The Beatles EMI Audition 6th June 1962 at Abbey Road with George Martin - Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2024
- The Beatles EMI Audition on 6th June 1962 was a landmark moment in Beatles history. It brought them together with George Martin, Parlophone A&R man, but it also signalled the beginning of the end for Pete Best in The Beatles.
In Part 2 of his analysis examining Beatles history, David Bedford examines what happened on that historic day, when John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Pete Best entered EMI Studios, but it wasn't as easy as they had hoped.
Ron Richards put The Beatles through their paces and, once George Martin had joined them, everything changed, especially for Pete Best.
Hear from engineers Ken Townsend and Norman Smith, plus George Martin explaining what he said to Brian Epstein.
00:00 Introduction
01:02 Ken Townsend
10:59 Norman Smith
13:23 George Martin
Our store is at www.beatlesshop.co.uk
David Bedford is a Beatles historian and author of several books on The Beatles, including his worldwide most popular book, “Liddypool: Birthplace of The Beatles”. Find out more about David at liddypool.com/
Brightmoon Liverpool is part of Brightmoon Media, an award-winning media production and broadcast company based in Liverpool, UK. Our recent works include the John Lennon feature documentary 'Looking for Lennon', as well as a number of specialist educational films for some of the UK's top universities.
Follow us to find out more about upcoming projects:
Twitter: bit.ly/3z5HivM
Instagram: bit.ly/2USqhq7
Facebook: bit.ly/3imDcc7
Brightmoon website: bit.ly/2Vi5Pzl
If you would like to work with us, please contact our founder and director Roger
Appleton at rappleton@live.co.uk
The Only Group Still Worth discussing after all these years
Absolutely right!
“Sometimes I think that’s what I was brought on this earth to do” what a great claim!!
Great work on the video! I loved it.
Thank you.
Good move showing those interviews with Ken Townsend, Norman Smith and George Martin,you’re getting the genuine story first hand 👍
That's what I like to hear too, from those who were there.
Very interesting. I'm 68 and let's just say that I was a real fan starting with Rubber Soul, but there were two Beatles moments that changed my life - 'Sgt. Peppers' & 'Hey Jude'.........literaly changed my life!! It was very cool to hear this bit of History. Thanks.
Thank you, they changed the world with their music. Phenomenal aren't they?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Do you know what song this Rolling Stone writer is talking about?
"In their hauntingly beautiful song, (In the beginning names "Darkness") Lennon and McCartney explore the concept of dark shadows and the way they can cast a gloomy pall over our lives. With poignant lyrics and a haunting melody, the song paints a vivid picture of the emotional turmoil that can come from facing our deepest fears and insecurities. Despite the darkness that permeates the lyrics, there is a sense of hope and redemption that shines through, reminding us that even in our darkest moments, there is always a light at the end of the tunnel."
Great to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Your efforts are truly historic. Great job. - Dan, in Texas
Thank you Dan - trying to get the history correct.
So this is the great Ken Townsend, amazing. This is someone you don't tend to hear much about within the Beatles story and he definitely deserves to be in the Beatles story as a significant person we can ask questions to and find out details of those sessions. I've hardly ever seen him or heard things about him.
That's why I loved this interview, because he is so much a part of this amazing story.
Fantastic interview with ken townsend it gives an insight from someone who was there at EMI
Such an important person in the story.
I so envy anyone that actually got to witness them produce their magic in the studio, whether that is engineers, photographers, acquaintances or the press. I’m sure it was normal and perhaps boring for them but for me it must have been magical.
I agree. What a privilege to have been there.
The only thing I would have wanted more than to be in the studio, and this is only very slightly more, would to have seen them at their full power perform live in the Cavern, or even in Hamburg. To have witnessed them perform live, at that time.......
@@mollkatless Me too! Would have been superb!
Great video. Your research into these events is excellent and it's fascinating to hear how the people speak who were actually there and know the truth.
I love Paul but I think over the years he was very uncomfortable talking about Pete in any interviews.
In the 40 odd years I've been a Beatles fan I think you could definitely count the amount of times he spoke about Pete on one hand . Just an observation.
Very true - he finds it hard, but when he has, especially on "Wingspan", he calls Pete a really good drummer.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Paul McCartney is the only one alive who knows the truth.
yea lennon was full of shit@@johnburns4017
This is almost magical. I am very grateful you have done this.
Thank you so much. I love hearing it first-hand from those eyewitnesses.
Great video. I have been a fan of The Beatles since i first heard Love Me Do on the radio in 1962. I was only 13 and just starting to get into music.They didn't sound like anybody else to my young ears, at that time. My Father was buying our first record player that Xmas and the first singe i bought was Love Me Do, and i still have it. I made up my mind to learn to play the guitar and i have played in bands for over 50 years, thanks to hearing The Beatles on the the radio all those years ago. So thank you John , Paul, George and Ringo.
That is a great story, thank you for sharing. What an impact they had, and that I am sure is repeated around the world. What a legacy they created.
Love Me Do is greatly underrated. Love playing it on an acoustic guitar for fun. John's harmonica work still sounds great. It added a lot of depth to the recording. It's 20s and 30s Mississippi delta blues meets Liverpool in the 60s. A great song.
One day in history that changed so much as one era ended and another began.
That is how I see it. When Pete Best left, that was the end of the Beatles. As Ringo joins, it is the beginning of the Fab Four. I see them as two separate groups.
As usual, a fantastic, extremely well researched video. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Colin.
It was kismet in all the things that happened with the Beatles. Four young lads from the same city in the north of England, meeting Brian Epstein and meeting George Martin. It is divine intervention almost. What an incredible story, but the incredible became reality.
I often say that if you wrote the story of the Beatles down with every twist and turn as a work of fiction, nobody would believe it - it would be too fantastic. But it was definitely meant to be!
All serendipitous. HAD to happen the way that it did - or wouldn't.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Mark Lewisohn when interviewed in the USA (on UA-cam) that it could never have happened in another city, clearly not in out of touch London or even in the USA. He pointed out that the city region had all day multiple band sessions, which no other city was doing.
Also the influence from the USA via the maritime connection with ships between North America and Liverpool like a shuttle service. Thousands of Liverpool sailors brought back Americana and its ways from technicolor USA to black & white 1950s England. George Harrison's first real guitar was Gretch that he bought from a Liverpool sailor who bought it in NYC. The 1st wave of Liverpool rock n rollers clearly did get records from the _Cunard Yanks._
I have always thought what _The Beatles_ would have been like if EMI in London rejected them, then Epstein took them to NYC to record. Something tells me they would have been much better.
God has more things to deal with & making 4 young popular was not one of them.
@@quiricomazarin476
But he did.
Lovely stuff Brightmoon. Keep.em.coming. much love from Dublin (west Liverpool) x
Greetings West Liverpool!!! love Dublin
Thanks David!
