In music, it's TIMING and unlike heart, timing cannot be off tempo even a hair, especially in recordings. Can't 'learn' timing, it comes from within. The 10K rule only works if the person has natural ability aka TALENT in addition to practice. Drummer without good timing is NOT gonna cut it.
Sorry, u wrong their timing can be learned the more any musician practices the better they become and the tighter they get, some ppl have terrible timing mainly because they rarely practice, when I first played in my band we sounded tight then I bought a drum machine and found out what tightness and timing is, of course, this was the best thing I could have done
George Martin wasn't even the first producer to say that Pete's drumming wasn't good enough to record. They had to have a drummer for Hamburg and he was available. That's it.
@@joesheppards1 No session drummer would put in what Ringo did, into the band. Even if they made it to the top in the UK, it is far less likelly they'd make it in America and/or be superstars for a year or two & from then on, just sell a modest amount of records & do small concerts, if they stayed together. Look at all the artist that have done that since The Beatles. Superstars for a few hits, than 30 or 40 years of only moderate success. There are far more of them, that those who stayed big.
PETE BEST held the Beatles together - back in December of 1960 - when they returned to Liverpool , England and were very sad that they did not make it as a band over in Hamburg - Germany on their first tour there - PETE BEST and his mum MONA opened their basement into a night club - at where the Beatles revived their interest in staying with music - TRUE STORY HERE !
I have seen a number of videos comparing Pete Best with Ringo Starr. My opinion is that Starr was the better drummer, but there is an aspect of drumming that is never mentioned. That is, the relationship between the bass player and the drummer. This is the most important relationship in a pop/rock band. After listening to early Beatles it becomes apparent that Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney were on the same page. That is where the heart of the Beatles sound comes from.
Good video and perspective. It was not just his drumming. I heard that he was not friends and did not hang out with the Beatles and most importantly did not show up for gigs. Pete is not the only one who had a chance of a lifetime to be in the Beatles. I had the opportunity to sit down with Roy Young, a Keyboardist who played with the Beatles. Paul thought that Keyboards would fill out the Beatles sound. So they asked Brian Epstein to ask Roy if he would like to be in the Beatles. Roy had his own television show and the Beatles were unknown. He did not want to tour so a day later he said no. So actually two people blew it, not just one.
It's not a coincidence that whatever band Ringo was in, was the most popular in Liverpool. Rory and the Hurricans and the Beatles. The drummer is the most important part of a band... so surely if Pete was good, he would have made another band famous.
For starters it's Rory Storm and The Hurricanes & there were plenty of bands that were popular and even more so: The Big Three, Derek and The Seniors, Gerry and The Pacemakers etc.... etc..... What made The Beatles different in Liverpool and eventuality world famous, was the fact they wrote their own material and the high quality of these compositions.
Sure, so this incredibly good drummer teams up with a group that can't write, can't sing but this great drummer is going to be the one that turns them into stars? I know that a band is only as good as it's drummer but if the other members aren't great the drummer would be of little help achieving success!!!
@@seekingjustice2079 there is a recording of Pete best playing love me do, it's terrible, as also Ringo sat in for Pete a couple of times in Hamburg Germany, Paul said listen to us we sound like a band with Ringo, it's a valid comparison,
@@rocktober1327 Prove Paul said that. Out of hundreds of gigs Ringo played a couple. Your opinion of Love Me Do is yours but there are drummers who don't agree.
@@seekingjustice2079 I have heard Paul McCartney say that in interviews on utube and on serious radio BEATLES STATION I don't make stories up or decide through my emotions its it's not a big deal, I always felt bad for Pete Best, Ringo wasn't Gene Cooper or Buddy Rich, but he played for the music, would a Day in the Life have been the same with Pete, are you a drummer by some chance?
The Beatles were an ever improving, ever evolving group. They cold have played "I wanna hold your hand" and the likes for ten years and still have been stars, but that wasn't them. They strived to become greater and greater at their craft and explored uncharted territory in popular music making them pioneers. Could songs like "Strawberry Fields" and "A Day in the Life" not to mention many others have even been possible with Pete's one dimensional style?
That's a hypothetical question because he was never given that opportunity. The Beatles, when they started were an average bar band playing mainly simple 3 chord songs and 12 bar blues. Ringo was a straightforward RnR drummer, his playing wasn't flashy or complicated..... just like Pete's. But unlike Pete he was given the opportunity to grow and evolve with the band. So, I guess it's something we'll never know.
@@theselector4733 sorry i dont speak english xd Creo que nos podríamos dar una idea con algunas canciones con the Pete Best combo como "keys yo my heart", "i'll try anyways"
@@theselector4733 He was given the chance to grow,he was given two years but he didn’t grow.Lennon said it,Tony Sheridan said it.But Tony Sheridan said Pete was vital to the development of the Beatles because John,Paul and George developed a style that made up for Peter’s deficiencies and when Ringo joined it open the flood gates for the group to go forward.
@@andrewhudson8966 I've played in many bands and you don't keep a drummer for 2 years if he's crap. All the eyewitnesses who saw The Beatles in those early days say he was a good drummer, certainly as good as they needed at the time. If you care to do some research I recommend two references: A book called "Liddypool" and a DVD "The Greatest Story Never Told". This last one interviews dozens of people who were actually there at the time and they all say the same thing. Pete was kicked out of the band for other reasons besides his drumming. He certainly wasn't flash or the best (no pun intended) BUT he was certainly good enough AT THE TIME, no better or worse than Ringo. Ringo was a much better fit for The Beatles. He was easy going, a bit of a larrikin AND most importantly he was actually from Liverpool just like the others.
great video... Pete fullfilled his role and consequently the Beatles became a world phenomenon, such a great guy, deserve all our acknowledgment, thank you Pete... thank you Ringo, we lov'em all.
YES. Pete is the reason for the Beatles success. They couldn't go to Hamburg without a drummer. The Beatles before Pete were called that "Bum" group. Pete started playing drums in 1959 I believe. Without Pete, they wouldn't have made it. Pete is a hero not a zero.
These are all very good points, i used to ask the same questions, why Pete Best did not join other upcoming Bands? Why he did not get a call to join other Bands?? He was known in Liverpool!! If he was such a good drummer and oh so good looking than why he gave up so easy?? He even had a very good support in his Mother!! So got no tears for Pete Best of the 1960s!!
Yeah this is the key. We have recordings of Pete right up to their signing with EMI/George Martin. He was beyond awful. So if he improved from the previous 2 years… I’d hate to hear what he was before he reached his awful demo of Love Me Do
Notwithstanding all the given reasons at the time and the subsequent theories of why The Beatles kicked Pete Best out of the group, ie. he wasn't a good drummer, they were jealous of his looks, etc...looking at both Pete and Ringo simply as "personalities", The Beatles would not have had the appeal and impact on the level they eventually did have if Pete remained in the band. If you look at all the filmed interviews with Pete over the year beginning from the earliest, Pete just did not have the appeal or charisma that Ringo possessed. If you look at that original press conference The Beatles gave in the airport lobby after having landed in New York back in 1964, Ringo reveals himself to be just as witty as John Lennon and appealing as Paul McCartney and George Harrison. Its hard to imagine Pete, with his shy and meek manner having much of a impact on the press and eventually on the fans in the US and across the world. It's obvious on that level alone that Pete was not a good fit in the group.
@@komipowers Yeah, Ringo was just like them. I do agree with a lot in this video regarding Pete Best. He was the drummer in their early development and therefore important to their history and he does deserve the attention he gets for it. And I believe he does come across as very affable and down to earth. I believe he did get a raw deal in the manner he was kicked out. I agree with John Lennon when he admits that they handled it very cowardly. And I was very happy to hear that he did get a sizable paycheck for the songs he participated in on the first Anthology cd.
Yeah, but who knows? Maybe Pete would have grown and developed as a musician. Maybe his shy and introverted personality would have ended up fitting in with the others; not everyone has to be outgoing and witty to be appealing....
A session drummer played on "Ringo's" Love Me Do. Ringo later complained that he only got to play tambourine on some track. Pete played 8 hours a night but he needed to do hard practice.? Get fucking real.
Man,this is ancient history, people get fired all the time,drummers too,they liked Ringos playing more than they liked Best playing,thats the end of it.
In my view, as just another person completely awestruck by The Beatles, this is a sound and interesting analysis honestly put together with due, humane sensitivity. As for my own personal verdict, there's nothing I can say that can't be said.
A really good well balanced video. I've got a friend who has a similar story as a drummer sacked from a band after their first album that went on to have number one albums all over the world. It must be the hardest thing.
The version of I saw her standing there that supposedly has pete best on drums does not. That's Ringo on the demo version of the song helping the band count it out and turn it into a completed product. It's amazing to me that people criticize the quality of demo recordings when they weren't meant to be heard by the public in the first place.
I know what Lewisohn and Ringo say, but that’s not Ringo on “I Saw Her…” That is signature Pete style. All toms and bass drum. No cymbals. Ever. He sounded like a boulder rolling down the side of a mountain. That is Pete. Ringo played cymbals.
@@steveshattah I don’t know why he would have said that he played such shit. Ringo placed himself everywhere. Because everyone in the world said he was the # 1 drummer in the world he believed it himself. But, for Ringo fanatics, anybody who dares say he wasn’t is as bad as knocking Jesus Christ. I don’t care was Ringo says. That’s not Ringo. He was FAR better than Pete. Why he claimed it you’d have to ask him.
You do need talent as well as the diligence and practice - some people just don’t naturally have the feel or aptitude for music no matter how much they practice. This sadly was the case for Pete Best, who is still a mediocre drummer to this day. Doesn’t stop everyone getting better or playing for enjoyment, but nearly all top level musicians have the natural feel and talent that has been refined with hours of practice.
The other guys had been together since 1960 so they had history but Pete came along later so his was an add in had he been there in 1960 would he have been more part of it.
I know loads of drummers who have well past 10,000 hours and never improved. Drums are hard and not everyone or even all drummers have the physical or mental ability to improve past holding a beat.
Good video, John probably called him a lousy drummer in a moment. He's also said the gigs in Hamburg were some of the best music he ever did. George Martin forced the issue, but I think the fact that none of the Beatles ever saw him again is more telling. He wasn't a friend, he was a work mate. I also question if the Beatles would have had any success had they insisted on Pete. George Martin held their future in his palm, he didn't want Pete and he could have just let go. Without him it's a very different story.
He didn’t want to use Pete in the recording studio and wanted to use the session drummer Andy White. And it was a pretty common practice to do that back then. He never suggested they fire Pete Best.
@@joesheppards1 He wanted to use Andy White because Pete couldn't hold time. It was a common practice because many drummers can't hold time. Even today it's not uncommon for a bands drummer to change just before they start recording in studio. He didn't want Ringo either people say, which is true until he listened to him play and changed his attitude almost instantly.
