When Epstein booted Best, he revealed that Ringo had already signed on. Pete felt betrayed by Ringo because they'd been friends and Ringo offered him no clue of the behind-the-back deal that was being made.
Later in 1965, Ringo blasted Best with the statement that "he took little pills to make him ill." Best responded with a lawsuit for libel.
To date, Best states that no Beatles's ever spoken to him.
I recall at one point that Ringo nastily said that "he didn't owe this guy anything or particularly give a crap about him and his misfortune." Ringo implied that the canning of Pete was simply business and he was not to be troubled by it in any sense. Even though Pete ultimately stuck his head inside a gas oven and not for the purpose of checking the turkey, Ringo displayed a profound lack of empathy for the man.
Even so, Ringo is quite lovable and charming. And, too, he was indeed the key to the Beatles immeasurable success.
But really, Ringo, don't you think it's time to send a salvo in Pete's direction? Perhaps, in a conciliatory gesture, you could offer him a turn of drums on your next album. This way, Pete'd get some royalties in the process to help soothe his injured soul and bruised ego. Perhaps you could even tour together and bill it as the Best Starr Show. Maybe Paul could join and it could then be called "Paul and his Stickers" or maybe even "Paul's Beaters."
How's about it, Ringo? Everyone - do you think there's any merit to this idea? I, indeed, the world, appreciates your feedback on this important BEATLES matter. Perhaps it would help soften some the sordid BEATLES history that we prefer be suppressed lest our pristine image of a high-borne BEATLES iconography be smirched, however slightly.
I dont think Ringo has anything to apologize for. He wasnt involved in the decision making for the lineup change. Whats he supposed to apologize for,,,,,because Pete was a worse drummer? I dont get it.
I'm sure he has, but you gotta remember, old Ringo's from the Dingle where apologies are few and far between.
Oh... and he probably doesn't give a monkey's.
I undertsand, Loco Mo, that tongue is firmly in cheek here (well, I hope so anyway) but the question about an apology doesn't even need to be asked kids. Well, as far as I can tell anyway. Unfortunately none of us (myself included) were there at the time, enabling us to put together a well enough informed opinon to answer this little hypothetical.
I like Pete Best, I really do, but damn. Ringo should not have to apologize because others made the decision to boot an inferior drummer. It happens in bands all the time. Was Ringo expected to be the one to go and tell Pete he was being shelved because the other band members and higher ups found Pete to be inadequate? I dont think so.
As for Ringo saying that Pete was taking little pills or whatever,,,hell, we dont know what was said by either party prior to that remark. I'm sure there was a little bad blood there, but cripes, I didnt apologize to the other three people that interviewed for the position I hold now that they didnt get.
On August 16th, 1962, during the course of an otherwise routine Thursday morning "business" meeting with Brian Epstein, at Whitechapel, sometime shortly after 10 a.m., Pete Best met his fate. Time froze for him at that moment. He was 20 years old; he'd be 21 in 3 months. In 3 months & 1 month, Love Me Do would reach No. 17 on the UK charts. Another month later, Please Please Me would reach No. 1.
Pete Best has, to this day, remained frozen in time in Whitechapel, sometime shortly after 10 a.m. His body has aged since then but his mind forever lives in the moment of his dismissal. The looming petite figure of Brian Epstein is etched vividly in his brain. It is an indelible image.
Pete never left Whitechapel that fateful morning. It wasn't possible for him to do so. That is where the movie ended for him. That is where the credits roll - over and over into eternity.
We should weep for him. For he is where no man wishes to be in a place where he is yet a Beatle - in that singular moment preceding Brian Epstein's incomprehensible statement: "The boys want you out and Ringo in ...." Yes, time stopped for Pete with that utterance. He now sits in perpetual shock and remains 20 years and 270 days old .. forever!
My friends and fellow Beatle afficionados, please ponder the tragedy of Pete Best, the pathetic sad lad, who remains as does Peter Pan, young always, but utterly without joy or consolation.
I rest my case. Ringo .... ? Paul ..... ? Fans ..... ?
Pete has benefited from being in the Beatles anyways. His name is now immortal and he has even accepted royalties from several different projects. No, I dont feel sorry for him. Maybe if he practiced more and became a good drummer, he wouldnt have been kicked out.
