Yup, after playing the B side of 'Now and Then,' (Ringo drumming), I found my copy of 'Love Me Do,' (B side: "PS I Love You'), purchased in the US, probably in 1964. It's on a label called Tollie and there's a very distinct tambourine, so: Andy White on drums!
I was 17 in 62 and totally agree with you. Also I saw the first tv performance of Love Me Do with just 2 of the Beatles there and Paul as lead vocal and the rest of the backing was the studio band.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool It was fantastic, like nothing I'd ever heard before. We teenagers at the time were very clued up on pop music and, because our main entertainment was the record player we knew the top twenty songs by heart. I was brought up in a rough area of East Leeds and still have graphic and thrilling memories of seeing The Beatles live at The Queen's Hall in 63 in Leeds, which was an old tram depot and at the time, the largest covered area in Europe. I was very lucky to be right at the lite 2 yards away from John and Paul. Not being a proper concert hall the stage was a makeshift construction a mere two feet above the audience. They did 2 sets, and the second one was after midnight. Happy days!
Bradford Gaumont first time I saw The Beatles.. 15.. so much screaming... I did stop, eventually lol we knew then it was the beginning of something special...
The part that surprises me is that if the September 11th session was only 1hour and 45 minutes it seems amazing that they got through Love Me Do which took 18 takes, P.S. I Love You and a version of Please Please me in that time. For novice studio musicians as the Beatles were I'm surprised that they got that much done that quickly.
Hey, I too, have a theory. Let me know what y'all think. First, what do we know? It's documented that Ringo did a recording of, "Love Me Do", on his first visit to EMI on September 4, 1962, as the new drummer for The Beatles. George Martin rejected it the same as he had rejected Pete's recording, and he did so with Macca agreeing that Ringo's timing was not good enough for the recording. Martin then turned around and hired pro session drummer, Andy White, to come to the studio one week later, on September 11th, to do the official recording of the song, which he did. Ringo had not been told White would be there to take his place. It shocked and infuriated him because he thought he was going to get a second crack at the song. Ringo sulked so demonstrably in the control room that EMI engineers handed him a tambourine so that he could at least get out on the floor and be on the recording with his new bandmates, as a means of pacifying the livid Beatles drummer. Then, when it came time to release the single of the song and the album on which it appeared, we get two different versions. The one on the album is definitely the Andy White version, as Ringo's tambourine can clearly be heard. But it was actually the UK single of the song that was the first version released, and that one has always been said to be Ringo's September 4th version. There're are a couple of problems with that, however, and this is where my theory comes in. The first problem is the question, why would George Martin (and Paul McCartney) change his mind from deeming Ringo's September 4th version as unsuitable to be released, to suddenly allowing it to be the initial UK single? That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given that he had White's September 11th version that he was quite happy with. Now, one of the other commenters on here, David Henson, theorizes that the irate Ringo put up such a hissy fit and threatened to *quit the band* if his version was not released. And that JP&G implored Martin to capitulate, ultimately persuading him to do so. That's certainly an interesting theory, and knowing how irate and humiliated Ringo was, it definitely seems plausible. But unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with the second problem, which is that Ringo says in his Anthology interview on the subject that he messed up his first recording of the song by trying to do too much, but that the song was not too complicated for him and he was able to listen to Andy White's version a few times and copy what White had done. *Very interesting.* Then that means the UK single was *not* Ringo's September 4th recording. He must have recorded the song *a second time!* But given there's no documentation of this second Ringo recording, all we can really say is that it had to have been made off the books, after September 11th, and before the October 5th release date of the UK single. Somewhere in those 3 1/2 weeks *Ringo made a second recording,* which passed muster with Martin, unlike Ringo's September 4th recording. At this point I'll echo a piece of Henson's theory in answering why Martin would allow this, by saying The Beatles begged him, citing Ringo's threat to quit as the reason a second recording by him *had* to happen, and assuring the EMI producer that this time Ringo's recording would meet his standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi @Cosmo Kramer, everything you say makes sense. There is no chance that Ringo's hissy-fit forced anyone to release his version. I am sure it was an error, which was easily done, mixing up 2 "Love Me Do" acetates. They realised their mistake by destroying Ringo's master tape in 1963 so that it couldntbe released again! Andy White's version was on the album and any other releases. I love the idea of them recording another version, and it is a very good and believable theory too. However, we would have found another recording by now. But Ringo had to play it live many times over the next year or two, which I think is what he was referring to. But hadn't considered another recording. Nice.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool The new 2023 AI mix of _Love Me Do_ was released 2 Nov 2023, with _Ringo_ on the drums. Was this taken from an acetate or a tape? Giles Martin may be on U tube explaining it.
That is one of those things that made his sound unique. He led with his left hand around a right handed kit, which makes a split second of difference. This helped him create his style.
Very informative commentary on those sessions. A helpful explanation of how the choice of a session drummer was not just about their technique, but their ability to get the job done by being a reliable metronome for the other musicians, and who could lay down whatever drum beat the producer wanted. I imagine pretty much all the great rock performers of the era started off being pretty crap in the studio; the lucky ones survived the experience and some had what it takes to be amongst the best (no pun intended!).
Thanks for your great comments. Yes, many groups had session musicians on their records, especially the early ones. Studio time was expensive, so the quicker they could get it done, the better, especially the drums. Then, as they spend more time in the studio, they learn to adapt. Ringo certainly did, very quickly.
Wonderful detail. Looking forward to more detail on the early sessions including the "How Do You Do It" version that Lennon and McCartney hated. When did Gerry get the song? The story behind the Beatles willing to tell George Martin to "bugger off" on the choice for their first release to wait for "Love Me Do".
@@johnburns4017 John was pretty adamant that he/they didn't want to release How Do You Do It - let alone record it - which they did to please, please George Martin.
Great information, thank you. Another difference between Ringo's and Andy's versions, in my opinion, is that John and Paul sing with more confidence on Andy's. On Ringo's the very first verse starts a little bit flat and shy. I guess they grew more confident by that September 11 session.
Andy White got it right but RINGO STARR BEST BY FAR ! Another very informative video David enjoyable watch , can't wait for the next one ! All the best Beatle brain did you you see my cover of the BEATLES RAIN ! 😁😁😁👍👍🎸😎🎸 BB.
I’m not a musician but I do have ears & can tell when there is something wrong with a song . And Ringos drumming never sparked a concern or pick up a to late or early note . To come up with all these drum beats for the greatest living song writing team of our time is a phenomenal feat
George Martin, Ron Richards, and Paul McCartney all knew what the issue was on 4th September and could tell that his timing wasn't quite there yet, a bit like with Pete Best. However, he soon picked up the skill of becoming a regular metronome behind the kit, which set him up for the career with the Fab Four.
Why George Martin chose to record "Love Me Do" as the Beatles' first single is in itself beyond me. The song puts the listener to sleep, no matter who's playing the drums.
I agree. The only feature that was good was the harmonica which was contemporary with popular music then. I think they had written better pop songs already, like Ask Me Why and Hello Little Girl. I've never been that impressed with Love Me Do either.
Thanks David. Some recent issues in comments have been: *1)* Were _The Beatles_ on contract before the first 6 June session with Pete Best? *2)* Was Pete Best suitable as a drummer - studio or in clubs? *3)* Was Ringo suitable as a studio drummer? *4)* Was Pete Best sacked because John, Paul and George in their ignorance panicked thinking Best may compromise the recording contract unable to play drums to appropriate professional standards, hence a sessions drummer brought in? *5)* As Pete Best was 25% of _The Beatles_ in a legal partnership, did he have a case for compensation from the others? *1):* I say it points that _The Beatles_ *were* on contract. As an aside, there is such a thing as a verbal contract, it does not have to be written, with prior written papers indicating an intent. The contract was made out and signed by Epstein prior to the first 6 June session with Pete Best. It was going though the EMI bureaucracy of formalities for signatures and finalization as the first session was under way. It is clear for all intents and purposes _The Beatles_ were being treated as being on contract - being on the _contract_ red form, paid union rates, etc. Hence the first session was not an audition and clearly not being treated as one. Ron Richards comments on this on a Utube vid. *2)* & *3):* Clearly Pete Best and Ringo were not accustomed to precision studio work, but suitable for all else. Familiarization of a studio would make Pete and Ringo capable studio drummers. This proved to be the case with Ringo with _The Beatles._ and with Pete in other bands. *4):* Yes, they panicked. If they knew the studio ways, Pete Best would have been _The Beatles_ drummer all through and Ringo never heard of. *5):* Yes, Pete did have a case against them, as deceit was used to prise him out of _The Beatles._ As David clarifies, Pete could not be sacked by Epstein. Even today, that can be revisited legally. Of course it is a legal matter, and only lawyers could pin this one down.
