I had the opportunity to briefly talk with Pete Best. I asked Pete what he thought of John Lennon as a rhythm guitarist. Pete mentioned how much both John and George had improved after meeting and jamming with Tony Sheridan. I followed up by asking Pete if he had any idea where /when or how John developed that great triplet strumming technique on All My Loving. I shared with him my thoughts and he looked me straight in the eyes and said "It's a trade secret". Thanks Pete! I have nothing but respect for Mr. Best. He was very gracious with his time and seemed genuinely happy with the adoration he was receiving from everyone he came in contact with. I completely agree with your summation of the events that lead to Pete's dismissal. Best wishes from Northern California, RNB
Thanks Rick, Pete is a gentleman and, what a lot of people don't realise, is that he is a very funny guy! Great company. We should just give him the respect he deserves. Best wishes from Liddypool! David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes I could tell from many interviews, he is a very pleasant man, and believe he has managed to become more than just a footnote in the Beatles' History...everyone who is a true fan knows his name and his side of the story. Everyone has an experience like his, being fired or laid off from "work," no matter where or what it is, which makes him one of us, our brother in life experience. So cheers to Pete Best. The Beatles may have done him a favor so he could lead a fairly normal life other than living "in the eye of the hurricane."
@@thomastimlin1724 It just had to be the way that it was for it all to work the way that it did. Pete had his important time as they rose up the ranks in LIverpool, Hamburg, and as their sound spread throughout England. He was in no way the musical percussionist/drummer that Ringo was yet he still got them to the beginning of the precipice. His is the only Beatle autograph that I have.
Great clip !. Nice and fair deep dive into the Pete & Ringo thing. Thanks for gathering all the info together. Well balanced observations🤩👌. I'm a drummer and I agree that a band would know within 10 or 20 mins if a drummer was any good or not.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You saying that for two years that the other members of the band were happy with his playing? Doubt it. The Lennon account rings FAR truer than what you hear from others. Lennon told the truth as he saw it. To quote Ringo, "Pete Best? - it’s no offence, but I never felt he was a great drummer."
One of the more credible theories that I've heard is that both Pete and Stu relied very heavily on the downbeat, which is what John absolutely loved in rock. And as you know, being a musician and band member, the backbone of a great band is the lock between the drummer and bassist. Stu wasn't at all a musician, but he could pound the downbeat along with Pete. Once Stu died, Pete was in a sense, cut adrift from the other three. You listen to Ringo, and that guy danced between backbeat and forebeat as easily as a jazz drummer could. Without Ringo, the world would never have had "A Day in the Life," "Fixing a Hole" (BRILLIANT drumming on that one!), "Hello Goodbye" or "Strawberry Fields Forever." Pete simply didn't think in those terms. He was great at pounding the downbeat, yes. But like John said in this report, he never got any better.
Stu was a good rock n roll bass player and played with groups other than the Beatles. Pete and Stu worked well together, but for most of the time, it was Paul and Pete who were the rhythm section, and they worked really well together. That is why Paul can say what a good drummer Pete was. Pete definitely progressed with the Beatles, but I think it is a little unfair to say that what Ringo did in the late 1960s can compare to Pete in the early 60s. It's not a fair comparison. What I do is give Pete credit for 60-62 and Ringo credit for 62 and beyond. No comparison, just appreciation. Also, be wary of using a single quote from John as an argument. He also said that their best work was never recorded and that he would re-record everything the Beatles ever did. Really? That's why I try to bring some balance.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Who else did Stu play with? If Beatles history serves, he bought his bass guitar from money he'd won from selling an art painting at the urging of John and Paul, and that he died shortly after quitting The Beatles. And in the same sense that you're right, we shouldn't take a single quote from John as definitive because his comments changed with his mood, Paul is even less reliable. He's Mr. PR man, and he says things sugar-coated, as both John and George have pointed out several times. If you listen to the Hamburg recordings, as well as the "My Bonnie" sessions with Tony Sheridan, you can hear George Martin's complaints. Pete was rock solid some of the time, a little undisciplined at other times, and purely conventional and uncreative. Those traits are the makings of a good live drummer, but he wasn't quite there as a studio drummer. I was a studio drummer for 23 years. I can hear it.
@@ofrabjousday1 Ringo's first recording of, "Love Me Do", was rejected by Martin the same as Pete's had been 3 months earlier. Martin said Ringo's timing was not good enough, and Paul McCartney agreed. A few days later Martin instructed assistant producer, Ron Richards, to book a session drummer to sit in for Ringo the following week. And as for your contention that Pete was uncreative, that's not true. When Paul and John taught Pete, "Love Me Do", Pete -- who was a big fan of latin music -- suggested he play it with a skip-beat to liven the song up. He demonstrated it for Paul and John, and they agreed it sounded better, and that's how they performed it in the clubs and practice sessions leading up to the EMI audition. Unfortunately, stuffy ol' George Martin, who admittedly didn't know jack schit about rock 'n' roll, abruptly forced on the lads a whole new arrangement which included telling Pete to ditch the skip-beat. This is the *only* reason Pete struggled with that song at the audition. Pete was rock solid on the other surviving song recorded that day, "Besame Mucho".
Disagree. John said that Paul was an inspired bass player and that a lot of the things going on in the 80's were ripped off from Paul's Beatles Era playing. As a bassist myself who has done a lot of studio work, John's comment is absolutely true.
@@thelordofliberty6984well, given that John died in 1980, it would have been pretty difficult for John to have commented about Paul’s bass playing being ripped off by others in the 1980s.
@user-gz9dv9oh9o John was killed 12/8/80. Not 1/01/1980. The interview he gave when he made those comments was recorded the morning of his death. So John lived for 342 days in the 1980's.
I think you are exactly right about Pete Dave. I think from what I have researched over the years that Pete was and is a great guy and drummer and I have never ever seen or heard that Pete has badmorhed any of the Beatles even when they slated him for things he has never done or been !! He is a real gent . The other Beatles have always contradicted themselves and used to put down stu and his bass playing . Their ego's have always been huge and we're ruthless in their approach to success. John was a jekyl and hide character and always upset everyone around him with his issues . I think Pete was a tragic star that should have been but he made a good life for himself in his own way . I salute Pete and admire his strength and you know that because you know him Dave . Great video mate I love your channel All the best
Thanks Mark. He is a great guy and, despite what has been said about him, has not retaliated. John, Paul, and George were ruthless and they had to make a business decision. Why people have to ciriticise his drumming is beyond me. Too many myths! David
4:57 I like this clip of Paul McCartney from his personal documentary WINGSPAN. I like this quote because it shows that Pete wasn't replaced simply because of his drumming. Pete did a solid job during his two-year tenure and the Beatles reached many milestones with him as their drummer. Pete also assumed many management duties for the band (pre-Brian). However, Pete never had a close friendship with either Paul or George. This worked against Pete long-term with the band! Ringo had a close friendship with ALL three Beatles and his musical style was also perfect for the group. Regardless, Pete was a good drummer by Liverpool standards at that time. He does not deserve the reputation of "musical incompetent", "anti-social misfit", "unprofessional (routinely missing gigs)", unfortunately Pete has worn these tags throughout Beatle history.
Thank you, Paul has been the most honest and open about what happened, but it tends to be overlooked for one negative John comment. Ringo was good friends with George from early 62 and became good friends with John and Paul once he joined the Beatles. He did fit perfectly. I don't understand why so many fans can't acknowledge that too. Thanks for your comments. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool The "one negative John comment" you reference is one that many Beatle fans and Pete-haters site. I typically tell such people that this comment MUST be put into the correct context. Just because John said those things, doesn't make them true.
Doesn't mean a damn thing. With Paul, you have to keep three things in mind. He's not going to give you his honest opinion. He only says what he believes his audience wants to hear. He is going to manipulate that to where it makes him look good. If there is any truth in rumors, Paul was most responsible for getting rid of Best. Though it seems pretty clear that George was most responsible for recruiting Ringo. John very likely was the LEAST in favor of it.
@@Kermit_T_Frog George is on record stating he was responsible for "stirring things up" to get rid of Pete, but they all went along. I have no reason to believe that Paul would compare Pete Best to a drummer from WINGS if he wasn't going to provide an honest opinion.
David, you know this is my favorite subject, so thank you for another video on it. I appreciate all the work you put into it, another feather in your cap. :) *HOWEVER,* lol, I must push back on what appears to be your central point, that it was primarily a business decision, as voiced by Paul McCartney. I say rubbish to Paul, as Brian received the recording contract from EMI in July, several weeks *before* Ringo was offered the job and Pete was sacked (for lack of a better term). The contract was official, it had been signed by all parties, and it included Pete Best. There was no condition written or spoken that Pete would have to be replaced in the band or the contract would be null and void. No, Martin thought that Pete was still the drummer (which he was at the time Brian received the contract), and Martin never made any demands or even casual suggestions that Pete be sacked. Paul is lying when he said Martin pulled him and John and George aside at the audition by Martin, asking them if they'd consider sacking Pete. What a load of rubbish. Martin even said he considered Pete the band's, *"most saleable commodity."* No, the Fab 3 and Brian all knew the contract was completed, official, and included Pete, with no requirements from EMI to sack him. So any talk from Paul or anyone else that they were concerned their contract was in jeopardy is all BS. They just used that as an excuse, as a pretext, as cover to sack Pete because they didn't want him in the band for personal reasons. I will go to my grave knowing that it was because they were jealous of Pete being the far and away most popular Beatle. Geoff Nugent, of the Liverpool band, The Undertakers, said, *"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after gigs, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."* When The Beatles got their record deal, the Mersey Beat put a huge photo of Pete on the cover, and none of the Fab 3. Fans in Liverpool had been putting up homemade posters and flyers around the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* JP&G were also overhearing fans verbally refer to the band that way in Pete's final months. And they couldn't stand it. They were scared to death that once their promotions got into the hands of studio executives, that they would be further marginalized, under the enormous shadow of Pete. After all, JP&G were at the audition with Pete, and they knew damn well that Pete nailed, "Besame Mucho", and that the only reason he struggled on, "Love Me Do", was because Martin came in and abruptly changed the arrangement. They knew with proper notice Pete would've been up to the task, and they knew that Ringo was no better than Pete. Ringo actually had less studio experience than Pete had. *_There was no reason for the Fab 3 to think that Ringo would fare any better than Pete, their drummer of 2 years who they gelled perfectly with musically._* And sure enough, Ringo failed to pass muster with Martin (an assessment Paul agreed with), even though (unlike Pete), Ringo had multiple weeks to practice the song with Martin's new arrangement. Business decision, my ass, Paul. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello my friend, always good to chat with you. In theory, all that you say about George Martin and the other Beatles and Brian is true. However, I will actually jump to Paul's defence - for once. Yes, the contract did finally arrive in late July, but by then, the decision was already made. What I know is that, having discussed it with Brian's lawyer, that John, Paul, and George had made the decision - a business decision - that, coming away from Abbey Road with doubts cast by George Martin, Brian was instructed by the Threatles to look at replacing Pete. That conversation took place mid June. They discussed who should be the new drummer, but waited until the contract arrived to start asking drummers to join them. Bobby Graham, Ritchie Galvin, Ringo and Johnny Hutchinson were asked. And Ringo said yes. But yes, George Martin, as stated, never suggested changing the drummer. By the time the contract arrived, it was too late. They had convinced themselves the change had to be made. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I agree with BOTH you and Cosmo on this point. I am convinced that Pete was dismissed for more than just his 'limited' skills as a drummer. "Personality conflicts" and perhaps even a hint of "Jealously" played a role.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool David, by the time the contract arrived, it was *not* too late. Any other band would have breathed a sigh of relief when it arrived, that they can keep their drummer of two years. A drummer they are fully familiar with. The Fab 3 and Epstein must have known that sessions drummers were the norm in those days.
_"He [Pete Best] was a genius. You could put that man on a drumkit 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 and forget the faces - you couldn’t avoid that insistent whack, whack, whack!"_ _"I was amazed. When Pete left, I even thought of turning into a guitarist and getting him to drum in our band. The Beatles didn’t hate Pete Best but they didn’t want a star on the drums. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."_ - Chis Curtis of the Searchers - Dec 1997 interview
_"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after gigs, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."_ Howie Casey of Howie Casy and the Seniors, said the same of Pete with the German girls in Hamburg. You made no money from record sales. _The Beatles_ received £375 each for a million seller in the USA. You made money by looking the part and being attractive to teenagers. This got you radio and TV appearances and lucrative gigs in large venues. Pete was a part of that attraction.
Great video, great research, very well balanced and fair. I appreciate how you present the facts and keep the other non-sense out. For me it answers a lot of questions that I had. I appreciate work that comes from someone who gathered the facts and presents them without bias. People will try to say well Pete wasn't a good drummer but I question how they would know that without looking at the whole body of work. I would think you would have to hear a lot more then the limited samples that are available from when he was a Beatle. But you answer the question well. If he were that bad they would have known it right away. Again thanks for this research.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Trying to present the facts objectively, when there is so much revisionism out there, fuelled by emotion, is not easy. The facts should speak for themselves, but rarely do! We should appreciate and thank Pete for his 2 years and getting them to that point in history. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I certainly am enjoying them! I don't want to brag. But in all honesty, after decades of studying Beatles history, reading every book I can get my hands on, watching documentaries, videos,etc etc , I feel like I pretty much ' know it all '. I tend to shy away from 'Beatle' history vids. But I have learned A LOT from your videos!! Like the fascinating one about the legal technicalities of British entertainment law, vis a vis, the 'firing of Pete Best '. I just rewatched it again, the other night.
8:00 AGREE! I love Ringo as well! I just saw him on his recent tour in San Diego, California last May. 83 and STILL rocking! Regardless, in Beatle history this does NOT have to be a SCALE. To say, "up with Ringo", must one also say "down with Pete"? I don't think so. The Beatles wouldn't have conquered Liverpool or Hamburg without Pete Best. He deserves credit from all Beatle fans.
Well said, I completely agree. We aren't looking to change history. Just acknowledge the part Pete played in it. And Ringo still looks amazing! What a legend. Hope I can look that good at 83.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You wrote, "We aren't looking to change history". AGREE! Pete Best is soft-spoken in his interviews. I recall him saying, "I was a Beatle for two-years, and was part of some of the early success they had. They'll never take that away from me". The Beatles story can't be told without Pete Best, yet some resent that and want to rewrite history. As a Beatle fan, I see no need for that.
Its disappointing that John said that they hired Pete because his mother had a club and he was a last minute choice to go to Hamburg and that Pete's mother was insignificant. The Best family deserve far better recognition. Mona Best had in fact kept the Beatles from breaking up by providing employment and her club during bleak times. Also I think she was the one who got them regular employment at the Cavern Club. The later on got the group better and better bookings that led to their fame.
@@susiekopp3578 the stories that Pete wrote in his autobiography really made me shake my head….John and Pete were friends. John was a routine overnight guest in the Best Home. He would sleep there after gigs. He would have meals there. He would ask Mona Best to 🧵 sew his pants after splitting them onstage! There were stories that Pete couldn’t have made-up. John never discussed his friendship with Pete and in fact said some cruel things about him and his family.
Pete Best was really unlucky I think a combination of factors worked against him and fate decreed in the end that Ringo was the final piece in the jigsaw of the group The Beatles at this point were starting their metamorphosis into the four lads that shook the world , enough said ! 👍👍😎🎸BB 👍45
David, Your closing statements are right on the money as to what happened and for what purpose. Pete wasn't the right guy for what was to happen. Ringo completely was. His swing style (watch the Dave Stewart interview which is fascinating), to the late left-handed playing with right-handed setup - shoulder move. PLUS his ability to become a Beatle in all aspects. Pete did serve his purpose and one of the few people on this Earth that can say that he was a Beatle. Good that he got his due with the Anthology. They needed that contract and got it. The rest is history.
@@brmc6145 But he served a very important purpose - seeing them become voted the top act in northern Great Britain, recording contracts, which they didn't and did get but at his expense. David explains this perfectly here - pointing out the respect for what he did in all night sessions in Hamburg and the multi sessions at the Cavern. Building the Beatles.
@@brmc6145 "Pete is as dull as dishwater"? According to Bill Harry he, "The most popular member of the Beatles, especially with the girl fans"......translation.....that's the ONLY way to be "dull". Your last comment, that, "they were obviously waiting on the first opportunity to kick him out"? The Beatles could have replaced him MUCH earlier than then did, and certainly would have if he were truly holding them back,
@@allenf.5907 Exactly, I find it odd that the average Beatle fan doesn't appreciate the contribution that Pete made to the band. They reached multiple milestones with him as their drummer, that they likely couldn't have without him.
This always happens. I thought there was nothing left to say about The Beatles, and certainly someone on RUclips who isn't Mark Lewisohn couldn't possibly know anything that hasn't already been discussed. As usual, I WAS WRONG. You do great work, and I have been sucked in again, playing early Beatles recordings and mulling over how things happened. I'm going to buy your book, and I think your videos are outstanding. WELL DONE.
It's so great that you've compiled all of these perspectives, David. And there were misunderstandings among those perspectives as well---George Martin never threatened to drop them altogether over the drummer issue. But one sees what one sees and one understands what one understands (for whatever reasons). Not to say that Pete didn't make his own very substantial contribution because he did. But to me, George Harrison meant that at some point it became clear that Ringo was the drummer who was meant to be with them. And he was. Time has shown that. I'll step down from my soapbox now :).
Really, that's funny, because they offered the job to two other drummers before they offered it to Ringo, and even after they offered it to Ringo and he accepted (but hadn't started yet), they STILL offered it to a third drummer that they preferred over Ringo.
Keep those feet clean on the soap box, Susan!! I think what George meant was some cosmic predestination! It was meant to be, all in the stars etc. We historians call that revisionism 😂 It is making a decision based on hindsight, which we are all good at! 👍
I think if George Martin had not said what he said about Using another Drummer for the session,Pete would have been a Beatle,you forgot to mention that even when Ringo joined,George Martin did not use Ringo at first,he had Andy White drum,so in my own opinion Pete should have been a Beatle(not trying to put Ringo down) but Pete was there first!,Great job on the getting all the comments and examining the wording on Pete.
I don't want to sound mean or anything but there are recordings with Pete drumming (the Decca audition, the original June session at EMI, a couple of BBC sessions) and, compared to Ringo, on the evidence of these recordings he's just not very good. I think the Beatles perhaps were still rather crummy before the first trip to Hamburg, but like john said in the video, Pete never improved, whereas the rest of them did. Add to that it's well known Pete didn't really fit in with the others, didn't hang out with them and Ringo did.
Agree with bits if what you say. If you examine the Decca audition - and I will do that in a future video - there was no real problem with Pete's drumming at Decca. He was fine. Paul's bass and voice were poor. George's voice was good, but guitar playing was ropey at best. John's voice was ok, but guitar work was also not up to scratch. So when analysed, Pete comes out the best of them. His drumming on My Bonnie is excellent. His drumming at the BBC in March and June 62 was no problem to that producer or the sound. The only evidence for anyone questioning his ability was George Martin on 6th June 62. But, as George Martin said, he didn't see a problem with Pete staying in the group. In hindsight, when you compare what Ringo became with the Fab Four, then he is one of the world’s greatest drummers. But nobody knew that in 1962. Ringo certainly fitted in better with the others socially, which must have helped.
I think they used Pete because like John said we needed a drummer and he had a drum set but I heard him play and he just played a steady beat with nothing else kinda of boring and plain , Ringo really played better than Peter nap maybe not the best at that time but better than Pete . Ringo really stepped up at the right moment and the rest is history.
Thank you for your well thought through video. I am a musician myself guitar and sometimes keyboards, you would not want me playing drums I can tell you now. I am 100% behind you final words on this subject.
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!
Thanks David! At @9:30 you state that you don't understand what George was meaning with the film analogy... Ringo had always been in the Beatles story (fill-in drummer, friend, etc) His STARRing role did not occur until they needed him to step-up. Love your work, BTW!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Again I agree with you...George Harrison stated, "Ringo was the member of the band". What Beatle fan, music historian could dispute that point? Certainly, NO sane person in the year 2023. However, in August 1962 there were many Liverpool fans and musicians that were scratching their heads as to why the Beatles were changing drummers. Even Brian, the Liverpool businessman knew it represented RISK. Brian had a HIT group with a recording contract. Replacing one of the four members represented a risk, but today we all know they made the right choice.
@jasona9 And that is the beauty of hindsight, as you say. It was a big risk, but they felt it was the right move. Eventually, their decision was justified. Trying to look at things in August 62 is the best way to truly appreciate what a hige gamble it was, though whoever replaced Pete, unless it was a seasoned drummer like Bobby Graham, would not be playing on the first record anyway.
@roryblake7311, There isn't a lot of substance in George's comment, yet I like the film analogy too. I take the "fill-in drummer" stuff with the grain-of-salt. The Beatles have always claimed that Pete routinely missed gigs, and so Ringo would fill-in.....According to Pete this is an extreme exaggeration! Have you ever noticed that Ringo and George were very vague on details regarding Pete's missed gigs? Well, Pete isn't. He listed the gigs (two lunchtime gigs at the Cavern Club) and the reasons he had to miss them in his book. George and Ringo being great friends is SPOT ON! George and Pete weren't great friends. It's well known that George was the FIRST Beatle to 'stir things up' to get Pete out and Ringo in. There's no crime in that! Pete admitted in his book that in Hamburg when George was underage, he would often get teased as the 'baby' of the group. Perhaps George didn't like getting teased from Pete? Regardless, In my opinion Ringo taking a "STARRing role' was more an issue of WANT, not need.
@@jasona9wrote: _"but today we all know they made the right choice."_ The choice worked for sure, history tells us that. That does not mean the original choice would have a better choice.
Spot on David. They were just beginning and had no idea of what was just around the corner. Both Pete and Ritchie were and are great drummers, just that Richie fitted in better as a mate. Pete's contribution certainly helped fuel the oncoming chapters, glad that Pete got some financial recompense in the end.
The Fab 3 were in each others pockets. Pete was by far the most popular member of the band. It appears their egos could not handle being the second line to a drummer who grabbed all the female fans.
