DM's Beatles forums

Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: Nada Surf on September 28, 2011, 03:55:06 AM

Title: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on September 28, 2011, 03:55:06 AM

In this interview, former Liverpool promoter Sam Leach claims that it was Brian Epstein who wanted Pete Best out so that he could completely remove himself from his mom, Mona, who wanted to be Beatles promoter and was critical of Epstein's homosexuality.

http://www.classicbands.com/SamLeachInterview.html (http://www.classicbands.com/SamLeachInterview.html)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Gary910 on September 29, 2011, 04:57:24 AM
Sam Leach is an upstanding guy. I met him in the mid-90s. Real kind, nice guy.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on September 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I don't believe Mona wanted to be the Beatles promotor. She's the Beatles mum and got them their gigs when the band was almost dead.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on September 30, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Pete Best sacked because of his mom? I doubt it, listen to Petes drumming on Love Me Do........I think they really needed Ringo.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on October 01, 2011, 01:50:09 AM
The Beatles had nothing against Mona. She at least gave them a place to practice and play and Neil Aspinall was even banging her (father to Roag). Like Kevin said, they just needed a better drummer.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on October 07, 2011, 06:03:33 AM
I don't believe Mona wanted to be the Beatles promotor. She's the Beatles mum and got them their gigs when the band was almost dead.
I think it was in Tony Bramwell's Magical Mystery Tours where he claimed that Mona Best despised Epstein and had her heart on becoming their promoter.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on December 31, 2011, 09:35:28 PM
Gary..I also ran into Sam Leach as he's a part-time promoter of American English, a Beatles impersonation band in Chicago...Great guy..I hear he's not doing too well, now, though...

As for Best, Martin, Lennon/McCartney and Harrison have taken credit for dumping Best...Epstein has been thrown into the mix as the main reason he was ousted...I don't know what to think...

There's a new book or documentary out on Best which you have to take with a grain of salt, but I do think it's possible that Best's popularity could still have been the main and sole reason he was ousted...

Also, in Spitz's book, the potential rift between Best and the other three developed when the Quarry Men (John, Paul, George) left the Casbah because they didn't want to pay Ken Brown his share the night Brown sat out -with Mona's blessing- a show yet Mona gave him his share. Spitz asserts that Best held a grudge against them from that point on and never became one of them.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Jazz_Singing_Apple on December 31, 2011, 11:20:29 PM
If Pete was as popular as we're lead to believe, wouldn't sacking him run the risk of professional suicide for the others?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 01, 2012, 12:27:32 AM
Ringo was very popular too.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Jazz_Singing_Apple on January 01, 2012, 05:12:35 AM
True but the way it's touted by some would have you believe that Pete was the main catalyst (and in some cases, sole reason) for The Beatles early success.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 01, 2012, 06:51:14 PM

I don't think the contributions Pete Best and the Best family have ever fully been appreciated.  The Beatles may very well never have made it without them.  But, by the time The Beatles were recording Love Me Do, they weren't needed anymore, so they were dumped.  As for Pete's performance on Love Me Do, he obviously had a bad day struggling with a song they all hadn't fully learned yet.  Ringo had the benefit of 2 more months to get it right.  It shows.  I don't feel just a look at Love Me Do is fair when comparing Pete & Ringo.

As for sacking Pete, I think the change was, in the long term, for the better.  John, Paul & George sure seemed to think so.  Still, why do Beatle fans feel the need to diminish Pete and the years he put into helping the Beatles to become the phenomenon they became.  He deserves his proper due, simply having his existence acknowledged is not enough.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 01, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
Some great replies here..Thanks.
The whole Best scenario is still a bit of a puzzle to me.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 02, 2012, 02:53:20 AM
I don't think the contributions Pete Best and the Best family have ever fully been appreciated.  The Beatles may very well never have made it without them.  But, by the time The Beatles were recording Love Me Do, they weren't needed anymore, so they were dumped.  As for Pete's performance on Love Me Do, he obviously had a bad day struggling with a song they all hadn't fully learned yet.  Ringo had the benefit of 2 more months to get it right.  It shows.  I don't feel just a look at Love Me Do is fair when comparing Pete & Ringo.

As for sacking Pete, I think the change was, in the long term, for the better.  John, Paul & George sure seemed to think so.  Still, why do Beatle fans feel the need to diminish Pete and the years he put into helping the Beatles to become the phenomenon they became.  He deserves his proper due, simply having his existence acknowledged is not enough.

True but its fair to say that pete does enjoy a certain amount of fame and notoriety amongst Beatle fans for his contribution to The Beatles
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesForever on January 02, 2012, 05:53:25 AM
Hi everyone! Was Pete Best sacked because of his mom? In my opinion, it was one of the reasons other than the fact that Pete was just not a good drummer. Pete may have been the best looking out of the four but he lacked the charisma that Ringo possessed that was needed in order to complete THE BEATLES transformation. Take care.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 02, 2012, 06:40:29 AM
Hi everyone! Was Pete Best sacked because of his mom? In my opinion, it was one of the reasons other than the fact that Pete was just not a good drummer. Pete may have been the best looking out of the four but he lacked the charisma that Ringo possessed that was needed in order to complete THE BEATLES transformation. Take care.
This appears to be the standard, robotic reply of all Ringo fans...However, Best's sacking has to go much deeper than this.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesForever on January 02, 2012, 06:45:53 AM
This appears to be the standard, robotic reply of all Ringo fans...However, Best's sacking has to go much deeper than this.

Its not robotic, that was fact! Pete was kind of quiet and introverted as compared to Ringo. I'm sure that Pete's sacking did go much deeper than anything else thats been discussed other than the fact that the other three were jealous that Pete was better looking than all of them. Pete was getting all of the girls during those early years, Pete had a following.   
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 02, 2012, 02:56:38 PM

Pete's never really badmouthed the others except to defend himself.  He even admits to being a fan of the group and to owning their records.

My problem isn't so much that they sacked Pete, but how they did it and how they have treated him for the past 50 years.  I mean, if Pete wanted to take his family to Paul McCartney concert or out to see Ringo & his All Starr band, his money shouldn't be any good.  He should get the royal treatment.  The 2 years he put in should at least count for that.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 02, 2012, 05:12:58 PM
I love it when people say the Beatles wouldn't have made it without Ringo...
With Lennon and McCartney up front and pumping out the hits, the Beatles would have made it with Bobcat Goldthwaite on drums.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 03, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
I love it when people say the Beatles wouldn't have made it without Ringo...
With Lennon and McCartney up front and pumping out the hits, the Beatles would have made it with Bobcat Goldthwaite on drums.

Same can be said for the lead guitar position too.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 04, 2012, 02:25:27 AM
Same can be said for the lead guitar position too.

absolutely
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 04, 2012, 02:37:10 AM
The whole Best scenario is still a bit of a puzzle to me.

To me too.  I don't think we'll ever know the full story.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 04, 2012, 03:32:57 AM
Same can be said for the lead guitar position too.


absolutely


But George's lead guitar style was meant to mesh with John's rhythm guitar.  And it did so perfectly...


Beatles To A Tee 3 clips! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=533yLP45COQ#)

Beatles To A Tee 4 video clips! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZl4BQhsbms#)


The Beatles' strength also lay in their vocals.  George never really had much in the way of extended lead guitar solos while with The Beatles.  None-the-less, he was a very integral part of the group.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 04, 2012, 05:11:32 AM
George was just a cool guy and a boyhood friend and an ordinary guitar player.
He wasn't there to mesh with Lennon's guitar style, since Lennon didn't even have one..
He and Ringo were there to NOT overshadow John or Paul.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 04, 2012, 06:09:24 AM
George and Ringo were there because they were friends and meshed. They were also capable, but needed,,,,no.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 04, 2012, 06:16:14 AM
George was just a cool guy and a boyhood friend and an ordinary guitar player.
He wasn't there to mesh with Lennon's guitar style, since Lennon didn't even have one..
He and Ringo were there to NOT overshadow John or Paul.



What book or books was all that in?



(http://i39.tinypic.com/167ouuh.jpg)

Have you no natural resources of your own? Have they even robbed you of that?




That scene comes to mind when I read what you wrote.  I've read several books on The Beatles but I feel I've read a lot of similar conjecture.  The truth is these were four talented musicians who somehow came together and wrote and played music that has endured in popularity and style for nearly fifty years.

I have studied and play guitar and I know just how gifted John and George were at what they did.  There was considerable style involved, evident in the videos I posted and evident in the catalog of music they created.  I wouldn't call them the best guitarists but they were far better than ordinary.





Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 04, 2012, 06:22:23 AM
George and Ringo were there because they were friends and meshed. They were also capable, but needed,,,,no.

I agree with you, Todd.  But "needed" can be interpreted many ways.  George and Ringo were most capable.  As a band, all four realized their significance.  The result is what we hear in their recordings.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 04, 2012, 09:34:09 AM
I agree with you, Todd.  But "needed" can be interpreted many ways.  George and Ringo were most capable.  As a band, all four realized their significance.  The result is what we hear in their recordings.

I understand what your saying and where your coming from. The four of them together had some magical moments for sure, but lets not pretend it wasnt John and Pauls show here. Those two were the machine while the other two were just cogs that helped it along.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 05, 2012, 06:09:38 PM
C'mon Hello Goodbye..Do I have to have it out of a book to make a comment?
John stated over and over again that he wasn't all that much of a guitar player, but I agree with you that he was well above the norm and, even though I'm a keyboardist, I think John was one helluva rhythm guy from what I can tell...

George was repeatedly removed from lead from Beatle songs (even Taxman, his own) and was probably not even as good as Paul...His twangy guitar tone that he chose post Beatles probably had a lot to do with the fact that he couldn't get a record contract after 1977. (He was a SPECTACULAR songwriter through 69-74 though).

I'd like to romanticize this Beatle thing like everyone else, but I'm of the opinion that Brian Epstein could have replaced George and Ringo with just about any two British boys that could play and looked OK and the Beatles wouldn't have missed a beat once late 63-64 came around...

Being formerly in a band myself, though, I realize it's vastly important to have people you know and can trust in the band, but let's not get out of hand here. Lennon and McCartney's music would have carried them through even if they had Abbott and Costello backing them.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Gary910 on January 05, 2012, 07:34:15 PM
Pete Best was sacked because he did not fit with the band's image. Pete was/is a loner and he was not part of "the gang".

Ringo fit. He was well liked by George, Paul and John, so it became an easy decision.

I think Pete is a good guy and he has a dignity about him these days.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 05, 2012, 08:12:16 PM
C'mon Hello Goodbye..Do I have to have it out of a book to make a comment?
John stated over and over again that he wasn't all that much of a guitar player, but I agree with you that he was well above the norm and, even though I'm a keyboardist, I think John was one helluva rhythm guy from what I can tell...

George was repeatedly removed from lead from Beatle songs (even Taxman, his own) and was probably not even as good as Paul...His twangy guitar tone that he chose post Beatles probably had a lot to do with the fact that he couldn't get a record contract after 1977. (He was a SPECTACULAR songwriter through 69-74 though).

I'd like to romanticize this Beatle thing like everyone else, but I'm of the opinion that Brian Epstein could have replaced George and Ringo with just about any two British boys that could play and looked OK and the Beatles wouldn't have missed a beat once late 63-64 came around...

Being formerly in a band myself, though, I realize it's vastly important to have people you know and can trust in the band, but let's not get out of hand here. Lennon and McCartney's music would have carried them through even if they had Abbott and Costello backing them.

Agreed
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 06, 2012, 01:14:27 AM
Pete Best was sacked because he did not fit with the band's image. Pete was/is a loner and he was not part of "the gang".

Ringo fit. He was well liked by George, Paul and John, so it became an easy decision.

I think Pete is a good guy and he has a dignity about him these days.
You repeated that EXACTLY the way George, Paul and John wanted you to repeat it.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 06, 2012, 03:53:10 PM

To me, it isn't that they replaced Pete, but how they replaced him and how they treated Pete and the Best family after 3 years of significant, loyal service.  3 years at The Casbah (2 with Pete in the band) where they helped The Beatles to go from a bum band nobody wanted into the most popular band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with 2 different record deals in 2 different countries.

Then kicked to the curb like yersterday's trash.  Not so much as even a kind word.


Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 06, 2012, 07:11:20 PM
After listening to the DECCA tapes, the difference in Best and Ringo were quite glaring, in my opinion..I always felt Ringo had the perfect beat...
But you would have thought the other three would have told Pete how they wanted the drums and maybe they did at times..I don't think any of them had a problem with him as they did with, say, Tommy Moore...
In Spitz's book, he asserted that Best witnessed John/Paul/George's tiff with Ken Brown over 75 cents and Mona Best's insistence that Brown be paid even though he had to sit out with the flu, which the three Quarry Men walked out of the Casbah gig over. Spitz said Best developed a bit of a grudge against the three and it led to the indifference toward the three that eventually got him booted out and replaced with Ringo in 62.
There are probably more important things to wonder about, but, to me, this stuff in interesting..LOL.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 06, 2012, 11:11:20 PM

In Spitz's book, he asserted that Best witnessed John/Paul/George's tiff with Ken Brown over 75 cents and Mona Best's insistence that Brown be paid even though he had to sit out with the flu, which the three Quarry Men walked out of the Casbah gig over. Spitz said Best developed a bit of a grudge against the three and it led to the indifference toward the three that eventually got him booted out and replaced with Ringo in 62.
There are probably more important things to wonder about, but, to me, this stuff in interesting..LOL.

Id take these books with a pinch of salt mate, its only someones opinions, as someone said (cant remember who) to be fair theres always 3 versions of the truth, yours, mine and the absolute truth
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 07, 2012, 01:26:36 AM
Id take these books with a pinch of salt mate, its only someones opinions, as someone said (cant remember who) to be fair theres always 3 versions of the truth, yours, mine and the absolute truth
These are biographies and should not be opinion...In this sample, I think Best was interviewed for the book. So, Best would have been lying here. Have you read any Beatle books?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 07, 2012, 01:52:51 AM
These are biographies and should not be opinion...In this sample, I think Best was interviewed for the book. So, Best would have been lying here. Have you read any Beatle books?

 ???

whether Ive 'read any Beatle books' is beside the point...

these hundreds of Beatle books are peoples versions of what happened forty odd years ago

mostly they are by people who had some sort of relationship with the Beatles and want to cash in and make a pile of $$$, they make even more money if they can come up with a new handle on things...

Its up to you if you want to take them as fact.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 07, 2012, 03:35:33 AM
???

whether Ive 'read any Beatle books' is beside the point...

these hundreds of Beatle books are peoples versions of what happened forty odd years ago

mostly they are by people who had some sort of relationship with the Beatles and want to cash in and make a pile of $$$, they make even more money if they can come up with a new handle on things...

