Print

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

[zipp]

Okay, Alistair Taylor was Brian Epstein's assistant.  He could have been asked to do the firing...

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

"Eventually at the end of July, confirmation of George Martin's plans for a recording session came through. Brian told John and Paul and they told George. But no one told Pete Best.The Beatles had decided their drummer was not up to scratch."
                                                                                                                    ... from Alistair Taylor's book With The Beatles.

So the decision to sack Pete was a group decision.

And it was JOHN's group.

When they signed the contract with Brian, Alistair tells us it was JOHN who accepted first and then the others followed suit. Brian didn't want to fire Best but the others insisted. And when they had to make sure Ringo was available, Brian phoned but JOHN also phoned to make sure Ringo would accept.

For all these reasons I have no doubt at all that JOHN would have sacked Pete if necessary.

[nimrod]

So the decision to sack Brian was a group decision.

They sacked Brian ??   

[blmeanie]

I keep getting sucked into this too long thread about nothing. 

[Moogmodule]

I keep getting sucked into this too long thread about nothing.

Nothing is real BL.

[Loco Mo]

I've spent most of my life thinking about nothing.  That's probably why someone like me could go on discussing the sacking of Pete Best forever (without getting bored).

[tkitna]

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

I've known a bunch of bands with managers.  A friend of mine is the current manager for the band 'Spinning Jenny' right now.  They just went to Nashville for some type of TV competition.  They aren't my cup of tea, teeny bopper girls, but they can play.  Once a band starts gaining serious momentum, its better to have somebody else worry about the specifics I would imagine.

(Spinning Jennys website seems to be screwed up right now or its a firewall issue here at work, but here's a couple videos.  )

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWsRn60fSk" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWsRn60fSk</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeCRmbLqz6k" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeCRmbLqz6k</a>

[zipp]

They sacked Brian ??   

Sorry. I've now corrrected it. The Beatles did of course decide to sack Pete.

[Loco Mo]

You know, I think I finally get it - why they sacked Pete.  It's taken me a long time but he just wasn't one of them.  Both his drumming and his personality doomed him.  He had a conspiracy theory about it that he could never figure out.  It was like "why did they really fire me?"  "What was the real reason?"

But it's pretty simple really.  They accepted him for 2 years until they went into a recording studio.  He could play loudly in a bar or some other boisterous environment but in a recording studio - no.  He needed to be spot on time wise and he wasn't.  He also needed to be a social partner with the Beatles and he wasn't.  And when George Martin asked for a session drummer, the Beatles asked for a new drummer.

It's pretty simple, no conspiracy whatsoever.  It's Pete being in denial about the "real" reasons as to why they fired him.

[nimrod]

You know, I think I finally get it - why they sacked Pete.  It's taken me a long time but he just wasn't one of them.  Both his drumming and his personality doomed him.  He had a conspiracy theory about it that he could never figure out.  It was like "why did they really fire me?"  "What was the real reason?"

But it's pretty simple really.  They accepted him for 2 years until they went into a recording studio.  He could play loudly in a bar or some other boisterous environment but in a recording studio - no.  He needed to be spot on time wise and he wasn't.  He also needed to be a social partner with the Beatles and he wasn't.  And when George Martin asked for a session drummer, the Beatles asked for a new drummer.

It's pretty simple, no conspiracy whatsoever.  It's Pete being in denial about the "real" reasons as to why they fired him.

Good post, l award you a drum roll Loco

[Loco Mo]

Thanks, nimrod.  Once having been a drummer myself, I really appreciate hearing a drum roll in my honor.

Yes, it wasn't easy for me to accept the standard, albeit correct, explanations for Pete's firing.  I sort of bought into the "conspiracy" theory held by Pete.  But especially after reading Mark Lewisohns' book, Tune In, Vol I, I realized the reasons for his firing were there from day one.  It was a matter of time and that was 2 years.  Pete thought the fact they kept him for 2 years meant something more than it did.  It didn't.  They had a hard time finding qualified and appropriate drummers for their band.  There were fill-ins along the way and nobody really seemed to fit - until Ringo.

Pete may never move on if he continues to be in denial about it.  If anything, he ought to value the piece of history he experienced.  He was in the front row seat with the pre-Fame Beatles.  That seems like an honor to me.  Not that it was bestowed upon him but was rather awarded him by random chance as per the way the Universe operates.  Everyone was lucky to be there in those days.

Too bad there'll probably never be any closure for Pete but at least now there is for me.  The book gave me a bird's eye view of the early band with its copious amounts of facts and details.  You know, Stu wasn't meant to be a part of the Beatles future either.  Reality favors no one, but chance sometimes does.