Brilliant! Thank you, David. Ken Townsend saved the day on 6 June. The timely actions of individuals were so important to The Beatles' history as a band (e.g., Ivan Vaughn). My question is: is it known who prompted them to sign the partnership agreement with Pete in 1961? And not that this would have made any emotional difference to the break with him, but there would have been a legal difference had the written agreement not existed.
Hi Susan, I love Kens story of the farting bass amp!! Macca nearly wrecked their audition.
I have been the only one to uncover this contract. I interviewed the lawyer. When Brian drew up a management contract, the Beatles asked his lawyer to give them advice. He said he couldn't, as that would be a conflict of interest.
So the 4 Beatles consulted another lawyer at the same Liverpool law firm, and he told me all about it. David
@@BrightmoonLiverpool So it was Brian's idea, probably wanting to guarantee that they stay together as a band.
@@Susan-gr2xd Yes, and Brian's lawyer. They wanted to make sure they got independent legal advice. Brian was always fair and honest with them.
Just a wonderful account of music history. Thank you so much
A pleasure
Great stuff. Keep it up and thanks.
Thank you
Hi David lovely video , nice to hear Ken Townsend talk about them as i've never really heard him say much at all about the fabs. Of course i have heard Norman Smith in one interview talking about how Paul was fastidious about drums Lol. Do you know when the George Martin part was recorded it looks to me late '80's, which is before Mark Lewisohn ( i think early 90's) questioned George about it being a proper session and not a test. I know i questioned this in part 1 but i'd really like to see what it was that Mr. Lewisohn put before Mr. Martin to think it was a proper session. So this makes me think that George Martin wasn't lumbered with them by his boss because he found out about him and future wife Judy. Thanks for the vids Dave keep them coming.
Thanks BB
Not sure of the exact date, but looks 1990s I think, way before Tune In. Mark found a document which is usually on used on a recording session, not audition. But that's all it was.
I have been able to prove from many documents, with eyewitness testimony from everyone there and with the help of a top lawyer, that this was an artist test/ audition.
George Martin's comments when Mark told him that the Beatles were already under contract was, "That is preposterous! Why would I sign a group without seeing them." And he didn't.
As Ken Townsend and Norman Smith confirm, it was an artist test/ audition.
Hope that helps mate?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Early '90's Mark Lewisohn confronted George Martin bout the day, that's what i was trying to say Dave but thanks for the reply.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
Norman Smith on film said he had his doubts after what Mark Lewisohn found. He said many thing did not add up on that session, although they were told in the studio it was an audition.
Great Video. I love the actual interviews that you added. 100% credibility.
Thank you.
My understanding is that George only wanted to have a session drummer for the studio. He didn't care what they did live, keep Pete, fire Pete, whatever. And by all accounts, Pete was great live, it was in the studio where he struggled. What got the ball rolling was Brian misinterpreting what George said as meaning he didn't want Pete *at all*, which he took back to the others.
As for why the band shoved Pete out the back door and went with Ringo, I think that has more to do with the growing lack of chemistry with Pete, how he didn't seem particularly interested in growing as a musician, and Ringo had already sat in with them from time to time, they got on like gangbusters, and had similar musical ambitions, to grow his abilities, etc. Pete was a marriage on convenience, he was available at the time they needed a drummer to get to Hamburg and his mum had a space where they could rehearse. Time for a divorce now that the right one finally came along.
Brian did not "misunderstand" Martin, he knew Martin was only talking about the studio. Quite the contrary, Brian fought like hell to get JP&G to change their minds and keep Pete.
@@Cosmo-Kramer So why go back and say that they wanted Pete gone?
@@CaptRobertApril Brian didn't tell John, Paul & George that EMI wanted Pete gone. He told them they wanted to use a session drummer for the first record. John, Paul and George were already planning on dumping Pete once they secured a record deal, and they seized this unexpected opportunity to have someone else to blame for it--George Martin.
@@Cosmo-Kramer Okay, I can see that..
I do believe that Brian didn't fully understand what George Martin meant, but as Paul has said, even if Pete was a great drummer playing live, if the producer was raising questions about Pete's ability, then they felt they had no choice to replace him.
There is no evidence to suggest they had been planning it. But they were able to justify it to themselves, with reasons like not being sociable, not fitting in etc.
Fascinating listening to this, great research done, how it all could have been so different, but im so glad it turned out this way
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Another moment when Beatles' history changed.
That interview of Ken Townsend is amazing.
Superb isn't it? What a man and what stories. Hoping to interview him myself soon.
Another feather in your cap, David. Loved this! But you know me, I do have to push back on one of your contentions--I daresay, your principal contention on this matter. You contend that John, Paul and George never considered replacing Pete until Brian told them after the June 6th EMI audition, that George Martin wanted to use a session drummer for the first record. When people have said to you that isn't true because Ringo has said that George (Harrison), *"fought really for me [to get into the band]",* that all that meant was that AFTER the 6th when the band decided they needed to replace Pete, that Harrison fought really hard to convince John and Paul that Ringo was their man, while Brian was out there offering the job to at least 3 other drummers with the blessing of John and Paul. Well, I disagree, as you know, with your principal contention that the Fab 3 didn't begin discussing replacing Pete until after the EMI audition. However, hypothetically, if you are right about that, then you do offer a plausible explanation for Ringo's quote, *"George (Harrison) fought really hard for me".* The idea being, that Harrison only fought hard to make the choice be Ringo--he didn't "fight hard" to convince John and Paul that Pete had to go....that decision was based solely on Martin's wish to use a session drummer, and had already been made by the band before George started persuading them to choose Ringo as the replacement. Here's the problem with that.
George Harrison is on record saying, *I was quite responsible for stirring things up. I conspired to get Ringo in for good. I talked to John and Paul until they came around to the idea."* Well, if the decision had already been made to replace Pete BEFORE George Harrison began leaning on John and Paul to hire Ringo, then how is that, *"stirring things up"?* What was he stirring up? He wasn't stirring anything up, the decision (according to you) had already been made by them to replace Pete. Harrison also says he, *"conspired",* to get Ringo in for good".* If, as you contend, the decision to replace Pete had already been made before George Harrison began pitching the idea of getting Ringo in permanently, how is his act of pitching Ringo to be the replacement in any way, *"conspiring"?* If your contention is true, then George Harrison wasn't conspiring, all three of them were conspiring to replace Pete. Harrison pushing for one drummer over others is not *"stirring things up",* and is not, *"conspiring".*
Can you see the problem with your contention that the Fab 3 never discussed replacing Pete before hearing Martin wanted a session drummer for the first record?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love waiting for your comments! A good "devil's advocate" to test my history.
What actual evidence do we have for your theory? An interview with George Harrison many years after the event. Does he have a bias to make those comments? Of course he does. Just as Paul does with his revisionism.