Its up to you if you want to take them as fact.
Really? Which ones should we all stay away from? Which ones should we read? Which have you read?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 07, 2012, 03:49:24 AM
Really?

yes !!

and Im really surprised this has never occurred to you before  ha2ha
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 07, 2012, 05:59:01 PM
yes !!

and Im really surprised this has never occurred to you before  ha2ha
So, let's be like you and not read ANYTHING or believe ANYONE? There are ways to believe the ones to believe and not believe others. I don't think I want it your way.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 07, 2012, 10:10:12 PM
So, let's be like you and not read ANYTHING or believe ANYONE? There are ways to believe the ones to believe and not believe others. I don't think I want it your way.

your missing my point nada surf

Im not saying dont read books (Ive read plenty of Beatle books) Im saying dont take them as gospel truth, theyre just someones version of events, they may be wholly true or partly true, we'll never know.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 09, 2012, 05:02:25 PM
your missing my point nada surf

Im not saying dont read books (Ive read plenty of Beatle books) Im saying dont take them as gospel truth, theyre just someones version of events, they may be wholly true or partly true, we'll never know.
Nimmer...this is why you read SEVERAL books...You get DIFFERENT takes on events and you can draw YOUR OWN opinions on what you think is fact and what isn't...The reason I entered this Pete Best/mom thread, is there are several opinions and takes on his ousting and I was hoping to get several opinions on what they think happened....I honestly think he was a victim of a nasty smear by the Beatles themselves that continues on today...And I also believe he was ousted because he was too popular for John and Paul.
 
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 01:53:43 AM
And I also believe he was ousted because he was too popular for John and Paul.

And there are theories that it was George Martin's idea to replace Pete Best with a better drummer.  And I've seen all the principals in the affair quoted as saying something like "I had nothing to do with it.  It was all (fill in the name)'s idea.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 04:16:16 AM
Anyway, I feel that Pete Best played OK on Love Me Do.  Sure he changed tempos but I'm sure they peformed it that way several times before.  To me it adds a litle life to the song.  If he were asked to play it like a metronome, he could have done so easily.

I like how Pete Best played on Besame Mucho too...

The Beatles - Besame Mucho (Decca) (2011 Remaster) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxgFVZcuqaI#)

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 10, 2012, 05:46:36 AM
And there are theories that it was George Martin's idea to replace Pete Best with a better drummer.  And I've seen all the principals in the affair quoted as saying something like "I had nothing to do with it.  It was all (fill in the name)'s idea.
John, Paul and George used Martin as an excuse, don't you think?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 10, 2012, 01:37:23 PM
The reason I entered this Pete Best/mom thread, is there are several opinions and takes on his ousting and I was hoping to get several opinions on what they think happened....I honestly think he was a victim of a nasty smear by the Beatles themselves that continues on today.
Watch this.The Beatles at their Best (Original Trailer) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZcQym6iRR8#)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Casbah on January 10, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
You know, with Pete, I always felt it was an accumulation of things. I had a band when I was a kid and we were all close friends except for the drummer who lived out of town. And he was OK, nothing great. In the back of our minds we always felt (and had discussed) if someone better came along, we would possibly make a switch.

Well it turns out we tried to make it on the covers circuit and the consensus was we were good, but not great. We had the opportunity of playing with one of the drummers from one of the great bands, who filled in when our drummer was out and it was like night and day.  From that point on we knew that our drummer had to go.

I bring this up because it is not unlike the Beatles story. They had such trouble getting ANYONE to play the drums and stick, when they got Pete, he was good enough. But he wasn't tight with them and when you're kids in a band trying to make it, that means a lot. Maybe not so much as adults.

But then they got the chance to play with Ringo, (When Pete couldn't make a gig) and they saw and heard and felt what it could be like with a true seasoned drummer. That was the day, I can guarantee you, the decision was made.  The fact that George Martin didn't like him just gave them an out. The die had been cast well before that.

Of course, standard disclaimer that this is my opinion, based on the books and articles I've read about the Beatles.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 04:27:21 PM
I like how Pete Best played on Besame Mucho too...

The Beatles - Besame Mucho (Decca) (2011 Remaster) ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxgFVZcuqaI#[/url])





Besame Mucho (with Ringo)

13. Bésame Mucho (The Beatles - Live at the Star Club '62) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLnJEYdK-yo#)
Live At The Star Club   December 1962


I like Pete's drumming better on Besame Mucho.  I like the way he used the toms and bass.  He sounded a bit like Gene Krupa.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 04:33:18 PM
John, Paul and George used Martin as an excuse, don't you think?

I think only Paul and George Martin know for sure.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 10, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
Anyway, I feel that Pete Best played OK on Love Me Do.

Thats a compliment, because its truly awful.

Quote
Sure he changed tempos but I'm sure they peformed it that way several times before.

And it was up to the drummer to supply a beat that sounded good for the song. Pete didnt do that.

Quote
If he were asked to play it like a metronome, he could have done so easily.

Now how do you know that? What has Pete done that has given you the confidence to say this?

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 10, 2012, 07:06:49 PM
You know, with Pete, I always felt it was an accumulation of things. I had a band when I was a kid and we were all close friends except for the drummer who lived out of town. And he was OK, nothing great. In the back of our minds we always felt (and had discussed) if someone better came along, we would possibly make a switch.

Well it turns out we tried to make it on the covers circuit and the consensus was we were good, but not great. We had the opportunity of playing with one of the drummers from one of the great bands, who filled in when our drummer was out and it was like night and day.  From that point on we knew that our drummer had to go.

This is so true (I wish I were one of the good ones). Even Tom Petty said the same thing when they got Steve Ferrone. Stan Lynch was good, but I guess he wasnt rock solid like Steve is. When you have a rock solid drummer in place, the rest of the band quits worrying. All they have to do is keep up.

I believe Casbah has answered the question to this thread.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 10, 2012, 07:12:58 PM
George Harrison and Allan Williams have both stated that Tommy Moore was the best drummer the Beatles (or their other names) ever had...They also were extremely high on Norman Chapman, who they placed in Moore's level...
Ringo was the perfect drummer for them, though...
On the other hand, how did the Beatles become the best band around England with a bad drummer?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 07:41:49 PM
Thats a compliment, because its truly awful.

That's your opinion, Todd.


And it was up to the drummer to supply a beat that sounded good for the song. Pete didnt do that.

Love Me Do is not a very good song.  When Pete Best's drumming is criticized, this recording is always cited as the example.


Now how do you know that? What has Pete done that has given you the confidence to say this?

As previously mentioned...

The Beatles - Besame Mucho (Decca) (2011 Remaster) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxgFVZcuqaI#)

...Pete Best played very well in Besame Mucho.  I prefer his style to Ringo's.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 07:43:09 PM
On the other hand, how did the Beatles become the best band around England with a bad drummer?

I wonder!   

;)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 10, 2012, 08:34:44 PM
That's your opinion, Todd.


Barry, your the first person that i've ever heard say it was even exceptable. I'm just trying to understand you, thats all.

Quote
Love Me Do is not a very good song.  When Pete Best's drumming is criticized, this recording is always cited as the example.


No its not, and i've criticized the album versions plenty

Quote
As previously mentioned...

The Beatles - Besame Mucho (Decca) (2011 Remaster) ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxgFVZcuqaI#[/url])

...Pete Best played very well in Besame Mucho.  I prefer his style to Ringo's.


Pete does it well, but i'm not sure Besame Mucho is a good example. Its just a constant tom roll and a snare hit (I think. I only have one speaker hooked up to the computer). I'd like to hear something a bit more intricate before I made my decision.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 10, 2012, 08:47:27 PM
Is this the Ringo version, because the snare rolls are better than anything in the Decca version.

Besame Mucho / How Do You Do It (take1) The Beatles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-29HLVLuZ7I#)

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Is this the Ringo version, because the snare rolls are better than anything in the Decca version.

Besame Mucho / How Do You Do It (take1) The Beatles ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-29HLVLuZ7I#[/url])



Yes.  And I forgot about that recording.  Ringo added snare rolls to his toms where Pete concentrated on tom rolls.  But Pete Best also added some rhythm to his toms much the way Gene Krupa does here when he's backing Goodman ...


Gene Krupa- Sing, Sing, Sing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9J5Zt2Obko#)


Anyway, Todd, it's just my preference for the drum pattern for Besame Mucho.




Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
Barry, your the first person that i've ever heard say it was even exceptable. I'm just trying to understand you, thats all.


Perhaps I should qualify that a bit, Todd.  I like what Pete Best was trying to do in Love Me Do with his tempo changes.  It just didn't come off as well as it could...


The Beatles Love Me Do Anthology 1 version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1mgIZrlLSE#)


...if it did, this would have been a much better song.  I still like this version more than the monotonous recordings we have of it with either Andy White or Ringo playing drums.


 
Pete does it well, but i'm not sure Besame Mucho is a good example. Its just a constant tom roll and a snare hit (I think. I only have one speaker hooked up to the computer). I'd like to hear something a bit more intricate before I made my decision.


Yes.  And you'll enjoy Paul doing Come And Get It and The Word live in Bologna more too.  You're in for a real treat there!
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 10, 2012, 10:50:10 PM
Todd, just a side note about Gene Krupa which I'm sure you know but others might appreciate...

Gene had been listening to African drumming on recordings just beginning to arrive in the United States.  He carefully copied that style and requested that Slingerland manufacture a floor tom tom that would be tunable on both top and bottom and stand on his right as he sat at the set.  Gene also asked for, and got, a second tunable tom-tom mounted on a holder on the bass drum shell.  Thus the four-piece fully tunable set was born with the help of Sam C. Rowland and the sponsorship of the Slingerland Drum Company.  The design established itself in the drummer's history for the next forty years and is still offered in most drum catalogs.

           From The Making Of A Drum Company  The Autobiography of William F. Ludwig II
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 11, 2012, 01:55:52 AM
Gene was a legend. A true innovator. Buddy might have gotten too much fanfare now that I think about it.

One thing about Pete's playing on Besame Mucho though is that he plays the dynamics on the toms at the same time every bar. Its just a pattern and its not hard (like playing Wipeout) even though it sounds good. Gene had a bit more going on as you already know. 

Hey, its all good Barry. We like what we like and there's no right or wrong. I've been a grouchy b**** for awhile now I realize and i'll try to lighten up for everybodys sake. Peace.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 11, 2012, 02:27:56 AM
Yes, it is all good, Todd.  It's music.  It's part of our souls.

I'm happy that Paul, Ringo and Pete still tour.  It's part of theirs too.  I hope they all go on for many more years.

And Paul looked and sounded good in Bologna.


(http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2011/10/09/Paul-McCartney-marries-in-London-J3F6P9E-x-large.jpg) 


I think marriage to Nancy agrees with him.   ;)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: In My Life on January 11, 2012, 04:15:38 AM


I think marriage to Nancy agrees with him.   ;)

I'd say he deserves an agreeable wife!
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: In My Life on January 11, 2012, 04:29:02 AM
and i'll try to lighten up for everybodys sake. Peace.
Just don't stop being funny, okay? Some of your comments really make me laugh!
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 11, 2012, 02:46:53 PM

I think history proved changing Pete for Ringo was the right move for the group in so many ways.  My problem is more about how Pete was treated and continues to be treated when people look at the history of The Beatles.

He might have got money, but I feel he still doesn't get proper recognition for the significant contribution he made while a member of The Beatles.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 12, 2012, 01:42:33 AM
He might have got money, but I feel he still doesn't get proper recognition for the significant contribution he made while a member of The Beatles.

I think your beating yourself up. What percentage of the population has even heard Pete playing with the Beatles? What percent knows what they went through together? What percent even cares?

Most people recognize his name when its mentioned and thats what you, me, and he will have to settle for, because its not going to ever change.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Toejam on January 12, 2012, 09:23:05 AM
I think history proved changing Pete for Ringo was the right move for the group in so many ways.  My problem is more about how Pete was treated and continues to be treated when people look at the history of The Beatles.

He might have got money, but I feel he still doesn't get proper recognition for the significant contribution he made while a member of The Beatles.
I think the evidence suggests none of the 4 Beatles could care less about him. I wouldn't  bother yourself with it. It's ancient history and Pete's doing alright now.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 12, 2012, 12:50:47 PM
I think the evidence suggests none of the 4 Beatles could care less about him. I wouldn't  bother yourself with it. It's ancient history and Pete's doing alright now.

I made a short film about it that I am now out promoting.  A little late for me to not bother myself with it.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 13, 2012, 12:45:51 AM
I made a short film about it that I am now out promoting.  A little late for me to not bother myself with it.

So basically this entire thread was nothing but spam. Cool.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 13, 2012, 02:01:36 AM
So basically this entire thread was nothing but spam. Cool.

 ha2ha
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 13, 2012, 11:38:25 AM
So basically this entire thread was nothing but spam. Cool.
ha2ha

I didn't start this thread, Nada Surf did. roll:)   If you think Nada Surf's posts are spam, direct your comments there. :-*
 
As for me making a film.  I made a film (at my own time and expense) to shine a light on a part of Beatles history (and Rock & Roll history) that I feel hasn't gotten its proper due.   That's also why I post on Beatles Boards and read and respond to posts myself.  That's not spam either.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 13, 2012, 11:45:57 AM
I didn't start this thread, Nada Surf did. roll:)   If you think Nada Surf's posts are spam, direct your comments there. :-*
 
As for me making a film.  I made a film (at my own time and expense) to shine a light on a part of Beatles history (and Rock & Roll history) that I feel hasn't gotten its proper due.   That's also why I post on Beatles Boards and read and respond to posts myself.  That's not spam either.

I was just joking guy. its all good. I'm glad your so passionate about it.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 13, 2012, 01:37:59 PM
I was just joking guy. its all good. I'm glad your so passionate about it.

It's all good. 

I have a second film coming out later this year, also Beatles related.  This one is called "Unbelievable!" and examines the influence The Beatles had on Michael Jackson & his career.  The influence was MUCH bigger than most people think.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 13, 2012, 04:09:12 PM
This thread turned out to be spam, which usually happens when a controversial topic meets people so in love with the people involved that they can't put out a decent thought...
I merely asked if anyone thought there would be any truth to Sam Leach's assertion on Best's mom and all the Ringo lickers went on the defense...
It's hilarious!
Nobody was ripping Ringo!!!!
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 13, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
Gene was a legend. A true innovator.


Right.  A full jazz drum kit looked like this in 1930...

(http://jazzlives.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ludwig_ludwig_streaked_opal_set_front-380x322.jpg?w=500)



Then along came Gene Krupa...

(http://images4.thomann.de/pics/expert/0085_gene_krupa.jpg)





(http://www.gkrp.net/setup.jpg)

Drums:

Slingerland "Radio Kings"
1) 6½"x14" Snare
2) 9"x13" Tom
3) 16"x16" Floor Tom
4) 14"x26" Bass Drum 


Cymbals:

Avedis Zildjian
a) 11" Hi-Hats
b) 13" Crash
c)  8" Splash
d) 14" Cymbal
e) 16" Crash 

Finish: White Marine Pearl

Accessories: Cow Bell, Greeko/Wire Brush Cymbals

Sticks: Slingerland Gene Krupa Model 




Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 13, 2012, 04:38:04 PM
This thread turned out to be spam...

No, I think tkitna termed it correctly...passion.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: In My Life on January 14, 2012, 04:20:20 AM
No, I think tkitna termed it correctly...passion.