@@johnburns4017 John, you're exactly right. For Pete's entire 2 years he was the far and away most popular Beatle. And towards the end of his tenure, the chasm between his popularity and the others was getting even greater, as fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John, Paul and George were also overhearing fans refer to the band this way verbally in the clubs. But it was more than just the attention Pete got from the fans, and girls, in particular. It was the star treatment he got from the club managers, who would tell the Fab 3 to sit on the front of the stage so as to not block the fans' view of Pete. And once even made them stand *_behind_* Pete, on Valentine's Day, 1961 (the club managers never did that again as the girls practically pulled Pete off the stage into the crowd, something that never happened with any of the Fab 3). And it was the star treatment Pete got from the press, like when the local industry rag, Mersey Beat, reported The Beatles getting a record deal, the only photo was a big headshot of Pete, with the article gushing over Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and the other 3 Beatles were barely mentioned. The Fab 3 figured it was only going to get worse, once record label execs got control of their promotions, and that they would forever be under the colossal shadow cast by their drummer -- an absolutely sickening and intolerable thought to them.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Having a drummer as a lead man did no harm to the Dave Clark 5. Also people never liked the idea of a man at the back hidden by those at the front, especially on TV. From the start Mona and Pete Best said, and also on TV, it was jealousy. I do not think that was an emotional response either. Mona did meet the Fab 3 afterwards, apparently in London. I would never have done that for what they did.
As a secondary motive for justifying replacing him, jealousy makes sense. It wasn't the prime factor. They all got more than enough attention and girls, so on its own it wasn't a significant factor. But for justifying to themselves why they could replace Pete, that would have been a factor for sure.
I really enjoy your show love hearing how everyone thoughts were on this about Pete and Ringo I totally agrees Ringo fit like a glove he was the 4th Beatle 💜✌
Ringo wasn't the obvious choice at the time, being the third drummer to be asked - with one asked after him too - but in hindsight was definitely the right choice.
I saw an interview with George Martin where he said he only wanted to use a studio drummer to make a record. He was surprized that Pete was let go from the live lineup since he thought Pete was very marketable in the band. George Martin never said they should replace Pete in the band. This was an interview that I personally saw. Anybody who thinks the Beatles wouldn't have made it without Ringo on drums doesn't know much about the music business. Nothing against Ringo, but any skilled drummer could have done the job. Reality.
You are correct because all George Martin meant was that for making the record, he would use a session drummer, which was standard practice back then. He was surprised when they walked in with Ringo on 4th September. However, Ringo working so closely with the other three over those years enabled Ringo to create such unique drumming that I believe he was the right man to do it. Can't say if he was the only one who could have done it, but he was unique and started so many careers and inspired so many drummers.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes, David, but Ringo has admitted that he just played the songs the way JP&G wanted them played, which was fine by him because they were the songwriters. Far too often I see Ringo fanboys laud him for his unique drum patterns on songs like, "Ticket To Ride", and, "Come Together", when the fact of the matter is, Paul told Ringo exactly how to play those songs. Ringo's contribution to the music was far less than his fanboys believe, or are willing to admit.
What fascinates me is what was left on the cutting room floor when the Beatles were making the anthology. I think the interviewer for the project told mojo magazine. That one of the Beatles would say turn the camera off and I will tell you what I really think ! Lol. I’m sure there would be a record of that somewhere. Jools Holland would certainly know all the details as he did all the interviews. I’m certain that a lot of censorship went into that series to avoid lawsuits. It feels like George Harrison’s comments on Pete’s sacking have been heavily edited. Because as you say the comments don’t make sense.
It’s nice to have for all the rare footage of the Beatles. But clearly it was done by committee. Which is why a newer documentary like Peter Jackson’s get back is much better. Even though some censorship was done for that series too. It looks like Jackson was given more of a free hand than the anthology team back in 1995.
George Martin has said in interviews that he didn't tell them to get rid of Pete, he only said that they would have another drummer in the studio. I think the other Beatles took that as their cue to get Ringo in which they had been wanting for some time.
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!
I agree with you David. Pete was obviously a competent drummer but The Beatles needed someone who complemented John, Paul & George. Ringo was the perfect choice. "Love Me Do" was an ordinary record. In retrospect, I don't know why they didn't push "P.S. I Love You" as the A side?
If Ringo was "the perfect choice", then why did they offer Pete's job to 2 other drummers before they offered it to Ringo, and even a third drummer AFTER Ringo had been offered and accepted the job (but hadn't started yet)???
This is my theory. Mona Best was constantly haranguing Brian about Pete's appearances after she turned over the reins to Brian promoting the lads. Brian was looking at any opportunity to distance himself from her. When Martin told Brian that he was going to use a session drummer, Brian deliberately miscommunicated to the lads that Best wouldn't do for the future. This fed into the dissatisfaction with Best by the lads because he was getting the majority of the Press. The guillotine was set!
It is a theory that has been put forward several years later to justify or understand why it happened. It may have been a useful secondary reason used by John, Paul, and George to convince Brian to make the change, but it was never the primary reason. There were plenty of secondary reasons that they all used to justify it. But only one primary reason. George Martin and how his point of view was interpreted. But Brian was against the change, so he wouldn't have tried to get rid of Pete.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Another reason is that George in particular got along really well with ringo and many have said he in particular pushed really hard to get ringo on the track. I think Pete was probably a good live drummer but I don't think Pete would have been able to come up with the beats for things like "Rain" or "Tommorow Never Knows"
@thatguythatdrawzz749 George was definitely the one who became friendly with Ringo in early 62 and he says he had to persuade John and Paul that Ringo was the right choice. After that, we can only speculate what could have been, because they made the change from a great love rock drummer to a new creative pop drummer in Ringo who became an integral member of the Fab Four. That'a why I see them as two different groups.
The fact is when Pete joined the Beatles they were barely a band but when they fired him 18 months later they were ready for a recording contract and on the verge of national stardom. He must have done something right.
He was with them for 2 years, going from a very average group to the best rock band in Liverpool and Hamburg, according to John. If he was no good, they would have got rid of him very quickly.
Pete was on a show back in 64 or 65 called something like "I've got a secret", or something similar where a panel tries to guess what the person's secret is by asking questions. At the end Pete was ask why he left the Beatles, and he said "At the time I was wanting to form my own band", as if it was his decision to quit the Beatles. After 60 years he hasn't been able to admit he was fired because he didn’t hang out with the other 3 much apart from performance time, didn’t have the drive the others had, and wasn't the best drummer.
There's a RUclips channel called Pop Goes The 60s where the presenter mentions that before George Martin, there had already been at least two producers who criticised Pete Best's drumming capabilities.
@@noblemann4898 That video is a hatchet job against Pete from a rabid Ringo Apologist. It is filled with lies and half-truths taken totally out of context. I can refute every single point he tried so desperately to make in the video.
@michaelharrington, Pete Best wasn't permitted to state that the Beatles fired him when he appeared on I've got a Secret. It would have been a PR problem. He did admit to being fired. He sued Brian and the Beatles for 'Breach of Contract' (he LOST) and Ringo for 'Libel' (he WON).
A minor point... But according to Mark Lewisohn, Ringo never turned unannounced up for the second studio session on 4 September at Abbey Rd with all at EMI surprised that Pete Best had been _replaced._ The engineers in the studio never knew for sure, but that does not mean the producers did not know. Epstein was very professional being the sort who would inform EMI of a personnel change. Not that the producers cared who turned up, as it was a _rubbish_ band as Martin referred to them. Mark writes that Martin's secretary was informed _The Beatles_ had a new drummer by Epstein. *If Martin was expecting Pete Best then why wasn't the session drummer there as Pete was unsuitable for studio work?* Andy White was called in to drum for the third studio session on 11 September after Ringo had also been rejected for studio work after hearing him on the second session.
Unfortunately, Mark made an assumption because he thought it made sense, but it wasn't a fact even though he wrote it as fact. How do I know? I asked Judy Martin and she denied it. Then, in an interview for TV about George Martin, he and Paul are discussing that 4th September session, and George Martin reiterates that nobody had told him about the change of drummer, and Paul doesn't argue. He didn't know.
As for your second point about a session drummer for 4th September. This wasn't a recording session. George Martin wanted to see how they had got on over the summer with Love Me Do, but especially How Do You Do It? They weren't ready to make a record yet. Session drummers were expensive!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool What do you think of Mark Lewisohn as a Beatle Author? I find him to have a very "anti-Pete Best" agenda. I find Spencer Leigh to be very good, fair and impartial.
"....John, Paul and George were together from 1957 in the Quarrymen..The Beatles were always gonna be about that threesome..(👌) ..we're not looking to change history, we're just looking to examine history and get the history right.." 👏👏 The Pete Best 60yr old conundrum solved at last...👍 What a superbly researched and in-depth explanation of the most likely step-by-step story (as it happened) of Pete v George Martin v Ringo etc etc.. ..this important yt video is, unless you happen to have a time machine that really works, (🙄) ... is now my definitive story-line of the Beatles and the Pete Best saga bar none. We learn that he helped them develop further from the Liverpool Ballrooms and local talent spotting gigs in the area to the "big-time" of the Hamburg Reeperbahn clubs becoming "stars" there in their own right until the 6th June 1962 at Abbey Road when circumstances lead to a change of drummer and giving birth (finally) to the greatest band in the entire history of popular music 🎶 ... The Beatles! Ta very much kid..!😅
Thank you so much, I truly appreciate that. I tried to keep it as objective as possible and just look at the evidence, which nobody has been able to counter. Pete Best deserves his place in Beatles history and I don't understand why some fans don't want that.
@@Zapple7 It was about two, Lennon and McCartney - the song writing due that also clicked in a highly complmentary way when writing and arranging. George was treated with contempt at times. He was an infill guitarist along with a drummer. Both were expendable and easily replaced. When George walked out, John wanted to approach Eric Clapton to instantly replace him, not ask George to come back, because John knew he was not essential and expendable. Any songs that George wrote that they allowed onto an album, was concessionary. Ringo was just what he was, an expendable drummer.
Yeah...it took them 2 years to 'discover" Pete was not a "good drummer" , quoting wikipedia: "Over twenty years later, Mark Lewisohn concluded that "Despite his alleged shortcomings, it was still shabby treatment for Pete... The Beatles had had two years in which to dismiss him but hadn't done so, and now - as they were beginning to reap the rewards for their long, hard slog, with money rolling in and an EMI contract secured - he was out. It was the most underhanded, unfortunate and unforgivable chapter in the Beatles' rise to monumental power".
0:16 "We started to think we needed the great drummer in LIverpool". Based on what I have read, RIngo was well liked and respected in Liverpool by fans and musicians alike (yet so was Pete), still Ringo wasn't considered the 'Greatest drummer in Liverpool'. This distinction would have gone to Johnny Hutchinson or Johnny Hutch as he was called from the group the BIG THREE. What do you think David? 10:22 You mentioned Johnny here among the other drummers Brian and the Beatles were considering.
Totally agree. Hutch was regarded as the top drummer in Liverpool, according to the musicians and fans, too. Both Pete and Ringo were regarded as very good drummers, though different in style.
Some personalities just don't fit together, it happens all the time, in groups of people. Also people outside the band can influence the bands relationships with each other. Everyone has an agenda so everyone has a different story. It's a bit of this a bit of that and a bit of the other.
The problem with a lot of John Lennon's interviews and quotes is that they were taken from a time when he was still dealing with personal issues and was always prone to talk down about anything from his past. When asked what his favourite record of theirs was, his answer is he always likes the last one they've done. He was always trying to move away from things and on to something else. During the mid-sixties he decried the early stuff, then he decried the psychedelic stuff and wanted to get back to rock-and-roll, then he decried the mop-top period, then he was down on The Beatles saying they were just a group that broke up. His comments on his own life need to be viewed through a lens of anger and resentment that he harboured for a long time. It was really at the end of his life that he seemed to finally pull all of his threads together, and he even said how happy he felt at that point. Regarding George's comment from The Anthology: it makes tremendous sense from the perspective of Eastern Philosophy. That was how it was meant to be that way and that is the way in which it unfolded.
Absolutely right, I agree. John changed his opinions so often, it is hard to get a definite point of view on many aspects of Beatles history. What we know is that he loved rock n roll, but was too self-critical of his own abilities and had many insecurities too.
Just listen to the recordings that exist with Pete on the drums, or watch him on some more recent videos. The tempo is all over the place and a solid tempo is one of the most important things for a drummer, maybe not so much live (if it's not ridiculously bad), but in the recording studio.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You're very welcome. People seem to forget ( or are unaware) that it was with Pete Best as their drummer that the Beatles topped the Mersey Beat Poll( as far back as January,1962). Apparently,Pete Best was doing something right as their pre - fame drummer. Thus, Pete Best was instrumental in their future success. In fact, it was Paul Mccartney himself, who said, in some interview, that the Casbah is very important and that it's really where it all started. ( Pre - Cavern. Pre - Hamburg). Paul Mccartney was saying this in direct response to the fact that die hard Beatles fans always flock to places like the ' mecca '.. The Cavern Club. And Pete Best makes sure that that specific quote by Paul is referenced on his ( Pete Best 's) website. I believe that Pete Best did his part, he delivered the goods, during the pre fame era. And he deserved the recognition for the part he played, at that specific time period in Beatles history
To add my two cents in for what it is worth. I believe it was his personality that hurt him most. He seemed in Hamburg for instance that he did not join the others rather he went off on his own after gigs. Even his hairstyle did not evolve, it was inevitable that his style and personality was the not going to work. Luckily Ringo excepted being in the group or we may not be talking about this at all. So in short Dave, you did an excellent job showing the professional side of it and the choice was the right one to sack Pete, however good or nice a person he was/is !
Thank you. Once we get passed the fact that he was a decent drummer, there was definitely something with the personality as Paul mentioned in that clip. It took Ringo a year or so, but he got there and became one of them! And he was a great drummer too. Glad you enjoyed it, thank you.
Great video (as per usual) but your picture captioned "Tony Barrow with The Beatles" 3.06 is actually Brian Matthews with The Beatles. ( A BBC Radio session taping probably).
Anyone who has actually been in a band trying to make it big knows why Pete was sacked. Bless him but the best thing he could have done afterward is say “you know, I did my best but it wasn’t good enough. I did my best and there’s no shame in that.” No pun intended.
Very good research there Dave- congrats! The only thing that irked me in the feature was Norman Smith stating "Love me Do" wasn`t much of a success!! What? Its a debut disc by artists not yet known nationally. It spent Eighteen weeks in both the `Record Retailer` and `Melody Maker` charts (About 4 & half months), and reached in those charts, 17 & 21 respectively. I believe it sold close to 100.000 by mid 1963 (Please correct me if that is incorrect). E.M.I surely made money on the record- what did Norman Smith want? It puzzles me!
Always the problem with looking back in history. Compared to what they achieved later, it wasn't a success. But it was a great start for a new group, you're right.
When Smith said "it wasn't a great hit" and "it wasn't terribly successful", he was speaking from the context of production, not sales. He gives reasons why the product did not fully showcase the Beatles real qualities. The track was possibly rated higher on their list than other songs because of the harmonica element, which was popular at the time. As a song, and arrangement, it's pretty basic, not as "great" as most of their singles, and wasn't covered much, if at all.
Paul and the guys who run Apple decided it was best to say that he was a really good drummer. I'm sure Paul didn't think he was a really good drummer. 15:37 the arrangement wasn't good because Pete didn't have the creative spark to put his part in and help them put their part in. Hey by the way these two videos about why he was fired and not fired are really exceptional I thank you much for producing them.
My pleasure Steve, thank you. The guys did think he was a really good drummer, otherwise they wouldn't have kept him for 2 years. The arrangement wouldn't have been his suggestion anyway, that was always down to the others, especially Paul. They would tell Ringo what to drum too.
George Martin initially wasn't impressed with Ringo Starr either. On one of their first recorded songs, George Martin sent Ringo Starr for the day and used a session drummer. Not only that, but Ringo was not even the first, second or third drummer approached to replace Pete Best. When the first choices turned down Martin, only then was Ringo asked to join the group. However, when it is all said and done, Ringo fit in better with the Beatles as an bandmate.
Very true about Ringo being replaced by a session drummer, Andy White. It was Brian who offered the role to 3 other drummers and they turned Brian down. But the right drummer was definitely Ringo!
A great video thanks once again for clarifying what has been one of the big myths of Beatles history. Clearly John Paul and George felt their recording career was on the line and they had to get rid of Pete to keep that contract. I wonder thou if Martin had told them this would be a temporary arrangement. And that Pete could drum on future singles would they have changed their mind ? Or had George Harrison planted a seed of doubt already in John and Paul’s mind. And George Martins comments sealed Pete’s fate.
Poor Pete his life was forever altered by a misunderstanding between Brian Epstein and George Martin. No wonder the Beatles came up with the lousy drummer story. And not admit that their manager screwed up by not asking for clarification from George Martin. I wonder if that was one of the things that bothered Brian Epstein the rest of his life?
It certainly played on his conscience at the time, especially. He didn't agree with the decision but felt that he had to do what his group told him to. He could see that the change worked, and bowed to their suggestion, but I don't think he was ever happy with it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool A bit of a mess all the way around thank goodness Ringo worked out so well! I’m not into preordained destiny but the more I look into the Beatles history the more I’m convinced some divine power was behind them. Clearly the gods decided to bless Ringo in August 1962. Lol. If it hadn’t been for this misunderstanding between George Martin and the Beatles. There was nothing stopping Pete Best getting on the Beatles rocket ride in 1962.
It may well have been documented on other videos you have done but there's a comment by John not mentioned on this video. He said, "We were cowards. We let Brian make the phone call and tell Pete he was sacked."
I'm just wondering if Ringo was at EMI from day one (with the lads) would he have faced the same fate as Pete. Ron Richards said if he'd have asked Ringo to play the same drum pattern as Pete he probably wouldn't have been able to and would that have lead to George Martin bringing in Andy White anyway.
Ron Richards has said that he doubts Ringo could have done it either. He had a thing about drummers and wanted a session drummer, no matter who their drummer was.
Ringo DID face the same fate as Pete. At least with respect to how EMI looked at him. They gave him one session to impress them, the same as Pete got, and when Ringo failed to impress them they hired session pro, Andy White, to replace him the next week. The ONLY difference is that JP&G didn't fight for Pete, because they wanted him out anyway, over jealousy of his status as the far and away most popular Beatle, and they used EMI's decision to use a session drummer in place of him as a pretext for sacking him. But noooooo, when Ringo gets replaced by a session pro, JP&G go to bat for Ringo, and persuade Martin to let Ringo play on the subsequent songs for the band's debut album.
After reading extensively over 40 years on the subject and as a musician my opinion is this: Ringo was a better drummer by far and his personality meant that he was more part of the gang than Pete. They took Pete on as the only drummer available to go to Hamburg but as far back as Hamburg they had preferred Ringo's drumming when he had stood in with them. The final nail in the coffin was George Martin's decision that he wasn't good enough to record with. His looks and following is just incidental as is the involvement of Mona Best. George's comment (that the presenter here says he didn't get) is looking at things from a fatalistic (or Karmic, George genuinely believed) point of view i.e. Ringo as the Beatle's drummer was just meant to be.
"He [Pete Best] was a genius. You could put that man on a drumkit 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 and forget the faces - you couldn’t avoid that insistent whack, whack, whack!" "I was amazed. When Pete left, I even thought of turning into a guitarist and getting him to drum in our band. The Beatles didn’t hate Pete Best but they didn’t want a star on the drums. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary." - Chis Curtis of the Searchers - Dec 1997 interview
I don't disagree that Ringo was a superb drummer. Everything else, especially George's comments, are revisionist, looking back and justifying what was done. In hindsight, Ringo was a superb choice. I would clarify, however, that Ringo didn't sit in with them in Hamburg. The first time was when Pete asked Ringo to sit for him at the end of 1961. He then played 3 times in 62. But Ringo was available on several occasions and they never asked him to join them. There is no evidence to suggest they ever wanted Ringo to replace Pete until after 6th June. And, as has been stated, he wasn't the only drummer asked, so it was never replace Pete with Ringo. It was replace Pete. Who then can we get? And Ringo was the guy who said yes.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Great channel. There's loads of documented evidence supporting the fact that Ringo sat in with The Beatles in Hamburg 'when Pete was ill'. Once source has Ringo even recording with them backing Lu Walters from the Hurricanes when Pete was 'in town on an errand' around that time. There's no mystery as to why Pete had to go, you only have to use your ears. Also to see Pete in interviews (a gent, nice guy, all the rest of it) he is quite wooden and just didn't have the personality of the other 3, he just didn't fit in as Ringo did. My heart goes out to Pete, I have read that he found it extremely tough after he was booted out and was suicidal at times. I was pleased that they included tracks with him on drums on The Anthology and he got a good few quid. His story is very similar to Tony McCaroll from Oasis but at least McCaroll got to record what is regarded as their best album with them. As with McCaroll, Pete will never be forgotten as part of the story. You never know, he may end up as the last man standing.
@sparkipeat2255 The only time Ringo played with John, Paul, and George was when Lu Walters was asked to make a record, so he asked his drummer to accompany him, and then asked the 3 Beatles to join him. So Ringo didn't drum in the Beatles. John, Paul, and George played in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. There was no occasion in Hamburg where Ringo played with The Beatles. He would sometimes watch them. The two groups socialised together, too. But that was all.
@sparkipeat2255 And thank you for your kind comments about the channel. We want to share Beatles history and talk about the greatest group ever! Thanks for taking part.
I actually got to hear both Pete Best and Ringo Starr preform on different occasions, Ringo back in 66 and Pete about 8-9 yrs ago.They were both great drummers.
Ringo was offered it formally on the Tuesday, Pete was given the bad news on Wednesday afternoon and then Wednesday evening Johnny Hutch was offered the job. I have that from Hutch and it has been corroborated too.
good video, good sources. could have included pete turned in a substandard performance on the love me do "test" recording. don't know if he was nervous, having a bad day etc. watch THE BEATLES MINUTE: Pete Best's Drumming on "Love Me Do, for a great analysis.
