Buddy Rich in The Beatles.
Ringo is exactly what the Beatles needed from the beginning and throughout their short career. Pete Best was not and had he stayed in the band, we would never have heard of them. In my opinion, Pete Best was an average drummer in a garage band. The band grew and he was not able to.
If you've been a drummer since '64, I would consider you a drum expert. Its all about the feel. Whatever Ringo did, it made them sound like no other band around that time. Its all there in the recordings. Ringo had his own, unique gifts and J P and G knew it.
Exactly! Can you imagine Buddy Rich or Ginger Baker playing with the Beatles? Different soups have different recipes. The Beatles had the perfect recipe.
Strangely enough, while I loved the Beatles, I didn't care all that much for each one of them when they went solo. They were still good but they were not great. Like the old saying, "the whole was greater than the sum of its parts". @@televinv8062
@@boomerguy9935 I agree. Technically great musicians like Baker etc would agree with you too I bet. You have to be good, but nothing trumps feel and band 'chemistry'. Not even proficiency and abilities.
Reality...the world is filled with highly skilled drummers...to beleive nobody else could have been the Beatles drummer is fantasy. To beleive no other drummer could play to serve the style of music or song is also fantasy.
@@dennisvernier437 Technically, you are correct. However, I am talking about the specific sound of the Beatles, the soul, the feeling. Yes, another highly skilled drummer could have played, but the "Beatles sound" would have been different. That's what my comment was about. This specific "soup" of music had the perfect ingredients. Changing any one part of this group - changing out any of the players, Ringo or anyone else - would have changed this "recipe" and it would have sound differently.
I've always said this group was "greater than the sum of its parts". I never thought that any single member was that great and I never bought any of their individual recordings after the Beatles broke up, but I have always loved the sound of the Fab Four without Pete Best. (And yes, I know that one song was recorded by a studio drummer - possibly Love Me Do - while Ringo was hospitalized for an illness. But this was only one song.)
The Beatles without Ringo would not have the sound that made them as popular. I can't imagine the Sgt. Pepper album with Buddy Rich or Ginger Baker.
I heard Pete Best play about 13 years ago at his mums club. He kept perfect time, along with the 2nd drummer next to him...
That's funny.
Ba-doom............. tish! (Pete Best was drumming)
Great analysis. Just listening to Pete vs Ringo tells the story. As Paul said latter, the beginning of the Beatles really was when Ringo came into the picture. No shame to Pete at all. Thanks!
Thanks for watching and I appreciate the comment.
I do feel bad for him, he missed out on something so huge - but also, there are two ways you can take being told you're not good enough, become sour and dwell on it for 60 years, or use it and show them just how good you are/can be; there are lots of stories of people who took a knock back earlier in life and used it as motivation to become great.
Plus he got to live a full life.
Oddly enough, it happened to me, being kicked out of the drum throne of a band - for whom I now play. They went through several drummers, as well as singers, a disagreement with the former singer being the main reason I was sacked. I also took an honest look at where I could improve, and when invited to play with them again, decided to treat it like a session, essentially playing what the band leader wanted as best I could, rather than throwing my weight around so much. Also just got tighter. In doing so, I went from sacked to indispensable, at least as long as somebody like Stewart Copeland doesn't want the position.
Nobody made an attempt on his life.
One thing that's not pointed is that Pete never picked up another gig of any substance. This was an incredibly dynamic time in the music industry, and groups were forming, breaking up, adding new members, reforming under different guises all the time. This was happening in both England and the US. I think Jimi Hendrix picked up his drummer while playing in England. All these guys knew each other. When McCartney formed Wings after the Beatles he brought on Denny Laine, who had been an original member of the Moody Blues, but had left a few years before. You'd think that a topnotch drummer, a guy who had two years or more with the Beatles on his resume, maybe could land a decent gig. Even go into the studio and play for a bit until you found a group to join, or for that matter form a group yourself. It's good he got paid out of the Anthology project, and given the fame that followed almost immediately after he left, it's easy to understand his disappointment, but the Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and that's it.
He played in a band called the Pete Best Combo. In the wake of the Beatles success they got some gigs in the US and released an album which didn't do well. The nature of the enterprise can probably be best summed up by the title of the LP: "Best of the Beatles", which probably got a few extra sales from clueless parents buying it for their Beatles fan kids..