And he didn't even post a link to a website with a clip but that didn't stop me from finding it.  :) I enjoyed it Shaun!
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 14, 2012, 04:59:43 AM
No, I think tkitna termed it correctly...passion.

 ;yes
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 14, 2012, 05:36:09 PM


Thank you.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Toejam on January 16, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
I merely asked if anyone thought there would be any truth to Sam Leach's assertion on Best's mom and all the Ringo lickers went on the defense...


. I've just realsied I've got this thread mixed up with http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=12515.0;topicseen (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=12515.0;topicseen) that one. but as it's pretty much the same theme I'll say my peice here.

There's just an underlying despertate case of sour grapes emintating from the Pete camp and and this desperate helpless, pathetic, uncontrollable urge to say something contradicting other people's accounts...just stories contradicting stories contradicting stories. People who knew the Beatles in Liverpool like Sam leach or whoever may be right or maybe wrong but I just don't care about what happend or why. I'm interested in what people say but if they're sort of implying the Beatles did something wrong or, bizzarely, that without Mona Best or whoever they couldn't or wouldn't have made it then they can just stuff it.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 16, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
By the way, did you all see where George Harrison and Allan Williams said Tommy Moore was the best drummer they ever had?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 16, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
By the way, did you all see where George Harrison and Allan Williams said Tommy Moore was the best drummer they ever had?

He probably was. Thats nothing shocking to me.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 17, 2012, 12:05:46 PM

Tommy Moore was 7 years older than all of the others.  I would expect him to be better.  Amazing that even with a drummer that was better than any other one they had, they were still a bum band.  The Beatles didn't take off until they added Pete Best.  As soon as they added him they took off right away.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 17, 2012, 12:14:22 PM
The thing is they took off despite Pete Best, not because of him.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 17, 2012, 03:05:32 PM

The thing is they took off despite Pete Best, not because of him.

They took off despite Pete?  Despite Pete?!!!  Gimmie a break.  They didn't do crap until they teamed up with him.  Best busted his ass playing 7 hour sets 7 days a week drug free (unlike the others), put in more time playing live with them than any other drummer they ever had (before or after including Ringo), developed a beat that became the Liverpool sound, was the most popular member of the group and even spoke some German and helped handle the business affairs for the group.

Yeah, they took off despite him. 

With a no good slacker like him in the group it's a wonder they took off at all.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 17, 2012, 06:36:52 PM
The thing is they took off despite Pete Best, not because of him.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you care to elaborate on that?
Wouldn't the Beatles have cut him free in '61 when they were beginning to develop boatloads of fans in Hamburg?
There were quite a few people who said he was a good drummer and they certainly took off with him as their drummer.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 17, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
Pete Best became the drummer of The Beatles, just because he had a drumkit and he was available to go to Hamburg with The Beatles. The Beatles wanted to go to Hamburg because of the money they could make. They all played for hours on end in the fall of 1960, not just Pete. And of course, they all became better musician, Pete included. But any drummer who had been in the surroundings of the Beatles in August 1960 and was ready to go to Hamburg with him, would have made it big with them. Pete was not the katalysator for The Beatles to make the progress, Hamburg was.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 17, 2012, 08:51:10 PM
Pete Best became the drummer of The Beatles, just because he had a drumkit and he was available to go to Hamburg with The Beatles. The Beatles wanted to go to Hamburg because of the money they could make. They all played for hours on end in the fall of 1960, not just Pete. And of course, they all became better musician, Pete included. But any drummer who had been in the surroundings of the Beatles in August 1960 and was ready to go to Hamburg with him, would have made it big with them. Pete was not the katalysator for The Beatles to make the progress, Hamburg was.

You say any drummer coulda....   The point is any drummer didn't. 

Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Sutcliffe asked around and not a single drummer in Liverpool wanted to play with them.  No one! - No one except for Pete Best.  Hamburg alone wasn't the catalyst.  The catalyst was John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best playing 7 hour sets 7 days a week in Hamburg (and later Liverpool) in a band called The Beatles and improving every day.  Practice, practice, practice - that was the catalyst.  Pete improved and held down his part just as the others improved and held down theirs.

Like Nada Surf said,
Quote
Wouldn't the Beatles have cut him free in '61 when they were beginning to develop boatloads of fans in Hamburg?
There were quite a few people who said he was a good drummer and they certainly took off with him as their drummer.

One of those people saying Pete Best was drumming good was none other than George Harrison.  In a letter home in the fall of 1960 he says "we have Pete Best, Mrs. Best's little lad from Kasbah fame and he is drumming good".  In the same letter, he also mentions that Rory Storm's group has joined them in playing the Kaiserkeller.  "Rory Storm & The Hurricaines came out here the other week, and they are crummy.  The only person in the group who is any good is the drummer (Ringo Starr)" (note George on record admiring Ringo almost 2 years before he was asked to join The Beatles).

The bottom line is, to hear the other Beatles side of it in videos like Anthology, you would think that Pete Best was barely in the Beatles.  Like he was in the group as something of a technicality.  He's always described (the rare times he is mentioned) as just this guy, who they added just 'cause they needed a drummer the next day to go to Hamburg, but he wasn't very good, and he kept missing gigs, and he was a bit slow, and he was antisocial, so we had to go out and get Liverpool's greatest drummer - Ringo Starr!  That's when the group took off.

The majority of that description is just self serving spin.  Really, it's just B--- S---.  It's just not true.



Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: peterbell1 on January 17, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
... self serving spin ...

I have to agree with you there. I do think the band and Brian Epstein tried to rewrite the history books when it came to Pete. It started during Beatlemania and continued up to and beyond Anthology.
I think it suited Epstein and the Beatles when they first hit the big time to portray J,P,G + R as the sole image of the band - they were four individuals (the quiet one, the cute one, etc) but they were also four clones of each other (same suits, same hair, same humour, etc). It fitted their scheme of things that these four WERE The Beatles, and no-one else could be described as such, so poor Pete was virtually airbrushed out of the picture.

I would guess that there was also a willingness on Brian's part to wipe out any claim Mona Best could ever make of having played a part in getting the band to where they were. They were "his" boys - so erasing Pete from the picture also helped to erase Mona as well.

Personally, I do think Ringo was a better drummer than Pete (based on the little of Pete's drumming that I've heard), and he suited what J, P & G wanted from a drummer better than what Pete did, but things such as the Mona factor will also have played a part in the decision to sack Pete and replace him with Ringo, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 17, 2012, 10:54:27 PM
I have to agree with you there. I do think the band and Brian Epstein tried to rewrite the history books when it came to Pete. It started during Beatlemania and continued up to and beyond Anthology.
I think it suited Epstein and the Beatles when they first hit the big time to portray J,P,G + R as the sole image of the band - they were four individuals (the quiet one, the cute one, etc) but they were also four clones of each other (same suits, same hair, same humour, etc). It fitted their scheme of things that these four WERE The Beatles, and no-one else could be described as such, so poor Pete was virtually airbrushed out of the picture.

I would guess that there was also a willingness on Brian's part to wipe out any claim Mona Best could ever make of having played a part in getting the band to where they were. They were "his" boys - so erasing Pete from the picture also helped to erase Mona as well.

Personally, I do think Ringo was a better drummer than Pete (based on the little of Pete's drumming that I've heard), and he suited what J, P & G wanted from a drummer better than what Pete did, but things such as the Mona factor will also have played a part in the decision to sack Pete and replace him with Ringo, I'm sure.

Agreed.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 18, 2012, 01:35:53 AM
Personally, I do think Ringo was a better drummer than Pete (based on the little of Pete's drumming that I've heard), and he suited what J, P & G wanted from a drummer better than what Pete did,

Isnt that all that needs to be said?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 18, 2012, 02:02:54 AM
Isnt that all that needs to be said?


Said about what?  For me the issue has never been about John, Paul & George thinking Ringo was a better fit.  Obviously Ringo was a great fit.

I have a problem with how John, Paul & George dumped their bandmate Pete without ever speaking to him, and I have a problem with all four of them (Ringo included) not speaking to their friend Pete for the rest of their lives.  I also have a problem with how they, and many Beatles fans feel the need to bad mouth Pete and dimminish his contributions to the group.  You can like John, Paul, George and Ringo and still like Pete. 

The Beatles did nothing but get better and steadily grew in popularity from the moment Best joined the group.  He helped them go from a bum group nobody wanted into the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries.  He put in more time playing live drumming for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career.  Heck, fans were calling the group "Pete Best & The Beatles".  Pete also helped manage the groups business affairs.  He should get some credit for all of that.  Most Beatles fans and the other Beatles would prefer to pretend that he was barely in the group at all and contributed nothing to their rise to become the most successful entertainment act in history.

That's just not true.




Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 18, 2012, 05:47:47 AM
I wish you all would friend me on Facebook...I'm Jim Richards at jfkin60@gmail.com...we have the Magnificent Beatles Chat Room and it could be fun.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 18, 2012, 06:27:30 AM

Said about what?  For me the issue has never been about John, Paul & George thinking Ringo was a better fit.  Obviously Ringo was a great fit.

I have a problem with how John, Paul & George dumped their bandmate Pete without ever speaking to him, and I have a problem with all four of them (Ringo included) not speaking to their friend Pete for the rest of their lives.  I also have a problem with how they, and many Beatles fans feel the need to bad mouth Pete and dimminish his contributions to the group.  You can like John, Paul, George and Ringo and still like Pete. 

The Beatles did nothing but get better and steadily grew in popularity from the moment Best joined the group.  He helped them go from a bum group nobody wanted into the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries.  He put in more time playing live drumming for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career.  Heck, fans were calling the group "Pete Best & The Beatles".  Pete also helped manage the groups business affairs.  He should get some credit for all of that.  Most Beatles fans and the other Beatles would prefer to pretend that he was barely in the group at all and contributed nothing to their rise to become the most successful entertainment act in history.

That's just not true.

I look at it like this. John, Paul, and George must not have been really great friends with him in the first place if they didnt even bother to talk to him again after he got sacked. They used him because he was the most reliable drummer they had at the time (meaning he was actually there to play) and he and Mona provided a place to practice and play while also taking some of the business pressures off of them. Sweet deal.

You keep saying that the Beatles did nothing but get better as soon as Pete joined. Well yeah, they had a steady drummer that provided them with a full band to play all the time. Naturally the band would get tighter and better through repetition. As we all know, it was obvious that Pete wasnt so good that he was vital for the bands success. John and Paul were going to make it work regardless of who was sitting behind the skins. they were the only vital parts.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 18, 2012, 09:15:46 AM
You say any drummer coulda....   The point is any drummer didn't.

There weren't much drummers around then as a drumkit was an expensive thing. Pete was available and they were eager to go to Hamburg. That's why Pete got the job and nothing more. They could have asked him earlier. They didn't.
Quote
Hamburg alone wasn't the catalyst.  The catalyst was John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best playing 7 hour sets 7 days a week in Hamburg (and later Liverpool) in a band called The Beatles and improving every day.  Practice, practice, practice - that was the catalyst. 

That's exactly what I meant with the phrase 'Hamburg'. Being there and playing for hours on end.
Quote

Like Nada Surf said,
One of those people saying Pete Best was drumming good was none other than George Harrison.  In a letter home in the fall of 1960 he says "we have Pete Best, Mrs. Best's little lad from Kasbah fame and he is drumming good".  In the same letter, he also mentions that Rory Storm's group has joined them in playing the Kaiserkeller.  "Rory Storm & The Hurricaines came out here the other week, and they are crummy.  The only person in the group who is any good is the drummer (Ringo Starr)" (note George on record admiring Ringo almost 2 years before he was asked to join The Beatles).

If Pete was good, it certainly wasn't good enough.

Quote
The bottom line is, to hear the other Beatles side of it in videos like Anthology, you would think that Pete Best was barely in the Beatles.  Like he was in the group as something of a technicality.  He's always described (the rare times he is mentioned) as just this guy, who they added just 'cause they needed a drummer the next day to go to Hamburg, but he wasn't very good, and he kept missing gigs, and he was a bit slow, and he was antisocial, so we had to go out and get Liverpool's greatest drummer - Ringo Starr!  That's when the group took off.

The majority of that description is just self serving spin.  Really, it's just B--- S---.  It's just not true.
Pete's drumming was good enough for as long as served their stage act. He was not able to lift them to higher levels.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 18, 2012, 09:20:57 AM
I look at it like this. John, Paul, and George must not have been really great friends with him in the first place if they didnt even bother to talk to him again after he got sacked. They used him because he was the most reliable drummer they had at the time (meaning he was actually there to play) and he and Mona provided a place to practice and play while also taking some of the business pressures off of them. Sweet deal.

You keep saying that the Beatles did nothing but get better as soon as Pete joined. Well yeah, they had a steady drummer that provided them with a full band to play all the time. Naturally the band would get tighter and better through repetition. As we all know, it was obvious that Pete wasnt so good that he was vital for the bands success. John and Paul were going to make it work regardless of who was sitting behind the skins. they were the only vital parts.

Thank you for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 18, 2012, 09:33:54 AM
Thank you for clearing that up.

No problem, but isnt it time for you to start hitting those Mccartney albums again?  ;D
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 18, 2012, 09:40:53 AM
No problem, but isnt it time for you to start hitting those Mccartney albums again?  ;D

It is. I'm working on Venus And Mars. I'm a slow (re-)starter.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Toejam on January 18, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Tommy Moore was 7 years older than all of the others.  I would expect him to be better.  Amazing that even with a drummer that was better than any other one they had, they were still a bum band.  The Beatles didn't take off until they added Pete Best.  As soon as they added him they took off right away.

They were on the runway bedore the took on Pete.  They'd have done it with any 1/2 way decent drummer.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 18, 2012, 03:29:45 PM
@bobber, tkitna, ect...

The reason they got Pete wasn't just because drums were an expensive item and nobody in Liverpool could afford to buy them.  Other people in town had drum kits.  They asked other people.  They asked around a lot.  They had their friends ask around a lot of too.  All of the other drummers in town knew who The Quarrymen were.  Nobody wanted the job.  Not one single person in the entire town of Liverpool was interested in going to Hamburg to play with that assh--- John Lennon and his terrible, embarrassing Quarrymen band.  Nobody.

Why didn't Tommy Moore go with them?  He had a drum kit.  How about Johnny Hutchinson, Brian Hudson,  Graham Leigh, Colin Hanton,  Jeff Wallington, Allan Schroeder, Cliff Roberts, Brian Redman,  Mike Sloan, Brian Cochen, Frank Wibberley, John Cochran ?  They all had kits.  A lot of other people in Liverpool had drum kits too.

Why didn't they go out and get Liverpool's best drummer, the great Ringo Starr?  Surely Ringo will be smart enough to realize that if he was drumming for Lennon, McCartney & Harrison they could be the greatest band in the history of the world. 

The truth is, he wouldn't have wanted to go to Germany to play with them just either.
Quote
They used him because he was the most reliable drummer they had at the time (meaning he was actually there to play) and he and Mona provided a place to practice and play while also taking some of the business pressures off of them.  Sweet deal.