@@tannakaobi1 I think we can all agree that Best and his mother are an integral part of the Beatles story. Without Pete they probably don’t go to Hamburg then who knows what happens then. I’ve listened to all the stuff Pete is on and on some tracks he sounds decent and on others not so good
@@joesheppards1 I'd agree with that and Pete is even a decent enough guy as far as I'm concerned. But far too many people want to turn him into something he wasn't, which is a great drummer. He wasn't and this line of thought always leads to the same place. Which is that Ringo wasn't vastly superior. I find it Laughable that people often think Ringo isn't among the best drummers in the world. With comments like he isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles. Comparing him with Pete Best is just taking the piss. People that think this don't listen to music. They think they do because they can hear it, but they don't listen. Ironically if Pete wasn't Pete I think he'd be one of those people. Even if he was a great drummer, he should realise that Ringo was an amazing drummer. It's obvious why he was replaced, which is why he was sacked. He just can't accept that because he doesn't listen which is also why he wasn't a great drummer. I think this video was spot on, four boys went to Germany, three returned as masters of their craft the other slightly improved his technique. That's not to belittle the role Pete played, but I couldn't give two hoots about his mother and give her no credit in The Beatles story. I would suggest that Pete was a bit spoiled and the root cause of his problems, but that's just speculation.
▪ Pete Best and his mother, Mona, were totally involved in the formation of _The Beatles._ They played at her club with her managing them. ▪ _The Beatles_ including Pete Best formed a legal partnership in December 1961. He was good enough then. ▪ Ringo Star was the *fourth* to be offered the drummer's job. The other three turned it down. Two because of what they did to Pete Best. ▪ From the first session at Abbey Rd, it took John, Paul and George over two months to reject Pete. ▪ Pete Best's drumming in subsequent bands was more than acceptable. ▪ Pete was not fired as he was 1/4 of _The Beatles._ He could not be fired unless the partnership was dissolved. In fact _The Beatles_ employed manager Brian Epstein. ▪ Pete Best was levered out of _The Beatles_ by deceit. ▪ Pete Best had a legal case against _The Beatles._
The rift between Pete Best and The Beatles was inevitable if we consider that Pete didn't have the same hunger for success as his bandmates as he came from a happy upper middle class merchant family. In fact, the opposite from Ringo who came from a Dickensian background. And also the hunger issue is what made Pete to not improve as much even with all those hours of practice.
I think it comes down to "friendship." Pete's personality didn't mesh with the others. He probably felt more like an outcast than a friend. Can you aspire to get better when there's something gnawing at you, even if it's subconsciously? It's difficult, at the very least. Pete may never admit it, but not only did this affect him financially, but psychologically.
This is so thoroughly researched and well- reasoned with balanced perception and fair perspective and appreciation - I've enjoyed listening to it almost as much as to anything I've ever heard !
@@awol2602 In August,1960, the Beatles were offered to play in Hamburg, Germany. In 1962, they had already undergone the Decca audition of January 1,1962, they would meet George Martin on June 6, 1962, ..... they were far past the first offer to go to Hamburg.
They tried to comb his hair down, it didn't work, his hair was to curly, that could be why Pete was let go. The Beatles wanted a certain look and image. Pete didn't have the look
Actually, five times. The first was Aug.-Dec. 1960, then the spring of '61, then the spring of '62, then two weeks at the start of Nov. '62, and then two weeks at the end of Dec. '62.
No, Paul and John did not "meet with Ringo and offer him more money to come to The Beatles"...... what is your source for this? In Ringo's own words, he was hired on a phone call from Brian Epstein while he was at Butlins holiday camp playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Very interesting point about them not being nearly as big with Pete and without Ringo. The Beatles became much better with Ringo and the comparisons of I Saw Her Standing There are stark indeed. But in fairness, the Ringo version is Dec 1962 while the recording with Pete is much earlier (date?). The whole band had brought more excitement to the song, not just the new drummer. Having been in a couple of bands.... once with a great drummer and once with a mediocre, less exciting drummer...... It's often overlooked given that there is so much focus on guitar gods, the drummer position is SOOOO important.
There is a video of the Beatles playing at the Cavern. John's harmonica playing is woefully out of tune. Paul's voice is crap and George's guitar solo is mediocre. Alistair Taylor, Brian Epstein's chief assistant said Pete was the better drummer, but not for the Beatles. Ringo didn't attract the girls the way Pete did. Ringo didn't make the others jealous.
No there is not any video of the Beatles playing in the Cavern where John plays Harmonica. The only video of the Beatles playing in the Cavern is the August 22,1962 performance of the Beatles playing"Some other Guy", and there's no Harmonica playing by Lennon.
As a condensed look at this subject I’m impressed. There are other factors that contributed to his dismissal but you’ve covered what matters. Liked & subscribed.
Let me tell you this; i play chess and yes you get better after 100 hrs of playing and learning and after that you stay at same level regardless how many more hrs you play!! You hit a ceiling and thats where you stay!! Unless you pick up a few chess books learn from the masters your skills will stay the same even after 10 000 hrs... So the time doesn't help because you keep repeating what you already know!! If you got talent than practice can make you a master and in chess you got BRAIN!!
Pete was a phenomenon at that time girls would pitch tents in his garden, that was his power, you don't have a drummer for 2 years then decide he's not good enough, you would know in 5 minutes if a drummer was lousy, 2 years seriously
People play with lousy band members all the time, out of necessity. I don't know if you have played in bands, but my experience is that it's more common than you'd think. The guy is available, or he actually owns drums, or he has a good practice space, and so on. When a band is just struggling along and are inexperienced, it's real easy to end up playing with a lousy member or two for a few years before you know what you're doing. It's *not* that easy to find somebody willing to drop everything to go play in Germany in some divey club, especially if they are a good drummer and are in demand by other bands.
@@cowsongsPpl may well play with poor musicians who may start as poor then get better, it's impossible to play 10 or 12 hours a day for 2 years and not improve at least from a timing perspective, Ringo wasn't the 1st choice but the fourth choice, if u listen to the Beatles Anthology Pete plays about ten songs and very well, it wasn't hi that was the issue he became bigger than the Beatles now we can't have that can we, on a final note I had a drummer a few years a go who was poor there is no way he was gonna play live with me, no chance
According to all of the Beatles, they all continued to improve in their playing, except for Pete. He couldn't even keep time. All you have to do is listen to the early demos with Pete.
It’s not JUST practicing that makes one a better musician. It is also necessary to study the instrument and listen to other musicians that can teach you new ideas, skills, etc.
I listened to I Saw Her Standing There as you suggested. It is NOT PETE, but definitely Ringo. It is a rehearsal at the Cavern. The beat is very steady and strong, something Pete couldn't do (listen to that hi-hat, powerful and steady). Ringo just hadn't yet worked up any rolls or turnarounds. Also, it is much slower than the final, hence less exciting. They are just beginning to work up the song (he always only laid down a simple beat at the beginning of a work up) They don't even have the words down. You think you are such experts with your videos. Baloney.
This was such a wonderful concise summation of Pete Best's young folly.He may have thought the front line John, Paul and George were great but he obviously didn't have the vision that in order to remain with that front line it required some special effort in camaraderie and special drumming skills...or maybe that was a character flaw of ego when local women are swooning at you and you lose sight of the bigger picture.Interesting,
18:32 Hold on! This is the part most people misinterpret: Pete recorded a test run of Love me Do, then George Martin offered a proper recording session for the song, but didn't mention getting a new drummer. So, Pete Best never knew about Andy White ... probably I learnt about many years later. Pete's drumming on Love Me Do is completely different from Ringo's drumming. What's weird is that Andy White plays Ringo's drumming rhythm instead of doing his own beat. In my opinion Pete failed the test at Abbey Road mostly because Love Me Do, and especially the version they recorded that day was a very bad song (OMG, that song sucks so much!) ... they could have recorded anything else. IDK, why they thought that a few weeks new song was the best choice!
13:12 "Even Brian EP-STEEN..." Sorry, but wasn't his name pronounced "EP-STINE"? That was how The Beatles said it, and in the "First US Visit" film, there is a scene in which Brian pronounces it "Ep-stine" HIMSELF. And he should know...
If Decca had signed the Beatles (in early 1962), they likely would've kept Best. They certainly would not have had George Martin as their producer. The Beatles likely would've been made to record ordinary songs written by others - the standard practice at that time. They wouldve had a number of hits, but only in the UK. Likely no Beatlemania. They'd have no need to go to America. And by 1966 it would be over - moved aside by newer performers, and the Beatles would now start to be buried under the sands of time. No "She Loves You". No "I Want To Hold Your Hand". No "A Hard Days Night". No "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver". No "Sgt Pepper LHCB". No "White Album" or "Abbey Road". No Shea Stadium concert. No British Invasion: No Rolling Stones. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Dave Clark Five, The Who, Cream, Led Zeppelin. No Byrds. No Doors. No Monkees, even. No youth counterculture. No Woodstock (or other rock festivals). No changed world.
I don't agree with your assessment.. and by the way, Martin did the same thing to Ringo in the studio, early on..and wanted to replace him with another drummer..but you said nothing about that..?? I've heard Pete live with the group.. So did thousands of people who came to see them after they improved, following their Hamburg days.. and everyone thought they had DRAMATICALLY had improved as a band.. but, not just John, Paul and George..but Pete also..THATS WHY THEY WERE PLAYING IN FRONT OF AS MANY AS 900 PEOPLE IN THE "CAVERN" WHICH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HOST THAT MANY PEOPLE DUE TO THE FIRE CODE! BUT PEOPLE FLOCKED TO SEE THEM..AND PETE WAS AN ABSOLUTE DRAW! NEXT TO PAUL, HE'S ARGUABLY, THE BEST LOOKING AND CHARISMATIC OF THE GROUP.. HE COMMANDED ATTENTION, CERTAINLY MORE THAN OTHER DRUMMERS OF HIS ERA.. AND THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE BEATLE'S APPEAL WITH THEIR FANS.. IT WAS PETE..WHO HAD IT IN SPADES! Pete's dismissal was one of the cruelest in history, as he not only was denied the fruit of his labor.. BUT HE HELPED TO MAKE THAT BAND GREAT!
If Pete Best had really been as bad as people like to claim, he probably wouldn't have been their drummer for two years. Without Pete Best they would never have come to Hamburg. Previously, no drummers wanted to stay with the Beatles for long because they constantly got into arguments with John Lennon. Pete Best was quiet but maintained his own drumming style. Ringo, on the other hand, did everything that John Lennon and Paul McCartney told him to do. If Paul McCartney didn't like Ringo Starr's drumming, he would sit on the drums himself. After the Beatles split, Paul McCartney said he didn't need Ringo's drumming. 🤪
Love Me Do comment only going to 17 on the charts was off center...statement insinuated without saying so, that Pete Best played on the Love Me Do record. "they needed Ringo to go further than 17. " Pete Best never played on the released version of Love Me Do on Parlophone label. Andy White, a Scottish session drummer, [hired by producer George Martin because he did not know they replaced Pete Best], temporarily replaced Ringo Starr on drums for the Beatles' first single, "Love Me Do". The recording session took place on September 11, 1962, [Pete was already out of the band!!!] and White played drums while Starr played tambourine. The version featuring White is available on the Please Please Me album and the American version of the single.