As you suggest, he could have been snapped up by any existing group wanting an instant injection of publicity if he was a decent drummer. However...
Paul insisted that takes with Pete on them be included on the Anthology album so Pete could collect royalties,
That's the kind of guy our Paul is.
I dunno, but it SOUNDS like Sir Paul... He's a generous cat.
"Epstein earned his 15% that night "..well said. This is the best thing I've ever heard on this whole subject .. your putting it across excellently telling it straight just like Johnny boy would like it.
25% was his ridiculously high fee
The young Beatles lost a fortune from high management fees, a bad publishing deal, the premature and foolish decision to stop touring in 1966, and crippling income taxes in the UK.
@@widehotep9257 Not to mention the horrible merchandising deal Epstein had brokered. All those toys, games, sheets, dolls, gum cards and everything else, I think their take was a mere 1%! Yikes!
@@Sp33gan I saw an interview with Paul McCartney where he discussed the situation of Michael Jackson acquiring publishing rights to many Beatles songs. He and John didn't understand what music publishing was when they signed their publishing contract. They thought all music was public domain and free to use, "like the air."
@@widehotep9257 Definitely. They, and the vast majority of young hopefuls who didn't understand the cutthroat ways of the music business. There are too many stories of musicians realising after the fact that they got shafted by managers, labels, and anyone else who wanted their piece of the pie.
A kind editorial at the end. Anthoolgy both helped Best financially and proved the Beatles were right to can him. Everybody wins.
correct
Poor Pete. All joking aside, can you even imagine being in his shoes? It's like buying the same lottery ticket every week and the ONE week you DON'T, your numbers come in. His life must be something. Thanks for the really good comprehensive breakdown of this epic event.
haha! BOOM very good
Not really an apt simile because you're assuming they would have had the same impact had Pete remained on the drums. Fact is, he was an exceptionally horrific drummer and the band would not have had anything close to the success it had if Pete stayed in the group. So, to use your comparison, instead of hitting the Powerball with Ringo, they might've won a free ticket with Pete.
Except that the success of the Beatles was no lottery. It was based on great talent and lots of hard work. Neither of those attributes can be ascribed to Pete, and that's why he did not cash in on his 'lottery ticket'.
great analogy, much better than mine
The Beatles' longevity made Pete Best famous after all.The never ending fascination with the group has made sure that he received some amount of fame .He isn't a complete unknown and he used his misfortune to bring him some sort of celebrity status and probably some kind of livelyhood.
@GarthanSaal444 Pete made a lot of money from the anthology albums.
He's a founding member of the Shitty Beatles.
Wayne: Hey, Tiny, who's playing today?
Tiny: Jolly Green Giants and the Shitty Beatles.
Wayne: Shitty Beatles?Are they any good?
Tiny: They suck.
Wayne: Then it's not just a clever name.
@@thepepperlanders People say that but in this video when asked how much he received Pete said "...somewhere between 1 and 6 notes." I interpret 1 and 6 notes as 1,000,000. So maybe he got just under 1mil dollars or pounds?
Thank you so much for clearing that up. Not that I was losing any sleep over it, but it's nice to tie up loose ends. I'm a drummer also, and that's all we're good for; keeping the beat, keeping the timing. Everything else is frosting on the cake. If you can't do that, learn the harmonica.
I still love the fact that Pete Best had an album out called Best Of The Beatles.
Nailed it' ...excellent synopsis of very obvious facts' ...Pete today, is a much better musician than he was in 1962.
Thanks, man! More to come.
Excellent research and presentation. You even managed to let Pete down easy with hard news.
What a well-researched effort this was. after more than 50 years I finally understand way Pete Best was ousted..... never occurred to him he was not good enough... his release was handled very professionally. His outcome was like winning the Powerball lottery for 450 million, and cannot find the winning ticket ... so close, yet so far.
Thank you, Scott!
I saw a documentary on this recently and bottom line seems to be that in terms of the band personality, Ringo was on the same page as John, Paul and George. I think Ringo brought the court Jester aspect to the band and was the final piece of the Jigsaw.
"Jigsaw" is an excellent choice of words.