Yeah, it was a sweet deal.  A year hanging out and playing Rock & Roll at Mona Best's Casbah Coffee Club, the place that launched the entire Liverpool Rock & Roll scene.  Then another 2 years with her son Pete as the drummer they so desperately needed.  Pete & Mona helping to handle the business pressures too.  Yeah.  Sweet deal.  Pete Best & The Best Family should get some credit for for the significant contributions they made to The Beatles succeeding like they did.
Quote
John and Paul were going to make it work regardless of who was sitting behind the skins.
So you are saying that Lennon & McCartney needed someone - anyone, to get behind the skins in order for them to make it.  Since no one in the entire town wanted to get behind the skins for them, they needed Pete Best to make it.

Quote
If Pete was good, it certainly wasn't good enough.
Yeah, that's obvious.  When Pete joined them they were a bum band nobody wanted.  By the time he left they were the most popular band in 2 different cities, in 2 different countries, with record deals in 2 different countries.  The papers were calling them phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime and he was the most popular one in the group.

Yeah, he certainly wasn't good enough.  I would have expected a lot more than that.



Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 18, 2012, 03:53:30 PM
To have it your way:

if Pete was really that good, had a wonderful reputation, attracted masses of girls to his mothers club and was a great talent organising things, why didn't any other group with more talent asked him to be their drummer?
Did he really think John, Paul and George asked him because he was a friend and really fitted in? Didn't he realize that they were just a couple of days away from Hamburg?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 18, 2012, 04:57:13 PM
To have it your way:

if Pete was really that good, had a wonderful reputation, attracted masses of girls to his mothers club and was a great talent organising things, why didn't any other group with more talent asked him to be their drummer?

Pete Best was asked.  He joined Lee Curtis & The All Stars.  Just four months after being kicked out of The Beatles, his new group was featured in The January 1963 Mersey Beat as the 2nd most popular band in Liverpool - 2nd by a very close margin to the "new" version of The Beatles with Ringo Starr.


Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 18, 2012, 06:01:23 PM
Alright, another attempt to have it your way:

if Pete was really so good and had such an enormous following, why didn't Pete's new group really make it big?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 18, 2012, 06:17:29 PM
Alright, another attempt to have it your way:

if Pete was really so good and had such an enormous following, why didn't Pete's new group really make it big?

Because John Lennon & Paul McCartney were the greatest singing/songwriting hit making machine the world has ever seen.  To duplicate the success The Beatles had after his sacking, Pete would have had to find antother pair that could crank out hit songs the way those two could.  Not an easy thing to do.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 18, 2012, 07:41:23 PM
The Beatles had nothing against Mona. She at least gave them a place to practice and play and Neil Aspinall was even banging her (father to Roag). Like Kevin said, they just needed a better drummer.
duh! who doesn't know that.
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 18, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
Ringo was very popular too.
that's my feeling here as well. technically ringo was most likely the better of the two, my impression, from what i have heard here and there from certain people.
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 18, 2012, 09:30:00 PM
The Beatles had nothing against Mona. She at least gave them a place to practice and play and Neil Aspinall was even banging her (father to Roag). Like Kevin said, they just needed a better drummer.

duh! who doesn't know that.
 ;sorry

Actually they had a lot against Mona.  Treated her and her family like sh-- after dumping her son.  Did a pretty good job of writing her and her family out of Beatles history.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 18, 2012, 09:48:37 PM
Why didn't Tommy Moore go with them?  He had a drum kit.  How about Johnny Hutchinson, Brian Hudson,  Graham Leigh, Colin Hanton,  Jeff Wallington, Allan Schroeder, Cliff Roberts, Brian Redman,  Mike Sloan, Brian Cochen, Frank Wibberley, John Cochran ?  They all had kits.  A lot of other people in Liverpool had drum kits too.

Because they had jobs. Those guys thought of being in a band as a hobby or just something to do. It wasnt important to them and they had real responsibilities. I'm surprised a person so in depth about the whole thing would even ask that question.

Quote
Why didn't they go out and get Liverpool's best drummer, the great Ringo Starr?  Surely Ringo will be smart enough to realize that if he was drumming for Lennon, McCartney & Harrison they could be the greatest band in the history of the world.

He was in another band at the time and ummm,,,,oh yeah, they did go get him and he must have realized there was something special going on as he joined. 

Quote
The truth is, he wouldn't have wanted to go to Germany to play with them just either.

Did anybody really want to go? Germany was a sh*thole. I'm sure everybody had a blast sleeping in cramped, dirty living conditions and living on nothing more than cornflakes and pills for the duration. It was unfortunate that Germany was such a hot spot for sinners and partying at the time.

Quote
Yeah, it was a sweet deal.

Sure it was and they knew it. I'm sure they milked it for all it was worth.

Quote
Then another 2 years with her son Pete as the drummer they so desperately needed.

They didnt desperatly need Pete Best, they desperatly needed a drummer. Any drummer. You act like it was all Pete's doing that the band ended up being any f***ing good at all and thats insane. Pete was adequate and nothing more. Lets put the bullsh*t away and just listen to the guy drum. There isnt anything mindblowing there so quit pretending that the Beatles owed him for their greatness.

Quote
Pete Best & The Best Family should get some credit for for the significant contributions they made to The Beatles succeeding like they did.

What do you want? Do you want one of the Beatles to write a kind word about him in a book or maybe even a handout? Would that make everything better?

Quote
So you are saying that Lennon & McCartney needed someone - anyone, to get behind the skins in order for them to make it.  Since no one in the entire town wanted to get behind the skins for them, they needed Pete Best to make it.
Yeah, that's obvious.  When Pete joined them they were a bum band nobody wanted.  By the time he left they were the most popular band in 2 different cities, in 2 different countries, with record deals in 2 different countries.  The papers were calling them phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime and he was the most popular one in the group.

Your right. Pete was the true talent behind the Beatles (My God). 

Quote
Yeah, he certainly wasn't good enough.  I would have expected a lot more than that.

Yeah, I guess the Beatles expected a lot more too. Thats why he got canned.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 19, 2012, 01:49:07 AM
duh! who doesn't know that.
 ;sorry

Great, Einstein from the peanut gallery has to come in and run off at the cocksucker.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: pc31 on January 19, 2012, 02:24:21 AM
truth be told pete got lousy drugs...who wants to hang out with a mommas boy anyway?mona pushed hard for them but she also extracted from them...i think she was demanding as well..she could no way have catapaulted them to the surpreme heights they acheived...i dont think the deal was pete sacked matter  becoz ringo was more perfect for the job...
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 19, 2012, 03:24:19 AM
Great, Einstein from the peanut gallery has to come in and run off at the lol.
roll:) i go with sack of potatoes theory i think.
john lennon Plays The Ukulele "its only love " (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcRuunnDW_4#)

unless of course you are saying that ringo was the better of the two drummers,
that is another issue altogether. don't see what difference that makes.
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 19, 2012, 01:46:36 PM
Because they had jobs. Those guys thought of being in a band as a hobby or just something to do. It wasnt important to them and they had real responsibilities. I'm surprised a person so in depth about the whole thing would even ask that question.

My point is that everyone keeps saying The Beatles didn't need Pete, they could have got anyone.  No they couldn't because no one in Liverpool - NO ONE except for Pete wanted the paying gig of playing for The Beatles in Hamburg.  NO ONE except for Pete wanted to drum for The Beatles in Liverpoool either.  It wasn't just because Pete was the only person in Liverpool with a drum kit.  Yes, drummers with kits can be hard to find, but their were some out there.  None of them were willing to take a chance to go to Hamburg with that assh--- John Lennon and play drums in his crappy band - even if it is a paid gig.  Like you said, it wasn't important to them.  It WAS important to Pete, and Pete WAS important to The Beatles.
Quote
He (Ringo) was in another band at the time and ummm,,,,oh yeah, they did go get him and he must have realized there was something special going on as he joined. 

Yeah, he realized it 2 years later after Pete Best helped The Beatles to become the #1 band in both Liverpool England and Hamburg Germany.  The papers were calling them a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime and Beatlemania was in full force.  I think everybody in Liverpool realized it at that point. 

Quote
Did anybody really want to go? Germany was a sh*thole. I'm sure everybody had a blast sleeping in cramped, dirty living conditions and living on nothing more than cornflakes and pills for the duration. It was unfortunate that Germany was such a hot spot for sinners and partying at the time.

Yeah, lots of groups wanted to go and lots of groups did.  John Lennon would spend the rest of his life reminiscing about how he was born in Liverpool but became a man in Hamburg and always say how he (and the others) missed those times, because that's the time when The Beatles were a real band playing real music.  That was the time when The Beatles were at their best.

"Brian Epstein put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. We sold out.  We killed ourselves then to make it.  We always missed the club dates 'cause that's when we were playing music."  - John Lennon
 
Quote
They didnt desperatly need Pete Best, they desperatly needed a drummer. Any drummer. You act like it was all Pete's doing that the band ended up being any f***ing good at all and thats insane. Pete was adequate and nothing more. Lets put the bullsh*t away and just listen to the guy drum. There isnt anything mindblowing there so quit pretending that the Beatles owed him for their greatness.

What do you want? Do you want one of the Beatles to write a kind word about him in a book or maybe even a handout? Would that make everything better?

Your right. Pete was the true talent behind the Beatles (My God). 

Yeah, I guess the Beatles expected a lot more too. Thats why he got canned.

Like I keep saying, many Beatles fans like to say that "any drummer could have did what Pete did for The Beatles".  I'll say again, any drummer didn't.  Pete did.

He was IN The Beatles.  Pete helped them to go from an out of work, bum band that nobody wanted into the most successful entertainment phenomenon the world has ever seen.  He deserves proper credit and appreciation for the significant contribution he made to the group.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 19, 2012, 03:31:13 PM
My point is that everyone keeps saying The Beatles didn't need Pete, they could have got anyone.  No they couldn't because no one in Liverpool - NO ONE except for Pete wanted the paying gig of playing for The Beatles in Hamburg.  NO ONE except for Pete wanted to drum for The Beatles in Liverpoool either.  It wasn't just because Pete was the only person in Liverpool with a drum kit.  Yes, drummers with kits can be hard to find, but their were some out there.  None of them were willing to take a chance to go to Hamburg with that assh--- John Lennon and play drums in his crappy band - even if it is a paid gig.  Like you said, it wasn't important to them.  It WAS important to Pete, and Pete WAS important to The Beatles.

Ok, lets just clear this up now and be done with it. The Beatles needed Pete in the aspect that they couldnt get another drummer at the time and he was a drummer. The Beatles did not need Pete in the aspect that he was a great f***ing drummer skill wise because he wasnt. Alright, thats clear.

Quote
Yeah, he realized it 2 years later after Pete Best helped The Beatles to become the #1 band in both Liverpool England and Hamburg Germany.  The papers were calling them a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime and Beatlemania was in full force.  I think everybody in Liverpool realized it at that point.

The papers were calling THEM a phenomenom,,,not Pete Best. Lets face it, they scrapped their drummer and got another one and didnt miss a beat. If the Beatles struggled when Pete got canned, i'd say you have a case, but they didnt. 

Quote
Yeah, lots of groups wanted to go and lots of groups did.  John Lennon would spend the rest of his life reminiscing about how he was born in Liverpool but became a man in Hamburg and always say how he (and the others) missed those times, because that's the time when The Beatles were a real band playing real music.  That was the time when The Beatles were at their best.

He missed the band playing actual live music and being able to interact with people, but i'm sure he didnt miss the crappy living conditions and being poor. Yeah, the Beatles were probably at their best playing live music since they played all day long, every day, but their studio output trumps the little club stuff anyday. Lets see, playing live to a hundred people in a small smoky bar with no worries, or playing to stadiums full of screaming people, not being able to hear yourself, and fearing that those people might rip you apart. I can see why he said that.

Quote
"Brian Epstein put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. We sold out.  We killed ourselves then to make it.  We always missed the club dates 'cause that's when we were playing music."  - John Lennon

Brain only made you the biggest band in history you silly man.
 
Quote
Like I keep saying, many Beatles fans like to say that "any drummer could have did what Pete did for The Beatles".  I'll say again, any drummer didn't.  Pete did.

Pete didnt seem to be good enough during their run of fame though now was he? Ringo was.

Quote
He was IN The Beatles.  Pete helped them to go from an out of work, bum band that nobody wanted into the most successful entertainment phenomenon the world has ever seen.  He deserves proper credit and appreciation for the significant contribution he made to the group.

He has proper credit. He was the drummer that helped the Beatles along when they were cutting their teeth. Ringo was the drummer in the band when all of their baby teeth had already fallen out. Thats never going to change.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 20, 2012, 02:29:13 AM
So...does anyone on this explosive thread think Mona Best caused her own son's firing?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 20, 2012, 04:50:47 AM
Personally I believe this version of events from wiki, it was a simple case of the other 3 not wanting Pete in the band anymore, very hard on Pete but thats life.........I feel very sorry for him.

Martin and his engineers wanted to use an experienced session drummer in Best's place, as was common practice amongst producers. Many years later Martin still expressed regret about this decision and what followed: "I decided that the drums, which are really the backbone of a good rock group, didn't give the boys enough support. They needed a good solid beat and I said to Brian, 'Look, it doesn't matter what you do with the boys, but on record, nobody need know. I'm gonna use a hot drummer.' Brian [Epstein] said, 'Okay, fine.' I felt guilty because I felt maybe I was the catalyst that had changed his [Best's] life".
When the group heard that Martin and the engineers preferred a session drummer for their upcoming recording session, Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison asked Epstein to dismiss Best from the band.[42] Before Epstein became The Beatles' manager, Best's mother had arranged all the bookings in Liverpool, after they had parted company with Williams.
Epstein agonised about the decision. As he wrote in his autobiography, A Cellarful of Noise, he "wasn't sure" about Martin's assessment of Best's drumming and "was not anxious to change the membership of The Beatles at a time when they were developing as personalities ... I asked The Beatles to leave the group as it was."[45] Epstein also asked Bob Wooler for advice, to which Wooler replied that it was not a good idea, as Best was too popular with the fans.[46] Ultimately, Epstein decided that "if the group was to remain happy Pete Best must go".[45] He summoned Best to his office and dismissed him on 16 August 1962, two years and four days after Best had first joined the group.[10][44]
Best's friend, Neil Aspinall, was waiting for him downstairs in Epstein's NEMS record shop after the meeting. The two went to The Grapes pub, across from The Cavern Club, where The Beatles had often played.[47] Starting in 1961, Aspinall had become good friends with Best and subsequently rented a room in the house where Best lived with his parents. Best had asked Aspinall to become the band's roadie, resulting in Aspinall buying an old Commer van for 80 pounds.[48] He had been employed as the band's road manager and personal assistant, but was furious at the news, saying that he would stop working for them as well, but Best strongly advised him to remain with the group. Aspinall asked Lennon at the next concert why they had fired Best, to which he replied, "It's got nothing to do with you, you're only the driver."[49]
Prior to Best's dismissal, during one of the extended business trips of Best's father, the 19-year-old Aspinall became romantically involved with Best's mother, Mona Best, who was 17 years his senior.[50] During this period, he fathered a child by Mona: Vincent "Roag" Best.[43][51] Roag Best was born in late July 1962, just three weeks prior to Best's dismissal.[47] Despite his initial support after Best's dismissal, Aspinall elected to stay in the employ of the group, and ended his relationship with Mona (and their three-week-old baby, Roag).[49]
Mersey Beat magazine editor, Bill Harry, has claimed that the vacant drummer position in The Beatles was initially offered by Epstein to Johnny Hutchinson of The Big Three, whom he also managed. Hutchinson turned down the job, saying, "Pete Best is a very good friend of mine. I couldn't do the dirty on him", although he did agree to play three bookings until Starr could join.[52] Starr had previously played with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes—the alternate band in the Kaiserkeller—and had deputised when Best was ill or unable to play, in Hamburg and Liverpool.[40][53] Best's dismissal was reported by Harry on the front-page of the Mersey Beat magazine, upsetting many Beatles fans. The Beatles encountered some jeering and heckling in the street and on stage for weeks afterwards, with some fans shouting, "Pete forever, Ringo [Starr] never!" One agitated fan headbutted Harrison in The Cavern, giving him a black eye.