I think Stuart was actually "the one that got away". He was a terrible bass player, but a brilliant painter, and had he lived, I think he might have designed some of The Beatles' album covers; maybe John's solo stuff too since they were best friends. Stu was on that same wavelength as The Beatles, just not as a musician...but that wavelength may very well have been the reason why he and John Lennon clicked as friends.
He did save the Beatles who knows what drummer They would have got if Pete had not came into the picture let’s all admit Here to those who sais he’s crap as a drummer Logically if they had not found Him and got some one else in who knows what nobody they would have got They would have probably got a drummer worse then Pete Let’s be honest so let’s stop Taking the Moral high ground on a man who I’d argue has improved in later life and Had not came in the picture Ringo probably Would have never Came into the story Face Facts
Also I hate all this talk about Him been too Quiet and not Wanting To Stop back after the show Yeah So What The man wasn’t bothered personally am down if that was me but that was Pete in no way was it worth sacking him for Because of that he neally killed himself in 1967
There were quite a lot of sessions in Hamburg and Liverpool, according to the other members in the group, where Pete did not play and Paul took over drums as well as even John or George and of course Ringo did, even though he was there with Rory Storm. The Beatles did 3/4 - 2/3 month stints in Hamburg from 1960/61 & 62. When they weren't in Hamburg they were all over the North West of England and some other places as well. Their whole apprentice was not just Hamburg! And Paul, John and George had been to gether since 1957/8.
I was 10 when first learned of Pete Best and recall as vividly as 11/22/63; Classmate Mitchell L. clipped and brought that morning’s Newspaper Article with a picture and headed “The “Almost” Beatle”.
This is a ridiculous 'assessment' of the Pete Best situation. The usage of studio drummers was actually standard operating procedure,at that time. Furthermore -' Love Me Do" reached Number 17 with Ringo Starr as the drummer. The whole 'haircut' that Pete Best 'refused to adopt ' is another urban legend that Astrid Kircherr herself said is not true at all. Pete Best didn't adopt the same hairstyle as the other Beatles because of his naturally curly hair. Also -' There was no band called ' Rory and the Hurricanes '. It was Rory Storm and the Hurricanes '. And the Beatles first went to Hamburg in 1960( not 1962).
There is no 10,000 hour achievement. It's false. Some can play for years and years and never get better because they don't have a natural born feel for music. I've seen guys play for years and improve very little. Practicing the right way and focusing on making your weaknesses better is a start. John, Paul and George were already great by the time they got to Hamburg, Germany. Besides why couldn't it be 8, 650 hours. or 11,350 hours. Who made up 10,000 hours?? You think if any Joe Schmoe practiced singing and playing for 10K hours they be as good as John Lennon. Nope. Sorry. But it's a nice little inspiration for musicians to play more so they can be as good as their heroes. Unfortunately very few will become great musicians.
I'm not saying that Pete was a better drummer than Ringo, I prefer Ringo, but Pete never even played ISHST with The Beatles. The song was written in September 1962. Pete was fired in August. If you are talking about the band Pete most recently played the song with, he was 80 years old. The band he was playing with was terrible.
As a Beatles historian, I must point out to any potential viewers of this appalling podcast that it is factually riddled with inaccuracies aside from that,- it appears to be nothing more than a ham fisted attempt to use The Beatles story to advertise a very questionable publication which claims to offer the:- 'Secret of success ' ! 🙄. Avoid !
Avoid? Just because YOU disagree with an opinion? This video isn't about The Secret to Success. This video questions whether the so-called "10,000 hour rule" to mastery really works. I am saying that 10,000 hours of doing something WON'T give you success and that there is much more to it. It seems maybe you watched three minutes of my little essay then jumped right into the comments to "set me straight". Please don't avoid something just because you don't agree with it. I love The Beatles and consider myself a student of their phenomenal work. The day I tip my nose up to the sky and call myself an expert or historian of The Beatles will never come. I enjoy being fascinated at what I might learn next about them. Please post a link of your work-- I sincerely would love to take it in. Peace and be well.
@@komipowers well, I didn't intend to cause that much upset !!. I was thinking more of the mistakes regarding historical facts, events, dates etc on your video not so much in the bonkers idea that practicing anything for 10,000 hours will bring about expertise and success!, Though that is how I found the video came over I'm afraid 🤷. The very best of luck with your future studies on The Beatles, might I offer some suggestions on useful and relatively dependable sources of learning?...... The Beatles,Hunter Davis, 1968, Shout, Phillip Norman, 1981, The Beatles Anthology, Mark Lewishon 1994. There's an absolute plethora of material on the net of course, however about 90% of it is either erroneous or downright tosh!.
Hi I am not upset. I seriously love all the discussion. It's a privilege to have so many Beatles experts tell me what I've gotten right or wrong. I have read the Hunter Davies (several times) and have read or watched your other recommended references. I truly appreciate the suggestions and your thoughts. I have notes for lots more videos but nothing near conpletion yet. I am at a slow pace. Hopefully you'll find more tosh to discuss in my next attempts.
Did Pete even know that Martin was underwhelmed by his skills & was gonna use a session drummer? We've all probably seen the interview with Paul in which he described Ringo sitting in and everything came together. They were keenly aware of the mountain they were trying to climb and the first leap was for John to put his ego in his back pocket & invite Paul to join the group. Too bad 'cause Pete is a good guy and I've seen his band play several times. They kick ass! It's triple cool that The Anthology project enabled Pete Best to reap some of the financial benefits associated. So I'm told.
OK, The Beatles and 10,000 hours.... humm? The average person, who works a full time job, puts in 2,000 hours per year. It would take them five years of full time work to reach the 10,000 hours. Now, The Beates were only in Hamburg for 2 years. If they played 8 hours a day (which I've read isn't exactly accurate. They alternated sets with another band, at least part of the time while they were in Hamburg), that would be 2,000 X 2 = 4,000 hours. This is well short of the 10,000 hours. They would had to of played 3 more (in addition to their Hamburg hours) years, 8 hours a day (which they did not) to reach the 10,000 hours. I highly suspect that The Beatles did not put in 10,000 hours. I suspect that they did put in enough time, though, to get good at knowing their basic chords, learning some minor pentationic and major scale type lead guitar stuff, being able to make basic harmony with vocals, play some standard cover tunes, and use the knowledge of cover tunes to craft some of their own tunes. They also learned how to "entertain" on stage. This was enough knowledge, in combination with their creativity, to get them to the stage that they were at, with their first albums. George Martin, no doubt, helped them with showing them chords, and other things musically. They were good students, and very ambitious with new knowlege. Now, about their success, they had the convergence of three things: A limited technology (they were pumped through the radio, endlessly to a group of people who had very few options for entertainment, electronically (there were only a handful of TV and radio stations, in each market back then. Endless choices for music were not yet available on cable TV, or the internet. So, the limited technology worked in their favor.) Then they had the right age of audience and lots of them. Boomers were born at just the right time for The Beatles presentation. Their were hoards of young, unsophisticated minds, looking for entertainment, and remember they only had a few channels on the radio, to listen to.) Then there was the culture. It was much more monolithic than today's culture. Everyone listened to the same radio stations, basically had the same hair cuts, and dressed the same. It is not like today. This culture of uniformity was perfect for young rebellious minds to want to break out of. The Beatles offered them a rallying point, with their long hair, irreverent jokes, etc. The culture of youth wanted some rebellious heroes. So, like three slopes on an X-Y plot, The Beatles were like where these lines converge, that is, the point where they meet. All three aspects were present, and that was the recipe for The Beatles and their massive popularity. Timing was everything. Of course, The Beatles had to come up with the goods, and they did: they played well, sang well, wrote well, and entertained. (PS: This narrator seems to miss the fact that Ringo's drumming was also rejected by George Martin on The Beatles first recording. They used a session drummer, instead of Ringo. Because Martin rejected Ringo's intial drumming, does that mean that Ringo's drumming was sub standard? Yet, the narrator says that Martin's assessment of Pete showed that Pete's drumming was substandard. This is an interesting double standard. ) By the way, I had the opportunity to talk to Pete, for several minutes, one time. Yes, he's a very mellow, supportive, nice chap. What you see on TV intereviews is the real Pete. I enjoyed this video presentation. It was interesting, and made some good points. The narrator is right as his summation of Pete Best, at the end of this video. Pete did see them through the Hamburg years, by being their drummer. That IS an important part to play in The Beatles history.
Much of Beatles lore as people know it is pure fantasy and/or was created to be good publicity. People do know what really happened, but hardcore Beatles fans refuse to accept it. First, Pete was not a bad or incompetent drummer. He had his own fan base. That was just the excuse that was used to explain his dismissal. Neither John, Paul, nor George ever asked for Pete to be replaced. What happened is that Brian Epstein panicked when George Martin told him that IF he offered The Beatles a contract he was going to use a session drummer. This was, in fact, a standard practice back then, but Epstein didn't know that. He thought that the recording contract was in jeopardy, but it wasn't. In fact, Paul came closest to blowing the June 6 EMI audition because his bass amp was so poor that Martin declared there was no use trying to put anything on tape. EMI engineer Ken Townsend saved the audition by rigging a makeshift bass amp out of speakers and components already in the studio. Inconceivably, McCartney showed up with the same crappy amp for the September 4 recording session. Also, the popular notion that the lads wanted Pete out and Ringo in for some time is another piece of fiction. Once the decision was made to replace Pete two other drummers were asked to take the seat before they asked Ringo, but those two both said no. Even after Ringo had said yes they still asked a fourth drummer to fill the spot. When he also said no they went back to Ringo by default. One other note. You really can't use John Lennon quotes for reliable Beatle history. For any of his quotes you can ALWAYS find another one that contradicts it if you keep looking. For instance, people often cite the one where he says Pete Best was a lousy drummer, but rarely mention the one where he say that Pete was a really good drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle. Another Lennon quote that contradicts the lousy drummer quote was when he said their best music was never recorded because The Beatles were at their best when they were playing the clubs in Hamburg and Liverpool, which of course is when Pete was the drummer. Ringo's demeanor was a better fit with the band and he certainly is a great drummer, but when it comes down to it he only became a Beatle over Brian Epstein's erroneous belief that their recording contract was in jeopardy when it was not.
Excellent job. One gets awash in popular narratives tinged with myths -- this angle gives one a whole new perspective on a story so often repeated, the majority of the time by uninformed writers and journalists. Thank you.
The Beatles could have had success with any good drummer. The Beatles were marketed to worldwide fame. It wasn't the fantasy of a magical combination of just the "right" four guys. There are thousands of world class musicians who never get the opportunity to be marketed to worldwide fame. It is a myth that the better you are, the further you will get in the entertainment industry. The music business is, and has always been, about who you know. Celebrity takes on a life of it's own. Had Brian Epstein not come along when he did, the band could have eventually dissolved. None of them had any idea how to go any further. There's a big difference between playing clubs and securing a major recording contract with worldwide marketing.
Oh brother... "How could he not improve?" Easy. People don't get better just because they play thousands of hours. If you listen to Best in his later solo time in the 80s, 90s, and now, it's obvious that he's a poor drummer. He never got better. Never.