But what evidence is there? There are 2 key pieces of evidence.
1. George Martin and what he said to Brian after the audition.
2. Brian Epstein approached his lawyer mid-June to ask about how he could replace Pete Best.
I will do a video on how, as a historian, we test eyewitnesses and history because I come across it all the time.
When read with other comments, what John and Paul didn't want known was that they had to be convinced by George to agree to Ringo joining. Obviously, once famous, that is why Paul especially recreates history with how great it was the first time Ringo played with them and how they decided they had to get THE top drummer in Liverpool, etc.
Apart from this interview with George, what evidence do you have?
George was a great revisionist! His comment in Anthology where he says that Ringo was always going to be the drummer, it is just that he doesn't enter the film until that time. Makes me laugh every time I watch it.
Always open to new evidence, mate, but this on its own isn't enough.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool My pleasure. I should've been a lawyer. Just ask any of my ex-girlfriends. ;) Now, let me address the two points you consider "key pieces of evidence" that prove JP&G never discussed replacing Pete prior to them hearing from Brian after June 6th that Martin wanted a session drummer for the first record.
*1) "George Martin and what he told Brian after the audition."* What Martin said to Brian and Brian relayed to JP&G does is not in any way evidence that JP&G were not already discussing amongst themselves the prospect of replacing Pete. It doesn't preclude that at all. It is absolutely plausible that Martin's words merely provided JP&G with a pretext to betray Pete, with Martin offering himself up on a silver platter to be the scapegoat, albeit unwittingly.
*2) "Brian Epstein approached his lawyer mid-June to ask how he could replace Pete Best."* This is first-hand information, I know, because you actually interviewed his lawyer. So that part is fantastic information, my kudos to you. However, the only thing that it tells us regarding this question is that Brian was aware of the Fab 3's wishes to replace Pete in mid-June and was taking steps towards acting on those wishes by consulting with his attorney. It is not evidence in any way that the Fab 3 had not already been discussing their desires to replace Pete prior to June 6th and the mid-June timeframe when Brian sought counsel. The Threetles could've only revealed their desire to replace Pete once they had the pretext and scapegoat, courtesy George Martin, that they felt they needed to pull off the big betrayal, with relative impunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually studied and qualified in Contract Law and English Law many moons ago! Came in very handy when dealing with The Beatles! Who knew!
I agree that John, Paul, and George could have discussed it earlier. They could have discussed lots of things, but there is only the evidence from comments made by the Threetles many years later. Did they have a bias to maintain the "agreed version"? Of course they did and have managed to since 1963 or so onwards.
Problem is, we are looking for evidence that can be corroborated as much as is possible. Hearsay is a problem on things like this, especially given far into the future.
George Martin, Norman Smith et al have always told the same story consistently and it fits with the corroborated evidence.
Love your videos - I'm a huge fan of the Beatles, their music and their amazing story. Would you consider doing a profile of Geoff Emerick sometime. He rarely gets the credit he deserves and on occasions, George Martin has taken credit for some of Geoff's input. Great channel - keep up the good work.
Thank you, and a great idea. I was thinking of doing something on all the engineers who did so much over the years, working with George Martin. They definitely deserve credit. Love the idea.
Thank you for sharing this with Beatle fans. And two years later, they go to NY and the rest is history!
And what a history! They deserved their success.
One thing certainly intrigues me; though its not from the June 62 session; but, rather the 11th September sessions where an early (So I believe) version of "Please, Please Me" had Andy White on drums. I'm mostly going by Mark Lewishon`s account here. I hope at some future date you might be able to cover that session David.
Hi Alan, yes I will cover this when I interviewed Andy White about that session. He was a great guy to talk to.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
When? Andy White is no longer with us.
Riveting stuff! Thanks for this.
A pleasure, thanks for the feedback.
Great stuff.
Great insights in both Part 1 and 2, and I'm glad to subscribe! One small suggestion: improve the captioning. It's not terrible now, but bad enough that it becomes an amusing distraction. Otherwise, great work, and I look forward to more!
Yes, I tried the captions but I don't think they were too successful. Thanks for the feedback and glad you enjoyed the videos.
Hi from Canada.
These videos are insightful, more importantly, entertaining. Well done.
Hello from Liverpool to Canada! Thank you.
I suppose they'll be a day when the last tidbit of info will be exposed..not sure I need to know their birth weight.
@goaheadmakemydrink That kind of stuff we know 🤣 Paul has a huge collection and Apple are probably hoarding plenty we don't know about as well. Makes it interesting eh? 🤔
@@BrightmoonLiverpool l'm already rubbing my grubby little hands. Thank you sir
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Not just Paul and Apple, but what's Abbey Road withholding? I find it interesting that THE recording Martin found in the Abbey Road archives of Pete playing, "Love Me Do", is so unflattering of Pete's drumming. Certainly makes one wonder, was that the ONLY take you found from that day of that song? Were there other takes that Pete performed better on? Was the one you found and put on Anthology for all the world to hear perhaps the very first take when Pete and the band were trying to figure out the new arrangement for the song you had abruptly sprung upon them?? Did you deliberately choose a take that didn't flatter Pete to reinforce the narrative all the years leading up to Anthology that Pete was a crap drummer and had to go??? Or even to somehow validate your dubious decision (according to Townsend and Smith) to even need a session drummer in his place???? Did you do it to bolster the fragile ego of Pete's diminutive, scrawny, ugly replacement in the band???? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm?".
Another brilliant Video David, i thoroughly enjoyed it and it got me thinking about the Audition and the whole Pete Best situation. John, Paul and George must have had private conversations with Brian regards their dissatisfaction with Pete (whatever they may have been), prior to the audition. I agree with you regards George Martin, surely he only spoke to Brian regards using a session drummer, but Brian must have relayed this back to John, Paul & George, which obviously supported their feelings regards a change of drummer. I dont recall Pete ever saying he was aware of George Martins comments about using a session drummer in the studio after the audition, so i would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to the discussion between Brian and the other three and the reasoning for the change etc.
Thanks Mike, glad you enjoyed it.
I think it actually shows that they didn't have a conversation about Pete with Brian before the audition. However, we know for a fact that after the audition, Brian spoke to John, Paul and George, and then spoke to his lawyer, who I interviewed. Because his lawyer wasn't consulted until a week or so after the audition, it is clear that it wasn't until then that Pete's situation cropped up. Brian, as we know, was opposed to the change, but had to be convinced by John, Paul and George that they had to make the change.
I think in that conversation between John, Paul, George and Brian, they all then discussed whether they should make the change, and that is when they start looking at whether he fitted in, getting Mona off Brian's back etc. That is definitely the conversation I would have liked to hear - with you on that completely!!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thanks David, ah right that makes sense, I was wondering about what discussions might have taken place beforehand, but the fact that the lawyer wasn't consulted does make it clear that the Pete subject hadn't been discussed. Yeah I would have loved to have heard those discussions though..Brilliant insight as usual mate, looking forward to the next vids.
