The Beatles EMI Audition for George Martin 6th June 1962
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- When George Martin invited Brian Epstein to bring The Beatles to Parlophone, part of EMI, for an audition on 6th June 1962, little did they know how things were going to change!
From research in his book "Finding the Fourth Beatle", David Bedford discusses the legal status of that day: were the Beatles under contract to EMI, or was this an audition?
In his book, "Tune In", Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn states that The Beatles were actually under contract to EMI on that date, but George Martin refuted that fact. Who was right?
David presents the evidence to reach the conclusion.
Get David's book at www.beatlessho...
David Bedford is a Beatles historian and author of several books on The Beatles, including his worldwide most popular book, “Liddypool: Birthplace of The Beatles”. Find out more about David at liddypool.com/
Brightmoon Liverpool is part of Brightmoon Media, an award-winning media production and broadcast company based in Liverpool, UK. Our recent works include the John Lennon feature documentary 'Looking for Lennon', as well as a number of specialist educational films for some of the UK's top universities.
Follow us to find out more about upcoming projects:
Twitter: bit.ly/3z5HivM
Instagram: bit.ly/2USqhq7
Facebook: bit.ly/3imDcc7
Brightmoon website: bit.ly/2Vi5Pzl
If you would like to work with us, please contact our founder and director Roger
Appleton at rappleton@live.co.uk
Love this kind of in depth research. Great video David, look forward to hearing more!
+Lissywitch Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. I have lots more to share too! Stay tuned 😁
Thanks, David!
Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated.
Thanks David. I had not seen this when I commented earlier on the subject. You have nailed it for me.
Thanks Christopher, much appreciated. David
Thanks for all the research Dave, it's fascinating for all of us who grew up in the 60's and who realised even then that something special was happening 😃
My pleasure to share my research. I love learning mkre about the decade that changed the world!
The irony regarding using a session drummer instead of Pete Best, and this being the reason Pete was sacked, is that every lead guitarist in most bands in the sixties had to take a back seat and watch Jimmy Page take their place in the recording studio, most didn't get dumped, but ended up on Top of the Pops.
+Tony Murphy Absolutely right Tony. Session musicians appeared on virtually every big hit in the 60s, with some groups having none of their members play an instrument.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Forgot to say mate, love your videos, well researched, subscribed after watching the first one, keep it up!
Thank you Tony
When people talk about great 60's drummers they will always cite Kieth Moon, and Mick Avory, but even they were replace by a session drummer on the early hits of The Who and Kinks by Clem Cattini.
@@ynotstraw Very true. Bobby Graham was also one of the most used session drummers too. Led Zeppelin was basically made up of session musicians!!
Nice job on these details!
Greetings From Detroit Michigan-Long Time Beatles History Fan-Your Videos Are Superb! Thank You
Hello from Liddypool! Thank you so much.
The most important take for me on this is the potential misunderstanding of studio v live drummers. Had Pete stayed on as 'band drummer' the history of music and modern culture may have altered radically. This is not meant as a slur on Pete (or his drumming ability) but that Ringo had a steady influence on the others when things got fractious and possibly lengthened the longevity of the band. Also, that through other media such as films "A Hard Days Night", "Help" etc Ringo's personality fitted the other three and helped change how creative acts were perceived and then marketed.
I agree that by bringing in Ringo, the chemistry between the four of them was perfect and could only have worked that well with those four
@@BrightmoonLiverpool According to Lewisohn's first book John, Paul and George looked up to Ringo. He had been a "professional" drummer for Rory Storm and even owned a car! That was a big step for the other three. They courted Ringo as the drummer liked to sit in with them in Hamburg. It was decision Ringo thought about before making the move.
@@gmb858 In addition, I also understand that when the Beatles initially "hired" RIngo, they paid him more than they were making.
All right, I agree with everything, especially about the great balancing character of Ringo and his ability to take out tension within the group, but of course we will never know what course their carrer would have been taken if Pete would have stayed. It definitely would have been different from where it went.
But not necessarily in a bad way.
Agree with most of these comments. However I would point out that Ringo was the only one of the four who had any real acting ability (George maybe a little). I think Ringo saved them in both movies. Can't imagine Pete contributing much to the big screen, not like Ringo did!.
Great story David very interesting research ! 👍👍🎸😎🎸 BB .
All very interesting as The Beatles throughout their careers have been the most amazing ride and if I can speak for others as well as myself - that is why we continue to read and learn new things about the stories of this incredible band! Looking forward to the next installment !!!
+howcotube Thank you and I agree - the story is so fascinating in every aspect of their career and every person involved on that journey too. More to come!
But you do realize there were at least 3 Pauls and at least 2 Johns don't you?
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 then maybe there are 3 of me as well !!!
@@howcotube I don't think anyone would care. But since it's the Beetles, a manufactured boy band with actors coming and going, those of us who've figured it out look more closely at everything. LIke the fake Biden.
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 You didn't even spell Beatles right ! Get real please !
I would like to expand on this in a more general way. In the end it's John Lennon who gets the most credit for the success of the Beatles, he made all the key decisions along the way, all of which were correct. Firstly he decided to form a band (The Quarrymen). Secondly he made a monumental decision to take PM into the band. Seems self-evident today but at the time not so much. Band leaders are notorious for not wanting anyone who could possibly outshine them. John was more interested in raising the level of musicianship than in his own ego. As a bandleader myself for 30 years I have some experience in this area. Next he made the decision to take GH in. True Paul is the one who brought him to John, but it was John's decision to make - and a great one it was. Next he took PB in, another good decision. Pete's mom Mona owned a night club which provided a lot of gigs for the lads, worked out well for them at the time. Next he arranged for a recording to be made with Tony Sheridan, "My Bonnie". It was this record that was brought to the attention of BE and led to Brian seeing the band at the Cavern. Finally it was John who made the decision to make BE their manager, none of the other Beatles could have overruled John on this. Though John has denied it a few times over the years, he WAS the bandleader, in every way. This decision obviously led to audition with GM and all that transpired afterward. And the final decision that capped it all off was sacking Pete and taking in Ringo. John could easily have overruled that if he had wanted to - he was the leader. But he made the right choice again. And I'm sure there were a plethora of other less critical decisions made by John which didn't make the papers but all turned out well. I welcome informed debate on this topic, particularly from you Dave!
Thanks for a great comment and some great suggestions. He was definitely the leader and made the most important decisions. He couldn't have done anything about My Bonnie - that was Tony Sheridan and Bert Kaempfert. But the most important ones were John's. He would listen to the others but always happy to take the final decision. Even if you include John standing up to George Martin and insisting Love Me Do is released, not How Do You Do It, he was always happy to make the decisions.
With Ringo, as per George Harrison, George had to convince John and Paul to go for Ringo. He also, wrongly, went for Allen Klein! He had to get one wrong!!!