Yes, I have discussed that elsewhere. If the only evidence we had was the 6th June recording if Love Me Do, you can understand the decision. Thankfully, we have a lot more evidence of his recording with the Beatles and he proves to be a really good drummer.
George was saying…if it were a movie the scene with Pete was done, now in the next take Ringo steps in to do his scene. He did it will too!👍💚🎶 I do feel the band became the BEATles when Ringo joined. Pete was Silver Beatles. Just my humble opinion (as a drummer myself).
John, Paul and George must have known that using sessions drummers for studio work was normal in those days. They could not have been that naive, having previously recorded in Germany. They received the contract from EMI, meaning EMI were fine with Pete, *before* they removed Pete. Ringo was *fourth* choice. So they just wanted Pete out come what may. Other factors must have been at play.
John, Paul, and George wouldn't have known about session musicians yet. It was a secret only insiders knew about. That is why they just accepted what George Martin said. The My Bonnie recordings were different altogether, with no session musicians on standby. So it was all new to them.
The pop-up Beatles book is quite cool, but the first page is a bit crass. It's a Cavern background, you can pull a lever and J & P in their leathers lift their guitars and do a head's together 'o0o' anachronistically. And Pete is drumming. But if you pull a lever Pete's head pops out of the way and Ringo is drumming. I bet Pete will take some scissors to that page if he sees it. The biggest contradiction in GH and JL's estimation of PB's drumming is that they both said The Beatles' best live work happened in Hamburg.
"If you haven't seen the Beatles at the Cavern with Pete Best, you haven't seen the Beatles". - Tony Crane (Liverpool musician - the Merseybeats) Most Beatle fans know that Pete sang lead on three songs during live performances (Matchbox, Boys and Peppermint Twist). During Peppermint Twist he became the frontman, the 'Elvis' of the Beatles! This was a big part of his popularity and a primary reason why fans revolted when he was dismissed. The complexion of the entire group CHANGED in a way that the average Beatle fan can't imagine today.
Ringo Starr was a bigger name in Liverpool than the Beatles were at the time he joined the band. Seems to me that if Martin believed that Best wasn't good enough for studio work, that pretty much settled it.
@@Kermit_T_Frog You wrote, "Ringo Starr was a bigger name in Liverpool than the Beatles were at the time he joined the band". What are you basing that on? The Beatles were the best band in Liverpool and Pete Best had been their drummer for two years. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes (with Ringo Starr) WERE a bigger, more accomplished band than the Beatles for time in Liverpool, but the Beatles had eclipsed them by that point in time. George Martin never said that Pete Best "wasn't good enough for studio work". He said he wanted to use a studio drummer for the first recording session. He did the same thing with Ringo.
There is an interview somewhere in YT universe where John Lennon said about the Quarrymen to The Beatles "Paul joined through me, George through Paul, and Ringo through George."
@jonashallberg2832, I see your point. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, but he had the benefit of growing with the band in the recording studio, and multiple retakes. To compare Ringo to Pete based on their recordings as members of the Beatles is incredibly unfair. The only way to compare the two is to put yourself in a time warp and go back to August 1962. Few if any Liverpool fans or musicians are on record saying that Ringo was the better drummer at that time. Paul called Ringo the "Greatest drummer in Liverpool, at least in our eyes", during Anthology, but this has been disputed. Fred Marsden (Gerry's Brother) the drummer in Gerry and the Pacemakers said that the best drummer in Liverpool was Johnny Hutch of the BIG THREE. He was far more technical than Ringo and did flashy elaborate solos.
I am a Beatle Anorak and also an experienced muso with shit loads of years playing in bands, my take on the whole thing is that Pete Best was never going to be the Beatles drummer going forward, you have to remember that drummers were few and far between in the early formative years of the Beatles and they only asked him to join because they needed a drummer to go to Hamburg, ive heard his drumming from early recordings and to be honest it wasn't that good compared to other top drummer of that time, for what ever reasons Ringo used to step in on odd occasions when Pete couldn't make the gig and the lads really got on with him and loved his drumming hence George saying he was always their drummer even if it was in the back of their minds, he also shared their humour and candour which i believe endeared him to them, when the big break came and George Martin mentioned that he wasn't happy with his drumming then it was a natural move for them to bring Ringo into the band , they would have gone with Pete if it meant success but as soon as they were given a choice they much preferred Ringo not only for his good drumming but for his personality and similar humour and it all just clicked they felt comfortable with him. Pete Best seems a real nice guy and it must have been devastating for him to have been dumped just on the eve of an unbelievable roller coaster event in pop history but at the end of the day he was and always will be part of Beatle history, he played a part in one of the best musical phenomena of all time, he was part of the Beatles story, no one can ever take that away from him and i bet he didnt do too bad out of it in the end, it is what it is, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we all die.
Thanks for your contribution to the debate. I've pkayed in bands for over 40 years too, which helps doesn't it? Let me ask you this then. In your bands, how long does it take you to know whether a drummer is good or not? For me it is a couple of hours, confirmed in a couple of weeks. Not a couple of years. In Liverpool there were over 300 groups at the time, and by 1961 the Beatles could have had any drummer they wanted at any time. It never crossed their minds because the sound they had created in Hamburg, with emphasis on Pete's atom drum beat, had made them the best group in Liverpool and Hamburg. George said the Beatles were at their best and became really tight as a group and at their peak at the Top Ten in Hamburg in 1961. With Pete. John said if you didn't see the Beatles playing straight rock in Liverpool and Hamburg, you never saw the Beatles. That was them at their best (excuse the pun). Pete and Ringo were considerd among the top drummers in Liverpool, though neither were the top drummer, who was Johnny Hutchinson of the Big Three. Nobody questioned Pete's drumming until George Martin did on 6th June. Also, there was never a situation where they decided to replace Pete with Ringo. They were two disconnected events. 1. We feel we need to replace Pete because of George Martin's comments. 2. They approach 4 different drummers and offer them the job. Ringo is the 3rd to be offered the position and says yes - the previous two said no. The day after Ringo is asked formally by Brian to replace Pete, Johnny Hutchinson is asked by Brian to replace Pete! So much of this story is revisionist to recreate the story so that Pete was crap and they desperately wanted Ringo. That wasn't the case. Pete was a really great drummer for the Beatles between August 60 and 62, when they were playing covers of American rock n roll etc. However, under George Martin, they were about to become a pop group recording original songs. The old Beatles were dead, as John said when they put on suits. A new group was being formed called the Fab Four, and Ringo was perfect for them, as he proved. Two different groups, two different drummers, who both deserve credit. Even if Ringo wasn't first choice, he was the best choice!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool How long does it take to know if a drummer is good or not? Well I think I would know instantly. I have played in plenty of bands with mediocre drummers some hardly capable of keeping time but needs are must and you tend to put up with what you have at the time and try and make something out of what you have. The Beatles could have had any drummer they wanted in 61 out 300 groups , yes but how many would have really been worth approaching about 3 I would guess so why bother changing anything when they already had a decent sound for what they were doing at the time and Pete was Ok for what the were playing, straight rock and roll and he was able to Mach schau but when they got the recording deal they were going into completely new territory and Pete’s drumming was found wanting I’m sure if nothing was said then they would have continued with Pete but when his playing was questioned then going forward Ringo was their natural choice , he had stepped in with them on many occasions and they said they noticed a big difference in their overall sound with Ringos tight steady beat and style and coupled with that his personality was more akin to theirs and that alone was an important factor the whole transition was a natural evolution of the Beatles it was definitely the scene where Ringo entered. I find it hard to believe Ringo was the third choice drummer to be approached after Pete , it may be possible that Brian approached other drummers but I’ve never heard that John, Paul or George approached anyone else and can you honestly believe any drummer would turn down a recording contract with EMI , I really don’t think so , I think Beatles history has been rewritten a bit here. There was never a situation when they wanted to change Pete for Ringo ? Believe me, they would have had Ringo in the band right from the off but he was happy where he was with Rory it was only the chance of a record deal and fame that changed his mind .My opinion is that Pete was never destined to be the Beatles drummer unfortunately he simply was not good enough and I simply could not have seen him doing some of them wonderful drum patterns Ringo went on to do he was a far superior drummer but as I’ve already said Pete did ok out of it all in the end and he will always be part of Beatles history that can never be taken away from him.
@@purpleduke77 You wrote: *"They were going into completely new territory and Pete's drumming was found wanting."* First of all, when they sacked Pete, they didn't have a crystal ball showing them the new Beatles' sound they would go on to create over the next several years, they had, *"Love Me Do",* and few other originals that Pete played perfectly well in the clubs. There was nothing, "wanting", in Pete's drumming. Did you even watch this video?? George Martin didn't even have a problem with Pete's drumming, it was his assistant producer, Ron Richards, who did. And Richards later admitted he was asking too much of Pete, and that Ringo would not have been able to handle it, either. One of the engineers present, Norman Smith, said, *"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather the new arrangement he was being asked to play."* And the other engineer, Ken Townsend, said, *"I didn't see any reason whey a session drummer should be brought in to replace Pete."* The bottom line is this, Martin's decision (via the recommendation from Richards) to use a session man in place of Pete did not raise any alarms about Pete's drumming to his bandmates. They knew Pete nailed the other songs in the audition, including, *"Besame Mucho",* which is on Anthology, and that the he nailed, "Love Me Do", the first time they played it at EMI, before Martin was in the room. It was that performance that caused Richards to summon Martin from the canteen to listen to these exciting lads. But Martin didn't share that recording with us on Anthology. No, he gave us the one right after that, where Pete and the band are trying to learn a new arrangement Martin has sprung on them from left field. Pete had been playing and practicing the song with The Beatles' original arrangement, and then suddenly with no notice Martin changes it. So you and your Ringo Apologist buddies may listen to that recording on Anthology, which is nothing more than a 1st attempt demo of a new arrangement, and point and laugh and cry out, *"Pete stinks!",* but John and Paul and George weren't concerned one bit by Pete's drumming, they knew how great he was in the clubs, and that it was unfair for Martin and Richards to judge him after ambushing the band with a new arrangement with no time to practice it. What Martin's decision DID mean to them, however, was that he'd unwittingly served himself up to be the fall-guy for their betrayal of Pete. They each wanted Pete out of the band, and had wanted him out for a long time. John, Paul and George were each jealous of Pete, but for different reasons. George wanted Pete out and Ringo in because George felt outnumbered in the band, as both Paul and Pete were loyal to John. Paul and John were squeezing George out of the songwriting process, forming their Lennon-McCartney partnership, and they treated George like an annoying kid brother. When John and Paul weren't talking down to George, they were ignoring him. George didn't have Pete to lean on, as Pete was loyal to John, and frequently off getting the hottest tail in two cities after gigs. George needed an ally in the band, a buddy. Which he found in Ringo, when Pete asked his mate Ringo to fill in for him one day when he was sick. Ringo had always coveted Pete's job, and when George asked him if he'd like to join The Beatles, Ringo said, *"I'd love to. But you've already got a drummer."* That was a coded, but clear message to George saying, hey, you get rid of your drummer, and I'm in. That was December of '61, and the conspiracy was afoot. Paul was easy to convince, as he was insanely jealous of Pete's popularity with the girls, in particular. Paul wanted desperately to be "the cute Beatle", but that was never going to happen with Pete in the band. So Paul said yes to George, but ever the pragmatist, he insisted they not sack Pete until they got a record deal. It was too risky, Pete was too popular. The backlash from the fans could mean the end of The Beatles. They had to have a recording contract in hand when they did it, to mitigate the fan backlash by stoking Liverpudlian pride as the first band from the city to land a record deal. Around the time they got that deal, Pete's popularity was soaring to new heights. Fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!"* John was good mates with Pete, and didn't want to replace him. But that was too much, even for John to handle. This was JOHN'S band! And he was going to be damned if some *_drummer_* was going to become its leader, the face of the band! So he gave in, joined the conspiracy, and they sacked Pete one month after getting signed, a hideous betrayal that remains today an indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer You can see it how ever you want to see it but Pete was simply not good enough for the Beatles , John is on record as saying Pete was a lousy drummer and we only had in the band because we needed a drummer to go to Hamburg , he said we taught him to keep a beat but we were always gonna dump him . Paul said they really noticed a difference to their sound when Ringo played with them . I’ve heard Pete’s version of Love me do and it’s so stiff and lacking any fluency and his drumming on The Decca recordings is adequate but not up to any great shakes , I’ve got absolutely nothing against Pete as a person but I’ll say it again he was just not good enough end of .
@@purpleduke77 As for that quote from Lennon, he was just lashing out at reporters who were questioning why they'd replaced Pete on the verge of success. Lennon couldn't tell the truth, that they sacked Pete due to jealousy of his status as the most popular Beatle. So John lied and said Pete was lousy. But that contradicts what John has said other times, including when he told Beatles historian, Tony Barrow: *"Pete was a better drummer. Ringo was a better Beatle."* You clearly know nothing about this time in Beatles history. They were the worst band in Liverpool ("awful", according to George Harrison) the day before they hired Pete to join the band and went straight off to Germany, and mere weeks later they were the hottest ticket in Hamburg and Liverpool. With Pete on drums, The Beatles gelled like they never had before. That's why they kept him for TWO YEARS. Had Pete truly been lousy as Lennon said in that quote, they had MANY opportunities to replace him in those two years. And had Pete truly been lousy then The Beatles never would've risen to the top of the Liverpool-Hamburg music scene, which they did quickly in Pete's first year, knocking Ringo's band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, out of the top spot in the 1961 Mersey Beat Top Band Poll. There were more than 3 good drummers in Merseyside and Hamburg, LOL, I don't know what you're smoking. They had ample opportunity in those two years to replace Pete with a really good drummer, had Pete truly been lousy like Lennon said he was in one of John's typical acid-tongue lashings (which spared practically no one, at one time or another). But they didn't replace Pete, because Pete WAS a great drummer, who was instrumental in making them great musically. And because he was the band's main attraction. They used him until they got a record deal, and once that was in pocket, they replaced him with the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer they could find with adequate skills: Ringo. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my examination of the Pete Best story over the years, I've concluded that, while Pete may not have been a "bad" drummer, he was a "limited" drummer. This is not necessarily bad, given most of the "limited" Rock and Roll music the Beatles were playing live at that time. But John, Paul, and George were always looking to play new songs, written by them, which didn't always have the Rock and Roll "Fours" beat that Pete could "only" play. Also, of course, in his live playing, Pete didn't have to keep perfect studio time, and probably didn't know about it. Bad communication between George Martin and Brian and the main three also played a role. Brian and the main three, from George Martin's conversation with Brian, probably got the impression that EMI saw no future roll for Pete at all, not even a supporting percussion roll, and did not want Pete to set foot in EMI or any of its studios ever again, as his drumming was below studio par, that session drummers would be used on all future Beatles recordings, and if they ever saw Pete again in EMI, any Beatles contract would be cancelled. There were also the ancillary reasons of Ringo's fitting better in terms of sociability, his ability to play more complicated beats for different songs, Pete's unsociability with the main three, Mona Best and Neil Aspinall and their son Roag, and also that Pete was part of a contract with the main three. The last one means that Pete couldn't be dismissed or fired outright, but had to be "re-assigned" or "transferred", which is why Brian Epstein immediately tried to build another group around him, which he eventually did.
I can agree with some of what you say. When you say Pete was limited, for what the Beatles were playing, he was perfect. John, Paul, and George very rarely included any original songs in their set, and those they did were either standard rock n roll or a variation on that. So they weren't attempting to introduce songs but were restricted by Pete or his ability. Also, when you examine the Beatles repertoire, they played a huge variety of songs and styles, from blues to rock n roll to show tunes! And Pete was fine with them. George Martin only suggested using a session drummer on their first single, and nothing more than that. You are right that any band playing live didn't have to worry about keeping time, which was a skill needed in the studio. Ringo had the same problem, but was given the opportunity to improve and he rose to the challenge. Everything else, like sociability etc is secondary and is only worth examining in hindsight to agree with the decision.
The Greatest Decision The Beatles ever made they fired Pete Best and hired Richard Starkey soon to be Ringo Starr as the Official Beatle 🥁 Drummer and beczme the greatest band of all time
Although Pete wasn't fired - see my other video on that topic - there was a massive change in direction from being a rock n roll covers group to a pop group recording original pop songs. Ringo - who had been Ringo a couple of years by then - was the perfect replacement.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool But David, there was zero evidence at that time, that Ringo was better suited for pop songs than Pete was. Any shift in the band's music had absolutely nothing to do with the change in drummers. Now, retroactively, one can look back and offer the opinion that Ringo was better suited for the types of music The Beatles would eventually be writing and recording. But you yourself have said on many occasions that there was nothing on The Beatles first few albums that Pete could not have handled as well as Ringo did.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I like how you used the term "permanent drummer". In a book by Spencer Leigh, he mentioned that Rory Storm could NOT find a drummer in the three-day time frame that Ringo had provided. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes had to temporarily perform with a drummer that didn't have musical experience! I believe Spencer wrote that he was an actor by trade, perhaps an entertainer at the Holiday Camp. It took time for Rory to find a suitable replacement for Ringo.
In Pete's autobiography he wrote that Rory Storm visited Hayman's Green shortly after hearing the news that Pete had been sacked. Rory wanted to make it clear that he had nothing to do with it and wasn't involved with the decision. Pete explained that Rory felt that Ringo had left him in the "lurch" during the Butlin's Holiday Camp Summer Session. Even Rory Storm's mother called the Best Home.
When all the controversy, and pontification are over, none of the lads owe the world an explanation as to why Best was fired. I've been in bands, as have many others here, and when someone isn't wanted in the group or doesn't click with the others, regardless of reasons, and they get voted out, that's just the way it goes.
Absolutely, happens all the time. But that isn't what happened here. Is wasn't that Best wasn't wanted. It was that George Martin didn't want him to play on their first record, which was quite normal. They took it to replace him, so that is what they did. They hadn't considered replacing him because he wasn't good enough, didn't like him, didn't fit in etc. You can understand the decision more when you realise the decision really was by George Martin, so who could blame them. It was just handled badly.
Oh the clip of Paul comparing the sacking of Pete to the sacking of his Wings drummer. Well the drummer he referred to was Geoff Britain. A technically good drummer (he drummed on the song Juniors Farm) but he just didn't fit in with the rest of the band.
I’ve seen relatively recent videos of Pete Best playing drums with a band and he sounded pretty good. However the early 60s recordings prior to Ringo joining reveal a less skilled and creative drummer. I think most of the Beatles (except John) have chosen not to criticize Pete publicly. The band before and after Ringo are two different bands.
Your concluding sentence has always been my point. They are 2 different bands. Pete was a great rock n roll live drummer, perfect for what they were doing back then. When Ringo joined, they became a pop group playing and recording original songs, and Ringo was perfect for the Fab Four.
@10:05 which is pretty heavy, as George I think had the first interaction white Pete playing in club on same road as the Petes house the casbah maybe only 20 feet down the road.. so he must have really been taken by ringos sound
It is hard to understand what George is talking about sometimes. He was a pragmatist and moved on quickly. He became friendly with Ringo and I think liked him as a person as much as a drummer.