Hmm, he was no David - if so, where was his comeback? That model doesn't work. Also , The Beatles WERE musical experts. Their repertoire says it all. They were a special type of music sponge. They absorbed everything, without formal training. What is in their writing and arranging is harmonically symphonic. They hear that constant music of the spheres. Townshend has this ear too.
Hi- thank you for the great comments. It's my opinion only- I don't dispute they were amazingly creative, fantastic musical artists. I hesitated at putting that line in the video but decided it was my thought on the matter. They were ingenious song writers; gifted and talented and ambitious. Yet, I thought of George Martin more as an expert. 🙂🎸🥁
A lot of speculation here, but it's nonetheless fascinating. I agree that the Beatles may not have become The Beatles if Pete hadn't been replaced. Ultimately, the Beatles were greater than the sum of their parts...
Gladwell was correct when he attributed the first "I Saw Her Standing There" recording played here to Pete Best. However, he is wrong when he says it's bad drumming.
The first guy that got to be famous for be fired from a band. He's lucky enough. He never was a Beatle . As Macca said, The Beatles really began the day Ringo started drumming with us.
I've been a musician and and music teacher my entire life and I know how important having a very good drummer can be, especially in a rock group. But let's be fair here, during the two years Pete Best was with the Beatles his heavy floor tom and bass drum gave the band it's distinctive driving force. That was key to playing places such as the rowdie Hamburg clubs and especially at the Cavern. The subtle and very inventive drumming Ringo is always praised for came AFTER their hugh sucess and would have not been a factor in those clubs. They achieved the status of best band in Liverpool and had a huge following with the help of Pete's hard driving drumming. When you hear the Decca tapes NONE of the Beatles sound impressive. Could they have gotten a better lead guitar player than George, of course. But they didn't. Look at pictures of the Cavern Club and Pete up front singing and Paul back on the drums. They did that because Pete had a HUGE following with the girls. Oh, but he was too quite,right ? George was at best a "fair" guitar player at the time and was known for being the "quiet Beatle". They were young kids and kids at that age don't like anyone upstaging them. Immature quality, yes, but they were kids. With the popularity they achieved with Pete and his strong appeal with the girls, who after all are typically the most numerous fans and who buy the most records, to say that the Beatles would not have been as successful without Ringo is, in my humble opinion, totally false. Ringo's humerous appeal would probably have been far exceeded by Pete's good looks and appeal to the girls. But in the beginning and in the end the bottom line is, it was John and Paul's SONGWRITING and singing of THEIR songs that made the Beatles, and they would have been as big WITH or WITHOUT Ringo or George. Neither of who wrote the songs or sang 95% of the songs. John Trani www.musicbyjohtrani.com
I agree with some of what you're saying - but can you point us to an example of Pete's "hard driving drumming?" Everything I've heard so far (at least from his days with the Beatles) has been pretty much the direct opposite.
@@kbob1163 Pete Best with his combo in Paris at age 71, just listen to the first song-Tony Sheridan comes on after the first song and it's not worth listening--Pete is rock solid and displays his heavy bass drum and floor tom beat (Beat-les)--I love it....and then Some Other Guy , the Pete Best Combo 1965 ua-cam.com/video/WZSt1HJwdao/v-deo.html as compared with the Beatles with Ringo at the Cavern ua-cam.com/video/nisU8XDl-dM/v-deo.html&start_radio=1&rv=nisU8XDl-dM&t=0 Now do you see what I'm talking about ?
@@johntrani1764 You linked the Paris video twice, plus the Beatles at the Cavern with Ringo. Is there supposed to be a 1965 video as well? Not that it matters too much, as I've always felt that Pete sounded better on the Combo recordings of '65 than he did on his Beatles recordings. My question had to do with his years with the Beatles.
@@kbob1163 here is the link of Pete with HIS band, there are not many recordings besides the Decca tapes with Pete and the Beatles- where they all sound pretty mediocre but here is the one I missed in the first reply. ua-cam.com/video/aqDYKiJbxoQ/v-deo.html In Paris he was 71 years old, and sounds great, when I saw him live for 2 hours he sounded solid--I don't know what more you want to hear. I put my website in my first reply. I'm a lifelong musician, teacher, and play all of the instruments on my songs on my site. Beyond that if you disagree you have a right to your opinion, but I would say that my opinion is based on my knowledge teaching and playing music as shown by my website. That's that Best I can do.
No! Ringo saves the Beatles! Why? If they had Pete as their permanent drummer and we knew how little knowledge he have playing without improvements as the members of the band knew, the band would have not been known!
I’m sure Pete was a good Drummer, but you said it Ringo was a unique drummer, and Ringo felt better to the Beatles, and what happened to Pete Best Drumming Career. This happens all the time in bands. Someone is out it.
Even if he was sacked they used the excuse he wasn't good enough .surely another top band would of snapped him up if he was good x beetle and all ..fans etc that came with it ?
All you have to do is see him in an interview and you can tell his persona didn't fit in with the rest. McCartney and Lennon were the talent (George developed later). You've got to kiss a little ass to stick with the shooting stars unless you're a shooting star as well. Pete may be an nice guy, but there is this awkward vibe that I can see making the other guys uncomfortable.
I didn't watch this . I saw another one of Bests handlers attempt at promoting this has been. Only known as early drummer of the Beatles. He was FIRED. You can not spin it any other way.
Pete Best was not good enough.Sometimes all the hard work doesn't pay off.Maybe he got better but still was not good enough.Ringo was obviously better and also fit in with the group much better.
You could imagine that when Ringo played with the Beatles early in Hamburg, Ringo probably thought ‘these guys are okay and were fun to play with’ but would never have considered joining them. Then after the Beatles came back from their life changing experience in Hamburg John, Paul and George were on another level and then when Ringo stood in for Pete Best when Pete got sick Ringo probably felt the difference in the band and then he thought ‘these guys are really good’. So now when Ringo gets asked to replace Pete in the band he thinks it’s worth a shot and if it falls through he knows he can get his old job back with Rory Storm at Butlins the following year. If anybody’s not sure what happened next? Spoiler alert! ‘Ringo never went back to Butlins’.
You're right. 10000 hours of practice won't guarantee anyone anything. Which is why I used Pete Best as an example. Deliberate Practice, which means practicing with focus and intention and determination will deliver. John, Paul and George (and any people who are successful) practice with intention of getting better- and it worked! Thanks for watching my video. I have others I hope to get out soon.
This was very interesting. That gives me thoughts about success and which price is a must to pay for. You need to have absolute devotion BUT that doesn't make you automatically worthy.
Some line ups fit and some dont , there are many dynamics in a band especially a band that is trying to achieve success. One point i would make if there was such a huge problem with Pete Bests drumming why wasnt it addressed sooner? did the Beatles have rows and arguments about his drumming post gigs? there doesnt seem to be any record of this? Even when they failed the Decca audition was there a major row over his drumming? it appears not.
If you have an opinion on Pete Best you better be a musician; every musician I’ve ever asked “Based on the recorded examples of Pete Best with the Beatles, would you want him in your band?” everyone says ‘no’…the recording engineer in Hamburg took his bass drum away because his coordination was so erratic (explains the lack of bottom on those recordings), the guy at Decca told Brian Epstein that Pete wasn’t very good, & George Martin hired session drummer Andy White for the first proper EMI session not realizing that Pete had been fired…to quote John Lennon “Pete was a crap drummer” what else do you need to know? He seems like a nice guy and was certainly a handsome fella but Mr Best did not live up to his name as a drummer!
In music, it's TIMING and unlike heart, timing cannot be off tempo even a hair, especially in recordings. Can't 'learn' timing, it comes from within. The 10K rule only works if the person has natural ability aka TALENT in addition to practice. Drummer without good timing is NOT gonna cut it.
Sorry, u wrong their timing can be learned the more any musician practices the better they become and the tighter they get, some ppl have terrible timing mainly because they rarely practice, when I first played in my band we sounded tight then I bought a drum machine and found out what tightness and timing is, of course, this was the best thing I could have done
George Martin wasn't even the first producer to say that Pete's drumming wasn't good enough to record. They had to have a drummer for Hamburg and he was available. That's it.
Perhaps but session drummers were pretty common back then.
For recording purposes I mean.
@@joesheppards1 No session drummer would put in what Ringo did, into the band. Even if they made it to the top in the UK, it is far less likelly they'd make it in America and/or be superstars for a year or two & from then on, just sell a modest amount of records & do small concerts, if they stayed together.
Look at all the artist that have done that since The Beatles. Superstars for a few hits, than 30 or 40 years of only moderate success. There are far more of them, that those who stayed big.
@@joesheppards1 You're right. As much as I love Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys.....Their drummer in the studio was Hal Blaine.
PB could be crap or magnificently moody, - it don't mean shit.
He wasn't a Beatle, and never could, or would, be(eatle)
PETE BEST held the Beatles together - back in December of 1960 - when they returned to Liverpool , England and were very sad that they did not make it as a band over in Hamburg - Germany on their first tour there - PETE BEST and his mum MONA opened their basement into a night club - at where the Beatles revived their interest in staying with music - TRUE STORY HERE !
I have seen a number of videos comparing Pete Best with Ringo Starr. My opinion is that Starr was the better drummer, but there is an aspect of drumming that is never mentioned. That is, the relationship between the bass player and the drummer. This is the most important relationship in a pop/rock band. After listening to early Beatles it becomes apparent that Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney were on the same page. That is where the heart of the Beatles sound comes from.
This is a very important perspective. Thank you
In those day the bass drum and bass guitar were near synchronized. The Merseybeat sound disconnected them. The Abbey Rd men could not work this out.
As a bass player, I concur fully.
If you and the drummer aren't one - you're nobody.
Good video and perspective. It was not just his drumming. I heard that he was not friends and did not hang out with the Beatles and most importantly did not show up for gigs. Pete is not the only one who had a chance of a lifetime to be in the Beatles. I had the opportunity to sit down with Roy Young, a Keyboardist who played with the Beatles. Paul thought that Keyboards would fill out the Beatles sound. So they asked Brian Epstein to ask Roy if he would like to be in the Beatles. Roy had his own television show and the Beatles were unknown. He did not want to tour so a day later he said no. So actually two people blew it, not just one.
..... what's that smell?..... Cow's is it?
It's not a coincidence that whatever band Ringo was in, was the most popular in Liverpool. Rory and the Hurricans and the Beatles. The drummer is the most important part of a band... so surely if Pete was good, he would have made another band famous.
For starters it's Rory Storm and The Hurricanes & there were plenty of bands that were popular and even more so: The Big Three, Derek and The Seniors, Gerry and The Pacemakers etc.... etc..... What made The Beatles different in Liverpool and eventuality world famous, was the fact they wrote their own material and the high quality of these compositions.
Sure, so this incredibly good drummer teams up with a group that can't write, can't sing but this great drummer is going to be the one that turns them into stars? I know that a band is only as good as it's drummer but if the other members aren't great the drummer would be of little help achieving success!!!
It was actually "Rory STORM & The Hurricanes". "Rory" was Alan Caldwell, who died young at 34 in 1972. Ruled an accidental death.
@@kevindean1327 What band are you referring to? Certainly you don't mean the Beatles, do you, because they sure knew how to write, and sing.