Reasons for dismissal

Best was never fully told why he was dismissed, as the only reason Epstein stated was, "The lads don't want you in the group anymore".[44] Epstein subsequently claimed in his autobiography that Lennon, McCartney and Harrison thought Best "too conventional to be a Beatle, and though he was friendly with John, he was not liked by George and Paul".[45] It has been documented (notably in Cynthia Lennon's book, John) that while Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison usually spent their offstage time together in Hamburg and Liverpool, writing songs or socialising, Best generally went off alone. This left Best on the outside, as he was not privy to many of the group's experiences, references, and in-jokes.[56]
German photographer Astrid Kirchherr asked The Beatles if they would mind letting her take photographs of them in a photo session, which impressed them, as other groups only had snapshots that were taken by friends. The next morning Kirchherr took photographs in a municipal park called "der Dom" which was close to the Reeperbahn, and in the afternoon she took them all—minus Best, who decided not to go—to her mother's house in Altona.[57][58] Best was described by Dot Rhone—McCartney's girlfriend at the time, who later visited Hamburg—as being very quiet, and never taking part in conversations with the group.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 20, 2012, 05:12:00 AM
Interesting stuff, Nim...
Leach's assertion seems to be wildly out there.
I also question the validity of Epstein's asking of Hutchinson and that one other guy (whose name I can't think of and he kept going around telling everyone he turned down the Beatles) to join the band, even though the Big 3 were set on Ringo.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 20, 2012, 03:02:43 PM
Ok, lets just clear this up now and be done with it. The Beatles needed Pete in the aspect that they couldnt get another drummer at the time and he was a drummer. The Beatles did not need Pete in the aspect that he was a great f***ing drummer skill wise because he wasnt. Alright, thats clear. 

Actually, not clear.  No one is saying Pete Best was the next Keith Moon, or the next John Bonham.  All I have said from the beginning is that Pete contributed a great deal to the success of The Beatles.  WAY MORE THAN MOST BEATLES FANS AND THE BEATLES THEMSELVES want to give him credit for.  The Beatles diminish his (and everybody else's) contributions in order to maximize how good they look and to keep the public’s focus on John, Paul, George & Ringo - The Beatles!!!  Fans do the same out of loyalty to their heroes or just because that's the history people end up seeing in documentary videos like The Beatles own "Anthology".  But it's not the whole truth.

Yes, they needed a drummer desperately in the summer of 1960.  After 2 years of bumming around trying to make it as a band, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had failed in their attempts to find a steady drummer who wanted to play with them, and had ruined their bands name (The Quarrymen) in the process.  So they changed their name and tried to make a fresh start.  They went through a few ideas for a new band name before finally settling on "The Beatles".  Even when told there was a guaranteed paying gig waiting for them in Germany, not a single drummer in Liverpool wanted to join their "new" group.  No one!  (Except for Pete Best)

When Pete joined The Beatles they were a bum band nobody wanted.  "Orphans", "terrible" and an "embarrassment" as George Harrison has said.  They all got better and better from the moment Pete joined.  After 3 months with Pete in the band they were the most talked about group in Hamburg.  Just 4 months after adding Pete, Beatlemania exploded in England.  6 months after Best joined they tried pleasing the fans by putting Pete's drum kit in the front of the stage with Lennon, McCartney & Harrison forced to perform from the rear.  It didn't work as hysterical girls kept stopping the show by mobbing Pete & pulling him off the stage.  8 months after Pete joined they got their first record deal backing up Tony Sheridan on an albums worth of material including the single "My Bonnie".  1 year after Pete joined The Beatles were being called a phenomenon unlike anything we will see in our life time.  He was the star of the group and his "Atom Beat" was the new Liverpool sound.

Quote
The papers were calling THEM a phenomenom,,,not Pete Best.


True.  The papers were calling THEM a phenomenon.  One full year before Ringo joined the group!!!  Who did the papers single out the biggest star in the group?  The "mean, moody & magnificent" Pete Best.  The names "John Lennon", "Paul McCartney" & "George Harrison" were not mentioned a single time in the entire article!!! 

Quote
Lets face it, they scrapped their drummer and got another one and didnt miss a beat. If the Beatles struggled when Pete got canned, i'd say you have a case, but they didnt. 

That's stupid logic.  So if The Beatles had later coldheartedly decided to fire Ringo Starr without ever speaking to him again for the rest of their lives and instead hired someone like Aynsley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell to be the drummer and didn't miss a beat, would prove that Ringo sucked when he was in The Beatles?
Quote

He missed the band playing actual live music and being able to interact with people, but i'm sure he didnt miss the crappy living conditions and being poor. Yeah, the Beatles were probably at their best playing live music since they played all day long, every day, but their studio output trumps the little club stuff anyday. Lets see, playing live to a hundred people in a small smoky bar with no worries, or playing to stadiums full of screaming people, not being able to hear yourself, and fearing that those people might rip you apart. I can see why he said that.

I am sure nobody would miss living in a "toilet" as Lennon called it.  But when talking about when The Beatles were at their best, this is what he said. 

"Our best work was never recorded.  Because we were performers... in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls.  What we generated was fantastic when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain.  As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off. You know, Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain. We were feeling sh*t already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours' playing, which we were glad about in one way, to twenty minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same twenty minutes every night. The Beatles' music died then, as musicians. That's why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it."

 - John Lennon


I think his words speak for themselves.

Quote
Brain only made you the biggest band in history you silly man.

What part of what John Lennon said was silly.  The fact that he said The Beatles were at their best before Brian put them in suits and they sold out?  Or the fact that Lennon is complaining about it?
 
Quote
Pete didnt seem to be good enough during their run of fame though now was he? Ringo was.

Are you saying that because Ringo was fortunate to play with Lennon & McCartney during the period they became the greatest, most successful songwriting team in the history of the world, that proves Ringo Starr was a better drummer than Pete Best?  Surely you are not saying that because they weren't a hit making machine when Best was the drummer, that proves Ringo's drumming was the difference maker that caused The Beatles to start cranking out all of those #1 hits?

Quote
He has proper credit. He was the drummer that helped the Beatles along when they were cutting their teeth. Ringo was the drummer in the band when all of their baby teeth had already fallen out. Thats never going to change.

By the time Ringo joined they were the #1 band in two different cities in two different countries with record deals in two different countries.  The Beatles baby teeth feel out LONG before Ringo Starr joined the group. 

Why did Ringo join The Beatles anyway?

"The reason I joined The Beatles is because they were the best band in Liverpool"  -Ringo Starr
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 20, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
Actually, not clear.  No one is saying Pete Best was the next Keith Moon, or the next John Bonham.  All I have said from the beginning is that Pete contributed a great deal to the success of The Beatles.  WAY MORE THAN MOST BEATLES FANS AND THE BEATLES THEMSELVES want to give him credit for.  The Beatles diminish his (and everybody else's) contributions in order to maximize how good they look and to keep the public’s focus on John, Paul, George & Ringo - The Beatles!!!  Fans do the same out of loyalty to their heroes or just because that's the history people end up seeing in documentary videos like The Beatles own "Anthology".  But it's not the whole truth.

Yes, they needed a drummer desperately in the summer of 1960.  After 2 years of bumming around trying to make it as a band, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison had failed in their attempts to find a steady drummer who wanted to play with them, and had ruined their bands name (The Quarrymen) in the process.  So they changed their name and tried to make a fresh start.  They went through a few ideas for a new band name before finally settling on "The Beatles".  Even when told there was a guaranteed paying gig waiting for them in Germany, not a single drummer in Liverpool wanted to join their "new" group.  No one!  (Except for Pete Best)

When Pete joined The Beatles they were a bum band nobody wanted.  "Orphans", "terrible" and an "embarrassment" as George Harrison has said.  They all got better and better from the moment Pete joined.  After 3 months with Pete in the band they were the most talked about group in Hamburg.  Just 4 months after adding Pete, Beatlemania exploded in England.  6 months after Best joined they tried pleasing the fans by putting Pete's drum kit in the front of the stage with Lennon, McCartney & Harrison forced to perform from the rear.  It didn't work as hysterical girls kept stopping the show by mobbing Pete & pulling him off the stage.  8 months after Pete joined they got their first record deal backing up Tony Sheridan on an albums worth of material including the single "My Bonnie".  1 year after Pete joined The Beatles were being called a phenomenon unlike anything we will see in our life time.  He was the star of the group and his "Atom Beat" was the new Liverpool sound.

You just keep repeating yourself. Your basically saying that Petes biggest contribution to the band was that he accepted the drumming position when nobody else would (wonder why he even accepted since the band was so sh*tty as you say. I guess he had trouble finding work?). Just accepting the position isnt much of a contribution. What did he do that was so great? If the guy was actually writing songs, or teaching the guys music theory then I would say he was a great contributor. Just because he was an adequate drummer and helped the Beatles get girl private due to his looks, doesnt mean he was a major contributor. What did he do that was so musically brilliant? As far as I can see, he was basically a drummer in a cover band that had a few originals at the time. Thats not hard. If I played the same songs night after night after night, I would be just as adequate.

Show me some examples of how f***ing good this guy is. I mean, I have albums of his and almost everything that can be heard from his Beatle days thats offered and i'm not seeing this great talent. Hell, when the guys wrote originals and let him lay the beat to the songs, we ended up with his version of 'Love Me Do' which sucked beyond belief. Prove your point already instead of just saying he joined the band and thats enough
 
Quote
True.  The papers were calling THEM a phenomenon.  One full year before Ringo joined the group!!!  Who did the papers single out the biggest star in the group?  The "mean, moody & magnificent" Pete Best.  The names "John Lennon", "Paul McCartney" & "George Harrison" were not mentioned a single time in the entire article!!! 

Thats awesome. The guy was decent looking, played the drums hard, and made a spectacle out of himself so he recieved the most attention. Whoopee. Surely he must have been the talent in the group. I mean, look how his career took off after he was canned.

Quote
That's stupid logic.  So if The Beatles had later coldheartedly decided to fire Ringo Starr without ever speaking to him again for the rest of their lives and instead hired someone like Aynsley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell to be the drummer and didn't miss a beat, would prove that Ringo sucked when he was in The Beatles?

Well since you just mentioned two drummers that are better than Ringo, I suppose we can say yes to your question.

Quote
I am sure nobody would miss living in a "toilet" as Lennon called it.  But when talking about when The Beatles were at their best, this is what he said. 

"Our best work was never recorded.  Because we were performers... in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls.  What we generated was fantastic when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain.  As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off. You know, Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain. We were feeling sh*t already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours' playing, which we were glad about in one way, to twenty minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same twenty minutes every night. The Beatles' music died then, as musicians. That's why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it."
 - John Lennon


I think his words speak for themselves.

Let me break it down for you. Once Brian got ahold of them, they werent playing sh*tty clubs everynight so yeah, the fluidness and skills of the actual playing may have broken down, but who wants to listen to that crap compared the 'A Hard Days Night'? They wanted to make it big and they sure as hell werent going to do so by continuing their raunchy stage act and wearing leather jackets. I think their success proves that point. Its not hard to imagine that they had a better time with no supervision. Dont we all?

Quote
What part of what John Lennon said was silly.  The fact that he said The Beatles were at their best before Brian put them in suits and they sold out?  Or the fact that Lennon is complaining about it?

Both. Sure they were palying all the time and they felt competent at their instruments, but if I compare what they were doing then to say Sgt. Peppers, i'd say John was full of sh*t. Of course John complained about. He complained about everything because he's a miserable f***. He didnt deserve the stardom. Somebody else should of had it so they could have appreciated it more.
 
Quote
Are you saying that because Ringo was fortunate to play with Lennon & McCartney during the period they became the greatest, most successful songwriting team in the history of the world, that proves Ringo Starr was a better drummer than Pete Best?  Surely you are not saying that because they weren't a hit making machine when Best was the drummer, that proves Ringo's drumming was the difference maker that caused The Beatles to start cranking out all of those #1 hits?

Well the fact that Ringo was still labeled as the best drummer in Liverpool even when Pete was in the Beatles may have had something to do with it and sure, I think Ringo helped the band out by being a better drummer. He was tighter and more innovative for sure. I havent heard anything from Pete Best that would change my mind.

Again with this age old question, if Pete was so good, why werent people and bands knocking down his door for his services? Did he pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed all depressed for 2 or 3 years? This is the question I want answered the most.

Quote
By the time Ringo joined they were the #1 band in two different cities in two different countries with record deals in two different countries.  The Beatles baby teeth feel out LONG before Ringo Starr joined the group.

After he joined, they were the biggest band in the world. Big difference there. 

Quote
Why did Ringo join The Beatles anyway?

"The reason I joined The Beatles is because they were the best band in Liverpool"  -Ringo Starr

And your point? He surely didnt join because he thought Pete Best was some great freaking drummer. Record deals might have had something to do with it too, but gee, I dont know.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 20, 2012, 06:11:40 PM
@ Kitna...
where was it ever stated that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Sir John Johns on January 20, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
Mum? Popularity? Paul's jealousy? wrong haircut?

The next time you have your iPod connected to your PC - make a Chronological playlist starting with the Quarrymen and finishing with Please Please Me single. Once Pete Best is removed from the equation, the band goes from sounding pretty ordainary/run of the mill to untouchable in the space of 4/5months.

Some people may believe that Ringo was the luckiest man in the whole universe, but he was the final piece of the puzzle.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Klang on January 20, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
Some people may believe that Ringo was the luckiest man in the whole universe, but he was the final piece of the puzzle.

Or perhaps Sir George Martin was.