George wasn't taken with Ringo's sound, that's not why he fought to get him into the band. And actually, George's beef was not with Pete. Not directly, anyway. George wanted an ally in the band, and Pete was close mates with and loyal to John. That was a problem for George because his big beef was with John and Paul, who were squeezing George out of the songwriting process. George desperately wanted to be a songwriter, but he was being cut out of that process, and he felt isolated in the band. McCartney's admitted in recent years that when he and John were not ignoring young George, they were talking down to him. The most fascinating thing about John & Paul's dismissive attitude and belittling behavior towards George was that George ultimately decided in 1961 that his best way to strengthen his influence in the band was by conspiring to get Pete, who was loyal to John, kicked out of the band, and replacing him with a drummer who would be George's ally on all matters. George figured this was his only chance, given that he'd be risking his own dismissal from the band if he tried to take on John & Paul directly. Here's why and how it all went down. John, Paul and George were all jealous of Pete because he was the far and away most popular Beatle with the fans, club managers, and press. But if we drill down even further, we find that they each had their own distinct jealousies of Pete. Let's start with, George, as he was the one you posted about, as the one who initiated the idea of replacing Pete with Ringo. I'll give you George's secondary motivation first. Put plainly, he hated being the 4th Beatle. George was the 3rd Beatle to join the band, and felt...particularly as the lead guitarist, and an ambitious, budding songwriter...that he was entitled to at least be the 3rd Beatle. And with Pete, who was the last to join, being the most popular Beatle, that pushed George to the bottom of the totem pole. George was the youngest member of the band, and he certainly felt that way. And yes, he was *_made_* to feel that way, by the others, particularly Paul and John. Beatles manager, Allan Williams, said, *"In the very beginning, John & Paul & George would sit together to work on writing songs, but before too long John & Paul began meeting privately, just the two of them, and George was very frustrated he'd been excluded from the creative process."* So it wasn't really about Pete. Pete wasn't rude to George, but it was clear Pete was aligned with John. And Pete was off getting the hottest tail in two cities after each gig, so he really didn't fit the role of a buddy for George to pair up with, opposite the John and Paul power tandem. George was lonely, increasingly powerless, and he felt disrespected. George was miserable. But he had an idea. George knew that Ringo would forever be indebted to him for fighting to get him into the band--something Ringo wanted very badly since the first time he saw them play. And George knew that Ringo would always side with him on band matters and votes, and would always be content as the 4th Beatle. He also knew Ringo would never threaten Paul and John, in the ways they each felt threatened by Pete. So let's move on to Paul. He didn't need much convincing from George. Because Paul desperately wanted to be "the cute one". Beatles manager Allan Williams described the scene after Pete's first gig as a Beatle. Allan said that all the girls went running past Paul and the others to get to Pete, and the stunned, crestfallen look on Paul's face made Allan say to himself (about Pete), *"Oh he's not going to last long.".* But of course Pete did last long, two years. Paul tolerated not being the cute one because Pete was such a good drummer. During those first few gigs in Hamburg in August of '60, it was so loud Pete had to get inventive, and he created what became known all around the German city, and Liverpool back home, as "The Atom Beat". Pete was a powerful drummer, with the heaviest right foot on the whole two-city circuit. And the band -- which had been the worst band in Liverpool the day before Pete joined -- quickly became the hottest ticket in those two cities. They gelled like they never had before, behind Pete's thunderous Atom Beat, which for Pete's entire two-year tenure would *define* The Beatles sound. Even Ringo recognized their greatness. In his Anthology interview he said, *"My band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, arrived in Hamburg in the fall of 1960, about two months after The Beatles had gotten there. I'd run into them a lot because we'd play on the same bills. I'll never forget the first time I saw The Beatles, they were already great. So great that they were the only band I'd go see in my off time."* Which aligns with what Lennon, Harrison, and McCartney have said at various times. Paul said, *"Pete was a great drummer."* John said, *"The Beatles were at their best during our two years going back and forth between Hamburg and Liverpool before we got signed, but it wasn't recorded so the world never got to hear it. No one in England could touch us."* And George, in a rare moment of candor on the subject admitted about that same time period, *"We were terrible before we went to Germany. But during those long stints in Hamburg, we became as tight as a band could be."* George also wrote to a friend back in Liverpool, praising Pete's drumming. With Pete on drums, and with the huge fan following he attracted, The Beatles quickly moved up the ranks, and in just one year they supplanted Ringo's band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, as the top band in the Mersey Beat poll. Geoff Nugent of The Undertakers, a rival Liverpool band said, *"You'd see 3 or 4 girls around Paul, John, and George after a Beatles show, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."* So The Beatles' reputation was growing and growing, and Paul wanted the band to get a record deal more than anything else. Once they got it, though, he agreed to join George's conspiracy to replace Pete with Ringo. Paul (and John) didn't love the fact that Ringo and George were so tight, as they would be a voting block of two in matters of the band. They knew exactly what George was up to, that his beef was not with Pete, but with them. But in a more important way, Paul was happy that it was, Ringo, as he was short, scrawny and ugly. Ringo would pose no threat to Paul's coveted position as "the cute one". Finally, John had to be convinced. He really didn't want to do it. For two reasons. One, he liked Pete. The two of them had connected and spent a lot of time together at Pete's house, listening to records, and raiding the kitchen. John opened up to Pete--something John rarely did with anyone. The second reason he didn't want to sack Pete was because he was such a good drummer, and his immense popularity brought a ton of attention to The Beatles, which was John 's band, John's baby. So John had a certain pride in having a stud like Pete in his band. However, there's a flip-side to that coin. John was concerned that once the band got signed, and studio executives got control of their promotions, that they would put Pete front and center. Even EMI producer George Martin said, *"I was shocked to learn that Pete had been replaced. Pete had a sullen charm, he was the best-looking Beatle, and was the most marketable among them."* I think The Beatles, had they kept Pete and such a scenario arose, that they could've stood their ground and successfully insisted that no one member be singled out in promotions. Because actually, they did just that after Pete had been replaced, when Martin wanted the band name changed on the first record to either John Lennon & The Beatles, or, Paul McCartney & The Beatles. They just said no, we are The Beatles, period. Still, Lennon's fear about Pete was not exactly paranoia, as Pete was far more of a draw than any other member of the band. You see, for two years, John had watched as Pete routinely got celebrity treatment from club owners, who made John, Paul and George SIT on the front of the stage so fans could see Pete better, to local newspapers who used Pete's photo when doing articles on The Beatles, and not even mentioning the others by name in the article. Then during Pete's last 6 months with the band, something happened that John could not tolerate, and marked his tipping point. The fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John (and Paul & George) were also overhearing fans in the clubs beginning to refer to the band as, "Pete Best & The Beatles". That was just too much for John to take. This was HIS band. He founded it. He's the front man (along with Paul), he's the songwriter (along with Paul), and he was going to be damned if he was going to let some _drummer_ who was the last to join the band, be the face and name of HIS band. John had observed Ringo for two years with Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, and while the goofy-looking, diminutive drummer was certainly popular, Ringo was never any threat to Rory as the face or leader of the band. So John joined the conspiracy, and he and Paul and George betrayed Pete, kicking him off the launchpad seconds before their rocket ship blast off into superstardom. Each content with their place on the totem pole, their place in the band. The hideous betrayal is an indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy. Compounded by the chickenshit way they handled it, making Brian do it, and never speaking to Pete again. Cynthia Lennon said in her book that she begged John to visit Pete to console him, and he refused to go. John knew he couldn't look into Pete's eyes and tell him some bullschit lie that he wasn't a good enough drummer. John knew he couldn't look the far-and-away most popular Beatle in the eye and tell him he was somehow "bad for the band".
@Cosmo-Kramer Thanks for your contribution as ever. A lot of what you suggest is plausible, but a lot in hindsight and part of the Beatles myth they have wanted everyone to know: that they wanted Pete out to replace him with Ringo. The facts and evidence don't support that. The evidence shows that nobody had a problem with Pete until George Martin told Brian he was going to use a session drummer on the record. That is when they decided that they had to replace Pete and trying to find ways to justify their decision, they started with the myth-making about Pete not being sociable, the haircut, the jealousy etc. All secondary excuses and never the primary reason. Getting girls and being jealous wasn't a huge problem as they all got lots of girls. Jim McCartney wasn't impressed when Pete got mobbed in Manchester. But Pete's popularity helped the group. Replacing Pete was never about getting Ringo in. Ringo was the third drummer approached, and one of 4 to be asked. That is all corroborated with evidence. George was spoken down to by John and Paul from the minute he joined the Quarrymen. A big thing once they signed their record deal was the John and Paul signed the songwriting/ publishing deal, George and Ringo were relegated. George wasn't a songwriter until the Beatles had become famous, so he wasn't interested in songwriting. What he did mind all the way through their career was being told by John and especially Paul what to play and how to play. George became friends with Ringo early in 62 and so he "had to convince" John and Paul to recruit Ringo, so they weren't sure at first. In later years, Paul has told us how when Ringo first sat in with the Beatles how it felt magical and wonderful and perfect and they all lived happily ever after. Once you separate the "replace Pete" from "recruiting Ringo" narrative, it starts to make more sense.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thanks, David, it's such a fascinating topic. IF the Beatles thought that they were being compelled by Martin to sack Pete (which they weren't)...but IF they thought their hand was being forced, lest they lose their record deal, then why would they have to fabricate myths like Pete being anti-social, and the like, to justify sacking Pete?? They had the perfect fall-guy in Martin, they didn't need any other reason. All they had to do was sack Pete and tell their fans, *"It's terribly unfortunate, we feel sick about it, but the producer in London forced us to replace Pete, or there would be no recording contract."*
But what were George Martins real concerns with Pete Best , my opinion as i am a drummer is , Pete seems to lack feel and his timing is slighly up and down, ringo has more swing and less static
As a drummer, you will understand the difference between live and studio. It was actually Ron Richards who was producing the 6th June and 4th September sessions. You know, when you're playing live, the tempo can fluctuate and be played slightly differently each time. Before auch things as click tracks, you relied on the timing of your drummer. Both Pete and Ringo had the same problem. They were used to playing live with those fluctuating timings, which isn't what the producer wanted in the studio. So Richards recommended to George Martin on both occasions that the drummer - first Pete and then Ringo - weren't accurate enough with their timing, so a session drummer was required. Both Pete and Ringo were great live drummers, though with different styles. Ringo, for me, had a style that was more adaptable to the studio, and, given the opportunity, he thrived with the Beatles becoming such a great drummer.
George Martin openly said that he wouldn't work with Pete Best. He would bring in his own drummer for any Beatles' recording sessions. Once Best was replaced with Ringo, George Martin backed off and said this was the sound he wanted, so that was the end of Pete Best. It fell on Brian Epstein to let him go.
I’ve read that Pete was AWOL on sessions. When that occurred, they’d get Ringo to fill in. So, they knew how much better they sounded with Ringo playing.
Pete wasn't Awol. It was when he knew he couldn't make it - 3 times sickness, once a court appearance. Pete asked Ringo to sit in for him on the first occasion, so it worked out. So, on 4 occasions, and it was good. But Ringo wasn't the first drummer to be asked. He was 3rd of 4 drummers asked. He was the right choice though!
Michael, you read, "that Pete was AWOL"? Do you mind if I ask where you read this? As a Beatle fan and historian, I don't like the myth's and lies about Pete. Historically he has been portrayed as "an anti-social misfit", "musical incompetent", and "unprofessional". I have a book suggestion for you and the rest of Dave's subscribers: The Best Years of the Beatles by Pete Best (with Bill Harry). Below is an excerpt from the book. This is Pete Best himself addressing his anti-socialism and his unprofessionalism: Page 162 "I don't know where the idea came from that I was a loner and didn't mix. It wasn't a case of detaching myself. We were a unit and that's what people saw all the time. When we were off stage, when we were eating, drinking, laughing, and joking, when we were causing bloody riots on stage, when we were going with women - the group was all there, there was an affinity. Then something which I'd never heard before cropped up on the Anthology TV series about the Beatles. It was unreliability. All of a sudden it's, 'Pete never turned up for gigs.' Now what had I done to deserve this one? Apart from the two occasions when I didn't turn up after I was dismissed, there were only a couple of occasions in two years when I couldn't make a gig. Once I had to go to court and I told the others in advance; and the other time was when I had 'flu and they were doing a double show at the Cavern. I missed the afternoon session and hauled myself out of my sick bed to do the evening one. They were the only times."
@@jasona9 Jason, it seems clear after 3 weeks that he's not going to answer you. But that BS narrative is all over the internet. And it's propagated by rabid Ringo Apologists like that nitwit over at Pop Goes The '60s, who says it in his slanderous YT video about Pete. You know the hit-piece I'm talkin' about. But I've seen it in myriad comments sections and other online forums--and like you, I correct it as often as I can.
George Martin was absolutely correct that Pete had inconsistent timing. That's been proven. But he never said to fire him, he only wanted to use someone else with better timing in the recording studio. Said Pete was ok for live performances. He was even surprised they actually fired him.
Pete Best was laying out sick fairly often and Ringo would fill in, the band just sounded better with Ringo the other Beatles all felt that the band was tighter with Ringo. It was mainly Pete Best"s fault that he lost his job because he was not totally vested in the band. Had Ringo not been sitting in when Pete Best layed out the Beatles would not be thinking about using Ringo instead of Pete.
It was maybe because he didn’t show up to some gigs and since Ringo was there and sat in for Pete . John and Paul didn’t like his drumming so that was going to change . The Beatles hired Ringo but still was tied into a band Rory and the Hurricanes , so Ringo left Rory to join the Beatles . The Beatles Manager at the time had a lot to do about Pete Bests dismissal .
@@RodBebenek2024 First, let me correct what you said in your comment. Pete never failed to "show up to some gigs", and it was never a case of Ringo just happening to be there to fill in. Pete missed two dates in TWO YEARS. Once due to illness, and the other due to a court date he had to attend. The first time was in December of '61 and when Pete couldn't make a show because he was sick in bed, he called Ringo, who was his mate, and asked Ringo to fill in for him. Ringo, who had long coveted Pete's job, jumped at the chance and did him that "favor". The second time was in March of '62, and it was a Cavern doubleheader, and lunch and dinner performance, with a break in between. Pete had to be in court all day and couldn't even make it in time for the evening set. So he told Brian their manager well in advance, and Brian asked Ringo to fill in, which he did. So your narrative that Pete "didn't show up to some gigs and Ringo saved the day each time" is pure rubbish. And in regards to your last sentence, that Brian had "a lot to do about Pete's dismissal", again, you are misinformed. Brian fought JP&G on sacking Pete. He even enlisted the help of Beatles' insider, DJ Bob Wooler, to try to convince them to change their minds, but they wouldn't budge. So ultimately, Brian gave in, and began working with JP&G behind the scenes on how and when to do it. But Brian was not happy at all to be losing the most popular Beatle, just when he'd finally succeeded in getting John, Pete, Paul & George signed to a record deal. Now that I've disabused you of those tired old notions, I'll tell you in my next reply WHY Pete was sacked. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John saying that their best work was never recorded (time during which Pete Best was the drummer) really doesn't say anything. It is John's appreciation based on his personal taste, informed by his love of 50's rock and roll. Commenting on musical skills would have no relevance for most people, except for music nerds (not in a derogatory way) or musicians who like to talk about these things. It makes complete sense for John to refer to the style of rock n' roll they were playing, rather than their musical skills. That's the music that John Lennon loved the most. Musicians rarely talk about their ability on the instrument unless it's a big part of what makes their success and what attracts their audience (and usually it's quite a niche thing). Not the case for the Beatles. It's a matter of context.
Sorry but I can't agree with you completely. I appreciate talking about the style of music, but John was commenting on the group being at their best playing straight rock, not that the music was the best. Same way that George said that the band were at their best, really tight, playing at the Top Ten Club in Hamburg. When bands talk about their favourite time, it is musically as a group. I have played in groups all my life and can tell you my favourites are with the best musicians AND the best music. They go together. That is when for musicians it is the most enjoyable. Even though the Fab Four were really tight, they were bored performing the same old songs. So they weren't stretched as musicians. But they made up for that in the studio.
I was listening to an interview with John's childhood friend Pete Shotten and he said "John used to tell his classmates that one day his band would be bigger than Elvis Presley and he got teased and ridiculed by his classmates for making such a statement (and the fact that his mother was shacking up with a man who wasn't her husband).John Lennon being the group leader was willing to throw Pete under the bus,to prove his classmate wrong.
Dude, I LOVE Ringo and agree that he was perfect for the Beatles. However, Pete Best was a better drummer than probably 9 of 10 Beatle fans give him credit for.
I'm not sure why you say you don't understand what George is saying in the Beatles Anthology. He's saying exactly what the others said-that it was a chemistry thing and they didn't fully become the Beatles until Ringo joined. Even if Ringo and Best skills' were equal, it's clear that they felt Ringo was a better fit for the vibe of the group. You can clearly see their chemistry and how well they all get on in their group interviews.
Oh you can, but that is in hindsight, and not something they could have known at the time. Only George was friendly with him, and had to persuade John and Paul that he was the right choice. As Ringo said it took him 12 months to fit in with them. So it certainly wasn't immediate, but it definitely worked out for the very best as he was the perfect fit.
Anyone who plays drums every night for 2 years is going to be a good drummer, if not they'd move on to do something else. I have no doubt that Pete Best was a good drummer, just not up to the standard according to the person who had the experience and authority when it comes to studio recording (George Martin). But what I find really baffling is that Pete Best being replaced may have be down to a misunderstanding. As you said, Brian Epstein, who wasn't familiar with the fact that using session drummers was common practice, may not have understood that George Martin didn't mean to replace Pete Best in the Beatles, and the album would still have been made, and Pete Best would have remained, possibly til the end if the success of the Beatles gave them the decisional power to do as they please on their future albums.
George: "... history shows that Ringo WAS a member of the Beatles... " What a stupid statement: George (where ever you are): YOU decided history. It didn't just happen.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Your video was quite interesting, and you were oriented toward facts, not just general cliche' stuff that is commonly said about Pete's drumming. Based on your investigation, George Harrison appears to have been the driving force behind the Beatles expelling Pete. George's defense, is shown in that ridiculous comment about what history shows. George couldn't respond with anything really relating to the specifics of what happened because it would have indicted HIM as kind of a villain in the Pete Best dissmissal. Combine this with the fact that George was, later, having an affair with Ringo's wife, and you get a picture as not such a spiritually oriented man of wisdom. At times he was pretty much a jerk, it appears. PS: I had an opportunity to briefly talk to Pete, when he and his band were touring. Gracious would be the best adjective that I can use to describe him. He was humble, interested in me (relating to me as a fellow musician), soft spoken, and mellow. I can see how he got steam rolled by the aggressive personaities of the other Beatles. (It was also, in retrospect, nice to see George get his hat handed to him, regarding his 1974 tour. After all of the claims of Pete's incompetence as a drummer, it's good to know that George's performances,, assessed by the critics, indicated that the critics thought that it was George who was a weak performer. There's a little instant Karma, there. George retreated to his mansion after that tour. )
If that was the only evidence available, I would agree with you. But we have many recordings of Pete Best with the Beatles, plus the eyewitness testimony of the other Beatles and many people who saw him with the Beatles back then, so it is not that simple.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The recording with Pete is a mere demo performed at an audition with a *brand new, unknown to him or the other Beatles* arrangement given to them by Martin on the spot. The lads are simply trying to learn the new arrangement in this demo, trying to figure out what Martin wants, transitioning from their arrangement to his. Of course it screwed with Pete's performance, he'd never played the song that way before. Ringo's recording, in STARK CONTRAST, is a FINISHED, PUBLISHED recording, made after umpteen takes, and with weeks to practice the new arrangement -- a luxury Pete never had. Not only that, but it was made 3 months after Pete's take, giving EMI lots of time to work out all the technical problems they had recording the lads at the audition. EMI engineer, Norman Smith, said of Pete's struggles on, "Love Me Do": *_"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather what he was being told to play with the new arrangement."_* The other engineer at EMI that day of the audition was Ken Townsend. Ken echoed Norman's assessment of Pete by saying, *_"I didn't see any reason to get a session drummer in place of Pete."_* And what about Assistant Producer, Ron Richards, what did he have to say? Ron recalled, *_"I was the one who told Martin we'd need to bring in a session drummer for Pete. I had a thing about drums, and I was asking something too much from Pete in this one particular part and he couldn't cope. Come to think of it, Ringo would not have been able to do it, either."_* So you see, on that fateful day, Martin was actually fine with Pete's drumming, it was only when Ron Richards told him he wanted a session drummer that Martin adopted that stance -- an easy stance for Martin to assume as the use of session drummers was extremely common in that era. Both engineers working the session did not think Pete should've been replaced. And even Ron Richards, whose idea it was to get a session drummer, said later that he was very picky about drums and was asking Pete to perform a new pattern on the spot that was so advanced that neither Pete nor Ringo were experienced enough to handle. Hopefully now you can see the dishonesty of those content creators on YT comparing the two recordings, as though it's a fair apples-to-apples comparison. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had the opportunity to briefly talk with Pete Best. I asked Pete what he thought of John Lennon as a rhythm guitarist. Pete mentioned how much both John and George had improved after meeting and jamming with Tony Sheridan. I followed up by asking Pete if he had any idea where /when or how John developed that great triplet strumming technique on All My Loving. I shared with him my thoughts and he looked me straight in the eyes and said "It's a trade secret". Thanks Pete! I have nothing but respect for Mr. Best. He was very gracious with his time and seemed genuinely happy with the adoration he was receiving from everyone he came in contact with. I completely agree with your summation of the events that lead to Pete's dismissal. Best wishes from Northern California, RNB
Thanks Rick, Pete is a gentleman and, what a lot of people don't realise, is that he is a very funny guy! Great company.
We should just give him the respect he deserves.
Best wishes from Liddypool! David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes I could tell from many interviews, he is a very pleasant man, and believe he has managed to become more than just a footnote in the Beatles' History...everyone who is a true fan knows his name and his side of the story. Everyone has an experience like his, being fired or laid off from "work," no matter where or what it is, which makes him one of us, our brother in life experience. So cheers to Pete Best. The Beatles may have done him a favor so he could lead a fairly normal life other than living "in the eye of the hurricane."
@@thomastimlin1724 It just had to be the way that it was for it all to work the way that it did. Pete had his important time as they rose up the ranks in LIverpool, Hamburg, and as their sound spread throughout England. He was in no way the musical percussionist/drummer that Ringo was yet he still got them to the beginning of the precipice.
His is the only Beatle autograph that I have.
They didnt give Pete a dime. The other Querrymen and friends got expensive gifts and money etc
Perhaps a studio musician played the rhythm guitar part in All My Loving.
I had the pleasure of meeting Pete Best at a Beatles convention in Toronto in 2006. He's a cool guy. Thanks for the great and informative video.
Thank you, he is a gentleman
Great clip !. Nice and fair deep dive into the Pete & Ringo thing. Thanks for gathering all the info together. Well balanced observations🤩👌. I'm a drummer and I agree that a band would know within 10 or 20 mins if a drummer was any good or not.
Thanks, Paul. Musicians and drummers (😂) know very quickly if the drummer isn't up to it. Definitely doesn't take 2 years!!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You saying that for two years that the other members of the band were happy with his playing? Doubt it. The Lennon account rings FAR truer than what you hear from others. Lennon told the truth as he saw it. To quote Ringo, "Pete Best? - it’s no offence, but I never felt he was a great drummer."
⁹@@Kermit_T_Frog
The Beatles used Pete. Before Pete the Beatles sucked. No one wanted to be their drummer.
@@Kermit_T_Frog The Beatles used Pete. Before Pete the Beatles sucked. No one wanted to be their drummer.
Oh my friend you continue clarifying the facts , we have to solve this injustice, Pete do not deserve it - Paulo From Brazil!
Thank you
I pretty much agree with you. Pete deserves more credit than he's given. Your videos are wonderful....thanks .
Thank you so much James. David
after 50 years he still cant keep the time, never learned anything new and no music taste just endless tremolos, sickening.
One of the more credible theories that I've heard is that both Pete and Stu relied very heavily on the downbeat, which is what John absolutely loved in rock. And as you know, being a musician and band member, the backbone of a great band is the lock between the drummer and bassist. Stu wasn't at all a musician, but he could pound the downbeat along with Pete. Once Stu died, Pete was in a sense, cut adrift from the other three. You listen to Ringo, and that guy danced between backbeat and forebeat as easily as a jazz drummer could. Without Ringo, the world would never have had "A Day in the Life," "Fixing a Hole" (BRILLIANT drumming on that one!), "Hello Goodbye" or "Strawberry Fields Forever." Pete simply didn't think in those terms. He was great at pounding the downbeat, yes. But like John said in this report, he never got any better.
Stu was a good rock n roll bass player and played with groups other than the Beatles. Pete and Stu worked well together, but for most of the time, it was Paul and Pete who were the rhythm section, and they worked really well together. That is why Paul can say what a good drummer Pete was. Pete definitely progressed with the Beatles, but I think it is a little unfair to say that what Ringo did in the late 1960s can compare to Pete in the early 60s. It's not a fair comparison.
