I love the way you ended this: "If you're not good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison, there's really no shame in that. Few people are." What a graceful way of putting Pete Best's firing in context. Also, this guy got a huge payout from a job he held for two years in his late teens and early 20s. How many of us can say that?
His legacy shouldn't be "I don't know," it should be "I helped launch the greatest band ever and I gave it everything I had, and I'm so proud of my part of the Beatles history." That is something everyone can get behind. Thanks for the comment, Greg.
@@popgoesthe60s52 agreed. He was the first stable drummer they had. They were able to rely on his attendance and so could focus on becoming better performers. 1960-62 was when they really began building their fanbase. Ringo did wonders for the band, but Pete did put in the work
you shouldn´t forget that this happened in their early parlaphone days when none of them had experience, but why don´t judge yourselves and listen to early recordings live from the Beatles ,including with already ringo star in the band and then say what do you think about what it´s said here
@@popgoesthe60s52 but what about "after giving everything for two years in this famous band when they really started to make money i was substituted for no reason ,what is said in the video happens since ever with new bands ,one records the first time in studio and should keep the tempo while others were also very bad "
Groove is a hard thing to explain, so a lot of young musicians go for a few years with whatever drummer they met in high school, not knowing any better - and yes, the high school guy is fairly competent … but one day - another drummer who has a solid groove shows up, and sits in, and suddenly everybody goes: "What … Just … Happened?!?" … it's not like the groove guy was playing crazy chops or anything, it's just that he locks in so well, and suddenly everybody can just feel the difference - there's just no mistaking it, there's no denying it, and most important of all - there's no going back - that's what happened to Pete & The Beatles, and it's happened to tens of thousands of bands since.
I can relate to this. I play drums and guitar. When I started high school it was at an arts school. I joined a band playing guitar. The guy playing drums had the heart but, drums is my first instrument and I loved it also. He just wasn't that good honestly, very sloppy in fact. But I knew he loved playing and I wasn't gonna take that from him. He started being really mean to me and I couldn't understand why... So, one night at a party a few months before, between sets, me and the lead guitarist were jamming with me on drums and everyone instantly noticed the difference and the actual drummer got jealous. A few years later he told me he was jealous, and that was the point at which he became jealous that's how I know. Me and that guitarist played in several bands together for the next 10-15 years. Our chemistry was great...Not because of my looks or popularity (because I was new to the school he'd been there for a while before me. I wasn't popular by a long shot. At least not before that party afterwords was another story.. lol) because of my feel. He claimed I stole his best friend and his band. So this goes to prove your point. And a good drummer is hard to find. Technical ability is one thing but, you must play for the song and you must have chemistry with the other musicians. I did both of those and Ringo did also that's clear. Me and the guitarist only stopped playing together because he moved to Arizona and I still live in Ohio. And whenever he comes home we still find a way to jam. Because we love music, not attention. I felt bad for a long time until the drummer told me why he'd been such a jerk to me. Then I just stopped hanging around him or anyone he associates with. Because he could be really messy and dramatic. All over my love for music. 🤦🏿♂️🤷🏾♂️
@@solomonlee5298 I know what you mean by being locked in with someone. My cousin and I were 14 when he started playing guitar and I played drums. We played everything we could figure out back then (most rock of the mid 70's). I got to the point of knowing intutivly knowing when breaks, changes, tempos were going to happen. Almost like reading each others minds...
@@artguti1551 Exactly. Like there's another person in the room as we musicians say right? That's awesome you guys started playing together so young. Makes for great times growing up. We learned 60s 70s 80s and 90s tunes. He's 34 and I'm 35 now. Grew up on Beatles, Black Sabbath and Nirvana.
Stavros TheHun Agree 100%. Her drumming gave them a certain sound. It would be interesting to hear their early stuff with a different drummer. I’m sure he has done the old White Stripe music live sans Meg.
Just linked this to someone and re-watched it. Pete's alleged confusion whether intentional or not, is simply good marketing. If Pete finally admitted why he was sacked, nobody would ever interview him again, however, by acting dumbfounded it keeps the "mystery" alive and continues to attract interest. It also paints Pete as a perpetual victim which creates sympathy. Apparently whenever anyone spoke to Pete, they turned round first. Great video.
McCartney: "We fell in love with Ringo's drumming." Harrison: "Ringo just felt right." Lennon: "We were sick of Pete. He was a lousy drummer." 😆 Speaking on the same subject, even decades apart, they still round each other out so well. I love it.
I love how brutally honest John Was . Don't sugar coat it , it only makes it worse . How does Pete think Marilyn Monroe's first husband felt ? Talk about something to cry about .
I met Pete Best at the Halifax Casino in the mid 90’s, and said to him, “it was probably a blessing in disguise it worked out the way it did.” He responded, almost tearing up, “I’ve had a great life, I’ve done well, the Anthology is taking care of me in retirement.”
That's really good question. One question I've always been anxious to get answered is Bernard Purdie's claim that he played on some Beatles tracks; here we have a player who has absolute no need to 'pad his resume' at all mentioning that he 'fixed' a few tracks but can't remember which ones.
@@63Baggies There’s two versions of the Beatles backing Tony Sheridan on “My Bonnie” and “Ain’t She Sweet”. The original with Pete Best, and the version found on anthology with new drums overdubbed in the late 60s, presumably by Purdie. It’s my guess that once Beatlemania took off he may have been brought in to replace drums on some of the other Hamburg material to make it suitable for release. As far as him performing on Ringo-era Beatles music, I’d guess he’s either confused or full of hot air.
Ginger Baker, one of the best drummers ever. What did he do after Cream? One album with Blind Faith and then a whole lot of who cares. Pete Best soon left the music business and went into civil service where he became a regional training manager.
It takes a lifetime of experience to realize that it's about the journey, not the destination. After the Beatles got famous they too eventually faced dark times that the rest of us could only imagine. Everyone travels their own distinct path. Pete's was harsh in it's own way but none of us are exempt from life's trials and tribulations. I'm glad that Pete seems to have come to a place of genuine peace and acceptance for his unique fate. I'm also glad that he finally got recognition and pay for the part he played in the Beatles history. He got to play with the greatest band of all and nothing can change that. He is alive, he is still playing music, he had a good career job and a pension. He has lived a good life. Good for him.
Not only was Ringo a better drummer, he also had the same cheeky sense of humor that the other 3 had. Pete had no personality. Ringo was not only a better drummer; he was also a better Beatle.
John Lennon would disagree with you, as you altered his quote. He said that "Best was a better drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle". Of course he turned on Best later and called him a "lousy drummer". Lennon was a lousy human being, who viciously beat his girlfriends, and never went to prison for it as he should have. Pete had a fine personality. In fact, it was George who pointed out that there was a little jealousy towards Best by McCartney and Lennon that the girls seemed to gravitate to him after the band had finished. I saw interviews of Best early on. Best had a charming personality. I have No issue with Ringo being chosen over Best as a band member; it's that they could have had a little consideration, and told him themselves, rather than passing it off onto Epstein, who was not happy about it.
I'm a professional drummer ...thought his drumming was a little better than John Bonham's and was superior to Charlie Watts. The real problem, his drumming was too progressive for the Beatles....and their simplistic 2 chord songs...Love me Do/Tell Me Why....what trash!! John and Paul became resentful of his "punk rock drumming " ...Pete was 20 years ahead of his time! Let's be honest, he was fired because of his trailblazing drumming and his devastating, drop dead gorgeous handsome looks...its obvious!! Pete....dropped these losers!!!!
Yes, I would say that it took me at least 50 years to figure out - too f'ing late in fact; it isn't what or how much you know, but who you know, good you know them, how they perceive you and finally: whether they like you.
Other drummers were good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, but Ringo had chemistry with them, shared their sense of humor, and was a rock solid drummer, who was content doing the job and not trying to be in the spotlight.
That's what I find bs about this video... Are you a drummer? I don't see why advancing in any occupation. There's only so much you can improve when you've learned an instrument or occupation.
@@toErehWon I've been plating guitar for more than 30 years, and got to a reasonable level in my genre. I still feel I have as much more to learn now as i did when I struggled to make my first G chord shape,
I absolutely agree with everything here. Was Ringo the most technically gifted drummer? No. However, Ringo was a gifted musician who played unique, memorable drum parts that most Beatles fans would recognize without the song! More amazingly, he did so without ever becoming self-indulgent or overbearing musically. He knew he was supporting three incredibly gifted singer, songwriter musicians and his role was to support the song. He may not be John Bonham or Ginger Baker, but he was a great drummer and he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. I really can't imagine anyone else behind the kit for that band.
Your comment is the most accurate I've seen. I know a drummer who thinks Ringo was a shit drummer. I don't think he's ever listened to Ringo's drumming! Ringo was an innovator. You are quite right about his rhythms being instantly recognisable. On his own terms he stands up against any rock drummer.
@@colinpumpernickel2605 The ONLY people who slag off Ringo, are non drummers! Stupid SOB's with no taste or sense or rhythm. As soon as anyone starts having a go at Ringo and bigging up Pete Best, you know they've never sat behind a drum kit in their entire life!
I agree with what you said, but at the time Pete Best was fired, there was no Ginger Baker or John Bonham - there was no star drummer in rock and roll or pop music. It was very typical for producers to use session drummers on pop recordings, and it was not unusual for management to sign the front man of a young band as a solo artist and back them on tours with seasoned pros. The fact that Ringo was good enough for a top producer like George Martin to play on the recordings of an unproven young pop band - which the Beatles were at that moment in time - says a lot. I could be wrong, but I think Martin only brought in a session drummer for Love Me Do and Please Please Me, which in retrospect was probably a good idea as an insurance policy.
I agree with almost all of that. I would raise my eyebrow at the 'was Ringo the most technical' you could say that about any drummer really as the most is one person. It suggests he wasn't technical which I disagree with. Ringo's timing is second to none but he plays for the music rather than himself. It's interesting though, what makes a technical drummer? Is it the ability to find the heartbeat of a song and keep the band to a rock steady beat or the ability to explain what you were doing afterwards?
The great studio drummer, Bernard "Pretty" Perdie was used anonymously on dozens of Beatle tracks to replace the drum tracks Ringo had put down because Ringo's drumming was not considered to be up to par. Even Quincy Jones verified this. Quincy had no use for Ringo at all, and thought he was a horrible drummer. But to me, more puzzling than the Pete Best incident is why the Rolling Stones got rid of Brian Jones - a founder of the band. No one ever accused him of being an inadequate musician. That situation suggested personality conflicts (particularly with Mick Jagger) more so than artistic differences. But nobody talks much about the Brian Jones incident, so not a lot of information about it (that I know of) is available concerning his firing from his own band.
I saw Pete Best in Hamburg with his band after he earned some money with the Anthology I which amounted up to a few million as far as I know. So he got his „Trostpflaster“ eventually. But to see him drumming underlines the fact that he could only play one pattern (and kept the time fairly well for a change) no matter what the music required. One could say it was tasteless and totally uninspired. And I heard the Decca tapes where the lack of inspiration from his drumming affected the others and you could hear that especially John Lennon really lost his motivation to sing and play on those records. No wonder that Decca didn‘t sign them but they were lucky enough to meet George Martin who recognized their talent and their personalities and knew to distinguish between them and Pete. He really should acknowledge that he missed out on improving his playing and take ownership for it. The Beatles never would have made it with him on drums becasue his personality simply didn‘t fit in.
he didn’t write any of the material he didn’t get millions for anthology. not even paul earned that much from anthology. clearly you don’t know how royalties work.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 When the compilation album Anthology 1 was released in 1995, Best received his share of royalties. He never mentioned the amount but some speculated that he got somewhere around $9 million or more.
Brian Epstein did offer Peter a separate contract but he chose to be managed by his mother, Mona Best, but unlike Brian she did not have the contacts ... who knows he could have made it ..
He was hired as an emergency drummer to go to Hamburg. They knew him from his mothers club that she had in her house where they jammed a couple times. He kept not showing up for gigs in Hamburg ‘cause he was having A fling with a prostitute. And every time he missed a gig Ringo and sit in. That’s it. They Got tired of his bullshit. Not showing up. And he wasn’t that good. When John Paul and George played with ringo they all looked at each other and said WOW. Plus Ringo had a beard and a Zephyr zodiac. Plus He had a really really strong accent. Plus he had his hair flipped back instead of a mop top
Especially when he already has the advantage of name recognition to push the PR for a new band. And yet he never was recruited by any band seeking a good drummer. Ever.
Nobody said he was a great drummer. The question is whether he was so bad that he must've been sacked. Now, as for his abilities: if you listen to the recording of Love Me Do, it's obvious he was unstable. However, his drumming pattern is much more exciting than what Andy White or Ringo played.
The truth is Pete was fired, but he wasn't blackballed from the music industry. If he had talent he would had been sought after by other bands, particularly having the reputation of being an original member of the Beatles. That does not seem to be the case.@@majorrgeek
One of the most famous drummer of all time..... For being fired. I met him in Liverpool, nice guy, very humble. But when you hear the first Beatles songs, by Pete and by Ringo, there is no doubt that the songs feel better with Ringo. Sad story, but Ringo made the Beatles style, and now it's part of history.
@@liverpix There were ways around curly hair. There still are. As the Beatle haircut became a cultural phenomenon, there were plenty of curly haired people who adopted the style. I don't know that I would have wanted to straighten my hair, but it was part of Pete's distance from the others (real or perceived by the others).
@clifford heywood I've done that, and what I find is the opposite of what you say (besides listening to the records, of course!). So, I ask again, where did you get that 'info' from? Or is it just your opinion?
Chris you’re right about that when you’re pressed for time and there’s money involved you don’t want to chance it that’s why Brian Wilson used Studio Musicians to lay down the music for The Beach Boys albums and used Dennis for appearances. It was also a common practice at the time. He didn’t fire his brother cause he couldn’t keep time well or just couldn’t perform the way Brian wanted in the studio. Pete’s Mom was too involved in the band’s doings and was always pestering Brian Epstein to the point he considered assigning the management of The Beatles to an associate. Pete was delegated by the other Beatles to book their gigs and was working in conjunction with Brian so right their you could see how that would cause an issue in the power structure of the band. Pete’s not fitting in as a suitable drummer for The Beatles wasn’t the main reason that was just an excuse for the real problem. Why was Pete’s firing a shock to him because the other members never told him. If they had voiced their concerns to him early on he would have expected it. Yet they were plotting all along to get rid of him behind his back. Correct me if I’m wrong but after all that he went through with them in Hamburg that’s just pure disgusting and it reflects poorly on the character of John, Paul, and George who mainly championed the idea to replace Pete with Ringo to the others. George had become really close to Ringo in Germany. So in summation it’s like the JFK assassination a lot of people had something to gain from getting rid of him.
@@ramilopez6921 i agree with you....it is also pretty well established that at their shows, the girls like Pete Best...... BEST !....more than they liked the other 3.......that causes jealousy
The way Ringo approached the drums is pure genius. It’s not a matter of technical ability, Ringo’s playing elevated it to an art form. Just listen to ‘Ticket to Ride’. Understated brilliance. And his time is amazing. Steady, but smooth like butter. I’ve played drums professionally for 45 years and I can tell you that in the drumming community, Ringo is highly regarded as a unique and talented player.
Yeah man Ticket to Ride is just such a heavy groove! And then you've got Tomorrow Never Knows, You're Going To Lose That Girl with that crazy backbeat and his epic performance on A Day In The Life. Genius!!
Robert . I found out the other day , and this came from Richard , Ringo was lefty and and set his kit up as if he was righty . There have been slight delays in some of the rolls he did .It was great and It made his sound different . A guitar player asked him , on his show , how he got this sound that other drummers could not copy . It was because he would over compensate . Instead of going from the tom tom on the bass drum and then to the floor tom tom , he did the opposite ? Now there is some drumming . Everything happens for a reason . Richard was better ! Not to mention , but I will , they had no monitors back then . With the sound of the huge amps and girls screaming and the huge venues , Richard had to concentrate on the keeping the flow .
My thought is, first, life is tough. I'm sorry for Best, but he could have spared himself a lot of pain if he'd had the intelligence to recognize before he was fired that Ringo was better and had a chemistry with the others which he lacked, and quit. He didn't see it coming because he isn't very bright. And he was no Beatle.
