Видео

Thank you so much for the support. It is easier to explain it to musicians. It play guitar, bass and keyboards, but likewise don't put me behind a kit!

He was a very good professional drummer, with 2 years of great success with The Beatles to his credit, in which time they became the top group in Liverpool and Hamburg, made a record which brought them to Brian's attention, which helped get a recording contract. Not bad. George Martin had no problem with him as a drummer with the group, but like his producer Ron Richards, preferred a session drummer in the studio, which is a different skillset. George Martin didn't like Ringo either for the same reason, though Ringo was allowed the time to adapt to the studio and proved himself to be the perfect replacement. That's why simple answers are rarely simple, because there is a huge backstop and context to consider.

But worth repeating!!! 😂

Paul's comment is in Anthology, the official history. Also, Kaempfert never criticised Best's drumming, that is a myth. He asked him not to play his booming bass drum, because Kaempfert never had a big drum sound on his recordings. If you listen to My Bonnie, Best's drumming is superb and his drum rolls, at speed, are hard to replicate. That is according to drummers. Nobody criticised his drumming timing. Mike Smith at Decca had no problem. Peter Pilbeam at the BBC had no problem either. But drumming in a studio for a record is a different discipline, so a session drummer was often used, as we know. Bobby Graham, the first Drummer asked to replace Best, played on 1500 songs, and around 50 of those topped the charts for the groups/ artists. George Martin actually was passing on the suggestion of his producer Ron Richards who preferred using session drummers. So there isn't really any contemporaneous evidence of anyone not liking Best's drumming. It is all after the event.

@@BrightmoonLiverpool I disagree. There is plenty of evidence that his timing was bad and you can hear it in his recordings on the anthology. As far as McCartney’s comments he’s trying to be nice to Pete I mean, why wouldn’t he be now?

@@fourthtunz Give me a specific example of his poor timekeeping?

Exactly!

Exactly right. Timing for a record is a different skill, as Ringo found out too. It wasn't a slight on Best or Ringo, just studio practice.

Yes and no. You are right about George's comments and how it was interpreted. It didn't however mean bringing in Ringo. That was a separate decision. Decision 1 was get a new drummer. 2, who should we choose. 3. Four drummers including Ringo were asked. 5. Ringo said yes, the others said no. The right drummer joined!

@@BrightmoonLiverpool Actually George Martin had already decided on a drummer, session drummer Andy White. John, Paul and George showed up with Ringo unbeknownst to George Martin.

@johnking8896 Andy White was only asked to make the record after the 4th September session and was brought in not only to replace Pete, but specifically Ringo. And yes, nobody told George Martin they had changed the drummer and was surprised when they walked in with Ringo!

@@BrightmoonLiverpool Good point, enjoyed the video. 👍

@@johnking8896 Thank you

Wow such a long time ago! Glad that you still remember our tour, and meeting the lovely Margaret in Dmiral Grove. Sadly she died a few years ago. Lovely lady. Best wishes from Liddypool. Dave.

Take care, David. Mike👍

@@rfurdaylee Thanks Mike

@@BrightmoonLiverpool One last thing. Not sure if you've ever seen this ( unbelievably 16 yrs ago 😲🫣) but it's a clip of that visit to Ringo's home, with you and Margaret. ruclips.net/video/NfaMVIbXpJ4/видео.htmlsi=qoasx0lATpNUnVq2

What does that mean?

He was the first person to be called The Fifth Beatle.

@@BrightmoonLiverpool There’s only four Beatles last time I looked, though Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best get a honourable mention.

@@BrightmoonLiverpool In my mind, if anyone deserves the title "Fifth Beatle" it would be George Martin.

Very true.

Very unfortunate! What was his name?

@@BrightmoonLiverpool dont remember, all the lads from quarry just called him BO 😂

@@EileenForrest-w4w Ha ha!!

Thanks for the detailed account... I knew the story that both Mimi and Julia had bought him a guitar, separately, but didn't know the full backstory...