This is just amazing! A very complicated issue at such an important time. You have done a great job of researching and clearing up that question. But Ringo wasn't a session drummer for EMI. I'm wondering how that worked out. Pete was their drummer for his stage presence and effects on the ladies. Hindsight surely proves that George Martin was correct in his assessment. You have previously mentioned in one of your wonderful videos that John, Paul and George had used a total of 23 drummers. I'm looking forward to finding out how that evolved. Thank you so much again for your great work!
+Jeff Wier Thanks Jeff, it was a complex issue and not straightforward at all. Ringo did have his issues too, and I will get to that in a future video too. We are planning a special one to go through the 23 drummers in one go, as well as individual stories too. Was great fun to research and share my stories from my books. I think we can say that George Martin was write on so many occasions. The Beatles were lucky to have him!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool wasn't it Alan White who played on the initial sessions after Ringo joined the group? Ringo was demoted to playing tambourine on "Love Me Do." He later said he was pretty "chuffed" at the whole situation.
@@gmb858 He was livid, not chuffed. Chuffed means delighted, happy, pleased.
@@BrightmoonLiverpoolit's right not write, I'm forensic also lol
Fascinating investigation - it's remarkable how much of their destiny (and ours, as fans) turned on such an intricate series of decisions!
Absolutely right - so many times in their history. This is just one of many
I was signed to Joe Flannery in 1999 and he told us George came to the Cavern twice before he signed them?
Thanks Mitch. I know George Martin made a couple of trips to Liverpool, but that was after the first singles had been released in 63 and he was thinking of trying to capture The Beatles at the Cavern for their debut album, but he reasoned that the acoustics just wouldn't work. I met Joe several times and interviewed him too. Absolute gentleman.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool we had some good laughs together when we were on his label, he played our demos to Paul and he loved them believe it or not.
Thanks for this informative and amazing story. I think you are spot on, they were not under contract at the time in question. So many factors came together to make the Beatles a part of our lives. They certainly brought colour to a black and white world. I heard them on the Beeb across the English Channel while I was living in France as a kid. My parents bought all the lp’s up to Rubber Soul, but after they heard that Norwegian Wood was about pot ( where did they hear that nonsense?) that ended it for them. The Beatles never ended for me, however. I appreciate your forensic approach. Hello from Austin Texas.
+Clayton Kusaj Thanks Clayton in Austin. glad you enjoyed this. Nice how you discovered them, and I think a number of parents became more and more suspicious of the Beatles music as it became more progressive, especially Rubber Soul and Revolver. Glad you continued listening and still do today. Greetings from Liverpool. David
The pre drug material was actually their best work. No gimmicks, just clever innovative compositions. Writers block turns to drugs to spark an idea, but it's not the product of smart creative thought.
@birdsndog5932 Hello!
Great stuff for us Beatle geeks.
From a fellow Beatles geek, glad you enjoyed it.
It sound like Brian signed the contract, but Parlophone had not yet 'accepted' it by securing Martn's counter-signature (which would have been subject to performance at the audio).
That's it. Brian signed his side of the contract but it isn't valid until EMI signed it. And it wasn't George Martin who signed it. He had to send it to HQ to be signed. Only then was it valid.
Thank you for this video David . I believe I watched it before. However I enjoyed watching it again. You give a very well researched and measured account of that period as opposed to some videos I see where people upload a video and it becomes an account which basically attacks Pete Best .
Thank you, I like to present an objective view based on evidence and not bias. Glad you enjoyed it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You always give a balanced analysis which is why I like your videos. Thanks again.
The legal aspect of this video with regards to contract law reminds me of the American movie/tv show The Paper Chase.
Thank you.
This was common place in the 60s and even the 70s,Clem Catini ex Pirate,Ex Tornado became a session drummer from 1965 onwards,playing on 44 Uk chart No1s and over 1000 chart entrys,yet the bands drummer would do the live concerts
Absolutely right. It just wasn't talked about, was it?
You're correct. Epstein's telegram was misstated, perhaps out of a desire to spur the guys on. The contract that you showed had extensive handwritten changes and questions as to meanings. It looks like a contract that was taking form but was still being negotiated. Just because one party approves it doesn't mean there is a binding agreement. Chances are George Martin didn't have final authority to commit EMI to the deal. Usually the company attorney has to say Grace over it and then an executive, or in this case, the company secretary for the board of directors, finalized the language of the agreement and had the power to commit EMI to the agreement.
Brian Epstein was many things, but a "technical" manager he was not. He was feeling his way through the maze as much as the boys were. He knew what he wanted in the Beatles to put on the stage and was able to gain a significant spot with Ed Sullivan. But the ancillary rights to the Beatles with any merchandise bearing their likeness fell into the hands of others. Those merchandise sales was an enormous about of money during Beatlemania. I remember 7th grade girls carrying a Beatles lunch box with pictures of the Beatle everywhere, including the thermos bottle. None of the Beatles made a nickel on them.
Brian cut a deal with a music publisher Dick James, where Brian and James divided up the publishing royalties. McCartney years later told an interviewer, "yes the songs were successful but we were only given a "tip" (meaning the promoters, producers and sharks like Dick James took off with the cash. It happened more often than not in the music business). What is so remarkable is that with only collecting a small fraction of the money generated, decades later all 4 Beatles (3 living and John's estate) were worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If they had received the lion's share of "their work" all of them would be billionaires, not just Paul.
Thank you for your great comments. George Martin, as you rightly state, could "sign" an artist, but this still had to be signed off by an EMI executive, which happened in later June. Brian was great at what he knew, but nobody had attempted anything like this before, so he was bound to make mistakes along the way, for others to learn from.
That contract to give away their song rights has cost them millions over the years, but that was always the way record companies and publishers worked, and probably still work today.
Thanks. I often thought the same thing. Dick James must have made a killing on the Beatles, but what he did was pretty standard back then. McCartney should by all rights, have a Bill Gates fortune by now had the group made more money in publishing and even 25% of the merchandise sales. But….Paul and Ringo are doing ok.
I think you’re forgetting that not all Beatles songs were published by MacLen Music and Northern Songs. Harrison and Starr were luckier, and were only committed to Northern for 3 years. They then founded their own publishing companies, and took 100%. MacCartney and Lennon were committed to Northern/MacLen until 1973, so they each only received 17.5% of the value of each song. Oddly, Harrison and Starr also received 1.6% of all Beatle songs published by Northern until they both refused to re-up in 1968.
I don’t think any change would have made PMc and JL "billionaires" from publishing rights. Even if they had each taken the full 50%, the lion's share of the money was in the recordings and for radio/TV play, which pays only the songwriters.
@@SheepOnDrugz I believe we read the same book because I agree with your take on the percentages.
I am not understanding your statement "Even if they had each taken the full 50%, the lion's share of the money was in the recordings and for radio/TV play, which pays only the songwriters." They were the songwriters. They didn't receive the lions' share by publishing rights but they earned on their own creations that both they and other artists recorded.
The deal that Klein signed the Beatles to before the breakup provided revenue sharing in stated amounts to all 4 Beatles for any "side recording projects" envisioned at the time. This was enforceable on all of them when they went solo.
That contract was valid until 1976. McCartney and the Eastmans objected to that as the split became more acrimonious.