@@lonnietoth5765 yeah that's exactly right about Ringo being a lefty playing a right-handed kit. It did allow him to come up with some really unique patterns and he seemed a lot of times to play just a hair behind the beat which sort of gave the music a little bit of a push-pull effect which was just wonderful. After listening to some of the takes of Pete Best drumming I didn't realize that he was such a poor player. The guy was all over the place so it really is a no-brainer that the Beatles scored the number one drummer in Liverpool at the time. Imagine if the Beatles just had a straight lace on the beat drummer. Their sound just wouldn't have been the same at all.
I started out as a drummer and was bragged on a lot. But I began to get critized by better musicinas that my chops were good but my timing was crap. I could NOT hear that my timing was crap until we started recoding gigs. Then I heard it. I fixed that when I started using a click track for all my gigs. Timing supersedes technique every time.
Very convincing presentation. I'm a lifelong drummer who took several years of professional lessons. You must control your adrenaline. Keeping the beat/time is number one. Ringo is one hell of a drummer.
I've played in covers bands in the past and there always seemed to be a tendency for the drummer to play a little fast. Near the end of the 1st set the drummer calmed down.
The drum part on Come Together...who else would even think of doing that? He's not underrated by any drummer I know. Ringo's playing is perfect for the Beatles, he always serves the song above all else. Magic!
@@GoDamnWeird that's right and we also have to acknowledge his patterns on Ticket to Ride and Tomorrow Never Knows and of course his epic playing on A Day In The Life!
Interesting topic. The Decca tapes show the whole band had issues & let's not forget George Martin was not impressed with Ringo's drumming on 'Love Me Do', bringing in a session drummer for one of the released versions.
@@vernpascal1531 The Fabs had plenty of time to replace Pete but there he was for Decca & EMI. George Martin didn't rate him or Ringo & had a session drummer on hand so I'm guessing Pete & Ringo were both considered the worst!
As a Beatles aficionado ,amateur expert and a former Drummer, I'd say that this short documentary/ podcast is just about right. Poor old P.B. wasn't the drummer Ringo was, and certainly not the drummer The Beatles would need throughout the band's time. And probably just as important,- he was a square peg in a round hole personality wise. Heartbreaking story though, can you imagine what it was like to be P.B. watching The Fabs on the Ed' Sullivan Show, or being screamed over by 60,000 fans at Shea stadium!!!. Tough tough break!.
Excellent journalism! I've never seen the unequivocal facts laid out so clearly and in such an organized fashion. Pete wasn't good enough, but I am glad he finally got paid.
Good job on your research. If Pete Best had a sense about what was happening with the Beatles he would have thrown himself into learning his craft. He would have felt that his position in the band was shaky and he would have fought with everything he had. Lennon said it "best", he wasn't improving while the band was gelling on stratospheric levels. He is lucky he was able to get on the ride albeit a short one riddled with regrets...
@@fretboardmaster70 Because he quit being a drummer and took a full time job to pay the bills! He was also disillushed with being in a band especially after how John, George and Paul sacked him. Brian Epstein offered to form a new band with Pete Best in it but Pete refused.
A short ride riddled with regrets? Best played 455 shows in the UK with The Beatles including 200 shows at the Cavern. He played 246 long nights in Hamburg. And those two years were the time when Lennon said "No one could touch us. We were at our best as a Live Rock and Roll band before we put on the suits..."
To use a bad turn of phrase, Ringo put “The Beat” in The Beatles. Ringo had such rock solid timing that George Martin could splice together tape from different takes of the same song, and the beat would be spot on. Pete Best was your average bar band drummer. I feel for the guy. It must have sucked to watch your former bandmates skyrocket to “the toppermost of the poppermost”. But he’s made a decent living off of telling his sad tale for the better part of 60 years now. Anyone with a lick of musical timing knows Ringo Starr is a vastly superior drummer, with a unique style. And in his most private moments I’m sure Pete Best knows it too. Having said that, I’m glad the man got a nice chunk of change from the Anthology series. Bands axe members all the time, for a variety of reasons, from ability to personality clashes. If this was any band, other than The Beatles, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion. Particularly 6 decades after the fact.
As a drummer for 53 years, I agree. But Ringo was George Martin's studio boy, a pocket drummer with great timing. He could have played every Beatle song in those early days with a kick, a snare, a ride and a hi-hat, that's all he needed and that's basically all he used. But his style sold him to the powers that be. Ringo is the reason drums became popular with guys like me.
@@austinteutsch sorry, austin, you and kato are both wrong..Ringo, although a great inventive drummer, was not a human metronome. Martin has said his meter drifted..but in a musical way that served the song.
@@chipgaasche4933 And to reinforce this, listen to "You Can't Do That" here on UA-cam. Ringo damned near falls over rushing that drum break after "I told you before..."
Thank you for this information. Here you have Paul , John and George. Three incredibly talented, focused , driven , passionate and dedicated and strong individuals who knew they were something outside the realm. Knowing the band was missing that one puzzle piece . They solved what they needed . Smart .
Best was admittedly nervous during those sessions. Who wouldn't be? Listen to an early take where McCartney's voice cracks on "Love Me Do". He admitted he was very nervous during those sessions.
Been an instuctor and music promoter more than 40 yearsFar as knowledge of drumming I knew Buddy Rich.Want to argue with the greatest drummer of all time@@jennyandrichiezbras
The key to a good band is finding the right drummer , not necessarily the most skilled drummer. Keith Moon wouldn't have fit well in the Cream and Ginger Baker wouldn't have worked in the Who. The Beatles found the right guy in Ringo. He understood what they were doing and he was perfect for it.
You're not wrong on this, but people continuously underestimate Ringo's skill because, imo, they also underestimate his subtlety, Moon and Baker might be more in your face impressive than Ringo, but I'd easily put Ringo as the most skilled of those three.
@@pietzsche so would I. He speaks his mind with his instrument. There's a character to his playing that really shows. His personality comes through. It got my attention the first time I heard him play.
@@Cincinnatus1869 There's such a mythology about Ringo not being a good drummer that I feel obliged to point out he's an actual genius, one of the real greats imo
@@Cincinnatus1869 👍the Beatles were all about the song & Ringo played for the song . He’s said he often followed the vocals, can’t think of another drummer who’s ever said that.
Excellent analysis. Thank you - I too found this most helpful. Ringo was already an active part of the Beatles when I first heard their music. This video clarifies what had continued to be unclear to quite a few of us.
Why is there even a controversy? It''s obvious Ringo was a perfect match? Lennon: "P.B's drumming was lousy" Great music engines can't run smoothly with a misfiring spark plug.
It's a controversy because stupid, suspicious-minded people can't take anything at face value and can't take The Beatles and George Martin at their word. It doesn't help that Pete Best breathes new life into this crap whenever he sees a microphone.
Because it's never been clear why they got rid actually of Pete. The main excuse has been drumming however it's very unlikely. He was very popular with fans when he was with The Beatles, his drumming was crucial to the early Beatles sound and was rated as one of the best in Liverpool. Ringo was considered a good, competent drummer but nowhere near the same league as Pete and the aforementioned drummers. Recently a member of early Liverpool group The Corvettes said: "I remember exactly where I was when the news broke that Ringo was the new Beatles drummer. We were amazed because Ringo was NOT rated at all for his drumming at the time". Pete had several invites from local groups to join their bands and The Searchers drummer Chris Curtis said in an interview in the 90s he had considered switching to guitar to get Pete in the band. Today, the vast majority of Liverpool musicians who saw Pete back then do not have a bad word about his prowess as a drummer at the time.
@@TheMerseySound1 Even if we were to say Pete was a fantastic drummer, that still doesn't automatically mean he was the right choice for the band. In the same way that someone like Keith Moon wouldn't have been the right fit either. And regardless of how good Pete may or may not have been, and what reputation either of them may have had, Ringo's drumming fits the Beatles' music absolutely perfectly. If on top of that, they found it more enjoyable to play with Ringo, and to be around Ringo, then they made the right choice. No questions left to ask.
Ringo was a super drummer. I watched a documentary of his style. He was mightily talented and Ringo fitted into the band better. Sometimes things don't go for you in life.
Agree absolutely! Pete usually hit the bass drum on all 4 beats - and produced an imprecise strudel of sound above it that gets more and more annoying the longer you listen to it - it´s immensly boring. I cannot imagine what a mess it would have been if Pete had played on She Loves You or I Feel Fine, not to talk about Rain ... I admit having underrated Ringo myself for a long time, but the more I listen to his playing the more I admire him. He always found the perfect rhythm for every song, he never covered the vocal lines, he left space for the others and set his accents perfectly - each break was different and spot on. It doesn´t matter at all if he was technically the best drummer, he was the best for the band and contributed immensely to the songs with his feeling and creativity.
@@TheMerseySound1 No, one reason was the imprecise playing of Pete, made worse by his attitude of playing much to much toms and bass drum, often drowning the sound of the band. He left no space for the others - like Ringo did so perfectly. It´s also hard to play precisely with an unprecise drummer! It´s very telling that in Hamburg the engineer (recording Tony Sheridan) took Pete´s bass drum and toms from the kit, only left snare and hi-hat for him to play.
@@mp-dd7pnA studio engineer's job is to capture the sound of each instrument by placement and distance of microphones and levels on the mixing desk. If one instrument is too quiet or loud, move the mic or change the level on the desk. Pete's drums become more audible with each track as the Decca engineers worked out the levels. It's nothing to do with how Pete is playing, it's the people capturing the sound. This video conveniently leaves out that Mike Smith was the producer at the Decca audition (not junior engineer Mike Savage) who rated Pete's ability over Ringo his whole life and produced The Pete Best Four single making his drums loud in the mix. Before that Pete had played on Lee Curtis And The All-Stars' single, so the session drummer comment doesn't hold up at all.
Thanks for your research on this. Like most Beatles fans, I feel sorry for what happened to Pete. But back then personnel changes were probably quite common in British club bands as musicians strove to find others they meshed with for a unified sound. Still, I've always felt that if Pete was a competent drummer he could have gone to George Martin or Brian Epstein and asked to be put in another band. By 1964 record companies were scrambling to sign any English group they felt was capable of putting out a hit record, and having a former Beatle in a band would have given it instant recognition.
It’s clear they just didn’t like him as a drummer and just as importantly as a member of the band. He was duller and not as quick witted like the other 3. Ringo fit right in as a drummer AND clicked immediately personality wise.
It’s all about team-fit. Can you imagine being stuck with someone day in day out who just wasn’t "getting it". Ringo got it straight away. Hard Day’s Night was his phrase. John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them.....step up to the plate, Ringo, you’re the one.
I'm not a Peter Best expert by any standards; but I've never heard an interview with him where he was dull or not quick-witted. Please point those moments out. Thank you.
@@frizzell4321 , I don't think you quite realize what you said; you said "John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them". Really? They needed a good drummer, who didn't "eclipse" them. That doesn't make a very good statement about them, as it means they didn't want someone better than them who wouldn't upstage them.
He was sacked because he could not professionally drum. It was scary obvious. The Pub is a LONG way from the studio. Remember, Sir George did not allow Sir Richard to play on "Love Me Do". They made an alternate take with Andy White (the released single) and Ringo's version was only discovered on an acetate in 1994. I was just comparing the 2 versions last night! Sir Richard's work is excellent, but Andy White version had a stronger kick and more professional elan. White, obviously pushes the band forward. Sir Richard was still fresh and unrehearsed; hence, Sir George played it safe, and -rightly so. Sir Richard simply need a little time to gel with the band.
@@BixLives32 Yes. Listen to the early demos he played on it was like John said" He was a lousy drummer, he never improved." He seems like a nice guy, but it's obvious he is not a very good drummer. ua-cam.com/video/G41d-2mzLvw/v-deo.html
@@BixLives32 actually Ringo’s version was released as a single at the time ( I’ve got a copy ) Andy’s version appears on the LP. George Martin has said it wasn’t a conscious decision to release Ringo’s version of LMD .
It's hard to imagine being how good Paul, John and George are that it would never have rose to that level if not for Ringo but I feel Ringo was such an integral part on every level for them that they may not have become such cultural icons or did what they did to near this level without him. Not just his playing which was critical but the personality too and even looks. All that matters with pop.
Someone suggested to John that the Beatles were three superstars and Ringo. John said that was ridiculous. He said that the Beatles were going nowhere until Ringo joined the band. Also said that Ringo would have been a major star on his own if he hadn't joined the Beatles. Ringo always had the perfect beat for each song. He wasn't banging away like Keith Moon but his drumming was so precise and always perfect for each song. Don't know why Pete Best can't just accept his fate, his life turned out just fine.
It must be rough to get sacked from the band that shortly afterwards becomes the most famous band of all time. Ringo can keep a beat. Sometimes life gives you lemons. At least he made some money on the Anthology and isn’t homeless or a loser. And how many people can tell their kids that he played in the Beatles? Hoping your doing well Mr. Best.
For me, hearing the example of Pete’s drumming to show how inconsistent he was really closed the book on this story. If you were an attorney representing the Beatles in court they would have been found not guilty of firing Pete Best without just cause. Great job.
A good recording to listen to is "I saw her Standing There", first with Pete (recorded at the Cavern Club) and then with Ringo. With Pete it's just a one style beat and doesn't sound like much. With Ringo it rockets out of the speakers and you can't help but dance to it. As drummers like Stewart Copeland, Max Weinberg, Dave Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, ... said in the tribute to Ringo, Ringo sits in the song and plays the feel. As we sit here 59 years later, lots of recordings have emerged from the pre-fame days and more than a few with Pete playing something later recorded by Ringo. The evidence is in the recordings.
While I totally agree that Ringo was much better, as a musician and audio engineer, I thought that this test was absurd. Yeah it sounds really bad when you play these things on top of each other, but that's because NOBODY plays like a metronome (that's not a bad thing...there is a strong argument that modern music looses something by having everything "on the grid"). As rock solid as Ringo is, I doubt he would fare much better in this unpassable test. (EDIT: I just threw an isolated Ringo track I found on youtube into my software and recreated this test and to no surprise, Ringo sounded as bad as Pete) Unless you're playing to a click, EVERY drummer will sound like that. Even the greatest drummers will. I've done audio processing to put non-click performances to the grid and even the tightest bands can only sync up perfectly for 16 or 32 bars at the MOST before they start sounding wobbly and way off from the metronome and you have to start stretching audio to sync them back up to the click. I agree with the premise. Pete wasn't a great drummer, but this is a test nobody could pass.
But they didn't do the same test on the Ringo version. I can tell you that most recordings -- even megahits -- prior to the computer age varies in bpm. I have no opinion on Pete or Ringo, but did notice what appears to be a one-sided comparison in this video, plus only done on one take of one song.
If Pete Best remained the drummer for the Beatles it just wouldn't have been the same. The four Beatles had a chemistry and I love what Ringo added to the group! If Pete Best was the drummer the music we love and treasure probably would have never been created! Ringo's contribution was just as important as the other three Beatles, he was the heartbeat of the music and a main catalyst of the charisma and personality that was the Beatles.
@gutenbird, that is what George Martin told them, you can do what you want with him, but I'll have a professional drummer in the studio. Not an exact quote, so no quote marks, but that is the gist of what he was saying. If they wanted to keep their pretty boy drummer for live gigs, they were welcome to do it but he wasn't going to waste his (and EMI's) money on recording something he couldn't release. I do feel sorry for the guy but it just wasn't meant to be.
spot-on. i still say to this day, if you took the 4 of them, kept everything as it was, music, suits, instruments & swapped only the 4 of them with say, Gerry & the Pacemakers, it would be Gerry & co that we'd be talking about 50+ yrs later..
Picture this: Pete Best watching footage of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Seeing those lads he had - so recently, it must have seemed - shared dingy Hamburg digs with, up on the big stage. And then picture him reading reports of how '73M people watched the Beatles on Ed Sullivan'. Reading that 'so many people watched it that crime rates plummeted during their performance'. I'd hazard to say that no-one in human history has felt quite the same bizarre set of emotions that Pete Best must have felt at such moments. Dear God, I hope there's a special place reserved in Heaven for Mr Best. Because just thinking about the above has given me goosebumps.
Pete Best is more famous and much richer today because he had played with, and then released by, the Beatles. What other mediocre drummer can make that claim? He should be thankful.
"Epstein earned his 15% that night "..well said. This is the best thing I've ever heard on this whole subject .. your putting it across excellently telling it straight just like Johnny boy would like it.
The young Beatles lost a fortune from high management fees, a bad publishing deal, the premature and foolish decision to stop touring in 1966, and crippling income taxes in the UK.