 :D

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 20, 2012, 07:46:34 PM
So...does anyone on this explosive thread think Mona Best caused her own son's firing?
no. not in the strictest sense. but it is my belief that Pete Best was very unlikely the throw-away drummer for the beatles that some people likes to pretend he was.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 20, 2012, 09:14:07 PM
no. not in the strictest sense. but it is my belief that Pete Best was very unlikely the throw-away drummer for the beatles that some people likes to pretend he was.
 ;yes

Any reasoning behind that?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 20, 2012, 09:27:11 PM
@ Kitna...
where was it ever stated that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool?

"Ringo was simply the best drummer in Liverpool. Ringo also had native wit. He didn't know when he was being funny. Ringo Talked in titles. We had to follow him around with a notebook and pencil. You never know what he would say next." -- Paul McCartney


This is from Wikipedia, but its about right in my opinion.

Quote
Musically, Best has been judged to have had a limited rhythmic vocabulary that was seen as holding the other three band members back from their collective musical growth. Martin (see above) deemed Best's drumming to be inadequate for a recording. As stated in Bob Spitz's 2005 biography, "All Pete could do was play 'Fours'", a style of drumming that uses kick drum notes on every quarter note to hold down the beat. Spitz's book also contains engineer Ron Richards' account of his failed attempts to teach Best somewhat more complicated beats for different songs.[41] Critic and Beatles historian Richie Unterberger described Best's drumming at the Decca session as "thinly textured and rather unimaginative",[35] and said that Best "pushes the beat a little too fast for comfort".[36] Unterberger thought Starr to be "more talented".[70] Beatles critic Alan W. Pollack compared the Best, Starr, and Andy White versions of "Love Me Do", and concluded that Best was "an incredibly unsteady and tasteless drummer" on his version.[71] Beatles historian Ian MacDonald, recounting the Decca audition, said that "Best's limitations as a drummer are nakedly apparent".[72] MacDonald notes of the 6 June EMI audition that "...this audition version [of "Love Me Do"] shows one of the reasons why Pete Best was sacked: in moving to the ride cymbal for the first middle eight, he slows down and the group falters".[73]

Yeah, Pete was great.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 20, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
"Ringo was simply the best drummer in Liverpool. Ringo also had native wit. He didn't know when he was being funny. Ringo Talked in titles. We had to follow him around with a notebook and pencil. You never know what he would say next." -- Paul McCartney


This is from Wikipedia, but its about right in my opinion.

Yeah, Pete was great.


Ringo was so great he screwed the up timing of"Love Me Do" the first time he tried it just like Pete did.  Not only did George Martin think Ringo screwed it up, so did Paul McCartney.  Martin had to bring in professional studio drummer Andy White the following week to get it right.  At that session, they had Ringo Starr, the "best drummer in Liverpool" play tamborine!!!

Isn't that what Yoko used to play?

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 20, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
Pete Best sacked because of his mom?

No I dont think so, its obvious that 3/4 of the band wanted a new drummer, thats it really, George Martins remark just gave them the ammunition to fire him, they played with him endlessly in Hamburg, they lived with him and at the end they decided he wasnt right for the band, even if his mum had the Casbah and even if he was good looking..
When I listen to Petes version of Love Me Do, he loses time in the middle 8, the biggest job of any drummer is surely to keep time, for me this is a major clue to what the other 3 were hearing all the time.

They decided they wanted Ringo in, it was the bands decision, they decided Pete wasnt right for The Beatles.

I personally feel very very sorry for Pete, but these things happen and you have to be strong and accept it, Pete did and good on him

IMO any film should explain to fans that the other 3 didnt want him in the band. That was their right and their decision.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 12:53:47 AM

Ringo was so great he screwed the up timing of"Love Me Do" the first time he tried it just like Pete did.  Not only did George Martin think Ringo screwed it up, so did Paul McCartney.  Martin had to bring in professional studio drummer Andy White the following week to get it right.  At that session, they had Ringo Starr, the "best drummer in Liverpool" play tamborine!!!

Hey, i'm just quoting what Paul said. If Ringo messed up 'love Me Do' we can only imagine how bad Petes destruction of the song was.

Quote
Isn't that what Yoko used to play?

She was probably better than Pete too.

Hey, did you get any of those great examples of Petes superior playing for us all to hear yet?

Yeah, I didnt think so.


Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 12:58:06 AM
Again with this age old question, if Pete was so good, why werent people and bands knocking down his door for his services? Did he pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed all depressed for 2 or 3 years? This is the question I want answered the most.

Still looking for this answer too. Please, somebody,,,anybody answer this for me.

**sound of crickets**
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 21, 2012, 01:33:18 AM
Any reasoning behind that?
yes. because i can.  roll:) i am speaking only from my limited experience as a hand drummer and musician. 
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 01:55:18 AM
Still looking for this answer too. Please, somebody,,,anybody answer this for me.

**sound of crickets**

This question was already answered once before, so pay attention tkitna.  Pete did not pull a Brian Wilson.  He was asked to join Lee Curtis & The All-Stars.  In January 1962, The Beatles with Pete Best narrowly won The Mersey Beat Poll as the most popular group in Germany (narrowly defeating Ringo's group Rory Storm & The Hurricaines).    in January 1963, just 4 months after Pete was replaced by Ringo, The Beatles won again in a very close vote.  This time they narrowly beat out the new hottest band in Liverpool - Lee Curtis & The All-Stars featuring Pete Best who finished 2nd in the poll.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 21, 2012, 02:01:34 AM
This question was already answered once before, so pay attention tkitna.  Pete did not pull a Brian Wilson.  He was asked to join Lee Curtis & The All-Stars.  In January 1962, The Beatles with Pete Best narrowly won The Mersey Beat Poll as the most popular group in Germany (narrowly defeating Ringo's group Rory Storm & The Hurricaines).    in January 1963, just 4 months after Pete was replaced by Ringo, The Beatles won again in a very close vote.  This time they narrowly beat out the new hottest band in Liverpool - Lee Curtis & The All-Stars featuring Pete Best who finished 2nd in the poll.

is this the same Lee Curtis band that never had a hit ?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 02:14:44 AM
is this the same Lee Curtis band that never had a hit ?

Or the same Lee Curtis band that i've never heard of. I'm overwhelmed by their success. Must have been that great drummers doing.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 02:19:27 AM
yes. because i can.  roll:) i am speaking only from my limited experience as a hand drummer and musician. 
 ;sorry

First of all, you can stop posting sorry after everyone of your comments. We are all aware that you are sorry.

Secondly, stating that you are a musician via hand drumming isnt helping your case.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 21, 2012, 02:27:13 AM
...can't you at least keep this friendly, Kitna?
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 21, 2012, 02:30:06 AM
LEE CURTIS & THE ALL-STARS (with PETE BEST) LET'S STOMP-1963 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbLZiIcH_a0#ws)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 21, 2012, 02:31:53 AM
...can't you at least keep this friendly, Kitna?

Yes come on guys nada surf is right lets keep it friendly please, otherwise it just goes downhill....no personal abuse.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 02:35:13 AM
...can't you at least keep this friendly, Kitna?

Your right. I apologize to everybody as i've been over the top lately. Although 7 of 13 and I have had a long, ugly history, he didnt deserve my childish name calling and I deleted that part accordingly. I'll watch the swearing too.

Sorry.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 02:43:15 AM
You just keep repeating yourself. Your basically saying that Petes biggest contribution to the band was that he accepted the drumming position when nobody else would (wonder why he even accepted since the band was so sh*tty as you say. I guess he had trouble finding work?). Just accepting the position isnt much of a contribution. What did he do that was so great? If the guy was actually writing songs, or teaching the guys music theory then I would say he was a great contributor. Just because he was an adequate drummer and helped the Beatles get girl private due to his looks, doesnt mean he was a major contributor. What did he do that was so musically brilliant? As far as I can see, he was basically a drummer in a cover band that had a few originals at the time. Thats not hard. If I played the same songs night after night after night, I would be just as adequate.

No you wouldn't, because you are one of those guys who loves to run his mouth, swearing all the time and acting like your opinion is the final word on any topic you decide to throw in your 2 cents on.  You talk a lot, but you never really do anything, do you?  What have you ever actually done to be such an expert on everything?  Seriously.  Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but what have you ever done in your life that would make you qualified to be a know it all expert on what it takes to be a part of a gigging band for two years?   You wouldn't have a clue.  Pete did a lot more than just "accept the position" of drummer in The Beatles.  He spent more time playing live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career, at times drew more paying fans to The Beatles shows than the other 3 put together, created a beat that became the new Liverpool sound, helped the group become the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries and also helped manage the groups business affairs.  That's more than just accepting a position.

Quote
Show me some examples of how f***ing good this guy is. I mean, I have albums of his and almost everything that can be heard from his Beatle days thats offered and i'm not seeing this great talent. Hell, when the guys wrote originals and let him lay the beat to the songs, we ended up with his version of 'Love Me Do' which sucked beyond belief. Prove your point already instead of just saying he joined the band and thats enough.

I've proved my point a dozen different way on many different posts.  You usually skip right past the facts of my answers and just keep throwing out attack questions.  I answer all of them and the the whole process repeats itself.  Pete's first take at "Love Me Do" sucked beyond belief?  So did Ringo's first take at "Love Me Do".  He couldn't keep the timing right and had the exact same problem Pete had.  George Martin thought so.  So did Paul McCartney.  Ringo's first attempt at "Love Me Do" sucked so bad that Martin booked studio drummer Andy White he following week to try and get it recorded right.  They let Ringo play tamborine (same instrument Yoko played).

You asked for examples of Pete's best work with the Beatles?

"Our best work was never recorded.   We were at our best when we played the dance halls of Liverpool & Hamburg.  The world never saw that.  Later on we became technically efficent recording artists."

-John Lennon


 
Quote
Thats awesome. The guy was decent looking, played the drums hard, and made a spectacle out of himself so he recieved the most attention. Whoopee. Surely he must have been the talent in the group. I mean, look how his career took off after he was canned.

He didn't make a spectacle out of himself as you say, but at times he did draw more fans than the other three combined!!!  Drawing fans is an important part of being a gigging band.  Something you know nothing about or else you wouldn't make such silly comments.  But no matter how good a job a drummer does, you need hit songs.  Best found one Hall of Fame songwriting team, he wasn't able to find another.   He isn't alone there.  No other drummer in the history of the world found another Lennon & McCartney either.

Quote
Well since you just mentioned two drummers that are better than Ringo, I suppose we can say yes to your question.

I asked you if The Beatles were to have later sacked Ringo and replaced him with Anysley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell, would that mean Ringo sucked and didn't contribute anything to The Beatles too.  You say yes???!!!  That's just a stupid way at looking at things.  Whatever Ringo contributed, he contributed.  Just like whatever Pete contributed he contributed.  Just because you sack someone, that doesn't erase the contributions the person made before they were sacked.

Quote
Let me break it down for you. Once Brian got a hold of them, they werent playing sh*tty clubs everynight so yeah, the fluidness and skills of the actual playing may have broken down, but who wants to listen to that crap compared the 'A Hard Days Night'?


They were selling out shows in 2 different countries with fans standing in line for days before the show just to have a chance to get in.  It looks like a whole lot of people wanted to hear that "crap" as you call it.


Quote
They wanted to make it big and they sure as hell werent going to do so by continuing their raunchy stage act and wearing leather jackets.  I think their success proves that point.  Its not hard to imagine that they had a better time with no supervision.  Dont we all?

The point wasn't when did they have the most fun.   The point was when were The Beatles playing at their best as a live act.  John Lennon says they were at their best during the time Pete Best was the drummer.
 
Quote
Well the fact that Ringo was still labeled as the best drummer in Liverpool even when Pete was in the Beatles may have had something to do with it and sure, I think Ringo helped the band out by being a better drummer. He was tighter and more innovative for sure. I havent heard anything from Pete Best that would change my mind.

Who says Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool?   You? 

Quote
Again with this age old question, if Pete was so good, why werent people and bands knocking down his door for his services? Did he pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed all depressed for 2 or 3 years? This is the question I want answered the most.

This question was already answered once before, so pay attention tkitna.  Pete did not pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed for 2-3 years.  He was asked to join Lee Curtis & The All-Stars.  In January 1962, The Beatles with Pete Best had narrowly won The Mersey Beat Poll as the most popular group in Germany (narrowly defeating Ringo's group Rory Storm & The Hurricaines).    In January 1963, just 4 months after Pete was replaced by Ringo, The Beatles won again in a very close vote.  This time they narrowly beat out the new hottest band in Liverpool - Lee Curtis & The All-Stars featuring Pete Best who finished 2nd in the poll.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 02:46:27 AM
Or the same Lee Curtis band that i've never heard of. I'm overwhelmed by their success. Must have been that great drummers doing.

Again, drummers don't make hit groups.  Singers & great songwriting does.  They didn't have a Lennon / McCartney in Lee Curtis & The All-Stars so the immediate success that had after adding Pete Best was short lived.  I never said Pete Best was The Beatles (although he was the most popular).  All I have said was that he made a significant contribution to the group, and his contribution is played down or outright dismissed by The Beatles themselves and by people like you.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 21, 2012, 02:55:56 AM
Your right. I apologize to everybody as i've been over the top lately. Although 7 of 13 and I have had a long, ugly history, he didnt deserve my childish name calling and I deleted that part accordingly. I'll watch the swearing too.

Sorry.
one thousand times no. you don't bother me one bit tkitna, at the very least your comments are thought provoking though i do think some of it is overkill. be yourself man, that's the least you can do.
First of all, you can stop posting sorry after everyone of your comments. We are all aware that you are sorry.

Secondly, stating that you are a musician via hand drumming isnt helping your case.
again, i just happen to let the abundant colorful smileys speak for themselves.  :-\ and two to be perfectly honest hand drumming just humongously improved my skills as a guitarist and keeping a basic steady beat.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 03:02:23 AM
Hey, i'm just quoting what Paul said. If Ringo messed up 'love Me Do' we can only imagine how bad Petes destruction of the song was.

You don't have to imagine.]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzY0XYVyTk#] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzY0XYVyTk#)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 21, 2012, 03:06:41 AM
You don't have to imagine.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzY0XYVyTk#[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwzY0XYVyTk#[/url])
Pete Best yeah. that man has rhythm. no doubt about it.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 03:10:23 AM
Pete Best yeah. that man has rhythm. no doubt about it.
 ;yes

Pete loses the timing on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do".  Ringo Starr had the same problem on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do" also, despite having an additional month to learn it.

You can't judge a person's entire career based on one day in the studio.  It isn't fair to Pete or Ringo.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 21, 2012, 03:28:39 AM
No you wouldn't, because you are one of those guys who loves to run his mouth, swearing all the time and acting like your opinion is the final word on any topic you decide to throw in your 2 cents on.  You talk a lot, but you never really do anything, do you?  What have you ever actually done to be such an expert on everything?  Seriously.  Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but what have you ever done in your life that would make you qualified to be a know it all expert on what it takes to be a part of a gigging band for two years?   You wouldn't have a clue.  Pete did a lot more than just "accept the position" of drummer in The Beatles.  He spent more time playing live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career, at times drew more paying fans to The Beatles shows than the other 3 put together, created a beat that became the new Liverpool sound, helped the group become the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries and also helped manage the groups business affairs.  That's more than just accepting a position.