Finally McCartney took the advise of the Eastmans and sued the other 3 to break up the partnership. It was the only way he could get clear title to his output for his solo career. That is the litigation that droned on long after Lennon's death.
As it is today, the record industry holds all the aces and anybody who wants to be a star will sign whatever is put in front of them. As you say I think the Beatles did ok from it!!
They were turned down by Decca's Dick Rowe but that was a whole other audition. He signed the Rolling Stones upon the urging of George Harrison.
+lee shafer Absolutely right Lee - bit of a mistake that one!!
Having session musicians play for bands was not uncommon. Most of the Beach Boys recordings used session musicians (The Wrecking Crew) as the Beach Boys mainly provided the vocals.
Absolutely right, it was very common practice, even for established groups, but almost guaranteed for a new group making their first record.
The Beach Boys', Brian Wilson produced their own records. The Beatles relied on George Martin and the brought in Phil Spector to finish 'Let it Be' and produce The Beatles.
George Martin also, was the groups classically trained musician/pianist.
Beatle fan boys like to knock Phil Spector, but Phil did what he was paid to do -- get 'Let It Be' album finished and marketable, something the core four Beatle members could not do.
John Lennon and George Harrison later hired Phil Spector to producer their own solo projects. So that tells me, Phil was not an issue Beatle fan boys make him out to be. It was Paul's ego, that perhaps was bruised.
The Beatles heavy reliance on Martin and then Spector always diminishes The Beatles. They could not get their records markable without an A & R man producing them. What if the Beatles went it alone, indie, like the Swedish music group ABBA?
Or had a - Brian Wilson - within the core four?
I am particularly impressed with ABBA. They were the anti-establishment (American/British/British Commonwealth), big record label, music group. They were a self contained indie band/label that did everything themselves.
They had no corporate music industry puppeteers or overlords.
ABBA's B's, Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulveras were the songwriters and producer's. Before ABBA got established, Benny and Bjorn were Polar Music house producer's. Their manager, helped early on with Swedish - English - Swedish language lyrics.
The ABBA/Polar Music Team:
Stikkan 'Stig' Anderson, mngr
Gorel Johnsen-Hanser, admin
Anni-Frid Lyngstad
Benny Andersson
Bjorn Ulveras
Agnetha Falkskog
Rutger Gunnarsson
Michael B Tretow
&
ABBA's loyal top rank session/touring musicians. Their band has a place of honor at ABBA Museum in Stockholm.
Just ask Paul or Ringo, I'm sure they would know and remember.
Ringo didn't come into the story until a little later, but John, Paul and George as well as Brian and George Martin have all commented on the day and remember the audition.
But, they were already getting pissed with Pete not showing up for gigs and having to get Ringo to sub for him.
+Red Vynil It wasn't quite like that, and I will explain more in a future video about that changeover from Pete to Ringo. The evidence suggests something different to the many versions out there. The first time Ringo sat in for Pete was when Pete asked him, due to him being unwell. They were mates. It only happened 3 other times. It helped that Ringo had played with them before but they were doing covers, so all the drummers knew the songs. There is no evidence to suggest they had any problem with Pete before 6th June 1962. More to follow soon.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I remember reading just a few months ago that John & Paul stepped aside and discussed it with other and both decided Pete had to go.
Fascinating analysis. However, once the contract was signed the Beatles insisted that Ringo played on the records despite studio protocols or norms, or Martin's opinion. They absolutely refused to accept a session drummer. This suggests that it wasn't just a misunderstanding over George Martin's attitude that led them to dropping Pete Best, and they wouldn't have been happy with keeping Pete for only live performances - they wanted their drummer on the record, and they wanted it to be Ringo
+mustafa1name Thanks for the comments but it didn't quite work like that. I will explain more in a future video, but the decision was down to George Martin not the Beatles.
Ringo didn't play on their first single, did he? George Martin had to be convinced that Ringo was solid and precise enough for studio drumming.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thanks a lot David, looking forward to it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Bringing in a session drummer was no big deal at all, in fact most records at the time had 'secret' musicians on the record. But we did find out later (Lewisohn) that Andy White was not on the next session, but the following one...which doesn't make much sense. George Martin often provided that cover story (I guess for Ringo's benefit) but if that is not true it would only mean Ringo come to that first official session and played on Love Me Do, and then Andy White came in next time. It may be that Brian Epstein alerted George Martin to the change in drummers, and Martin wanted to give Ringo a chance. It was apparently Ron Richards filling for Martin who hired White, but again it was considered routine. The fact that the "Ringo take" of Love Me Do was used for the initial single suggests he had no big beef with Ringo, but just felt White was better. Again, not a big deal -- except to The Beatles. After Martin and Epstein saw the upset (Paul has claimed he actually got in Martin's face and advocated for Ringo, although others have said Paul allegedy criticizing his drumming), Martin decided to not force the issue and smooth ruffled feathers, especially with Ringo. This is also the case with the song "How Do You Do It?" recorded that day. Either you crack down EMI rules with the band, or you make the band happy, I guess. That said, it does sound like Ringo suddenly improved a little later. I've always wondered if Andy White was generous enough to give Ringo a secret offsite lesson we've never heard of into what was expected.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You are wrong about Pete being " accidentally" let go.....here are Lennon's own words about that...
John Lennon on why Pete Best was sacked as Beatles drummer
ruclips.net/video/G41d-2mzLvw/видео.html
I have listened to Rory Storm and the Hurricanes a few times and there was absolutely no doubt that Ringo could rock and rock very very well!!
Ringo is one of the most underrated drummers ever - he is a great drummer!
There is a video on youtube with a lot of live recordings pre-EMI. It is remarkable to hear the contrast between Pete Best and Ringo. So much more precise, in the pocket and powerful. They were already amazing live performers, but Ringo still improved their performance a lot. It‘s immediately clear why the asked him to join and take Pete‘s seat.
drummers make one hellofalota difference to any performance live or studio
4 Scouse’s did quite well for themselves. ❤️
+Dena Bergman They had a few records didn't they? Amazing that 52 years after they broke up we are still celebrating them. Legends.
I heard an interview with Pete Best, where he said that the 6th June date, was not an audition and that they (The Beatles) "signed sealed and delivered"
The story that they were under contract came from Mark Lewisohn’s book Tune In where he claimed he had proof, but was mistaken.
It was definitely an artist test/ audition.
Notice how they excluded Pete Best from most of the photos. Does the contract state who the members of the band are?
Pete is in all of the official photos that Brian paid for - others will be fan photos probably. Good question on the contract! The Parlophone contract was between Parlophone and Brian Epstein representing a group of artists "The Beatles", so they weren't named individually.
David, you characterize George Martin's use of the word, "If", as being key, when he talked to Brian about bringing the lads back a second time. But if you listen to Martin quote himself in the Anthology interview, I think it's of interest to note that he also used the word, "when", which carries a very different meaning. Here is his exact quote from that interview: *"So I said to Brian Epstein, "If, when we do the next session...".* I suppose his choice to use both words consecutively rather than just one or the other alone can be interpreted in different ways, but to me it sounds like he says "when" as a means of correcting/replacing his use of the word "if". What are you thoughts, brother?