@Mike Morris Thank you Mike, much appreciated. I have lived and breathed and investigated this story for over 20 years now! So many myths and misdirections too!
Glad you're enjoying them.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool yes absolutely, and I have learnt so much watching your vids mate, cheers for that 👍
@@BrightmoonLiverpool wrote:
_"Brian, as we know, was opposed to the change, but had to be convinced by John, Paul and George that they had to make the change."_
With Brian wanting Mona out of the way, it appears he never needed much convincing. When the contract came in Brian never said to them it is now OK relax, drop the Pete stuff.
Superb
Thank you! Cheers!
I have the same last name is Pete (no relation), so I was always interested in him. I was six years old when the Beatles hit United States, like a bolt of lightning.
I just re-watched your other video on why Pete wasn’t legally fired. Two big thumbs up for that video and this video.
I heard, or read somewhere that Pete said his version of love me do was sort of experimental, he could’ve done it any way they wanted it. And yes, as the Beatles evolved Ringo involved.
Question: I heard Mona Best irritated Brian Epstein as she handled some of the Beatles business before Brian and kept butting in… Is this true?
By the way, is hurricane Smith the same fella that thing that song oh babe, what would you say? I remember it well it was one of my mothers favorite songs.
Thanks again for this video and the others… Wonderful research and extremely credible. I am subscribed!
Thanks Bob, you have the Best name!
Glad you enjoyed it. Pete's comments about Love Me Do were right. It was an old song that they had revived just a few weeks before and it was obviously impressive enough for Ron Richards to select it to be recorded. It was a demo.
Mona did put pressure on Brian because she had been so involved in managing the Beatles in 1961. Brian was told that if they got rid of Pete, it would get Mona off his back!
And yes, that is Norman "Hurricane" Smith who had a few records! What a guy!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Brian didn't need to be told that, that was obvious. Brian was just hypersensitive, paranoid about his control over the band. And I think a whiner to people about, "That woman, Mrs. Best". She couldn't have been that genuinely worrisome to him, or he would've jumped at the chance to replace Pete when JP&G said they wanted Pete gone. Instead, Brian fought like Hell with them to change their minds into keeping Pete.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool wrote:
_"Mona did put pressure on Brian because she had been so involved in managing the Beatles in 1961. Brian was told that if they got rid of Pete, it would get Mona off his back!"_
This may have been why Epstein went along wanting Best out. Mona was a big dominating character. The contract came in late July 1962 - so Best's drumming is fine, all set to roll. Epstein only tells three of them they have a contract. Uh! Why? Epstein was a co-conspirator, not just the messenger.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool i’ve been binging on your Contant… And it occurred to me. I don’t know much about Johnny Best I believe that was Pete’s dad, but not his biological father. Seems like Mona must’ve been a bit of a cougar getting hooked up with Neil Aspinall. Anyway, did that break up the marriage of Mona and Johnny? In the interviews that I’ve heard with Pete, he doesn’t mention his dad I don’t think. And is it true that Mona bet on a long shot horse and won a bunch of money, to buy the house where the Casbah eventually opened?
@bobbest8627 Pete's dad was Donald Scanland, who died in the war. John Best married Mona in India, and they had Rory. They then came to Liverpool at Christmas 1945.
Mona won on the English Derby, which gave her enough to buy the house. But she and John parted, with John Best leaving the home and going to live with his sister snd family.
The relationship with Neil Aspinall came later. But that was scandalous!! Paul and Pete's mate now living with Pete's mum and getting her pregnant with Roag. What a story!!
I love the use of original sources. I love the story about the improvised bass amp saving the session.
That's a great story, isn't it? Paul's farting amp could have finished their recording career 😂😂
Very interesting.
At the time I don't think anyone was aware of the refusals. The story was, that The Beatles were going to record, nobody mentioned the knock backs.
Somebody later, said Eppy had also been refused by Joe Meek. I worked with Meek in the mid 60s, and in many conversations with him he never mentioned this having happened, but I know he was not fond of The Beatles.
During 1966 Eppy tried to get the Cryinshames, this would have given Meek access to Mems, which he desperately wanted. The Shames declined much to the chagrin of Meek. I don't know if that lead to his depression.
Interesting, thank you for sharing this. I know that Brian had been turned down by every label, but as we know, EMI turned Brian down quite quickly, though George Martin hadn't been included in that, muchh to the embarrassment of Ron White at EMI when George signed them.
So it might be that the label turned them down, but maybe not Meek personally? Hard to know.
Thank you for the story.
So basically Ken Townsend WAS the 5th Beatle, because without him the demo isn't made, Beatles are left rejected and go get real jobs, and EMI signs a quartet who can snap their toes like they were fingers all while singing in 4 different languages and keys. Yes, Ken saves the day.
Well said!!! Yes, Paul's amp nearly ends it but super Ken saves the day!! Funny eh?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool It's very British imo. I remember selling one of those little black boxes to an Englishman a number of years ago. It was doa. Instead of freaking out at me, he suggested mechanical improvements. To me it's like a British thing that I do not notice with other cultures.
@YARDROCKDUDE How interesting. Yes, if it doesn't work, find a way to fix it is our motto. Ken Townsend was very ingenious- had to be with the Beatles always wanting something new.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Yeah and later on when he was gone Lennon in particular was asking for eye bugging things like saying to Martin and Emmerick "It's too bad you can't direct line my vocals".
The day that changed the world
Brightmoon Liverpool. I enjoyed most of this video and I’ll have to look at them all, thanks! However I must say, the first minutes of this video I was surprised at how poor the audio is! And so many words are just mush. Especially considering this content.
My apologies, I hadn't noticed an issue with the audio, which is recorded in high quality. How were you listening/ watching it? Will have a look.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Sounded fine on my PC.
but there is a fine distinction. George Martin just wanted to get a session drummer for recording because he felt that they needed a better professional to make a good record. He says himself that he never intimated to "replace" him. Playing live etc.... was fine... keep them as they are. But for recording he wanted to use a session drummer. It was later that John, Paul, & George were thinking that maybe they should replace him because THEY did not want to use some session drummer full time.