John, I know you've directed these questions to David, and I certainly hope he chimes in here with his responses, but I'm going to give you my take on the 5 questions. 1) I don't know for sure, but isn't that June 6th recording date irrelevant? After all, Pete remained a Beatle until the Ides of August. So the relevant question is, did The Beatles, a partnership that Pete was 1/4th of, have a contract with EMI when he was sacked, or more accurately, tricked into believing he was sacked? 2) David has answered thoroughly answered the question of Pete's drumming ability in his previous video. Pete was a great live drummer! His trademark, "Atom Beat", *defined* The Beatles sound, and helped transform them from a nothing band into the hottest ticket in two cities, inside just 5 months, but then onward for the duration of his 2-year tenure. Pete joined The Silver Beatles in mid-August of '60, they immediately took off for Hamburg, Pete made the motion to drop the "Silver" from their name while en route to Germany, Pete invented the Atom Beat so as to not be drowned out by the raucous German crowds, and within weeks they were well on their way to becoming the best band in Hamburg. Ringo who was in Hamburg with his band Rory Storm and The Hurricanes said of the first time he saw The Beatles, *"I remember the first time I saw them, they were already great. I'd go watch them, they were the only band I'd go and see."* Now, that's about as close as Ringo will ever get to saying his opinion of Pete's drumming. But let's listen to what another contemporary drummer said when he was asked in an interview what he thought of Pete's drumming: *"He was a genius. You could sit Pete Best on a drum kit and ask him to play for 19 hours and he'd put his head down and do it. He'd drum like a dream with real style and stamina all night long and that really was the Beatles' sound, forget the guitars. I was amazed when they replaced him. I even thought about learning guitar so he could be the drummer in my band. The Beatles didn't hate Pete Best, but they didn't want to be outshone by their drummer. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."* - Chris Curtis, drummer for The Searchers, a great Liverpool band who scored a 1964 Top 3 Hit in the US charts with their classic, "Love Potion # 9". Chris saw Pete Best play many times in both Hamburg and Liverpool during Pete's two years as The Beatles' drummer. Okay, but what about Pete's drumming ability in the studio? Well, Ringo Apologists will have you believe that at least 3 producers thought Pete Best sucked on drums. First is producer, Bert Kaempfert, who removed part of Pete's kit. Ringo Apologists say he did so because Pete sucked. But the truth is, Kaempfert, was a an easy-listening producer, and didn't care for Pete's heavy sound, his Atom Beat. Then there was the Decca audition, where a studio tea-boy named Mike Savage said, completely out of turn given his nothing-status in the studio, that if they were to sign The Beatles they would get a session drummer. Well, the producer, Mike Smith, had nothing bad to say about Pete's drumming, and his voice was the only one that mattered. The Beatles not getting signed had nothing to do with Pete, but rather that Mike's boss, Dick Rowe, infamously passed on them predicting, "Guitar groups are on their way out." And then there's Pete's June 6th, 1962 recording session. We have two songs from that day, one take per song. Pete did a fine job on , "Besame Mucho", and a terrible job on, "Love Me Do". Unfortunately, it was the latter song that was being considered by George Martin as The Beatles' first single. And yes, Martin was not impressed with Pete's recording of the song. The thing is, Martin later told Epstein that there's no reason Pete shouldn't remain The Beatles drummer, but he's not polished enough for the studio and he was going to get a session drummer to do the recording. This was no big deal to Martin, as the use of session drummers was very common in that era. Martin said he was shocked when he found out that Pete had been sacked, as he'd deemed him to be the most marketable of the bunch. But this certainly begs the question, *why* did Pete struggle with, "Love Me Do", on that day, when he'd been playing it over and over again in the clubs?? Was it nerves? No, because he nailed, "Besame Mucho", earlier in the recording session. Well, what Ringo Apologists--including that jerk over at Pop Goes The '60s--won't tell you is that George Martin *changed* the song's arrangement on the spot, to one that the boys weren't accustomed to playing. Paul struggled mightily with the vocals, and was not happy about the change. And Pete was told by Martin to ditch his skip-beat, which he'd convinced Paul and John long ago in the clubs was a better beat as it livened up the song. Paul and John had agreed Pete's skip-beat made the song better, and it had been a big hit for them in the clubs. But on this day Martin didn't like it, and he was calling the shots in his studio. EMI engineer, Norman Smith, said of Pete's performance on the song and the new arrangement Martin was requesting, *"The problem wasn't with how he was playing, but rather with what he was being asked to play."* So, as you can see, *context* is everything. And the lies being propagated by Ringo Apologists become totally transparent when the context is known. Look, I'm not guaranteeing that had Pete not been ambushed that day that Martin would've approved of him for the record. Pete was inexperienced in the studio, and his style was tailored to the clubs and halls. And as David has told us, producers like Martin were simply just more comfortable using pro session drummers they were familiar with, and could trust to bang out a solid recording in the little time booked in the studio on any given day. But what we do know is that with some more experience in the studio, Pete had all the polish he needed. Because soon after being "sacked" by The Beatles, Pete got his own band, Pete Best & The All Stars, and they were promptly signed by Decca. No session drummers required. 3) Ringo was also inexperienced in the studio, and his September 4th recording of, "Love Me Do", was also rejected by George Martin, with Macca agreeing that Ringo's timing was not good enough. But of course, just like Pete, Ringo polished his studio game in time, and adequately to brilliantly (depending on who you ask) did most of The Beatles recordings during their 8-year pro career. 4) No, JP&G did *not* panic when they found out Martin wanted to use a studio drummer for the recording. They were savvy lads, who knew damn well that session musicians were routinely used on albums, but that they did not take the place of the band member for every other purpose, including live performances. Epstein knew this as well, as Martin made it clear to him that there was no reason Pete couldn't remain The Beatles drummer, but that he'd be providing the drummer in the studio. No, JP&G *used Martin's rejection of Pete's recording as a pretext* to replace Pete with Ringo. Martin's rejection gave them the cover they thought they needed to pull off the betrayal. The real question is, would they have had the nerve to dump Pete had Martin found Pete's drumming recording-worthy? I think they would have. I think they had made up their minds *before* that fateful June 6th trip to EMI, that they wanted Ringo instead of Pete. But they were waiting 'til they had a recording contract in their hands to wave in Ringo's face, to finally convince him to abandon his plans and do the dirty on Pete. As Chris Curtis, drummer for The Searchers, said in the quote I provided above, The Beatles didn't hate Pete Best, but they didn't want to be outshone by their drummer--and while Ringo was a good drummer, he was more ordinary. During Pete's final half year with the band, the fans in Liverpool were making their own posters and flyers and putting them up all over the city, promoting the band. You'd think JP&G would love that, right?? Well, they hated it. Because the fan-made signs read: *"Come to The Cavern to see PETE BEST & THE BEATLES!".* No dude, there was no panic--JP&G were *thrilled* Martin had provided them with the cover they felt they needed to do the deed (or have Eppy do it for them, the cowards). 5) The problem with Pete getting 25% is that soon after he was tricked into leaving and taking a job with another band, the old partnership was thereby dissolved. And at that point, The Beatles hadn't made any substantial money. I don't know the exact timing of all this, but I'm sure David will fill us in with some of those details. I would think the only legal angle to take, then or now (if still possible), would be that they tricked him into leaving, and that deprived him of realizing the fruits of his 2 years of labor, that would've paid off handsomely over the years with the EMI contract that was already in place *while* he was still 1/4 of the The Beatles partnership. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-KramerWhile much of what you say is probably close to the truth, I much prefer David's approach, where he avoids rancour based on assumptions. He is scrupulously fair about what we know and don't know, doesn't take sides, and makes a sober and reasoned assessment avoiding emotional outbursts. While emotions undoubtedly play a major role in human activity, they are not a good basis for accurate history. Too many people are eager to scapegoat someone as the bad guy, in order to justify their adopted position, when in reality everyone involved was almost certainly just acting in their own interests. Pete Best certainly seems less bitter than you do about the situation, and of course he did eventually get substantial payment for his work with the Beatles, something surely worth acknowledging? Your claim about "fan made signs" reading "Come to The Cavern to see PETE BEST & THE BEATLES!" is interesting if true. Is there any surviving evidence of this? Were they the only fan made signs, because I have read that each Beatle had their own set of fans. If the signs you mention were merely one faction, then their significance is surely far less than you suggest?
@@mustafa1name I like David, so I'm reluctant to say the following, but since you've attacked me by way of comparison with him, I will go ahead and say it. David is not without bias, and he has made wild assumptions in his videos on this whole Pete/Ringo subject matter. For instance, David makes the assumption that Pete would've *only* been good on The Beatles first three albums, but that after that he'd have been out of his element. To which I say, how the heck do you know? NO ONE knows the answer to that hypothetical. The arrogance and bias needed to suggest that Pete's skills and style would not have evolved as Ringo's did is astonishing, really. Now, I don't crucify David over it--in fact, I've not even brought it up 'til just now. He's human, and entitled to his opinions and prejudices. But don't *you* try to tell me that he doesn't make assumptions and instead bases everything he says on verifiable facts, because that's simply not the case. Your ad hominem attack that I'm "more bitter than Pete Best is" on this subject is absurd and offensive. He lived it, he attempted suicide over it, he's had his whole life to process it. I'm a RUclips commenter. He and I are apples and oranges. Your ignorance on the matter of the fan-made signs tells me you know nothing of what really went on during Pete's two years as a Beatle, and the true reasons he was "sacked". That the band was becoming known in Liverpool as, *Pete Best & The Beatles,* is just one source of the jealousy JP&G had for Pete. And no, there is no evidence of any fans referring to the band as, John Lennon & The Beatles, or, Paul McCartney & The Beatles, or, George Harrison & The Beatles. Obviously those lads had their fans. But Pete's fan base was far and away the largest of anyone in the group. The girls ran past the others to swarm around Pete after the shows. This happened on Day 1 in Hamburg, causing Allan Williams (their manager) to say to himself, *"Well, he's not going to last long",* as he watched all the girls run right past Paul to get to Pete. Paul was so jealous of Pete's female attention that he had his father rip Pete a new one in front of the whole band and travel crew for not "sharing the girls" with the other lads, in an embarrassing spectacle of parental overprotection and Paul being a Daddy's boy. The girls slept in Pete's garden, just hoping for a chance to meet him. But let me do it this way, I'm gonna break down the Beatles 6 lineups for you and show you the various social dynamics in each lineup, and the jealousies that uniquely surrounded Pete and his immense popularity. Pete's *"Atom Beat"* DEFINED The Beatles' sound, and was copied by every drummer (including Ringo) in Hamburg and Liverpool. Pete was betrayed by John, Paul, George, and yes, Ringo. Here are the social dynamics over the course of the band's 6 lineups, and the actual reasons why Pete was sacked: *John and Paul:* everything's honky-dory, two peas in a pod *John, Paul, and George:* two's company and three's a crowd--George feels like that third wheel *John, Stuart, Paul, and George:* John and Stu are best mates, Paul is jealous (which he's admitted), and George feels better now that he has Paul *John, Stuart, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's still jealous of Stu, but now he's not "the cute one" anymore, and becomes jealous of Pete for getting all the girls. *John, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's thrilled that Stu is gone and he has John back, dorky young George feels left out again because he lost Paul and Pete was unavailable as he was always surrounded by girls after gigs. George knew he was the 4th Beatle, and didn't like it. He was ignored socially by John and Paul, and dismissed as a songwriter by them. That left Pete as his only potential pal, but Pete was not about to pass up the hottest young tail in two cities to hang out with the young dork George talking about his guitar all night. John by at least this time, is jealous of Pete because he is fast becoming the face of the band--the band that JOHN created! They get a record deal, and make the cover of the Merseybeat! But guess whose picture is featured. Pete Best. Other articles on the band highlighted Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and never even mentioned the names of the other 3 lads. The managers at the Cavern Club instructed John, Paul, and George to SIT on the front of the stage, so as to not block the fans' views of Pete! They even moved Pete's kit to the front of the stage, forcing the other 3 to play behind him! In Liverpool, the band was becoming known as, *Pete Best & The Beatles!!* with fan-made posters and flyers showing up all over the city promoting the band as such! And you're trying to tell me that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison were OKAY with all that??!! Awww HELLS NAW!!! Pete was a dead man walking for most, if not all, of two years. They USED and BETRAYED him. *John, Paul, George, and Ringo:* Ahhh, harmony (no pun intended). The petty jealousies vanished. John and Paul had each other, and George had his little dorky buddy to hang out with. Ringo posed no threat to Paul for the affections of the ladies, and Ringo posed no threat to John to become the face of his band. Epstein knew Ringo was the same caliber drummer as Pete, and even though that's who the lads wanted, he was afraid that Ringo would underwhelm Martin in the studio just as Pete had (and he was right--Martin rejected Ringo's version, the same as he had rejected Pete's). And because John, Paul, and George made it clear in their pitch to Epstein to bring in Ringo, that they did not want any session musicians on their recordings, Epstein, without telling the lads, and armed with a record deal in his pocket, invited Johnny "Hutch" Hutchinson, the best drummer in Liverpool, to take Pete's place in the band. Hutch said, *"Pete and I are mates. I won't do the dirty on him."* So, Ringo was in and Pete was out. The thing is, Ringo and Pete were also mates, which speaks volumes about the characters of Hutch and Ringo. Pete Best was an incredible Beatle during his 2 years--the most popular in the band, by far. And he would've been an incredible Beatle had he remained with the band throughout their 8 professional years together. The betrayal and sacking of Pete is a hideous, indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer ▪ _"did The Beatles, a partnership that Pete was 1/4th of, have a contract with EMI when he was sacked, or more accurately, tricked into believing he was sacked?"_ When Pete was tricked into leaving _The Beatles,_ he clearly had 1/4 of a contract with EMI. ▪ Yes, new light on Martin changing the arrangement of Love Me Do on the first session. ▪ Dick Rowe at DECCA preferred Brian Poole as he was London Based. They saved on hotel and travel costs when recording. That is why mainly London based artists were spattering the charts - they lived near the studios. All studios were in the London area. Also Brian Poole and the Tremolos had just bought new shiny kit at great expense, while _The Beatles_ were using battered and abused amps. BTW, the DECCA studios were just off West End Lane which is the continuation of Abbey Rd. Also the BBC's Maida Vale studios were not far away. St.John's Wood (EMI), West Hampstead (DECCA) and Maida Vale (BBC) are adjacent districts. RAK (Micky Most's studios) also set up in St.John's Wood. ▪ _"No, JP&G used Martin's rejection of Pete's recording as a pretext to replace Pete with Ringo."_ Ringo was *4th* choice. Ringo was not a drummer they craved over for sure, thinking he was the final piece in the jigsaw, in drumming ability and personality ▪It took JP&G, over *two months* to reject Pete. ▪If what you say is correct, in that JP&G knew that using sessions drummers was the norm, then that casts new light on it. Yes, did they think it would be three guys in the shadow of the drummer? ▪ _"they tricked him into leaving, and that deprived him of realizing the fruits of his 2 years of labor, that would've paid off handsomely over the years with the EMI contract that was already in place while he was still 1/4 of the The Beatles partnership."_ That is a solid legal reason to sue for substantial payment. Also for two years Pete aided in moulding the band.