Excellent question as ever! The implication of IF is the most important as he has told it slightly differently a few times. What we know is that the Beatles and Brian left EMI not knowing if they were going to get a contract or not. And they had to wait weeks to get it, so George Martin wasn't sure yet. So the IF is the most important word as there was no WHEN yet for sure, certainly not for Brian or the Beatles.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Gotcha. Makes sense. Now shifting gears slightly, but still talking about that same fateful day, I've heard people claim that Paul is on record saying that George Martin pulled Lennon, Harrison and himself aside at that June 4th audition, when Pete was in the loo, and asked them if they'd be open to sacking Pete and getting a better drummer. Paul, purportedly, went on to say that he (& Lennon & Harrison) replied to Martin's request that Pete was great in the clubs, and he was their friend, how could they betray him? But hey, he was the producer and he didn't like Pete's drumming, so we felt like if we kept Pete we'd likely lose the record deal. (Or words to that effect.) My question to you is, did Paul really ever say this, and if so, is there any truth in it whatsoever?
@Cosmo Kramer I have never seen that quote like that, but seen something similar. The same idea of George Martin saying he would use a session drummer. However, George Martin never suggested firing Pete and was surprised on 4th September when they walked in with Ringo. He had not suggested it and had not been told that they had changed drummers.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool What, may I ask, did you see that was similar? Was it a quote from Paul? Did Paul ever actually say that Martin pulled the Fab 3 aside at the June 4th audition and broach the subject of his dissatisfaction with Pete's drumming, in any way, shape, or form? I'm very curious to know.
@@Cosmo-Kramer It was from Paul. I will have to do some digging through my notes to find it for you so I get it right. Leave that with me. David
Brian Mason had a share in Liverpools Royal Court ( one of the 2 big concert venues ) in the 80's very,very cool guy. He arranged me free admission to see concerts. I saw a lot of bands, U2 just before they released New years day was the best.
I have heard it said many times that George Martin wanted to use a session player for the initial recording session instead of using Pete Best...the sticking point for me here is that back then, and we're talking relative infancy of 'Pop records' per se, the playing standard of professionally recorded pop drummers generally was not exactly mind blowing, so I find it hard to believe that Pete's playing, particularly with the live experience under his belt, would have been so bad that a producer would make it a deal breaker...I suspect, as has been suggested, that Pete's mother Mona, and her alleged interference in the management of the band, was the real reason for poor Pete's dismissal.
Pete’s timing changed three or more times on Love Me Do. Search Love Me Do Beatles anthology. That’s why.
Slowing down…nightmare.
Maybe if Pete had a chance to practice to recordings more, or a metronome. He did have an interesting feel and part during the Someone to love section…
+The Bouncing Hearts The whole debate about what happened to Pete is complex but I have solved it and will explain it all, with evidence, to fully understand all the primary and secondary reasons too. The use of session drummers was widespread. I was shocked when I started looking into it how many records used session musicians, but of course kept it secret.
+drbassface That version of Love Me Do is a car crash of a performance, predominantly by Pete's drumming, but the others messed it up too. This was a new arrangement they were working on and was not the finished article by any stretch. I think if they had developed it, it would have improved the song!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes, I was going to mention that...Paul's vocal is lack lustre, John's harmonica timing is rushed and most importantly, the recording levels and quality are awful...it is unfair to blame all of this on Pete alone.
The real reason Pete got booted was that all the girls at gigs chased him and the others hated it. Any excuse like a timing slip on a demo recording etc was enough to reason to force him out. The others played badly on some demos too.
Brilliant Research, and If it's true, Pete Best was truly shat upon by his band mates.
Thank you, and there is so much more to come which sheds light on what happened to Pete and he wasn't treated well by them.
If they were truly all four of them under contract, may they have had the legal obligation to record with Pete Best? Is that the point here, “you cannot fire me, i have a contract”? Of course it would depend on the wording on the contract but if it was so, this could’ve been an early legal fight.
@@johnkanzler6646 There's also a concept in contract law called novation where all parties agree to replace one party with another. Here, Martin offered Pete the drum seat in other bands. Pete refused that offer and insisted upon having his own band, probably because he knew he had a legal claim. The Pete Best Trio has a couple tracks that come up on Pandora. This novation type deal was more ad hoc than a formal written legal alteration. Pete also has money from the recent compilation releases of all Beatles takes of every song I believe. Better late than never.
Surely there would've had to have been a contract FOR the audition session? Ownership of the tapes, original songs etc? Hence the confusion? Full recording contract to follow?
There was some paperwork, which is where the confusion arose over being under contract or not. It was very basic. The contract as shown in the film was then drawn up and backdated to cover the audition.
Ringo had already played with the other three before this all went down, and IMO they were looking for an excuse to replace Pete Best. They knew who the better drummer was.
+Yeshead That is certainly one view, looking back. But it wasn't as cut and dried as that, as other drummers were asked to replace Pete before Ringo was approached. I will be sharing the evidence from years of research into this matter. Ultimately, nobody else could have done what Ringo did, and it all worked out right in the end. But it was a lot more complicated than that.
▪ On 5 June 1962, a day before the first session, Martin sends an internal memo to a Miss Harwood, stating that he had signed the contract (shown in this vid).
▪ _The Beatles_ rep (Epstein) and EMI (Martin) had both signed the contract.
▪ Then _The Beatles_ were treated on the 6 June session as contracted artists, not an audition.
▪ The formality of sending the contract back to Epstein was in motion, before the first session 6 June.
That is clear.
Hi John, the letter on behalf of George Martin on 5th June is simply enclosing the contract that Brian had signed. George Martin couldn't sign the contract as he had no authority. The signed contract was sent to George Martin on 18th June. That memo from Miss Harwood says: "Herewith agreement between the above parties. This has been signed by the secretary and witnessed and is for the artist's retention." Therefore there was no signed contract until 18th June, which was to be sent to Brian. Hope that clears it up for you? David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
David, that timeline does. Thx.
But, always a but.
A contract was signed by Epstein pre 6 June, with Martin not even hearing them live or meeting them - very odd to start the ball rolling before an audition, and the _The Beatles_ were being treated in Abbey Rd as if on contract. _Seems_ they had a contract come what may, with the normal admin formalities in motion.
George Martin sent Brian a draft contract, which isn't unusual. Brian could sign it but until somebody from EMI signed it, it was worthless. No contract is valid until both sides agree the terms and both sides sign it. Until then it is just a piece of paper. Paying them a certain rate doesn't make it a contract either. That is irrelevant to the contract. In English law, to be a valid contract you need to have the offer of the contract, the acceptance of that contract, the agreement of both parties to enter into the agreement, the acceptance that both parties are entering the contract (neither George Martin nor The Beatles/Brian assumed they were under contract on 6th June) and the main party (Parlophone) signing the contract and beginning the recording process. None of that was complete until EMI signed it and sent it to George Martin on 18th June. Nothing else matters. There was no contract on 6th June 1962 in force and nobody thought there was. I have countless quotes from George Martin, the engineers, Brian Epstein and the Beatles to say that the contract wasn't in force on the day. Opposing that is one form paying a certain rate on the day. It is a complex subject, which is why I sought the advice of one of the most senior lawyers in Liverpool to clarify it for me.