@@widehotep9257 Not to mention the horrible merchandising deal Epstein had brokered. All those toys, games, sheets, dolls, gum cards and everything else, I think their take was a mere 1%! Yikes!
@@Sp33gan I saw an interview with Paul McCartney where he discussed the situation of Michael Jackson acquiring publishing rights to many Beatles songs. He and John didn't understand what music publishing was when they signed their publishing contract. They thought all music was public domain and free to use, "like the air."
@@widehotep9257 Definitely. They, and the vast majority of young hopefuls who didn't understand the cutthroat ways of the music business. There are too many stories of musicians realising after the fact that they got shafted by managers, labels, and anyone else who wanted their piece of the pie.
Could you imagine Pete Best in A Hard Day's Night or Help? Boring. John was right, Ringo was a better drummer and Beatle. No need to feel sorry for Pete. He was in the Beatles!!!
Pete best should be proud that he got a once in a lifetime chance to be in the greatest rock and roll band in the world. He was there , he played , and that's all that counts.
@@sexobscura There is something that always bothered me about the history of the beatles. Why did the beatles remove pete best from the band ? Pete best was like a teen idol heartthrob. What is the real reason for his removal ?
Speaking of personality, Paul McCartney does mention in his documentary called "Wingspan" that while Pete's drumming ability did play a role in his demise, his personality and chemistry played an equal role in his sacking. Paul did mention that there were several band members of his Post-Beatle Band, "The Wings" that got let go due to band chemistry and personality as well as ability. Cynthia Lennon mentions in her 2005 book that Pete never socialized with the band and he was more series and straight lased compared to the other members. Remember, Stu Sucliff wasn't that good of a bassist, but the Beatles liked and respected Stu and they didn't fire him. Of course he left to presume an art career and stay with Astrid.
Geoff Britton. I remember that drummer. He got in fights with Jimmy McCullough all the time... inmediately Joe English took his place when Geoff was out.
They probably would have overlooked his deficiencies as a drummer if they liked him enough. They knew Sutcliffe couldn’t play bass but Lennon liked him and thought he made the band look better so he got a pass.
It has always baffled me that Pete got his mother to go for bat for him around this time. If that isnt a source of huge embarrassment for him it should be really.
I’m reading Mona was rubbing Brian up the wrong way by still trying to meddle with things once Brian signed them . She probably made his life hell once Pete had been sacked.
I cannot imagine the Beatles without Ringo. We are so lucky that these four guys got together and stayed long enough to give us the music that they did. How did it happen? Well sometimes it just does and boy am I thankful.
THIS is the BEST Story - Beatle Roadie, Neil Aspinall became good friends with Pete and subsequently rented a room in the Bests' home. Aspinall became romantically involved with Pete's mother Mona, and during this period, he fathered a child with Mona - Vincent "Roag" Best. Roag was born on 21 July 1962, and just three weeks later, on 16 August 1962, Pete was dismissed from the Beatles.
Wow. I did not know that. On researching I speculate that there was also a significant class difference between Best and the other three. One can easily imagine the perception by working class lads that they were being exploited by Mrs Best, who lived in a big house and was making money off them and decided that they did not need the help of her or her son en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Best
What I heard back in the day was that the lads thought Ringo was a serious pro, and Pete less so. I imagine personal chemistry played a big part. I can't believe Pete played the Mom "card."
This is one of my favorite episodes of Pop Goes the 60s. The story of Pete Best and anything about the Beatles, is fascinating and enthralling for me. I especially like the last comment about there being no shame in not being a good enough drummer for the Beatles, as Matt correctly stated, "...few people are", and as George stated, Ringo was the "member of the band". There are some good lessons in this video. Thanks Matt!
Just looking at the personalities, I can see that Ringo's easy-going personality would have blended better (and did) with the personalities of John and Paul and George. Ringo was a well known drummer at the time before he started with the Beatles, for a different band, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. They heard what he was capable of before he came onboard.
Rory’s band were extremely popular when the ( silver ) Beatles had Tommy Moore as their drummer . When John, Paul & George started to hang out with Ringo in Hamburg, Pete’s days were numbered. When Rory paid for a recording session for his cousin, he used John,Paul George & Ringo to back him .....there’s a moment in history.
The thing that a non musician probably doesn't understand about the Beatles is that they were not necessarily the best technician on their individual instrument. There were certainly "better" guitar players, "better" drummers, and yes, though McCartney was a truly great bassist, yes there are "better" bassist. Now I put better in quotes because it depends on how you judge "better". These days this new group of "shredders" tend to think the more notes you can play per second the "better". BS. Most of those notes are meaningless, and therein lies the keyword. The Beatles were song "craftsmen" and every note they played fit together toward the betterment of the song. When you play the right notes, you don't have to play so many of them. They understood that perfectly. They learned how to create a song and what they played was not about ego or show, it was about the song and they got scary good at it because they checked their ego at the door when they recorded. They were not there to "impress the girls", they were there to make great music and guess what, in doing so they ultimately "impressed" all of us. Even those who weren't as impressed as most of us were had to admit they were great at creating songs. If you like hearing people play calisthenics on their instrument, then so be it. Once I hear them do their impressive collection of licks for 5 minutes my next question is always this. OK. Now can you make me cry? Now and then you will find one that can truly do both, but most of the time they can't. But here's the thing, those that can do both generally hold that ace hot lick for that special place in a song that takes your breath. They don't do it all night. The Beatles did not have a "collection" of memorized licks by the time they reached their peak. They composed new ones for each song and for that very reason, they always fit like the pieces of a puzzle. Yes, you can name quite a few players that have been or were "better" than whichever Beatle you choose to compare them to, but you will never find a set of four musicians that played "together" as well as these guys did. And in today's climate, you in all likelihood never will. They, along with maybe Bryan Wilson (but that's another story), were and are the Mozarts of pop music. New generations will re discover them for ages to come. I loved them.
@@MuthaTucka Pet sounds was infantile? Really? Lol! But, I will at least give you this. Some of his and Jardin's classics were indeed written for the masses. And the Beatles were by far the best BAND of all time. I spent many happy hours with Beatle songs, my favorite band of all time by far. But to deny that Brian was a genius is a step too far for me. Some of his stuff is just mind boggling. At least for me as a musician. But if you don't care to listen to his stuff, I respect your right to not care for him. That's why if you notice, I said when mentioning him, that's another story. It's just that he was the American answer to the Beatles, whether as good or not. Not to mention, he was just one guy. Oh did i mention that he was also the arranger, and producer? He had no George Martin. But again, I agree with you, I loved the Beatles!!
@@MuthaTucka I Pretty much agree with you. But yes, even tho not the equal of the Beatles, I do think he was indeed one of a kind. But the Beatles catalogue will never be equaled. For one thing we live in a completely different world now and It's doubtful that in this climate another Beatles could ever develop. Young people listen to them today and many like them. But you had to be there then to really know the impact they had. They changed the face of music. It was a bit like they dropped a bomb on the world lol! I'm glad I got to see it first hand. I know they were a huge influence on me.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes I thought that was very telling when John said he never improved in the two years he was with the band. I taught myself to play guitar when I was young, started around aged 12. I was even in bands in my teens / early 20s. I was ok, not great, but ok, but I just never improved. I'd got to a certain standard as a self-taught player and that was it. No amount of practise made any difference. I even took lessons for a while and although I learned new techniques, my actual playing ability never changed. When I pick up a guitar all these years later I'm the same standard as I always was. I'm as good as I was ever going to get and I think the same applies to Pete Best.
@@Jenjenilou That's a good observation. Some people are just gifted musically in stronger ways and there seemed to be a divide with Pete and the other three along those lines.
I do feel bad for him, he missed out on something so huge - but also, there are two ways you can take being told you're not good enough, become sour and dwell on it for 60 years, or use it and show them just how good you are/can be; there are lots of stories of people who took a knock back earlier in life and used it as motivation to become great.
Oddly enough, it happened to me, being kicked out of the drum throne of a band - for whom I now play. They went through several drummers, as well as singers, a disagreement with the former singer being the main reason I was sacked. I also took an honest look at where I could improve, and when invited to play with them again, decided to treat it like a session, essentially playing what the band leader wanted as best I could, rather than throwing my weight around so much. Also just got tighter. In doing so, I went from sacked to indispensable, at least as long as somebody like Stewart Copeland doesn't want the position.
Haa! So true.... I would assume Mr. Starkey knew the talent that he had run into. He followed their creative direction 100% In fact the obvious is: that he was a Beatle end of story.
he was as good as Ringo in 1962 is the point also, their styles were different , Ringo became one of my favourite drummers of all time , not the best but favourite, and what band have you been in? records made tours ? countries played? ,any? no well Pete was in the Beatles and done all the things you haven't , so have I not been in the Beatles , but I've made records toured 5 countries national radio 1 airplay. had a record cut at Abbey road and I think he was is and is a good drummer , good enough at least , why put the boot in? it's mean spirited and don't know what you are talking about...
Why in God’s name is anyone still talking about this. 60 years a go there was a terrific band with a shit drummer. They fired him in favor of a really good one. The end.
Well I for one am glad they are still talking about it because I did not know till just now that that is why they fired Pete, because he was not that good. So I am glad to see this video. And by the way if you don't like the topic why did you watch it? Why not just move to another video to watch?
John said it all, "he didn't improve". For like 2 years in the band, and he never got better? Who's fault is that? I've watched Sina (here on you tube), for 5 years or more, and she's been an amazing drummer all along, and yet, even still continues to improve all the time. Perhaps Pete just didn't take his role in the band seriously enough!
Sina is amazing. She has talent and you can tell she works hard. If Pete did his "best" it's a shame, but that's life. If you have a love of your work that will help to make you adequate, but not necessary amazing. The drummer is the backbone of a band, anything less than perfect will not a great band make. There are few in the world who can do that.
@@kevinwilson9589 The Who lost some of their punch after Keith Moon passed away. Getting rid of Liberty DeVito was a bad decision by Billy Joel. Just two random thoughts on the subject.
Thank you so much for clearing that up. Not that I was losing any sleep over it, but it's nice to tie up loose ends. I'm a drummer also, and that's all we're good for; keeping the beat, keeping the timing. Everything else is frosting on the cake. If you can't do that, learn the harmonica.
Having played in bands and recorded for decades, I know there's situations where a different drummer comes in and the whole thing clicks in a group- even though the previous drummer did the job OK. Getting a bunch of people in a band together also relies strongly on personalities clicking as much as musicianship. In Pete Best's defence I guess, we shouldn't forget that early on, George Martin had to do a heck of a lot of work with John, Paul, George and even Ringo to get them up to studio recording standard, though it's never seemed to get mentioned much.
You make a good point. Yes, I believe the Beatles when they say that Ringo "was it" and clicked for them. That doesn't have to automatically mean that Pete is a bad drummer, just not the one for them.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm just going to say it, Pete was not a good drummer. In fact he was BAD! He didn't understand the job of the drummer. Listen to those recordings and he's pulling the song every which way, the rhythm is all over the place. He doesn't support the others, it's about him and what he wants to do. You can hear the others fighting him. This makes him a bad drummer. When a drummer is good they understand that their job is to elevate and support the whole thing. Ringo understood that when they were playing large arenas with all that screaming he had to keep the beat and not go for a fancy fill. He didn't like it but he understood what his job was. The others needed to hear that steady beat over the screams of the fans to keep going. THAT'S a good drummer. Pete would have gone for the fill and the whole thing would have fallen apart. He is a selfish drummer who only cares about his image. That's why he's a bad drummer and why he was replaced.
@@Mozart1220 More like 10-12 hours, taking into consideration, breaks, although they continued working/rehearsing through their lunch break, while the rest of the studio staff, actually took a lunch break.
Poor Pete. All joking aside, can you even imagine being in his shoes? It's like buying the same lottery ticket every week and the ONE week you DON'T, your numbers come in. His life must be something. Thanks for the really good comprehensive breakdown of this epic event.
Not really an apt simile because you're assuming they would have had the same impact had Pete remained on the drums. Fact is, he was an exceptionally horrific drummer and the band would not have had anything close to the success it had if Pete stayed in the group. So, to use your comparison, instead of hitting the Powerball with Ringo, they might've won a free ticket with Pete.
Except that the success of the Beatles was no lottery. It was based on great talent and lots of hard work. Neither of those attributes can be ascribed to Pete, and that's why he did not cash in on his 'lottery ticket'.
In some of those interviews, Pete Best looked close to crying. I can't really blame him for that. I mean how many times can you take being asked why you got kicked out of the greatest band in the world. I feel like he lacked that influence in his life who really tried to steer him in the direction of improvement. But since the other Beatles admittedly didn't attempt to confront him about it, it's a possible indicator that he never really felt at home with the Beatles, and thus, never really had the incentive to improve his drumming skills.
Imagine, you work toward a goal and just as your chit is about to be cashed in, The "man" takes your chit, shoves you out of the line and inserts another bloke in your place and you get to watch stupidly as he gives your GOLDEN TICKET to someone ELSE. Yeah, I might CRY too at his age.
@Laura Matsuda The original bassist for The Beatles was named Stuart Sutcliffe, Ken Brown played guitar in the Quarrymen for a little while, they were a precursor to The Beatles but he was never in The Beatles, he did play with Pete Best before he joined The Beatles though. Ken only played for two years so I think you may have dreamed that bit up about him giving Lennon a run for his money.
@Laura Matsuda He played guitar, not bass in The Quarrymen which was before The Beatles, he did play with George Harrison but it wasn't The Beatles, it was before The Beatles. The story is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Brown_(musician)
When I was in a band back in the sixties we had to kick one of founding members out because he was socially inept and had some personal problems that would not resolve. When we gave him the word one day at band practice, we simply told him that his playing was not good enough (he did screw up at times too often). I liked him, but we all agreed he had to go. He was never told the real reason why because of his emotional instability. Most likely, Pete would not have been able to handle the truth whatever it was. From what I heard on the few recordings of him with the Beatles his playing was plodding and lacked the life they needed.
The Beatles' longevity made Pete Best famous after all.The never ending fascination with the group has made sure that he received some amount of fame .He isn't a complete unknown and he used his misfortune to bring him some sort of celebrity status and probably some kind of livelyhood.
He's a founding member of the Shitty Beatles. Wayne: Hey, Tiny, who's playing today? Tiny: Jolly Green Giants and the Shitty Beatles. Wayne: Shitty Beatles?Are they any good? Tiny: They suck. Wayne: Then it's not just a clever name.
@@thepepperlanders People say that but in this video when asked how much he received Pete said "...somewhere between 1 and 6 notes." I interpret 1 and 6 notes as 1,000,000. So maybe he got just under 1mil dollars or pounds?
one thing that's overlooked is Mona's Best affair and a child with Neil Aspanal could have blown the lid off the Beatle's career with Pete in the band. the headlines would have ended any hopes of having a career
@@popgoesthe60s52 Rogue Best was born June 21st, 1962, the first audition was on July 6 By Aug Pete was out. And they expected Neil to leave with him. Although [Pete] Best himself was not personally responsible for this development, it may have still caused a scandal, at a crucial moment in the Beatles' career. it was just one MORE reason to move on from Pete
Once a young band has been going for a couple of years, personnel changes are rare. Friendship is essential, AND it gets in the way. It's a tough living. BUT, all it takes is one serious opportunity to sack anyone.
I remember an interview with Sting and he said that a band is only as good as your drummer. I have to say that I agree with him. Stuart Copeland is an amazing drummer. I'm a Beatles nut so it's long live Ringo and he was the perfect choice.
Drum machines sorta throw that theory out though. So it can be a true/false question depending on the style of the band. Three Doors Down, Kiss, Steely Dan, The Doobie Brothers, and a few other successful bands have had several drummers and it’s worked, so I think it boils down to songwriting and a great singer...drums is very important, but it’s a band’s chemistry that really matters overall. Still, I feel bad for Best - class act and a bummer situation, since they could’ve kept him in the payroll somehow once they hit big. Glad he got paid overall. Lennon was the rudest in his comments (than Paul and George’s explanation).
As a musician I can say without any doubt that Pete was a pretty hopeless drummer. Had he been any good The Beatles would have stuck with him so we should be thankful that he wasn't. Although it was their music that initially struck a chord with people, it was their utterly compelling collective personality that sealed the deal and allowed them to thrive. Having said that, Pete is obviously a nice fella, just very reserved and not naturally talented and I can only imagine how awful it must have been to be sacked and then witness subsequent events.