@@johnburns4017 * Yes, Pete had 1/4 of the EMI contract when he was tricked into leaving. But since that partnership was dissolved when Pete joined another band, that would end his rights to any monies arising out of that Beatles contract. Hopefully David will tell us when exactly Pete took that other job, so we can know what he was entitled to from The Beatles. In other words, had their debut single, "Love Me Do", come out before or after Pete joined Lee Curtis & The All Stars? I suspect the single came out after, and that a new partnership had been drawn up and signed with Ringo in the band. In which case, there really wouldn't be any money for Pete. *Unless* an argument was made that he was tricked into quitting and would not have done so, therefore he could've enjoyed the fruits of his 2 years of labor helping get The Beatles the EMI contract, and therefore he's entitled to his share of ALL monies that The Beatles earned during their 8 pro years. I don't know the answer, it's beyond my pay grade. * Not "new light" on Martin changing the, "Love Me Do", arrangement at Pete's session, but rather *IGNORED LIGHT* -- ignored by the Ringo Apologists libeling and slandering Pete every way they can, in a transparent attempt to justify the dumping of Pete for Ringo. * Yes, Rowe did prefer the other band based on their location. But the reason he gave Eppy was his infamous statement, "Guitar acts are on the way out.". (Of course, Decca largely made up for their foolish pass on The Beatles by signing The Rolling Stones to their first contract.) * It's true that others besides Hutch were asked to take Pete's place, including Ritchie Galvin. But none, other than Ringo, wanted to do the dirty on Pete. Ritchie Galvin's girlfriend, Ann Upton, recalled it thusly: *"Brian Epstein asked Ritch about joining The Beatles. Ritch said that he didn’t agree with Pete being replaced, and turned down the offer. I was quite surprised when they chose Ringo. He was little and skinny and weedy and had a joke of a moustache. I always thought he needed a good scrub."* But here's the thing you're missing, John. Ringo was indeed the 4th choice to replace Pete. But *who's* 4th choice?? Not JP&G's 4th choice! No, no, no, no...Ringo was their 1st and *only* choice. Epstein did not have their blessing when he offered the job to Galvin and Hutch, etc. That was Eppy going rogue. He went rogue because the reason JP&G gave to him for wanting Pete out and Ringo in was because of Martin's decision to not use Pete on the recording. They did *not* fess us to all their jealousies. Nor could they with a straight face say that Pete was a drag on the band, because they knew that Eppy knew as well as anyone that Pete was the band's *number 1* draw! Eppy would've laughed in their faces if they'd tried that BS excuse. No, JP&G were too street-smart for that. They knew that the *only* marginally defensible reason for getting rid of Pete would be an insistence that they each play on their own records. So *that* was the reason they gave Eppy. And they touted Ringo as being "a pro", assuring Eppy that Martin would accept his recording. But Eppy knew better. Eppy knew that Pete was every bit as good a drummer as Ringo, if not better. And while Eppy disagreed with Martin's assessment of Pete's drumming, he figured if he's going to be that critical of Pete's drumming, he's going to reject Ringo's drumming, as well. (Which, of course, is exactly what happened.) So, given that the sole reason JP&G gave Eppy for the swap was based on drumming ability, and given that Eppy knew Ringo was no better than Pete, he offered the job to a few other standout drummers in Liverpool, whom he figured would have the best chance to pass muster with Martin's hypercritical ears. But they each were men of character, and saw the injustice of the sacking. Well, except of course Ringo, who had no qualms about betraying Pete. Ringo and Pete were good mates. As fellow drummers the two of them would hang out together in Hamburg, going sightseeing, taking in movies, and clanking pints into the wee hours of the morning. What Ringo did to Pete was despicable. * Yes, once JP&G had the pretext, courtesy of George Martin, they needed to trick Pete into leaving, it did take two months to do it. Why did they wait? A couple reasons. One, Eppy needed time with his lawyer to figure it all out legally. And two, Pete's mom, Mona Best, had arranged The Beatles very first television appearance, to be filmed at The Cavern, on August 22nd. JP&G did not want to dump Pete until the last minute, so that Mona would not have time to cancel the TV crew coming out. Can you believe *the effing NERVE of those three?!* Unreal. smfh * JP&G and Eppy all knew that session musicians were routinely used by recording artists. And yes, JP&G *dId* think they'd each be in the shadow of their drummer had they kept Pete. Why?? Because they already WERE in the shadow of their drummer, and had been in Pete's shadow since he first joined the band! The fans and media alike treated Pete as the star, the main attraction. George didn't like Pete, hated being the 4th Beatle. Paul didn't get on with Pete because he was insanely jealous that Pete got all the girls. John actually did like Pete, and the two of them spent a lot of time hanging out together, in the clubs, but also at Pete's mansion on Haymans Green. John loved going over there to hang out, and the two got close. But in the end, George and Paul were able to convince John to betray Pete. It took quite a bit of doing, because it was John's band, and he took a great deal of pride in Pete, both for his dynamic drumming, and also for the huge draw he brought to The Beatles. Unfortunately, Pete's fans went a bridge too far when they began referring to the band as, Pete Best & The Beatles--not just verbally, but on posters and flyers all over Liverpool. That happened during Pete's last several months, and it was too much for John to accept. This was HIS band, founded FIVE years earlier. He was the songwriter (well, one of two), he was the singer (well, one of two), and he was gonna be damned if he was gonna watch his band hit it bigtime with his *drummer* as the main attraction! Pete, about as humble as a bloke can be, never promoted himself. But he was a victim of his own popularity nonetheless, a victim of the over-zealousness of his huge fanbase. * You're probably right, but according to David, Pete took one crack at suing them, and his lawyer botched it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@SeltaebEht No, they physically destroyed the master of Ringo's version, but kept the Andy White version so they couldn't make the same mistake again! Funny twist.
Thanks. This is what I got from listening to George Martin on the reason for using Andy White. So many people got this story wrong. Martin didn't care how The Beatles used Pete Best on stage or in clubs, he just didn't want him for recordings because he couldn't keep time very well. John, Paul and George Harrison sacked Pete Best.
My question has probably been answered elsewhere on you tube land, but Dr Mr White receive basic scale payment for the LMD session? Would he have pursued back royalties once the Beatles became the phenomenon they were? Would he have been entitled to any? Great Channel. Quin
Thanks for a great question. Session drummers were paid as hired help for a fixed fee, with no entitlement to royalties from the songs they played on. Shame, but that was the business. It is also the reason George Martin left EMI because he was on a fixed salary only with no extras for all the work he put into the Beatles songs. Glad you're enjoying the channel too. Thank you.
Aside from Ringo's tambourine, I find the 2nd version better due to McCartney's vocal which sounds a bit awkward on the 9/4 version but confident on the 9/11 version when everyone else fdrops out & Paul sings "Love Me Do-O!"
I have a theory about why Ringo's version of LMD was released as a single instead of Andy White's version. I don't believe for a moment that it was a mistake on the part of EMI. I believe that after the 11 September session, Ringo pitched a hissy fit with Brian Epstein, demanding that HIS version of LMD be released...or else he would quit the group, since there would obviously be no need for him in the studio henceforth. I believe that Epstein and the other Beatles agreed to his demand, if only to avoid losing another drummer. Now, you might ask why would EMI agree to release an inferior version of LMD (Ringo's) when they clearly had a superior version (Andy White's). To answer that question, you must remember that at that moment in time, the Beatles were little more than a garage band as far as EMI was concerned. They had only been signed to EMI on sufferance. (Read Mark Lewisohn.) George Martin was, by his own admission, singularly unimpressed by LMD -- and by them -- at that moment in time. He didn't expect LMD to sell many copies regardless of which version was released. So if this cheeky, upstart band from Liverpool wanted to release an inferior version of their first recording, who was he to object? After LMD failed, he probably reasoned, they would be allowed only one more failed single before their contract could be canceled and he wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. That's my theory.
Hi David, an interesting theory but I don't think it can be true. The main reason is that even 40-50 years later, Ringo was convinced that he never played on the first single and has always said so. I think error is the most likely answer.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Andy White knew who played on what, by just listening. He is on Utube explaining who played on what release. Andy used German Ludwig drums, while Ringo used British Premier. The sound is different, by drum sets and mainly style. When Ringo had enough money he bought a full Ludwig set, influenced by Andy.
Lacklustre Love Me Do was the best of _The Beatles_ compositions at that time. They did not want to record covers or other's compositions. Hence rejecting sure-fire hit, How Do You Do. Please Please Me was not fully developed at that point, so EMIs focus was on the first track that attracted them, Love Me Do.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool So you're saying Ringo has claimed for the past 40-50 years that Andy White played drums on the U.K. Parlophone single of LMD released in 1962. I have never heard of him saying that. Is there a sourced quote or video somewhere where he says that?