@@kevindean1327 unless you're pete best
My assessment is PETE BEST WAS OK ON COVERS, RINGO WAS MORE CREATIVE AND KEPT A BETTER BEAT. AND HAD DIFFERENT STYLE'S.
THAT'S A STUPID COMPARISON. PETE DIDN'T GET THE CHANCE TO PLAY ORIGINAL MATERIAL. RINGO GOT TO BE COACHED BY GEORGE MARTIN.
@@seekingjustice2079 there is a recording of Pete best playing love me do, it's terrible, as also Ringo sat in for Pete a couple of times in Hamburg Germany, Paul said listen to us we sound like a band with Ringo, it's a valid comparison,
@@rocktober1327 Prove Paul said that. Out of hundreds of gigs Ringo played a couple. Your opinion of Love Me Do is yours but there are drummers who don't agree.
@@rocktober1327 Here is Lennon playing crap. ua-cam.com/video/HjxqlUkL6g0/v-deo.html
@@seekingjustice2079 I have heard Paul McCartney say that in interviews on utube and on serious radio BEATLES STATION I don't make stories up or decide through my emotions its it's not a big deal, I always felt bad for Pete Best, Ringo wasn't Gene Cooper or Buddy Rich, but he played for the music, would a Day in the Life have been the same with Pete, are you a drummer by some chance?
The Beatles were an ever improving, ever evolving group. They cold have played "I wanna hold your hand" and the likes for ten years and still have been stars, but that wasn't them. They strived to become greater and greater at their craft and explored uncharted territory in popular music making them pioneers. Could songs like "Strawberry Fields" and "A Day in the Life" not to mention many others have even been possible with Pete's one dimensional style?
HELL NO BABY
That's a hypothetical question because he was never given that opportunity.
The Beatles, when they started were an average bar band playing mainly simple 3 chord songs and 12 bar blues. Ringo was a straightforward RnR drummer, his playing wasn't flashy or complicated..... just like Pete's.
But unlike Pete he was given the opportunity to grow and evolve with the band.
So, I guess it's something we'll never know.
@@theselector4733 sorry i dont speak english xd
Creo que nos podríamos dar una idea con algunas canciones con the Pete Best combo como "keys yo my heart", "i'll try anyways"
@@theselector4733 He was given the chance to grow,he was given two years but he didn’t grow.Lennon said it,Tony Sheridan said it.But Tony Sheridan said Pete was vital to the development of the Beatles because John,Paul and George developed a style that made up for Peter’s deficiencies and when Ringo joined it open the flood gates for the group to go forward.
@@andrewhudson8966 I've played in many bands and you don't keep a drummer for 2 years if he's crap.
All the eyewitnesses who saw The Beatles in those early days say he was a good drummer, certainly as good as they needed at the time.
If you care to do some research I recommend two references: A book called "Liddypool" and a DVD "The Greatest Story Never Told". This last one interviews dozens of people who were actually there at the time and they all say the same thing.
Pete was kicked out of the band for other reasons besides his drumming. He certainly wasn't flash or the best (no pun intended) BUT he was certainly good enough AT THE TIME, no better or worse than Ringo.
Ringo was a much better fit for The Beatles. He was easy going, a bit of a larrikin AND most importantly he was actually from Liverpool just like the others.
He's just dull compared to Ringo.
thats if you want to call the ATOM BEAT dull ! invented by pete !
great video... Pete fullfilled his role and consequently the Beatles became a world phenomenon, such a great guy, deserve all our acknowledgment, thank you Pete... thank you Ringo, we lov'em all.
MARYO : 👍🎶
Didn't John said that the best they played was before they became famous? then, Pete did a good job for then.... and yes, this is a very good video.
YES. Pete is the reason for the Beatles success. They couldn't go to Hamburg without a drummer. The Beatles before Pete were called that "Bum" group. Pete started playing drums in 1959 I believe. Without Pete, they wouldn't have made it. Pete is a hero not a zero.
These are all very good points, i used to ask the same questions, why Pete Best did not join other upcoming Bands? Why he did not get a call to join other Bands?? He was known in Liverpool!! If he was such a good drummer and oh so good looking than why he gave up so easy?? He even had a very good support in his Mother!! So got no tears for Pete Best of the 1960s!!
Just repeating what you can do doesn't make you better. There are no recordings of Best sounding good.
Yeah this is the key. We have recordings of Pete right up to their signing with EMI/George Martin. He was beyond awful. So if he improved from the previous 2 years… I’d hate to hear what he was before he reached his awful demo of Love Me Do
Notwithstanding all the given reasons at the time and the subsequent theories of why The Beatles kicked Pete Best out of the group, ie. he wasn't a good drummer, they were jealous of his looks, etc...looking at both Pete and Ringo simply as "personalities", The Beatles would not have had the appeal and impact on the level they eventually did have if Pete remained in the band. If you look at all the filmed interviews with Pete over the year beginning from the earliest, Pete just did not have the appeal or charisma that Ringo possessed. If you look at that original press conference The Beatles gave in the airport lobby after having landed in New York back in 1964, Ringo reveals himself to be just as witty as John Lennon and appealing as Paul McCartney and George Harrison. Its hard to imagine Pete, with his shy and meek manner having much of a impact on the press and eventually on the fans in the US and across the world. It's obvious on that level alone that Pete was not a good fit in the group.
You are so right. Ringo was like them. I can't even imagine Pete in that scenario.
@@komipowers Yeah, Ringo was just like them. I do agree with a lot in this video regarding Pete Best. He was the drummer in their early development and therefore important to their history and he does deserve the attention he gets for it. And I believe he does come across as very affable and down to earth. I believe he did get a raw deal in the manner he was kicked out. I agree with John Lennon when he admits that they handled it very cowardly. And I was very happy to hear that he did get a sizable paycheck for the songs he participated in on the first Anthology cd.
Yeah, but who knows? Maybe Pete would have grown and developed as a musician. Maybe his shy and introverted personality would have ended up fitting in with the others; not everyone has to be outgoing and witty to be appealing....
A session drummer played on "Ringo's" Love Me Do. Ringo later complained that he only got to play tambourine on some track. Pete played 8 hours a night but he needed to do hard practice.? Get fucking real.
The drummer on the original released version of Love Me Do,the single released in the U.K.,was Ringo Starr.
Man,this is ancient history, people get fired all the time,drummers too,they liked Ringos playing more than they liked Best playing,thats the end of it.
What r u,his sister or did you get fired too lmfao
Sigh,lol,yawn(not necessarily in that order)
And dont forget......jealousy.
"An analysis of Pete Best's two years with the most successful rock and roll band in musical history."
In my view, as just another person completely awestruck by The Beatles, this is a sound and interesting analysis honestly put together with due, humane sensitivity. As for my own personal verdict, there's nothing I can say that can't be said.
A really good well balanced video.
I've got a friend who has a similar story as a drummer sacked from a band after their first album that went on to have number one albums all over the world. It must be the hardest thing.
What was the band called?
The version of I saw her standing there that supposedly has pete best on drums does not. That's Ringo on the demo version of the song helping the band count it out and turn it into a completed product. It's amazing to me that people criticize the quality of demo recordings when they weren't meant to be heard by the public in the first place.
I know what Lewisohn and Ringo say, but that’s not Ringo on “I Saw Her…” That is signature Pete style. All toms and bass drum. No cymbals. Ever. He sounded like a boulder rolling down the side of a mountain. That is Pete. Ringo played cymbals.
@@bradentonguy5010 you're wrong. We go even said it was him at some point in an interview.
@@steveshattah I have no idea what you are saying about going even. Who is “he?”
@@bradentonguy5010 that's awesome. I said Ringo but my phone thought I said we go.
@@steveshattah I don’t know why he would have said that he played such shit. Ringo placed himself everywhere. Because everyone in the world said he was the # 1 drummer in the world he believed it himself. But, for Ringo fanatics, anybody who dares say he wasn’t is as bad as knocking Jesus Christ. I don’t care was Ringo says. That’s not Ringo. He was FAR better than Pete. Why he claimed it you’d have to ask him.
You do need talent as well as the diligence and practice - some people just don’t naturally have the feel or aptitude for music no matter how much they practice. This sadly was the case for Pete Best, who is still a mediocre drummer to this day. Doesn’t stop everyone getting better or playing for enjoyment, but nearly all top level musicians have the natural feel and talent that has been refined with hours of practice.
The other guys had been together since 1960 so they had history but Pete came along later so his was an add in had he been there in 1960 would he have been more part of it.
@@neilfranklin5644 I doubt it if there wasn’t the chemistry there to begin with. Ringo fitted it in almost instantly despite being the last to join.
Great video! But you missed out an important detail; The Beatles were a FIVE piece band when they played in Germany, not four.
George said Ringo was always a member of the Beatles, but was the last to join! This was the final change in the lineup before success.
So true...George always wanted Ringo in the group.
In part, yes. Without him, the Beatles would never make it based on john's assessment as they didn't have a drummer at the time they needed most.
I know loads of drummers who have well past 10,000 hours and never improved. Drums are hard and not everyone or even all drummers have the physical or mental ability to improve past holding a beat.
Good video, John probably called him a lousy drummer in a moment. He's also said the gigs in Hamburg were some of the best music he ever did.
George Martin forced the issue, but I think the fact that none of the Beatles ever saw him again is more telling. He wasn't a friend, he was a work mate.
I also question if the Beatles would have had any success had they insisted on Pete. George Martin held their future in his palm, he didn't want Pete and he could have just let go. Without him it's a very different story.
Thanks, Waylander
He didn’t want to use Pete in the recording studio and wanted to use the session drummer Andy White. And it was a pretty common practice to do that back then. He never suggested they fire Pete Best.
@@joesheppards1 He wanted to use Andy White because Pete couldn't hold time. It was a common practice because many drummers can't hold time. Even today it's not uncommon for a bands drummer to change just before they start recording in studio.
He didn't want Ringo either people say, which is true until he listened to him play and changed his attitude almost instantly.
@@tannakaobi1 I think we can all agree that Best and his mother are an integral part of the Beatles story. Without Pete they probably don’t go to Hamburg then who knows what happens then. I’ve listened to all the stuff Pete is on and on some tracks he sounds decent and on others not so good
@@joesheppards1 I'd agree with that and Pete is even a decent enough guy as far as I'm concerned. But far too many people want to turn him into something he wasn't, which is a great drummer.
He wasn't and this line of thought always leads to the same place. Which is that Ringo wasn't vastly superior. I find it Laughable that people often think Ringo isn't among the best drummers in the world. With comments like he isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles. Comparing him with Pete Best is just taking the piss. People that think this don't listen to music. They think they do because they can hear it, but they don't listen. Ironically if Pete wasn't Pete I think he'd be one of those people.
Even if he was a great drummer, he should realise that Ringo was an amazing drummer. It's obvious why he was replaced, which is why he was sacked. He just can't accept that because he doesn't listen which is also why he wasn't a great drummer.