I saw a documentary on this recently and bottom line seems to be that in terms of the band personality, Ringo was on the same page as John, Paul and George. I think Ringo brought the court Jester aspect to the band and was the final piece of the Jigsaw.
As a Liverpudlian I think Pete had the Liverpudlian attitude too much, of just ''do the job, get paid and go home'' but the rest of the group wanted to make records and tour America, but Pete didn't share that sentiment.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 it's because as you age you realize how clueless people without the benefit of experience really are. There are a lot of things you cannot learn til you have experienced them personally
In Pete’s defense, imagine having to answer a lifetime’s worth of, “why were you sacked by the Beatles?” Imagine watching Beatlemania from Pete’s perspective. Brutal. An all encompassing nightmare that got bigger every year and wouldn’t stop! I mean, he’s on the frickin’ Howard Stern show! That’s harsh. Sure, he brought it on himself a bit, and it may have been easier to just deal with it head on, but dang, I have a feeling that ain’t so easy to do. I’m glad he got his. I just hope that he realized he was blessed to get what he got (many don’t), and I hope he found some peace. Many British drummers at that time couldn’t cut it when they went into the studio. That was a common story. Many bands hired session drummers for recordings. Ringo and Charlie Watts are two famous British drummers who were often looked down on by trained musicians. But, if you ever doubt Ringo, check out the opening scene to Help and listen/watch Ringo’s playing. That snare drum is a stone groove! And listen to You’re Going to Lose That Girl. His backbeat is second to none.
Absolutely right. And check out „Act Naturally“ played live with Ringo playing sixteen shuffle notes with his right hand in light speed while singing so relaxed as if he was taking a shower.
When I was a teenager my older brother Jim CURED me forever of dissing or feeling sorry for Pete Best when he said" Pete Best is a FORMER BEATLE and YOU are a NEVER WILL BE..." OK, Jim, I GET IT!!!
You only have to listen to the early recordings of the songs. Pete Best was a pretty mediocre drummer at the time, or at very least he didn't have the magic touch that Ringo had on those songs. When you compare them side by side Ringo is leagues ahead.
Wrong! Someone called Richard Starkey played on most of The Beatles recordings. EMI were rigourous about documenting sessions and paper work exists to this day noting who did what. Research could even tell you who made the tea for them in April 1966. If that sort of thing would interest you. Also a listen to the many available outtakes will prove your statement incorrect. Unless you're on of those who think Bernard Purdie did it all and Paul McCartney really died?
What a well-researched effort this was. after more than 50 years I finally understand way Pete Best was ousted..... never occurred to him he was not good enough... his release was handled very professionally. His outcome was like winning the Powerball lottery for 450 million, and cannot find the winning ticket ... so close, yet so far.
Great analysis. Just listening to Pete vs Ringo tells the story. As Paul said latter, the beginning of the Beatles really was when Ringo came into the picture. No shame to Pete at all. Thanks!
This was my point. If he was good, why did he not get a gig with another high profile band over the years? Being a Beatle would get him an audition in any new band, and Pete would get into events and hang in the same circles as other musicians. Even if Pete was a crap drummer in 1962, by 1970 if he practiced he could have been good. Then he could have played through the 70's era.
For a change the Lennon interview here explains it exactly. They originally had got Pete Best as they HAD NO DRUMMER and they needed one to get the firtst Hamburg booking in fall 1960 BEST at that point was a 19 year old amatuer who had at that point a rare commodity in Liverpool a DRUM KIT. He had never played with The Beatles , nor was he in the band before that. True he stayed with them but personality and drum ability wise he did not fit. TheY WANTED RINGO that's the truth!
you can hear Pete's tempo speed-ups & slow-downs on the demo tapes, its pretty rough. after 2 years in, he should have been way tighter, but it's irrelevant really. what pete never seemed to grasp was that no matter who the better drummer, Richard was obviously the better Beatle.
Listen to Pete's drum beats on "I saw her standing there". Ringo's drum versions of the song were lively and energetic. There are videos on YT with Pete on drums & Ringo on drums on "I saw her standing there"
That's disrespectful to Pete Best as he was a capable drummer, whereas Stu Sutcliffe was John's friend who could buy a bass. Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool and also someone the other Beatles got along with. Pete was a bit of a loner and didn't seem to be part of their humour and style. Look at The Rolling Stones and Ian Stewart for exactly the opposite situation, the founder member, a brilliant musician and one of their inner circle but dumped as he didn't fit their image.
@@Slydeil - I'll tell you like I've told many others - Best was not a drummer. If he was so capable, he would have been in big demand and surely caught on with another 'famous' band of that era - don't you think? Who wouldn't want an ex-Beatle drummer in their band?? Fact is, he wasn't a musician. The other 3 Beats said so themselves. That's why he was let go.
Pete was brought in simply because the club owner in Hamburg wanted a 5 piece band, and Paul had been playing drums at that point. They needed a drummer at the last second, and Pete was who they found. They didn't ask him to join because he was good, they did it out of desperation and he could play ok enough to get by. After they were signed, George Martin immediately requested they get a new drummer and their first choice was Ringo because he was playing in the Hamburg scene with them and they thought he was great. They also liked him as a person, and felt his personality was much more that of a Beatle than Pete, who really had no personality at all.
To my knowledge Paul played guitar... He switched to bass when Stu left.. I don't remember hearing or reading Paul played drums at that particular time... He did in later years..
One thing that's not pointed is that Pete never picked up another gig of any substance. This was an incredibly dynamic time in the music industry, and groups were forming, breaking up, adding new members, reforming under different guises all the time. This was happening in both England and the US. I think Jimi Hendrix picked up his drummer while playing in England. All these guys knew each other. When McCartney formed Wings after the Beatles he brought on Denny Laine, who had been an original member of the Moody Blues, but had left a few years before. You'd think that a topnotch drummer, a guy who had two years or more with the Beatles on his resume, maybe could land a decent gig. Even go into the studio and play for a bit until you found a group to join, or for that matter form a group yourself. It's good he got paid out of the Anthology project, and given the fame that followed almost immediately after he left, it's easy to understand his disappointment, but the Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and that's it.
He played in a band called the Pete Best Combo. In the wake of the Beatles success they got some gigs in the US and released an album which didn't do well. The nature of the enterprise can probably be best summed up by the title of the LP: "Best of the Beatles", which probably got a few extra sales from clueless parents buying it for their Beatles fan kids.. As you suggest, he could have been snapped up by any existing group wanting an instant injection of publicity if he was a decent drummer. However...
If Pete was as talented a drummer as he defends that he was, there would have been no shortage of bands on the Merseybeat scene in the early 60s who would have gladly scooped him up. But none did. The way he handled the firing and having his mother handle his defense made him look weak and simpish. Had he taken his medicine, gone to woodshed with a metronome and legitimately tried to improve, he could have been a great redemption story. But instead he chose to play the victim, and was relegated to nothing more than a novelty act that cashed in on his 2 years of service in the Beatles. A good drummer would have dusted himself off, worked on his shortcomings, and tried to get with another top tier act.
Holy crap, who cares that he was never told why. The music industry is savage. A group of young men intent on success will do things like that. Pink Floyd just stopped picking up Syd Barrett on the way to the gigs. Of course Syd was so far gone he didn't notice they stopped picking him up. Pete wasn't good, they got tired of him fucking things up. If your drummer can't keep a beat, you can't very well call yourselves the BEAT-les.
No you're like 1000% wrong on the Pink Floyd point. They did not want to drop Syd at all nor was it anyone's fault. He was the frontman & face of the group up to that point, writing much of their mateial, & they tried as hard as they could to keep him around, but he was far too gone. It's not the savagery of the business that made Pink Floyd drop Syd Barrett if that's the argument you're making.
@@SgtPeppersLonelyHeartsClubBand That's my point, he was hurting the band at that point. He WAS Pink Floyd up to that point and they just stopped picking him up for gigs. Maybe you don't think that is so savage, but even Roger says it was a bit. As far as I know they never told him he was fired.
@@jamesnaumof1657 Good point - the boys (especially Paul) did not have much luck with the ladies. Girls would even go as far as screaming en mass throughout their shows in order to discourage the lads from touring, which ultimately proved a successful strategy.
Think I wouldn't let this subject never opened, in the 1st place and when the grand kids ask... ..." Grandpa , what did you do, as a kid " ? " Well.... I was a Beatle " ( with a big smile )
Pete: I was a better drummer than Ringo plus the Beatles were jealous of me.
Reporter: Who said that?
Pete: Me mum.
There's something called the name curse.
I guess Pete wasn't Best.
Oh snap that's harsh
"When I was a little boy, way back home in Liverpool, My Mama told me, I was Great!"- "I'm the Greatest" Ringo Starr.
@@leighfoulkes7297 Everybody's mum tells them that, but not when they're 20 year old and on national TV.
Snap and wack...plus in with the boot!!
I love the way you ended this: "If you're not good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison, there's really no shame in that. Few people are." What a graceful way of putting Pete Best's firing in context. Also, this guy got a huge payout from a job he held for two years in his late teens and early 20s. How many of us can say that?
His legacy shouldn't be "I don't know," it should be "I helped launch the greatest band ever and I gave it everything I had, and I'm so proud of my part of the Beatles history." That is something everyone can get behind. Thanks for the comment, Greg.
L'argent n'achète pas tout...
@@popgoesthe60s52 agreed. He was the first stable drummer they had. They were able to rely on his attendance and so could focus on becoming better performers. 1960-62 was when they really began building their fanbase. Ringo did wonders for the band, but Pete did put in the work
you shouldn´t forget that this happened in their early parlaphone days when none of them had experience, but why don´t judge yourselves and listen to early recordings live from the Beatles ,including with already ringo star in the band and then say what do you think about what it´s said here
@@popgoesthe60s52 but what about "after giving everything for two years in this famous band when they really started to make money i was substituted for no reason ,what is said in the video happens since ever with new bands ,one records the first time in studio and should keep the tempo while others were also very bad "
Groove is a hard thing to explain, so a lot of young musicians go for a few years with whatever drummer they met in high school, not knowing any better - and yes, the high school guy is fairly competent … but one day - another drummer who has a solid groove shows up, and sits in, and suddenly everybody goes: "What … Just … Happened?!?" … it's not like the groove guy was playing crazy chops or anything, it's just that he locks in so well, and suddenly everybody can just feel the difference - there's just no mistaking it, there's no denying it, and most important of all - there's no going back - that's what happened to Pete & The Beatles, and it's happened to tens of thousands of bands since.
Rush is a perfect example. Their first drummer was ok. Then Neil Peart showed up. We all know what happened next.
I can relate to this. I play drums and guitar. When I started high school it was at an arts school. I joined a band playing guitar. The guy playing drums had the heart but, drums is my first instrument and I loved it also. He just wasn't that good honestly, very sloppy in fact. But I knew he loved playing and I wasn't gonna take that from him. He started being really mean to me and I couldn't understand why... So, one night at a party a few months before, between sets, me and the lead guitarist were jamming with me on drums and everyone instantly noticed the difference and the actual drummer got jealous. A few years later he told me he was jealous, and that was the point at which he became jealous that's how I know. Me and that guitarist played in several bands together for the next 10-15 years. Our chemistry was great...Not because of my looks or popularity (because I was new to the school he'd been there for a while before me. I wasn't popular by a long shot. At least not before that party afterwords was another story.. lol) because of my feel. He claimed I stole his best friend and his band. So this goes to prove your point. And a good drummer is hard to find. Technical ability is one thing but, you must play for the song and you must have chemistry with the other musicians. I did both of those and Ringo did also that's clear. Me and the guitarist only stopped playing together because he moved to Arizona and I still live in Ohio. And whenever he comes home we still find a way to jam. Because we love music, not attention. I felt bad for a long time until the drummer told me why he'd been such a jerk to me. Then I just stopped hanging around him or anyone he associates with. Because he could be really messy and dramatic. All over my love for music. 🤦🏿♂️🤷🏾♂️
@@solomonlee5298 I know what you mean by being locked in with someone.
My cousin and I were 14 when he started playing guitar and I played drums. We played everything we could figure out back then (most rock of the mid 70's).
I got to the point of knowing intutivly knowing when breaks, changes, tempos were going to happen. Almost like reading each others minds...
@@artguti1551 Exactly. Like there's another person in the room as we musicians say right? That's awesome you guys started playing together so young. Makes for great times growing up. We learned 60s 70s 80s and 90s tunes. He's 34 and I'm 35 now. Grew up on Beatles, Black Sabbath and Nirvana.
Stavros TheHun Agree 100%. Her drumming gave them a certain sound. It would be interesting to hear their early stuff with a different drummer. I’m sure he has done the old White Stripe music live sans Meg.
Just linked this to someone and re-watched it. Pete's alleged confusion whether intentional or not, is simply good marketing. If Pete finally admitted why he was sacked, nobody would ever interview him again, however, by acting dumbfounded it keeps the "mystery" alive and continues to attract interest. It also paints Pete as a perpetual victim which creates sympathy. Apparently whenever anyone spoke to Pete, they turned round first. Great video.
He knew very well even in 70s. He was interviewed on tonight show. He said "jealousy:
That could very well be.
@@zarni000 The crap from his mouth matches the crap from his drums.
@@zarni000that’s a vain lie. He wasn’t a good drummer, simple as that.
@@ExcitedAnacondaSnake-hg8ec also they didn't mesh well. He wasnot like the others. More of a 1950s guy
McCartney: "We fell in love with Ringo's drumming."
Harrison: "Ringo just felt right."
Lennon: "We were sick of Pete. He was a lousy drummer." 😆
Speaking on the same subject, even decades apart, they still round each other out so well. I love it.
Hear Hear...Ringo was more Exciting...
When you get Lennon and McCartney agreeing on something in the 70s you know you're in trouble.
John also said Ringo was a" better Beatle "and immediately shaved his beard and was all in. Pete wanted to stay a Teddy..
Macca: Romantic
George: Spiritual
John: Direct and caustic
Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.
I love how brutally honest John Was . Don't sugar coat it , it only makes it worse . How does Pete think Marilyn Monroe's first husband felt ? Talk about something to cry about .
I met Pete Best at the Halifax Casino in the mid 90’s, and said to him, “it was probably a blessing in disguise it worked out the way it did.” He responded, almost tearing up, “I’ve had a great life, I’ve done well, the Anthology is taking care of me in retirement.”
He must have been pretty bad, cause Ringo was average at best
@@charlespious1073 Are you a drummer?
@@charlespious1073 Ringo is far from average.
And the last part of your handle probably says alot lol
@@charlespious1073 the greatest? Didn't he make HIS drums sing??
Wow. You really approached him as a stranger and said that ? That seems very rude.
If he was such a good drummer, why didn’t any other major bands hire him?
Good point!!!
That's really good question. One question I've always been anxious to get answered is Bernard Purdie's claim that he played on some Beatles tracks; here we have a player who has absolute no need to 'pad his resume' at all mentioning that he 'fixed' a few tracks but can't remember which ones.
@@63Baggies There’s two versions of the Beatles backing Tony Sheridan on “My Bonnie” and “Ain’t She Sweet”. The original with Pete Best, and the version found on anthology with new drums overdubbed in the late 60s, presumably by Purdie. It’s my guess that once Beatlemania took off he may have been brought in to replace drums on some of the other Hamburg material to make it suitable for release. As far as him performing on Ringo-era Beatles music, I’d guess he’s either confused or full of hot air.
I saw him play in an ad hoc band at Chiller Theater in E. Rutherford, NJ over a decade ago. They played Helter Skelter. He was off then.
Ginger Baker, one of the best drummers ever. What did he do after Cream? One album with Blind Faith and then a whole lot of who cares. Pete Best soon left the music business and went into civil service where he became a regional training manager.
It takes a lifetime of experience to realize that it's about the journey, not the destination. After the Beatles got famous they too eventually faced dark times that the rest of us could only imagine. Everyone travels their own distinct path. Pete's was harsh in it's own way but none of us are exempt from life's trials and tribulations. I'm glad that Pete seems to have come to a place of genuine peace and acceptance for his unique fate. I'm also glad that he finally got recognition and pay for the part he played in the Beatles history. He got to play with the greatest band of all and nothing can change that. He is alive, he is still playing music, he had a good career job and a pension. He has lived a good life. Good for him.
Not only was Ringo a better drummer, he also had the same cheeky sense of humor that the other 3 had. Pete had no personality. Ringo was not only a better drummer; he was also a better Beatle.
By far
John Lennon would disagree with you, as you altered his quote. He said that "Best was a better drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle".