It was probably the harmonica that did it, because the record that brought the Beatles to Brian's attention in the Cavern and had put on acetate at Ardmore & Beechwood was Hello Little Girl. They also had Ask Me Why ready too, both of which I think are superior original songs.
What was the course of events? When did Peter Best get fired? As I understand he had already gone by the time Brian signed up the band? But in the Anthology, didn't George Martin say that .... ...after hearing a demo...or giving them an audition....that Pete Best had to be replaced? So....did Peter play on the demo tape and/or at the audition? Did George.tell Brian that he had to fire Pete before they did their first EMI session? Presumably, Brian could not have "fired" anyone.until he had signed them to the contract?
Great questions, thank you. Hopefully all answered in this video ruclips.net/video/PZN0RxYt05E/видео.html but if not, feel free to ask any questions. Main points - Pete was drummer when Brian became manager, Brian didn't sign the first contract, Pete was on the Parlophone audition, George Martin never said to fire Pete, just that he would use a session drummer, and finally, Brian couldn't fire Pete or any others of the Beatles as he didn't employ them! Enjoy.
David - I have a question: when did the Beatles 'dropped T' logo come into play? I've just done a quick search, and it seems this was 1963. And yet it appears in the late '62 video for 'Love Me Do'. Is this CGI trickery? I'm a bit stumped.
Which video for Love Me Do? Can you show me a link, so I can check it out? My first assumption is that the video was made much later than the record coming out on 62.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Attached is the link. Going by the audience reaction, perhaps this was indeed '63? It's the well-worn video where Eppy is in the shop and the record is on the turntable at certain points, so that may well have been filmed later, when the fuss started happening. However, the boys look very young so the actual mimed performance looks like it was late '62. (Then again, Ringo's teddy-boy quiff is gone so perhaps that's a clue that it's '63?) ruclips.net/video/0JWl_wUOQc4/видео.html
When they interviewed Ringo for "Anthology", he said "it's not that Andy White was doing anything so great...it certainly wasn't so great that I couldn't copy it". And he did to a tee on the album version. But the thing about that song, and I like "Love Me Do", so don't get me wrong...but a ten year old could've laid that drumline down. It wasn't Keith Moon type stuff.
Thanks, you are right. It was a straightforward beat and quite a simple song. There was obviously just something that Ron Richards heard in Ringo's version that wasn't quite good enough for him. The only recorded version released after the UK single was released, including on albums, was Andy White's. The only time Ringo would play it again would be live.
@Allen F Ringo wasn't involved on that record, just the other three Beatles. The 3 also played on Back in the USSR, with Paul mainly drumming but John and George adding some drumwork too. Ringo had quit and was away for 2 weeks.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool The only thing about it David, was the playing changes on the outro with the fills and even though the miking is strange, it so much sounds like the Ringo snare on that outro section. All of the knowledgeable experts to point to the timing of the sessions, and you are right, Ringo had left for two weeks. It just sounds like two different drummers but then again, Macca could play. No debate with you of course. BIG respect always. It just sounds like different players. Keep up the shows and the awesome work that you do.
@@allenf.5907 I spoke to a record producer called Steve Levine who has worked with some huge stars. We discussed this and his take was that the reason it sounds different is that, while Paul is a good drummer, he isn't Ringo, and he hears the differences as different takes of the song being recorded at different times and used in the final mix. That made sense to me. Same with Back in the USSR. So I reckon you have heard what he heard - I didnt till he pointed it out! Shows that they still needed Ringo!! There is always something new to learn, which is why we love it!! Keeps us going doesn't it?? 😁
Well, then was it Andy White who actually played on Please Please Me or Ringo. I'm thinking it was Andy.It's a completely different style of playing. I also want to know who played on Long Tall Sally cos it doesn't sound at all like Ringo's fill ins...far too even and slick as well as the fills back into the verses. The sound of the snare is much higher than Ringo's normally tuned snare drum...if he ever really tuned his drums to any level of tonal accuracy. Ringo never played like this again and should have if he was capable of playing that good.. Plus the Ride cymbal stick rhythm is much more developed than what Ringo would have played. It was very cleanly defined and articulated....something he rarely sounded like except on Baby's In Black where his Ride Cymbal work is impeccable. Usually he would play a crash ride sound on most songs instead of a "ping " sound on the Ride Cymbal.
Hi Scott, you've asked some great questions there. When I interviewed Andy White, he did a version of Please Please Me on 11th September and he is convinced that is was his version that was released. He said it sounded like his kit, not Ringo's. However, EMI records show that Ringo recorded a version in November that was released by The Beatles. However, I think he copied Andy White's drumming for the recording. I have never heard anyone question Long Tall Sally, so I will go and take another listen to it, and talk to some drummer friends of mine too. Thanks for your analysis, that is really interesting.
Heard there was 4 drummers used on Beatles recordings and Ringo wasn’t one of them. Andy white being one and the soul drummer Purdie from the states said he drummed on 21 records of the Beatles he was Aretha Franklin’s drummer for 30 years He can be heard live on you tube saying this and he was paid a lot of money and his life threatened to keep it all quiete
My book, Finding the Fourth Beatle, details 23 drummers who played with the Quarrymen/ Beatles. Andy White did play on Love Me Do and PS I LOVE YOU. However, Bernard Purdie was NOT one of them. He retracted his statement when he published his autobiography. What we reckon is he was asked to add a drum kit to the Tony Sheridan recordings. That is all. A fun story!
Andy White's version is excellent as well as Ringo. No need to explain how or why they play the way they do. Pete Best plays it diiferently and uses fills and different drumming patterns. It seems he is trying to create a more interesting drum pattern by making the plain song more exciting. But he certainly keeps time. He could have been told to play it straight and not to be too fancy. This might have made the difference between continuing or ending. Was he ever told to change his drum pattern? I have heard Pete Best in other songs and he seems more than adequate. Personally I like good drumming but not where it over shadows the song, but instead compliments it.
Some excellent observations, thank you. Some people try to suggest that Pete Best came up with the different rhythm, as if John, Paul, and George had nothing to dk with it. The song was quite plain and dull. They obviously all decided to make this change, but it was a recent change, and so they hadn't rehearsed it very much. It would enlived the song, which I think is plain. Pete was a decent drummer and shouldn't be judged on this one performance. Thanks. David
Don't forget that George Martin and Paul McCartney were talking about Ringo in September 1962, as opposed to the drummer Ringo became by the 1970s? With a few months in the studio, by the time the album Please Please Me was recorded, he had adapted to the studio and soon became so reliable. But like all musicians entering the studio, they are used to playing live where timing fluctuates naturally. That's why Andy White was brought in at the start.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool He didn't just become a drummer with time. He spent two backbreaking years playing in Hamburg and by the time he recorded with the Beatles, he had it down. You either have time, or you don't.
Agreed. And when playing to screeming fans and they couldn't hear themselves they were completely reliant on Ringo's absolute ability to keep time and rhythm-and he couldn't hear them either. Look at any of the old footage and note how many times all three turn to check with Ringo. Andy White was a professional studio session drummer and went on to have a very successful career teaching drumming in Canada and taught some big names. Andy was the first to admit he coukd never have done what Ringo did effortlessly with The Beatles because he qas not a live concert musician. Frankly the story is old, unnecessary but a little bit interesting ~ if only because it is immaterial.
No human drummer is a metronome. It’s just hyperbole. I’ve worked with Beatles digital stems and can tell you that Ringo’s tempos wander. (You can actually measure this in milliseconds.) But he’s still one of the best drummers. George Martin describes Ringo’s skill perfectly:
‘Although George Martin wasn't initially impressed with Ringo's drumming, he grew to appreciate his style. They soon became good friends and the producer would replace him only one more time by a session drummer - Bobby Graham. "Ringo always got, and still gets, a unique sound out of his drums, a sound as distinctive as his voice," Martin said. “Ringo gets a looser deeper sound out of his drums that is unique. This detailed attention to the tone of his drums is one of the reasons for Ringo's brilliance. Another is that although Ringo does not keep time with a metronome accuracy, he has an unrivaled feel for a song. If his timing fluctuates, it invariably does so in the right place at the right time, keeping the right atmosphere going on the track and giving it a rock-solid foundation. This held true for every single Beatles number Richy played.”’ Finding The Fourth Beatle: The 23 drummers who put the beat behind the Fab Three, by David Bedford、 Garry Popper
The reason that I know of. Is that Pete's drumming was not spot on with John and Paul's vocals and George's guitar playing. Also Pete's drumming was not spot on with John's harmonica
Ron Richards was the producer at Parlophone. George Martin was A&R (Artists and Repertoire) but not a day to day producer sat at the mixing desk. It was Richards who made the recommendation to George Martin about Pete and, on 4th September, about Ringo.
I can't believe what you said in this video, that Ringo is not on the album version of Love Me Do. I don't think I have ever heard the single version, though. But I remember that Ringo was asked in one of the early interviews whether he was on the "record", and he answers "yes, I'm on the record". But was he, really? To me, having some Andy White on the album version of that song, is a bit of a nuisance.
Ringo, accidentally, ended up on the UK single when the first version was released. The master tape was destroyed in 63. From the album onwards, it was only Andy White's version that was released. It is a brighter, slightly faster and more regular version than Ringo's, though Ringo playing the tambourine does help it too.
Yup, after playing the B side of 'Now and Then,' (Ringo drumming), I found my copy of 'Love Me Do,' (B side: "PS I Love You'), purchased in the US, probably in 1964. It's on a label called Tollie and there's a very distinct tambourine, so: Andy White on drums!
Yep, nobody after October 63 would get the Ringo version. What a treasure you have found!!
Superb information bringing to life many different things i have read over the years. So much info . Bless you! Henry O. NYC.
Thanks Henry, hope to get to see you again soon in NY.
Ringo also played maracas on PS I LOVE YOU, which Andy White played drums on..
The flipside to LOVE ME DO.
I was 17 in 62 and totally agree with you. Also I saw the first tv performance of Love Me Do with just 2 of the Beatles there and Paul as lead vocal and the rest of the backing was the studio band.
It was a landmark moment in British pop music and what a journey it started. What was it like seeing and hearing that for the first time?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool It was fantastic, like nothing I'd ever heard before. We teenagers at the time were very clued up on pop music and, because our main entertainment was the record player we knew the top twenty songs by heart. I was brought up in a rough area of East Leeds and still have graphic and thrilling memories of seeing The Beatles live at The Queen's Hall in 63 in Leeds, which was an old tram depot and at the time, the largest covered area in Europe. I was very lucky to be right at the lite 2 yards away from John and Paul. Not being a proper concert hall the stage was a makeshift construction a mere two feet above the audience. They did 2 sets, and the second one was after midnight. Happy days!
Bradford Gaumont first time I saw The Beatles.. 15.. so much screaming... I did stop, eventually lol we knew then it was the beginning of something special...
❤
The part that surprises me is that if the September 11th session was only 1hour and 45 minutes it seems amazing that they got through Love Me Do which took 18 takes, P.S. I Love You and a version of Please Please me in that time. For novice studio musicians as the Beatles were I'm surprised that they got that much done that quickly.