As a Liverpudlian I think Pete had the Liverpudlian attitude too much, of just ''do the job, get paid and go home'' but the rest of the group wanted to make records and tour America, but Pete didn't share that sentiment.
All you need to know is that Pete Best brought his mom to an interview to argue his side! HE FRIGGIN’ BROUGHT HIS MOM!? Not to mention, he said himself over and over.... “Ringo was a better Drummer”! That’s the answer Pete! 😂 The Boys in the band did you a huge favor by not bringing up that fact. And let’s just mention... Ringo belonged in the Beatles. He was a Beatle. Is a Beatle.
HE FRIGGIN BROUGHT HIS MOM!? Hilarious!!! I'm in isolation with the delta variant and feeling pretty low, but that comment of yours made me laugh my tits off.
Pete's Mom Mona was a booking agent & had managed a few acts herself that's why she came along ...
@@jrgboy well she Managed to heap ridicule on Pete by appearing with him .
@@russellbishop1633 Hope you're feeling better now.
@@marks.3303 Covid was a breeze Mark S. Thanks for asking.
Think I wouldn't let this subject never opened, in the 1st place and when the grand kids ask... ..." Grandpa , what did you do, as a kid " ?
" Well.... I was a Beatle " ( with a big smile )
I'm not a musician, so the analysis at 8:30 really made things clear for me. It would be nice to hear the same analysis with Ringo Starr on drums.
There is one at gfs moment on TH-cam which goes through all drumming and shows just his good he was
The thing that a non musician probably doesn't understand about the Beatles is that they were not necessarily the best technician on their individual instrument. There were certainly "better" guitar players, "better" drummers, and yes, though McCartney was a truly great bassist, yes there are "better" bassist. Now I put better in quotes because it depends on how you judge "better". These days this new group of "shredders" tend to think the more notes you can play per second the "better". BS. Most of those notes are meaningless, and therein lies the keyword. The Beatles were song "craftsmen" and every note they played fit together toward the betterment of the song. When you play the right notes, you don't have to play so many of them. They understood that perfectly. They learned how to create a song and what they played was not about ego or show, it was about the song and they got scary good at it because they checked their ego at the door when they recorded. They were not there to "impress the girls", they were there to make great music and guess what, in doing so they ultimately "impressed" all of us. Even those who weren't as impressed as most of us were had to admit they were great at creating songs. If you like hearing people play calisthenics on their instrument, then so be it. Once I hear them do their impressive collection of licks for 5 minutes my next question is always this. OK. Now can you make me cry? Now and then you will find one that can truly do both, but most of the time they can't. But here's the thing, those that can do both generally hold that ace hot lick for that special place in a song that takes your breath. They don't do it all night. The Beatles did not have a "collection" of memorized licks by the time they reached their peak. They composed new ones for each song and for that very reason, they always fit like the pieces of a puzzle. Yes, you can name quite a few players that have been or were "better" than whichever Beatle you choose to compare them to, but you will never find a set of four musicians that played "together" as well as these guys did. And in today's climate, you in all likelihood never will. They, along with maybe Bryan Wilson (but that's another story), were and are the Mozarts of pop music. New generations will re discover them for ages to come. I loved them.
Yeah, what he said.
Sir, you totally nailed it.
@birdYoumans3, Wow, great, insightful comment. Thanks!
@@MuthaTucka Pet sounds was infantile? Really? Lol! But, I will at least give you this. Some of his and Jardin's classics were indeed written for the masses. And the Beatles were by far the best BAND of all time. I spent many happy hours with Beatle songs, my favorite band of all time by far. But to deny that Brian was a genius is a step too far for me. Some of his stuff is just mind boggling. At least for me as a musician. But if you don't care to listen to his stuff, I respect your right to not care for him. That's why if you notice, I said when mentioning him, that's another story. It's just that he was the American answer to the Beatles, whether as good or not. Not to mention, he was just one guy. Oh did i mention that he was also the arranger, and producer? He had no George Martin. But again, I agree with you, I loved the Beatles!!
@@MuthaTucka I Pretty much agree with you. But yes, even tho not the equal of the Beatles, I do think he was indeed one of a kind. But the Beatles catalogue will never be equaled. For one thing we live in a completely different world now and It's doubtful that in this climate another Beatles could ever develop. Young people listen to them today and many like them. But you had to be there then to really know the impact they had. They changed the face of music. It was a bit like they dropped a bomb on the world lol! I'm glad I got to see it first hand. I know they were a huge influence on me.