I think this video was spot on, four boys went to Germany, three returned as masters of their craft the other slightly improved his technique. That's not to belittle the role Pete played, but I couldn't give two hoots about his mother and give her no credit in The Beatles story. I would suggest that Pete was a bit spoiled and the root cause of his problems, but that's just speculation.
Komi..that is not Pete Best playing on I saw her standing there..that is Ringo. It sounds like Ringo and Ringo said it is him as well.
▪ Pete Best and his mother, Mona, were totally involved in the formation of _The Beatles._ They played at her club with her managing them.
▪ _The Beatles_ including Pete Best formed a legal partnership in December 1961. He was good enough then.
▪ Ringo Star was the *fourth* to be offered the drummer's job. The other three turned it down. Two because of what they did to Pete Best.
▪ From the first session at Abbey Rd, it took John, Paul and George over two months to reject Pete.
▪ Pete Best's drumming in subsequent bands was more than acceptable.
▪ Pete was not fired as he was 1/4 of _The Beatles._ He could not be fired unless the partnership was dissolved. In fact _The Beatles_ employed manager Brian Epstein.
▪ Pete Best was levered out of _The Beatles_ by deceit.
▪ Pete Best had a legal case against _The Beatles._
The rift between Pete Best and The Beatles was inevitable if we consider that Pete didn't have the same hunger for success as his bandmates as he came from a happy upper middle class merchant family. In fact, the opposite from Ringo who came from a Dickensian background.
And also the hunger issue is what made Pete to not improve as much even with all those hours of practice.
If they'd never met Pete they may have never been known. If they'd held on to Pete they most likely would have never been known.
He did save them BY NOT BEING PART OF THEM
I think it comes down to "friendship." Pete's personality didn't mesh with the others. He probably felt more like an outcast than a friend. Can you aspire to get better when there's something gnawing at you, even if it's subconsciously? It's difficult, at the very least. Pete may never admit it, but not only did this affect him financially, but psychologically.
I don't mean to be demeaning, I love Pete Best. he's a great guy. but he might have saved the Beatles by leaving.
At 1:59, "back in 1962" should be "back in 1960." By '62, they had already played in Hamburg and were the most popular band in Liverpool.
hell yeah. i think its criminal how pete best is cut of beatle history. fuk the no mind haters.
This is so thoroughly researched and well- reasoned with balanced perception and fair perspective and appreciation - I've enjoyed listening to it almost as much as to anything I've ever heard !
Thank you! That is a very encouraging comment! I am working on some others but finding the time is tricky for me now.😁
@@komipowers To whatever you're called on to do I imagine you bring those qualities.
Thoroughly researched?
That's why he incorrectly stated that the Beatles got the offer to go to Hamburg in 1962?
@@robinrobyn1714 what really happened ?
@@awol2602 In August,1960, the Beatles were offered to play in Hamburg, Germany. In 1962, they had already undergone the Decca audition of January 1,1962, they would meet George Martin on June 6, 1962, ..... they were far past the first offer to go to Hamburg.
Wrong. The Beatles did not get the offer to go to Hamburg in 1962. They got the offer in August,1960.
Pete Best's personality also stood out. He was too serious. The Beatles had to share the laid back, joking and modest ways were essential.
Best's personality was so bad he was the most popular Beatle by a mile.
They tried to comb his hair down, it didn't work, his hair was to curly, that could be why Pete was let go. The Beatles wanted a certain look and image. Pete didn't have the look
Woke up. Got out of bed. Pete Best ran a comb across his head?
Got the year wrong. They went to Hamburg first in 1960 not 1962 sent there by Alan Williams and went 4 times in total by the end of 1962.
Actually, five times. The first was Aug.-Dec. 1960, then the spring of '61, then the spring of '62, then two weeks at the start of Nov. '62, and then two weeks at the end of Dec. '62.
No, Paul and John did not "meet with Ringo and offer him more money to come to The Beatles"...... what is your source for this? In Ringo's own words, he was hired on a phone call from Brian Epstein while he was at Butlins holiday camp playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes.
Very interesting point about them not being nearly as big with Pete and without Ringo. The Beatles became much better with Ringo and the comparisons of I Saw Her Standing There are stark indeed. But in fairness, the Ringo version is Dec 1962 while the recording with Pete is much earlier (date?). The whole band had brought more excitement to the song, not just the new drummer.
Having been in a couple of bands.... once with a great drummer and once with a mediocre, less exciting drummer...... It's often overlooked given that there is so much focus on guitar gods, the drummer position is SOOOO important.
Pete never played I saw her standing there with the Beatles. The rehearsal take is Ringo
@@steveshattah Yes, you are right..... my mistake.
John Lennon was an SOB.The Beatles told Brian Epstein to fire Pete Best ,something they should have done themselves.They owed him that much.
yea beatles....man up
Bottom line is Pete was straight and the others were bisexual
There is a video of the Beatles playing at the Cavern. John's harmonica playing is woefully out of tune. Paul's voice is crap and George's guitar solo is mediocre. Alistair Taylor, Brian Epstein's chief assistant said Pete was the better drummer, but not for the Beatles. Ringo didn't attract the girls the way Pete did. Ringo didn't make the others jealous.
No there is not any video of the Beatles playing in the Cavern where John plays Harmonica.
The only video of the Beatles playing in the Cavern is the August 22,1962 performance of the Beatles playing"Some other Guy", and there's no Harmonica playing by Lennon.
@@robinrobyn1714 I have seen video of John playing harmonica at the Cavern. He was terrible.
@@seekingjustice2079 No you have not, because such video doesn't exist ( except in your head)
@@robinrobyn1714 Here it is, dickhead. ua-cam.com/video/HjxqlUkL6g0/v-deo.html
@@seekingjustice2079 Learn English, dickhead. You said there's a" video" of John playing harmonica in the Cavern.
No there's not.
this is so true , the first 2 movies ( a hard days night and Help ) completely revolved around Ringo .
COME TO FATHER by APOLOGETIX a great Beatles parody
I just watched it. Yes that was great thanks!
Beautiful! You’re dead on. Great essay... keep it up man, you deserve more subs.
As a condensed look at this subject I’m impressed. There are other factors that contributed to his dismissal but you’ve covered what matters.
Liked & subscribed.
Let me tell you this; i play chess and yes you get better after 100 hrs of playing and learning and after that you stay at same level regardless how many more hrs you play!! You hit a ceiling and thats where you stay!! Unless you pick up a few chess books learn from the masters your skills will stay the same even after 10 000 hrs... So the time doesn't help because you keep repeating what you already know!! If you got talent than practice can make you a master and in chess you got BRAIN!!
👍 thank you
@@komipowers my pleasure!
He was fired because he wasn't a good enough drummer. John said he never improved.
i heard he was sacked because of jealousy.
Pete was a phenomenon at that time girls would pitch tents in his garden, that was his power, you don't have a drummer for 2 years then decide he's not good enough, you would know in 5 minutes if a drummer was lousy, 2 years seriously
People play with lousy band members all the time, out of necessity. I don't know if you have played in bands, but my experience is that it's more common than you'd think. The guy is available, or he actually owns drums, or he has a good practice space, and so on. When a band is just struggling along and are inexperienced, it's real easy to end up playing with a lousy member or two for a few years before you know what you're doing. It's *not* that easy to find somebody willing to drop everything to go play in Germany in some divey club, especially if they are a good drummer and are in demand by other bands.
@@cowsongsPpl may well play with poor musicians who may start as poor then get better, it's impossible to play 10 or 12 hours a day for 2 years and not improve at least from a timing perspective, Ringo wasn't the 1st choice but the fourth choice, if u listen to the Beatles Anthology Pete plays about ten songs and very well, it wasn't hi that was the issue he became bigger than the Beatles now we can't have that can we, on a final note I had a drummer a few years a go who was poor there is no way he was gonna play live with me, no chance
John, Paul, George & Pete?
Barry, Stig, Nasty and Dirk.
Peter, Paul, John and George ..or John Paul George Peter
@@bobbybrooks4826 lets get this right.....PETE BEST & the beatles !
@@muttsez That's how his mother, Mona Best, saw the Beatles.
According to all of the Beatles, they all continued to improve in their playing, except for Pete. He couldn't even keep time. All you have to do is listen to the early demos with Pete.
I saw him play drums , in a club years ago , he almost lost his sticks a few times .
Love Me Do and an isolated drum track from the Decca sessions bear that out.
It’s not JUST practicing that makes one a better musician. It is also necessary to study the instrument and listen to other musicians that can teach you new ideas, skills, etc.
I listened to I Saw Her Standing There as you suggested. It is NOT PETE, but definitely Ringo. It is a rehearsal at the Cavern. The beat is very steady and strong, something Pete couldn't do (listen to that hi-hat, powerful and steady). Ringo just hadn't yet worked up any rolls or turnarounds. Also, it is much slower than the final, hence less exciting. They are just beginning to work up the song (he always only laid down a simple beat at the beginning of a work up) They don't even have the words down. You think you are such experts with your videos. Baloney.
I am no expert, but a student of The Beatles. Thanks.
Pete could be steady and strong.
This was such a wonderful concise summation of Pete Best's young folly.He may have thought the front line John, Paul and George were great but he obviously didn't have the vision that in order to remain with that front line it required some special effort in camaraderie and special drumming skills...or maybe that was a character flaw of ego when local women are swooning at you and you lose sight of the bigger picture.Interesting,
18:32 Hold on! This is the part most people misinterpret: Pete recorded a test run of Love me Do, then George Martin offered a proper recording session for the song, but didn't mention getting a new drummer. So, Pete Best never knew about Andy White ... probably I learnt about many years later. Pete's drumming on Love Me Do is completely different from Ringo's drumming. What's weird is that Andy White plays Ringo's drumming rhythm instead of doing his own beat.
In my opinion Pete failed the test at Abbey Road mostly because Love Me Do, and especially the version they recorded that day was a very bad song (OMG, that song sucks so much!) ... they could have recorded anything else. IDK, why they thought that a few weeks new song was the best choice!
13:12 "Even Brian EP-STEEN..."
Sorry, but wasn't his name pronounced "EP-STINE"?
That was how The Beatles said it, and in the "First US Visit" film, there is a scene in which Brian pronounces it "Ep-stine" HIMSELF. And he should know...
He obviously has some kind of accent. I know people called Epstein that pronounce it EP-STEEN.
If Decca had signed the Beatles (in early 1962), they likely would've kept Best. They certainly would not have had George Martin as their producer. The Beatles likely would've been made to record ordinary songs written by others - the standard practice at that time. They wouldve had a number of hits, but only in the UK. Likely no Beatlemania. They'd have no need to go to America. And by 1966 it would be over - moved aside by newer performers, and the Beatles would now start to be buried under the sands of time. No "She Loves You". No "I Want To Hold Your Hand". No "A Hard Days Night". No "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver". No "Sgt Pepper LHCB". No "White Album" or "Abbey Road". No Shea Stadium concert. No British Invasion: No Rolling Stones. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Dave Clark Five, The Who, Cream, Led Zeppelin. No Byrds. No Doors. No Monkees, even. No youth counterculture. No Woodstock (or other rock festivals). No changed world.
Being told NO can be such good fortune.