That's a good summation. There was no plot to get rid of Pete for months before. But once George Martin raised his doubts, it made John, Paul and George consider whether they should change the drummer. In a way, you can't blame them.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool There is an interesting interview where John is talking about the origins says, "....now George came thru Paul, and Ringo came thru George. Although, of course, I had a say in where they came from. But the person I actually picked as my partner, who I recognized had talent and I could get on with was Paul. " So, one has to wonder if it was George Harrison who really lobbied for them to get Ringo. Obviously Ringo had sat in with them on several previous occasions when Pete was ill or slept in etc.... and it does appear he may have been closest to George Harrison in those early days. George even gets a black eye sticking up for him when he does join! In any case, as a drummer myself and hearing the demo's Pete made from those days, it is my opinion that Ringo had a better style. As you stated in one of your interviews, I think it was Norman Smith who said, "it's not HOW Pete was playing, it was more a case of WHAT he was playing". Evidence of that is from "What I'd Say" by Ray Charles. Ringo starts playing that rhythm perfectly and the Paul says he gives John a look like "hey, what is this!?"
@pkgannon George admitted that he was the one who pushed to convince John and Paul to sign him, which also suggests John and Paul needed some convincing. George had become friends with Ringo earlier in 62.
Ringo had a different style and experience, which I think helped him enormously to fit in with the other 3 Beatles.
quite apart from any drumming techniques, of which I am not qualified to comment, the addition of the charismatic Ringo cemented the group's persona. It's hard for those of us on this side of the Atlantic (I'm Canadian) who saw the famous Ed Sullivan sessions to imagine anyone up there but the flamboyant Ringo. I think the Beatles would have been far less successful without such a unique personality backing them up. He obviously loved being back there and that was a very powerful and fun part, to us, of the "British Invasion". I don't think Pete had the dynamism.
We have the benefit of hindsight and the move worked out so well - probably even better than anyone could have imagined!
However, in August 1962, they didn't know that. But it worked out perfectly.
Great video Dave amazing story amazing stories of the first hand accounts and Macca's farting bass 😂😂 👍👍🎸😎🎸BB 👍6
That farting bass is legendary!!! And it was still farting in the September 🤣🤣🎸🎵🎶
In addition I have heard/read Martin and others in interviews etc., say [paraphrased here] "for the recording session we'll use a session drummer" [VERY common for years with American recordings. Hal Blaine and the Wrecking Crew comes to mind and also Motown's "Funk Brothers"]. Martin said they can use Pete on tours live or whatever they want to do, but for the recordings he needed a session drummer. This indicates to me Martin NEVER said "get rid of Pete Best," but only wanted a professional session drummer for records. it was the Beatles who decided after a long time of using Pete and getting nowhere, and this was their excuse. But they "chickened out" as Lennon put it, and asked Brian Epstein to sack him for them. Martin had nothing to do with it. When Ringo replaced Pete, the story goes Martin had not been informed until they showed up for the late summer 1963 sessions for Love Me Do and P.S. I Love you. Andy White was there and we all know the rest of the story... A similar situation with the late Karen Carpenter...apparently from sources I've encountered, over decades now, even though she was an excellent percussionist, she NEVER played drums on the recordings once they were at A and M records, it was Hal Blaine...often a live performing drummer could not keep time [tempo] like a studio musician could, plus the burden was off of her to do everything when she had more than enough to do. Thanks for the great interviews and thoughts, well put together without all the typical reciting of rumors and myths as fact and all. Interviews from those who were actually there and not hearsay.
'62, not, '63.
Great research and commentary about my and millions of others favourite band. One thing I wonder is if Pete wasn’t considered the right drummer to record with the band by George Martin, would they have been able to continue to have him play gigs with them while session drummers were used on their records? Surely word would have gotten out that his name didn’t appear anywhere on their albums and it would have been a catastrophic PR disaster for Brian and the band. Perhaps this sort of thing goes on and I’m just not aware of that.
Thank you.
They could have easily continued that way with a session drummer for the records only. Pete's name would still have appeared on the records. It was commonplace to use session musicians back then. Also, George Martin was only referring to their first record, so Pete, like Ringo, could have played on future recordings.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Interesting. In your opinion was Ringo a better drummer for The Beatles at that time ?
@aporter0509 at that time there was little between them. Different styles. But for the group they became, the Fab Four, he was better suited with his variety of styles and experience.
Is that the same Hurricane Smith who had a couple of singles in the early 70s.. Don't let it die and Oh babe what would you say?
Yes.
Yes !!
@@F8NcH8Ng cool thanks
@@Borella309 thank you
Yes it is
So, Norman Smith who is or was a Drummer at the time did not think that there was anything wrong with Pete Bests drumming. He said it wasn't the way he was playing but what he was asked to play. It was also stated that Norman played on some of the Beatles songs, love to know which ones. I Know he also played on Pink Floyds second album , 'A Saucerful of Secrets' on the second track side one 'Remember a day'. What happened with the Beatles all seems to rest on George Martins comment that he wanted a session drummer in for the recording and the interpretation of that comment by Brian Epstein and how he relayed it to the band. The irony is that the band then turned up with a second drummer, 'Ringo' and George Martin still wanted a session drummer in. What a predicament for John, Paul and George, but they stuck with Ringo, so maybe there was something else going on between John, Paul, George and Pete Best.
You sum it up nicely. The only reason they changed drummers was because of what George Martin said. And, as you say, Norman Smith, a drummer, had no problem with how Pete was playing. Once their mind wad made up to change drummers, they started looking, asked 4 drummers, and Ringo said yes. Thankfully! And even though George Martin didn't approve of him at first, he did get that chance and grabbed it. You can't imagine it being any other way.
You wrote, *_"...maybe there was something else going on between John, Paul, George and Pete."_*
Ooof, now that is an understatement. Pete was the far and away most popular Beatle with the fans and the press, and he got preferential treatment from club managers, who would make the three guitarists *sit* on the front of the stage so as to not block the fans' view of Pete. John, Paul and George couldn't handle playing second fiddle to their drummer (of all people), and so they replaced him with the shortest, scrawniest, ugliest drummer with adequate skills they could find. Problem solved, as far as they were concerned. That their "solution" was committing a hideous betrayal against their devoted, powerhouse drummer of two years, as soon as they reached the launchpad to stardom, is an indelible stain on their legacy.
Got to ask ypu, in your honest opinion. Do you think there is a possibility that the original Paul[James]was replaced? Please give an opinion. Many thanks .
No, not a chance. Funny though, isn't it?
@@BrightmoonLiverpool
I met Paul McCartney just before Covid. Some of the guys asked where he came from in Liverpool. He relied _"Speke"._ I thought it was odd that he never said Allerton, as he lived there from the age of 10-11. That got me thinking.
I used to work with a former Decca technical manager. Apparently, the story of the Beatles turning up to two auditions months apart with a broken bass amp was a bit of an industry in-joke at the time.
Did they talk about Decca turning the Beatles down? Interested to know what they had been told.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Nothing specific, but he did say that it was all for the best. They needed a George Martin, and Decca didn’t really have one. It was an old-fashioned company which excelled at classical and big band music. He “predicted” that, had Decca signed them, they’d have had 3 under-promoted singles before being dropped. If they were lucky, the last of the singles might have had strings overdubbed.