Guys made a living on saying "I don't know why they threw me out of the band"
Repeated the same story....5 cajillion times!!
Laughing all the way to the bank!
Not bad for a shit drummer!!
@@ohiostsupremesuperdynasty7326
You said it. Paul was a better drummer.
Once a young band has been going for a couple of years, personnel changes are rare. Friendship is essential, AND it gets in the way. It's a tough living. BUT, all it takes is one serious opportunity to sack anyone.
@mrsullyrox; if that’s true good for him
Yep
The real mystery here is why, after almost 60 years, is Pete Best still talking about this. Why, after all these years, is he still wondering why he got fired. Hasn't anybody ever told him it was because Ringo was the better drummer? Sheesh Pete, let it go!
The other good reason for asking Ringo to join is that Ringo was comfortable being interviewed and was funny. Pete was not capable of these things in 1962.
Even if they had used a studio musician drummer for recordings, Pete would have dragged the group down in interviews, TV appearances, and films like Hard Days Night
Pete Best was to drums what Stu Sutcliffe was to bass.
Except Stu was actually a brilliant artist, Pete was just boring
Stu, unlike Pete, had no illusions and left the band to pursue art.
@@bookashkin exactly. Stu never wanted to have a career in music. So that’s not fair saying he’s boring.
That's disrespectful to Pete Best as he was a capable drummer, whereas Stu Sutcliffe was John's friend who could buy a bass.
Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool and also someone the other Beatles got along with. Pete was a bit of a loner and didn't seem to be part of their humour and style.
Look at The Rolling Stones and Ian Stewart for exactly the opposite situation, the founder member, a brilliant musician and one of their inner circle but dumped as he didn't fit their image.
@@Slydeil - I'll tell you like I've told many others - Best was not a drummer. If he was so capable, he would have been in big demand and surely caught on with another 'famous' band of that era - don't you think? Who wouldn't want an ex-Beatle drummer in their band?? Fact is, he wasn't a musician. The other 3 Beats said so themselves. That's why he was let go.
We have to remember there are videos on TH-cam analysing how far John Bonham strayed from a strict click. A bit of leeway is probably a good thing in rock. Playing live, a lot of drummers wouldn’t stand up to click track analysis.
Its one thing to lay down an effective sturdy beat in a Liverpool dance hall or other live venue where everyone’s had a couple of pints and just wants to dance. It’s quite another to do it in a recording studio, especially back then when it was hard to fix things with technology.
Great video! I saw Pete Best with The Pete Best Band at Beatlefest about a decade ago. The lead singer whose name I never learned did all the talking as the group’s front man. There was Pete behind his drum kit, just smiling and drumming along to the songs. I couldn’t stop wondering, “This is an ex Beatle?” If I knew nothing about his drumming, it was obvious he had nowhere near the personality it took to have been a member of the greatest band of all time.
a BIG difference being an ok musician on stage (LIVE PLAY) and an ok musician in the recording studio. Many also forget to mention the 'attitude' of the player on stage and LIVE. Took me years to learn that and I did while listening to the other musicians I played with, I think Pete misses the complete point, he DID play those early gigs in Germany, I doubt I would have done even that. Did he have a bad temper? Some say, did it matter then? I had a bad temper, and it ruined so many great gigs and recordings. Who am I? a NOBODY. Thank goodness RINGO lived long enough to be a BEATLE. Rock on!
Pete, The Pete Best Combo - The way i Feel about you (1966) is a killer Tune and something to be proud of
Why in God’s name is anyone still talking about this. 60 years a go there was a terrific band with a shit drummer. They fired him in favor of a really good one. The end.
Well I for one am glad they are still talking about it because I did not know till just now that that is why they fired Pete, because he was not that good. So I am glad to see this video. And by the way if you don't like the topic why did you watch it? Why not just move to another video to watch?
They replaced a poor drummer with a slightly better than average one.
@@Trev359 All you Ringo sycophants are so far up that drunk's ass.
@@holden190 Search for "analysis of Ringo" and see several videos backing him up.