Of course he turned on Best later and called him a "lousy drummer". Lennon was a lousy human being, who viciously beat his girlfriends, and never went to prison for it as he should have.
Pete had a fine personality. In fact, it was George who pointed out that there was a little jealousy towards Best by McCartney and Lennon that the girls seemed to gravitate to him after the band had finished. I saw interviews of Best early on. Best had a charming personality.
I have No issue with Ringo being chosen over Best as a band member; it's that they could have had a little consideration, and told him themselves, rather than passing it off onto Epstein, who was not happy about it.
I'm a professional drummer ...thought his drumming was a little better than John Bonham's and was superior to Charlie Watts.
The real problem, his drumming was too progressive for the Beatles....and their simplistic 2 chord songs...Love me Do/Tell Me Why....what trash!!
John and Paul became resentful of his "punk rock drumming " ...Pete was 20 years ahead of his time!
Let's be honest, he was fired because of his trailblazing drumming and his devastating, drop dead gorgeous handsome looks...its obvious!!
Pete....dropped these losers!!!!
Listen carefully, Ringo played the music, none of their music would be the same or as good with ant other drummer. He was perfect.
Yes, I would say that it took me at least 50 years to figure out - too f'ing late in fact; it isn't what or how much you know, but who you know, good you know them, how they perceive you and finally: whether they like you.
"If you're not good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney and Harrison there's no shame in that, few people are"
Other drummers were good enough to play with Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, but Ringo had chemistry with them, shared their sense of humor, and was a rock solid drummer, who was content doing the job and not trying to be in the spotlight.
@@janharris1085 So the others were jealous of him then? Thats what you are inferring.
That's what I find bs about this video...
Are you a drummer? I don't see why advancing in any occupation. There's only so much you can improve when you've learned an instrument or occupation.
@@janharris1085 Ringo was more "in the spotlight" than the other three Beatles. he was already a "star" with Rory and the 'cains.
@@toErehWon I've been plating guitar for more than 30 years, and got to a reasonable level in my genre. I still feel I have as much more to learn now as i did when I struggled to make my first G chord shape,
I absolutely agree with everything here. Was Ringo the most technically gifted drummer? No. However, Ringo was a gifted musician who played unique, memorable drum parts that most Beatles fans would recognize without the song! More amazingly, he did so without ever becoming self-indulgent or overbearing musically. He knew he was supporting three incredibly gifted singer, songwriter musicians and his role was to support the song. He may not be John Bonham or Ginger Baker, but he was a great drummer and he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. I really can't imagine anyone else behind the kit for that band.
Your comment is the most accurate I've seen. I know a drummer who thinks Ringo was a shit drummer. I don't think he's ever listened to Ringo's drumming! Ringo was an innovator. You are quite right about his rhythms being instantly recognisable. On his own terms he stands up against any rock drummer.
@@colinpumpernickel2605 The ONLY people who slag off Ringo, are non drummers!
Stupid SOB's with no taste or sense or rhythm.
As soon as anyone starts having a go at Ringo and bigging up Pete Best, you know they've never sat behind a drum kit in their entire life!
I agree with what you said, but at the time Pete Best was fired, there was no Ginger Baker or John Bonham - there was no star drummer in rock and roll or pop music. It was very typical for producers to use session drummers on pop recordings, and it was not unusual for management to sign the front man of a young band as a solo artist and back them on tours with seasoned pros. The fact that Ringo was good enough for a top producer like George Martin to play on the recordings of an unproven young pop band - which the Beatles were at that moment in time - says a lot. I could be wrong, but I think Martin only brought in a session drummer for Love Me Do and Please Please Me, which in retrospect was probably a good idea as an insurance policy.
I agree with almost all of that. I would raise my eyebrow at the 'was Ringo the most technical' you could say that about any drummer really as the most is one person. It suggests he wasn't technical which I disagree with. Ringo's timing is second to none but he plays for the music rather than himself.
It's interesting though, what makes a technical drummer? Is it the ability to find the heartbeat of a song and keep the band to a rock steady beat or the ability to explain what you were doing afterwards?
The great studio drummer, Bernard "Pretty" Perdie was used anonymously on dozens of Beatle tracks to replace the drum tracks Ringo had put down because Ringo's drumming was not considered to be up to par. Even Quincy Jones verified this. Quincy had no use for Ringo at all, and thought he was a horrible drummer.
But to me, more puzzling than the Pete Best incident is why the Rolling Stones got rid of Brian Jones - a founder of the band. No one ever accused him of being an inadequate musician. That situation suggested personality conflicts (particularly with Mick Jagger) more so than artistic differences. But nobody talks much about the Brian Jones incident, so not a lot of information about it (that I know of) is available concerning his firing from his own band.
George is such a class act. He doesn't say Pete Best was crap, he just says Ringo was the Beatle. Sweet George.
The Beatles themselves had no problem with Pete or his drumming, but personality-wise I think Ringo was a better fit.
George could have said Ringo wasn't crap.
@@TuberOnTheLoosewatch the vid without dozing off lol
Paul too. Two of the most humble and grounded artists ever, especially for all of their genius and popularity.
@@TuberOnTheLoosewax was
I saw Pete Best in Hamburg with his band after he earned some money with the Anthology I which amounted up to a few million as far as I know. So he got his „Trostpflaster“ eventually. But to see him drumming underlines the fact that he could only play one pattern (and kept the time fairly well for a change) no matter what the music required. One could say it was tasteless and totally uninspired. And I heard the Decca tapes where the lack of inspiration from his drumming affected the others and you could hear that especially John Lennon really lost his motivation to sing and play on those records. No wonder that Decca didn‘t sign them but they were lucky enough to meet George Martin who recognized their talent and their personalities and knew to distinguish between them and Pete. He really should acknowledge that he missed out on improving his playing and take ownership for it. The Beatles never would have made it with him on drums becasue his personality simply didn‘t fit in.
Exactly he was the wrong style for them in every department.
he didn’t write any of the material he didn’t get millions for anthology. not even paul earned that much from anthology. clearly you don’t know how royalties work.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369
How much did Pete get from Anthology?
@@rudolphguarnacci197 When the compilation album Anthology 1 was released in 1995, Best received his share of royalties. He never mentioned the amount but some speculated that he got somewhere around $9 million or more.
@@Imachowderhead In this video he says it was between 1 and 6 million pounds. I don’t know the dollar equivalent at the time would have been.
“So, what have you been up to last 60 years?”
“Wringing out this bloody hanky.”
@rayrayfad....😅😅😅👍👏
I wonder how you’d get over it
he's kept Kleenex in business for years!
So, if a person speaks up for themselves At All, they're "ringing out a bloody hanky".
Good luck being on the other side of that....
Brian Epstein did offer Peter a separate contract but he chose to be managed by his mother, Mona Best, but unlike Brian she did not have the contacts ... who knows he could have made it ..
Pete Best is the only person in the world who doesn't know why Pete Best was sacked.
Well said!
"Stob shouting those animoles!" :)
Wikipedia's new definition of Bias; "Pete Best and his mother thinking Pete Best was the best drummer for the Beatles"
He wasn't the Best.
He was hired as an emergency drummer to go to Hamburg. They knew him from his mothers club that she had in her house where they jammed a couple times. He kept not showing up for gigs in Hamburg ‘cause he was having A fling with a prostitute. And every time he missed a gig Ringo and sit in. That’s it. They Got tired of his bullshit. Not showing up. And he wasn’t that good. When John Paul and George played with ringo they all looked at each other and said WOW. Plus Ringo had a beard and a Zephyr zodiac. Plus He had a really really strong accent. Plus he had his hair flipped back instead of a mop top
My assessment is that if Pete Best was such a great drummer then he would have been successful in another band. History proves otherwise.
Especially when he already has the advantage of name recognition to push the PR for a new band. And yet he never was recruited by any band seeking a good drummer. Ever.
Thank you.
Nobody said he was a great drummer. The question is whether he was so bad that he must've been sacked.
Now, as for his abilities: if you listen to the recording of Love Me Do, it's obvious he was unstable. However, his drumming pattern is much more exciting than what Andy White or Ringo played.
Ginger Baker never was without a gig, s'all I'm saying. @@majorrgeek
The truth is Pete was fired, but he wasn't blackballed from the music industry. If he had talent he would had been sought after by other bands, particularly having the reputation of being an original member of the Beatles. That does not seem to be the case.@@majorrgeek
One of the most famous drummer of all time..... For being fired. I met him in Liverpool, nice guy, very humble. But when you hear the first Beatles songs, by Pete and by Ringo, there is no doubt that the songs feel better with Ringo.
Sad story, but Ringo made the Beatles style, and now it's part of history.
He is a nice guy , but clearly not humble enough to be honest it has to be said ....
Best also wasn't a good band member. When the Beatles adopted their new style, including hairdo, Pete refused to do it.
@@halweiss8671 Not true, Astrid Kirchherr said Pete's hair was curly so did not suit the Beatles style.
@@liverpix There were ways around curly hair. There still are. As the Beatle haircut became a cultural phenomenon, there were plenty of curly haired people who adopted the style. I don't know that I would have wanted to straighten my hair, but it was part of Pete's distance from the others (real or perceived by the others).
Not sad at all. Pete is the only one with a normal home life and family. Money and fame can be a double edged sword
A drummer with imperfect timing is death to any band.
And in that he was the opposite of Ringo!
@clifford heywood where did you get that idea from?
@clifford heywood I've done that, and what I find is the opposite of what you say (besides listening to the records, of course!).
So, I ask again, where did you get that 'info' from? Or is it just your opinion?
Chris you’re right about that when you’re pressed for time and there’s money involved you don’t want to chance it that’s why Brian Wilson used Studio Musicians to lay down the music for The Beach Boys albums and used Dennis for appearances. It was also a common practice at the time. He didn’t fire his brother cause he couldn’t keep time well or just couldn’t perform the way Brian wanted in the studio. Pete’s Mom was too involved in the band’s doings and was always pestering Brian Epstein to the point he considered assigning the management of The Beatles to an associate. Pete was delegated by the other Beatles to book their gigs and was working in conjunction with Brian so right their you could see how that would cause an issue in the power structure of the band. Pete’s not fitting in as a suitable drummer for The Beatles wasn’t the main reason that was just an excuse for the real problem. Why was Pete’s firing a shock to him because the other members never told him. If they had voiced their concerns to him early on he would have expected it. Yet they were plotting all along to get rid of him behind his back. Correct me if I’m wrong but after all that he went through with them in Hamburg that’s just pure disgusting and it reflects poorly on the character of John, Paul, and George who mainly championed the idea to replace Pete with Ringo to the others. George had become really close to Ringo in Germany. So in summation it’s like the JFK assassination a lot of people had something to gain from getting rid of him.
@@ramilopez6921 i agree with you....it is also pretty well established that at their shows, the girls like Pete Best...... BEST !....more than they liked the other 3.......that causes jealousy
The way Ringo approached the drums is pure genius. It’s not a matter of technical ability, Ringo’s playing elevated it to an art form. Just listen to ‘Ticket to Ride’. Understated brilliance. And his time is amazing. Steady, but smooth like butter. I’ve played drums professionally for 45 years and I can tell you that in the drumming community, Ringo is highly regarded as a unique and talented player.
He most surely is! Ringo is one of the all time greats.
Yeah man Ticket to Ride is just such a heavy groove! And then you've got Tomorrow Never Knows, You're Going To
Lose That Girl with that crazy backbeat and his epic performance on A Day In The Life. Genius!!
Robert . I found out the other day , and this came from Richard , Ringo was lefty and and set his kit up as if he was righty . There have been slight delays in some of the rolls he did .It was great and It made his sound different . A guitar player asked him , on his show , how he got this sound that other drummers could not copy . It was because he would over compensate . Instead of going from the tom tom on the bass drum and then to the floor tom tom , he did the opposite ? Now there is some drumming . Everything happens for a reason . Richard was better ! Not to mention , but I will , they had no monitors back then . With the sound of the huge amps and girls screaming and the huge venues , Richard had to concentrate on the keeping the flow .
My thought is, first, life is tough. I'm sorry for Best, but he could have spared himself a lot of pain if he'd had the intelligence to recognize before he was fired that Ringo was better and had a chemistry with the others which he lacked, and quit. He didn't see it coming because he isn't very bright. And he was no Beatle.
@@lonnietoth5765 yeah that's exactly right about Ringo being a lefty playing a right-handed kit. It did allow him to come up with some really unique patterns and he seemed a lot of times to play just a hair behind the beat which sort of gave the music a little bit of a push-pull effect which was just wonderful. After listening to some of the takes of Pete Best drumming I didn't realize that he was such a poor player. The guy was all over the place so it really is a no-brainer that the Beatles scored the number one drummer in Liverpool at the time. Imagine if the Beatles just had a straight lace on the beat drummer. Their sound just wouldn't have been the same at all.
People who can't keep time, can't hear that they can't keep time. If they could hear it, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Well said, Jack.
It's a focusing issue. He needed to stop thinking about his looks and pay attention to his drumming.
I started out as a drummer and was bragged on a lot. But I began to get critized by better musicinas that my chops were good but my timing was crap. I could NOT hear that my timing was crap until we started recoding gigs. Then I heard it. I fixed that when I started using a click track for all my gigs. Timing supersedes technique every time.
Very convincing presentation. I'm a lifelong drummer who took several years of professional lessons. You must control your adrenaline. Keeping the beat/time is number one. Ringo is one hell of a drummer.
spot on . Completley agree.
"Sir Richard", cool, eh? -Yep, he is one the greats.
Ringo is all about taste and *swing!* He’s got the groove in spades!! ♠️ ♠️ ♠️♠️!!
I've played in covers bands in the past and there always seemed to be a tendency for the drummer to play a little fast. Near the end of the 1st set the drummer calmed down.
Lol. He's pocket.
Ringo is in fact a highly underrated drummer. Besides having rock-solid time, he has created some outstanding grooves and always also had great tone.
The drum part on Come Together...who else would even think of doing that? He's not underrated by any drummer I know. Ringo's playing is perfect for the Beatles, he always serves the song above all else. Magic!
@@GoDamnWeird that's right and we also have to acknowledge his patterns on Ticket to Ride and Tomorrow Never Knows and of course his epic playing on A Day In The Life!
@@GoDamnWeird good point
Ringo is not underrated by anyone who knows anything about music.
@@banba317 he’s no Tony Meehan…………I know a lot about music
Very sad that this has hung over Pete Best's life since 1962. The Decca tapes show that he was not very good, sadly. Ringo was/is much better.
Interesting topic. The Decca tapes show the whole band had issues & let's not forget George Martin was not impressed with Ringo's drumming on 'Love Me Do', bringing in a session drummer for one of the released versions.
@@graniterhythm53 So Best was fired because he was the Worst?
@@vernpascal1531 The Fabs had plenty of time to replace Pete but there he was for Decca & EMI. George Martin didn't rate him or Ringo & had a session drummer on hand so I'm guessing Pete & Ringo were both considered the worst!
The really sad thing is that Pete has never comprehended that he sucked, so he's had a persecution complex.
If you were let go from the beatles, you too would feel the same way
As a Beatles aficionado ,amateur expert and a former Drummer, I'd say that this short documentary/ podcast is just about right. Poor old P.B. wasn't the drummer Ringo was, and certainly not the drummer The Beatles would need throughout the band's time. And probably just as important,- he was a square peg in a round hole personality wise. Heartbreaking story though, can you imagine what it was like to be P.B. watching The Fabs on the Ed' Sullivan Show, or being screamed over by 60,000 fans at Shea stadium!!!. Tough tough break!.
We’ll put - a square peg in a round hole.
Excellent journalism! I've never seen the unequivocal facts laid out so clearly and in such an organized fashion. Pete wasn't good enough, but I am glad he finally got paid.
agree Michael . Great video
Good job on your research. If Pete Best had a sense about what was happening with the Beatles he would have thrown himself into learning his craft. He would have felt that his position in the band was shaky and he would have fought with everything he had. Lennon said it "best", he wasn't improving while the band was gelling on stratospheric levels. He is lucky he was able to get on the ride albeit a short one riddled with regrets...
Exactly. He was just a drummer who played in his mothers club In a house she bought through a large winning at a race track
If he was such a good drummer, why wasn’t he snapped up by another upcoming beat band? Sour grapes Pete.
Very well put. He couldn’t drum. Occam’s Razor. “When you hear hoofbeats, don’t think Zebra”. Yeah, the guy couldn’t drum.