The Beatles were huge influence to everyone back in the 60's, but I doubt there wouldn't have been rock bands and "counterculture"
I don't agree with your assessment.. and by the way, Martin did the same thing to Ringo in the studio, early on..and wanted to replace him with another drummer..but you said nothing about that..?? I've heard Pete live with the group.. So did thousands of people who came to see them after they improved, following their Hamburg days.. and everyone thought they had DRAMATICALLY had improved as a band.. but, not just John, Paul and George..but Pete also..THATS WHY THEY WERE PLAYING IN FRONT OF AS MANY AS 900 PEOPLE IN THE "CAVERN" WHICH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HOST THAT MANY PEOPLE DUE TO THE FIRE CODE! BUT PEOPLE FLOCKED TO SEE THEM..AND PETE WAS AN ABSOLUTE DRAW!
NEXT TO PAUL, HE'S ARGUABLY, THE BEST LOOKING AND CHARISMATIC OF THE GROUP.. HE COMMANDED ATTENTION, CERTAINLY MORE THAN OTHER DRUMMERS OF HIS ERA.. AND THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE BEATLE'S APPEAL WITH THEIR FANS.. IT WAS PETE..WHO HAD IT IN SPADES! Pete's dismissal was one of the cruelest in history, as he not only was denied the fruit of his labor.. BUT HE HELPED TO MAKE THAT BAND GREAT!
If Pete Best had really been as bad as people like to claim, he probably wouldn't have been their drummer for two years. Without Pete Best they would never have come to Hamburg. Previously, no drummers wanted to stay with the Beatles for long because they constantly got into arguments with John Lennon. Pete Best was quiet but maintained his own drumming style. Ringo, on the other hand, did everything that John Lennon and Paul McCartney told him to do. If Paul McCartney didn't like Ringo Starr's drumming, he would sit on the drums himself. After the Beatles split, Paul McCartney said he didn't need Ringo's drumming. 🤪
Love Me Do comment only going to 17 on the charts was off center...statement insinuated without saying so, that Pete Best played on the Love Me Do record. "they needed Ringo to go further than 17. " Pete Best never played on the released version of Love Me Do on Parlophone label. Andy White, a Scottish session drummer, [hired by producer George Martin because he did not know they replaced Pete Best], temporarily replaced Ringo Starr on drums for the Beatles' first single, "Love Me Do". The recording session took place on September 11, 1962, [Pete was already out of the band!!!] and White played drums while Starr played tambourine. The version featuring White is available on the Please Please Me album and the American version of the single.
I think Stuart was actually "the one that got away". He was a terrible bass player, but a brilliant painter, and had he lived, I think he might have designed some of The Beatles' album covers; maybe John's solo stuff too since they were best friends. Stu was on that same wavelength as The Beatles, just not as a musician...but that wavelength may very well have been the reason why he and John Lennon clicked as friends.
He did save the Beatles who knows what drummer They would have got if Pete had not came into the picture let’s all admit Here to those who sais he’s crap as a drummer Logically if they had not found Him and got some one else in who knows what nobody they would have got They would have probably got a drummer worse then Pete Let’s be honest so let’s stop Taking the Moral high ground on a man who I’d argue has improved in later life and Had not came in the picture Ringo probably Would have never Came into the story Face Facts
Also I hate all this talk about Him been too Quiet and not Wanting To Stop back after the show Yeah So What The man wasn’t bothered personally am down if that was me but that was Pete in no way was it worth sacking him for Because of that he neally killed himself in 1967
There were quite a lot of sessions in Hamburg and Liverpool, according to the other members in the group, where Pete did not play and Paul took over drums as well as even John or George and of course Ringo did, even though he was there with Rory Storm. The Beatles did 3/4 - 2/3 month stints in Hamburg from 1960/61 & 62. When they weren't in Hamburg they were all over the North West of England and some other places as well. Their whole apprentice was not just Hamburg! And Paul, John and George had been to gether since 1957/8.
I was 10 when first learned of Pete Best and recall as vividly as 11/22/63; Classmate Mitchell L. clipped and brought that morning’s Newspaper Article with a picture and headed “The “Almost” Beatle”.
This is a ridiculous 'assessment' of the Pete Best situation.
The usage of studio drummers was actually standard operating procedure,at that time. Furthermore -' Love Me Do" reached Number 17 with Ringo Starr as the drummer. The whole 'haircut' that Pete Best 'refused to adopt ' is another urban legend that Astrid Kircherr herself said is not true at all. Pete Best didn't adopt the same hairstyle as the other Beatles because of his naturally curly hair.
Also -' There was no band called ' Rory and the Hurricanes '. It was Rory Storm and the Hurricanes '. And the Beatles first went to Hamburg in 1960( not 1962).
There is no 10,000 hour achievement. It's false. Some can play for years and years and never get better because they don't have a natural born feel for music. I've seen guys play for years and improve very little. Practicing the right way and focusing on making your weaknesses better is a start. John, Paul and George were already great by the time they got to Hamburg, Germany. Besides why couldn't it be 8, 650 hours. or 11,350 hours. Who made up 10,000 hours?? You think if any Joe Schmoe practiced singing and playing for 10K hours they be as good as John Lennon. Nope. Sorry. But it's a nice little inspiration for musicians to play more so they can be as good as their heroes. Unfortunately very few will become great musicians.
I'm not saying that Pete was a better drummer than Ringo, I prefer Ringo, but Pete never even played ISHST with The Beatles. The song was written in September 1962. Pete was fired in August. If you are talking about the band Pete most recently played the song with, he was 80 years old. The band he was playing with was terrible.
As a Beatles historian, I must point out to any potential viewers of this appalling podcast that it is factually riddled with inaccuracies aside from that,- it appears to be nothing more than a ham fisted attempt to use The Beatles story to advertise a very questionable publication which claims to offer the:- 'Secret of success ' ! 🙄. Avoid !
Avoid? Just because YOU disagree with an opinion? This video isn't about The Secret to Success. This video questions whether the so-called "10,000 hour rule" to mastery really works. I am saying that 10,000 hours of doing something WON'T give you success and that there is much more to it. It seems maybe you watched three minutes of my little essay then jumped right into the comments to "set me straight".
Please don't avoid something just because you don't agree with it.
I love The Beatles and consider myself a student of their phenomenal work. The day I tip my nose up to the sky and call myself an expert or historian of The Beatles will never come. I enjoy being fascinated at what I might learn next about them.
Please post a link of your work-- I sincerely would love to take it in. Peace and be well.
@@komipowers well, I didn't intend to cause that much upset !!. I was thinking more of the mistakes regarding historical facts, events, dates etc on your video not so much in the bonkers idea that practicing anything for 10,000 hours will bring about expertise and success!, Though that is how I found the video came over I'm afraid 🤷. The very best of luck with your future studies on The Beatles, might I offer some suggestions on useful and relatively dependable sources of learning?...... The Beatles,Hunter Davis, 1968, Shout, Phillip Norman, 1981, The Beatles Anthology, Mark Lewishon 1994. There's an absolute plethora of material on the net of course, however about 90% of it is either erroneous or downright tosh!.
Hi I am not upset. I seriously love all the discussion. It's a privilege to have so many Beatles experts tell me what I've gotten right or wrong.
I have read the Hunter Davies (several times) and have read or watched your other recommended references. I truly appreciate the suggestions and your thoughts.
I have notes for lots more videos but nothing near conpletion yet. I am at a slow pace. Hopefully you'll find more tosh to discuss in my next attempts.
@@komipowers well, if your that well read, with a little memory jogging, I'm sure I wont.!. Good luck with your future studies and projects 👍.
Did Pete even know that Martin was underwhelmed by his skills & was gonna use a session drummer? We've all probably seen the interview with Paul in which he described Ringo sitting in and everything came together. They were keenly aware of the mountain they were trying to climb and the first leap was for John to put his ego in his back pocket & invite Paul to join the group. Too bad 'cause Pete is a good guy and I've seen his band play several times. They kick ass! It's triple cool that The Anthology project enabled Pete Best to reap some of the financial benefits associated. So I'm told.
OK, The Beatles and 10,000 hours.... humm? The average person, who works a full time job, puts in 2,000 hours per year. It would take them five years of full time work to reach the 10,000 hours. Now, The Beates were only in Hamburg for 2 years. If they played 8 hours a day (which I've read isn't exactly accurate. They alternated sets with another band, at least part of the time while they were in Hamburg), that would be 2,000 X 2 = 4,000 hours. This is well short of the 10,000 hours. They would had to of played 3 more (in addition to their Hamburg hours) years, 8 hours a day (which they did not) to reach the 10,000 hours. I highly suspect that The Beatles did not put in 10,000 hours. I suspect that they did put in enough time, though, to get good at knowing their basic chords, learning some minor pentationic and major scale type lead guitar stuff, being able to make basic harmony with vocals, play some standard cover tunes, and use the knowledge of cover tunes to craft some of their own tunes. They also learned how to "entertain" on stage. This was enough knowledge, in combination with their creativity, to get them to the stage that they were at, with their first albums. George Martin, no doubt, helped them with showing them chords, and other things musically. They were good students, and very ambitious with new knowlege. Now, about their success, they had the convergence of three things: A limited technology (they were pumped through the radio, endlessly to a group of people who had very few options for entertainment, electronically (there were only a handful of TV and radio stations, in each market back then. Endless choices for music were not yet available on cable TV, or the internet. So, the limited technology worked in their favor.) Then they had the right age of audience and lots of them. Boomers were born at just the right time for The Beatles presentation. Their were hoards of young, unsophisticated minds, looking for entertainment, and remember they only had a few channels on the radio, to listen to.) Then there was the culture. It was much more monolithic than today's culture. Everyone listened to the same radio stations, basically had the same hair cuts, and dressed the same. It is not like today. This culture of uniformity was perfect for young rebellious minds to want to break out of. The Beatles offered them a rallying point, with their long hair, irreverent jokes, etc. The culture of youth wanted some rebellious heroes. So, like three slopes on an X-Y plot, The Beatles were like where these lines converge, that is, the point where they meet. All three aspects were present, and that was the recipe for The Beatles and their massive popularity. Timing was everything. Of course, The Beatles had to come up with the goods, and they did: they played well, sang well, wrote well, and entertained. (PS: This narrator seems to miss the fact that Ringo's drumming was also rejected by George Martin on The Beatles first recording. They used a session drummer, instead of Ringo. Because Martin rejected Ringo's intial drumming, does that mean that Ringo's drumming was sub standard? Yet, the narrator says that Martin's assessment of Pete showed that Pete's drumming was substandard. This is an interesting double standard. ) By the way, I had the opportunity to talk to Pete, for several minutes, one time. Yes, he's a very mellow, supportive, nice chap. What you see on TV intereviews is the real Pete. I enjoyed this video presentation. It was interesting, and made some good points. The narrator is right as his summation of Pete Best, at the end of this video. Pete did see them through the Hamburg years, by being their drummer. That IS an important part to play in The Beatles history.
Much of Beatles lore as people know it is pure fantasy and/or was created to be good publicity. People do know what really happened, but hardcore Beatles fans refuse to accept it.
