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
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

Author Topic: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?  (Read 11242 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13490
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #100 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?
Logged
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #101 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.

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

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #102 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
Logged
day tripper yeah

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #103 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
Logged
day tripper yeah

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #104 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.

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

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6873
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #105 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.

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6873
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #106 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.

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11691
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #107 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...

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #108 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 "


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
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 07:43:56 PM by 7 of 13 »
Logged
day tripper yeah

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #109 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.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 01:52:44 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6873
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #110 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.

Nada Surf

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2012, 02:29:13 AM »

So...does anyone on this explosive thread think Mona Best caused her own son's firing?
Logged

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #112 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.
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Nada Surf

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #113 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.
Logged

BeatlesAtTheirBest

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #114 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
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 03:38:43 PM by BeatlesAtTheirBest »
Logged
The Beatles (1960-1970) - John, Stu, Paul, George, Pete & Ringo

www.TheUltimateTrip.net

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6873
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #115 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.

Nada Surf

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #116 on: January 20, 2012, 06:11:40 PM »

@ Kitna...
where was it ever stated that Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool?
Logged

Sir John Johns

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #117 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.
Logged

Klang

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1000
  • Go to the window...
    • Klangville
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #118 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

Logged
'...In the name of Preverti, daughter of the mountains, whose embrace with Rani made the whole world tremble...'

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Pete Best sacked because of his mom?
« Reply #119 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
Logged
day tripper yeah
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
 

Page created in 2.996 seconds with 27 queries.