They preferred Ringo . Full stop .
Ringo Starr is an incredible drummer in all areas but as a bass player, what I apprecuate most is that there is a wonderful swing in his play !!!
Yes! "Swing" is something that is hard to describe but I would suggest that Pete doesn't have it. Thank Bassman!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Wasn't Ken Brown the original bassist for the group? He also turned out to be a great singer and songwriter that would have gave John Lennon a run for his money.
@@TheSledgehammer2024 The original bassist for The Beatles was named Stuart Sutcliffe, Ken Brown played guitar in the Quarrymen for a little while, they were a precursor to The Beatles but he was never in The Beatles, he did play with Pete Best before he joined The Beatles though. Ken only played for two years so I think you may have dreamed that bit up about him giving Lennon a run for his money.
@@popgoesthe60s52 That is the understatement of the year.
@@G8GT364CI I didn't dream anything up, I founded that information from websites you can also from Google. Ken Brown and George Harrison founded The Beatles but Ken got kicked out of the band due to an injury (according to many websites that explain it better). He was still an original founding member of the band (even if it wasn't for long). He was also a singer that had a better voice than John Lennon because it was more melodic (in my opinion), but his solo music got swept under the radar for decades so most of his songs are lost into oblivion and only exclusive to B movies from Hollywood films (e.g. like the movie Hot Chili).
I saw Pete’s band “Best of the Beatles” a few years back! It was big fun, they played all the stuff the Beatles played in Hamburg and the Cavern Club! I met Pete afterwords, he was very nice and personable!!! 🎵👌🎶👍🎼✌️😁
Great video. I remember seeing Pete interviewed on a U.S. talk show in the late 1970s. It was something like the Merv Griffin show. The quote that has stuck with me all these years is him saying in his Liverpool accent, upon being fired by Epstein, "It hit me like a bombshell." I'll say this too. I was fired from a band once. And I quit a band once, pre-popularity, that got real popular. It's a full-blown emotional experience.
Were u in Toad the Wet Sprocket? Just curious because of your name.
@@timmycrw91 Ha ha, no. Toadstool Shadow is a music & arts collective in southern Ohio. www.toadstoolshadow.com
The older he gets the better he was.
Look at the players in his AllStar Band . Dudes like that don't play with a guy because they like his name
"The older he gets the better he was." Classic statement....and love it!
Just like the older people get, the more petty and judgmental they get. That applies too.....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 it's because as you age you realize how clueless people without the benefit of experience really are. There are a lot of things you cannot learn til you have experienced them personally
@@Cincinnatus1869 So maybe the Beatles should have waited 60 years before recording anything, so that Bestie could find his groove
We're coming up to August 16/22, which will be the 60th anniversary to the day that Pete Best was fired by the Beatles. Yet I'm still seeing Pete saying he doesn't know why he was fired? Sad is all I can say. Self-denial is a strange thing with some people. He should be grateful for the time he had with the Beatles, and that to this day he still collects Beatles royalties from the early recordings which have made him a millionaire. If he had been any good as a drummer, he would have carried on to having a successful career with another band, but he never did. England was full of fantastic young musicians forming new bands in the '60s, but Pete Best wasn't one of them.
Pete didn’t have the chops.
Simple as that.
You're right. He wouldn't even make it in my lousy band.
@mark jagger They had two years to 'train him up' and Pete didn't train up enough..