There is in existence an 'Application For Artists' Contract' form dated 18 May 1962 that was sent from George Martin to Miss E F Harwood in Administration at EMI's Hayes office. George Martin asked for a 'Period' contract to be prepared between the Parlophone Company and The Beatles lasting one year from 6 June 1962, requiring the band to record six titles with a royalty rate of 1d per d/s.
This was before Martin had even met The Beatles!
This correlates with Mark Lewisohn's story that George Martin was 'blackmailed' by his superiors at EMI into accepting the band.
Yes, the contract we know was drawn up and sent to Brian on 18th May which Brian signed, but George Martin/EMI didn't sign that until 18th June, according to the letter evidence, backdated to 4th June to cover the audition. Don't forget Brian had met with George Martin in February and he invited them down for an audition. George Martin auditioned them and decided to sign them on the back of that.
None of that supports any allegation of George Martin being forced to sign them.
Did you ever wonder why Brian didn't arrange self funded Beatles audition tape prior to Decca audition ?
Good question.
Firstly, he was in record retail, so he had no idea of how to do that, but secondly, and most importantly, there were no recording facilities in Liverpool. He did try recording them in the Cavern with a single microphone which was awful.
Lastly, he was convinced that his retail contacts would come through, which they did. That's how he got the Decca audition because of his record sales.
When they failed Decca, he was offered the chance to pay for a record to be made by them, but he turned that down too.
Everything was London-centric back then
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I always thought Decca on it's own asked Eppy if they could visit Cavern Beatles performance and once rep saw what the commotion was about Decca not Eppy asked Beatles to show up for audition in London w/o Eppy. Eppy somehow got the tape and played it to Martin.
Mike Smith the Decca guy visited the Cavern and loved the show, and hoped they would reproduce that in the studio, which didn't quite work the same without an audience. But Brian was with them and unimpressed when he found out they had been partying into the small hours for New Year!
But Decca gave Brian the audition tapes, which he had converted to an acetate which got him, via the song publishers, to George Martin.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Any known pics of Epstein at the Decca audition ? Thanks for your research, really good of Decca to give audition recordings to Epstein.
@@VideoByPatrick Always happy to share my research.
It was an incredible act by Decca, because it was their passing of the tapes that helped Brian get the deal. I'm not aware of any photos at all from the Decca sessions sadly.
One question stands out.
Why was Martin drafting a contract for a band he had never even heard play?
Only after an artists test (audition), when you know you have somthing of substance, would a contract be drafted.
Many questions still open about the contract pre and after 6 June 1962.
Very interesting. So they definitely wanted a session drummer to stabilise the tempo. That now begs the question. If the first drummer wasn't good enough, was Ringo Starr good enough. I don't think Ringo had studio experience locking down a steady beat either. Was a session drummer used on all the early Beatles recordings with Ringo just a public face. I guess we will never know. We already know Paul was playing a lot of instruments to maintain the quality.
Thanks for your comments. When Ringo attended the first session in September 1962, George Martin didn't think he was good enough, so he was replaced with a session drummer, Andy White, whom I interviewed. Ringo was soon up to speed and played on the majority of Beatles songs. Ringo turned out to be a fantastic drummer who rarely gets the credit he deserves. Paul did step in occasionally too.
This video conflates George Martin's wishes to use a studio musician to play the drums with the decision to replace Pete Best with Ringo Starr. Those were unrelated decisions. We know this because even though manager Brian Epstein did fire Pete Best, that was on the instructions of primarily John and Paul, with George going along--and George Martin had nothing to do with that separate decision. And even though Ringo replaced Pete, George Martin still prevailed on the decision to use a studio musician on drums, which, apparently, was a standard practice of the day for most bands. Consequently, Andy White, a Scotland-born session musician played the drums on the Beatles' debut single “Love Me Do” (A-side) and “P.S. I Love You" (B-side).
Thanks James, I do separate the "sacking" from the audition though this was the start of the process. In a later video I will explain how Brian Epstein didn't fire Pete Best. I interviewed Andy White about his time sitting in to replace Ringo
George was the hawk, he even said so himself. John was the most reluctant one.
What Mark Lewisohn highlights:
*1)* EMI admin' documentation,
*2)* how _The Beatles_ were paid
*3)* how they were treated on 6 June 1962,
All points to a band on contract.
Hi John, although one form showing fees hints at being under contract, that is all it can do, hint. In English law, there are certain requirements for a contract to be binding in law, and this form is irrelevant. I explain this in the video on 6th June audition on this channel. The evidence, supported by an explanation from a lawyer confirms they were definitely not under contract on 6th June. Nobody assumed they were, from George Martin to Brian and the Beatles. We have quotes from them all to support it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
David,
EMI were meticulous on admin' records.
▪ *Fact:* _The Beatles_ were on the _contract_ red form;
▪ *Fact:* _The Beatles_ were paid the union rate for the session. Audition artists are not paid;
▪ *Fact:* producers are never at auditions only assistants. Martin turns up to the first session at Abbey Road;
▪ *Fact:* a contract was written up before the first recording session. Why would a contract be written up before an audition and before being accepted, taking up EMI time and expense?
Irrespective if _The Beatles_ had a legally binding contract or not, they were:
*i)* Being treated at EMI as if they were on contract.
*ii)* On contract admin paperwork.
Further:
▪ *Fact:* _The Beatles_ are offered a sure-fire hit to record (How Do You Do It) on the second session at Abbey Rd with Ringo in attendance, even though the producer saw them play live for a few minutes in only one session, with the producer, Martin, thinking they were _"rubbish"_ - his word. A sure-fire hit given to an unknown _"rubbish"_ band, with a name the producer thought silly?
▪ Epstein sends a telegram to _The Beatles_ in Hamburg that they had a _"contract,"_ not an audition, before the 6 June session at Abbey Road.
There are still some open questions.
Also, EMI's contract was with _The Beatles._ Pete was 25% of _The Beatles._
Exactly, that was the biggest problem.
Popular culture today would be unrecognisable had the Beatles blew their audition on 6th June 1962.
Absolutely right. Imagine that.
It was probably their last chance. Not only did they “Pass the audition” (by the skin of their teeth, perhaps), but they managed to get Ringo in the band and his chemistry alone paid huge dividends.
Having exhausted the UK, there was always New York. Cargo-liners left daily to NYC from Liverpool. NYC studios also had the latest recording equipment. I think _The Beatles_ may have been even better being recorded in the USA.
What I never got is that the studio drummer wasn't brought in for their next session, the first with Ringo, who George Martin didn't even know about and wasn't expecting. He was used on the next session after Martin had seen Ringo play. Or have I got that wrong?
