DM's Beatles forums
Solo forums => Fifth Beatles and the Merseybeat Scene => Topic started by: Loco Mo on November 19, 2018, 11:33:28 PM
-
Why didn't the fans complain? I never heard or read of any fan complaining about Pete's drumming.
Also, Pete was told to play loud in Hamburg in order to keep the drinkers awake so that they would continue drinking. So he was used to playing a certain way which was primarily 4 to the bar.
Pete probably needed some time to adapt to the studio environment.
-
Pete wasnt a very good drummer, that is obvious if you listen to recordings with him in the band, he was good enough for Hamburg as most drunk people wouldnt even notice, but once he was asked to record he was found out.
e.g. His version of Love Me Do, the drumming isnt great, ine the refrain its all over the place, I can see why they needed to change him.
-
It’s a fair question Loco. The Beatles became a feted live band with Pete drumming. From what I’ve read and heard Pete was fine for straight ahead rock in a bar situation where precision was secondary. He played very hard and loud which no doubt suited the band at the time. But he wasn’t a great timekeeper and lacked variety in his beats and fills. That wasn’t going to cut it as the Beatles songwriting and styles developed.
He did play in studios later in with other bands. I haven’t heard that he improved that much though.
-
It didn’t hurt that the girls all swooned over him. ;D
-
All I can say is that Pete was the Best of the Beatles and that's all I have to say!
-
So no one has answered my question. Why not?
-
Just to clarify: My original question was why the fans didn't think Pete was a bad drummer. If he was, they'd have complained, right? Something like "Hey Beatles, Pete keeps missing beats or he's not playing in time, etc."
And I've never read any fan making such a comment. Musicians, however, are all too willing to diss Pete to the max!
-
I think Loco, as Nimrod and I alluded to, people’s expectations in a bar are a lot different to listening to a record or in a formal concert. For the bar situation playing fast loud rock Pete was probably fine. I don’t think anyone suggests he was totally incompetent. But as they went up the ladder into recording and more formal settings his skills didn’t match the demands.
-
I wonder what would have happened if Brian Epstein chickened out at the last minute and didn't fire Pete. What would the Beatles have done then?
-
I wonder what would have happened if Brian Epstein chickened out at the last minute and didn't fire Pete. What would the Beatles have done then?
Well, to start with, George Martin would have used a session drummer on every recording.
-
I generally like "what-ifs" - lots of times it would be to imagine something that could have gone better, I don't believe this is the case with this one. Whether Pete was a good enough drummer or not isn't the point. The explosion of Beatlemania was in large part due to the personalities of the four of them. Ringo's mix with the others was seemingly perfect and drove the group to great popularity. Revisionist history is tough, I just can't envision their legacy as "John, Paul, George and Pete!" But, had we never heard of a dude named Ringo we would never have been any wiser.
I'm not a drummer, but reading people on here that have knowledge and grounded opinions about drummer I am thrilled that Ringo was deemed "perfect" and also extremely good but not in "technical/speed ways" (think Neil Peart) like many people like to access drummers. Again, I'm not a drummer and am pleased when drummers point out something he does in a song that is "different" than how many drummers would approach a song.
-
What were the fans going to complain about? Loud bar, drunk off their asses, and a loud band playing with a drummer that hit hard. If he could keep a beat he was ok in that scenario. Its when he needed to go into a studio setting or a situation where he had to play technical and dynamically that the warts appear. Pete wasn't horrible, but he wasnt that great either. Anyways, I doubt many fans at that time were interested in judging the band by how technically good they were. They were just happy that the sound was fresh and they could move to it.
-
I need to clarify my question. What I was asking was: If Brian didn't fire Pete, who would have? I don't think the Beatles would have kept Pete just because Brian was too scared to fire him.
So who would they have designated to the firing? One of the Beatles? George Martin? Neil Aspinall? Ringo?
-
I need to clarify my question. What I was asking was: If Brian didn't fire Pete, who would have? I don't think the Beatles would have kept Pete just because Brian was too scared to fire him.
So who would they have designated to the firing? One of the Beatles? George Martin? Neil Aspinall? Ringo?
John. No doubt about it.
-
zipp: I tend to think John, too. But who knows? Didn't Brian have an assistant who could have done it? I think he did but I can't remember his name and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
-
John. No doubt about it.
Im really surprised John didnt take the opportunity to fire Pete. The way he publicly stated in the 70's what a lousy drummer Pete was you'd have thought he wouldve jumped at the chance to get rid.
-
John or Paul would have eventually. Neither were going to let anything stand in their way.
-
Okay, Alistair Taylor was Brian Epstein's assistant. He could have been asked to do the firing. However, that would have been very cold IMO.
I also tend to think Paul more suitable for the firing than John. Paul seemed more like a businessman overall. Look at how he tried to replace Brian as manager after Brian passed.
Even though the Beatles were not yet famous, it had to hurt really hard to be canned from the group. Pete was used to all the adulation from the fans (pretty girls). To go from that to just being another bloke ...
-
I also tend to think Paul more suitable for the firing than John. Paul seemed more like a businessman overall. Look at how he tried to replace Brian as manager after Brian passed.
Paul would have been the best answer. He and Pete were the least closest in the band.
-
tkitna:
Paul would have been the best answer.
