A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9

Author Topic: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?  (Read 9644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #80 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.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 02:53:33 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2012, 12:14:22 PM »

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

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #82 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.

Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

Nada Surf

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #83 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.
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #84 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.
Logged

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #85 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.



« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 09:06:10 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

peterbell1

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 690
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #86 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.
Logged

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #87 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.

Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6763
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #88 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?

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #89 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.




« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 02:24:32 AM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

Nada Surf

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #90 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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6763
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #91 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.

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #92 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.
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #93 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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6763
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #94 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

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #95 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.
Logged

Toejam

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 239
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #96 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.
Logged
IMAGINE ALL THE PEEPLE

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #97 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.



« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 05:02:02 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13455
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #98 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?
Logged

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #99 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.


« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 05:00:38 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
 

Page created in 2.936 seconds with 27 queries.