What I do is give Pete credit for 60-62 and Ringo credit for 62 and beyond. No comparison, just appreciation.
Also, be wary of using a single quote from John as an argument. He also said that their best work was never recorded and that he would re-record everything the Beatles ever did. Really? That's why I try to bring some balance.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Who else did Stu play with? If Beatles history serves, he bought his bass guitar from money he'd won from selling an art painting at the urging of John and Paul, and that he died shortly after quitting The Beatles. And in the same sense that you're right, we shouldn't take a single quote from John as definitive because his comments changed with his mood, Paul is even less reliable. He's Mr. PR man, and he says things sugar-coated, as both John and George have pointed out several times. If you listen to the Hamburg recordings, as well as the "My Bonnie" sessions with Tony Sheridan, you can hear George Martin's complaints. Pete was rock solid some of the time, a little undisciplined at other times, and purely conventional and uncreative. Those traits are the makings of a good live drummer, but he wasn't quite there as a studio drummer. I was a studio drummer for 23 years. I can hear it.
@@ofrabjousday1 Ringo's first recording of, "Love Me Do", was rejected by Martin the same as Pete's had been 3 months earlier. Martin said Ringo's timing was not good enough, and Paul McCartney agreed. A few days later Martin instructed assistant producer, Ron Richards, to book a session drummer to sit in for Ringo the following week.
And as for your contention that Pete was uncreative, that's not true. When Paul and John taught Pete, "Love Me Do", Pete -- who was a big fan of latin music -- suggested he play it with a skip-beat to liven the song up. He demonstrated it for Paul and John, and they agreed it sounded better, and that's how they performed it in the clubs and practice sessions leading up to the EMI audition. Unfortunately, stuffy ol' George Martin, who admittedly didn't know jack schit about rock 'n' roll, abruptly forced on the lads a whole new arrangement which included telling Pete to ditch the skip-beat. This is the *only* reason Pete struggled with that song at the audition. Pete was rock solid on the other surviving song recorded that day, "Besame Mucho".
Well said!
@@ofrabjousday1Howie Casey and a german band called The Bats are 2 I can recall.
I think that both drummers, Pete Best and Ringo Starr had their place as drummers. They did their job. I'm a fan of both drummers.
Exactly. That has always been my point of view, too. Well said.
You are correct.
Nah. Listen to Pete Beats love me do. His tempo drops and his shuffle is real weak.
No way. Pete was a lousy drummer
The first, and most critical thing to do when researching Beatle history is to ignore anything John Lennon said about anything.
Ha ha!! I know what you mean. The problem is that he said so many things at different times under different "influences" and was so inconsistent.
Disagree. John said that Paul was an inspired bass player and that a lot of the things going on in the 80's were ripped off from Paul's Beatles Era playing. As a bassist myself who has done a lot of studio work, John's comment is absolutely true.
@@thelordofliberty6984well, given that John died in 1980, it would have been pretty difficult for John to have commented about Paul’s bass playing being ripped off by others in the 1980s.
@user-gz9dv9oh9o John was killed 12/8/80. Not 1/01/1980. The interview he gave when he made those comments was recorded the morning of his death. So John lived for 342 days in the 1980's.
Yes, John was an egotistical, arrogant, self-serving POS and most of what he said was through his massive ego.
I think you are exactly right about Pete Dave.
I think from what I have researched over the years that Pete was and is a great guy and drummer and I have never ever seen or heard that Pete has badmorhed any of the Beatles even when they slated him for things he has never done or been !!
He is a real gent .
The other Beatles have always contradicted themselves and used to put down stu and his bass playing .
Their ego's have always been huge and we're ruthless in their approach to success.
John was a jekyl and hide character and always upset everyone around him with his issues .
I think Pete was a tragic star that should have been but he made a good life for himself in his own way .
I salute Pete and admire his strength and you know that because you know him Dave .
Great video mate I love your channel
All the best
Thanks Mark. He is a great guy and, despite what has been said about him, has not retaliated. John, Paul, and George were ruthless and they had to make a business decision. Why people have to ciriticise his drumming is beyond me. Too many myths! David
Great commentary and very educational video properly explaining the situation clearly on why Pete Best was replaced by Ringo Starr.
Thank you.
Great program! I really appreciate your evenhanded approach to examining this rather controversial subject and period within the Beatles' history.
Thank you so much, glad you appreciated it.
4:57 I like this clip of Paul McCartney from his personal documentary WINGSPAN. I like this quote because it shows that Pete wasn't replaced simply because of his drumming. Pete did a solid job during his two-year tenure and the Beatles reached many milestones with him as their drummer. Pete also assumed many management duties for the band (pre-Brian). However, Pete never had a close friendship with either Paul or George. This worked against Pete long-term with the band! Ringo had a close friendship with ALL three Beatles and his musical style was also perfect for the group. Regardless, Pete was a good drummer by Liverpool standards at that time. He does not deserve the reputation of "musical incompetent", "anti-social misfit", "unprofessional (routinely missing gigs)", unfortunately Pete has worn these tags throughout Beatle history.
Thank you, Paul has been the most honest and open about what happened, but it tends to be overlooked for one negative John comment.
Ringo was good friends with George from early 62 and became good friends with John and Paul once he joined the Beatles. He did fit perfectly.
I don't understand why so many fans can't acknowledge that too.
Thanks for your comments. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool The "one negative John comment" you reference is one that many Beatle fans and Pete-haters site. I typically tell such people that this comment MUST be put into the correct context. Just because John said those things, doesn't make them true.
@jasona9 Exactly right. Balance and context. John changed his mind more than he changed his socks!!
Doesn't mean a damn thing. With Paul, you have to keep three things in mind. He's not going to give you his honest opinion. He only says what he believes his audience wants to hear. He is going to manipulate that to where it makes him look good. If there is any truth in rumors, Paul was most responsible for getting rid of Best. Though it seems pretty clear that George was most responsible for recruiting Ringo. John very likely was the LEAST in favor of it.
@@Kermit_T_Frog George is on record stating he was responsible for "stirring things up" to get rid of Pete, but they all went along. I have no reason to believe that Paul would compare Pete Best to a drummer from WINGS if he wasn't going to provide an honest opinion.
David, you know this is my favorite subject, so thank you for another video on it. I appreciate all the work you put into it, another feather in your cap. :)
*HOWEVER,* lol, I must push back on what appears to be your central point, that it was primarily a business decision, as voiced by Paul McCartney. I say rubbish to Paul, as Brian received the recording contract from EMI in July, several weeks *before* Ringo was offered the job and Pete was sacked (for lack of a better term). The contract was official, it had been signed by all parties, and it included Pete Best. There was no condition written or spoken that Pete would have to be replaced in the band or the contract would be null and void. No, Martin thought that Pete was still the drummer (which he was at the time Brian received the contract), and Martin never made any demands or even casual suggestions that Pete be sacked. Paul is lying when he said Martin pulled him and John and George aside at the audition by Martin, asking them if they'd consider sacking Pete. What a load of rubbish. Martin even said he considered Pete the band's, *"most saleable commodity."*
No, the Fab 3 and Brian all knew the contract was completed, official, and included Pete, with no requirements from EMI to sack him. So any talk from Paul or anyone else that they were concerned their contract was in jeopardy is all BS. They just used that as an excuse, as a pretext, as cover to sack Pete because they didn't want him in the band for personal reasons. I will go to my grave knowing that it was because they were jealous of Pete being the far and away most popular Beatle. Geoff Nugent, of the Liverpool band, The Undertakers, said, *"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after gigs, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."* When The Beatles got their record deal, the Mersey Beat put a huge photo of Pete on the cover, and none of the Fab 3. Fans in Liverpool had been putting up homemade posters and flyers around the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* JP&G were also overhearing fans verbally refer to the band that way in Pete's final months. And they couldn't stand it. They were scared to death that once their promotions got into the hands of studio executives, that they would be further marginalized, under the enormous shadow of Pete.
After all, JP&G were at the audition with Pete, and they knew damn well that Pete nailed, "Besame Mucho", and that the only reason he struggled on, "Love Me Do", was because Martin came in and abruptly changed the arrangement. They knew with proper notice Pete would've been up to the task, and they knew that Ringo was no better than Pete. Ringo actually had less studio experience than Pete had. *_There was no reason for the Fab 3 to think that Ringo would fare any better than Pete, their drummer of 2 years who they gelled perfectly with musically._* And sure enough, Ringo failed to pass muster with Martin (an assessment Paul agreed with), even though (unlike Pete), Ringo had multiple weeks to practice the song with Martin's new arrangement.
Business decision, my ass, Paul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello my friend, always good to chat with you.
In theory, all that you say about George Martin and the other Beatles and Brian is true.
However, I will actually jump to Paul's defence - for once.
Yes, the contract did finally arrive in late July, but by then, the decision was already made. What I know is that, having discussed it with Brian's lawyer, that John, Paul, and George had made the decision - a business decision - that, coming away from Abbey Road with doubts cast by George Martin, Brian was instructed by the Threatles to look at replacing Pete. That conversation took place mid June. They discussed who should be the new drummer, but waited until the contract arrived to start asking drummers to join them. Bobby Graham, Ritchie Galvin, Ringo and Johnny Hutchinson were asked. And Ringo said yes.
But yes, George Martin, as stated, never suggested changing the drummer.
By the time the contract arrived, it was too late. They had convinced themselves the change had to be made. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I agree with BOTH you and Cosmo on this point. I am convinced that Pete was dismissed for more than just his 'limited' skills as a drummer. "Personality conflicts" and perhaps even a hint of "Jealously" played a role.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
David, by the time the contract arrived, it was *not* too late. Any other band would have breathed a sigh of relief when it arrived, that they can keep their drummer of two years. A drummer they are fully familiar with. The Fab 3 and Epstein must have known that sessions drummers were the norm in those days.
_"He [Pete Best] was a genius. You could put that man on a drumkit 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 and forget the faces - you couldn’t avoid that insistent whack, whack, whack!"_
_"I was amazed. When Pete left, I even thought of turning into a guitarist and getting him to drum in our band. The Beatles didn’t hate Pete Best but they didn’t want a star on the drums. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."_
- Chis Curtis of the Searchers - Dec 1997 interview
_"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after gigs, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."_
Howie Casey of Howie Casy and the Seniors, said the same of Pete with the German girls in Hamburg. You made no money from record sales. _The Beatles_ received £375 each for a million seller in the USA. You made money by looking the part and being attractive to teenagers. This got you radio and TV appearances and lucrative gigs in large venues. Pete was a part of that attraction.
A really interesting assessment. So much has gone down in Beatles mythology that wasn't necessarily true.
Exactly. That's what I enjoy doing - mythbusting.
Great video, great research, very well balanced and fair. I appreciate how you present the facts and keep the other non-sense out. For me it answers a lot of questions that I had. I appreciate work that comes from someone who gathered the facts and presents them without bias. People will try to say well Pete wasn't a good drummer but I question how they would know that without looking at the whole body of work. I would think you would have to hear a lot more then the limited samples that are available from when he was a Beatle. But you answer the question well. If he were that bad they would have known it right away. Again thanks for this research.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Trying to present the facts objectively, when there is so much revisionism out there, fuelled by emotion, is not easy.
The facts should speak for themselves, but rarely do! We should appreciate and thank Pete for his 2 years and getting them to that point in history. David
Man!! Your videos are so addicting!! You are so precise and to the point.
Thank you, glad you are enjoying them. Appreciate the feedback.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I certainly am enjoying them!
I don't want to brag. But in all honesty, after decades of studying Beatles history, reading every book I can get my hands on, watching documentaries, videos,etc etc , I feel like I pretty much ' know it all '. I tend to shy away from 'Beatle' history vids. But I have learned A LOT from your videos!! Like the fascinating one about the legal technicalities of British entertainment law, vis a vis, the 'firing of Pete Best '. I just rewatched it again, the other night.
8:00 AGREE! I love Ringo as well! I just saw him on his recent tour in San Diego, California last May. 83 and STILL rocking! Regardless, in Beatle history this does NOT have to be a SCALE. To say, "up with Ringo", must one also say "down with Pete"? I don't think so. The Beatles wouldn't have conquered Liverpool or Hamburg without Pete Best. He deserves credit from all Beatle fans.
Well said, I completely agree. We aren't looking to change history. Just acknowledge the part Pete played in it.
And Ringo still looks amazing! What a legend. Hope I can look that good at 83.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You wrote, "We aren't looking to change history". AGREE! Pete Best is soft-spoken in his interviews. I recall him saying, "I was a Beatle for two-years, and was part of some of the early success they had. They'll never take that away from me".
The Beatles story can't be told without Pete Best, yet some resent that and want to rewrite history. As a Beatle fan, I see no need for that.
Its disappointing that John said that they hired Pete because his mother had a club and he was a last minute choice to go to Hamburg and that Pete's mother was insignificant. The Best family deserve far better recognition. Mona Best had in fact kept the Beatles from breaking up by providing employment and her club during bleak times. Also I think she was the one who got them regular employment at the Cavern Club. The later on got the group better and better bookings that led to their fame.
@@susiekopp3578 the stories that Pete wrote in his autobiography really made me shake my head….John and Pete were friends. John was a routine overnight guest in the Best Home. He would sleep there after gigs. He would have meals there. He would ask Mona Best to 🧵 sew his pants after splitting them onstage! There were stories that Pete couldn’t have made-up. John never discussed his friendship with Pete and in fact said some cruel things about him and his family.
Pete Best was really unlucky I think a combination of factors worked against him and fate decreed in the end that Ringo was the final piece in the jigsaw of the group The Beatles at this point were starting their metamorphosis into the four lads that shook the world , enough said ! 👍👍😎🎸BB 👍45
Actually, he was incredibly lucky. Got a gig with the best band in rock history, and on no other merits than that he owned a drum kit.
David, Your closing statements are right on the money as to what happened and for what purpose. Pete wasn't the right guy for what was to happen. Ringo completely was. His swing style (watch the Dave Stewart interview which is fascinating), to the late left-handed playing with right-handed setup - shoulder move. PLUS his ability to become a Beatle in all aspects. Pete did serve his purpose and one of the few people on this Earth that can say that he was a Beatle. Good that he got his due with the Anthology. They needed that contract and got it. The rest is history.
Nicely said, thank you.
@@brmc6145 But he served a very important purpose - seeing them become voted the top act in northern Great Britain, recording contracts, which they didn't and did get but at his expense. David explains this perfectly here - pointing out the respect for what he did in all night sessions in Hamburg and the multi sessions at the Cavern. Building the Beatles.
@@brmc6145 "Pete is as dull as dishwater"? According to Bill Harry he, "The most popular member of the Beatles, especially with the girl fans"......translation.....that's the ONLY way to be "dull".
Your last comment, that, "they were obviously waiting on the first opportunity to kick him out"? The Beatles could have replaced him MUCH earlier than then did, and certainly would have if he were truly holding them back,
@@allenf.5907 Exactly, I find it odd that the average Beatle fan doesn't appreciate the contribution that Pete made to the band. They reached multiple milestones with him as their drummer, that they likely couldn't have without him.
This always happens. I thought there was nothing left to say about The Beatles, and certainly someone on RUclips who isn't Mark Lewisohn couldn't possibly know anything that hasn't already been discussed. As usual, I WAS WRONG. You do great work, and I have been sucked in again, playing early Beatles recordings and mulling over how things happened. I'm going to buy your book, and I think your videos are outstanding. WELL DONE.
Well thank you very much indeed, it is really appreciated. Glad you are enjoying the films too. David
It's so great that you've compiled all of these perspectives, David. And there were misunderstandings among those perspectives as well---George Martin never threatened to drop them altogether over the drummer issue. But one sees what one sees and one understands what one understands (for whatever reasons). Not to say that Pete didn't make his own very substantial contribution because he did. But to me, George Harrison meant that at some point it became clear that Ringo was the drummer who was meant to be with them. And he was. Time has shown that. I'll step down from my soapbox now :).
Really, that's funny, because they offered the job to two other drummers before they offered it to Ringo, and even after they offered it to Ringo and he accepted (but hadn't started yet), they STILL offered it to a third drummer that they preferred over Ringo.
Keep those feet clean on the soap box, Susan!! I think what George meant was some cosmic predestination! It was meant to be, all in the stars etc. We historians call that revisionism 😂 It is making a decision based on hindsight, which we are all good at! 👍
Yes, will do 😃@@BrightmoonLiverpool
I think if George Martin had not said what he said about Using another Drummer for the session,Pete would have been a Beatle,you forgot to mention that even when Ringo joined,George Martin did not use Ringo at first,he had Andy White drum,so in my own opinion Pete should have been a Beatle(not trying to put Ringo down) but Pete was there first!,Great job on the getting all the comments and examining the wording on Pete.
Thank you, I have done a separate video with my interview with Andy White clarifying that one too. Such a shame Pete missed out.
I don't want to sound mean or anything but there are recordings with Pete drumming (the Decca audition, the original June session at EMI, a couple of BBC sessions) and, compared to Ringo, on the evidence of these recordings he's just not very good. I think the Beatles perhaps were still rather crummy before the first trip to Hamburg, but like john said in the video, Pete never improved, whereas the rest of them did. Add to that it's well known Pete didn't really fit in with the others, didn't hang out with them and Ringo did.
Agree with bits if what you say. If you examine the Decca audition - and I will do that in a future video - there was no real problem with Pete's drumming at Decca. He was fine. Paul's bass and voice were poor. George's voice was good, but guitar playing was ropey at best. John's voice was ok, but guitar work was also not up to scratch. So when analysed, Pete comes out the best of them. His drumming on My Bonnie is excellent. His drumming at the BBC in March and June 62 was no problem to that producer or the sound. The only evidence for anyone questioning his ability was George Martin on 6th June 62. But, as George Martin said, he didn't see a problem with Pete staying in the group.
In hindsight, when you compare what Ringo became with the Fab Four, then he is one of the world’s greatest drummers. But nobody knew that in 1962.
Ringo certainly fitted in better with the others socially, which must have helped.
None of the Beatles played well during the Decca audition. Why historically is Pete the ONLY Beatle that gets singled out?
I think they used Pete because like John said we needed a drummer and he had a drum set but I heard him play and he just played a steady beat with nothing else kinda of boring and plain , Ringo really played better than Peter nap maybe not the best at that time but better than Pete . Ringo really stepped up at the right moment and the rest is history.
Thank you for your well thought through video. I am a musician myself guitar and sometimes keyboards, you would not want me playing drums I can tell you now. I am 100% behind you final words on this subject.
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!
Thanks David! At @9:30 you state that you don't understand what George was meaning with the film analogy... Ringo had always been in the Beatles story (fill-in drummer, friend, etc) His STARRing role did not occur until they needed him to step-up. Love your work, BTW!
I think George was trying to be more cosmic than that, i.e., it was predestined to happen.
Glad you love the vids, thank you. 😊
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Again I agree with you...George Harrison stated, "Ringo was the member of the band". What Beatle fan, music historian could dispute that point? Certainly, NO sane person in the year 2023. However, in August 1962 there were many Liverpool fans and musicians that were scratching their heads as to why the Beatles were changing drummers. Even Brian, the Liverpool businessman knew it represented RISK. Brian had a HIT group with a recording contract. Replacing one of the four members represented a risk, but today we all know they made the right choice.
@jasona9 And that is the beauty of hindsight, as you say. It was a big risk, but they felt it was the right move. Eventually, their decision was justified. Trying to look at things in August 62 is the best way to truly appreciate what a hige gamble it was, though whoever replaced Pete, unless it was a seasoned drummer like Bobby Graham, would not be playing on the first record anyway.
@roryblake7311, There isn't a lot of substance in George's comment, yet I like the film analogy too. I take the "fill-in drummer" stuff with the grain-of-salt. The Beatles have always claimed that Pete routinely missed gigs, and so Ringo would fill-in.....According to Pete this is an extreme exaggeration! Have you ever noticed that Ringo and George were very vague on details regarding Pete's missed gigs? Well, Pete isn't. He listed the gigs (two lunchtime gigs at the Cavern Club) and the reasons he had to miss them in his book. George and Ringo being great friends is SPOT ON! George and Pete weren't great friends. It's well known that George was the FIRST Beatle to 'stir things up' to get Pete out and Ringo in. There's no crime in that! Pete admitted in his book that in Hamburg when George was underage, he would often get teased as the 'baby' of the group. Perhaps George didn't like getting teased from Pete? Regardless, In my opinion Ringo taking a "STARRing role' was more an issue of WANT, not need.
@@jasona9wrote:
_"but today we all know they made the right choice."_
The choice worked for sure, history tells us that. That does not mean the original choice would have a better choice.
Spot on David. They were just beginning and had no idea of what was just around the corner. Both Pete and Ritchie were and are great drummers, just that Richie fitted in better as a mate. Pete's contribution certainly helped fuel the oncoming chapters, glad that Pete got some financial recompense in the end.
The Fab 3 were in each others pockets. Pete was by far the most popular member of the band. It appears their egos could not handle being the second line to a drummer who grabbed all the female fans.
@@johnburns4017 John, you're exactly right. For Pete's entire 2 years he was the far and away most popular Beatle. And towards the end of his tenure, the chasm between his popularity and the others was getting even greater, as fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John, Paul and George were also overhearing fans refer to the band this way verbally in the clubs. But it was more than just the attention Pete got from the fans, and girls, in particular. It was the star treatment he got from the club managers, who would tell the Fab 3 to sit on the front of the stage so as to not block the fans' view of Pete. And once even made them stand *_behind_* Pete, on Valentine's Day, 1961 (the club managers never did that again as the girls practically pulled Pete off the stage into the crowd, something that never happened with any of the Fab 3). And it was the star treatment Pete got from the press, like when the local industry rag, Mersey Beat, reported The Beatles getting a record deal, the only photo was a big headshot of Pete, with the article gushing over Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and the other 3 Beatles were barely mentioned. The Fab 3 figured it was only going to get worse, once record label execs got control of their promotions, and that they would forever be under the colossal shadow cast by their drummer -- an absolutely sickening and intolerable thought to them.