@@fretboardmaster70 Because he quit being a drummer and took a full time job to pay the bills! He was also disillushed with being in a band especially after how John, George and Paul sacked him. Brian Epstein offered to form a new band with Pete Best in it but Pete refused.
A short ride riddled with regrets? Best played 455 shows in the UK with The Beatles including 200 shows at the Cavern. He played 246 long nights in Hamburg. And those two years were the time when Lennon said "No one could touch us. We were at our best as a Live Rock and Roll band before we put on the suits..."
To use a bad turn of phrase, Ringo put “The Beat” in The Beatles. Ringo had such rock solid timing that George Martin could splice together tape from different takes of the same song, and the beat would be spot on. Pete Best was your average bar band drummer. I feel for the guy. It must have sucked to watch your former bandmates skyrocket to “the toppermost of the poppermost”. But he’s made a decent living off of telling his sad tale for the better part of 60 years now. Anyone with a lick of musical timing knows Ringo Starr is a vastly superior drummer, with a unique style. And in his most private moments I’m sure Pete Best knows it too. Having said that, I’m glad the man got a nice chunk of change from the Anthology series. Bands axe members all the time, for a variety of reasons, from ability to personality clashes. If this was any band, other than The Beatles, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion. Particularly 6 decades after the fact.
As a drummer for 53 years, I agree. But Ringo was George Martin's studio boy, a pocket drummer with great timing. He could have played every Beatle song in those early days with a kick, a snare, a ride and a hi-hat, that's all he needed and that's basically all he used. But his style sold him to the powers that be. Ringo is the reason drums became popular with guys like me.
Pete Best became a millionaire when Anthology 1 was being made. Capital couldn't release it without paying Best as he was all over the album.
@@austinteutsch sorry, austin, you and kato are both wrong..Ringo, although a great inventive drummer, was not a human metronome. Martin has said his meter drifted..but in a musical way that served the song.
@@chipgaasche4933 And to reinforce this, listen to "You Can't Do That" here on UA-cam. Ringo damned near falls over rushing that drum break after "I told you before..."
@@JR-zv6qm Paul said he asked them to include Best.
Thank you for this information. Here you have Paul , John and George. Three incredibly talented, focused , driven , passionate and dedicated and strong individuals who knew they were something outside the realm. Knowing the band was missing that one puzzle piece . They solved what they needed . Smart .
You mean John, Paul and George, right?
@@hueytlatoani1177 or George John and Paul ... and Ringo all greats
The split tracks on Love Me Do says everything.
Best was admittedly nervous during those sessions. Who wouldn't be? Listen to an early take where McCartney's voice cracks on "Love Me Do". He admitted he was very nervous during those sessions.
The bottom line is Pete wasn’t a good enough drummer. And he wasn’t a Beatle. Ringo was the final piece of the puzzle. And Ringo was a Beatle.
you're stupid to think Ringo was a better drummer
@@jamesnaumof1657 Ringo was and always will be a better drummer than Pete Best.
James go and actually listen to him.
@@jamesnaumof1657 oh c'mon George Martin even said that Pete was no good. What are your credentials compared to Martin? Thought so
Been an instuctor and music promoter more than 40 yearsFar as knowledge of drumming I knew Buddy Rich.Want to argue with the greatest drummer of all time@@jennyandrichiezbras
The key to a good band is finding the right drummer , not necessarily the most skilled drummer. Keith Moon wouldn't have fit well in the Cream and Ginger Baker wouldn't have worked in the Who. The Beatles found the right guy in Ringo. He understood what they were doing and he was perfect for it.
Bang on.
You're not wrong on this, but people continuously underestimate Ringo's skill because, imo, they also underestimate his subtlety, Moon and Baker might be more in your face impressive than Ringo, but I'd easily put Ringo as the most skilled of those three.
@@pietzsche so would I. He speaks his mind with his instrument. There's a character to his playing that really shows. His personality comes through. It got my attention the first time I heard him play.
@@Cincinnatus1869 There's such a mythology about Ringo not being a good drummer that I feel obliged to point out he's an actual genius, one of the real greats imo
@@Cincinnatus1869 👍the Beatles were all about the song & Ringo played for the song . He’s said he often followed the vocals, can’t think of another drummer who’s ever said that.
Excellent analysis. Thank you - I too found this most helpful.
Ringo was already an active part of the Beatles when I first heard their music.
This video clarifies what had continued to be unclear to quite a few of us.
Why is there even a controversy? It''s obvious Ringo was a perfect match? Lennon: "P.B's drumming was lousy" Great music engines can't run smoothly with a misfiring spark plug.
It's a controversy because stupid, suspicious-minded people can't take anything at face value and can't take The Beatles and George Martin at their word. It doesn't help that Pete Best breathes new life into this crap whenever he sees a microphone.
Because it's never been clear why they got rid actually of Pete.
The main excuse has been drumming however it's very unlikely.
He was very popular with fans when he was with The Beatles, his drumming was crucial to the early Beatles sound and was rated as one of the best in Liverpool.
Ringo was considered a good, competent drummer but nowhere near the same league as Pete and the aforementioned drummers.
Recently a member of early Liverpool group The Corvettes said:
"I remember exactly where I was when the news broke that Ringo was the new Beatles drummer. We were amazed because Ringo was NOT rated at all for his drumming at the time".
Pete had several invites from local groups to join their bands and The Searchers drummer Chris Curtis said in an interview in the 90s he had considered switching to guitar to get Pete in the band. Today, the vast majority of Liverpool musicians who saw Pete back then do not have a bad word about his prowess as a drummer at the time.
@@TheMerseySound1 ua-cam.com/video/1H_SUTWs3qk/v-deo.html
@@swisscottagecleanairaction Lennon also said "Pete Best was a great drummer, but Ringo was a great Beatle."
@@TheMerseySound1
Even if we were to say Pete was a fantastic drummer, that still doesn't automatically mean he was the right choice for the band. In the same way that someone like Keith Moon wouldn't have been the right fit either. And regardless of how good Pete may or may not have been, and what reputation either of them may have had, Ringo's drumming fits the Beatles' music absolutely perfectly. If on top of that, they found it more enjoyable to play with Ringo, and to be around Ringo, then they made the right choice. No questions left to ask.
Ringo was a super drummer. I watched a documentary of his style. He was mightily talented and Ringo fitted into the band better. Sometimes things don't go for you in life.
thank you ringo
@@alane7896 hank you ringo
Thank goodness we have Ringo Starr as the drummer and as a Beatle. ☺️ Peace and Love! ✌️&💗
Competent, but he said he was the best rock and roll drummer.
Listen to his drumming on the Decca audition tapes. They Beatles sounded muddy. Ringo brought the Beatles to life.
Agree absolutely! Pete usually hit the bass drum on all 4 beats - and produced an imprecise strudel of sound above it that gets more and more annoying the longer you listen to it - it´s immensly boring.
I cannot imagine what a mess it would have been if Pete had played on She Loves You or I Feel Fine, not to talk about Rain ...
I admit having underrated Ringo myself for a long time, but the more I listen to his playing the more I admire him. He always found the perfect rhythm for every song, he never covered the vocal lines, he left space for the others and set his accents perfectly - each break was different and spot on.
It doesn´t matter at all if he was technically the best drummer, he was the best for the band and contributed immensely to the songs with his feeling and creativity.
That’s down to the studio engineers if it sounds muddy, not the band
@@TheMerseySound1 No, one reason was the imprecise playing of Pete, made worse by his attitude of playing much to much toms and bass drum, often drowning the sound of the band. He left no space for the others - like Ringo did so perfectly. It´s also hard to play precisely with an unprecise drummer! It´s very telling that in Hamburg the engineer (recording Tony Sheridan) took Pete´s bass drum and toms from the kit, only left snare and hi-hat for him to play.
@@mp-dd7pnA studio engineer's job is to capture the sound of each instrument by placement and distance of microphones and levels on the mixing desk. If one instrument is too quiet or loud, move the mic or change the level on the desk. Pete's drums become more audible with each track as the Decca engineers worked out the levels. It's nothing to do with how Pete is playing, it's the people capturing the sound.
This video conveniently leaves out that Mike Smith was the producer at the Decca audition (not junior engineer Mike Savage) who rated Pete's ability over Ringo his whole life and produced The Pete Best Four single making his drums loud in the mix. Before that Pete had played on Lee Curtis And The All-Stars' single, so the session drummer comment doesn't hold up at all.
@@TheMerseySound1 ">>It's nothing to do with how Pete is playing, it's the people capturing the sound.
Thanks for your research on this. Like most Beatles fans, I feel sorry for what happened to Pete. But back then personnel changes were probably quite common in British club bands as musicians strove to find others they meshed with for a unified sound. Still, I've always felt that if Pete was a competent drummer he could have gone to George Martin or Brian Epstein and asked to be put in another band. By 1964 record companies were scrambling to sign any English group they felt was capable of putting out a hit record, and having a former Beatle in a band would have given it instant recognition.
Thank you for the comments, Jon. Much appreciated.
They did assign him to another quite popular group.
Because of the British Invasion, promoters were scrambling for anyone who could even look or talk like a British rock musician, regardless of ability.
@@carlrudd1858 That's why no one has ever heard of them.
@@tehapu7358 in the states, yes.
It’s clear they just didn’t like him as a drummer and just as importantly as a member of the band. He was duller and not as quick witted like the other 3. Ringo fit right in as a drummer AND clicked immediately personality wise.
It’s all about team-fit. Can you imagine being stuck with someone day in day out who just wasn’t "getting it". Ringo got it straight away. Hard Day’s Night was his phrase. John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them.....step up to the plate, Ringo, you’re the one.
I'm not a Peter Best expert by any standards; but I've never heard an interview with him where he was dull or not quick-witted. Please point those moments out. Thank you.
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
@@frizzell4321 , I don't think you quite realize what you said; you said "John and Paul needed a really good drummer, who fitted in without eclipsing them".
Really? They needed a good drummer, who didn't "eclipse" them. That doesn't make a very good statement about them, as it means they didn't want someone better than them who wouldn't upstage them.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Ringo was a good drummer. Best was not. Case continued closed.
He was sacked because his chemistry and ability on the drums wasn’t good enough.
He was sacked because he could not professionally drum. It was scary obvious. The Pub is a LONG way from the studio.
Remember, Sir George did not allow Sir Richard to play on "Love Me Do". They made an alternate take with Andy White (the released single) and Ringo's version was only discovered on an acetate in 1994.
I was just comparing the 2 versions last night! Sir Richard's work is excellent, but Andy White version had a stronger kick and more professional elan. White, obviously pushes the band forward. Sir Richard was still fresh and unrehearsed; hence, Sir George played it safe, and -rightly so. Sir Richard simply need a little time to gel with the band.
@@BixLives32 Yes. Listen to the early demos he played on it was like John said" He was a lousy drummer, he never improved." He seems like a nice guy, but it's obvious he is not a very good drummer.
ua-cam.com/video/G41d-2mzLvw/v-deo.html
Pete's AND Mona's chemistry with the band would become a problem.
@@BixLives32 actually Ringo’s version was released as a single at the time ( I’ve got a copy ) Andy’s version appears on the LP. George Martin
has said it wasn’t a conscious decision to release Ringo’s version of LMD .
@@BixLives32 Horrible example. Using Andy White on Love Me Do was mistake. George Martin himself said that.
It's hard to imagine being how good Paul, John and George are that it would never have rose to that level if not for Ringo but I feel Ringo was such an integral part on every level for them that they may not have become such cultural icons or did what they did to near this level without him. Not just his playing which was critical but the personality too and even looks. All that matters with pop.
Great comment 👌🏽
Someone suggested to John that the Beatles were three superstars and Ringo. John said that was ridiculous. He said that the Beatles were going nowhere until Ringo joined the band. Also said that Ringo would have been a major star on his own if he hadn't joined the Beatles. Ringo always had the perfect beat for each song. He wasn't banging away like Keith Moon but his drumming was so precise and always perfect for each song. Don't know why Pete Best can't just accept his fate, his life turned out just fine.
It must be rough to get sacked from the band that shortly afterwards becomes the most famous band of all time. Ringo can keep a beat. Sometimes life gives you lemons. At least he made some money on the Anthology and isn’t homeless or a loser. And how many people can tell their kids that he played in the Beatles? Hoping your doing well Mr. Best.
For me, hearing the example of Pete’s drumming to show how inconsistent he was really closed the book on this story. If you were an attorney representing the Beatles in court they would have been found not guilty of firing Pete Best without just cause.
Great job.
Absolutley spot on Jimmy . People still look for hidden reason though !
A good recording to listen to is "I saw her Standing There", first with Pete (recorded at the Cavern Club) and then with Ringo. With Pete it's just a one style beat and doesn't sound like much. With Ringo it rockets out of the speakers and you can't help but dance to it.
As drummers like Stewart Copeland, Max Weinberg, Dave Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, ... said in the tribute to Ringo, Ringo sits in the song and plays the feel.
As we sit here 59 years later, lots of recordings have emerged from the pre-fame days and more than a few with Pete playing something later recorded by Ringo. The evidence is in the recordings.
While I totally agree that Ringo was much better, as a musician and audio engineer, I thought that this test was absurd. Yeah it sounds really bad when you play these things on top of each other, but that's because NOBODY plays like a metronome (that's not a bad thing...there is a strong argument that modern music looses something by having everything "on the grid"). As rock solid as Ringo is, I doubt he would fare much better in this unpassable test. (EDIT: I just threw an isolated Ringo track I found on youtube into my software and recreated this test and to no surprise, Ringo sounded as bad as Pete)
Unless you're playing to a click, EVERY drummer will sound like that. Even the greatest drummers will. I've done audio processing to put non-click performances to the grid and even the tightest bands can only sync up perfectly for 16 or 32 bars at the MOST before they start sounding wobbly and way off from the metronome and you have to start stretching audio to sync them back up to the click.
I agree with the premise. Pete wasn't a great drummer, but this is a test nobody could pass.
@@kevdmiller Great point! Rick Beato has done several videos on how quantizing and auto-tune have sucked the soul out of modern music.
But they didn't do the same test on the Ringo version. I can tell you that most recordings -- even megahits -- prior to the computer age varies in bpm. I have no opinion on Pete or Ringo, but did notice what appears to be a one-sided comparison in this video, plus only done on one take of one song.
All you need to do is listen to Pete's drumming on the first Anthology disc. Make up your own mind.
in a nutshell. people still seem desperate to look for alternative reasons that are not there though . Baffling !
@@stuartshire Well, that and he refused to comb his hair forward. Lol
If Pete Best remained the drummer for the Beatles it just wouldn't have been the same. The four Beatles had a chemistry and I love what Ringo added to the group! If Pete Best was the drummer the music we love and treasure probably would have never been created! Ringo's contribution was just as important as the other three Beatles, he was the heartbeat of the music and a main catalyst of the charisma and personality that was the Beatles.
They wouldn't have made it unless of course Pete played nothing in the studio.
@@gutenbird he should know why he got sacked by now after all these years !!
@@vincentl.9469 Poor guy. He made millions but the Beatles would have kind of sucked without Ringo.
@gutenbird, that is what George Martin told them, you can do what you want with him, but I'll have a professional drummer in the studio. Not an exact quote, so no quote marks, but that is the gist of what he was saying. If they wanted to keep their pretty boy drummer for live gigs, they were welcome to do it but he wasn't going to waste his (and EMI's) money on recording something he couldn't release. I do feel sorry for the guy but it just wasn't meant to be.
spot-on. i still say to this day, if you took the 4 of them, kept everything as it was, music, suits, instruments & swapped only the 4 of them with say, Gerry & the Pacemakers, it would be Gerry & co that we'd be talking about 50+ yrs later..
Picture this: Pete Best watching footage of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Seeing those lads he had - so recently, it must have seemed - shared dingy Hamburg digs with, up on the big stage. And then picture him reading reports of how '73M people watched the Beatles on Ed Sullivan'. Reading that 'so many people watched it that crime rates plummeted during their performance'. I'd hazard to say that no-one in human history has felt quite the same bizarre set of emotions that Pete Best must have felt at such moments.
Dear God, I hope there's a special place reserved in Heaven for Mr Best. Because just thinking about the above has given me goosebumps.
If the Beatles flopped, we wouldn't be talking about this
If Pete Best had stayed in The Beatles, this discussion would not exist because they would never have been famous.
Pete Best is more famous and much richer today because he had played with, and then released by, the Beatles. What other mediocre drummer can make that claim? He should be thankful.
if the moon had fallen from the sky we wouldn't be talking about that either.