I have been watching a lot of Beatles videos and reading about them in context of their times. And I watched/listened to their Decca audition on TH-cam. is so so evident that they were SO much more than their music. ( an 58 years old and I read the bio “Shout” by Philip Norman years ago, so much of this is a refresher.). I have found myself telling my wife three things over and over: 1) The Beatles were “a thing” - a cultural touchstone, a point of reference for all the changes that defined the 60s; 2) if four other guys had produced exactly the same music, something would still be missing. Beatlemania would have fallen a little flat.it was all about personality. They were engaging. Approachable. Relatable. Down to earth. But witty. Energetic. Funny. So so funny. And they were friends. Four fun funny attractive friendly likable guys. Ringo was a sweetheart. He WAS a Beatle before he joined The Beatles; and 3) no Ringo, no Beatles. Ringo was not a showy drummer. Hated drum solos. It’s true. But he didn’t just keep a steady beat and add a flourish here and there. That’s where Pete stopped... on a good day. No, that’s not what Ringo did. He ADDED a unique, novel, pitch perfect percussion complement - on equal par with the brilliant melody, lyrics, bass line, etc.. - to every song they wrote. Pete’s Decca recording bears out John’s “move a stick up and down” assessment. The strings and vocals are just - wow, for their time - crisp and attention grabbing. Behind them? Meh. Okay I guess. Or, on some songs, not. A real dead weight behind.three thoroughbreds. Contrast to Paul’s comments about Ringo. A powerhouse, something amazing happening behind them. Not simply backing them up; Ringo was THE backbone PLUS a fourth musical element. And he had the personality to boot. He meshed with John, Paul and George. Without Ringo, there could be little of Rubber Souk, less of Revolver, and nothing.of Pepper’s that made The Beatles “a thing” that still inspires awe 50 years later. It had to be Ringo. Nobody else. Periodx
"A dead weight behind 3 thoroughbreds," I like that! You make excellent points, many of which are beyond merely assessing Pete's playing on Love Me Do. This video just went from 9,000 views to 30,000 over the weekend and what's fascinating is the passion over a Beatle topic like this - not really very important, yet people can't help but want to get involved somehow. Like you stated, they are engaging, even after all these years! Thanks for the insightful comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 thank you for putting it out there, no holds barred. I grew up hearing the “Ringo got lucky” crap. It bothered me. I’m not a musician, I had no understanding of music composition, I just liked music. But I decided to pay attention to the drumming and WHAM! it just stood out on so many songs. Strawberry Fields. Hello, Goodbye. Hard Day’s Night. I Want to Hold Your Hand. She Loves You. A Day in the Life. Come Together.. Wow! Something different, unique, musical, perfect on every song, exactly what fit, like an intricate puzzle piece that completed a beautiful picture. And I’ve heard it said by a number of educated listeners, like yourself: there were no virtuosos in The Beatles. I totally love Keith Moon. But his drumming would have *destroyed* the music. (Of course, he would have played more like Ringo in that context 😉). In fact, what is so striking about their music is how so many of their songs are composed of really, really simple parts layered up into something very complex, but again... perfect. Singable songs that just resonate in an incredibly rich, natural way that make them - just like Ringo - incredibly relatable and natural. And all he had to do was... play naturally. (See what I did there? 😁)
👍
God Made The Beatles Satan threw The Stones in for good measure😅
These kind of 'divorces' are never easy or tidy. It was probably handled the best way it could back then.
You've really covered all the bases here in this short vid. There should be no mystery at this point in time and going forward as to why Pete got replaced with Ringo. It wasn't really Pete's fault that he wasn't up to snuff; that's just the way it goes. Band chemistry absolutely has to be just right, and history has shown that those four truly were Fab!
And finally as a nice coda to the whole mess, Pete gets to live out his years with a nice chunk of cash, plus the recognition internationally that he was the first Beatles' drummer. Not too shabby a deal IMHO...
Pete was probably a servicable drummer, but lacked the chemistry personally and musically that the other three held. If you look at early photos of the Beatles at the Cavern with Best and compare photos of the Beatles at the Cavern with Ringo - you see two different stories. Pete sat in the back, played and kept to himself. Ringo played like crazy and had fun with the other three in a cohesive display of affection and fun for the music and moment. It's sucks for Best - hard luck. Ringo provide more than just being a great drummer - he sealed the tight circle of brotherhood in the band. He brought a sense of fun, love, open mindedness, humor and play into his work. Pete was quiet and didn't participate in that sense of fun. . If he stayed with the Beatles - you wouldn't have the Fab Four dynamic. It would have been a 3 and 1 situation.
yep, that's exactly what it is...you just forgot to say that Ringo just. had a better groove, simple as that
Best was fired because their new manager told them it HAD to be done. They trusted his judgement.
@@spaceghost8995 no...John Paul and George were too coward to tell him so they gave the difficult task to Brian
I agree with your post but I’ll add that Ringo authored some of the most iconic drum parts. Ringo is the greatest!
