I understand what you are saying, but I think we are talking about different things. 

I didn't say the Beatles were, necessarily, the best group ever or the most influential (although, I think they are), but that point can be argued.

What I did say, is that because the Beatles are the most popular, most well known band in the world, the Pete Best thing gets blown out of proportion.  Really, think about it, more people know who Pete Best is (who is only a former Beatle) than know who the actual drummer is for many, many rock bands. 

I, really, don't think the fact that the Beatles are the most well known and popular band in the world can be challenged.  They've sold more than anyone else, they continue to sell more than most others (even modern bands), and most everybody knows the names of the 4 members, even if you aren't a fan.

Now, that doesn't mean that someone won't come along who will be more popular and well known, but as of right now, because of the reasons I listed, the Beatles are the biggest ever and because of this, people make a bigger deal out of Pete Best being kicked out than they should.  He is just a footnote.

good defense paul......lol kidding i know the beatles we know and love would not have been the huge thing they were without mr richard starkey.i just kinda consider the facts as they are.....like b4 pete they had no steady drummer and at some shows showed with no drummer.then the fact mona owned the casbah club,where they played more than a few times.also neil aspinall lived with petes family while he was a beatle.
they used pete.paul admits it.THEY HAD NO DRUMMER.and figured pete would do.they asked him to join.he didn't ask them.

but ringo made the band complete.

Yeah, I agree.
Like John said, 'to make it you had to be a bastard, and The Beatles were the biggest bastards at the time' (something along those lines)

good old john.. not one to mince his words lol

He was at the Chicago Beatlefest last August. Kind of a dour fellow. He was hawking signed drumsticks and photos for $20.00. I felt bad for the guy, here he is tucked in a little room signing stuff and having pictures taken, while you can hear the screams from the screening rooms, and he's surrounded by all the memorabilia, etc. Its a living I suppose, but its gotta suck having your nose rubbed in it.  I know its his choice, but it still has to sting.

his nose rivals ringos too.did you notice that?

so.........was Andy White a better drummer than Pete?

Quoted from Rowdy

so.........was Andy White a better drummer than Pete?

Probably not, but Andy White was a session musician and George Marting was playing it safe, maybe too safe because, let's face it, "Love Me Do" doesn't have the most intricate drumming in the world.

Yeah, but if Pete was so bad that George Martin didn't even want to have him on the record........I would think that White was better.

it was the fact the were unsure about ringo....

happy birthday pete.......

I think it was just because Ringo was an unproven entity in George Martin's eyes and he took the precaution of booking Andy White.

In the end Ringo's version was used as the single (in the UK) and Andy White's version with Ringo relegated to tambourine made the LP. It was around the time of The Beatles' Hits EP that Andy White's version became the version we are most familiar with. I don't think the master of Ringo's version is still in existance! I seem to remember that a new master was made from a dub from a single! Stoopid EMI!

Pete Best on TV ... long time ago ... funny ... in the mid-1960s as a guest on a TV show ...

Here you are:
http://rapidshare.de/files/18443675/Pete_Best.wmv.html

Many people say that when Ringo arrived, the Beatles were complete.  They basically say that Ringo was indispensable and that, perhaps, the Beatles ascent to glory was now unimpeded.  This implies that Pete was an obstacle in their path to fame and fortune.

Nonetheless, Pete was wildly popular with his fan base.  I question how the Beatles disregarded Pete's popularity while assuming they could dismiss him without any threat to the group's overall appeal.  Did they have a Plan B of asking Pete back into the band if Ringo didn't receive the fans' approval?  How could they risk firing him without also jeopardizing their own success?  Could they really have been absolutely sure that Pete was nonessential and that Ringo would automatically receive widespread acceptance (which he did)?

Quoted from Loco_Mo

Many people say that when Ringo arrived, the Beatles were complete.  They basically say that Ringo was indispensable and that, perhaps, the Beatles ascent to glory was now unimpeded.  This implies that Pete was an obstacle in their path to fame and fortune.

Nonetheless, Pete was wildly popular with his fan base.  I question how the Beatles disregarded Pete's popularity while assuming they could dismiss him without any threat to the group's overall appeal.  Did they have a Plan B of asking Pete back into the band if Ringo didn't receive the fans' approval?  How could they risk firing him without also jeopardizing their own success?  Could they really have been absolutely sure that Pete was nonessential and that Ringo would automatically receive widespread acceptance (which he did)?

That's a very interesting thought. But I guess there was no way back when they sacked Pete. Asking Pete back? If I were Pete, I would never ever have done that. I wonder if Pete was really an obstacle in getting a proper contract and chance at Parlophone's. If he was, then that might have been a true reason for letting him down. There's been a lot of speculation about the true reasons. Even Pete himself claims he still doesn't know the true reason. Still, John, George and Paul must have been aware of the fact that they took a risk in sacking Pete. Or, they must have been very full of confidence.