He didn’t understand why they recorded 15 songs at an audition. 4, or sometimes 6, was the norm. It wasn’t unusual for bands to quickly go through material for the producer. It was unusual to record that many songs.
Apparently, the Tremeloes’ audition was good enough for a couple of the tracks recorded at to be released as B-sides.
I wish I could tell you more. Alas, my friend Brian passed on 20 years ago.
@Martin Fenton Thank you so much that is really interesting. I think if you look at the Tremeloes records, it was a lot of covers etc, so would they have let John and Paul release original songs, which was a gamble?
Also interesting about the number of songs. It was such an eclectic mix of songs too, which cannot have helped.
Thanks for sharing.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool And a strange day to have been doing this and time of year: New Years. They didn't sound healthy. Almost like a day off from gigging - let's try to perform for a label (bass amp not functioning and all). For June 6th, hadn't they just returned from Hamburg? They were a live gig type of band and somehow George Martin did get that for the Please Please Me single and album.
I heard poor Pete finally got some money,, good for him
He did. He was fiven royalties from the Anthology when it was published.
Norman Smith produced Pink Floyd early on.
He recorded and sang as Hurricane Smith.
He earned the nickname because he worked quickly.
What a great guy he was. Very talented indeed.
😎😎
Thanks Phil
In all seriousness I feel a deep sympathy for Pete Best. Even in retrospect his name was much maligned and not given his due course, even by the Beatles themselves. Ringo was brilliant, the ideal fit and maybe the “right character” to complement the group but Pete’s contribution was significant to say the least. They became the biggest band in Liverpool with Pete as there heart beat. They improved ten fold with Pete as there drummer. They stayed as a band because Pete joined the group and the gateway to Hamburg was opened. Add to that playing a regular paid gig in his house and that his mother Mona helped promote the boys in the early years!! There’s no way Best could have been as bad as he was made out to be, even cruelly so I think by John Lennon in his now infamous playboy interview. What no one could foresee was the Beatles being bigger than “Elvis”. I think there was probably a deep regret in terms of how they treated Pete and they just wanted to move on from it. I’m glad he was financially rewarded via the Anthology and no one can take away his priceless memories. He truly can say “I was there”. 🙏❤️🎼🎸.x
Nicely said, thank you. Give Pete the credit he deserves.
I have some thoughts on the matter
Are we supposed to guess?
Come on Phil, always happy to hear from you mate.
Matter of fact I do too!
2:17 you meant Dick Rowe not Bill RIGHT? Listening to KEN makes me wish we had a Pete Frame Tree diagram of the road to the Beatles ending with George Martin. There are several names unknown to even rabid fans who, in retrospect, are REALLY CRUCIAL! Starting with 3:15
He did mean Dick Rowe, not Bill.
You want a tree of the journey? Pete Frame loved my book, which actually does that. Called The Fab One Hundred and Four: The Evolution of the Beatles. (You can order it from the link in the description.) It details every musician and even those who taught the Beatles to play too! David Bedford.
Perhaps the band puffed-up George Martin's comments about Pete because it helped them in their quest to replace him.
There hadn't been any suggestion that they wanted to replace Pete up until George Martin made the comments to Brian. After that, they had to justify replacing him, which is when they considered any other issues.
I would like to thank the author of these video series for his great effort that went into this research. Being a Beatles fan for over 40 years here in Russia, I didn't know anything about the session on 6 June '62, let alone the details of the drummer replacement that tok place over the course of that summer.
So, I really appreciate the subject and the author's style of storytelling. Waiting for more! Cheers, and keep it up.
Thank you it is a pleasure to help share Beatles history with you.
Hi, with respect, it may have been G.M.'s first personal interaction with the band, but he had heard
the Decca demo session and would have formed a pretty solid opinion of P.B.'s drumming abilities
from that evidence. Also, even though G.M. floated the idea that Pete could remain as the 'live show" drummer, he had to know that this would be an uncomfortable situation for any band in a studio setting, as friendship, confidence and comradery are essential elements of creativity in the studio. Those qualities would be extremely difficult, likely impossible, to conjure on demand with a session drummer only interacting with the guys during relatively short studio sessions.
George Martin did listen to a few of the Decca songs, and it wouldn't have been Pete Best he was concerned about. Best did little wrong at Decca, but Paul's singing was poor, as was his bass guitar amp, George's lead guitar was ropey but singing was good, and John's guitar and vocals were average.
If they had continued with a session drummer, that wouldn't have been an issue as such. It happened in many bands. They were quite happy to use Andy White instead of Ringo. They would have done anything to be making records. Session musicians were used all the time, with some groups having none of their musicians playing on the records.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Hi B.Moon I sure as heck do not wish to start a goofy argument in this space, but some of what you said in your reply implies that I know little or nothing about the history of rock and pop, or the Beatles specifically.
I have been fully aware of the usage, commonality and importance of session players in the history of rock for at least 4 decades, so please don't suggest that I'm just now hearing about that practice. The fact is, I am a huge fan of the legendary Hal Blaine and the entire circle of session players that basically shaped the sound of 60's pop in America. Of course the U.K. also had session players. The point you are missing entirely is that the other 3 lads were NOT willing to go down that road. Perhaps it was their Liverpool born pride, or youthful hubris, but they did not want a session drummer to be a "secret Beatle". On that point, I have to challenge your assertion about being happy to use Andy White. Yes, they may have bit their collective tongue on that occasion, probably in deference to G.Martin and the fact that he would have to pay A. White no matter what.
I'm not presuming to know your particular reasons for defending Pete, but most who do tend to forget that he was really an emergency add to the group so they could make their fist Hamburg trip. Basically, he was the only available drummer at the time. Yes, he did hang on for the better part of 2 years, but during that time, every producer they encountered found Pete to be lacking in basic drumming
technique, and I personally feel, the common sense that every drummer requires. That is to know exactly when less is more, and when something extra in the way of a special "fill" would enhance a song. Far too often, his attempts to be creative actually
stick out like a very sore thumb (and his ability to keep solid time is lacking).
I apologize in advance if you have been a rock group member. If so, you must surely agree with the many quotes from John and Paul that the moment they played with Ringo, they felt more solid and supported by a stronger, more sturdy beat. The importance of that can not be understated. A solid, thoughtful drummer elevates the play of all other band members.
All that said, George Martin's clear declaration that Pete would not play on any official sessions was more than enough for the other three to cut him loose.
I honestly find it hard to feel sorrow for Pete, as he had great opportunities to monetize his time in the group, and if his skill was never the issue, he should have been able to join any number of high profile groups, or become a session drummer himself. Sure, he must have had some dark times during the 60's and 70's, but he has achieved great fame as a "victim", but a victim that ultimately was very well paid for
his short time as a Beatle.