@@Cosmo-Kramer
Having a drummer as a lead man did no harm to the Dave Clark 5. Also people never liked the idea of a man at the back hidden by those at the front, especially on TV.
From the start Mona and Pete Best said, and also on TV, it was jealousy. I do not think that was an emotional response either.
Mona did meet the Fab 3 afterwards, apparently in London. I would never have done that for what they did.
Nicely said, thank you. Let's give credit to Pete and Ringo who both played a part in the story.
As a secondary motive for justifying replacing him, jealousy makes sense. It wasn't the prime factor. They all got more than enough attention and girls, so on its own it wasn't a significant factor. But for justifying to themselves why they could replace Pete, that would have been a factor for sure.
I really enjoy your show love hearing how everyone thoughts were on this about Pete and Ringo I totally agrees Ringo fit like a glove he was the 4th Beatle 💜✌
Thanks Esther
Pete Best was there for them at he start in Hamburg,but Ringo was the obvious choice for the Beatles to evolve and history has proven them right.
Ringo wasn't the obvious choice at the time, being the third drummer to be asked - with one asked after him too - but in hindsight was definitely the right choice.
I saw an interview with George Martin where he said he only wanted to use a studio drummer to make a record. He was surprized that Pete was let go from the live lineup since he thought Pete was very marketable in the band. George Martin never said they should replace Pete in the band. This was an interview that I personally saw. Anybody who thinks the Beatles wouldn't have made it without Ringo on drums doesn't know much about the music business. Nothing against Ringo, but any skilled drummer could have done the job. Reality.
You are correct because all George Martin meant was that for making the record, he would use a session drummer, which was standard practice back then. He was surprised when they walked in with Ringo on 4th September.
However, Ringo working so closely with the other three over those years enabled Ringo to create such unique drumming that I believe he was the right man to do it. Can't say if he was the only one who could have done it, but he was unique and started so many careers and inspired so many drummers.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yes, David, but Ringo has admitted that he just played the songs the way JP&G wanted them played, which was fine by him because they were the songwriters. Far too often I see Ringo fanboys laud him for his unique drum patterns on songs like, "Ticket To Ride", and, "Come Together", when the fact of the matter is, Paul told Ringo exactly how to play those songs. Ringo's contribution to the music was far less than his fanboys believe, or are willing to admit.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Agreed.
What fascinates me is what was left on the cutting room floor when the Beatles were making the anthology. I think the interviewer for the project told mojo magazine. That one of the Beatles would say turn the camera off and I will tell you what I really think ! Lol. I’m sure there would be a record of that somewhere. Jools Holland would certainly know all the details as he did all the interviews. I’m certain that a lot of censorship went into that series to avoid lawsuits. It feels like George Harrison’s comments on Pete’s sacking have been heavily edited. Because as you say the comments don’t make sense.
I'm the same as you. Where is all the really good stuff?
Anthology was the Beatles story as they want you to know it!
It’s nice to have for all the rare footage of the Beatles. But clearly it was done by committee. Which is why a newer documentary like Peter Jackson’s get back is much better. Even though some censorship was done for that series too. It looks like Jackson was given more of a free hand than the anthology team back in 1995.
@@scotttaylor7767 I think you're right, though Jacksons was clearly overseen, but not to the same extent.
Really enjoy your show
Much appreciated, thank you
George Martin has said in interviews that he didn't tell them to get rid of Pete, he only said that they would have another drummer in the studio. I think the other Beatles took that as their cue to get Ringo in which they had been wanting for some time.
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
I agree with you David. Pete was obviously a competent drummer but The Beatles needed someone who complemented John, Paul & George. Ringo was the perfect choice. "Love Me Do" was an ordinary record. In retrospect, I don't know why they didn't push "P.S. I Love You" as the A side?
If Ringo was "the perfect choice", then why did they offer Pete's job to 2 other drummers before they offered it to Ringo, and even a third drummer AFTER Ringo had been offered and accepted the job (but hadn't started yet)???
This is my theory. Mona Best was constantly haranguing Brian about Pete's appearances after she turned over the reins to Brian promoting the lads. Brian was looking at any opportunity to distance himself from her. When Martin told Brian that he was going to use a session drummer, Brian deliberately miscommunicated to the lads that Best wouldn't do for the future. This fed into the dissatisfaction with Best by the lads because he was getting the majority of the Press. The guillotine was set!
It is a theory that has been put forward several years later to justify or understand why it happened. It may have been a useful secondary reason used by John, Paul, and George to convince Brian to make the change, but it was never the primary reason. There were plenty of secondary reasons that they all used to justify it.
But only one primary reason. George Martin and how his point of view was interpreted. But Brian was against the change, so he wouldn't have tried to get rid of Pete.
Since i knew the family personally, i have always believed that was the reason.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Another reason is that George in particular got along really well with ringo and many have said he in particular pushed really hard to get ringo on the track. I think Pete was probably a good live drummer but I don't think Pete would have been able to come up with the beats for things like "Rain" or "Tommorow Never Knows"
@thatguythatdrawzz749 George was definitely the one who became friendly with Ringo in early 62 and he says he had to persuade John and Paul that Ringo was the right choice.
After that, we can only speculate what could have been, because they made the change from a great love rock drummer to a new creative pop drummer in Ringo who became an integral member of the Fab Four. That'a why I see them as two different groups.
The fact is when Pete joined the Beatles they were barely a band but when they fired him 18 months later they were ready for a recording contract and on the verge of national stardom. He must have done something right.
He was with them for 2 years, going from a very average group to the best rock band in Liverpool and Hamburg, according to John. If he was no good, they would have got rid of him very quickly.
Pete was on a show back in 64 or 65 called something like "I've got a secret", or something similar where a panel tries to guess what the person's secret is by asking questions. At the end Pete was ask why he left the Beatles, and he said "At the time I was wanting to form my own band", as if it was his decision to quit the Beatles. After 60 years he hasn't been able to admit he was fired because he didn’t hang out with the other 3 much apart from performance time, didn’t have the drive the others had, and wasn't the best drummer.
There's a RUclips channel called Pop Goes The 60s where the presenter mentions that before George Martin, there had already been at least two producers who criticised Pete Best's drumming capabilities.
@@noblemann4898 That video is a hatchet job against Pete from a rabid Ringo Apologist. It is filled with lies and half-truths taken totally out of context. I can refute every single point he tried so desperately to make in the video.
@michaelharrington, Pete Best wasn't permitted to state that the Beatles fired him when he appeared on I've got a Secret. It would have been a PR problem. He did admit to being fired. He sued Brian and the Beatles for 'Breach of Contract' (he LOST) and Ringo for 'Libel' (he WON).
A minor point... But according to Mark Lewisohn, Ringo never turned unannounced up for the second studio session on 4 September at Abbey Rd with all at EMI surprised that Pete Best had been _replaced._ The engineers in the studio never knew for sure, but that does not mean the producers did not know. Epstein was very professional being the sort who would inform EMI of a personnel change.
Not that the producers cared who turned up, as it was a _rubbish_ band as Martin referred to them. Mark writes that Martin's secretary was informed _The Beatles_ had a new drummer by Epstein. *If Martin was expecting Pete Best then why wasn't the session drummer there as Pete was unsuitable for studio work?* Andy White was called in to drum for the third studio session on 11 September after Ringo had also been rejected for studio work after hearing him on the second session.
Unfortunately, Mark made an assumption because he thought it made sense, but it wasn't a fact even though he wrote it as fact. How do I know? I asked Judy Martin and she denied it. Then, in an interview for TV about George Martin, he and Paul are discussing that 4th September session, and George Martin reiterates that nobody had told him about the change of drummer, and Paul doesn't argue. He didn't know.
As for your second point about a session drummer for 4th September. This wasn't a recording session. George Martin wanted to see how they had got on over the summer with Love Me Do, but especially How Do You Do It? They weren't ready to make a record yet. Session drummers were expensive!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool What do you think of Mark Lewisohn as a Beatle Author? I find him to have a very "anti-Pete Best" agenda. I find Spencer Leigh to be very good, fair and impartial.
"....John, Paul and George were together from 1957 in the Quarrymen..The Beatles were always gonna be about that threesome..(👌)
..we're not looking to change history, we're just looking to examine history and get the history right.." 👏👏
The Pete Best 60yr old conundrum solved at last...👍
What a superbly researched and in-depth explanation of the most likely step-by-step story (as it happened) of Pete v George Martin v Ringo etc etc..
..this important yt video is, unless you happen to have a time machine that really works, (🙄) ... is now my definitive story-line of the Beatles and the Pete Best saga bar none.
We learn that he helped them develop further from the Liverpool Ballrooms and local talent spotting gigs in the area to the "big-time" of the Hamburg Reeperbahn clubs becoming "stars" there in their own right until the 6th June 1962 at Abbey Road when circumstances lead to a change of drummer and giving birth (finally) to the greatest band in the entire history of popular music 🎶 ...
The Beatles!
Ta very much kid..!😅
(Was there all the way back from '63..😊)
Thank you so much, I truly appreciate that. I tried to keep it as objective as possible and just look at the evidence, which nobody has been able to counter. Pete Best deserves his place in Beatles history and I don't understand why some fans don't want that.
@@Zapple7
It was about two, Lennon and McCartney - the song writing due that also clicked in a highly complmentary way when writing and arranging. George was treated with contempt at times. He was an infill guitarist along with a drummer. Both were expendable and easily replaced.
When George walked out, John wanted to approach Eric Clapton to instantly replace him, not ask George to come back, because John knew he was not essential and expendable. Any songs that George wrote that they allowed onto an album, was concessionary. Ringo was just what he was, an expendable drummer.
@@johnburns4017
A lot of truth in that perspective
Justice for Pete !!!
Yeah...it took them 2 years to 'discover" Pete was not a "good drummer" , quoting wikipedia: "Over twenty years later, Mark Lewisohn concluded that "Despite his alleged shortcomings, it was still shabby treatment for Pete... The Beatles had had two years in which to dismiss him but hadn't done so, and now - as they were beginning to reap the rewards for their long, hard slog, with money rolling in and an EMI contract secured - he was out. It was the most underhanded, unfortunate and unforgivable chapter in the Beatles' rise to monumental power".
Exactly. That was a nonsense excuse to replace him.
0:16 "We started to think we needed the great drummer in LIverpool". Based on what I have read, RIngo was well liked and respected in Liverpool by fans and musicians alike (yet so was Pete), still Ringo wasn't considered the 'Greatest drummer in Liverpool'. This distinction would have gone to Johnny Hutchinson or Johnny Hutch as he was called from the group the BIG THREE. What do you think David? 10:22 You mentioned Johnny here among the other drummers Brian and the Beatles were considering.
Totally agree. Hutch was regarded as the top drummer in Liverpool, according to the musicians and fans, too. Both Pete and Ringo were regarded as very good drummers, though different in style.
Some personalities just don't fit together, it happens all the time, in groups of people. Also people outside the band can influence the bands relationships with each other. Everyone has an agenda so everyone has a different story. It's a bit of this a bit of that and a bit of the other.
The problem with a lot of John Lennon's interviews and quotes is that they were taken from a time when he was still dealing with personal issues and was always prone to talk down about anything from his past. When asked what his favourite record of theirs was, his answer is he always likes the last one they've done. He was always trying to move away from things and on to something else. During the mid-sixties he decried the early stuff, then he decried the psychedelic stuff and wanted to get back to rock-and-roll, then he decried the mop-top period, then he was down on The Beatles saying they were just a group that broke up. His comments on his own life need to be viewed through a lens of anger and resentment that he harboured for a long time. It was really at the end of his life that he seemed to finally pull all of his threads together, and he even said how happy he felt at that point.
Regarding George's comment from The Anthology: it makes tremendous sense from the perspective of Eastern Philosophy. That was how it was meant to be that way and that is the way in which it unfolded.
Absolutely right, I agree. John changed his opinions so often, it is hard to get a definite point of view on many aspects of Beatles history. What we know is that he loved rock n roll, but was too self-critical of his own abilities and had many insecurities too.
Just listen to the recordings that exist with Pete on the drums, or watch him on some more recent videos. The tempo is all over the place and a solid tempo is one of the most important things for a drummer, maybe not so much live (if it's not ridiculously bad), but in the recording studio.
I 100 percent agree with your assessments.
Thanks Robin
@@BrightmoonLiverpool You're very welcome.
People seem to forget ( or are unaware) that it was with Pete Best as their drummer that the Beatles topped the Mersey Beat Poll( as far back as January,1962). Apparently,Pete Best was doing something right as their pre - fame drummer. Thus, Pete Best was instrumental in their future success. In fact, it was Paul Mccartney himself, who said, in some interview, that the Casbah is very important and that it's really where it all started. ( Pre - Cavern. Pre - Hamburg). Paul Mccartney was saying this in direct response to the fact that die hard Beatles fans always flock to places like the ' mecca '.. The Cavern Club.
And Pete Best makes sure that that specific quote by Paul is referenced on his ( Pete Best 's) website. I believe that Pete Best did his part, he delivered the goods, during the pre fame era. And he deserved the recognition for the part he played, at that specific time period in Beatles history
Lately I’ve been saying many RUclips posts by REM, Foo Fighters, Red Hot …., Nim Keltner and so on that Pete Best was their favourite drummer.
John is always all over the map.. sometimes he says things because he likes the words
Very true
To add my two cents in for what it is worth. I believe it was his personality that hurt him most. He seemed in Hamburg for instance that he did not join the others rather he went off on his own after gigs. Even his hairstyle did not evolve, it was inevitable that his style and personality was the not going to work. Luckily Ringo excepted being in the group or we may not be talking about this at all. So in short Dave, you did an excellent job showing the professional side of it and the choice was the right one to sack Pete, however good or nice a person he was/is !
Thank you. Once we get passed the fact that he was a decent drummer, there was definitely something with the personality as Paul mentioned in that clip. It took Ringo a year or so, but he got there and became one of them! And he was a great drummer too.
Glad you enjoyed it, thank you.
Great video (as per usual) but your picture captioned "Tony Barrow with The Beatles" 3.06 is actually Brian Matthews with The Beatles. ( A BBC Radio session taping probably).
My bad, thank you!
Anyone who has actually been in a band trying to make it big knows why Pete was sacked. Bless him but the best thing he could have done afterward is say “you know, I did my best but it wasn’t good enough. I did my best and there’s no shame in that.” No pun intended.
Very good research there Dave- congrats! The only thing that irked me in the feature was Norman Smith stating "Love me Do" wasn`t much of a success!! What? Its a debut disc by artists not yet known nationally. It spent Eighteen weeks in both the `Record Retailer` and `Melody Maker` charts (About 4 & half months), and reached in those charts, 17 & 21 respectively. I believe it sold close to 100.000 by mid 1963 (Please correct me if that is incorrect). E.M.I surely made money on the record- what did Norman Smith want? It puzzles me!
Always the problem with looking back in history. Compared to what they achieved later, it wasn't a success. But it was a great start for a new group, you're right.
When Smith said "it wasn't a great hit" and "it wasn't terribly successful", he was speaking from the context of production, not sales. He gives reasons why the product did not fully showcase the Beatles real qualities. The track was possibly rated higher on their list than other songs because of the harmonica element, which was popular at the time. As a song, and arrangement, it's pretty basic, not as "great" as most of their singles, and wasn't covered much, if at all.
@@BrightmoonLiverpoolcome on first record from a local group gets to the top twenty - that's success! Then #1 in the USA !!! 🤡
Paul and the guys who run Apple decided it was best to say that he was a really good drummer. I'm sure Paul didn't think he was a really good drummer. 15:37 the arrangement wasn't good because Pete didn't have the creative spark to put his part in and help them put their part in. Hey by the way these two videos about why he was fired and not fired are really exceptional I thank you much for producing them.
My pleasure Steve, thank you.
The guys did think he was a really good drummer, otherwise they wouldn't have kept him for 2 years. The arrangement wouldn't have been his suggestion anyway, that was always down to the others, especially Paul. They would tell Ringo what to drum too.
George Martin initially wasn't impressed with Ringo Starr either. On one of their first recorded songs, George Martin sent Ringo Starr for the day and used a session drummer. Not only that, but Ringo was not even the first, second or third drummer approached to replace Pete Best. When the first choices turned down Martin, only then was Ringo asked to join the group. However, when it is all said and done, Ringo fit in better with the Beatles as an bandmate.
Very true about Ringo being replaced by a session drummer, Andy White.
It was Brian who offered the role to 3 other drummers and they turned Brian down.
But the right drummer was definitely Ringo!
A great video thanks once again for clarifying what has been one of the big myths of Beatles history. Clearly John Paul and George felt their recording career was on the line and they had to get rid of Pete to keep that contract. I wonder thou if Martin had told them this would be a temporary arrangement. And that Pete could drum on future singles would they have changed their mind ? Or had George Harrison planted a seed of doubt already in John and Paul’s mind. And George Martins comments sealed Pete’s fate.
I think if George Martin had clarified what he meant, or even if Brian had asked for clarification, it could have been different.
Poor Pete his life was forever altered by a misunderstanding between Brian Epstein and George Martin. No wonder the Beatles came up with the lousy drummer story. And not admit that their manager screwed up by not asking for clarification from George Martin. I wonder if that was one of the things that bothered Brian Epstein the rest of his life?
It certainly played on his conscience at the time, especially. He didn't agree with the decision but felt that he had to do what his group told him to. He could see that the change worked, and bowed to their suggestion, but I don't think he was ever happy with it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool A bit of a mess all the way around thank goodness Ringo worked out so well! I’m not into preordained destiny but the more I look into the Beatles history the more I’m convinced some divine power was behind them. Clearly the gods decided to bless Ringo in August 1962. Lol. If it hadn’t been for this misunderstanding between George Martin and the Beatles. There was nothing stopping Pete Best getting on the Beatles rocket ride in 1962.
It may well have been documented on other videos you have done but there's a comment by John not mentioned on this video. He said, "We were cowards. We let Brian make the phone call and tell Pete he was sacked."
Very true, they were frightened of Pete! He was a boxer and did martial arts too.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I never knew that about Pete. Great factoid.
I'm just wondering if Ringo was at EMI from day one (with the lads) would he have faced the same fate as Pete. Ron Richards said if he'd have asked Ringo to play the same drum pattern as Pete he probably wouldn't have been able to and would that have lead to George Martin bringing in Andy White anyway.
Ron Richards has said that he doubts Ringo could have done it either. He had a thing about drummers and wanted a session drummer, no matter who their drummer was.
Ringo DID face the same fate as Pete. At least with respect to how EMI looked at him. They gave him one session to impress them, the same as Pete got, and when Ringo failed to impress them they hired session pro, Andy White, to replace him the next week. The ONLY difference is that JP&G didn't fight for Pete, because they wanted him out anyway, over jealousy of his status as the far and away most popular Beatle, and they used EMI's decision to use a session drummer in place of him as a pretext for sacking him. But noooooo, when Ringo gets replaced by a session pro, JP&G go to bat for Ringo, and persuade Martin to let Ringo play on the subsequent songs for the band's debut album.
Love your in depth Pete Best research. So many rumors out there, good to get some clarity
Thanks Chris
After reading extensively over 40 years on the subject and as a musician my opinion is this:
Ringo was a better drummer by far and his personality meant that he was more part of the gang than Pete.
They took Pete on as the only drummer available to go to Hamburg but as far back as Hamburg they had preferred Ringo's drumming when he had stood in with them.
The final nail in the coffin was George Martin's decision that he wasn't good enough to record with.
His looks and following is just incidental as is the involvement of Mona Best.
George's comment (that the presenter here says he didn't get) is looking at things from a fatalistic (or Karmic, George genuinely believed) point of view i.e. Ringo as the Beatle's drummer was just meant to be.
"He [Pete Best] was a genius. You could put that man on a drumkit 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 and forget the faces - you couldn’t avoid that insistent whack, whack, whack!"
"I was amazed. When Pete left, I even thought of turning into a guitarist and getting him to drum in our band. The Beatles didn’t hate Pete Best but they didn’t want a star on the drums. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."
- Chis Curtis of the Searchers - Dec 1997 interview
I don't disagree that Ringo was a superb drummer.
Everything else, especially George's comments, are revisionist, looking back and justifying what was done. In hindsight, Ringo was a superb choice.
I would clarify, however, that Ringo didn't sit in with them in Hamburg. The first time was when Pete asked Ringo to sit for him at the end of 1961. He then played 3 times in 62.
But Ringo was available on several occasions and they never asked him to join them.
There is no evidence to suggest they ever wanted Ringo to replace Pete until after 6th June. And, as has been stated, he wasn't the only drummer asked, so it was never replace Pete with Ringo. It was replace Pete. Who then can we get? And Ringo was the guy who said yes.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Great channel. There's loads of documented evidence supporting the fact that Ringo sat in with The Beatles in Hamburg 'when Pete was ill'. Once source has Ringo even recording with them backing Lu Walters from the Hurricanes when Pete was 'in town on an errand' around that time.
There's no mystery as to why Pete had to go, you only have to use your ears. Also to see Pete in interviews (a gent, nice guy, all the rest of it) he is quite wooden and just didn't have the personality of the other 3, he just didn't fit in as Ringo did.
My heart goes out to Pete, I have read that he found it extremely tough after he was booted out and was suicidal at times.
I was pleased that they included tracks with him on drums on The Anthology and he got a good few quid.
His story is very similar to Tony McCaroll from Oasis but at least McCaroll got to record what is regarded as their best album with them.
As with McCaroll, Pete will never be forgotten as part of the story. You never know, he may end up as the last man standing.
@sparkipeat2255 The only time Ringo played with John, Paul, and George was when Lu Walters was asked to make a record, so he asked his drummer to accompany him, and then asked the 3 Beatles to join him. So Ringo didn't drum in the Beatles. John, Paul, and George played in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. There was no occasion in Hamburg where Ringo played with The Beatles.
He would sometimes watch them. The two groups socialised together, too. But that was all.
@sparkipeat2255 And thank you for your kind comments about the channel. We want to share Beatles history and talk about the greatest group ever! Thanks for taking part.
Great assessment
Thank you.
