Print

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

[Dr.Winston]

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.

[Bobber]

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.

[Dr.Winston]

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.

[BeatlesAtTheirBest]

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.