First, Pete was not a bad or incompetent drummer. He had his own fan base. That was just the excuse that was used to explain his dismissal. Neither John, Paul, nor George ever asked for Pete to be replaced. What happened is that Brian Epstein panicked when George Martin told him that IF he offered The Beatles a contract he was going to use a session drummer. This was, in fact, a standard practice back then, but Epstein didn't know that. He thought that the recording contract was in jeopardy, but it wasn't. In fact, Paul came closest to blowing the June 6 EMI audition because his bass amp was so poor that Martin declared there was no use trying to put anything on tape. EMI engineer Ken Townsend saved the audition by rigging a makeshift bass amp out of speakers and components already in the studio. Inconceivably, McCartney showed up with the same crappy amp for the September 4 recording session.
Also, the popular notion that the lads wanted Pete out and Ringo in for some time is another piece of fiction. Once the decision was made to replace Pete two other drummers were asked to take the seat before they asked Ringo, but those two both said no. Even after Ringo had said yes they still asked a fourth drummer to fill the spot. When he also said no they went back to Ringo by default.
One other note. You really can't use John Lennon quotes for reliable Beatle history. For any of his quotes you can ALWAYS find another one that contradicts it if you keep looking. For instance, people often cite the one where he says Pete Best was a lousy drummer, but rarely mention the one where he say that Pete was a really good drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle. Another Lennon quote that contradicts the lousy drummer quote was when he said their best music was never recorded because The Beatles were at their best when they were playing the clubs in Hamburg and Liverpool, which of course is when Pete was the drummer.
Ringo's demeanor was a better fit with the band and he certainly is a great drummer, but when it comes down to it he only became a Beatle over Brian Epstein's erroneous belief that their recording contract was in jeopardy when it was not.
Excellent job. One gets awash in popular narratives tinged with myths -- this angle gives one a whole new perspective on a story so often repeated, the majority of the time by uninformed writers and journalists. Thank you.
The Beatles could have had success with any good drummer. The Beatles were marketed to worldwide fame. It wasn't the fantasy of a magical combination of just the "right" four guys. There are thousands of world class musicians who never get the opportunity to be marketed to worldwide fame. It is a myth that the better you are, the further you will get in the entertainment industry. The music business is, and has always been, about who you know. Celebrity takes on a life of it's own. Had Brian Epstein not come along when he did, the band could have eventually dissolved. None of them had any idea how to go any further. There's a big difference between playing clubs and securing a major recording contract with worldwide marketing.
Oh brother... "How could he not improve?" Easy. People don't get better just because they play thousands of hours. If you listen to Best in his later solo time in the 80s, 90s, and now, it's obvious that he's a poor drummer. He never got better. Never.
Hmm, he was no David - if so, where was his comeback? That model doesn't work. Also , The Beatles WERE musical experts. Their repertoire says it all. They were a special type of music sponge. They absorbed everything, without formal training. What is in their writing and arranging is harmonically symphonic. They hear that constant music of the spheres. Townshend has this ear too.
Hi- thank you for the great comments. It's my opinion only- I don't dispute they were amazingly creative, fantastic musical artists. I hesitated at putting that line in the video but decided it was my thought on the matter. They were ingenious song writers; gifted and talented and ambitious. Yet, I thought of George Martin more as an expert. 🙂🎸🥁
A lot of speculation here, but it's nonetheless fascinating. I agree that the Beatles may not have become The Beatles if Pete hadn't been replaced. Ultimately, the Beatles were greater than the sum of their parts...
In an interview with Tony Sheridan,he claimed that John,Paul and George developed the style of playing in order to cover up the short comings of Pete.
Gladwell was correct when he attributed the first "I Saw Her Standing There" recording played here to Pete Best. However, he is wrong when he says it's bad drumming.
The first guy that got to be famous for be fired from a band. He's lucky enough. He never was a Beatle . As Macca said, The Beatles really began the day Ringo started drumming with us.
I've been a musician and and music teacher my entire life and I know how important having a very good drummer can be, especially in a rock group. But let's be fair here, during the two years Pete Best was with the Beatles his heavy floor tom and bass drum gave the band it's distinctive driving force. That was key to playing places such as the rowdie Hamburg clubs and especially at the Cavern. The subtle and very inventive drumming Ringo is always praised for came AFTER their hugh sucess and would have not been a factor in those clubs. They achieved the status of best band in Liverpool and had a huge following with the help of Pete's hard driving drumming. When you hear the Decca tapes NONE of the Beatles sound impressive. Could they have gotten a better lead guitar player than George, of course. But they didn't. Look at pictures of the Cavern Club and Pete up front singing and Paul back on the drums. They did that because Pete had a HUGE following with the girls. Oh, but he was too quite,right ? George was at best a "fair" guitar player at the time and was known for being the "quiet Beatle". They were young kids and kids at that age don't like anyone upstaging them. Immature quality, yes, but they were kids. With the popularity they achieved with Pete and his strong appeal with the girls, who after all are typically the most numerous fans and who buy the most records, to say that the Beatles would not have been as successful without Ringo is, in my humble opinion, totally false. Ringo's humerous appeal would probably have been far exceeded by Pete's good looks and appeal to the girls. But in the beginning and in the end the bottom line is, it was John and Paul's SONGWRITING and singing of THEIR songs that made the Beatles, and they would have been as big WITH or WITHOUT Ringo or George. Neither of who wrote the songs or sang 95% of the songs. John Trani www.musicbyjohtrani.com
I agree with some of what you're saying - but can you point us to an example of Pete's "hard driving drumming?" Everything I've heard so far (at least from his days with the Beatles) has been pretty much the direct opposite.
@@kbob1163 Pete Best with his combo in Paris at age 71, just listen to the first song-Tony Sheridan comes on after the first song and it's not worth listening--Pete is rock solid and displays his heavy bass drum and floor tom beat (Beat-les)--I love it....and then Some Other Guy , the Pete Best Combo 1965 ua-cam.com/video/WZSt1HJwdao/v-deo.html as compared with the Beatles with Ringo at the Cavern ua-cam.com/video/nisU8XDl-dM/v-deo.html&start_radio=1&rv=nisU8XDl-dM&t=0 Now do you see what I'm talking about ?
I forgot to put the link to Pete and Combo in Paris ua-cam.com/video/WZSt1HJwdao/v-deo.html
@@johntrani1764 You linked the Paris video twice, plus the Beatles at the Cavern with Ringo. Is there supposed to be a 1965 video as well? Not that it matters too much, as I've always felt that Pete sounded better on the Combo recordings of '65 than he did on his Beatles recordings. My question had to do with his years with the Beatles.
@@kbob1163 here is the link of Pete with HIS band, there are not many recordings besides the Decca tapes with Pete and the Beatles- where they all sound pretty mediocre but here is the one I missed in the first reply.
ua-cam.com/video/aqDYKiJbxoQ/v-deo.html In Paris he was 71 years old, and sounds great, when I saw him live for 2 hours he sounded solid--I don't know what more you want to hear. I put my website in my first reply. I'm a lifelong musician, teacher, and play all of the instruments on my songs on my site. Beyond that if you disagree you have a right to your opinion, but I would say that my opinion is based on my knowledge teaching and playing music as shown by my website. That's that Best I can do.
No! Ringo saves the Beatles! Why? If they had Pete as their permanent drummer and we knew how little knowledge he have playing without improvements as the members of the band knew, the band would have not been known!
I’m sure Pete was a good Drummer, but you said it Ringo was a unique drummer, and Ringo felt better to the Beatles, and what happened to Pete Best Drumming Career. This happens all the time in bands. Someone is out it.
Even if he was sacked they used the excuse he wasn't good enough
.surely another top band would of snapped him up if he was good x beetle and all ..fans etc that came with it ?
All you have to do is see him in an interview and you can tell his persona didn't fit in with the rest. McCartney and Lennon were the talent (George developed later). You've got to kiss a little ass to stick with the shooting stars unless you're a shooting star as well. Pete may be an nice guy, but there is this awkward vibe that I can see making the other guys uncomfortable.
I didn't watch this . I saw another one of Bests handlers attempt at promoting this has been. Only known as early drummer of the Beatles. He was FIRED. You can not spin it any other way.
Pete Best was not good enough.Sometimes all the hard work doesn't pay off.Maybe he got better but still was not good enough.Ringo was obviously better and also fit in with the group much better.
You could imagine that when Ringo played with the Beatles early in Hamburg, Ringo probably thought ‘these guys are okay and were fun to play with’ but would never have considered joining them. Then after the Beatles came back from their life changing experience in Hamburg John, Paul and George were on another level and then when Ringo stood in for Pete Best when Pete got sick Ringo probably felt the difference in the band and then he thought ‘these guys are really good’. So now when Ringo gets asked to replace Pete in the band he thinks it’s worth a shot and if it falls through he knows he can get his old job back with Rory Storm at Butlins the following year. If anybody’s not sure what happened next? Spoiler alert! ‘Ringo never went back to Butlins’.
I'm pretty skeptical of the 10,000 hours hypothesis. Correlation does not always equal causation.
You're right. 10000 hours of practice won't guarantee anyone anything. Which is why I used Pete Best as an example.
Deliberate Practice, which means practicing with focus and intention and determination will deliver. John, Paul and George (and any people who are successful) practice with intention of getting better- and it worked! Thanks for watching my video. I have others I hope to get out soon.
This was very interesting. That gives me thoughts about success and which price is a must to pay for. You need to have absolute devotion BUT that doesn't make you automatically worthy.
I agree 100%. The entire Beatles story is fascinating yet I regularly find myself reexamining their beginnings.
2:24 That drummer is Johnny Hutchinson of The Big Three. He filled in on several occasions in the time before Ringo.
Some line ups fit and some dont , there are many dynamics in a band especially a band that is trying to achieve success.
One point i would make if there was such a huge problem with Pete Bests drumming why wasnt it addressed sooner? did the Beatles have rows and arguments about his drumming post gigs? there doesnt seem to be any record of this?
Even when they failed the Decca audition was there a major row over his drumming? it appears not.
If Pete Best was so good why didn't he form another band and make them better than the Beatles instead of crying about it for all these years?
Pete Best played with them for two years and still wasn't a good enough drummer so this whole theory is somewhat dubious.
possibly but they didnt save him. im glad he can sell records ect and not be broke as he seemed pretty cool in interview.
Great video! Thank you so much 👍
I've seen that same photo. I read that the manager ENSURED that Pete Best had the hairstyle.
He wasn't good😔Ringo could actually play and have a sense of humor
If you have an opinion on Pete Best you better be a musician; every musician I’ve ever asked “Based on the recorded examples of Pete Best with the Beatles, would you want him in your band?” everyone says ‘no’…the recording engineer in Hamburg took his bass drum away because his coordination was so erratic (explains the lack of bottom on those recordings), the guy at Decca told Brian Epstein that Pete wasn’t very good, & George Martin hired session drummer Andy White for the first proper EMI session not realizing that Pete had been fired…to quote John Lennon “Pete was a crap drummer” what else do you need to know? He seems like a nice guy and was certainly a handsome fella but Mr Best did not live up to his name as a drummer!
Do you think only musicians buy records?