I've only been a drummer for 35 years and have been in and played in several different bands. Thanks for playing though.

Quote
I've proved my point a dozen different way on many different posts.  You usually skip right past the facts of my answers and just keep throwing out attack questions.  I answer all of them and the the whole process repeats itself.  Pete's first take at "Love Me Do" sucked beyond belief?  So did Ringo's first take at "Love Me Do".  He couldn't keep the timing right and had the exact same problem Pete had.  George Martin thought so.  So did Paul McCartney.  Ringo's first attempt at "Love Me Do" sucked so bad that Martin booked studio drummer Andy White he following week to try and get it recorded right.  They let Ringo play tamborine (same instrument Yoko played).

Ok great. They both tanked 'Love Me Do', but let me ask you something,,,who's version did you think was better?

Quote
You asked for examples of Pete's best work with the Beatles?

"Our best work was never recorded.   We were at our best when we played the dance halls of Liverpool & Hamburg.  The world never saw that.  Later on we became technically efficent recording artists."

-John Lennon

How convenient. A debate with no actual proof. Your in a no lose situation.
 
Quote
I asked you if The Beatles were to have later sacked Ringo and replaced him with Anysley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell, would that mean Ringo sucked and didn't contribute anything to The Beatles too.  You say yes???!!!  That's just a stupid way at looking at things.  Whatever Ringo contributed, he contributed.  Just like whatever Pete contributed he contributed.  Just because you sack someone, that doesn't erase the contributions the person made before they were sacked.

Yeah, the contributions would still stand. Your right. I just wish we knew the contributions that Pete made to the band. Obviously, you feel its a great deal more than I do. I've heard his drumming, and I just dont think he was that good.

Quote
They were selling out shows in 2 different countries with fans standing in line for days before the show just to have a chance to get in.  It looks like a whole lot of people wanted to hear that "crap" as you call it.

Yeah, those groups of a hundred fans must have been on the edge of their seat.

Quote
The point wasn't when did they have the most fun.   The point was when were The Beatles playing at their best as a live act.  John Lennon says they were at their best during the time Pete Best was the drummer.

Seriously though, how couldnt they be? With Ringo, they were playing to tens of thousands of people without being able to hear. I'd challenge anybody to play well under those conditions.
 
Quote
Who says Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool?   You?

No,,,,Paul McCartney. 

Quote
This question was already answered once before, so pay attention tkitna.  Pete did not pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed for 2-3 years.  He was asked to join Lee Curtis & The All-Stars.  In January 1962, The Beatles with Pete Best had narrowly won The Mersey Beat Poll as the most popular group in Germany (narrowly defeating Ringo's group Rory Storm & The Hurricaines).    In January 1963, just 4 months after Pete was replaced by Ringo, The Beatles won again in a very close vote.  This time they narrowly beat out the new hottest band in Liverpool - Lee Curtis & The All-Stars featuring Pete Best who finished 2nd in the poll.

We've been over this already. Nobody has ever heard of Lee Curtis so its irrelevant. Why didnt he continue on afterwards with other bands. just seems strange to me that a great talent like Pete Best wasnt involved in something bigger than Lee Curtis after the Beatles.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 21, 2012, 04:19:15 AM
Pete loses the timing on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do".  Ringo Starr had the same problem on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do" also, despite having an additional month to learn it.

You can't judge a person's entire career based on one day in the studio.  It isn't fair to Pete or Ringo.

Its good enough for me that John Paul & George thought Ringo was a much better drummer for their band, you dont just sack a drummer light-heartedly they must've been really unhappy with Pete. Why cant you just accept that ? so besides promoting your film (not being sarcastic) what are you trying to say BeatlesAtTheirBest ?

People in life get sacked, sh*t happens every day  4ac
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 05:44:08 PM

I've only been a drummer for 35 years and have been in and played in several different bands. Thanks for playing though.

If you've been a drummer for 35 years then how can you make some of the flippant comments you make.   Time and again you try and dismiss Pete Best's contributions in the two years he was in The Beatles by just comparing Best's version of "Love Me Do" to Ringo Starr's version.   Nothing else matters.  Then when I point out that Ringo had the same timing problem that Pete had when he first attempted "Love Me Do", and that both George Martin and Paul McCartney were unhappy with it.   You still don’t address the my original question of how can you so flippantly dismiss the contributions that Pete Best made during his 2 years playing live in The Beatles by comparing the original studio versions of “Love Me Do” with Pete Best on drums vs. the final version of “Love Me Do” with Ringo Starr on drums.  You do so again here...

Quote
Ok great. They both tanked 'Love Me Do', but let me ask you something,,,who's version did you think was better?

I thought Ringo Starr's final version of "Love Me Do" was better than Pete Best's first attempt at "Love Me Do".  For the record, I thought Lennon, McCartney & Harrison were much better on the final version too.   Too bad Pete didn’t get another crack at it like Ringo did.  It would be interesting to compare Pete’s final version with Ringo’s initial attempt.  Too bad we can’t do that.

Quote
How convenient. A debate with no actual proof. Your in a no lose situation.

You say you have been drumming for 35 years and played in several bands.  Yet, when I say things like "Pete Best spent more time playing live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career, at times drawing more paying fans to The Beatles shows than the other 3 put together, created a beat that became the new Liverpool sound, helped the group become the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries and also helped manage the groups business affairs."  

You blow right by that and go right back asking to more questions or make more statements dismissing whatever fact I am pointing out as not important.  When I comment on John Lennon complaining how The Beatles started getting worse after Brian put them in suits and they sold out, and he feels that The Beatles were at their best as a band when they were playing live in the clubs of Liverpool & Hamburg.   You reply...

Quote
"Sure they were palying all the time and they felt competent at their instruments, but if I compare what they were doing then to say Sgt. Peppers, i'd say John was full of sh*t. Of course John complained about. He complained about everything because he's a miserable f***. "

At one point you said that because The Beatles replaced Best with Starr, that proves Pete sucked and contributed nothing during his time in The Beatles.  I asked you if The Beatles were to have later coldheartedly sacked Ringo without even bothering to tell him then and replaced him with Anysley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell, would that mean Ringo sucked and didn't contribute anything to The Beatles too?  You said yeah.  Now to your credit you've reconsidered your position there.

I tell you The Beatles with Pete Best were selling out places like The Cavern, where fans were queuing up days in advance for a chance to get in.  They were being called "a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime" a full year before Ringo Starr joined the group.  You sarcastically dismiss facts like that with flippant comments like...
Quote
After he (Ringo) joined, they were the biggest band in the world. Big difference there.
or
Quote
Yeah, those groups of a hundred fans must have been on the edge of their seat.

I don’t know where you come from, but where I come from "A phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime" doesn't sound like just a couple hundred fans sitting on the edge of their seats.   It sounds like Beatlemania!  It sounds like The Beatles!!!  A full year before Ringo Starr joined the group.

You say that Paul McCartney says The Beatles got Ringo Starr because he was known as Liverpool's greatest drummer so it must be true.  McCartney didn't start saying that kind of thing until recent years.  Heck, when John Lennon was asked if Ringo Starr was the best drummer around didn't he reply that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles (Paul McCartney was).

You ask...

Quote
Again with this age old question, if Pete was so good, why werent people and bands knocking down his door for his services? Did he pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed all depressed for 2 or 3 years? This is the question I want answered the most. 

I tell you that Pete's new band, Lee Curtis & The All-Stars instantly became The Beatles new rival as the most popular band in Liverpool and finished a narrow 2nd in the January 1963 Mersey Beat poll.  You say...

Quote
We've been over this already. Nobody has ever heard of Lee Curtis so its irrelevant.

Lee Curtis & The All Stars were rivaling The Beatles as the 2nd most popular band in the city of Liverpool - just 4 months after Pete joined the group.  That would have been very relevant to people living in Liverpool at the time. 

I am not saying Pete Best is the greatest drummer in the world, or was even the greatest drummer in Liverpool at the time.  All I am saying is that you can't believe everything you read in Wikipedia.  Everybody knows that you can't trust Wikipedia because vandals can change it to say crazy things.  They can change the page to make it say somthing daft like "Beatles guitarist John Harrison says that he wrote "While My Cigar Gives Me Creeps" after a panic attack from drinking too much coffee."  Usually that type of vandalism is caught and corrected quickly.  The real problem with Wikipedia is people with an agenda (like a publicist) can manipulate the information to give a position they favor and get away with it.  All it takes it one referenced source for Wikipedia to look on something as a fact.  You just find one crackpot book to use as reference or anyone making a statement that can be found on line, you reference it and PRESTO!!!  It's an accepted Wikipedia fact.

There is a tread on theis website discussing the origins of the name "The Beatles".  Right now if you go to Wikipedia, there is no mention of John Lennon having a role as in coming up with The Beatles name.  NONE!  And it's been that way on Wikipedia for a while.  Because there is one reference to Bill Harry saying Stu thought of "Beetles" and no other references to anyone else saying anything else - including no references to The Beatles themselves saying anything on the subject - it becomes an undisputed Wikipedia fact that John Lennon had nothing to do with coming up with the name "The Beatles".  Undisputed until someone disputes it.

See the problem there?  That's the point I am trying to make tkitna.  I am trying to shed light on facts you might not find in Wikipedia or in The Beatles own self serving Anthology.  Anthology isn't the whole story.  That's all I am trying to say.  You say you spent 35 years playing drums and spent time in a band.  How popular was YOUR band.  How much did YOU contribute to the bands popularity?  Pete Best, for whatever his limitations on drums, was the only person who wanted the job of drumming for that bum band, The Beatles, and he contributed a lot.  He contributed a great deal to their success as did the others.  He helped manage the affairs of the band; he was a reliable bandmate missing just 3 or 4 out of 750+ shows, no more than the others and a lot less than Paul McCartney; he developed a loud style of drumming others dubbed "The Atom Beat" that the other Liverpool drummers including Ringo Starr began copying; he was the biggest draw at their shows and he put more time in drumming live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo Starr did in his entire career.   He should get some credit for all of that.

When is the last time you saw any of that mentioned in Wikipedia or Beatles Anthology?

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 05:49:39 PM
Some examples of Pete on drums..Pete Best Four , I'm Gonna Knock On Your Door (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXtp2tMkyho#)The Pete Best Combo - Rock And Roll Music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS9vF-VSrVc#)Note that by 1965, Pete had adopted what looks like a "Beatles" style haircut.


Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 21, 2012, 06:11:10 PM
Its good enough for me that John Paul & George thought Ringo was a much better drummer for their band, you dont just sack a drummer light-heartedly they must've been really unhappy with Pete. Why cant you just accept that ? so besides promoting your film (not being sarcastic) what are you trying to say BeatlesAtTheirBest ?

People in life get sacked, sh*t happens every day  4ac


I am trying to say that information is out there, but real, true story of the early years of The Beatles, the most successful entertainment group in the history of the world is not reported accurately.  I am also saying that this early history - the time when Pete Best was the drummer for The Beatles, the time when John Lennon says The Beatles were at their best is not properly appreciated or properly understood by most fans of the group.

I am not just posting here to bring attention to my film.  I made a film and am posting here to bring more attention to this issue.  I am hoping to educate, entertain and hopefully change a few peoples misconceptions.  I am hoping to shed a little light of the truth and keep this issue alive as much as I can in 2012 - the 50th anniversary of the sacking of Pete and the birth of The Beatles as the world knows them, John, Paul, George & Ringo.



Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 21, 2012, 06:26:40 PM
I thought I'd already posted this, but I don't see it...
In the YouTube video I posted of Best with the Curtis band, clearly he's a solid drummer but the one thing I noticed a lack of was the cymbals/high hat sound that Ringo made so mesmerizing on the early Beatles' songs.

For you drummers/historians, was Ringo the first to use that constant cymbal sound on records? If so, he deserves a ton of credit for the Beatles sound and was quite the innovator.

I noticed Best used to avoid those cymbals.

The Beatles used to comment that their sounds was better the few times Ringo had played with them in Hamburg while Best was sick. I'll bet it was the cymbals.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 22, 2012, 01:37:06 AM
I was going to write a whole page response as usual, but this horse has been dead for 5 pages now.

Here's how I feel. Pete Best deserves credit for sticking with the band during their 2 year growing pains. Yes, i'm sure they all got better with repetitive playing. Yes, Pete was probably the most popular member at the time. Yes, he got a bad deal in the end.

I also would like to add that I dont feel there would be no Beatles without Pete Best. They would have found somebody eventually. Lennon and McCartney were to driven not to succeed. I dont feel that Petes musical contribution was as big a deal as others in this thread do. I feel he was a competent drummer that held a steady beat and drove the band. Pete had the 'Atom Beat', Ringo had 'Starr Time'. Pick your poison. Members in the band have even said that Ringo was better (Paul and George), but maybe they were just standing by their fianl decision. I still think if Pete helped write some songs or had any input to the musical decisions, i'd change my views some. Whatever, it is what it is.

As for BeatlesAtTheirBest, once again, its cool that you are so adamant about your stance. You stated that I come off as a GTFOOH type of person and thats probably true. I apologize once again for that. I do want to tell you though that your opinion of Pete isnt some great discovery that only your aware of and everybody else seems to be blind of. If your goal is to have people be aware that Pete playing with the band during their infant years and his duration contributed to their rise, you've done a good job. If your trying to add anything more to that equation, i'm afraid not too many people are going to jump on board. Peace.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 23, 2012, 12:02:00 AM
I thought I'd already posted this, but I don't see it...
In the YouTube video I posted of Best with the Curtis band, clearly he's a solid drummer but the one thing I noticed a lack of was the cymbals/high hat sound that Ringo made so mesmerizing on the early Beatles' songs.

For you drummers/historians, was Ringo the first to use that constant cymbal sound on records? If so, he deserves a ton of credit for the Beatles sound and was quite the innovator.

I noticed Best used to avoid those cymbals.

The Beatles used to comment that their sounds was better the few times Ringo had played with them in Hamburg while Best was sick. I'll bet it was the cymbals.
interesting question. the constant cymbal sound was most likely not an outright innovation, it a common idea in jazz music and on jazz records. but in the context that you are describing, it is possible that it was in the neighborhood of being a kinda/sorta new idea, addition, or extension for the rock sound and the R&B sound they were trying oh so very hard to emulate.
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: nimrod on January 23, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
I was going to write a whole page response as usual, but this horse has been dead for 5 pages now.


hear hear  ha2ha

Quote
Here's how I feel. Pete Best deserves credit for sticking with the band during their 2 year growing pains. Yes, i'm sure they all got better with repetitive playing. Yes, Pete was probably the most popular member at the time. Yes, he got a bad deal in the end.

I dont think any fair minded Beatle fan would argue with that TBH.

Ive said previously I feel very sorry for Pete, he comes over as a nice guy and was unlucky IMO, (I didnt like how he said he was sacked because of Jealousy reasons on Letterman though) however it was up to the other 3 who they wanted as their drummer and they chose Ringo.