@@Merseyrock Ray Coleman interviewed Beatles often, & interviewed Mimi & her account of buying John his Club40 in: *Ray Coleman, Lennon* , 1984, London: Pan. Early OOP Beatles-related books are often very cheap to buy because they're supposedly out-of-date on what we know & may have one or 2 myths not debunked yet. But what they have that new books cannot have is original interviews with relatives & 1st generation fans, insiders no longer with us. A 1980s McCartney bio that I bought for 4 quid last spring comes to mind. So now, all these years later, those old beat-up books with their primary research are good & cheap to peruse for today's secondary-researchers.

"The Dallas Tuxedo found in the attic..." A good premise for a book, or at least a feature article: What happened to the electric guitar stolen in Ardwick, Manchester, by John Lennon? A detective trail for a diligent writer. Even as an article it calls for major investigative journalism. Who is left alive to have any clue what Lennon did with that guitar? No one even knows whose guitar it was or from which band. Not even the Bests could help: it's before Pete's introduction. JL didn't give it or sell it to GH or PM. If the writer could get to Paul McCartney with a series of Qs, instead of the same old same old, it would be: "What did John do with the stolen Dallas Tuxedo? Do you recall him ever playing it at gigs instead of his Club40? Did he ever say he stashed it in the attic? Did he ever mention it down the line?" And if PM doesn't know, who is left to offer a clue? This Q should have been researched in the 1980s. It was too obscure for Lewisohn to investigate in his tome - one example of why Lewisohn's fine tome is not the sacred incontrovertible be-all-&-end-all of Beatles foundations.

Surely the guy who John stole the guitar from exists? Word of the theft would've soon gotten around around, considering the cost of such an item back then If he's still alive then I'm pretty sure he's still pissed about it and with it so chronicled you'd think he or (had he passed since) his family would've made the connection and come forward to identify the guitar or at least the model and verify the incident before now, so much unnatural/myth/legend attached to the Beatles

@@Tom-nt9dz Well Tom, at the time, the guy would have zero idea it was Johnny & the Moondogs who took his guitar. The story surfaced whenever JL started talking about it, which would be....what? maybe 1967 in Hunter Davis's Beatles bio? I'm not sure, it may have been later. Say, maybe 10 years after the Ardwick gig? It wasn't a big revelation when JL outed himself, so the point would not get any traction in the press - - there were at the time much bigger revelations, such as JL living with his Aunt & what happened to his mother, which we take as standard facts now but which would have been revelatory for Beatles fans around 1967. The guitar-owner wouldn't have even identified Beatle John as the leader of Johnny & the Moondogs until, at earliest, I think, 1963. Even then, it's not certain the guitar-owner ever saw Johnny & the Moondogs perform that night in Manchester: the competing bands wouldn't have all seen each other play in every instance. The Quarry Men didn't perform another gig as Johnny & the Moondogs. (Maybe the theft was a disincentive to carry on the band name!) The guitar-owner may *never* have pieced together for himself that JL was the leader of that band that night: it was just another band that didn't win. And until JL outed himself, it was not known at the time that Johnny & the Moondogs had stolen the guitar: the thief could just as easily been a Mancunian with a fleeting opportunity. The former owner would have to be a Beatles aficianado years later, in the 1980s, when Beatle books started mining the Quarry Men's past gigs, to get any hint. And we don't know when the former owner died. I'm assuming he did die somewhere back there, else, as you say, he'd have mentioned to a journo or a magazine or a webforum that he was the lad whose guitar was stolen. And what confuses me right round the block is that there are now TWO separate stories of Lennon guitars found in different attics. The other's a 12-string used in HELP!

He was working with one frustrated drummer in Paul, but two other perfectionists who wanted their own songs played their way. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Ringo fan! I am not criticising him at all. Pete lasted 2 years with John Paul and George and achieved the reputation as being the top group in Hamburg and Liverpool, got Brian as manager, and a record contract. We don't know what would have happened with Pete, and we don't need to, as it didn't happen. I am just reporting history as it happened, and there was never a situation where they wanted Ringo to replace Pete. They decided to replace Petenand after asking 4 drummers, Ringo said yes and was the replacement. And he was the right replacement too.