But then I guess they wouldn't have been The Beatles if they couldn't.
Fascinating information I never knew, thank you for sharing.
Always happy to share this info with fans.
Great stuff 😎🥁
Thank you
@@BrightmoonLiverpool wow, Liverpool. Makes sense. Thanks again 🍻
Hey, I too, have a theory. Let me know what y'all think. First, what do we know? It's documented that Ringo did a recording of, "Love Me Do", on his first visit to EMI on September 4, 1962, as the new drummer for The Beatles. George Martin rejected it the same as he had rejected Pete's recording, and he did so with Macca agreeing that Ringo's timing was not good enough for the recording. Martin then turned around and hired pro session drummer, Andy White, to come to the studio one week later, on September 11th, to do the official recording of the song, which he did. Ringo had not been told White would be there to take his place. It shocked and infuriated him because he thought he was going to get a second crack at the song. Ringo sulked so demonstrably in the control room that EMI engineers handed him a tambourine so that he could at least get out on the floor and be on the recording with his new bandmates, as a means of pacifying the livid Beatles drummer. Then, when it came time to release the single of the song and the album on which it appeared, we get two different versions. The one on the album is definitely the Andy White version, as Ringo's tambourine can clearly be heard. But it was actually the UK single of the song that was the first version released, and that one has always been said to be Ringo's September 4th version. There're are a couple of problems with that, however, and this is where my theory comes in.
The first problem is the question, why would George Martin (and Paul McCartney) change his mind from deeming Ringo's September 4th version as unsuitable to be released, to suddenly allowing it to be the initial UK single? That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given that he had White's September 11th version that he was quite happy with. Now, one of the other commenters on here, David Henson, theorizes that the irate Ringo put up such a hissy fit and threatened to *quit the band* if his version was not released. And that JP&G implored Martin to capitulate, ultimately persuading him to do so. That's certainly an interesting theory, and knowing how irate and humiliated Ringo was, it definitely seems plausible.
But unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with the second problem, which is that Ringo says in his Anthology interview on the subject that he messed up his first recording of the song by trying to do too much, but that the song was not too complicated for him and he was able to listen to Andy White's version a few times and copy what White had done. *Very interesting.* Then that means the UK single was *not* Ringo's September 4th recording. He must have recorded the song *a second time!* But given there's no documentation of this second Ringo recording, all we can really say is that it had to have been made off the books, after September 11th, and before the October 5th release date of the UK single. Somewhere in those 3 1/2 weeks *Ringo made a second recording,* which passed muster with Martin, unlike Ringo's September 4th recording. At this point I'll echo a piece of Henson's theory in answering why Martin would allow this, by saying The Beatles begged him, citing Ringo's threat to quit as the reason a second recording by him *had* to happen, and assuring the EMI producer that this time Ringo's recording would meet his standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi @Cosmo Kramer, everything you say makes sense. There is no chance that Ringo's hissy-fit forced anyone to release his version. I am sure it was an error, which was easily done, mixing up 2 "Love Me Do" acetates. They realised their mistake by destroying Ringo's master tape in 1963 so that it couldntbe released again! Andy White's version was on the album and any other releases.
I love the idea of them recording another version, and it is a very good and believable theory too. However, we would have found another recording by now. But Ringo had to play it live many times over the next year or two, which I think is what he was referring to. But hadn't considered another recording. Nice.
I like your idea, jibes with Ringo's memory, too
@@roryblake7311 Thanks. Yeah, it definitely makes the most sense.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
The new 2023 AI mix of _Love Me Do_ was released 2 Nov 2023, with _Ringo_ on the drums. Was this taken from an acetate or a tape? Giles Martin may be on U tube explaining it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
If they recorded another version _Love Me Do_ with Ringo it would be in EMI records. Lewisohn found none.
Very interesting, I will seek out the two recordings and listen for the tambourine.
It is well worth doing.
What a great video.
Thank you
My wife's cousin is a drummer and said that Ringo played as a leftie on a right hand kit.
That is one of those things that made his sound unique. He led with his left hand around a right handed kit, which makes a split second of difference. This helped him create his style.
Wow, I didn’t know Ringo was a lefty? I thought Paul was the only one lol
@@MeeMee-gz5vpyes’m, Ringo’s left-handed and right-footed.
Why did he play a right handed kit if he’s left handed
Great video.
Thank you.
Great Stuff! (including comments)
Thanks
Very informative commentary on those sessions. A helpful explanation of how the choice of a session drummer was not just about their technique, but their ability to get the job done by being a reliable metronome for the other musicians, and who could lay down whatever drum beat the producer wanted. I imagine pretty much all the great rock performers of the era started off being pretty crap in the studio; the lucky ones survived the experience and some had what it takes to be amongst the best (no pun intended!).
Thanks for your great comments. Yes, many groups had session musicians on their records, especially the early ones. Studio time was expensive, so the quicker they could get it done, the better, especially the drums. Then, as they spend more time in the studio, they learn to adapt. Ringo certainly did, very quickly.
Wonderful detail. Looking forward to more detail on the early sessions including the "How Do You Do It" version that Lennon and McCartney hated. When did Gerry get the song? The story behind the Beatles willing to tell George Martin to "bugger off" on the choice for their first release to wait for "Love Me Do".
I doubt they used the words _"bugger off" ._
@@johnburns4017 John was pretty adamant that he/they didn't want to release How Do You Do It - let alone record it - which they did to please, please George Martin.
Une mine d'information 👏👍
Great information, thank you. Another difference between Ringo's and Andy's versions, in my opinion, is that John and Paul sing with more confidence on Andy's. On Ringo's the very first verse starts a little bit flat and shy. I guess they grew more confident by that September 11 session.
I hadn't noticed that. Thank you, I will listen to it again. Yes, I'm sure their extra confidence made a difference too.
Well said and agreed 100%
Thank you
Andy White got it right but RINGO STARR BEST BY FAR ! Another very informative video David enjoyable watch , can't wait for the next one ! All the best Beatle brain did you you see my cover of the BEATLES RAIN ! 😁😁😁👍👍🎸😎🎸 BB.
Thanks BB loved your Rain. What a great song and one of Ringo's best performances. He proved himself to be such a great drummer
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Cheers for having a listen to Rain . Think Ringo said it was one of his favourite drumming tracks 👍👍👍😎🎸
I’m not a musician but I do have ears & can tell when there is something wrong with a song . And Ringos drumming never sparked a concern or pick up a to late or early note . To come up with all these drum beats for the greatest living song writing team of our time is a phenomenal feat
George Martin, Ron Richards, and Paul McCartney all knew what the issue was on 4th September and could tell that his timing wasn't quite there yet, a bit like with Pete Best.
However, he soon picked up the skill of becoming a regular metronome behind the kit, which set him up for the career with the Fab Four.
Why George Martin chose to record "Love Me Do" as the Beatles' first single is in itself beyond me. The song puts the listener to sleep, no matter who's playing the drums.
I agree. The only feature that was good was the harmonica which was contemporary with popular music then. I think they had written better pop songs already, like Ask Me Why and Hello Little Girl. I've never been that impressed with Love Me Do either.
Thanks David.
Some recent issues in comments have been:
*1)* Were _The Beatles_ on contract before the first 6 June session with Pete Best?
*2)* Was Pete Best suitable as a drummer - studio or in clubs?
*3)* Was Ringo suitable as a studio drummer?
*4)* Was Pete Best sacked because John, Paul and George in their ignorance panicked thinking Best may compromise the recording contract unable to play drums to appropriate professional standards, hence a sessions drummer brought in?
*5)* As Pete Best was 25% of _The Beatles_ in a legal partnership, did he have a case for compensation from the others?
*1):* I say it points that _The Beatles_ *were* on contract. As an aside, there is such a thing as a verbal contract, it does not have to be written, with prior written papers indicating an intent. The contract was made out and signed by Epstein prior to the first 6 June session with Pete Best. It was going though the EMI bureaucracy of formalities for signatures and finalization as the first session was under way. It is clear for all intents and purposes _The Beatles_ were being treated as being on contract - being on the _contract_ red form, paid union rates, etc. Hence the first session was not an audition and clearly not being treated as one. Ron Richards comments on this on a Utube vid.
*2)* & *3):* Clearly Pete Best and Ringo were not accustomed to precision studio work, but suitable for all else. Familiarization of a studio would make Pete and Ringo capable studio drummers. This proved to be the case with Ringo with _The Beatles._ and with Pete in other bands.
*4):* Yes, they panicked. If they knew the studio ways, Pete Best would have been _The Beatles_ drummer all through and Ringo never heard of.
*5):* Yes, Pete did have a case against them, as deceit was used to prise him out of _The Beatles._ As David clarifies, Pete could not be sacked by Epstein. Even today, that can be revisited legally. Of course it is a legal matter, and only lawyers could pin this one down.
John, I know you've directed these questions to David, and I certainly hope he chimes in here with his responses, but I'm going to give you my take on the 5 questions.
1) I don't know for sure, but isn't that June 6th recording date irrelevant? After all, Pete remained a Beatle until the Ides of August. So the relevant question is, did The Beatles, a partnership that Pete was 1/4th of, have a contract with EMI when he was sacked, or more accurately, tricked into believing he was sacked?
2) David has answered thoroughly answered the question of Pete's drumming ability in his previous video. Pete was a great live drummer! His trademark, "Atom Beat", *defined* The Beatles sound, and helped transform them from a nothing band into the hottest ticket in two cities, inside just 5 months, but then onward for the duration of his 2-year tenure. Pete joined The Silver Beatles in mid-August of '60, they immediately took off for Hamburg, Pete made the motion to drop the "Silver" from their name while en route to Germany, Pete invented the Atom Beat so as to not be drowned out by the raucous German crowds, and within weeks they were well on their way to becoming the best band in Hamburg. Ringo who was in Hamburg with his band Rory Storm and The Hurricanes said of the first time he saw The Beatles, *"I remember the first time I saw them, they were already great. I'd go watch them, they were the only band I'd go and see."* Now, that's about as close as Ringo will ever get to saying his opinion of Pete's drumming. But let's listen to what another contemporary drummer said when he was asked in an interview what he thought of Pete's drumming:
*"He was a genius. You could sit Pete Best on a drum kit and ask him to play for 19 hours and he'd put his head down and do it. He'd drum like a dream with real style and stamina all night long and that really was the Beatles' sound, forget the guitars. I was amazed when they replaced him. I even thought about learning guitar so he could be the drummer in my band. The Beatles didn't hate Pete Best, but they didn't want to be outshone by their drummer. Ringo was a good drummer but he was more ordinary."* - Chris Curtis, drummer for The Searchers, a great Liverpool band who scored a 1964 Top 3 Hit in the US charts with their classic, "Love Potion # 9". Chris saw Pete Best play many times in both Hamburg and Liverpool during Pete's two years as The Beatles' drummer.