@@senhorpescador maybe so...but the other night new moon I saw a little piece fall off at the ..chin!
@@senhorpescador You missed your chance to be clever
"Epstein earned his 15% that night "..well said. This is the best thing I've ever heard on this whole subject .. your putting it across excellently telling it straight just like Johnny boy would like it.
25% was his ridiculously high fee
The young Beatles lost a fortune from high management fees, a bad publishing deal, the premature and foolish decision to stop touring in 1966, and crippling income taxes in the UK.
@@widehotep9257 Not to mention the horrible merchandising deal Epstein had brokered. All those toys, games, sheets, dolls, gum cards and everything else, I think their take was a mere 1%! Yikes!
@@Sp33gan I saw an interview with Paul McCartney where he discussed the situation of Michael Jackson acquiring publishing rights to many Beatles songs. He and John didn't understand what music publishing was when they signed their publishing contract. They thought all music was public domain and free to use, "like the air."
@@widehotep9257 Definitely. They, and the vast majority of young hopefuls who didn't understand the cutthroat ways of the music business. There are too many stories of musicians realising after the fact that they got shafted by managers, labels, and anyone else who wanted their piece of the pie.
Could you imagine Pete Best in A Hard Day's Night or Help? Boring. John was right, Ringo was a better drummer and Beatle. No need to feel sorry for Pete. He was in the Beatles!!!
Or A Day In The Life.
Not just that..he didnt have Beatle hair like the others or personality!
Yep , Ringo got the most time in AHDN & was the lead actor in Help!
"Are you a Mod or a Rocker"? "I'm a Mocker". LMAO.
I can't imagine the heartbreak this guy went through..., irrespective of "why" he was dropped..., truly a better and stronger man than me. 😢
Life's hard, get over it. The dude didn't try.
Pete best should be proud that he got a once in a lifetime chance to be in the greatest rock and roll band in the world. He was there , he played , and that's all that counts.
and he wouldn't really be this concerned if they'd remained relatively unknown
@@sexobscura There is something that always bothered me about the history of the beatles. Why did the beatles remove pete best from the band ? Pete best was like a teen idol heartthrob. What is the real reason for his removal ?
When you say "he played" you are way too generous.
@@JuanReyes-if6ky Read all the comments ...
@@jrgboy I was looking for a more personal reason of why he was removed . but thank you anyway and i will review all the comments. Thank you.
Speaking of personality, Paul McCartney does mention in his documentary called "Wingspan" that while Pete's drumming ability did play a role in his demise, his personality and chemistry played an equal role in his sacking. Paul did mention that there were several band members of his Post-Beatle Band, "The Wings" that got let go due to band chemistry and personality as well as ability. Cynthia Lennon mentions in her 2005 book that Pete never socialized with the band and he was more series and straight lased compared to the other members. Remember, Stu Sucliff wasn't that good of a bassist, but the Beatles liked and respected Stu and they didn't fire him. Of course he left to presume an art career and stay with Astrid.
The he died of a brain hemorrhage a short while later.
Geoff Britton. I remember that drummer. He got in fights with Jimmy McCullough all the time... inmediately Joe English took his place when Geoff was out.
Most people (especially non-musicians who've never played in a band) don't realize how important personality and chemistry are within a band.
They probably would have overlooked his deficiencies as a drummer if they liked him enough. They knew Sutcliffe couldn’t play bass but Lennon liked him and thought he made the band look better so he got a pass.
yeah but did john kill stu
It has always baffled me that Pete got his mother to go for bat for him around this time. If that isnt a source of huge embarrassment for him it should be really.
I’m reading Mona was rubbing Brian up the wrong way by still trying to meddle with things once Brian signed them . She probably made his life hell once Pete had been sacked.
Having your own mother have an affair with your best friend and being ok with it has got to be the ultimate embarrassment.
I very much doubt that this was Best's choice. His mother made all the running and he couldn't say "No" is how I see it.
@@johnnhoj6749 That's even worse ffs.
I cannot imagine the Beatles without Ringo. We are so lucky that these four guys got together and stayed long enough to give us the music that they did. How did it happen? Well sometimes it just does and boy am I thankful.
THIS is the BEST Story - Beatle Roadie, Neil Aspinall became good friends with Pete and subsequently rented a room in the Bests' home. Aspinall became romantically involved with Pete's mother Mona, and during this period, he fathered a child with Mona - Vincent "Roag" Best. Roag was born on 21 July 1962, and just three weeks later, on 16 August 1962, Pete was dismissed from the Beatles.
Wow. I did not know that.
On researching I speculate that there was also a significant class difference between Best and the other three.
One can easily imagine the perception by working class lads that they were being exploited by Mrs Best, who lived in a big house and was making money off them and decided that they did not need the help of her or her son
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Best
Who’s Neil Aspinall?
Neil Aspinall = Beatle Roadie - sets up the bands equipment for a gig.
@@ricklevine3571 and vice president of Apple until his death.
@Douglas Farshtey John was the only middle class one. Paul, George and RIngo were working class through and through.
They got rid of Pete because Ringo was actually Best.
Better..
@@lobbydoser1355 No The got rid of Pete because McCartney was jealous that Pete was better looking and got more women.
Thats a bunch of crap even John acknowledged that after he went solo with yoko
@@holden190 Right, because musicians find it so hard to get women. Sure. And Paul was better looking than Pete anyway.
His mother had an old house converted into a nightclub.
They had him for that reason.
What I heard back in the day was that the lads thought Ringo was a serious pro, and Pete less so. I imagine personal chemistry played a big part. I can't believe Pete played the Mom "card."
This is one of my favorite episodes of Pop Goes the 60s. The story of Pete Best and anything about the Beatles, is fascinating and enthralling for me. I especially like the last comment about there being no shame in not being a good enough drummer for the Beatles, as Matt correctly stated, "...few people are", and as George stated, Ringo was the "member of the band".
There are some good lessons in this video. Thanks Matt!
It's a terrific video and Matt hits the nail on the head.
Just looking at the personalities, I can see that Ringo's easy-going personality would have blended better (and did) with the personalities of John and Paul and George. Ringo was a well known drummer at the time before he started with the Beatles, for a different band, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. They heard what he was capable of before he came onboard.
Rory’s band were extremely popular when the ( silver ) Beatles had Tommy Moore as their drummer . When John, Paul & George started to hang out with Ringo in Hamburg, Pete’s days were numbered. When Rory paid for a recording session for his cousin, he used John,Paul George & Ringo to back him .....there’s a moment in history.
Ringo was/is as funny as the other three. That had a lot to do with it.
He was also a friend because of theirs, so guess it all helped in taking a gamble at a critical point early in their career.
True. You can listen to Pete talk and you can see he's not like the other three at all.
When you listen to Pete talk and see his personality you can tell he's not a Beatle. He was just not one of them.
The thing that a non musician probably doesn't understand about the Beatles is that they were not necessarily the best technician on their individual instrument. There were certainly "better" guitar players, "better" drummers, and yes, though McCartney was a truly great bassist, yes there are "better" bassist. Now I put better in quotes because it depends on how you judge "better". These days this new group of "shredders" tend to think the more notes you can play per second the "better". BS. Most of those notes are meaningless, and therein lies the keyword. The Beatles were song "craftsmen" and every note they played fit together toward the betterment of the song. When you play the right notes, you don't have to play so many of them. They understood that perfectly. They learned how to create a song and what they played was not about ego or show, it was about the song and they got scary good at it because they checked their ego at the door when they recorded. They were not there to "impress the girls", they were there to make great music and guess what, in doing so they ultimately "impressed" all of us. Even those who weren't as impressed as most of us were had to admit they were great at creating songs. If you like hearing people play calisthenics on their instrument, then so be it. Once I hear them do their impressive collection of licks for 5 minutes my next question is always this. OK. Now can you make me cry? Now and then you will find one that can truly do both, but most of the time they can't. But here's the thing, those that can do both generally hold that ace hot lick for that special place in a song that takes your breath. They don't do it all night. The Beatles did not have a "collection" of memorized licks by the time they reached their peak. They composed new ones for each song and for that very reason, they always fit like the pieces of a puzzle. Yes, you can name quite a few players that have been or were "better" than whichever Beatle you choose to compare them to, but you will never find a set of four musicians that played "together" as well as these guys did. And in today's climate, you in all likelihood never will. They, along with maybe Bryan Wilson (but that's another story), were and are the Mozarts of pop music. New generations will re discover them for ages to come. I loved them.
Yeah, what he said.
Sir, you totally nailed it.
@birdYoumans3, Wow, great, insightful comment. Thanks!
@@MuthaTucka Pet sounds was infantile? Really? Lol! But, I will at least give you this. Some of his and Jardin's classics were indeed written for the masses. And the Beatles were by far the best BAND of all time. I spent many happy hours with Beatle songs, my favorite band of all time by far. But to deny that Brian was a genius is a step too far for me. Some of his stuff is just mind boggling. At least for me as a musician. But if you don't care to listen to his stuff, I respect your right to not care for him. That's why if you notice, I said when mentioning him, that's another story. It's just that he was the American answer to the Beatles, whether as good or not. Not to mention, he was just one guy. Oh did i mention that he was also the arranger, and producer? He had no George Martin. But again, I agree with you, I loved the Beatles!!
@@MuthaTucka I Pretty much agree with you. But yes, even tho not the equal of the Beatles, I do think he was indeed one of a kind. But the Beatles catalogue will never be equaled. For one thing we live in a completely different world now and It's doubtful that in this climate another Beatles could ever develop. Young people listen to them today and many like them. But you had to be there then to really know the impact they had. They changed the face of music. It was a bit like they dropped a bomb on the world lol! I'm glad I got to see it first hand. I know they were a huge influence on me.
Not only was Ringo the perfect drummer for the Beatles....He is one of the best ever
Yes, and he clearly improved as the other 3 improved through the course of the band. Pete was out of the business by 1968.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes I thought that was very telling when John said he never improved in the two years he was with the band. I taught myself to play guitar when I was young, started around aged 12. I was even in bands in my teens / early 20s. I was ok, not great, but ok, but I just never improved. I'd got to a certain standard as a self-taught player and that was it. No amount of practise made any difference. I even took lessons for a while and although I learned new techniques, my actual playing ability never changed. When I pick up a guitar all these years later I'm the same standard as I always was. I'm as good as I was ever going to get and I think the same applies to Pete Best.
@@Jenjenilou That's a good observation. Some people are just gifted musically in stronger ways and there seemed to be a divide with Pete and the other three along those lines.
earl engel@
Best ever???
WTF.
He can barely keep the
rhythm.
@@paolobaldin3732 That statement says so much about you. What is ritm?
I do feel bad for him, he missed out on something so huge - but also, there are two ways you can take being told you're not good enough, become sour and dwell on it for 60 years, or use it and show them just how good you are/can be; there are lots of stories of people who took a knock back earlier in life and used it as motivation to become great.
Plus he got to live a full life.
Oddly enough, it happened to me, being kicked out of the drum throne of a band - for whom I now play. They went through several drummers, as well as singers, a disagreement with the former singer being the main reason I was sacked. I also took an honest look at where I could improve, and when invited to play with them again, decided to treat it like a session, essentially playing what the band leader wanted as best I could, rather than throwing my weight around so much. Also just got tighter. In doing so, I went from sacked to indispensable, at least as long as somebody like Stewart Copeland doesn't want the position.
Nobody made an attempt on his life.
I'm so tired of this shit. He wasn't a good drummer. Ringo was. Listen to anything Pete Best played on. He had no technical ability
"He was a lousy drummer. He never improved" (John Lennon)
Just listen the hardest working drummer and you know they made the right decision
Haa! So true.... I would assume Mr. Starkey knew the talent that he had run into. He followed their creative direction 100% In fact the obvious is: that he was a Beatle end of story.
he was as good as Ringo in 1962 is the point also, their styles were different , Ringo became one of my favourite drummers of all time , not the best but favourite, and what band have you been in? records made tours ? countries played? ,any? no well Pete was in the Beatles and done all the things you haven't , so have I not been in the Beatles , but I've made records toured 5 countries national radio 1 airplay. had a record cut at Abbey road and I think he was is and is a good drummer , good enough at least , why put the boot in? it's mean spirited and don't know what you are talking about...
@@heighwaysonthewing WHY? Because Best won't shut up.
Why in God’s name is anyone still talking about this. 60 years a go there was a terrific band with a shit drummer. They fired him in favor of a really good one. The end.
Well I for one am glad they are still talking about it because I did not know till just now that that is why they fired Pete, because he was not that good. So I am glad to see this video. And by the way if you don't like the topic why did you watch it? Why not just move to another video to watch?
They replaced a poor drummer with a slightly better than average one.
@@Trev359 All you Ringo sycophants are so far up that drunk's ass.
@@holden190 Search for "analysis of Ringo" and see several videos backing him up.
They preferred Ringo . Full stop .
John said it all, "he didn't improve". For like 2 years in the band, and he never got better? Who's fault is that? I've watched Sina (here on you tube), for 5 years or more, and she's been an amazing drummer all along, and yet, even still continues to improve all the time. Perhaps Pete just didn't take his role in the band seriously enough!
Sina is amazing. She has talent and you can tell she works hard. If Pete did his "best" it's a shame, but that's life. If you have a love of your work that will help to make you adequate, but not necessary amazing. The drummer is the backbone of a band, anything less than perfect will not a great band make. There are few in the world who can do that.
That's a great point.
@@kevinwilson9589 The Who lost some of their punch after Keith Moon passed away. Getting rid of Liberty DeVito was a bad decision by Billy Joel. Just two random thoughts on the subject.
Sina rocks!!!!
Its because he wasn’t going to get any better and the band knew it , he sucked
Thank you so much for clearing that up. Not that I was losing any sleep over it, but it's nice to tie up loose ends. I'm a drummer also, and that's all we're good for; keeping the beat, keeping the timing. Everything else is frosting on the cake. If you can't do that, learn the harmonica.
Having played in bands and recorded for decades, I know there's situations where a different drummer comes in and the whole thing clicks in a group- even though the previous drummer did the job OK. Getting a bunch of people in a band together also relies strongly on personalities clicking as much as musicianship. In Pete Best's defence I guess, we shouldn't forget that early on, George Martin had to do a heck of a lot of work with John, Paul, George and even Ringo to get them up to studio recording standard, though it's never seemed to get mentioned much.
You make a good point. Yes, I believe the Beatles when they say that Ringo "was it" and clicked for them. That doesn't have to automatically mean that Pete is a bad drummer, just not the one for them.
They recorded their first album in 6 hours. What did martin have to do?
@@Mozart1220 Twelve and a half hours - but who's counting. Thanks for the comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm just going to say it, Pete was not a good drummer. In fact he was BAD! He didn't understand the job of the drummer. Listen to those recordings and he's pulling the song every which way, the rhythm is all over the place. He doesn't support the others, it's about him and what he wants to do. You can hear the others fighting him. This makes him a bad drummer. When a drummer is good they understand that their job is to elevate and support the whole thing. Ringo understood that when they were playing large arenas with all that screaming he had to keep the beat and not go for a fancy fill. He didn't like it but he understood what his job was. The others needed to hear that steady beat over the screams of the fans to keep going. THAT'S a good drummer. Pete would have gone for the fill and the whole thing would have fallen apart. He is a selfish drummer who only cares about his image. That's why he's a bad drummer and why he was replaced.
@@Mozart1220 More like 10-12 hours,
taking into consideration, breaks, although
they continued working/rehearsing through
their lunch break, while the rest of the studio
staff, actually took a lunch break.
Poor Pete. All joking aside, can you even imagine being in his shoes? It's like buying the same lottery ticket every week and the ONE week you DON'T, your numbers come in. His life must be something. Thanks for the really good comprehensive breakdown of this epic event.
haha! BOOM very good
Not really an apt simile because you're assuming they would have had the same impact had Pete remained on the drums. Fact is, he was an exceptionally horrific drummer and the band would not have had anything close to the success it had if Pete stayed in the group. So, to use your comparison, instead of hitting the Powerball with Ringo, they might've won a free ticket with Pete.
Except that the success of the Beatles was no lottery. It was based on great talent and lots of hard work. Neither of those attributes can be ascribed to Pete, and that's why he did not cash in on his 'lottery ticket'.
great analogy, much better than mine
In some of those interviews, Pete Best looked close to crying. I can't really blame him for that. I mean how many times can you take being asked why you got kicked out of the greatest band in the world. I feel like he lacked that influence in his life who really tried to steer him in the direction of improvement. But since the other Beatles admittedly didn't attempt to confront him about it, it's a possible indicator that he never really felt at home with the Beatles, and thus, never really had the incentive to improve his drumming skills.