Confused by your comments. Lennon didn't agree with me? How could he. I've stated the facts supported by evidence, so if you have some evidence to contradict what I have said, please let me know. Happy to review new evidence if there is any?

@@BrightmoonLiverpool Re Best, I will, of course. I'll need time to find and present the evidence as wife Clara and I are quite busy working on many projects plus building a house in Colombia (where getting anything done is next to impossible). Re the Beatles, they were never as presented to the public so that will take more time. Thank you for not insulting me and remaining respectful-especially considering my uncharacteristic confrontational tone with you. (Michael)

@claradiaz3147 Hi Michael, happy to wait for you, no problem. I encourage open debate and discussion and always open to hear what you have to say. Thank you. David

I knew Lee/Peter and met him many times. There are lots of secondary reasons out there by which the three Beatles justified the decision, but none of those were the main reason. Lee was a great singer!

Yes, John was 17 and George 14. A huge gap.

From talking to the Quarrymen, we deduced that they were the Blackjacks for only a couple of weeks, sometime in Spring 1957. Nobody is quite sure who chose it, why they used it, but it seems they were only ever the Quarrymen as a full group.

The myth and legend maker! After his extravagant claims, he actually added drums to the Sheridan recordings and that is all!

No, it wasn't Bernie. It was a local lad who Charlie Roberts knew.

@@BrightmoonLiverpool ahh, so much like him. Thank you. Great days x

From those I have spoken to who saw the Beatles with Petr and with Ringo have commented on the change in style. Gone was the straight rock-playing Beatles with Pete that John loved so much. The beat changed, and the style changed. Ringo could play those songs, but it was a different style, with more swing than rock. 1962 saw the group change, according to those who were there.

Thank you! Cheers!

Definitely!!

He was a beautiful soul from what everyone has said about him. What a talent.

Not true. Ron Richards producing the session said to George Martin that he would prefer to use a session drummer if they got a contract. George Martin told Brian he didn't mind what he did with them as a group for playing live, which was the same for so many other artists who had session musicians play on their records. The Wrecking Crew, Booker T and the MGs, and people like Bobby Graham and Andy White as session drummers here. Normal practice. However, it was interpreted by John Paul and George as George Martin not thinking Best was good enough. That is different.

A mama's boy? Ringo adored his mum, George adored his mum, but sadly John and Paul had lost theirs. Not a reason to change drummers though.

He has, but makes several errors in covering the story unfortunately.

You can't take a single quote from Lennon and build a thesis from it. He changed his mind so many times depending on the day of the week, the interviewer or the substance he was on at the time. You have to study all the evidence. Another quote from John was that if you didn't see the Beatles in the clubs and dance halls in Liverpool and Hamburg when they played straight rock, you never saw the real Beatles. We were feeling shit as soon as Brian put us into suits. John's favourite time with the Beatles? Those first 2 Hamburg trips in 60 and 61, when Best was drumming. George also said their peak for playing live was at the Top Ten Club in Hamburg in 1961, also with Best. Paul says in Anthology, immediately before John's quote you mentioned, that Pete was a really good drummer. He has repeated that too.

Damn! There's always one person who wants to apply logic.

In hindsight, Ringo was perfect for them, but socially they didn't know him that well. George had become good friends with Ringo in early 62, which is why he championed Ringo and had to persuade John and Paul. Ringo was also one of 4 drummers approached and offered the job.

He certainly is. What a man!

Ringo got sick, Jimmie Nicol filled in. Ringo recovered, and all was well.

Sorry about the noise - what a day!