+The Beatscene Sixties Experience Aha, you asked one of the questions I tried to get the answer too, and it has taken me down many blind alleys! Finally resolved it and it isn't that straightforward, but I will pick this up in a future video for you.
I thought lennon/mc cartney were signed to Ardmore and Beechwood already as composers and that recording those songs at EMI was part of that contract. I havent gone back to check but I remember reading that in Lewisohns book.
They signed up with Ardmore and Beechwood for the first single, "Love Me Do". However, and I think this was a little bit unprofessional, they were advised to sign with another publisher, Dick James, so A&B missed out.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool But they did get Love me Do and PS.I love You. So there was a contract with them .My guess is that all these uncertainties ( deliberate or in error) are due to a lack of interest by the companies and to allow them to walk away at any time. The Beatles were worth nothing to them anyway at that time. It probably was a test and pay sheets with rates paid to the Beatles on that session were at test rates not at usual recording sessions rates as per the musicians union. McCartney now owns the rights to Ardmore and Beechwood now I believe.
I can’t remember the details in the Lewisohn book either, but it had something to do with “How Do You Do it” also, I thought. Beatles didn’t write that song, but The impression I got was that he was forced to sign the group.
Ironic that Paul owns A&B but not the other Beatles tracks he wrote. It is so easy to look back and blame everyone for not doing everything to sign them up, but they were just another hopeful group at the start. Nobody knew what would happen to them.
George Martin wanted the Beatles to release "How Do You Do It" but the Beatles objected and were determined to release their own songs. The impression in Tune In that George Martin was forced to sign the group was hearsay from one person who had changed their story over the years. It can only remain hearsay, and doesn't really have any supporting evidence.
What I always understood was June 6 was an audition. Martin spent a few days thinking it over, then offered a contract. It was backdated to June 4, so EMI/Parlophone would own the material recorded on June 6. Where I read this.... I think it was Lewison's The Complete Recording Sessions book. Of course, information may have surfaced since that book was published that had refuted that story. When Martin contacted Epstein, he mentioned using a session drummer instead of Pete. Pete may have been a decent drummer, but on the June 6 recording, he didn't perform well. Listen to "Love Me Do". Awkward tempo changes that made the song lose the groove. To be fair, that might have been the way the band had originally performed the song, and in September, Martin may have insisted that they keep it steadier.
Not weighing in on the Pete/Ringo debate as to talent, however, it is fairly obvious Ringo was a better fit personality wise.
Interesting video, thanks.
Oddly enough, for the concern about material recorded at EMI prior to the signing of a 'proper contract'...the tape from 6 June 1962 was thought to had been destroyed...only to be discovered in the effects of Geoff Emerick (after his death). Which brings up a huge legal dispute about 'who actually owns those tapes'. Yes - while 'The Beatles Anthology' used copies from acetates for the tracks listed from that date, Geoff Emerick actually had the tapes he was told do destroy.
@@meanderer06513 I was not aware Emerick had the tape(s). Interesting. Thought it did come from a tape. "Besame Mucho" had been on bootlegs for years though. How that got out and not the others will be (yet another) mystery in the Beatles story.
@@mrnastey9 Yeah - the story (from what I'd read) was that Martin told Emerick to destroy the 6 June '62 tapes, as they were 'of no value'. Emerick decided to take them home. Even when work on the 'Anthology' was under way, Emerick wasn't gonna show his cards. He knew what he had was worth a LOT of money. He kept quiet about it for all these years. Now, UMG (the owners of EMI) are arguing that - sure, it was deemed 'trash' and should be thrown away, by our predecessors...we could get some serious bucks out of this! - as opposed to the Emerick estate trying to pin their entire case on a (non-existent "finder's law" - you know...'finders keepers'). Should be interesting...
@@meanderer06513 Very interesting indeed. When did GM tell Emerick to destroy the tape? Back in '62 or thereabouts I am guessing, because any later than that, then GM would have known how important that tape was and would have kept it in the archives. And what the hell was Emerick thinking; he would never really be able to sell that tape without a legal issue, like you described; even though it was supposed to be destroyed, when it was found out it was still in existence, legally it would belong to EMI. Thanks for this, I had no idea about it. Fascinating!
@@mrnastey9 I cannot find the original press coverage for it, but I did find it strange, the idea of either 'destroying the tape' or just throwing it away (not long after it was recorded). At that period in time, EMI was simply in the practice of bulk erasing tapes, and just re-using them (as they did with early Beatles' recordings, up to around the time of "I Want To Hold Your Hand"). So, the concept of being told to 'destroy' the tape seemed a bit strange. But...here we are; with a reel-to-reel session tape that is said to be valued in the range of $6.5M...
It sounds like key information from George Martin was lost when Brian told the Beatles Pete wasn't good enough. Ringo was a better Beatle, for sure.
A misunderstanding, because I think George Martin assumed Brian understood. But it worked out perfectly.
George Martin was supremely professional and a thorough gentleman who did everything by the book in meticulous order.
Why would he offer a contract to a band he'd never heard or seen?In his words 'preposterous'.
Exactly, that was my starting point. If George Martin ruled it out, then surely it was an audition and I found the evidence to support that.
EXCELENT VIDEO YOU ARE THE BEST VIDEO MAKER IN LIVERPOOL BEST REGARDS FRON CITY PUEBLA MEXICO
+Mario Benitez Thank you Mario, greetings from Liverpool
It All Went Pear Shaped
For Poor Pete Best
Truth Comes Out
It does and I will reveal the whole story soon.
hard to know where they would have gone next if this didn't work..
+macandme foley That would have been the end of The Beatles. There was nowhere else to go, so they would have packed it in. Thankfully, George Martin saved that from happening.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool the world as a whole would have been so different. Thank god they were signed.
Why do we care about whether there was a contract or nor?
It is Beatles history and different aspects of it attract different people. 6th June 1962 was the turning point in the Beatles career, where they gained the record contract they craved, but had to lose their current drummer leading to the recruitment of Ringo Starr. As this has proved to be one of our most popular videos so far, it seems that a lot of people are interested in it, but it isn't for everyone.
Title is click bait. Change it. Perhaps "Beatles first EMI contract?"
Not intended to be click bait. So hard to choose an appropriate title, so apologies if you were mislead.
Obviously, you have never heard Pete Best play drums....he was not only bad, he was incompetent....It is a tribute to the talent and charisma of the other 3
that they had made it that far.