I concur! I will say this. I think it made sense for the Beatles to have Brian fire Pete. Brian was their manager so they would have seen that as his role.
Many years ago when I used to be a drummer in a few bands, the manager was usually another band member. I think your band would have to be up a notch to justify hiring a manager who was not part of the band. I don't think I've ever known a band like that. Have you?
So, yeah, I'd probably have asked Brian to do it, too. I wouldn't have been any better than they were about it.
And how do you go about firing a guy anyway? What do you say to him? Do you try to play nice? Plus, the guy would probably be really mad and you'd risk getting a hard punch in the face!
-
Okay, Alistair Taylor was Brian Epstein's assistant. He could have been asked to do the firing...
I also tend to think Paul more suitable for the firing than John. Paul seemed more like a businessman overall. Look at how he tried to replace Brian as manager after Brian passed.
"Eventually at the end of July, confirmation of George Martin's plans for a recording session came through. Brian told John and Paul and they told George. But no one told Pete Best.The Beatles had decided their drummer was not up to scratch."
... from Alistair Taylor's book With The Beatles.
So the decision to sack Pete was a group decision.
And it was JOHN's group.
When they signed the contract with Brian, Alistair tells us it was JOHN who accepted first and then the others followed suit. Brian didn't want to fire Best but the others insisted. And when they had to make sure Ringo was available, Brian phoned but JOHN also phoned to make sure Ringo would accept.
For all these reasons I have no doubt at all that JOHN would have sacked Pete if necessary.
-
So the decision to sack Brian was a group decision.
They sacked Brian ?? :o
-
I keep getting sucked into this too long thread about nothing.
-
I keep getting sucked into this too long thread about nothing.
Nothing is real BL.
-
I've spent most of my life thinking about nothing. That's probably why someone like me could go on discussing the sacking of Pete Best forever (without getting bored).
-
Many years ago when I used to be a drummer in a few bands, the manager was usually another band member. I think your band would have to be up a notch to justify hiring a manager who was not part of the band. I don't think I've ever known a band like that. Have you?
I've known a bunch of bands with managers. A friend of mine is the current manager for the band 'Spinning Jenny' right now. They just went to Nashville for some type of TV competition. They aren't my cup of tea, teeny bopper girls, but they can play. Once a band starts gaining serious momentum, its better to have somebody else worry about the specifics I would imagine.
(Spinning Jennys website seems to be screwed up right now or its a firewall issue here at work, but here's a couple videos. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWsRn60fSk# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWsRn60fSk#)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeCRmbLqz6k# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeCRmbLqz6k#)
-
They sacked Brian ?? :o
Sorry. I've now corrrected it. The Beatles did of course decide to sack Pete.
-
You know, I think I finally get it - why they sacked Pete. It's taken me a long time but he just wasn't one of them. Both his drumming and his personality doomed him. He had a conspiracy theory about it that he could never figure out. It was like "why did they really fire me?" "What was the real reason?"
But it's pretty simple really. They accepted him for 2 years until they went into a recording studio. He could play loudly in a bar or some other boisterous environment but in a recording studio - no. He needed to be spot on time wise and he wasn't. He also needed to be a social partner with the Beatles and he wasn't. And when George Martin asked for a session drummer, the Beatles asked for a new drummer.
It's pretty simple, no conspiracy whatsoever. It's Pete being in denial about the "real" reasons as to why they fired him.
-
You know, I think I finally get it - why they sacked Pete. It's taken me a long time but he just wasn't one of them. Both his drumming and his personality doomed him. He had a conspiracy theory about it that he could never figure out. It was like "why did they really fire me?" "What was the real reason?"
But it's pretty simple really. They accepted him for 2 years until they went into a recording studio. He could play loudly in a bar or some other boisterous environment but in a recording studio - no. He needed to be spot on time wise and he wasn't. He also needed to be a social partner with the Beatles and he wasn't. And when George Martin asked for a session drummer, the Beatles asked for a new drummer.
It's pretty simple, no conspiracy whatsoever. It's Pete being in denial about the "real" reasons as to why they fired him.
Good post, l award you a drum roll Loco
-
Thanks, nimrod. Once having been a drummer myself, I really appreciate hearing a drum roll in my honor.
Yes, it wasn't easy for me to accept the standard, albeit correct, explanations for Pete's firing. I sort of bought into the "conspiracy" theory held by Pete. But especially after reading Mark Lewisohns' book, Tune In, Vol I, I realized the reasons for his firing were there from day one. It was a matter of time and that was 2 years. Pete thought the fact they kept him for 2 years meant something more than it did. It didn't. They had a hard time finding qualified and appropriate drummers for their band. There were fill-ins along the way and nobody really seemed to fit - until Ringo.
Pete may never move on if he continues to be in denial about it. If anything, he ought to value the piece of history he experienced. He was in the front row seat with the pre-Fame Beatles. That seems like an honor to me. Not that it was bestowed upon him but was rather awarded him by random chance as per the way the Universe operates. Everyone was lucky to be there in those days.
Too bad there'll probably never be any closure for Pete but at least now there is for me. The book gave me a bird's eye view of the early band with its copious amounts of facts and details. You know, Stu wasn't meant to be a part of the Beatles future either. Reality favors no one, but chance sometimes does.