He will always be remembered as the drummer who wasnt good enough. I rest my case.
I don't think anyone should feel sorry for Pete Best. He makes a comfortable living to this day because he played drums on a few songs 44 years ago. That's not really that bad of a deal.
Of course Ringo doesn't owe him an apology. But maybe Paul does. Not sure, I don't know exactly how they kicked him out...
Of course the whole band (except Ringo, he had no decision in the matter and as a professional accepted an opportunity as offered--he was potentially giving up a good steady gig with Rory Storm for an uncertain thing--I've never heard about the "little pills" quote) should have apologized and given him a million in the 1960s. Even though Ringo lifted the band, Pete kept them going through the tough years and deserved a helluva more than he eventually got through the releases he played on.
If Paul were a true "statesman" he would do exactly what you suggest and play some dates with Pete and release a recording. Better yet, why not have had included Pete on the unplugged set (which I find great at times, painful at others, and just downright professional "boring" at others--it sounds like a soundcheck)? It'd have been great to have Paul play with an "amateur" for a change. Hell, Van Morrison made a great record of skiffle with Lonnie Donigan and that other guy whose name I can't recall.
And speaking of Unplugged, Paul's attempts to do Bluegrass or Elvis (Blue Moon of Kentucky) are downright embarrassing.
Paul, if you're willing to give Heather $200 million why not drop a couple off at Pete's.
The treatment Pete Best received is a blot on the Beatles legacy and integrity. The mistake in handing the situation as young men should be amended by the remaining adult. It's pathetic that John and Paul (and George, I think) could admit how they felt bad about Pete, but then never did anything about it.
Of course the whole band (except Ringo, he had no decision in the matter and as a professional accepted an opportunity as offered--he was potentially giving up a good steady gig with Rory Storm for an uncertain thing--I've never heard about the "little pills" quote) should have apologized and given him a million in the 1960s. Even though Ringo lifted the band, Pete kept them going through the tough years and deserved a helluva more than he eventually got through the releases he played on.
Yeah Pete kept them going through the lean years because it was his mothers place that they practiced in. It was also a convenience that Pete would even show up for the gigs as many of their earlier drummers didnt because they had other things to do. Cripes, if they were so desperate for a drummer, Paul could have done it. Pete was NOT essential to them as history proves. He deserved nothing more than he recieved and probably less than that.
Quoted Text
If Paul were a true "statesman" he would do exactly what you suggest and play some dates with Pete and release a recording. Better yet, why not have had included Pete on the unplugged set (which I find great at times, painful at others, and just downright professional "boring" at others--it sounds like a soundcheck)? It'd have been great to have Paul play with an "amateur" for a change. Hell, Van Morrison made a great record of skiffle with Lonnie Donigan and that other guy whose name I can't recall.
My God! Why in the f*** would Paul call up Pete Best at this juncture of his life to play a few dates or even hang out? They havent talked for how many years now? You dont think Pete would be thinking that Paul is just doing it because he feels sorry for him? It doesnt make sense.
Quoted Text
And speaking of Unplugged, Paul's attempts to do Bluegrass or Elvis (Blue Moon of Kentucky) are downright embarrassing.
The 'Unplugged' album is good. Also, why would Paul want Pete Best on the drums to play songs that the Beatles did AFTER he was shelved. I'm sure it would have been a great honor for him to mimic drum parts that Ringo came up with. Also Blair Cunningham and Chris Whitten are infinately better drummers than Pete Best could even dream about being.
Quoted Text
Paul, if you're willing to give Heather $200 million why not drop a couple off at Pete's.
Is Pete having a hard time putting food on the table or something? He's far from being the charity case that your making him out to be.
Quoted Text
The treatment Pete Best received is a blot on the Beatles legacy and integrity. The mistake in handing the situation as young men should be amended by the remaining adult.
Why? They owe him nothing. If he was a better musician he should have had no trouble succeeding elsewhere, but guess what,,,,?
Quoted Text
It's pathetic that John and Paul (and George, I think) could admit how they felt bad about Pete, but then never did anything about it.
If they felt that bad, they would have said something. Maybe their friendship with Pete wasnt all that we think it was.