+Julia Tutor I have faced that criticism many times. As a musician who has played with many drummers, I know a good one and a bad one. I have seen Pete play many times and can't agree with you, especially using terms like incompetent. If you respect John, Paul and George, they chose Pete and played more hours live with The Beatles than Ringo. If he was that bad, they would have dumped him straight away, but they didn't. They built their sound around his beat. John said the Beatles were at their best when playing in the clubs of Hamburg and Liverpool playing straight rock. That was with Pete. Paul said Pete was great in the clubs and halls. George wrote that Pete was a good drummer. But, I knew people wouldn't take my point of view as I am not a drummer. So I asked 3 objective drummers, no bias, different ages, to critique Pete's drumming and they were impressed by him. I have spoken to Merseybeat musicians who played with him and others who watched Pete with The Beatles and they had no problem at all, many calling him a great drummer. I would interested to know what your evidence is on which you have based your opinion? Were you in Liverpool in the 60s or saw The Beatles back then? Always interested to hear points if view if you would like to share it? David
You didn't post my reply,....give me the same courtesy of information whereby I can hear your musical expertise
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I take it from your lack of reply that you've never made a record...If you looked on Google or RUclips, you saw that I have made a lot of them.George Martin was right.Let me explain this: If you aren't studio capable, then you are not really a player.The studio puts what it is you think you're doing under a microscope It reveals whether or not you can play to a professional level. Quite obviously, with the same judge George Martin, Ringo passed and Pete failed miserably. Being that you are, I believe, still in Liverpool ,
you may be personal friends with Pete.
I am not disparaging Pete as a person.
I am merely giving evidence as to why George Martin couldn't use him.
The other 3 Beatles were already trying to think of other options ( Paul McCartney ,even after they invited Pete to join , kept an ad running hoping that they could find someone better before they left for Hamburg) as they knew he wasn't a permanent solution. George Martin's comment just confirmed what they already knew.
+Julia Tutor Sorry, which reply wasn't posted? I haven't seen any other comments come through. There is no filter to sort comments, so it should appear here. Feel free to comment again and I will gladly respond. Let me know what you are looking for from me?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool how disingenuous, but life is too short for this...
I found out that John sang Will You love me Tomorrow (not the Shirelles one) in a "audition" in George Martin's Words in June the 2nd. I really confuse. Also George sang Open you're loving arms and i can't find that one either. But the one from Paul: Besame Mucho is a well known song doesn't change much.
There was a list of around 15 songs or so that they performed that day, from which Ron Richards (Producer) chose to record to acetate, of which we have the version of "Love Me Do" that wasn't great. So although everyone wants to judge Pete Best based upon the only acetate that remained, they actually performed a lot of songs that day, and their version of "Love Me Do" must have impressed them enough to want to record it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool 👍👍 great. Thanks. Howncan i find you guys in Facebook or Instagram? I do follow already the Beatles Story and all the Beatle places there since years.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
The tape for the 6 June 1962 session was found by Geoff Emerick. His family acquired the tape after he died. I believe there are legal move to determine who owns the tape. The tape has been with Emerick and his family for around 57 years.
What happened to the filmed first session...
Which filmed session? Neither Decca nor EMI (Parlophone) on 6th June were filmed, and the next session on 4th September had a photograph session by Dezo Hoffmann. Is that the one you are thinking of?
Well, in an interview with John years later, when asked why they replaced Pete Best, he specifically stated that he was a "lousy drummer"...so something doesn't quite jive here.
I will respond to this with a more detailed examination of Pete's drumming. As I mentioned in another thread on here, John also said that The Beatles were at their best playing the clubs and halls in Liverpool and Hamburg, playing straight rock. That was with Pete Best. Nobody had voiced a problem with him until after George Martin's comments in June 1962. Everything else is looking back. If Pete was so lousy, why did he last 2 years, hundreds of hours, and help them become the top group in Liverpool and Hamburg? If he was lousy, John, Paul and George would have got rid of him a long time before. So we have to look for a balanced view.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You're point(s) is well taken. That said, keep in mind that they were mainly playing simple, straight ahead 50's era cover tunes in Liverpool and Hamburg that almost any "basic" drummer could play. When they had to start coming up with original material, that's where the more complex arrangements began to emerge, even with those early numbers like "Please Please Me" which Andy White supposedly played on along with a possible Ringo "collaboration".
+S Ess Absolutely right, the way I see it, there were 2 groups. The Beatles were a great rock group playing mainly covers. When they signed for Parlophone with George Martin, they became a pop group, the Fab Four, recording original songs. Pete Best was great as a rock drummer. Ringo was perfectly suited to the pop group, with so many different styles and experience he had gained especially with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Andy White was a great session drummer who could learn and record a song in a very short time, which is what producers wanted, especially on a first record.
Thank you. Tune In is a great book but it has what I consider to be flaws. Lewisohn gets very excited about bombshells and relies (in my opinion) on unconfirmed statements. The whole "punishment" angle strikes me as absurd and, as I understand it, relies only on Norman Smith's statement. Another strange item in the book is Lewisohn accepting the word of some friend of Freddy Lennon's on whether John wanted to be with Freddy or Julia. But, like I say, it's a great book and those two bits (I include the "contract?" along with the so-called punishment as one item) are about the only things that struck me as looking for something that's not there.
I've bookmarked this video so I can have others (who push the Lewisohn narrative) listen to it.
Thank you Eric. Yes, I agree with you that on the whole, Tune In is a really good book, but it does have some strange narratives. The George Martin one is a little unbelievable, the whole Pete Best narrative is very negative indeed, and too emotive. That incident with Freddy Lennon leapt out at me too. I had the pleasure of being the historian on the documentary "Looking for Lennon" (we have shared some clips on the channel) and that incident in Blackpool and Julia returning to Liverpool with John is not accurate. Julia certainly never gave John away!
Thank you for your kind comments and support.
Yes, I agree with that. I didn’t quite buy the story about John and his parents, but we will never know the real story. John said he chose his father first, then changed his mind and went to Julia. I think even a very young John would remember best. The book is brilliant though, and I think Lewisohn puts much emphasis on being accurate. I believe Lewisohn did show George Martin the paperwork that showed he was forced to sign the group and George, by then elderly, wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. It virtually changes the story Martin had been telling since 1963.
@@stevestroh2267 as I understand it, Lewisohn showed Martin that there was paperwork, not that he was forced to sign them. Additionally, I believe the group members would have had to sign before it was an official contract. Further, if the group were signed then they'd have had to dealt with Pete in a different way.
If Lewisohn were right it would change the story Martin told...and the story LG Wood told...and the story the Beatles themselves told. If they *had* been signed then Brian would have made sure the Beatles *knew* it.
Personally I believe what Lewisohn found was an agreement that the Beatles were coming in and would be paid for the session. That does not (in my opinion) equal a Parlophone contract, at least not beyond that one day.
@@DoohickeyDinkle thanks, I will have to reread that section of the book. I seem to remember that Martin was kind of forced into signing them, which totally changes the story we have always heard.
@@stevestroh2267 if you re-read the book you'll get Lewisohn''s opinion again. This video explains why he's wrong.
But Ringo didn't play on their first two releases...........
+Graham Sclater Actually he did, but didn't think he did! That will be the subject of a future video too.
Ringo’s version of Love Me Do is the Single release. The session drummer version appears on the album. I think..or it may be the other way round.
Pete’s version was kept to prove how badly he managed to get through it without throwing the band off track. It’s on the Anthology 1 release.
Ringo played tambourine on the album version of "Love Me Do", have you noticed how high the tambourine is mixed on the song?
Could they have been under contract for songwriting purposes?
+philip cone They didn't sign a songwriting deal until October 1962 as a separate contract, so this was a straight recording contract.