Okay, but what about Pete's drumming ability in the studio? Well, Ringo Apologists will have you believe that at least 3 producers thought Pete Best sucked on drums. First is producer, Bert Kaempfert, who removed part of Pete's kit. Ringo Apologists say he did so because Pete sucked. But the truth is, Kaempfert, was a an easy-listening producer, and didn't care for Pete's heavy sound, his Atom Beat. Then there was the Decca audition, where a studio tea-boy named Mike Savage said, completely out of turn given his nothing-status in the studio, that if they were to sign The Beatles they would get a session drummer. Well, the producer, Mike Smith, had nothing bad to say about Pete's drumming, and his voice was the only one that mattered. The Beatles not getting signed had nothing to do with Pete, but rather that Mike's boss, Dick Rowe, infamously passed on them predicting, "Guitar groups are on their way out." And then there's Pete's June 6th, 1962 recording session. We have two songs from that day, one take per song. Pete did a fine job on , "Besame Mucho", and a terrible job on, "Love Me Do". Unfortunately, it was the latter song that was being considered by George Martin as The Beatles' first single. And yes, Martin was not impressed with Pete's recording of the song. The thing is, Martin later told Epstein that there's no reason Pete shouldn't remain The Beatles drummer, but he's not polished enough for the studio and he was going to get a session drummer to do the recording. This was no big deal to Martin, as the use of session drummers was very common in that era. Martin said he was shocked when he found out that Pete had been sacked, as he'd deemed him to be the most marketable of the bunch.
But this certainly begs the question, *why* did Pete struggle with, "Love Me Do", on that day, when he'd been playing it over and over again in the clubs?? Was it nerves? No, because he nailed, "Besame Mucho", earlier in the recording session. Well, what Ringo Apologists--including that jerk over at Pop Goes The '60s--won't tell you is that George Martin *changed* the song's arrangement on the spot, to one that the boys weren't accustomed to playing. Paul struggled mightily with the vocals, and was not happy about the change. And Pete was told by Martin to ditch his skip-beat, which he'd convinced Paul and John long ago in the clubs was a better beat as it livened up the song. Paul and John had agreed Pete's skip-beat made the song better, and it had been a big hit for them in the clubs. But on this day Martin didn't like it, and he was calling the shots in his studio. EMI engineer, Norman Smith, said of Pete's performance on the song and the new arrangement Martin was requesting, *"The problem wasn't with how he was playing, but rather with what he was being asked to play."*
So, as you can see, *context* is everything. And the lies being propagated by Ringo Apologists become totally transparent when the context is known. Look, I'm not guaranteeing that had Pete not been ambushed that day that Martin would've approved of him for the record. Pete was inexperienced in the studio, and his style was tailored to the clubs and halls. And as David has told us, producers like Martin were simply just more comfortable using pro session drummers they were familiar with, and could trust to bang out a solid recording in the little time booked in the studio on any given day. But what we do know is that with some more experience in the studio, Pete had all the polish he needed. Because soon after being "sacked" by The Beatles, Pete got his own band, Pete Best & The All Stars, and they were promptly signed by Decca. No session drummers required.
3) Ringo was also inexperienced in the studio, and his September 4th recording of, "Love Me Do", was also rejected by George Martin, with Macca agreeing that Ringo's timing was not good enough. But of course, just like Pete, Ringo polished his studio game in time, and adequately to brilliantly (depending on who you ask) did most of The Beatles recordings during their 8-year pro career.
4) No, JP&G did *not* panic when they found out Martin wanted to use a studio drummer for the recording. They were savvy lads, who knew damn well that session musicians were routinely used on albums, but that they did not take the place of the band member for every other purpose, including live performances. Epstein knew this as well, as Martin made it clear to him that there was no reason Pete couldn't remain The Beatles drummer, but that he'd be providing the drummer in the studio. No, JP&G *used Martin's rejection of Pete's recording as a pretext* to replace Pete with Ringo. Martin's rejection gave them the cover they thought they needed to pull off the betrayal. The real question is, would they have had the nerve to dump Pete had Martin found Pete's drumming recording-worthy? I think they would have. I think they had made up their minds *before* that fateful June 6th trip to EMI, that they wanted Ringo instead of Pete. But they were waiting 'til they had a recording contract in their hands to wave in Ringo's face, to finally convince him to abandon his plans and do the dirty on Pete. As Chris Curtis, drummer for The Searchers, said in the quote I provided above, The Beatles didn't hate Pete Best, but they didn't want to be outshone by their drummer--and while Ringo was a good drummer, he was more ordinary. During Pete's final half year with the band, the fans in Liverpool were making their own posters and flyers and putting them up all over the city, promoting the band. You'd think JP&G would love that, right?? Well, they hated it. Because the fan-made signs read: *"Come to The Cavern to see PETE BEST & THE BEATLES!".* No dude, there was no panic--JP&G were *thrilled* Martin had provided them with the cover they felt they needed to do the deed (or have Eppy do it for them, the cowards).
5) The problem with Pete getting 25% is that soon after he was tricked into leaving and taking a job with another band, the old partnership was thereby dissolved. And at that point, The Beatles hadn't made any substantial money. I don't know the exact timing of all this, but I'm sure David will fill us in with some of those details. I would think the only legal angle to take, then or now (if still possible), would be that they tricked him into leaving, and that deprived him of realizing the fruits of his 2 years of labor, that would've paid off handsomely over the years with the EMI contract that was already in place *while* he was still 1/4 of the The Beatles partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-KramerWhile much of what you say is probably close to the truth, I much prefer David's approach, where he avoids rancour based on assumptions. He is scrupulously fair about what we know and don't know, doesn't take sides, and makes a sober and reasoned assessment avoiding emotional outbursts. While emotions undoubtedly play a major role in human activity, they are not a good basis for accurate history. Too many people are eager to scapegoat someone as the bad guy, in order to justify their adopted position, when in reality everyone involved was almost certainly just acting in their own interests. Pete Best certainly seems less bitter than you do about the situation, and of course he did eventually get substantial payment for his work with the Beatles, something surely worth acknowledging?
Your claim about "fan made signs" reading "Come to The Cavern to see PETE BEST & THE BEATLES!" is interesting if true. Is there any surviving evidence of this? Were they the only fan made signs, because I have read that each Beatle had their own set of fans. If the signs you mention were merely one faction, then their significance is surely far less than you suggest?
@@mustafa1name I like David, so I'm reluctant to say the following, but since you've attacked me by way of comparison with him, I will go ahead and say it. David is not without bias, and he has made wild assumptions in his videos on this whole Pete/Ringo subject matter. For instance, David makes the assumption that Pete would've *only* been good on The Beatles first three albums, but that after that he'd have been out of his element. To which I say, how the heck do you know? NO ONE knows the answer to that hypothetical. The arrogance and bias needed to suggest that Pete's skills and style would not have evolved as Ringo's did is astonishing, really. Now, I don't crucify David over it--in fact, I've not even brought it up 'til just now. He's human, and entitled to his opinions and prejudices. But don't *you* try to tell me that he doesn't make assumptions and instead bases everything he says on verifiable facts, because that's simply not the case.
Your ad hominem attack that I'm "more bitter than Pete Best is" on this subject is absurd and offensive. He lived it, he attempted suicide over it, he's had his whole life to process it. I'm a RUclips commenter. He and I are apples and oranges.
Your ignorance on the matter of the fan-made signs tells me you know nothing of what really went on during Pete's two years as a Beatle, and the true reasons he was "sacked". That the band was becoming known in Liverpool as, *Pete Best & The Beatles,* is just one source of the jealousy JP&G had for Pete. And no, there is no evidence of any fans referring to the band as, John Lennon & The Beatles, or, Paul McCartney & The Beatles, or, George Harrison & The Beatles. Obviously those lads had their fans. But Pete's fan base was far and away the largest of anyone in the group. The girls ran past the others to swarm around Pete after the shows. This happened on Day 1 in Hamburg, causing Allan Williams (their manager) to say to himself, *"Well, he's not going to last long",* as he watched all the girls run right past Paul to get to Pete. Paul was so jealous of Pete's female attention that he had his father rip Pete a new one in front of the whole band and travel crew for not "sharing the girls" with the other lads, in an embarrassing spectacle of parental overprotection and Paul being a Daddy's boy. The girls slept in Pete's garden, just hoping for a chance to meet him. But let me do it this way, I'm gonna break down the Beatles 6 lineups for you and show you the various social dynamics in each lineup, and the jealousies that uniquely surrounded Pete and his immense popularity.
Pete's *"Atom Beat"* DEFINED The Beatles' sound, and was copied by every drummer (including Ringo) in Hamburg and Liverpool. Pete was betrayed by John, Paul, George, and yes, Ringo. Here are the social dynamics over the course of the band's 6 lineups, and the actual reasons why Pete was sacked:
*John and Paul:* everything's honky-dory, two peas in a pod
*John, Paul, and George:* two's company and three's a crowd--George feels like that third wheel
*John, Stuart, Paul, and George:* John and Stu are best mates, Paul is jealous (which he's admitted), and George feels better now that he has Paul
*John, Stuart, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's still jealous of Stu, but now he's not "the cute one" anymore, and becomes jealous of Pete for getting all the girls.
*John, Paul, George, and Pete:* Paul's thrilled that Stu is gone and he has John back, dorky young George feels left out again because he lost Paul and Pete was unavailable as he was always surrounded by girls after gigs. George knew he was the 4th Beatle, and didn't like it. He was ignored socially by John and Paul, and dismissed as a songwriter by them. That left Pete as his only potential pal, but Pete was not about to pass up the hottest young tail in two cities to hang out with the young dork George talking about his guitar all night. John by at least this time, is jealous of Pete because he is fast becoming the face of the band--the band that JOHN created! They get a record deal, and make the cover of the Merseybeat! But guess whose picture is featured. Pete Best. Other articles on the band highlighted Pete's, *"mean, moody, magnificence",* and never even mentioned the names of the other 3 lads. The managers at the Cavern Club instructed John, Paul, and George to SIT on the front of the stage, so as to not block the fans' views of Pete! They even moved Pete's kit to the front of the stage, forcing the other 3 to play behind him! In Liverpool, the band was becoming known as, *Pete Best & The Beatles!!* with fan-made posters and flyers showing up all over the city promoting the band as such! And you're trying to tell me that John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison were OKAY with all that??!! Awww HELLS NAW!!! Pete was a dead man walking for most, if not all, of two years. They USED and BETRAYED him.