@@robiandolo he really is
What's abundantly clear from the Get Back docu -- the fellas had full confidence in Ringo's abilities. I always liked the Beatles, but having grown up a child of the 80s, I never really thought much about Ringo as a drummer. It has always seemed like a running gag of some sort that he was the least talented one, but all I can say as a non-musician, from the moment I really listened to Magical Mystery Tour, I knew there was something special about this drummer. I think of him now as a highly competent musician -- the backbone of one of the most talented bands ever.
You're forgetting that many of those great drum parts were created by lennon or mccartney, who told ringo what to play. Anyone couldve done the drums for the beatles.
you can hear Pete's tempo speed-ups & slow-downs on the demo tapes, its pretty rough. after 2 years in, he should have been way tighter, but it's irrelevant really. what pete never seemed to grasp was that no matter who the better drummer, Richard was obviously the better Beatle.
Listen to Pete's drum beats on "I saw her standing there". Ringo's drum versions of the song were lively and energetic. There are videos on YT with Pete on drums & Ringo on drums on "I saw her standing there"
George Martin explained it quite clearly.
He wasn't good enough for recordings.
neither was Ringo
@@MikeBixby Well, that is you opinion. And it was certainly the opinion of George Martin and the rest of The Beatles, that Ringo was better and at least acceptable enough to remain with the group for the next ten years or so and then have a successful solo career following that.
Ringo understood the drum kit was meant to be a backing instrument and not the lead. He hated drum solos and the like. He was then and is now an accomplished and unique rock drummer. His technique and style is unique If you listen to Ticket to Ride, you can clearly hear this as an excellent example of his unique style of drumming.
@@Lethgar_Smith Have you seen the interviews where Ringo describes that he cant do a right hand lead? The rest of us dont have the luxury to stop progressing and not improving our drumming. No band I've worked with would accept that. They'd find somebody else that could. Ringo, by all accounts is a great guy, loves music and gives back to the industry and fans. Times were different back then and drums were in the background and down in the mix. Ringo stayed out of the way and musically supported Paul's genius. I say he was a very very fortunate individual to be in the right place at the right time as was Charlie Watts. I wouldn't say his ability and honing his craft got him or held him that gig.
@@MikeBixby Well, that's a nice story and all but the man's body of work doesn't support your version of reality.
What I see happening here is a collection of contrarians. people who get off on disagreeing with popular trends. You know the type, the guy that says, "Ford trucks suck!" when they're the most popular truck in the world. Or like the people who couldn't stand the movie Titanic but couldn't give a specific reason or in most cases hadn't even seen it.
People like that get a little thrill from it because it makes them feel like they are in an elite club or holder of some special knowledge, when in reality its all nothing but an matter of opinion. There is nothing to fear from agreeing with the crowd, as long as you are being true to yourself.
Ringo Star was a talented rock drummer with a unique style of playing. There is nothing controversial about that opinion and there is no danger of losing your sense of identity if you find you agree with me.
@@Lethgar_Smith no THATS a good story. So your ok with a person not attempting to advance and develop his skillset yet still achieve massive fame and fortune just because he did what told and didnt get in the way. Back a hundred years ago we had to learn Wipe Out or 4 way indepence, 16ths with the right hand etc. We couldnt just quit and say “i cant do that”. I’m really not hating on Ringo. I grew up learning Beatles tunes too. Hes one influence among many. The fact that he happened to be the guy behind the Ludwigs in the Beatles made him famous. I cant help but point out Paul touring and playing Beatles tunes with Abe Laboriel Jr. Abe (as would any accomplished pro drummer) Duplicates and / or improves on everything Mr Starkey played.
John , Paul & George says Ringo was better. That’s it. End of story.
They were jealous Pete was getting the girls
@@jamesnaumof1657 Good point - the boys (especially Paul) did not have much luck with the ladies. Girls would even go as far as screaming en mass throughout their shows in order to discourage the lads from touring, which ultimately proved a successful strategy.
@@rosshewage6893 [trying to stop laughing] Excellent sarcasm, sir---outstanding!
Of course they'd say Ringo was better. What are they going to do, apologize for firing the guy and costing him millions of dollars?
@@bobturnley2787 Ringo was better. th-cam.com/video/Yr8BE1M7qPc/w-d-xo.html
Great end quote:~
“No shame in not being good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney & Harrison…..not many people are”!