I actually got to hear both Pete Best and Ringo Starr preform on different occasions, Ringo back in 66 and Pete about 8-9 yrs ago.They were both great drummers.
Exactly. Very different drummers, but both great drummers.
Very interesting thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
I read somewere that they asked Jonny Hutch first who said no, before they asked Ringo. What are your comment?
Ringo was offered it formally on the Tuesday, Pete was given the bad news on Wednesday afternoon and then Wednesday evening Johnny Hutch was offered the job. I have that from Hutch and it has been corroborated too.
Well said
Thank you
good video, good sources. could have included pete turned in a substandard performance on the love me do "test" recording. don't know if he was nervous, having a bad day etc. watch THE BEATLES MINUTE: Pete Best's Drumming on "Love Me Do, for a great analysis.
Yes, I have discussed that elsewhere. If the only evidence we had was the 6th June recording if Love Me Do, you can understand the decision. Thankfully, we have a lot more evidence of his recording with the Beatles and he proves to be a really good drummer.
George was saying…if it were a movie the scene with Pete was done, now in the next take Ringo steps in to do his scene. He did it will too!👍💚🎶
I do feel the band became the BEATles when Ringo joined. Pete was Silver Beatles. Just my humble opinion (as a drummer myself).
I see it more as The Beatles with Pete but the Fab Four with Ringo. Two separate groups.
John, Paul and George must have known that using sessions drummers for studio work was normal in those days. They could not have been that naive, having previously recorded in Germany. They received the contract from EMI, meaning EMI were fine with Pete, *before* they removed Pete. Ringo was *fourth* choice. So they just wanted Pete out come what may. Other factors must have been at play.
John, Paul, and George wouldn't have known about session musicians yet. It was a secret only insiders knew about. That is why they just accepted what George Martin said.
The My Bonnie recordings were different altogether, with no session musicians on standby. So it was all new to them.
Even if they did, who wants a drummer who's not good enough to record with
@@tommyhaynes9157
Few live drummers were good enough to record with. As Ringo was not, as Martin brought in Andy White.
@@johnburns4017 Ringo pretty much played on all the recordings
@@tommyhaynes9157
Except those Andy White played on.
The pop-up Beatles book is quite cool, but the first page is a bit crass. It's a Cavern background, you can pull a lever and J & P in their leathers lift their guitars and do a head's together 'o0o' anachronistically. And Pete is drumming. But if you pull a lever Pete's head pops out of the way and Ringo is drumming. I bet Pete will take some scissors to that page if he sees it.
The biggest contradiction in GH and JL's estimation of PB's drumming is that they both said The Beatles' best live work happened in Hamburg.
Very true. They loved their time in Hamburg when they were playing straight rock - with Pete Best.
You can't take what John Lennon says about anything without a big dose of salt.
Thoroughly enjoyed it. Pete must've been pretty good live, because they were getting very popular by the summer of 62.
Exactly right. They were brilliant live, according to everyone who had the fortune to see them.
"If you haven't seen the Beatles at the Cavern with Pete Best, you haven't seen the Beatles". - Tony Crane (Liverpool musician - the Merseybeats)
Most Beatle fans know that Pete sang lead on three songs during live performances (Matchbox, Boys and Peppermint Twist). During Peppermint Twist he became the frontman, the 'Elvis' of the Beatles! This was a big part of his popularity and a primary reason why fans revolted when he was dismissed. The complexion of the entire group CHANGED in a way that the average Beatle fan can't imagine today.
Ringo Starr was a bigger name in Liverpool than the Beatles were at the time he joined the band. Seems to me that if Martin believed that Best wasn't good enough for studio work, that pretty much settled it.
@@Kermit_T_Frog You wrote, "Ringo Starr was a bigger name in Liverpool than the Beatles were at the time he joined the band". What are you basing that on? The Beatles were the best band in Liverpool and Pete Best had been their drummer for two years. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes (with Ringo Starr) WERE a bigger, more accomplished band than the Beatles for time in Liverpool, but the Beatles had eclipsed them by that point in time. George Martin never said that Pete Best "wasn't good enough for studio work". He said he wanted to use a studio drummer for the first recording session. He did the same thing with Ringo.
@@jasona9 must have been a kick in the teeth to hear Ringo sing his song 'Boys' on the album.
If Pete was really offered a place in the Merseybeats he should have taken it. The band had several hits and are still going today.
True, in hindsight, but at the time, there was just Tony and Billy aged 15 and 16 and just starting their career.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Good point.
In my humble opinion Beatlemania would have happened with either drummer, but I also believe Ringo's personality made him a better fit for the band.
I agree. John, Paul, and George were unstoppable, but Ringo fitted in well and was perfect for the Fab Four.
Yes ringo was rhe best choice at that time and imo remained the best.
I agree Gary.
There is an interview somewhere in YT universe where John Lennon said about the Quarrymen to The Beatles "Paul joined through me, George through Paul, and Ringo through George."
Absolutely right. Paul brought in George and George convinced John and Paul to agree to Ringo.
It's hard to see Pete Best coming up with drum parts to ticket to ride, tomorrow never knows,come together osv.
Ringo didn't really do drum fills, but he was a really creative drummer who few could match.
@jonashallberg2832, I see your point. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles, but he had the benefit of growing with the band in the recording studio, and multiple retakes. To compare Ringo to Pete based on their recordings as members of the Beatles is incredibly unfair. The only way to compare the two is to put yourself in a time warp and go back to August 1962. Few if any Liverpool fans or musicians are on record saying that Ringo was the better drummer at that time.
Paul called Ringo the "Greatest drummer in Liverpool, at least in our eyes", during Anthology, but this has been disputed. Fred Marsden (Gerry's Brother) the drummer in Gerry and the Pacemakers said that the best drummer in Liverpool was Johnny Hutch of the BIG THREE. He was far more technical than Ringo and did flashy elaborate solos.
I am a Beatle Anorak and also an experienced muso with shit loads of years playing in bands, my take on the whole thing is that Pete Best was never going to be the Beatles drummer going forward, you have to remember that drummers were few and far between in the early formative years of the Beatles and they only asked him to join because they needed a drummer to go to Hamburg, ive heard his drumming from early recordings and to be honest it wasn't that good compared to other top drummer of that time, for what ever reasons Ringo used to step in on odd occasions when Pete couldn't make the gig and the lads really got on with him and loved his drumming hence George saying he was always their drummer even if it was in the back of their minds, he also shared their humour and candour which i believe endeared him to them, when the big break came and George Martin mentioned that he wasn't happy with his drumming then it was a natural move for them to bring Ringo into the band , they would have gone with Pete if it meant success but as soon as they were given a choice they much preferred Ringo not only for his good drumming but for his personality and similar humour and it all just clicked they felt comfortable with him. Pete Best seems a real nice guy and it must have been devastating for him to have been dumped just on the eve of an unbelievable roller coaster event in pop history but at the end of the day he was and always will be part of Beatle history, he played a part in one of the best musical phenomena of all time, he was part of the Beatles story, no one can ever take that away from him and i bet he didnt do too bad out of it in the end, it is what it is, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we all die.
Thanks for your contribution to the debate. I've pkayed in bands for over 40 years too, which helps doesn't it?
Let me ask you this then. In your bands, how long does it take you to know whether a drummer is good or not? For me it is a couple of hours, confirmed in a couple of weeks. Not a couple of years. In Liverpool there were over 300 groups at the time, and by 1961 the Beatles could have had any drummer they wanted at any time. It never crossed their minds because the sound they had created in Hamburg, with emphasis on Pete's atom drum beat, had made them the best group in Liverpool and Hamburg. George said the Beatles were at their best and became really tight as a group and at their peak at the Top Ten in Hamburg in 1961. With Pete. John said if you didn't see the Beatles playing straight rock in Liverpool and Hamburg, you never saw the Beatles. That was them at their best (excuse the pun).
Pete and Ringo were considerd among the top drummers in Liverpool, though neither were the top drummer, who was Johnny Hutchinson of the Big Three.
Nobody questioned Pete's drumming until George Martin did on 6th June.
Also, there was never a situation where they decided to replace Pete with Ringo. They were two disconnected events.
1. We feel we need to replace Pete because of George Martin's comments.
2. They approach 4 different drummers and offer them the job. Ringo is the 3rd to be offered the position and says yes - the previous two said no. The day after Ringo is asked formally by Brian to replace Pete, Johnny Hutchinson is asked by Brian to replace Pete!
So much of this story is revisionist to recreate the story so that Pete was crap and they desperately wanted Ringo. That wasn't the case.
Pete was a really great drummer for the Beatles between August 60 and 62, when they were playing covers of American rock n roll etc.
However, under George Martin, they were about to become a pop group recording original songs. The old Beatles were dead, as John said when they put on suits. A new group was being formed called the Fab Four, and Ringo was perfect for them, as he proved.
Two different groups, two different drummers, who both deserve credit.
Even if Ringo wasn't first choice, he was the best choice!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool How long does it take to know if a drummer is good or not? Well I think I would know instantly. I have played in plenty of bands with mediocre drummers some hardly capable of keeping time but needs are must and you tend to put up with what you have at the time and try and make something out of what you have. The Beatles could have had any drummer they wanted in 61 out 300 groups , yes but how many would have really been worth approaching about 3 I would guess so why bother changing anything when they already had a decent sound for what they were doing at the time and Pete was Ok for what the were playing, straight rock and roll and he was able to Mach schau but when they got the recording deal they were going into completely new territory and Pete’s drumming was found wanting I’m sure if nothing was said then they would have continued with Pete but when his playing was questioned then going forward Ringo was their natural choice , he had stepped in with them on many occasions and they said they noticed a big difference in their overall sound with Ringos tight steady beat and style and coupled with that his personality was more akin to theirs and that alone was an important factor the whole transition was a natural evolution of the Beatles it was definitely the scene where Ringo entered. I find it hard to believe Ringo was the third choice drummer to be approached after Pete , it may be possible that Brian approached other drummers but I’ve never heard that John, Paul or George approached anyone else and can you honestly believe any drummer would turn down a recording contract with EMI , I really don’t think so , I think Beatles history has been rewritten a bit here. There was never a situation when they wanted to change Pete for Ringo ? Believe me, they would have had Ringo in the band right from the off but he was happy where he was with Rory it was only the chance of a record deal and fame that changed his mind .My opinion is that Pete was never destined to be the Beatles drummer unfortunately he simply was not good enough and I simply could not have seen him doing some of them wonderful drum patterns Ringo went on to do he was a far superior drummer but as I’ve already said Pete did ok out of it all in the end and he will always be part of Beatles history that can never be taken away from him.
@@purpleduke77 You wrote: *"They were going into completely new territory and Pete's drumming was found wanting."* First of all, when they sacked Pete, they didn't have a crystal ball showing them the new Beatles' sound they would go on to create over the next several years, they had, *"Love Me Do",* and few other originals that Pete played perfectly well in the clubs. There was nothing, "wanting", in Pete's drumming. Did you even watch this video?? George Martin didn't even have a problem with Pete's drumming, it was his assistant producer, Ron Richards, who did. And Richards later admitted he was asking too much of Pete, and that Ringo would not have been able to handle it, either. One of the engineers present, Norman Smith, said, *"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather the new arrangement he was being asked to play."* And the other engineer, Ken Townsend, said, *"I didn't see any reason whey a session drummer should be brought in to replace Pete."*
The bottom line is this, Martin's decision (via the recommendation from Richards) to use a session man in place of Pete did not raise any alarms about Pete's drumming to his bandmates. They knew Pete nailed the other songs in the audition, including, *"Besame Mucho",* which is on Anthology, and that the he nailed, "Love Me Do", the first time they played it at EMI, before Martin was in the room. It was that performance that caused Richards to summon Martin from the canteen to listen to these exciting lads. But Martin didn't share that recording with us on Anthology. No, he gave us the one right after that, where Pete and the band are trying to learn a new arrangement Martin has sprung on them from left field. Pete had been playing and practicing the song with The Beatles' original arrangement, and then suddenly with no notice Martin changes it. So you and your Ringo Apologist buddies may listen to that recording on Anthology, which is nothing more than a 1st attempt demo of a new arrangement, and point and laugh and cry out, *"Pete stinks!",* but John and Paul and George weren't concerned one bit by Pete's drumming, they knew how great he was in the clubs, and that it was unfair for Martin and Richards to judge him after ambushing the band with a new arrangement with no time to practice it.
What Martin's decision DID mean to them, however, was that he'd unwittingly served himself up to be the fall-guy for their betrayal of Pete. They each wanted Pete out of the band, and had wanted him out for a long time. John, Paul and George were each jealous of Pete, but for different reasons. George wanted Pete out and Ringo in because George felt outnumbered in the band, as both Paul and Pete were loyal to John. Paul and John were squeezing George out of the songwriting process, forming their Lennon-McCartney partnership, and they treated George like an annoying kid brother. When John and Paul weren't talking down to George, they were ignoring him. George didn't have Pete to lean on, as Pete was loyal to John, and frequently off getting the hottest tail in two cities after gigs. George needed an ally in the band, a buddy. Which he found in Ringo, when Pete asked his mate Ringo to fill in for him one day when he was sick. Ringo had always coveted Pete's job, and when George asked him if he'd like to join The Beatles, Ringo said, *"I'd love to. But you've already got a drummer."* That was a coded, but clear message to George saying, hey, you get rid of your drummer, and I'm in. That was December of '61, and the conspiracy was afoot.
Paul was easy to convince, as he was insanely jealous of Pete's popularity with the girls, in particular. Paul wanted desperately to be "the cute Beatle", but that was never going to happen with Pete in the band. So Paul said yes to George, but ever the pragmatist, he insisted they not sack Pete until they got a record deal. It was too risky, Pete was too popular. The backlash from the fans could mean the end of The Beatles. They had to have a recording contract in hand when they did it, to mitigate the fan backlash by stoking Liverpudlian pride as the first band from the city to land a record deal.
Around the time they got that deal, Pete's popularity was soaring to new heights. Fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!"* John was good mates with Pete, and didn't want to replace him. But that was too much, even for John to handle. This was JOHN'S band! And he was going to be damned if some *_drummer_* was going to become its leader, the face of the band! So he gave in, joined the conspiracy, and they sacked Pete one month after getting signed, a hideous betrayal that remains today an indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer You can see it how ever you want to see it but Pete was simply not good enough for the Beatles , John is on record as saying Pete was a lousy drummer and we only had in the band because we needed a drummer to go to Hamburg , he said we taught him to keep a beat but we were always gonna dump him . Paul said they really noticed a difference to their sound when Ringo played with them . I’ve heard Pete’s version of Love me do and it’s so stiff and lacking any fluency and his drumming on The Decca recordings is adequate but not up to any great shakes , I’ve got absolutely nothing against Pete as a person but I’ll say it again he was just not good enough end of .
@@purpleduke77 As for that quote from Lennon, he was just lashing out at reporters who were questioning why they'd replaced Pete on the verge of success. Lennon couldn't tell the truth, that they sacked Pete due to jealousy of his status as the most popular Beatle. So John lied and said Pete was lousy. But that contradicts what John has said other times, including when he told Beatles historian, Tony Barrow: *"Pete was a better drummer. Ringo was a better Beatle."*
You clearly know nothing about this time in Beatles history. They were the worst band in Liverpool ("awful", according to George Harrison) the day before they hired Pete to join the band and went straight off to Germany, and mere weeks later they were the hottest ticket in Hamburg and Liverpool. With Pete on drums, The Beatles gelled like they never had before. That's why they kept him for TWO YEARS. Had Pete truly been lousy as Lennon said in that quote, they had MANY opportunities to replace him in those two years. And had Pete truly been lousy then The Beatles never would've risen to the top of the Liverpool-Hamburg music scene, which they did quickly in Pete's first year, knocking Ringo's band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, out of the top spot in the 1961 Mersey Beat Top Band Poll. There were more than 3 good drummers in Merseyside and Hamburg, LOL, I don't know what you're smoking. They had ample opportunity in those two years to replace Pete with a really good drummer, had Pete truly been lousy like Lennon said he was in one of John's typical acid-tongue lashings (which spared practically no one, at one time or another).
But they didn't replace Pete, because Pete WAS a great drummer, who was instrumental in making them great musically. And because he was the band's main attraction. They used him until they got a record deal, and once that was in pocket, they replaced him with the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer they could find with adequate skills: Ringo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my examination of the Pete Best story over the years, I've concluded that, while Pete may not have been a "bad" drummer, he was a "limited" drummer. This is not necessarily bad, given most of the "limited" Rock and Roll music the Beatles were playing live at that time. But John, Paul, and George were always looking to play new songs, written by them, which didn't always have the Rock and Roll "Fours" beat that Pete could "only" play. Also, of course, in his live playing, Pete didn't have to keep perfect studio time, and probably didn't know about it. Bad communication between George Martin and Brian and the main three also played a role. Brian and the main three, from George Martin's conversation with Brian, probably got the impression that EMI saw no future roll for Pete at all, not even a supporting percussion roll, and did not want Pete to set foot in EMI or any of its studios ever again, as his drumming was below studio par, that session drummers would be used on all future Beatles recordings, and if they ever saw Pete again in EMI, any Beatles contract would be cancelled. There were also the ancillary reasons of Ringo's fitting better in terms of sociability, his ability to play more complicated beats for different songs, Pete's unsociability with the main three, Mona Best and Neil Aspinall and their son Roag, and also that Pete was part of a contract with the main three. The last one means that Pete couldn't be dismissed or fired outright, but had to be "re-assigned" or "transferred", which is why Brian Epstein immediately tried to build another group around him, which he eventually did.
I can agree with some of what you say. When you say Pete was limited, for what the Beatles were playing, he was perfect. John, Paul, and George very rarely included any original songs in their set, and those they did were either standard rock n roll or a variation on that. So they weren't attempting to introduce songs but were restricted by Pete or his ability. Also, when you examine the Beatles repertoire, they played a huge variety of songs and styles, from blues to rock n roll to show tunes! And Pete was fine with them.
George Martin only suggested using a session drummer on their first single, and nothing more than that. You are right that any band playing live didn't have to worry about keeping time, which was a skill needed in the studio. Ringo had the same problem, but was given the opportunity to improve and he rose to the challenge.
Everything else, like sociability etc is secondary and is only worth examining in hindsight to agree with the decision.
The Greatest Decision The Beatles ever made they fired Pete Best and hired Richard Starkey soon to be Ringo Starr as the Official Beatle 🥁 Drummer and beczme the greatest band of all time
Although Pete wasn't fired - see my other video on that topic - there was a massive change in direction from being a rock n roll covers group to a pop group recording original pop songs. Ringo - who had been Ringo a couple of years by then - was the perfect replacement.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool But David, there was zero evidence at that time, that Ringo was better suited for pop songs than Pete was. Any shift in the band's music had absolutely nothing to do with the change in drummers. Now, retroactively, one can look back and offer the opinion that Ringo was better suited for the types of music The Beatles would eventually be writing and recording. But you yourself have said on many occasions that there was nothing on The Beatles first few albums that Pete could not have handled as well as Ringo did.
Who replaced Ringo with Rory? I really enjoy your posts and feel sure you paint a very accurate picture.
Thank you. Their next permanent drummer was Gibson Kemp, who later moved to Hamburg and still lives there now.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool many thanks for that 👍🇬🇧
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I like how you used the term "permanent drummer". In a book by Spencer Leigh, he mentioned that Rory Storm could NOT find a drummer in the three-day time frame that Ringo had provided. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes had to temporarily perform with a drummer that didn't have musical experience! I believe Spencer wrote that he was an actor by trade, perhaps an entertainer at the Holiday Camp. It took time for Rory to find a suitable replacement for Ringo.
In Pete's autobiography he wrote that Rory Storm visited Hayman's Green shortly after hearing the news that Pete had been sacked. Rory wanted to make it clear that he had nothing to do with it and wasn't involved with the decision. Pete explained that Rory felt that Ringo had left him in the "lurch" during the Butlin's Holiday Camp Summer Session. Even Rory Storm's mother called the Best Home.
When all the controversy, and pontification are over, none of the lads owe the world an explanation as to why Best was fired. I've been in bands, as have many others here, and when someone isn't wanted in the group or doesn't click with the others, regardless of reasons, and they get voted out, that's just the way it goes.
Absolutely, happens all the time. But that isn't what happened here. Is wasn't that Best wasn't wanted. It was that George Martin didn't want him to play on their first record, which was quite normal.
They took it to replace him, so that is what they did. They hadn't considered replacing him because he wasn't good enough, didn't like him, didn't fit in etc.
You can understand the decision more when you realise the decision really was by George Martin, so who could blame them. It was just handled badly.
Oh the clip of Paul comparing the sacking of Pete to the sacking of his Wings drummer. Well the drummer he referred to was Geoff Britain. A technically good drummer (he drummed on the song Juniors Farm) but he just didn't fit in with the rest of the band.
Yes it was Geoff Britain he was referring to.
I’ve seen relatively recent videos of Pete Best playing drums with a band and he sounded pretty good. However the early 60s recordings prior to Ringo joining reveal a less skilled and creative drummer. I think most of the Beatles (except John) have chosen not to criticize Pete publicly. The band before and after Ringo are two different bands.
Your concluding sentence has always been my point. They are 2 different bands. Pete was a great rock n roll live drummer, perfect for what they were doing back then.
When Ringo joined, they became a pop group playing and recording original songs, and Ringo was perfect for the Fab Four.
@10:05 which is pretty heavy, as George I think had the first interaction white Pete playing in club on same road as the Petes house the casbah maybe only 20 feet down the road.. so he must have really been taken by ringos sound
It is hard to understand what George is talking about sometimes. He was a pragmatist and moved on quickly. He became friendly with Ringo and I think liked him as a person as much as a drummer.