Imagine, you work toward a goal and just as your chit is about to be cashed in, The "man" takes your chit, shoves you out of the line and inserts another bloke in your place and you get to watch stupidly as he gives your GOLDEN TICKET to someone ELSE. Yeah, I might CRY too at his age.
Ringo Starr is an incredible drummer in all areas but as a bass player, what I apprecuate most is that there is a wonderful swing in his play !!!
Yes! "Swing" is something that is hard to describe but I would suggest that Pete doesn't have it. Thank Bassman!
@Laura Matsuda The original bassist for The Beatles was named Stuart Sutcliffe, Ken Brown played guitar in the Quarrymen for a little while, they were a precursor to The Beatles but he was never in The Beatles, he did play with Pete Best before he joined The Beatles though. Ken only played for two years so I think you may have dreamed that bit up about him giving Lennon a run for his money.
@@popgoesthe60s52 That is the understatement of the year.
@Laura Matsuda He played guitar, not bass in The Quarrymen which was before The Beatles, he did play with George Harrison but it wasn't The Beatles, it was before The Beatles. The story is here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Brown_(musician)
@Laura Matsuda Ken Brown was never a member of the Beatles, have a nice life.
Excellent research and presentation. You even managed to let Pete down easy with hard news.
When I was in a band back in the sixties we had to kick one of founding members out because he was socially inept and had some personal problems that would not resolve. When we gave him the word one day at band practice, we simply told him that his playing was not good enough (he did screw up at times too often). I liked him, but we all agreed he had to go. He was never told the real reason why because of his emotional instability. Most likely, Pete would not have been able to handle the truth whatever it was. From what I heard on the few recordings of him with the Beatles his playing was plodding and lacked the life they needed.
The Beatles' longevity made Pete Best famous after all.The never ending fascination with the group has made sure that he received some amount of fame .He isn't a complete unknown and he used his misfortune to bring him some sort of celebrity status and probably some kind of livelyhood.
@GarthanSaal444 Pete made a lot of money from the anthology albums.
He's a founding member of the Shitty Beatles.
Wayne: Hey, Tiny, who's playing today?
Tiny: Jolly Green Giants and the Shitty Beatles.
Wayne: Shitty Beatles?Are they any good?
Tiny: They suck.
Wayne: Then it's not just a clever name.
@@thepepperlanders People say that but in this video when asked how much he received Pete said "...somewhere between 1 and 6 notes." I interpret 1 and 6 notes as 1,000,000. So maybe he got just under 1mil dollars or pounds?
one thing that's overlooked is Mona's Best affair and a child with Neil Aspanal could have blown the lid off the Beatle's career with Pete in the band. the headlines would have ended any hopes of having a career
Wouldn’t they just fire Aspinall instead?
@@popgoesthe60s52 Rogue Best was born June 21st, 1962, the first audition was on July 6 By Aug Pete was out. And they expected Neil to leave with him. Although [Pete] Best himself was not personally responsible for this development, it may have still caused a scandal, at a crucial moment in the Beatles' career. it was just one MORE reason to move on from Pete
I would fire myself if I knew how good Ringo was gonna make them.
Guys made a living on saying "I don't know why they threw me out of the band"
Repeated the same story....5 cajillion times!!
Laughing all the way to the bank!
Not bad for a shit drummer!!
@@ohiostsupremesuperdynasty7326
You said it. Paul was a better drummer.
Once a young band has been going for a couple of years, personnel changes are rare. Friendship is essential, AND it gets in the way. It's a tough living. BUT, all it takes is one serious opportunity to sack anyone.
@mrsullyrox; if that’s true good for him
Yep
I remember an interview with Sting and he said that a band is only as good as your drummer. I have to say that I agree with him. Stuart Copeland is an amazing drummer. I'm a Beatles nut so it's long live Ringo and he was the perfect choice.
there is an interview with ringo where he says the other three were wanabee drummers and kept telling him what to do. he usually won the arguments
The Police WERE Stewart Copeland's band to start with dude.
Drum machines sorta throw that theory out though. So it can be a true/false question depending on the style of the band. Three Doors Down, Kiss, Steely Dan, The Doobie Brothers, and a few other successful bands have had several drummers and it’s worked, so I think it boils down to songwriting and a great singer...drums is very important, but it’s a band’s chemistry that really matters overall. Still, I feel bad for Best - class act and a bummer situation, since they could’ve kept him in the payroll somehow once they hit big. Glad he got paid overall. Lennon was the rudest in his comments (than Paul and George’s explanation).
@@steveparker5406 steely dan was pretty much a studio band and would switch out drummers for different songs
thewkovacs Indeed-That’s what I was saying.
As a musician I can say without any doubt that Pete was a pretty hopeless drummer. Had he been any good The Beatles would have stuck with him so we should be thankful that he wasn't. Although it was their music that initially struck a chord with people, it was their utterly compelling collective personality that sealed the deal and allowed them to thrive. Having said that, Pete is obviously a nice fella, just very reserved and not naturally talented and I can only imagine how awful it must have been to be sacked and then witness subsequent events.
I saw a documentary on this recently and bottom line seems to be that in terms of the band personality, Ringo was on the same page as John, Paul and George. I think Ringo brought the court Jester aspect to the band and was the final piece of the Jigsaw.
"Jigsaw" is an excellent choice of words.
As a Liverpudlian I think Pete had the Liverpudlian attitude too much, of just ''do the job, get paid and go home'' but the rest of the group wanted to make records and tour America, but Pete didn't share that sentiment.
The older he gets the better he was.
Look at the players in his AllStar Band . Dudes like that don't play with a guy because they like his name
"The older he gets the better he was." Classic statement....and love it!
Just like the older people get, the more petty and judgmental they get. That applies too.....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 it's because as you age you realize how clueless people without the benefit of experience really are. There are a lot of things you cannot learn til you have experienced them personally
@@Cincinnatus1869 So maybe the Beatles should have waited 60 years before recording anything, so that Bestie could find his groove
I heard Pete Best play about 13 years ago at his mums club. He kept perfect time, along with the 2nd drummer next to him...
That's funny.
Ba-doom............. tish! (Pete Best was drumming)
I'm not a musician, so the analysis at 8:30 really made things clear for me. It would be nice to hear the same analysis with Ringo Starr on drums.
There is one at gfs moment on UA-cam which goes through all drumming and shows just his good he was
Pete didn’t have the chops.
Simple as that.
You're right. He wouldn't even make it in my lousy band.
@mark jagger They had two years to 'train him up' and Pete didn't train up enough..
In Pete’s defense, imagine having to answer a lifetime’s worth of, “why were you sacked by the Beatles?” Imagine watching Beatlemania from Pete’s perspective. Brutal. An all encompassing nightmare that got bigger every year and wouldn’t stop! I mean, he’s on the frickin’ Howard Stern show! That’s harsh. Sure, he brought it on himself a bit, and it may have been easier to just deal with it head on, but dang, I have a feeling that ain’t so easy to do. I’m glad he got his. I just hope that he realized he was blessed to get what he got (many don’t), and I hope he found some peace. Many British drummers at that time couldn’t cut it when they went into the studio. That was a common story. Many bands hired session drummers for recordings. Ringo and Charlie Watts are two famous British drummers who were often looked down on by trained musicians. But, if you ever doubt Ringo, check out the opening scene to Help and listen/watch Ringo’s playing. That snare drum is a stone groove! And listen to You’re Going to Lose That Girl. His backbeat is second to none.
Whenever I can, I hear With a little help from my friends to thumbs up Ringo and his stoned drumming
When you dream you risk a nightmare.
Absolutely right. And check out „Act Naturally“ played live with Ringo playing sixteen shuffle notes with his right hand in light speed while singing so relaxed as if he was taking a shower.
When I was a teenager my older brother Jim CURED me forever of dissing or feeling sorry for Pete Best when he said" Pete Best is a FORMER BEATLE and YOU are a NEVER WILL BE..." OK, Jim, I GET IT!!!
@@donaldcarpenter5328
Certainly a different take!
You only have to listen to the early recordings of the songs. Pete Best was a pretty mediocre drummer at the time, or at very least he didn't have the magic touch that Ringo had on those songs. When you compare them side by side Ringo is leagues ahead.
Ringo's sound was better as well because he was left handed playing a right handed kit
Wrong! Someone called Richard Starkey played on most of The Beatles recordings. EMI were rigourous about documenting sessions and paper work exists to this day noting who did what. Research could even tell you who made the tea for them in April 1966. If that sort of thing would interest you. Also a listen to the many available outtakes will prove your statement incorrect. Unless you're on of those who think Bernard Purdie did it all and Paul McCartney really died?
@clifford heywood what planet you on?
@clifford heywood the only people who would disagree are every subsequent rock drummer in the last 50 yrs
@clifford heywood who told you that? Most of what?
What a well-researched effort this was. after more than 50 years I finally understand way Pete Best was ousted..... never occurred to him he was not good enough... his release was handled very professionally. His outcome was like winning the Powerball lottery for 450 million, and cannot find the winning ticket ... so close, yet so far.
Thank you, Scott!
Great analysis. Just listening to Pete vs Ringo tells the story. As Paul said latter, the beginning of the Beatles really was when Ringo came into the picture. No shame to Pete at all. Thanks!
Thanks for watching and I appreciate the comment.
Pete still gets publicity from being a former Beatle so he could have used that to further his career if he was so good.
Which he didn’t. Because he wasn’t.
Good point
Yeap, plenty of band members have been fired from a band and gone on to be mega stars in a band that either they formed or were invited to join.
Epstein did offer to manage Pete but he let his mother, Mona, do it, sadly she just did not have the contacts to further his career
This was my point. If he was good, why did he not get a gig with another high profile band over the years? Being a Beatle would get him an audition in any new band, and Pete would get into events and hang in the same circles as other musicians.
Even if Pete was a crap drummer in 1962, by 1970 if he practiced he could have been good. Then he could have played through the 70's era.
For a change the Lennon interview here explains it exactly. They originally had got Pete Best as they HAD NO DRUMMER and they needed one to get the firtst Hamburg booking in fall 1960 BEST at that point was a 19 year old amatuer who had at that point a rare commodity in Liverpool a DRUM KIT. He had never played with The Beatles , nor was he in the band before that. True he stayed with them but personality and drum ability wise he did not fit. TheY WANTED RINGO that's the truth!
you can hear Pete's tempo speed-ups & slow-downs on the demo tapes, its pretty rough. after 2 years in, he should have been way tighter, but it's irrelevant really. what pete never seemed to grasp was that no matter who the better drummer, Richard was obviously the better Beatle.
Listen to Pete's drum beats on "I saw her standing there". Ringo's drum versions of the song were lively and energetic. There are videos on YT with Pete on drums & Ringo on drums on "I saw her standing there"
Pete Best was to drums what Stu Sutcliffe was to bass.
Except Stu was actually a brilliant artist, Pete was just boring
Stu, unlike Pete, had no illusions and left the band to pursue art.
@@bookashkin exactly. Stu never wanted to have a career in music. So that’s not fair saying he’s boring.
That's disrespectful to Pete Best as he was a capable drummer, whereas Stu Sutcliffe was John's friend who could buy a bass.
Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool and also someone the other Beatles got along with. Pete was a bit of a loner and didn't seem to be part of their humour and style.
Look at The Rolling Stones and Ian Stewart for exactly the opposite situation, the founder member, a brilliant musician and one of their inner circle but dumped as he didn't fit their image.
@@Slydeil - I'll tell you like I've told many others - Best was not a drummer. If he was so capable, he would have been in big demand and surely caught on with another 'famous' band of that era - don't you think? Who wouldn't want an ex-Beatle drummer in their band?? Fact is, he wasn't a musician. The other 3 Beats said so themselves. That's why he was let go.
I still love the fact that Pete Best had an album out called Best Of The Beatles.
Nailed it' ...excellent synopsis of very obvious facts' ...Pete today, is a much better musician than he was in 1962.
Thanks, man! More to come.
A kind editorial at the end. Anthoolgy both helped Best financially and proved the Beatles were right to can him. Everybody wins.
correct
Pete was brought in simply because the club owner in Hamburg wanted a 5 piece band, and Paul had been playing drums at that point. They needed a drummer at the last second, and Pete was who they found. They didn't ask him to join because he was good, they did it out of desperation and he could play ok enough to get by. After they were signed, George Martin immediately requested they get a new drummer and their first choice was Ringo because he was playing in the Hamburg scene with them and they thought he was great. They also liked him as a person, and felt his personality was much more that of a Beatle than Pete, who really had no personality at all.
To my knowledge Paul played guitar... He switched to bass when Stu left.. I don't remember hearing or reading Paul played drums at that particular time... He did in later years..
One thing that's not pointed is that Pete never picked up another gig of any substance. This was an incredibly dynamic time in the music industry, and groups were forming, breaking up, adding new members, reforming under different guises all the time. This was happening in both England and the US. I think Jimi Hendrix picked up his drummer while playing in England. All these guys knew each other. When McCartney formed Wings after the Beatles he brought on Denny Laine, who had been an original member of the Moody Blues, but had left a few years before. You'd think that a topnotch drummer, a guy who had two years or more with the Beatles on his resume, maybe could land a decent gig. Even go into the studio and play for a bit until you found a group to join, or for that matter form a group yourself. It's good he got paid out of the Anthology project, and given the fame that followed almost immediately after he left, it's easy to understand his disappointment, but the Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and that's it.
He played in a band called the Pete Best Combo. In the wake of the Beatles success they got some gigs in the US and released an album which didn't do well. The nature of the enterprise can probably be best summed up by the title of the LP: "Best of the Beatles", which probably got a few extra sales from clueless parents buying it for their Beatles fan kids..
As you suggest, he could have been snapped up by any existing group wanting an instant injection of publicity if he was a decent drummer. However...
"Mama's boy" is the key.
And John without mother and father. Two worlds.
If Pete was as talented a drummer as he defends that he was, there would have been no shortage of bands on the Merseybeat scene in the early 60s who would have gladly scooped him up. But none did. The way he handled the firing and having his mother handle his defense made him look weak and simpish. Had he taken his medicine, gone to woodshed with a metronome and legitimately tried to improve, he could have been a great redemption story. But instead he chose to play the victim, and was relegated to nothing more than a novelty act that cashed in on his 2 years of service in the Beatles.
A good drummer would have dusted himself off, worked on his shortcomings, and tried to get with another top tier act.
Holy crap, who cares that he was never told why. The music industry is savage. A group of young men intent on success will do things like that. Pink Floyd just stopped picking up Syd Barrett on the way to the gigs. Of course Syd was so far gone he didn't notice they stopped picking him up. Pete wasn't good, they got tired of him fucking things up. If your drummer can't keep a beat, you can't very well call yourselves the BEAT-les.
Maybe The Beat-less?
No you're like 1000% wrong on the Pink Floyd point. They did not want to drop Syd at all nor was it anyone's fault. He was the frontman & face of the group up to that point, writing much of their mateial, & they tried as hard as they could to keep him around, but he was far too gone.
It's not the savagery of the business that made Pink Floyd drop Syd Barrett if that's the argument you're making.
@@SgtPeppersLonelyHeartsClubBand
That's my point, he was hurting the band at that point. He WAS Pink Floyd up to that point and they just stopped picking him up for gigs. Maybe you don't think that is so savage, but even Roger says it was a bit. As far as I know they never told him he was fired.
@VAN GROOVER I wasn't talking to you.
John , Paul & George says Ringo was better. That’s it. End of story.
They were jealous Pete was getting the girls
@@jamesnaumof1657 Good point - the boys (especially Paul) did not have much luck with the ladies. Girls would even go as far as screaming en mass throughout their shows in order to discourage the lads from touring, which ultimately proved a successful strategy.
@@rosshewage6893 [trying to stop laughing] Excellent sarcasm, sir---outstanding!
Of course they'd say Ringo was better. What are they going to do, apologize for firing the guy and costing him millions of dollars?
@@bobturnley2787 Ringo was better. ua-cam.com/video/Yr8BE1M7qPc/v-deo.html
Think I wouldn't let this subject never opened, in the 1st place and when the grand kids ask... ..." Grandpa , what did you do, as a kid " ?
" Well.... I was a Beatle " ( with a big smile )