If that's your take on this matter, then "a big part of [your] life's work" has failed you. First of, John is not, "the only [Beatle] to diss Pete's drumming". Paul told the following lie...the conversation never happened...which included a dig at Pete's drumming: *"George Martin pulled us aside and asked us to replace our drummer, and what were we gonna do, we couldn't pretend like Pete was the greatest drummer in the world."* While that is not as harsh and straightforward as Lennon's critical comments of Pete, that is just Paul's way, he always has a softer approach compared to the acid-tongued Lennon. But the message...the lie...is the same, that he Paul thought Pete's drumming was lacking. And Paul was not just talking about his own personal opinion of Pete's drumming, because Paul said, "we", so he was speaking for Lennon and Harrison, as well, when he told that lie. Now, let's get on your absurd take on Lennon's comment. You characterized Lennon's explanation of why they kept Pete as long as they did as "very plausible". It is not "very plausible". It is not even remotely plausible. It is risible. John said, *"The only reason he got into the group was because we had to have a drummer to go to Hamburg. We were always going to dump him as soon as we could find a decent drummer."* The Beatles first stint in Hamburg lasted 3 months. After it ended, Pete remained The Beatles drummer for another 21 MONTHS. And very early on in Pete's tenure, during that first trip to Hamburg, Pete invented the "Atom Beat", which revolutionized rock drumming, and had every drummer in the entire Hamburg-Liverpool circuit trying to copy it...including Ringo Starr. One bandleader, Faron of Faron's Flamingos, kept firing drummers because "they couldn't sound like Pete Best". The day before Pete joined The Beatles, they were the worst band in Liverpool. Mere weeks after he joined, on the strength of his Atom Beat, they were the hottest ticket in Hamburg. Ringo said, *"My band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, arrived in Hamburg about two months after The Beatles had gotten there. We were on the same bill a lot so I was always running into them. I'll never forget the first time I heard The Beatles play, they were already great. They were the only band I would go see on my time off. We were all playing the same songs back then, but The Beatles played them better than all of us."* Oh, JP&G had PLENTY of time to "dump" Pete. The Beatles were so hot they could've had any drummer they wanted! Certainly they could have by the end of Pete's first full year with the band, when The Beatles knocked Ringo's band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, out of the # 1 spot in the Mersey Beat Top Band Poll. Why didn't they go for Ringo then?? Ringo had known for over a year at that point that The Beatles were in a league by themselves. He would've jumped at the chance! So for Lennon to say that they were always going to dump Pete as soon as they could find a decent drummer is absolutely laughable. Particularly when you consider that John described Pete's tenure with the band as the zenith of their live playing: *"Our best work was when we were in our leathers playing the clubs and dance halls in Hamburg, doing straight rock 'n roll. But it wasn't recorded so the world never got to hear it. Nobody in England could touch us. But as soon as we got signed we fell apart as a live band."* For you to say that Lennon's "he was a lousy drummer and we were always gonna dump him" comment is "the most honest comment, not shaped by any other motivation than to be honest", tells me you just fell off the turnip truck. JP&G sacked Pete over JEALOUSY, because Pete was the far and away most popular Beatle for his entire 2-year tenure, and the gap was growing ever larger between his popularity and each of theirs. So to justify their betrayal of Pete, and to protect and preserve little Ringo's delusion that he was chosen to replace Pete on MERIT, and not because he was the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer they could find with adequate skills, Lennon LIED and said Pete was a lousy drummer who never improved and they were always gonna dump him as soon as they could find a decent drummer. HA! What a laugh!!! But hey, don't take my word for it. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best wasn't fired by Epstein, as he couldn't fire him. He wanted to keep Pete, but John, Paul, and George insisted he was replaced because George Martin wanted a session drummer. That is the only reason, and it makes sense. All the other reasons, like the Mona Best reason, was secondary. It was a good way for John, Paul and George to convince Brian to tell Pete the bad news.

Rubbish. Brian fought JP&G to keep Pete in the band. Pete was the most popular Beatle by a mile, Brian was adamantly opposed to replacing him. He ultimately capitulated when JP&G wouldn't budge, but he wasn't happy about it at all.

Which facts can you disprove? Happy to be corrected with evidence if you have it.

Pete did get legal advice, just bad advice. His lawyer tried to sue Brian for wrongful dismissal, so Brian's lawyer kept replying that his client, Brian, did not employ Mr Best. So he had bad advice. To change groups didn't need any paperwork. By joining the other group, he naturally quits the Beatles and becomes a member of the new group.

No, not a chance.

Very well said, thank you. I agree with you.