George wasn't taken with Ringo's sound, that's not why he fought to get him into the band. And actually, George's beef was not with Pete. Not directly, anyway. George wanted an ally in the band, and Pete was close mates with and loyal to John. That was a problem for George because his big beef was with John and Paul, who were squeezing George out of the songwriting process. George desperately wanted to be a songwriter, but he was being cut out of that process, and he felt isolated in the band. McCartney's admitted in recent years that when he and John were not ignoring young George, they were talking down to him. The most fascinating thing about John & Paul's dismissive attitude and belittling behavior towards George was that George ultimately decided in 1961 that his best way to strengthen his influence in the band was by conspiring to get Pete, who was loyal to John, kicked out of the band, and replacing him with a drummer who would be George's ally on all matters. George figured this was his only chance, given that he'd be risking his own dismissal from the band if he tried to take on John & Paul directly. Here's why and how it all went down.
John, Paul and George were all jealous of Pete because he was the far and away most popular Beatle with the fans, club managers, and press. But if we drill down even further, we find that they each had their own distinct jealousies of Pete. Let's start with, George, as he was the one you posted about, as the one who initiated the idea of replacing Pete with Ringo. I'll give you George's secondary motivation first. Put plainly, he hated being the 4th Beatle. George was the 3rd Beatle to join the band, and felt...particularly as the lead guitarist, and an ambitious, budding songwriter...that he was entitled to at least be the 3rd Beatle. And with Pete, who was the last to join, being the most popular Beatle, that pushed George to the bottom of the totem pole. George was the youngest member of the band, and he certainly felt that way. And yes, he was *_made_* to feel that way, by the others, particularly Paul and John. Beatles manager, Allan Williams, said, *"In the very beginning, John & Paul & George would sit together to work on writing songs, but before too long John & Paul began meeting privately, just the two of them, and George was very frustrated he'd been excluded from the creative process."*
So it wasn't really about Pete. Pete wasn't rude to George, but it was clear Pete was aligned with John. And Pete was off getting the hottest tail in two cities after each gig, so he really didn't fit the role of a buddy for George to pair up with, opposite the John and Paul power tandem. George was lonely, increasingly powerless, and he felt disrespected. George was miserable. But he had an idea. George knew that Ringo would forever be indebted to him for fighting to get him into the band--something Ringo wanted very badly since the first time he saw them play. And George knew that Ringo would always side with him on band matters and votes, and would always be content as the 4th Beatle. He also knew Ringo would never threaten Paul and John, in the ways they each felt threatened by Pete.
So let's move on to Paul. He didn't need much convincing from George. Because Paul desperately wanted to be "the cute one". Beatles manager Allan Williams described the scene after Pete's first gig as a Beatle. Allan said that all the girls went running past Paul and the others to get to Pete, and the stunned, crestfallen look on Paul's face made Allan say to himself (about Pete), *"Oh he's not going to last long.".* But of course Pete did last long, two years. Paul tolerated not being the cute one because Pete was such a good drummer. During those first few gigs in Hamburg in August of '60, it was so loud Pete had to get inventive, and he created what became known all around the German city, and Liverpool back home, as "The Atom Beat". Pete was a powerful drummer, with the heaviest right foot on the whole two-city circuit. And the band -- which had been the worst band in Liverpool the day before Pete joined -- quickly became the hottest ticket in those two cities. They gelled like they never had before, behind Pete's thunderous Atom Beat, which for Pete's entire two-year tenure would *define* The Beatles sound.
Even Ringo recognized their greatness. In his Anthology interview he said, *"My band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, arrived in Hamburg in the fall of 1960, about two months after The Beatles had gotten there. I'd run into them a lot because we'd play on the same bills. I'll never forget the first time I saw The Beatles, they were already great. So great that they were the only band I'd go see in my off time."* Which aligns with what Lennon, Harrison, and McCartney have said at various times. Paul said, *"Pete was a great drummer."* John said, *"The Beatles were at their best during our two years going back and forth between Hamburg and Liverpool before we got signed, but it wasn't recorded so the world never got to hear it. No one in England could touch us."* And George, in a rare moment of candor on the subject admitted about that same time period, *"We were terrible before we went to Germany. But during those long stints in Hamburg, we became as tight as a band could be."* George also wrote to a friend back in Liverpool, praising Pete's drumming. With Pete on drums, and with the huge fan following he attracted, The Beatles quickly moved up the ranks, and in just one year they supplanted Ringo's band, Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, as the top band in the Mersey Beat poll. Geoff Nugent of The Undertakers, a rival Liverpool band said, *"You'd see 3 or 4 girls around Paul, John, and George after a Beatles show, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."*
So The Beatles' reputation was growing and growing, and Paul wanted the band to get a record deal more than anything else. Once they got it, though, he agreed to join George's conspiracy to replace Pete with Ringo. Paul (and John) didn't love the fact that Ringo and George were so tight, as they would be a voting block of two in matters of the band. They knew exactly what George was up to, that his beef was not with Pete, but with them. But in a more important way, Paul was happy that it was, Ringo, as he was short, scrawny and ugly. Ringo would pose no threat to Paul's coveted position as "the cute one".
Finally, John had to be convinced. He really didn't want to do it. For two reasons. One, he liked Pete. The two of them had connected and spent a lot of time together at Pete's house, listening to records, and raiding the kitchen. John opened up to Pete--something John rarely did with anyone. The second reason he didn't want to sack Pete was because he was such a good drummer, and his immense popularity brought a ton of attention to The Beatles, which was John 's band, John's baby. So John had a certain pride in having a stud like Pete in his band. However, there's a flip-side to that coin. John was concerned that once the band got signed, and studio executives got control of their promotions, that they would put Pete front and center. Even EMI producer George Martin said, *"I was shocked to learn that Pete had been replaced. Pete had a sullen charm, he was the best-looking Beatle, and was the most marketable among them."* I think The Beatles, had they kept Pete and such a scenario arose, that they could've stood their ground and successfully insisted that no one member be singled out in promotions. Because actually, they did just that after Pete had been replaced, when Martin wanted the band name changed on the first record to either John Lennon & The Beatles, or, Paul McCartney & The Beatles. They just said no, we are The Beatles, period. Still, Lennon's fear about Pete was not exactly paranoia, as Pete was far more of a draw than any other member of the band.
You see, for two years, John had watched as Pete routinely got celebrity treatment from club owners, who made John, Paul and George SIT on the front of the stage so fans could see Pete better, to local newspapers who used Pete's photo when doing articles on The Beatles, and not even mentioning the others by name in the article. Then during Pete's last 6 months with the band, something happened that John could not tolerate, and marked his tipping point. The fans in Liverpool were putting up homemade posters and flyers all over the city reading: *Come to Cavern Club to see PETE BEST & The Beatles!* John (and Paul & George) were also overhearing fans in the clubs beginning to refer to the band as, "Pete Best & The Beatles". That was just too much for John to take. This was HIS band. He founded it. He's the front man (along with Paul), he's the songwriter (along with Paul), and he was going to be damned if he was going to let some _drummer_ who was the last to join the band, be the face and name of HIS band. John had observed Ringo for two years with Rory Storm & The Hurricanes, and while the goofy-looking, diminutive drummer was certainly popular, Ringo was never any threat to Rory as the face or leader of the band. So John joined the conspiracy, and he and Paul and George betrayed Pete, kicking him off the launchpad seconds before their rocket ship blast off into superstardom. Each content with their place on the totem pole, their place in the band.
The hideous betrayal is an indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy. Compounded by the chickenshit way they handled it, making Brian do it, and never speaking to Pete again. Cynthia Lennon said in her book that she begged John to visit Pete to console him, and he refused to go. John knew he couldn't look into Pete's eyes and tell him some bullschit lie that he wasn't a good enough drummer. John knew he couldn't look the far-and-away most popular Beatle in the eye and tell him he was somehow "bad for the band".
@Cosmo-Kramer Thanks for your contribution as ever.
A lot of what you suggest is plausible, but a lot in hindsight and part of the Beatles myth they have wanted everyone to know: that they wanted Pete out to replace him with Ringo. The facts and evidence don't support that.
The evidence shows that nobody had a problem with Pete until George Martin told Brian he was going to use a session drummer on the record. That is when they decided that they had to replace Pete and trying to find ways to justify their decision, they started with the myth-making about Pete not being sociable, the haircut, the jealousy etc. All secondary excuses and never the primary reason. Getting girls and being jealous wasn't a huge problem as they all got lots of girls. Jim McCartney wasn't impressed when Pete got mobbed in Manchester. But Pete's popularity helped the group.
Replacing Pete was never about getting Ringo in. Ringo was the third drummer approached, and one of 4 to be asked. That is all corroborated with evidence.
George was spoken down to by John and Paul from the minute he joined the Quarrymen. A big thing once they signed their record deal was the John and Paul signed the songwriting/ publishing deal, George and Ringo were relegated. George wasn't a songwriter until the Beatles had become famous, so he wasn't interested in songwriting. What he did mind all the way through their career was being told by John and especially Paul what to play and how to play.
George became friends with Ringo early in 62 and so he "had to convince" John and Paul to recruit Ringo, so they weren't sure at first. In later years, Paul has told us how when Ringo first sat in with the Beatles how it felt magical and wonderful and perfect and they all lived happily ever after.
Once you separate the "replace Pete" from "recruiting Ringo" narrative, it starts to make more sense.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thanks, David, it's such a fascinating topic.
IF the Beatles thought that they were being compelled by Martin to sack Pete (which they weren't)...but IF they thought their hand was being forced, lest they lose their record deal, then why would they have to fabricate myths like Pete being anti-social, and the like, to justify sacking Pete?? They had the perfect fall-guy in Martin, they didn't need any other reason. All they had to do was sack Pete and tell their fans, *"It's terribly unfortunate, we feel sick about it, but the producer in London forced us to replace Pete, or there would be no recording contract."*
But what were George Martins real concerns with Pete Best , my opinion as i am a drummer is , Pete seems to lack feel and his timing is slighly up and down, ringo has more swing and less static
As a drummer, you will understand the difference between live and studio. It was actually Ron Richards who was producing the 6th June and 4th September sessions. You know, when you're playing live, the tempo can fluctuate and be played slightly differently each time. Before auch things as click tracks, you relied on the timing of your drummer.
Both Pete and Ringo had the same problem. They were used to playing live with those fluctuating timings, which isn't what the producer wanted in the studio. So Richards recommended to George Martin on both occasions that the drummer - first Pete and then Ringo - weren't accurate enough with their timing, so a session drummer was required. Both Pete and Ringo were great live drummers, though with different styles. Ringo, for me, had a style that was more adaptable to the studio, and, given the opportunity, he thrived with the Beatles becoming such a great drummer.
George Martin openly said that he wouldn't work with Pete Best. He would bring in his own drummer for any Beatles' recording sessions. Once Best was replaced with Ringo, George Martin backed off and said this was the sound he wanted, so that was the end of Pete Best. It fell on Brian Epstein to let him go.
That is what happened, it was all down to George Martin. Brian had the tough task!
I was in a band or two back in the 80s/90s. I've heard Pete play and, of course, Ringo. I would have taken Ringo over Pete as well. Sorry, Pete.
I’ve read that Pete was AWOL on sessions. When that occurred, they’d get Ringo to fill in. So, they knew how much better they sounded with Ringo playing.
Pete wasn't Awol. It was when he knew he couldn't make it - 3 times sickness, once a court appearance. Pete asked Ringo to sit in for him on the first occasion, so it worked out. So, on 4 occasions, and it was good. But Ringo wasn't the first drummer to be asked. He was 3rd of 4 drummers asked. He was the right choice though!
Michael, you read, "that Pete was AWOL"? Do you mind if I ask where you read this? As a Beatle fan and historian, I don't like the myth's and lies about Pete. Historically he has been portrayed as "an anti-social misfit", "musical incompetent", and "unprofessional". I have a book suggestion for you and the rest of Dave's subscribers: The Best Years of the Beatles by Pete Best (with Bill Harry). Below is an excerpt from the book. This is Pete Best himself addressing his anti-socialism and his unprofessionalism:
Page 162
"I don't know where the idea came from that I was a loner and didn't mix. It wasn't a case of detaching myself. We were a unit and that's what people saw all the time. When we were off stage, when we were eating, drinking, laughing, and joking, when we were causing bloody riots on stage, when we were going with women - the group was all there, there was an affinity.
Then something which I'd never heard before cropped up on the Anthology TV series about the Beatles. It was unreliability. All of a sudden it's, 'Pete never turned up for gigs.' Now what had I done to deserve this one? Apart from the two occasions when I didn't turn up after I was dismissed, there were only a couple of occasions in two years when I couldn't make a gig. Once I had to go to court and I told the others in advance; and the other time was when I had 'flu and they were doing a double show at the Cavern. I missed the afternoon session and hauled myself out of my sick bed to do the evening one.
They were the only times."
@@jasona9 Jason, it seems clear after 3 weeks that he's not going to answer you. But that BS narrative is all over the internet. And it's propagated by rabid Ringo Apologists like that nitwit over at Pop Goes The '60s, who says it in his slanderous YT video about Pete. You know the hit-piece I'm talkin' about. But I've seen it in myriad comments sections and other online forums--and like you, I correct it as often as I can.
George Martin was absolutely correct that Pete had inconsistent timing. That's been proven. But he never said to fire him, he only wanted to use someone else with better timing in the recording studio. Said Pete was ok for live performances. He was even surprised they actually fired him.
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.
Pete Best was laying out sick fairly often and Ringo would fill in, the band just sounded better with Ringo the other Beatles all felt that the band was tighter with Ringo. It was mainly Pete Best"s fault that he lost his job because he was not totally vested in the band. Had Ringo not been sitting in when Pete Best layed out the Beatles would not be thinking about using Ringo instead of Pete.
It was maybe because he didn’t show up to some gigs and since Ringo was there and sat in for Pete . John and Paul didn’t like his drumming so that was going to change . The Beatles hired Ringo but still was tied into a band Rory and the Hurricanes , so Ringo left Rory to join the Beatles . The Beatles Manager at the time had a lot to do about Pete Bests dismissal .
Wow, everything you wrote is wrong. smh
@@Cosmo-Kramer whats your take on Pete Best immediate release
@@RodBebenek2024 What do you mean by "immediate" release?
@@Cosmo-Kramer I was asking what’s your version of the Pete best story
@@RodBebenek2024 First, let me correct what you said in your comment. Pete never failed to "show up to some gigs", and it was never a case of Ringo just happening to be there to fill in. Pete missed two dates in TWO YEARS. Once due to illness, and the other due to a court date he had to attend. The first time was in December of '61 and when Pete couldn't make a show because he was sick in bed, he called Ringo, who was his mate, and asked Ringo to fill in for him. Ringo, who had long coveted Pete's job, jumped at the chance and did him that "favor". The second time was in March of '62, and it was a Cavern doubleheader, and lunch and dinner performance, with a break in between. Pete had to be in court all day and couldn't even make it in time for the evening set. So he told Brian their manager well in advance, and Brian asked Ringo to fill in, which he did. So your narrative that Pete "didn't show up to some gigs and Ringo saved the day each time" is pure rubbish. And in regards to your last sentence, that Brian had "a lot to do about Pete's dismissal", again, you are misinformed. Brian fought JP&G on sacking Pete. He even enlisted the help of Beatles' insider, DJ Bob Wooler, to try to convince them to change their minds, but they wouldn't budge. So ultimately, Brian gave in, and began working with JP&G behind the scenes on how and when to do it. But Brian was not happy at all to be losing the most popular Beatle, just when he'd finally succeeded in getting John, Pete, Paul & George signed to a record deal.
Now that I've disabused you of those tired old notions, I'll tell you in my next reply WHY Pete was sacked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what are you pointing at ?
JEEEEEZUS GIVE IT A REST.
Who do you want to give it a rest? The myth makers or the guy in the video? Or the Beatles?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Keep up the great work!!!!
John saying that their best work was never recorded (time during which Pete Best was the drummer) really doesn't say anything. It is John's appreciation based on his personal taste, informed by his love of 50's rock and roll. Commenting on musical skills would have no relevance for most people, except for music nerds (not in a derogatory way) or musicians who like to talk about these things. It makes complete sense for John to refer to the style of rock n' roll they were playing, rather than their musical skills. That's the music that John Lennon loved the most.
Musicians rarely talk about their ability on the instrument unless it's a big part of what makes their success and what attracts their audience (and usually it's quite a niche thing). Not the case for the Beatles. It's a matter of context.
Sorry but I can't agree with you completely. I appreciate talking about the style of music, but John was commenting on the group being at their best playing straight rock, not that the music was the best.
Same way that George said that the band were at their best, really tight, playing at the Top Ten Club in Hamburg. When bands talk about their favourite time, it is musically as a group. I have played in groups all my life and can tell you my favourites are with the best musicians AND the best music. They go together. That is when for musicians it is the most enjoyable. Even though the Fab Four were really tight, they were bored performing the same old songs. So they weren't stretched as musicians. But they made up for that in the studio.
I was listening to an interview with John's childhood friend Pete Shotten and he said "John used to tell his classmates that one day his band would be bigger than Elvis Presley and he got teased and ridiculed by his classmates for making such a statement (and the fact that his mother was shacking up with a man who wasn't her husband).John Lennon being the group leader was willing to throw Pete under the bus,to prove his classmate wrong.
John picked on Pete, but Pete got his revenge too. They were always pranking each other.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Pete Shotten, you mean. (Just to clarify.)
Ringo is a phenomenal drummer. Fact. Steady beat like a metronome. That is more important than flashy off time fills.
Dude, I LOVE Ringo and agree that he was perfect for the Beatles. However, Pete Best was a better drummer than probably 9 of 10 Beatle fans give him credit for.
Definitely agree. A superb drummer, which isn't in question.
I'm not sure why you say you don't understand what George is saying in the Beatles Anthology. He's saying exactly what the others said-that it was a chemistry thing and they didn't fully become the Beatles until Ringo joined. Even if Ringo and Best skills' were equal, it's clear that they felt Ringo was a better fit for the vibe of the group. You can clearly see their chemistry and how well they all get on in their group interviews.
Oh you can, but that is in hindsight, and not something they could have known at the time. Only George was friendly with him, and had to persuade John and Paul that he was the right choice. As Ringo said it took him 12 months to fit in with them. So it certainly wasn't immediate, but it definitely worked out for the very best as he was the perfect fit.
Anyone who plays drums every night for 2 years is going to be a good drummer, if not they'd move on to do something else. I have no doubt that Pete Best was a good drummer, just not up to the standard according to the person who had the experience and authority when it comes to studio recording (George Martin). But what I find really baffling is that Pete Best being replaced may have be down to a misunderstanding. As you said, Brian Epstein, who wasn't familiar with the fact that using session drummers was common practice, may not have understood that George Martin didn't mean to replace Pete Best in the Beatles, and the album would still have been made, and Pete Best would have remained, possibly til the end if the success of the Beatles gave them the decisional power to do as they please on their future albums.
George: "... history shows that Ringo WAS a member of the Beatles... " What a stupid statement: George (where ever you are): YOU decided history. It didn't just happen.
Mad isn't it?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Your video was quite interesting, and you were oriented toward facts, not just general cliche' stuff that is commonly said about Pete's drumming. Based on your investigation, George Harrison appears to have been the driving force behind the Beatles expelling Pete. George's defense, is shown in that ridiculous comment about what history shows. George couldn't respond with anything really relating to the specifics of what happened because it would have indicted HIM as kind of a villain in the Pete Best dissmissal. Combine this with the fact that George was, later, having an affair with Ringo's wife, and you get a picture as not such a spiritually oriented man of wisdom. At times he was pretty much a jerk, it appears. PS: I had an opportunity to briefly talk to Pete, when he and his band were touring. Gracious would be the best adjective that I can use to describe him. He was humble, interested in me (relating to me as a fellow musician), soft spoken, and mellow. I can see how he got steam rolled by the aggressive personaities of the other Beatles. (It was also, in retrospect, nice to see George get his hat handed to him, regarding his 1974 tour. After all of the claims of Pete's incompetence as a drummer, it's good to know that George's performances,, assessed by the critics, indicated that the critics thought that it was George who was a weak performer. There's a little instant Karma, there. George retreated to his mansion after that tour. )
Pete was to be replaced with a session drummer so Ringo came in and was replaced with a session drummer.
I know. Ironic isn't it?
Just listen to the 2 versions of Love Me Do with Pete Best vs Ringo (available on RUclips). It's clear that Ringo was the better drummer.
If that was the only evidence available, I would agree with you. But we have many recordings of Pete Best with the Beatles, plus the eyewitness testimony of the other Beatles and many people who saw him with the Beatles back then, so it is not that simple.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The recording with Pete is a mere demo performed at an audition with a *brand new, unknown to him or the other Beatles* arrangement given to them by Martin on the spot. The lads are simply trying to learn the new arrangement in this demo, trying to figure out what Martin wants, transitioning from their arrangement to his. Of course it screwed with Pete's performance, he'd never played the song that way before. Ringo's recording, in STARK CONTRAST, is a FINISHED, PUBLISHED recording, made after umpteen takes, and with weeks to practice the new arrangement -- a luxury Pete never had. Not only that, but it was made 3 months after Pete's take, giving EMI lots of time to work out all the technical problems they had recording the lads at the audition. EMI engineer, Norman Smith, said of Pete's struggles on, "Love Me Do": *_"The problem wasn't with how Pete was playing, but rather what he was being told to play with the new arrangement."_*
The other engineer at EMI that day of the audition was Ken Townsend. Ken echoed Norman's assessment of Pete by saying, *_"I didn't see any reason to get a session drummer in place of Pete."_* And what about Assistant Producer, Ron Richards, what did he have to say? Ron recalled, *_"I was the one who told Martin we'd need to bring in a session drummer for Pete. I had a thing about drums, and I was asking something too much from Pete in this one particular part and he couldn't cope. Come to think of it, Ringo would not have been able to do it, either."_*
So you see, on that fateful day, Martin was actually fine with Pete's drumming, it was only when Ron Richards told him he wanted a session drummer that Martin adopted that stance -- an easy stance for Martin to assume as the use of session drummers was extremely common in that era. Both engineers working the session did not think Pete should've been replaced. And even Ron Richards, whose idea it was to get a session drummer, said later that he was very picky about drums and was asking Pete to perform a new pattern on the spot that was so advanced that neither Pete nor Ringo were experienced enough to handle.
Hopefully now you can see the dishonesty of those content creators on YT comparing the two recordings, as though it's a fair apples-to-apples comparison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------