You sound Peter Noone-are you from Manchester?
+lee shafer Ha ha! I used to look like him, as my friend nicknamed me Herman! I'm from Liverpool, though Peter had an accent that was a mix of Manchester and Liverpool, a Lancashire accent as it was back then.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Peter Noone was born in Manchester but moved to Chestnut Avenue, Huyton, Liverpool, as very young boy. He lived there until hitting it big as a 17 year old.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thanks for replying!
Pete Best said it was most definitely an audition.
He was right. Everybody who was there agrees it was an audition.
Take 20 minutes to say good morning as well?
20 minutes on a slow day!
You remind me of Peter Noone LOL
+Dill Mann Ha! You're the second person on this video comments thread to say that!
My nickname 30 years ago was Hermann, because my friend said I looked like Peter Noone, which I did. Maybe I should just say I'm Henery the eighth I am....
Basically they screwed Pete over for no reason and made Ringo rich and famous haha
It was a straight business decision. And yes, Richy got Rich!
Can't imagine that you've actually been paying attention to the conversation and make a statement like that. John Paul & George were very young musicians on the verge of the impossible: an actual record deal. All they had to hear was that Pete might be holding back their career in any way whatsoever. They get credit for making a hard business decision and having it work out perfectly. Go back and do your homework.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what George Martin said. He said he had no problem with the lineup of the band. He was surprised when Ringo showed up and didn't even use Ringo on the first cut of Love me Do.@@michealfemino5079
Title does not describe content. It is NOT audition, it is your own ego promoting yourself.
It is all about The Beatles audition at Parlophone with George Martin. Not sure what your comments are about?
Most bands loved their drummer would never part with him!! Pete Best must have felt like a major let down!! Yes Ringo Starr is amazing and a better match for the Beatles goofy looks at the beginning they behaved like 4 CLOWNS!!! Pete Best looked more like Elvis!
It was a purely professional decision based upon George Martin's comments. The four of them between 1960 and 1962 had created such a great sound and were tight, but the change had to be made and Ringo was a class act who worked perfectly with John, Paul and George.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I just feel sorry for Pete Best!! That's all!!
an ad up front for transvestites? No ... skip the entire thing
+Doug H. in VA Apologies, we cannot control the adverts.
Actually thinking about George Martin said The Beatles k-mean ok because he wanted to see what they could do ok and that is when you decided he was going to handy white as the drummer and not Pete Best because he wasn't keeping in time with his drumming advice George Martin was concerned The Beatles could do what they want with Pete Best on stage or when they're toward but when he was it comes to studio recording in the studio we were dad Andy White so by the time he turned up next time Pete Best have been sacked and they got Ringo Starr in but no one told George Martin
This post is why all artist's brains go numb when dealing with all this kinda shite.
+kevin McCarthy That's why artists need managers or someone similar to deal with that side because record companies can tie you up in knots!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
The music industry is famous for ripping off artists. _The Beatles,_ Elton John, Bay City Rollers, Queen, etc, were ripped off for millions.
I fell asleep he talks too much He makes a story last forever get to the point
Pete Best’s drumming was unrecordable.
No it wasn't, as it was recorded several times. On the Sheridan sessions in June 9161 for Polydor records, on the Decca auditions where he performed well, and later with Lee Curtis and the All Stars, the Pete Best Four, Pete Best Combo, and none of the producers had an issue with him. He has appeared on many records.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool George Martin thought differently. Whatever.
Pete’s drumming was certainly unrecordable on Love Me Do on the Anthology CD. Maybe he was nervous, having a bad day, who knows, but he practically killed the song with his drum beat. Easy to see why GM didn’t want him on the record even to an untrained ear like mine.
@@garylee9738
Martin thought the same about Ringo, getting in a sessions drummer when hearing him.
Who gives a stuff about all this crap.
I heard The Beatles in 1963 on the car radio in my Vee Dub driving home from work at Avery Scales.
I Saw Her Standing There. It was great after a couple of beers!
We try to provide a variety of content for fans of all types, ages and interests. This video has been one of our most popular so far, but we want to celebrate The Beatles, especially the early days in Liverpool, and this was one of the biggest stories ever. Hope you can find other interesting videos on our channel. I agree about "I Saw Her Standing There" - a fantastic rock n roll song and always one of my favourites.
Hi there I'm Beatles fan and I would say no The Beatles will not under contract straight away because as you know by the story Brian Epstein went into George Martin as his last hope because he got turned down by Decca records and a couple of other record labels turned down and and basically George Martin I think her The Beatles on a disc and as far as I remember George Martins actually said on the evidence Alone by the disk you would not have hired them or sorry should I say give him an audition Brian Epstein was desperate and George why did say he felt sorry for Brian Epstein and that's when he gave him the audition and that's when George mine said didn't like Pete Best drumming and he will get another drummer in because he didn't know about Ringo Starr as anyone knows about a beetle history that Andy White drums on that day I'm talking about the day they actually turned up and they recorded Love Me Do because Ringo Starr turned up as well and George Martin did not let him drum
Thanks for your good comments. Yes, every record company had turned them down, even EMI, of which Parlophone was a part. However, George Martin hadn't heard them. When Brian played him some of the Decca audition he had, George wasn't impressed, but he thought that Brian was a decent young man and so gave them an audition. All George Martin suggested was that he would use a session drummer for the record, so he wasn't suggesting they replace him. When they turned up with Ringo on 4th September, George Martin was shocked to see that they had a new drummer! He then didn't think Ringo was up to scratch so he replaced him with a session drummer in Andy White.
They were created. Poor boys from the working poor educated class. Very desperate to make it no matter what. They were perfect for what EMI had in plan for the mass of teenagers, they were trying to influence. Just listen to the later songs lyrics. Only a fool would believe how prolific they were. Martin was the real genius behind it all, music, lyrics and all. With alot if help from EMI. Period.
Any group is created and Brian Epstein was the first genius that got them together, smartened them up and made them ready for a commercial audience. As for being from the working poor educated class, that isn't exactly true. Ringo was working class and missed a lot of school through illness. John, from a middle-class area, Paul in lower-middle-class and George from a working class area all attended Grammar Schools, which was at a very high standard, one step below the high fee-paying private schools of England. They wrote their own lyrics and songs. However, the genius of George Martin was taking what the Beatles had created and turning it into those amazing songs we know today. What a team.
_"Martin was the real genius behind it all"_
Nothing to prove that. Later, _The Beatles_ recorded *without* Martin which was also highly successful.
After the first recording session on 6 June 1962, Martin, mainly a comedy record producer, found a _sure-fire_ hit for _The Beatles,_ which was a No. 1 hit when later released by _Gerry and the Pacemakers. The Beatles_ recorded it on the second session with Ringo in attendance, but this unknown band, that Martin thought was _"rubbish",_ that had never even released a single, turned it down. That shows the confidence in their own abilities. What unknown band would turn down a _sure-fire_ hit? That indicated where the talent was.
EMI were there "friends".
Sorry, but Bor-ING ....