I do offer him my respect and admiration for not having written a Tell All book about the the Hamburg era, because I am certain there was far more debauchery that we have ever been told by other sources.
@@charlyW34 I agree that JP&G were highly averse to using a session musician, of any instrument, and that they bit their lips when Ringo failed to pass muster with Martin and Andy White was hired the next week for the band's first official recording session. Unfortunately, that's about the only thing you got right in your long comment.
Hi. Although you, just like the fellow that made the video we are discussing, show a real lack of comment when it comes to defending the actual skill level of Mr. Best, I will let that go for the sake of argument. We can after all agree to disagree, even though FAR more musically skilled folks acknowledge the many shortcomings of Mr. Best than those who feel he may somehow have magically become competent enough to help the group achieve their goals. You have , without realizing it, confirmed the 2 main reasons Pete had to be sacked! First, George Martin simply had no time to allow a less than fully competent drummer be involved in recording sessions, and he had already made that CLEAR to B. Epstein regarding Pete Best. Secondly, you fully agree that the group would never have allowed him to stay a Beatle for live shows only! Regarding your rather weak comment about G. Martin arranging for Andy White to be present at the one early session, he later became very apologetic in interview after interview for the rest of his life, and explained it was only because he did not yet know Ringo well. Do you not find it interesting that in spite of your disregard for Ringo and all that he did to escalate the unified sound of the band, the earlier version of Love Me Do (WITH Ringo playing drums) was actually chosen over the Andy White recording, for the first Parlophone single? That would not have happened if he was deemed "inferior". Your "long comment" remark was so scathing, I may not sleep for a month!
@@charlyW34 Ummm, just WHO are these "FAR more musically skilled folks" who have "acknowledged the many shortcomings of Mr. Best"??
John Lennon use to call Norman smith ... Normal ...as a nick name
You're right. He did and loved it!
Ken’s very spritely for a 91 year-old
He certainly is. What a man!
Interesting.
Yeh ... there is a load of crap talked about this event. But, really, the lads had played with Ringo depping for Pete at least once in Hamburg and even then had noticed a difference.
Simple fact - Pete Best was never a shite drummer. But he was not the right drummer for the Beatles. He went on to achieve very good success with his own band and was happy with that. His main beef - from what I gather - was with how it was handled. The matter of a personnel mismatch was turned into one of subterfuge and betrayal by someone.
Ringo sat in on 3 occasions in early 62, the first at Pete's request as a friend. George became friends with Ringo, so when George Martin planted the seed of doubt about using a session drummer, they looked to change it and ended up with the right one.
Pete was great with the Beatles for 1960 to 62, as a live rock n roll drummer, but they were changing into a pop group, a different group, and Ringo was perfect for them. Two different groups, different sounds, different music, different line ups.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Sounds right to me.
I can understand that the 4 beatles dressed the same but not that they looked the same.. Each of them have distinctive features that are their own esp Ringo with the Jewish type nose..
To say that they all looked the same like clones is a wrong thing to say.. Unless he was very short or near, sighted
Ringo wasn't there, he was talking about the audition with Pete. Brian had all 4 dress the same, and all 4 lads were almost exactly the same height, 5'10. Plus, 3 of the 4 lads were sporting the same haircut, which was an unusual cut at that time.
Pete maybe doesn't know it,but he was well out of it, in the end he got a nice pension, would you want to hang around with people like them.
If anyone has an opinion about Pete Best, I would hope they are musicians; all you have to do is listen to his performances that have been preserved; he just wasn’t a good drummer; he was a handsome fellow, and maybe he was a nice guy, but he was not a good drummer; every musician friend of mine, that I have asked about the situation agrees; I asked them, judging by the recordings of the Beatles with Pete on drums, would you want him in your band? The answer is always ‘no’; the Beatles hired the best rock ‘n’ roll drummer in Liverpool, Ringo Starr, when they could finally afford him.
I agree that anyone who offers an opinion on Best should be a musician, but what type of musician you like is always subjective anyway. I think Hendrix was a great guitarist, but I don't like his music. All my opinion.
The problem with making a judgement on any musician is that it is subjective and depends on what information you have. I have spoken to numerous Merseybeat musicians in Liverpool who loved Pete Best as a drummer, and most bands would have welcomed him. One group leader, Faron, sacked 2 drummers looking for someone who could drum like Pete. He was highly regarded in Liverpool. So, according to those who knew him, watched him, and played with him, the vast majority rated him very highly indeed. So, saying he wasn't a good drummer is an opinion based on limited information.
If the Beatles wanted the best rock n roll drummer in Liverpool, then they would have got Johnny Hutchinson from the Big Three, who was regarded as the best. He turned them down. Affording Ringo was never an issue. He eas offered £20 a week by Kingsize Taylor bit agreed to join the Beatles for £25 a week - when they were already on £50 a week!
What they did was hire was on the top drummers in Liverpool and the right guy for the job. It would not have worked as well with anyone else, and Ringo proved time and again that he was the right man for the job.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool all you have to do is listen to Pete play; a drummer has to drive a band and maintain a steady tempo; Pete couldn’t do that; his one and only fill sounds like the Red Rose Tea monkey; the engineer at the Hamburg sessions for Tony Sheridan took his bass drum away (!), the guy at Decca said he wasn’t good enough, & George Martin brought in session drummer Andy White; obviously he wasn’t a good drummer but let’s have bandmate John Lennon have the final word: “Pete was a crap drummer”
I’ve never heard Johnny Hutchinson play but I do know that Ringo played on all those great Beatles tracks and we’re still talking about him over 60 years later
@franktaconelli9095 I have listened to Pete play many times, though not in the Beatles. However, those who did can tell us how Pete's Atom Beat drove the Beatles sound in Hamburg and Liverpool, when George and John said that the Beatles musically were at their best and tightest as musicians. Have to consider every quote they made.
There are also several myths out there that have become "truths." Kaempfert didn't remove Pete Best's drums. He asked him not to play so loud and not use his bass drum as Kaempfert specialised in easy listening schlager music. He never had rock n roll drums on anything he recorded.
Decca's producer Mike Smith had no problem with him and has been quoted as saying he preferred Pete to Ringo. He doesn't oftern get quoted as it doesn't fit the narrative. Smith wasn't happy with McCartney that day. Maccas singing was poor, George's guitar work was not great, though George was the best singer on the day. Smith was fine with Best and actually recorded him in 63 and still had no problem.
Unfortunately, to tell the story about Decca, Mark Lewisohn in Tune In didn't use Smith at all. He found a junior guy nobody had ever heard of who could say "we wouldn't have used Pete Best " and rubbished his drumming.
In March and June, the Beatals were recorded for BBC Radio, and Peter Pilbeam had no problem with his drumming.