Quoted Text
Play on, Pete, wherever you are.
He is. He recently was in Pittsburgh playing to about 150 people.
TK, you're right on most of this. But I'd say "Good Rocking Tonight" "Blue Moon of Kentucky" and "Be-Bop-a-lula" from Unplugged were in the Beatles' repetroire when Pete was in the group.
What I don't understand is why the Beatles treated Pete like toxic waste--surely they felt guilty about it and didn't do much to reconcile the situation. Interestingly, Neil Aspinall apparently did. See the wikipedia quote:
Quoted Text
When the surviving Beatles released their Anthology in 1995, which featured a number of tracks with Best as drummer, Best received a substantial windfall — apparently between £1 million and £4 million — from the sales.[citation needed] Some have speculated that Apple Records head Neil Aspinall, who reportedly remains friendly with Best, saw to it that Best would be compensated. (Aspinall had an affair with Best's mother, Mona, in the early 1960s, and Best's half-brother, Roag, is Aspinall's son.) Unfortunately, some aspects of the project also seemed to perpetuate the band's legacy of insult with regard to Best. He was not interviewed for the book or the television documentaries, and later disputed a statement by former bandmate George Harrison where Harrison claimed he remembered Best missing several live gigs, with his future replacement, Ringo Starr, sitting in for the night (this is documented to have occurred on at least one occasion).
The Beatles in the early 1960s also lived in a more innocent time. Nowadays if a band were to the level of playing live and recording (even at the level the Pete Best Beatles were), there would no doubt have been something on paper--probably a four or five way partnership between all the Beatles and management. That means Pete would have had to have been bought out of his part ownership of the group instead of simply "fired."
If you've ever been in a band, worked with people day in and out, slogged through crappy gigs with the dream of hitting it big, knowing that whether you're "friends" or not you're still partners of an essentially oral contract to participate in a joint venture (i.e., band), the treatment of Pete is morally reprehensible and probably legally dubious.
Heck, for all Ringo's supposed drumming prowess, George Martin didn't use him on the first single (they might as well have brought Pete).
Now what would have been really interesting is a Beatles with Paul on drums and singing (ala Levon Helm). But then we would have missed all his great bass playing. And to be honest, Paul's drumming tends to be straight-up rock drumming ala Pete Best.
I'm still not a fan of Unplugged. Everything sounds tired and rote. There's a couple of unexpected, cool cuts like "Ain't No Sunshine" but it's no better than bar-band level. The female vocalist on "Hi-Heel Sneekers" pretty much blows Paul out of the water. His voice breaks on "We can Work it Out" or "Here There and Everywhere". "Every Night" is nice. "And I love her" sounds bar band--the percussion has that drum-machine precision that ruins the caribbean looseness of Ringo's original. "I Lost My Little Girl" is an embarrassment--the crowd seems less than thrilled even if it was the first song he wrote (something like "Every Little Thing" or "when I'm 64" might have been a better call.
Finally, the dobro-playing is pure d crap. Dammit, I live in Nashville and you couldn't get into a demo studio with that level of playing.
Not to be argumentative, TK, because I respect your insights and opinions. Just offered as friendly disagreement.
TK, you're right on most of this. But I'd say "Good Rocking Tonight" "Blue Moon of Kentucky" and "Be-Bop-a-lula" from Unplugged were in the Beatles' repetroire when Pete was in the group.
But these are all cover tunes. Every band in those times were playing these three songs.
Quoted Text
What I don't understand is why the Beatles treated Pete like toxic waste--surely they felt guilty about it and didn't do much to reconcile the situation. Interestingly, Neil Aspinall apparently did. See the wikipedia quote:
Neil was banging Petes mother for gods sake. Of course he felt worse than the others.
Quoted Text
The Beatles in the early 1960s also lived in a more innocent time. Nowadays if a band were to the level of playing live and recording (even at the level the Pete Best Beatles were), there would no doubt have been something on paper--probably a four or five way partnership between all the Beatles and management. That means Pete would have had to have been bought out of his part ownership of the group instead of simply "fired."
