Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loco Mo]

Why didn't the fans complain?  I never heard or read of any fan complaining about Pete's drumming.

Also, Pete was told to play loud in Hamburg in order to keep the drinkers awake so that they would continue drinking.  So he was used to playing a certain way which was primarily 4 to the bar.

Pete probably needed some time to adapt to the studio environment.

[nimrod]

Pete wasnt a very good drummer, that is obvious if you listen to recordings with him in the band, he was good enough for Hamburg as most drunk people wouldnt even notice, but once he was asked to record he was found out.
e.g. His version of Love Me Do, the drumming isnt great, ine the refrain its all over the place, I can see why they needed to change him.

[Moogmodule]

It’s a fair question Loco. The Beatles became a feted live band with Pete drumming. From what I’ve read and heard Pete was fine for straight ahead rock in a bar situation where precision was secondary. He played very hard and loud which no doubt suited the band at the time. But he wasn’t a great timekeeper and lacked variety in his beats and fills. That wasn’t going to cut it as the Beatles songwriting and styles developed.

He did play in studios later in with other bands. I haven’t heard that he improved that much though.

[KelMar]

It didn’t hurt that the girls all swooned over him. 

[Loco Mo]

All I can say is that Pete was the Best of the Beatles and that's all I have to say!

[Loco Mo]

So no one has answered my question.  Why not?

[Loco Mo]

Just to clarify:  My original question was why the fans didn't think Pete was a bad drummer.  If he was, they'd have complained, right?  Something like "Hey Beatles, Pete keeps missing beats or he's not playing in time, etc."

And I've never read any fan making such a comment.  Musicians, however, are all too willing to diss Pete to the max!

[Moogmodule]

I think Loco, as Nimrod and I alluded to, people’s expectations in a bar are a lot different to listening to a record or in a formal concert. For the bar situation playing fast loud rock Pete was probably fine. I don’t think anyone suggests he was totally incompetent. But as they went up the ladder into recording and more formal settings his skills didn’t match the demands. 

[Loco Mo]

I wonder what would have happened if Brian Epstein chickened out at the last minute and didn't fire Pete.  What would the Beatles have done then?

[zipp]

I wonder what would have happened if Brian Epstein chickened out at the last minute and didn't fire Pete.  What would the Beatles have done then?

Well, to start with, George Martin would have used a session drummer on every recording.

[blmeanie]

I generally like "what-ifs" - lots of times it would be to imagine something that could have gone better, I don't believe this is the case with this one.  Whether Pete was a good enough drummer or not isn't the point.  The explosion of Beatlemania was in large part due to the personalities of the four of them.  Ringo's mix with the others was seemingly perfect and drove the group to great popularity.  Revisionist history is tough, I just can't envision their legacy as "John, Paul, George and Pete!"  But, had we never heard of a dude named Ringo we would never have been any wiser.

I'm not a drummer, but reading people on here that have knowledge and grounded opinions about drummer I am thrilled that Ringo was deemed "perfect" and also extremely good but not in "technical/speed ways" (think Neil Peart) like many people like to access drummers.  Again, I'm not a drummer and am pleased when drummers point out something he does in a song that is "different" than how many drummers would approach a song.

[tkitna]

What were the fans going to complain about?  Loud bar, drunk off their asses, and a loud band playing with a drummer that hit hard.  If he could keep a beat he was ok in that scenario.  Its when he needed to go into a studio setting or a situation where he had to play technical and dynamically that the warts appear.  Pete wasn't horrible, but he wasnt that great either.  Anyways, I doubt many fans at that time were interested in judging the band by how technically good they were.  They were just happy that the sound was fresh and they could move to it.

[Loco Mo]

I need to clarify my question.  What I was asking was:  If Brian didn't fire Pete, who would have?  I don't think the Beatles would have kept Pete just because Brian was too scared to fire him.

So who would they have designated to the firing?  One of the Beatles?  George Martin?  Neil Aspinall?  Ringo?

[zipp]

I need to clarify my question.  What I was asking was:  If Brian didn't fire Pete, who would have?  I don't think the Beatles would have kept Pete just because Brian was too scared to fire him.

So who would they have designated to the firing?  One of the Beatles?  George Martin?  Neil Aspinall?  Ringo?

John. No doubt about it.

[Loco Mo]

zipp:  I tend to think John, too.  But who knows?  Didn't Brian have an assistant who could have done it?  I think he did but I can't remember his name and I don't feel like looking it up right now.

[nimrod]

John. No doubt about it.

Im really surprised John didnt take the opportunity to fire Pete. The way he publicly stated in the 70's what a lousy drummer Pete was you'd have thought he wouldve jumped at the chance to get rid.

[tkitna]

John or Paul would have eventually.  Neither were going to let anything stand in their way.

[Loco Mo]

Okay, Alistair Taylor was Brian Epstein's assistant.  He could have been asked to do the firing.  However, that would have been very cold IMO.

I also tend to think Paul more suitable for the firing than John.  Paul seemed more like a businessman overall.  Look at how he tried to replace Brian as manager after Brian passed.

Even though the Beatles were not yet famous, it had to hurt really hard to be canned from the group.  Pete was used to all the adulation from the fans (pretty girls).  To go from that to just being another bloke ...

[tkitna]

I also tend to think Paul more suitable for the firing than John.  Paul seemed more like a businessman overall.  Look at how he tried to replace Brian as manager after Brian passed.

Paul would have been the best answer.  He and Pete were the least closest in the band.

[Loco Mo]

tkitna:

Paul would have been the best answer.

I concur!  I will say this.  I think it made sense for the Beatles to have Brian fire Pete.  Brian was their manager so they would have seen that as his role.

Many years ago when I used to be a drummer in a few bands, the manager was usually another band member.  I think your band would have to be up a notch to justify hiring a manager who was not part of the band.  I don't think I've ever known a band like that.  Have you?

So, yeah, I'd probably have asked Brian to do it, too.  I wouldn't have been any better than they were about it.

And how do you go about firing a guy anyway?  What do you say to him?  Do you try to play nice?  Plus, the guy would probably be really mad and you'd risk getting a hard punch in the face!