So when you examine the evidence, which I have been doing for 20 years now, the first and only producer who raised a question over Pete's ability to drum on the record - which was what Ron Richards had suggested - was George Martin. Richards had a thing about drummers and doubted that any live drummer could have done what he wanted - including Ringo. It was Richards who told George Martin that Ringo wasn't good enough in September.
When you examine all of the evidence, nobody had a problem with Pete Best's drumming until June 62. Paul has been quoted several times saying that Pete Best was a really good drummer.
With your friends who are musicians, ask them this question. (By the way, I play guitar, bass, and keyboard and have done for 40 years). How long does it take to realise if the drummer is no good? Normal answers I get is maybe 2 hours or a couple of rehearsals. Nobody has ever told me it took them hundreds of hours over 2 years to suddenly think: hang on, I've just realised that our drummer is crap.
I have played with drummers of varying abilities over the years, and you know pretty quickly how good or bad your drummer is. Musicians of the calibre of John, Paul, and George would not have waited 2 years. Oh, and Ringo was available on several occasions during that time looking for work, and they never asked him. He was only asked on the Saturday before they got rid of Pete. Thankfully for us Beatles fans, he said yes!
@@BrightmoonLiverpool I have been a musician for over 50 years and I would never have Pete Best in my band; he served a purpose when John, Paul, & George needed a drummer; he was mediocre at BEST…don’t confuse celebrity with talent
@franktaconelli9095 But based on what information? I assume you never saw Best with the Beatles? And what celebrity? Not sure what that means.
John, Paul, and George had him for 2 years and with him became the top band in Liverpool and Hamburg, got a manager in Brian Epstein and a record deal with Parlophone. And George Martin didn't suggest replacing Pete either.
If you personally don't like his style, that is your opinion. Not a problem.
ya know i heard lennon say that pete was a lousy drummer but lennon was full of shit most of the time,he would change his mind it was whatever he was smoking i guess,he played with the beatles for 2 years,come on he could nt be that bad,it must have worked they were very in demand with pete on drums,so ya know music buizz bull shit,, ohh and one hell of a job,,the facts are what we want as fans,,your vids are outstanding and im the ugly american
Thanks for your kind comments and yes, there is no way John, Paul, and George would have kept a drummer for 2 years and hundreds of gigs before suddenly realising he couldn't play drums? It just doesn't happen.
Good point about John too. It depended on what day, what substance, what the weather was like! You can't build a case on 1 comment!
pete is a great drummer just not a beatle
I agree, thank you for your comments.
There is absolutely no myth about Pete Best. If you listen carefully to the Anthology you can hear that he only does one type of drum fills. The other thing is that a good drummer is someone with a good steady kick drum and as you know maybe, Bert Kampffaert in Hamburg told Mr Best not to play the kick drum. If you need further proof just listen to the drumming on Please Please Me. But why am I wasting my time? You are just doing this for the money and excitation, nothing to do with music
I am actually a Beatles historian and author who has been researching Beatles history, especially 1956 - 1962, for over 20 years. I have published 8 books on The Beatles to critical acclaim. Trust me, I do this to share with fans what I have learned and definitely don't do it for the money! From drummers and musicians from 1960-62, the thing that stood Pete out among other drummers, was his "atom beat", kicking the bass drum in a 4/4 beat when required. He was ultra-reliable. Unfortunately you have fallen for the Kaempfert myth that has been put forward for years and is not accurate.
Kaempfert did not ask Pete to stop playing his bass drum because of any timing, irregularity or other excuse. He did it because in all of his years, Kaempfert never used a heavy bass drum, because his style of music was "easy listening", known as schlager music in Germany. Listen to "My Bonnie" - Best's drum rolls are superb at speed and difficult to replicate. I have that from interviews with many drummers.
Which version of Please Please Me are you referring to? Because it wasn't recorded by Best, but by Andy White and then Ringo Starr. Whose do you think is not very good?
As a historian, I follow the evidence, especially through interviewing people closed to the Beatles and the Merseybeat scene in Liverpool.
You people don't know what you are talking about. One simple question "did you see The Beatles with Pete"?
If not, go back to kissing your pictures of Ringo and only comment on things you know about.
Why make silly insults, even if your facts had been correct?
"nothing to do with music" is a far more appropriate description of your ignorant and condescending attack than Brightmoon's knowledgable, researched, reasoned and evidenced approach
@@pinksax An ignorant comment with a gratuitous false allegation deserved a rebuke. You obviously felt an overwhelming need to comment too, but it's unclear why
@@mustafa1name defending Best is silly, injurious and has no basis,that’s why.
According to Mark's research, George Martin at first, had not even wanted to audition them; but Ardwood & Beechmore who wanted the rights to "Like Dreamers Do" Put it to George's boss, Len Wood that they wanted the song; and that Wood (Who had had some `differences` with George) Made him sign them. Do you have any further data on that?
Mark only has one, biased, source for this, whereas there are plenty of others who tell the story we know, as per Ken Townsend. George Martin was on the lookout for a pop act as he was getting left behind.
Syd Colman of Ardmore & Beechwood (part of EMI) wanted to publish these Beatles songs he had heard, and so he knew that here was a new group with original songs that fit the criteria that George was looking for. When he met Brian, he wasn't too impressed with the songs but offered the audition. It was still his decision.
I met Lady Judy Martin a few years ago, and I asked her what she remembered, and it was consistent with what everyone had said. I did mention Mark's name, and I won't share what she said!!! The bit I can repeat was "he wasn't there!".
The source was Kim Bennett who was highly aggrieved, with good reason, because after Love Me Do was issued, published by Ardmore and Beechwood, George Martin advises Brian, John and Paul to sign a publishing deal with a rival publisher, Dick James. I found an original interview with Bennett from the 1960s and he told the story in the same way as everyone else. But in this last interview, he changed his story to introduce the theory that George Martin was forced to take the group to cover up his relationship with Judy.
That is what the evidence tells me.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool Thank you for the update David. My reckoning is that George Martin must have known the Beatles had-at least-a strong regional following in the North West and that `some` sales of a record could well turn a profit for EMI. In those days a record company didn`t need that many sales to achieve profit, which George would have known
One area of Mark`s book I -personally knew was; not too accurate was where he mentioned that the charts could not be `rigged` due to the way of compiling them. I e.mailed him to point out there were Three ways they `could` Now, whether "Love Me Do" was aided in any of those ways; I do not know; but! It certainly `was` possible.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool George Martin most definitely in one of his books states that he was looking for a pop group of his own to produce. Especially to compete with Cliff and the Shadows.
@@BrightmoonLiverpool wrote:
_"George Martin advises Brian, John and Paul to sign a publishing deal with a rival publisher, Dick James."_
What a bum piece of advice that was. James ripped them off. Once they knew what James did, I am surprised _The Beatles_ had anything to do with Martin. I know I would have told him where to go.
Was it not Dick Rowe rather than BILL??