I believe Pete got quite a healthy royalty payment from the release of anthology 1 (in the millions according to some internet sites) so I guess in the end he got some compensation for his efforts in the band.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 23, 2012, 03:23:30 AM
hear hear  ha2ha

I dont think any fair minded Beatle fan would argue with that TBH.

Ive said previously I feel very sorry for Pete, he comes over as a nice guy and was unlucky IMO, (I didnt like how he said he was sacked because of Jealousy reasons on Letterman though) however it was up to the other 3 who they wanted as their drummer and they chose Ringo.

I believe Pete got quite a healthy royalty payment from the release of anthology 1 (in the millions according to some internet sites) so I guess in the end he got some compensation for his efforts in the band.


There had to have been at least a little bit of jealousy when you think about them doing shows and all of the girls throwing themselves at Pete, the least talented of the four.  For years I always thought Paul was making just making a balanced & fair assessment when he was quoted as saying "mean, moody & magnificent Pete Best".  Then I recently learned that he was really just quoting what was written in a August 1961 Mersey Beat article on The Beatles.  That's the article where Pete was singled out for his "mean, moody, magnificence" and John, Paul & George were never even mentioned.  There is no one in the world that loved reading his press clipping as much as Paul did.  Can you imagine how he felt when he read that article?  I think it burned right into his brain.  That's why to this day when he comments on Pete Best and says "mean, moody & magnificent Pete Best", he is really being sarcastic and getting in the last word on just how ridiculous he felt that Mersey Beat article was.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: tkitna on January 23, 2012, 03:48:52 AM
Speaking of Pete, I always liked this song.

Pete Best Band- I'll Try Anyway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvM0vPUw8QQ#)

Unfortunately I wasnt crazy about the rest of the record and ended up giving it to PC when he came to visit a few years ago.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 25, 2012, 10:02:18 AM
Funny to know that Mo Best and The Beatles didn't lose contact at all. This is from the book 'The True Beginnings' by Pete and Roag Best:

(http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee471/Amadeus-Rock_Me/scan0005-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 25, 2012, 10:17:16 AM
Oh, and:

(http://archer2000.tripod.com/beatles/petebest.gif)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Nada Surf on January 25, 2012, 06:31:18 PM
I also read this recently and was shocked Mrs. Best kept in touch.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Ovi on January 25, 2012, 06:34:17 PM
You know that joke, don't you?

Q: What's better than best?
A: Ringo.

 :)

Not trying to start any debate (again), but admit it people, it's a good joke. :)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: 7 of 13 on January 25, 2012, 06:51:25 PM
Pete loses the timing on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do".  Ringo Starr had the same problem on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do" also, despite having an additional month to learn it.
yes, but it didn't ruin the overall flow of the song, and they still sound like a rock band. and AFAIK Ringo did not have the same problem, it probably was a splitting of hairs thing with Sir George Martin. small potatoes my friend.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: cubanheel on January 26, 2012, 02:12:09 PM
The Neil/Mo thing still makes my head spin!  ;)
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 26, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
yes, but it didn't ruin the overall flow of the song, and they still sound like a rock band. and AFAIK Ringo did not have the same problem, it probably was a splitting of hairs thing with Sir George Martin. small potatoes my friend.
 ;yes

The fact is, Ringo did have the same problem as Pete.  Both Martin & McCartney were unhappy.  That is why Andy White was brought in the following week.


It is also important to remember that when people are comparing versions of Love Me Do, they are comparing Pete's 1st attempt with Ringo's final attempt.

Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 26, 2012, 04:19:20 PM
It is also important to remember that when people are comparing versions of Love Me Do, they are comparing Pete's 1st attempt with Ringo's final attempt.

I wish there were some live club recordings around of Pete's Love Me Do.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dr.Winston on January 26, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
When it comes to who was technically the better drummer, well it's obviously Ringo. Having said that, if I could see The Beatles at any stage during their career it would be one of the gigs when Pete was the drummer, that was an important and exciting time in the bands development and Pete was one of the guys making it happen, he should be respected for that. Also, a large part of their appeal during their club years was image, and Pete was a major part of that image while he was with them. The people who were there usually have nothing bad to say about the way he played so he was good enough for the clubs and ballrooms.

I've never been one for revisionism, if one single thing had happened differently we wouldn't have had The Beatles that we got.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Bobber on January 26, 2012, 08:54:44 PM
I agree, Dr Winston. Of course Pete was important in the development of the group during those two years, but obviously the other three had good reasons to get rid of him. I respect Pete for being one of the guys making it happen. But I don't believe he was the reason the Beatles lifted off.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dr.Winston on January 26, 2012, 10:17:16 PM
I agree, Dr Winston. Of course Pete was important in the development of the group during those two years, but obviously the other three had good reasons to get rid of him. I respect Pete for being one of the guys making it happen. But I don't believe he was the reason the Beatles lifted off.
No, he wasn't the reason but he was part of the mix and I do think that many people these days view his tenure with the group a bit two dimensionally. What I mean is that they just focus on the obvious, that Ringo was a better drummer, and ultimately I also feel that is the main reason he was sacked. However, accounts and documents from the time (The posters, tickets and newspapers advertisements describing them as 'Dynamic''Fabulous' and 'sensational' as well as the Mersey Beat Top Poll) show that The Beatles were a great band right from their return from their first trip to Hamburg. I'm glad that he was their drummer during that period and I'm also glad that Ringo was their drummer later.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: BeatlesAtTheirBest on January 27, 2012, 01:55:23 PM


For me, it's not about Pete vs.  Ringo any more than it's Rubber Soul vs. Sgt Pepper.  It's about The Beatles.  When were The Beatles?  1962-1970? 

I say The Beatles were exactly as The Beatles were.  1960-1970.  For me it's about making an honest assessment of what was going on at the time we are talking about.  If we are talking about The Beatles in 1960, that would be John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Stu Sutcliffe & Pete Best.  I want to be able to talk about the drummer for The Beatles (1960) and the contributions he did/didn't make without having to talk about Pete vs. Ringo or Pete vs. John, Paul & George.  I would also like to be able to talk honestly about the bass player without fans being so quick to dismiss the artist/non bassist Stu Sutcliffe.  Pete was more than one "Love Me Do" session.  Stu was more than just a photo of him tuning up with his back to Larry Parnes. 

I like The Beatles!  John, Paul, George & Ringo.  Right now I am into The Beatles!  John, Paul, George, Stu & Pete, "a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime".  Like John Lennon said, as a live act, that's when The Beatles were at their best.




Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dark Penguin on June 30, 2013, 03:28:27 AM
Pete Best sacked because of his mom? I doubt it, listen to Petes drumming on Love Me Do........I think they really needed Ringo.
Granted it had been six months earlier, but in my humble (and definitely amateur) opinion, nobody sounded that great at the Decca audition.   At the Parlophone audition I think Pete was having a bad day; to me he sounds a lot better on the first two  BBC broadcasts.  Years later, Michael McCartney opined that none of the four were that proficient in the summer of '62; to paraphrase him it could of been any of them who was deemed not good enough to record.  As it was I don't think "Love Me Do" was a terrific debut single. 

Personality-wise, Ringo obviously fit in a lot better with John, Paul, and George, being engaging and funny in person.  I still smile when I recall a recent interview, on being asked if he hoped for a knighthood like Paul got, he replied that he was holding out for a duchy. :D
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dark Penguin on June 30, 2013, 04:15:10 AM
As for sacking Pete, I think the change was, in the long term, for the better.  John, Paul & George sure seemed to think so.  Still, why do Beatle fans feel the need to diminish Pete and the years he put into helping the Beatles to become the phenomenon they became.  He deserves his proper due, simply having his existence acknowledged is not enough.


It's as if a sort of canonical gospel about the Beatles' early years developed, beginning with the first number one single.  Anything and anyone involved in the group's life before August 20, 1962 has tended to be diminished if not wholly excised from the official story.  In the Sam Leach interview he does say that Brian Epstein and the band had a way of cutting off anyone who'd been important in the band's career before his arrival.  One of the most important "truths" of this gospel is that the Beatles were nothing but a grungy bar band before Ringo came.  That wasn't true--by the spring of 1962 they were a professional band performing for good money almost every night.  I've even seen magazine articles that stated Brian put them into stage suits only after Ringo joined.  Suits being what professional musicians were expected to wear in in the early 1960s, the implication is that nobody, not even Brian Epstein, took the Beatles seriously before the change of drummers.

They were clearly up and coming by the end of 1961, or Brian wouldn't have noticed them. 

As for the issue of Mona Best, check out the books The Beatles In Hamburg, Paul: A Life, and Hidden Voices: Hidden Histories of Liverpool's Popular Music Scenes 1930s - 1970s.1 They do substantially corroborate the Mona Best theory, and she seems to have been the target of some resentment by the Beatles themselves, particularly John.  Brian resented her overbearing personality, and equally troubling in light of the conventional social mores of 1962 was the relationship between Mona Best and Neil Aspinall, only half her age, which had just weeks before resulted in the birth of Vincent "Roag" Best.  That's not to say that Mona Best was the only reason or the main reason for the sacking, but she does seem to have been another major motivation for it.

As author Peter Carlin put it in Paul: A Life, the Pete Best situation, in mid '62, had come to be oddly reminiscent of an Agatha Christie mystery in which any and all of a dozen suspects have some viable motive for murdering the victim.



1All three of these books are currently cited in the Wikipedia article on Pete Best (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Best#Notes).
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: ibanez_ax on June 30, 2013, 11:26:07 AM
The new Mark Lewisohn Beatles biography coming out later is this year is supposed to go into some detail about the whole Pete Best saga.  I'm looking forward to reading it.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dark Penguin on July 01, 2013, 06:04:46 AM
True but its fair to say that pete does enjoy a certain amount of fame and notoriety amongst Beatle fans for his contribution to The Beatles

And now he's gotten a nice chunk of change for it as well.  True, he didn't get nearly as much as the four who carried on but then he missed out on most of the bother, too.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dark Penguin on July 01, 2013, 06:26:29 AM
After listening to the DECCA tapes, the difference in Best and Ringo were quite glaring, in my opinion..I always felt Ringo had the perfect beat...
But you would have thought the other three would have told Pete how they wanted the drums and maybe they did at times..I don't think any of them had a problem with him as they did with, say, Tommy Moore...
Ringo was certainly the right drummer for the Beatles we all came to know and love.  But I have a huge problem in trying to compare Ringo and Pete as drummers: in terms of what we are able to hear today, the music on the Decca tape e is utterly different from all the hits they made later.  In my opinion NOBODY in the group sounds outstanding on the Decca tape, although I think George does great on "Three Cool Cats".  "Like Dreamers Do"?  Here was a chance for them to do an original, and what did they come up with?  Macca trying to sound like Fabian, as near as I can figure it.  (Maybe Brian or the producer asked him to, I don't know.) 

Apart from the first couple of singles and some snippets here and there, we first hear Ringo on their last night in Hamburg, December 31 1962, and this perplexes me too, because here, again, the music sounds utterly different from the early singles of 1963 and '64. He's hitting the drums good and hard in a way you don't hear on many of the early EMI recordings.  Lennon and McCartney's writing style, I think, was moving away somewhat from the focus on hard rock, and I think also George Martin wanted a more commercial pop sound.  There might have been some rave-ups like "Twist And Shout" on each album but there'd also be ballads and medium tempo songs. 

So yeah, in terms of personality and of where the music was going, they did need Ringo, but it's not easy to compare them with what we have to work with. 
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: smithee on July 02, 2013, 05:04:10 PM
I'm just throwing my two cents in, and I'm not at all trying to stir anything up, but it seems like BeatlesAtTheirBest is making two separate points;

1) That the Beatles treated Pete Best poorly when they fired him, and

2) That the Beatles were at their best when Pete was in the group.

To the first point, I would say I agree, and even Paul has said (I'm paraphrasing) that they chickened out and left the job of firing Pete to Brian.  I get the feeling, based on interviews, that Paul felt they could have been nicer about it and handled it better.  They could have sat down with Pete and explained everything to him, instead of just having their manager tell him he was out.  He seems a little embarrassed by it now.

As to the second point, yes, John said more than once that he thought the Beatles were truly great back in Hamburg, but I always had the feeling that what he liked about those days was that the were playing what he considered "real" rock and roll.  He always resented Brian cleaning them up and putting them in suits.  Notice that in the interview with John that BeatlesAtTheirBest quoted, John says they were great in Hamburg, then Brian polished off their rough edges.  He doesn't say, "We were great in Hamburg, and then Brian made us fire our best drummer."  It's one thing to say John thought the Beatles were at their best at a time when Pete was in the band, but it's another to say John thought the Beatles were at their best *because* Pete was in the band.

Leaving the issue of quality aside (let's just say for argument's sake that both Pete and Ringo were at least competent) I think the sad truth is that John, Paul and George simply didn't like Pete all that much.  I'm not saying they *disliked* him, just that he never really fit in with the group, didn't share their sense of humor, didn't hang out with them, etc.  So when George Martin suggested they get rid of Pete, the others didn't have a problem with it.  It's notable that when George Martin expressed similar concerns about Ringo, the other three didn't fire him too.  Instead they insisted that the Love Me Do track with Ringo be the one on the album.  By that point (again, leaving quality issues out of it) they liked him.  He'd become their friend, and would remain their friend even after the breakup.

If we step back and look simply at history, it seems that John, Paul and George preferred Ringo, for whatever reason.  Obviously, they fired Pete and replaced him with Ringo.  When they had the chance to fire Ringo (when George Martin didn't want him on Love Me Do) they kept him.  After the break up John and George continued to use Ringo on drums for a number of their solo albums.  No one ever went back and asked Pete to be on their solo albums.

As to whether or not the other three fired Pete because Pete was the most popular, I wouldn't be surprised if that was *one* of the many factors in their decision, along with talent and personality, possibly issues between Pete and Brian, or Pete's mom and Brian, George Martin's request, etc.  My guess is that all of these things added together made their decision.  But at least according to legend, didn't Ringo get more fan mail than any of the other three? Again, no one showed Ringo the door. And I like to think, perhaps naively, that John, Paul and George were smart enough to realize no band is going to get big if they keep firing their most popular member just because he's popular.

So for me it comes down to thinking that John, George and Paul may have thought Pete was an OK drummer, but they didn't have a strong enough personal bond with the guy to outweigh the negatives.  They just didn't like him enough to keep him on when they found someone they thought was better.
Title: Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
Post by: Dark Penguin on July 07, 2013, 04:23:59 AM
Ringo was very popular too.

On the other hand I get the impression that Rory Storme's group was a bit on the decline; maybe that was a motivating factor for Ringo, in that he'd been with them for several years when he agreed to join the Beatles. And that happened rather abruptly by some accounts, leaving the Hurricanes without a drummer for a spell.

Another story I've seen in a couple of places is that, his band suddenly bereft of a drummer, Rory Storme asked Pete Best to take Ringo's place.  The Best family says it's so, and I've seen this reported in one or two other places, but I'm not sure about it.  It was never reported in any of the bios I've seen, and it was too bad for Pete.  Although he declined the offer, assuming it is true, he would have come out a lot better had it become generally known.