Innocent in the means of band management and contracts maybe, but they were all on pills, drinkings, and popping numerous women everynight. They were making squat in Germany. They freakin lived on cornflakes. I mean what did they have to offer Pete at that time anyways? They played for nothing other than to get better.
Quoted Text
If you've ever been in a band, worked with people day in and out, slogged through crappy gigs with the dream of hitting it big, knowing that whether you're "friends" or not you're still partners of an essentially oral contract to participate in a joint venture (i.e., band), the treatment of Pete is morally reprehensible and probably legally dubious.
I've been in bands clear up to the end of my college days and i'll be the first to tell you,,,oral contracts dont mean mess. One little spat among so called friends over something as little as a song or a drink can be the cause of somebody getting canned or quitting. Thats a fact. Theres not a legal issue to be had in this case. I had a friend get canned last week in a band by,,,,,email. Now thats class.
Quoted Text
Heck, for all Ringo's supposed drumming prowess, George Martin didn't use him on the first single (they might as well have brought Pete).
Have you heard Petes version of the same song? I rest my case.
Quoted Text
Now what would have been really interesting is a Beatles with Paul on drums and singing (ala Levon Helm). But then we would have missed all his great bass playing. And to be honest, Paul's drumming tends to be straight-up rock drumming ala Pete Best.
Paul is a good drummer. 'Flaming Pie', 'McCartney', and even 'Dear Prudence' has great stuff on them. I personally talk with Chris Whitten on another drummer forum a lot, and even he has stated that Paul is more than an adequate drummer, so your straight up rock drumming example falls flat.
Quoted Text
I'm still not a fan of Unplugged. Everything sounds tired and rote. There's a couple of unexpected, cool cuts like "Ain't No Sunshine" but it's no better than bar-band level. The female vocalist on "Hi-Heel Sneekers" pretty much blows Paul out of the water. His voice breaks on "We can Work it Out" or "Here There and Everywhere". "Every Night" is nice. "And I love her" sounds bar band--the percussion has that drum-machine precision that ruins the caribbean looseness of Ringo's original. "I Lost My Little Girl" is an embarrassment--the crowd seems less than thrilled even if it was the first song he wrote (something like "Every Little Thing" or "when I'm 64" might have been a better call.
To each his own on their opinion and I admit its not perfect or great everywhere, but I like it enough.
Quoted Text
Finally, the dobro-playing is pure d crap. Dammit, I live in Nashville and you couldn't get into a demo studio with that level of playing.
Pauls the jack of all trades, but nobody said he was the master of all.
Quoted Text
Not to be argumentative, TK, because I respect your insights and opinions. Just offered as friendly disagreement.
Friendly is all i'm looking for. Hope i'm not offending.
No offense at all. I appreciate your point-by-point discussion.
I guess being from the American South I have a penchant for lost causes like Pete Best.
As for your friend. Fired by email--Ouch! Or should I say:
The dobro on the Unplugged is played by one of the sideman (a jack of all trades guy). I'm sure dobro is not his first instrument. Too bad Paul didn't spring for Jerry Douglass or somebody who could really play.
Also the Unplugged mix loses the lead guitars at times.
I think the Clapton Unplugged was much better mixed and miked (and performed). The Nirvana Unplugged was also outstanding. The Stones Unplugged was so-so. I haven't seen the Rod Stewart.
I understand where your coming from and all, but I dont look at Pete as a lost cause. I feel that he benefitted as much as anybody (except the immediate members) due to the bands success. How many millions did Pete recieve just from the rolayties off of the Anthology alone? Trust me, he isnt struggling.
And just to put Pauls 'Unplugged' to bed, again I agree with you that its not the greatest album ever put out, but it has its moments. I like a bunch of other unplugged stuff better too, but I do remember when it came out and it was a pretty big ordeal at the time just because it was Paul. Does it hit my CD player alot,,,,,,hardly. Am I ashamed to throw it in to give it a listen,,,,hardly. Its all good.
Perhaps it would help soften some the sordid BEATLES history that we prefer be suppressed lest our pristine image of a high-borne BEATLES iconography be smirched, however slightly.
What pristine image?
I don't want them to be remembered as being perfect, because they weren't, any more than the average person on the street.
And for the record, what exactly does Ringo have to apologise for??
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Loco Mo
Male
Logged