*John, Paul, George, and Ringo:* Ahhh, harmony (no pun intended). The petty jealousies vanished. John and Paul had each other, and George had his little dorky buddy to hang out with. Ringo posed no threat to Paul for the affections of the ladies, and Ringo posed no threat to John to become the face of his band. Epstein knew Ringo was the same caliber drummer as Pete, and even though that's who the lads wanted, he was afraid that Ringo would underwhelm Martin in the studio just as Pete had (and he was right--Martin rejected Ringo's version, the same as he had rejected Pete's). And because John, Paul, and George made it clear in their pitch to Epstein to bring in Ringo, that they did not want any session musicians on their recordings, Epstein, without telling the lads, and armed with a record deal in his pocket, invited Johnny "Hutch" Hutchinson, the best drummer in Liverpool, to take Pete's place in the band. Hutch said, *"Pete and I are mates. I won't do the dirty on him."* So, Ringo was in and Pete was out. The thing is, Ringo and Pete were also mates, which speaks volumes about the characters of Hutch and Ringo.
Pete Best was an incredible Beatle during his 2 years--the most popular in the band, by far. And he would've been an incredible Beatle had he remained with the band throughout their 8 professional years together. The betrayal and sacking of Pete is a hideous, indelible stain on The Beatles' legacy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@Cosmo-Kramer
▪ _"did The Beatles, a partnership that Pete was 1/4th of, have a contract with EMI when he was sacked, or more accurately, tricked into believing he was sacked?"_
When Pete was tricked into leaving _The Beatles,_ he clearly had 1/4 of a contract with EMI.
▪ Yes, new light on Martin changing the arrangement of Love Me Do on the first session.
▪ Dick Rowe at DECCA preferred Brian Poole as he was London Based. They saved on hotel and travel costs when recording. That is why mainly London based artists were spattering the charts - they lived near the studios. All studios were in the London area. Also Brian Poole and the Tremolos had just bought new shiny kit at great expense, while _The Beatles_ were using battered and abused amps. BTW, the DECCA studios were just off West End Lane which is the continuation of Abbey Rd. Also the BBC's Maida Vale studios were not far away. St.John's Wood (EMI), West Hampstead (DECCA) and Maida Vale (BBC) are adjacent districts. RAK (Micky Most's studios) also set up in St.John's Wood.
▪ _"No, JP&G used Martin's rejection of Pete's recording as a pretext to replace Pete with Ringo."_
Ringo was *4th* choice. Ringo was not a drummer they craved over for sure, thinking he was the final piece in the jigsaw, in drumming ability and personality
▪It took JP&G, over *two months* to reject Pete.
▪If what you say is correct, in that JP&G knew that using sessions drummers was the norm, then that casts new light on it. Yes, did they think it would be three guys in the shadow of the drummer?
▪ _"they tricked him into leaving, and that deprived him of realizing the fruits of his 2 years of labor, that would've paid off handsomely over the years with the EMI contract that was already in place while he was still 1/4 of the The Beatles partnership."_
That is a solid legal reason to sue for substantial payment. Also for two years Pete aided in moulding the band.
@@johnburns4017
* Yes, Pete had 1/4 of the EMI contract when he was tricked into leaving. But since that partnership was dissolved when Pete joined another band, that would end his rights to any monies arising out of that Beatles contract. Hopefully David will tell us when exactly Pete took that other job, so we can know what he was entitled to from The Beatles. In other words, had their debut single, "Love Me Do", come out before or after Pete joined Lee Curtis & The All Stars? I suspect the single came out after, and that a new partnership had been drawn up and signed with Ringo in the band. In which case, there really wouldn't be any money for Pete. *Unless* an argument was made that he was tricked into quitting and would not have done so, therefore he could've enjoyed the fruits of his 2 years of labor helping get The Beatles the EMI contract, and therefore he's entitled to his share of ALL monies that The Beatles earned during their 8 pro years. I don't know the answer, it's beyond my pay grade.
* Not "new light" on Martin changing the, "Love Me Do", arrangement at Pete's session, but rather *IGNORED LIGHT* -- ignored by the Ringo Apologists libeling and slandering Pete every way they can, in a transparent attempt to justify the dumping of Pete for Ringo.
* Yes, Rowe did prefer the other band based on their location. But the reason he gave Eppy was his infamous statement, "Guitar acts are on the way out.". (Of course, Decca largely made up for their foolish pass on The Beatles by signing The Rolling Stones to their first contract.)
* It's true that others besides Hutch were asked to take Pete's place, including Ritchie Galvin. But none, other than Ringo, wanted to do the dirty on Pete. Ritchie Galvin's girlfriend, Ann Upton, recalled it thusly: *"Brian Epstein asked Ritch about joining The Beatles. Ritch said that he didn’t agree with Pete being replaced, and turned down the offer. I was quite surprised when they chose Ringo. He was little and skinny and weedy and had a joke of a moustache. I always thought he needed a good scrub."*
But here's the thing you're missing, John. Ringo was indeed the 4th choice to replace Pete. But *who's* 4th choice?? Not JP&G's 4th choice! No, no, no, no...Ringo was their 1st and *only* choice. Epstein did not have their blessing when he offered the job to Galvin and Hutch, etc. That was Eppy going rogue. He went rogue because the reason JP&G gave to him for wanting Pete out and Ringo in was because of Martin's decision to not use Pete on the recording. They did *not* fess us to all their jealousies. Nor could they with a straight face say that Pete was a drag on the band, because they knew that Eppy knew as well as anyone that Pete was the band's *number 1* draw! Eppy would've laughed in their faces if they'd tried that BS excuse. No, JP&G were too street-smart for that. They knew that the *only* marginally defensible reason for getting rid of Pete would be an insistence that they each play on their own records. So *that* was the reason they gave Eppy. And they touted Ringo as being "a pro", assuring Eppy that Martin would accept his recording.
But Eppy knew better. Eppy knew that Pete was every bit as good a drummer as Ringo, if not better. And while Eppy disagreed with Martin's assessment of Pete's drumming, he figured if he's going to be that critical of Pete's drumming, he's going to reject Ringo's drumming, as well. (Which, of course, is exactly what happened.) So, given that the sole reason JP&G gave Eppy for the swap was based on drumming ability, and given that Eppy knew Ringo was no better than Pete, he offered the job to a few other standout drummers in Liverpool, whom he figured would have the best chance to pass muster with Martin's hypercritical ears. But they each were men of character, and saw the injustice of the sacking. Well, except of course Ringo, who had no qualms about betraying Pete. Ringo and Pete were good mates. As fellow drummers the two of them would hang out together in Hamburg, going sightseeing, taking in movies, and clanking pints into the wee hours of the morning. What Ringo did to Pete was despicable.
* Yes, once JP&G had the pretext, courtesy of George Martin, they needed to trick Pete into leaving, it did take two months to do it. Why did they wait? A couple reasons. One, Eppy needed time with his lawyer to figure it all out legally. And two, Pete's mom, Mona Best, had arranged The Beatles very first television appearance, to be filmed at The Cavern, on August 22nd. JP&G did not want to dump Pete until the last minute, so that Mona would not have time to cancel the TV crew coming out. Can you believe *the effing NERVE of those three?!* Unreal. smfh
* JP&G and Eppy all knew that session musicians were routinely used by recording artists. And yes, JP&G *dId* think they'd each be in the shadow of their drummer had they kept Pete. Why?? Because they already WERE in the shadow of their drummer, and had been in Pete's shadow since he first joined the band! The fans and media alike treated Pete as the star, the main attraction. George didn't like Pete, hated being the 4th Beatle. Paul didn't get on with Pete because he was insanely jealous that Pete got all the girls. John actually did like Pete, and the two of them spent a lot of time hanging out together, in the clubs, but also at Pete's mansion on Haymans Green. John loved going over there to hang out, and the two got close. But in the end, George and Paul were able to convince John to betray Pete. It took quite a bit of doing, because it was John's band, and he took a great deal of pride in Pete, both for his dynamic drumming, and also for the huge draw he brought to The Beatles. Unfortunately, Pete's fans went a bridge too far when they began referring to the band as, Pete Best & The Beatles--not just verbally, but on posters and flyers all over Liverpool. That happened during Pete's last several months, and it was too much for John to accept. This was HIS band, founded FIVE years earlier. He was the songwriter (well, one of two), he was the singer (well, one of two), and he was gonna be damned if he was gonna watch his band hit it bigtime with his *drummer* as the main attraction! Pete, about as humble as a bloke can be, never promoted himself. But he was a victim of his own popularity nonetheless, a victim of the over-zealousness of his huge fanbase.
* You're probably right, but according to David, Pete took one crack at suing them, and his lawyer botched it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8:23 also because there was no Love Me Do tape saved. Whatever version was re-released was extracted from a 45rpm, not the reel tape.
Yes, for Ringo's version.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Oh! I see. I thought both versions got lost.
@SeltaebEht No, they physically destroyed the master of Ringo's version, but kept the Andy White version so they couldn't make the same mistake again! Funny twist.
Yeah Ringo's drum has a different sound and just goes naturally with the Beatles so as George's guitar playing.
Thanks. This is what I got from listening to George Martin on the reason for using Andy White. So many people got this story wrong. Martin didn't care how The Beatles used Pete Best on stage or in clubs, he just didn't want him for recordings because he couldn't keep time very well. John, Paul and George Harrison sacked Pete Best.
👍
My question has probably been answered elsewhere on you tube land, but Dr Mr White receive basic scale payment for the LMD session? Would he have pursued back royalties once the Beatles became the phenomenon they were? Would he have been entitled to any?
Great Channel.
Quin
Thanks for a great question. Session drummers were paid as hired help for a fixed fee, with no entitlement to royalties from the songs they played on. Shame, but that was the business. It is also the reason George Martin left EMI because he was on a fixed salary only with no extras for all the work he put into the Beatles songs.
Glad you're enjoying the channel too. Thank you.
Aside from Ringo's tambourine, I find the 2nd version better due to McCartney's vocal which sounds a bit awkward on the 9/4 version but confident on the 9/11 version when everyone else fdrops out & Paul sings "Love Me Do-O!"
I agree, good point.
I have a theory about why Ringo's version of LMD was released as a single instead of Andy White's version. I don't believe for a moment that it was a mistake on the part of EMI. I believe that after the 11 September session, Ringo pitched a hissy fit with Brian Epstein, demanding that HIS version of LMD be released...or else he would quit the group, since there would obviously be no need for him in the studio henceforth. I believe that Epstein and the other Beatles agreed to his demand, if only to avoid losing another drummer.
Now, you might ask why would EMI agree to release an inferior version of LMD (Ringo's) when they clearly had a superior version (Andy White's). To answer that question, you must remember that at that moment in time, the Beatles were little more than a garage band as far as EMI was concerned. They had only been signed to EMI on sufferance. (Read Mark Lewisohn.) George Martin was, by his own admission, singularly unimpressed by LMD -- and by them -- at that moment in time. He didn't expect LMD to sell many copies regardless of which version was released. So if this cheeky, upstart band from Liverpool wanted to release an inferior version of their first recording, who was he to object? After LMD failed, he probably reasoned, they would be allowed only one more failed single before their contract could be canceled and he wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. That's my theory.
Hi David, an interesting theory but I don't think it can be true. The main reason is that even 40-50 years later, Ringo was convinced that he never played on the first single and has always said so. I think error is the most likely answer.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Andy White knew who played on what, by just listening. He is on Utube explaining who played on what release. Andy used German Ludwig drums, while Ringo used British Premier. The sound is different, by drum sets and mainly style.
When Ringo had enough money he bought a full Ludwig set, influenced by Andy.
Lacklustre Love Me Do was the best of _The Beatles_ compositions at that time. They did not want to record covers or other's compositions. Hence rejecting sure-fire hit, How Do You Do.
Please Please Me was not fully developed at that point, so EMIs focus was on the first track that attracted them, Love Me Do.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool So you're saying Ringo has claimed for the past 40-50 years that Andy White played drums on the U.K. Parlophone single of LMD released in 1962. I have never heard of him saying that. Is there a sourced quote or video somewhere where he says that?
It was probably the harmonica that did it, because the record that brought the Beatles to Brian's attention in the Cavern and had put on acetate at Ardmore & Beechwood was Hello Little Girl. They also had Ask Me Why ready too, both of which I think are superior original songs.
Sixty years ago today
What was the course of events? When did Peter Best get fired? As I understand he had already gone by the time Brian signed up the band? But in the Anthology, didn't George Martin say that ....
...after hearing a demo...or giving them an audition....that Pete Best had to be replaced? So....did Peter play on the demo tape and/or at the audition? Did George.tell Brian that he had to fire Pete before they did their first EMI session? Presumably, Brian could not have "fired" anyone.until he had signed them to the contract?
Great questions, thank you. Hopefully all answered in this video ruclips.net/video/PZN0RxYt05E/видео.html but if not, feel free to ask any questions. Main points - Pete was drummer when Brian became manager, Brian didn't sign the first contract, Pete was on the Parlophone audition, George Martin never said to fire Pete, just that he would use a session drummer, and finally, Brian couldn't fire Pete or any others of the Beatles as he didn't employ them! Enjoy.
Is the White version of Please Please Me available on you tube for a listen?
your page is my channel for anything Beatles mate,,
Thank you
David - I have a question: when did the Beatles 'dropped T' logo come into play? I've just done a quick search, and it seems this was 1963. And yet it appears in the late '62 video for 'Love Me Do'. Is this CGI trickery? I'm a bit stumped.
Which video for Love Me Do? Can you show me a link, so I can check it out? My first assumption is that the video was made much later than the record coming out on 62.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Attached is the link. Going by the audience reaction, perhaps this was indeed '63? It's the well-worn video where Eppy is in the shop and the record is on the turntable at certain points, so that may well have been filmed later, when the fuss started happening. However, the boys look very young so the actual mimed performance looks like it was late '62. (Then again, Ringo's teddy-boy quiff is gone so perhaps that's a clue that it's '63?) ruclips.net/video/0JWl_wUOQc4/видео.html
When they interviewed Ringo for "Anthology", he said "it's not that Andy White was doing anything so great...it certainly wasn't so great that I couldn't copy it". And he did to a tee on the album version.
But the thing about that song, and I like "Love Me Do", so don't get me wrong...but a ten year old could've laid that drumline down. It wasn't Keith Moon type stuff.
Thanks, you are right. It was a straightforward beat and quite a simple song. There was obviously just something that Ron Richards heard in Ringo's version that wasn't quite good enough for him.
The only recorded version released after the UK single was released, including on albums, was Andy White's. The only time Ringo would play it again would be live.
Who played drums on Dear Prudence ?
That was Paul, Ringo had quit when it came to record it.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I think that it was BOTH Paul and Ringo - different sections.
@Allen F Ringo wasn't involved on that record, just the other three Beatles. The 3 also played on Back in the USSR, with Paul mainly drumming but John and George adding some drumwork too. Ringo had quit and was away for 2 weeks.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool The only thing about it David, was the playing changes on the outro with the fills and even though the miking is strange, it so much sounds like the Ringo snare on that outro section. All of the knowledgeable experts to point to the timing of the sessions, and you are right, Ringo had left for two weeks. It just sounds like two different drummers but then again, Macca could play. No debate with you of course. BIG respect always. It just sounds like different players. Keep up the shows and the awesome work that you do.
@@allenf.5907 I spoke to a record producer called Steve Levine who has worked with some huge stars. We discussed this and his take was that the reason it sounds different is that, while Paul is a good drummer, he isn't Ringo, and he hears the differences as different takes of the song being recorded at different times and used in the final mix. That made sense to me. Same with Back in the USSR. So I reckon you have heard what he heard - I didnt till he pointed it out! Shows that they still needed Ringo!! There is always something new to learn, which is why we love it!! Keeps us going doesn't it?? 😁
Well, then was it Andy White who actually played on Please Please Me or Ringo. I'm thinking it was Andy.It's a completely different style of playing. I also want to know who played on Long Tall Sally cos it doesn't sound at all like Ringo's fill ins...far too even and slick as well as the fills back into the verses. The sound of the snare is much higher than Ringo's normally tuned snare drum...if he ever really tuned his drums to any level of tonal accuracy. Ringo never played like this again and should have if he was capable of playing that good.. Plus the Ride cymbal stick rhythm is much more developed than what Ringo would have played. It was very cleanly defined and articulated....something he rarely sounded like except on Baby's In Black where his Ride Cymbal work is impeccable. Usually he would play a crash ride sound on most songs instead of a "ping " sound on the Ride Cymbal.
Hi Scott, you've asked some great questions there.
When I interviewed Andy White, he did a version of Please Please Me on 11th September and he is convinced that is was his version that was released. He said it sounded like his kit, not Ringo's. However, EMI records show that Ringo recorded a version in November that was released by The Beatles. However, I think he copied Andy White's drumming for the recording.
I have never heard anyone question Long Tall Sally, so I will go and take another listen to it, and talk to some drummer friends of mine too. Thanks for your analysis, that is really interesting.
..... and, in the end....
The Love me do you take, is equal????
Heard there was 4 drummers used on Beatles recordings and Ringo wasn’t one of them. Andy white being one and the soul drummer Purdie from the states said he drummed on 21 records of the Beatles he was Aretha Franklin’s drummer for 30 years He can be heard live on you tube saying this and he was paid a lot of money and his life threatened to keep it all quiete
My book, Finding the Fourth Beatle, details 23 drummers who played with the Quarrymen/ Beatles. Andy White did play on Love Me Do and PS I LOVE YOU. However, Bernard Purdie was NOT one of them. He retracted his statement when he published his autobiography. What we reckon is he was asked to add a drum kit to the Tony Sheridan recordings. That is all.
A fun story!
They should switch manager
Ha ha!
Andy White's version is excellent as well as Ringo. No need to explain how or why they play the way they do. Pete Best plays it diiferently and uses fills and different drumming patterns. It seems he is trying to create a more interesting drum pattern by making the plain song more exciting. But he certainly keeps time. He could have been told to play it straight and not to be too fancy. This might have made the difference between continuing or ending. Was he ever told to change his drum pattern? I have heard Pete Best in other songs and he seems more than adequate. Personally I like good drumming but not where it over shadows the song, but instead compliments it.
Some excellent observations, thank you. Some people try to suggest that Pete Best came up with the different rhythm, as if John, Paul, and George had nothing to dk with it. The song was quite plain and dull. They obviously all decided to make this change, but it was a recent change, and so they hadn't rehearsed it very much. It would enlived the song, which I think is plain.
Pete was a decent drummer and shouldn't be judged on this one performance.
Thanks. David
I don't agree that they didn't think that Ringo didn't have time. He has great time. Just ask Joe Walsh who said that Ringo was a human metronome.
Don't forget that George Martin and Paul McCartney were talking about Ringo in September 1962, as opposed to the drummer Ringo became by the 1970s? With a few months in the studio, by the time the album Please Please Me was recorded, he had adapted to the studio and soon became so reliable. But like all musicians entering the studio, they are used to playing live where timing fluctuates naturally. That's why Andy White was brought in at the start.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool He didn't just become a drummer with time. He spent two backbreaking years playing in Hamburg and by the time he recorded with the Beatles, he had it down. You either have time, or you don't.
Agreed. And when playing to screeming fans and they couldn't hear themselves they were completely reliant on Ringo's absolute ability to keep time and rhythm-and he couldn't hear them either.
Look at any of the old footage and note how many times all three turn to check with Ringo.
Andy White was a professional studio session drummer and went on to have a very successful career teaching drumming in Canada and taught some big names.
Andy was the first to admit he coukd never have done what Ringo did effortlessly with The Beatles because he qas not a live concert musician.
Frankly the story is old, unnecessary but a little bit interesting ~ if only because it is immaterial.
No human drummer is a metronome. It’s just hyperbole. I’ve worked with Beatles digital stems and can tell you that Ringo’s tempos wander. (You can actually measure this in milliseconds.) But he’s still one of the best drummers. George Martin describes Ringo’s skill perfectly:
‘Although George Martin wasn't initially impressed with Ringo's drumming, he grew to appreciate his style. They soon became good friends and the producer would replace him only one more time by a session drummer - Bobby Graham. "Ringo always got, and still gets, a unique sound out of his drums, a sound as distinctive as his voice," Martin said. “Ringo gets a looser deeper sound out of his drums that is unique. This detailed attention to the tone of his drums is one of the reasons for Ringo's brilliance. Another is that although Ringo does not keep time with a metronome accuracy, he has an unrivaled feel for a song. If his timing fluctuates, it invariably does so in the right place at the right time, keeping the right atmosphere going on the track and giving it a rock-solid foundation. This held true for every single Beatles number Richy played.”’
Finding The Fourth Beatle: The 23 drummers who put the beat behind the Fab Three, by David Bedford、 Garry Popper
The reason that I know of. Is that Pete's drumming was not spot on with John and Paul's vocals and George's guitar playing. Also Pete's drumming was not spot on with John's harmonica
I think that is what Ron Richards thought, which is why he recommended to George Martin that they should use a session drummer.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool who's Ron Richards
Ron Richards was the producer at Parlophone. George Martin was A&R (Artists and Repertoire) but not a day to day producer sat at the mixing desk. It was Richards who made the recommendation to George Martin about Pete and, on 4th September, about Ringo.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool oh ok. Thnaks for the information
Andy's version isn't very good. Actually, it's terrible.
I disagree. I think it's the best version.
What about it do you think is terrible? Are you saying Andy White or the whole production? Or do you not like the song?
Are you Pete Best writing under a pseudonym?
hahaaa stop grovelling to ringo
@hedgefundshyster..3241 LOL
I can't believe what you said in this video, that Ringo is not on the album version of Love Me Do.
I don't think I have ever heard the single version, though.
But I remember that Ringo was asked in one of the early interviews whether he was on the "record", and he answers "yes, I'm on the record".
But was he, really?
To me, having some Andy White on the album version of that song, is a bit of a nuisance.
Ringo, accidentally, ended up on the UK single when the first version was released. The master tape was destroyed in 63. From the album onwards, it was only Andy White's version that was released. It is a brighter, slightly faster and more regular version than Ringo's, though Ringo playing the tambourine does help it too.