In April 1961 The Beatles returned to Hamburg. There they were recruited to perform as Tony Sheridan's backing band on a series of recordings for Polydor, and signed a contract with bandleader Bert Kaempfert. Among the songs recorded was My Bonnie, which was released as a single in October 1961 under the name Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers.
Best was a close friend of Neil Aspinall. After leaving school, where he knew Harrison and McCartney, Aspinall moved into Mona Best's house. Pete suggested to the group that Aspinall be hired as The Beatles' driver, at a rate of £7 a week. Aspinall was also in a relationship with Mona Best; their son Vincent 'Roag' Best was born on 21 July 1962.
After Brian Epstein became The Beatles' manager in early 1962, he arranged for them to audition for George Martin at EMI Studios in Abbey Road, London. At the end of the session, which took place on 6 June 1962, Martin listened to the four songs recorded. He decided that the group were likeable but Best's drumming was substandard.
George Martin was used to drummers being very 'in time', because all the big-band session drummers he used had a great sense of time. Now, our Liverpool drummers had a sense of spirit, emotion, economy even, but not a deadly sense of time. This would bother producers making a record. George took us to one side and said, 'I'm really unhappy with the drummer. Would you consider changing him?' We said, 'No, we can't!' It was one of those terrible things you go through as kids. Can we betray him? No. But our career was on the line. Maybe they were going to cancel our contract.It was a big issue at the time, how we 'dumped' Pete. And I do feel sorry for him, because of what he could have been on to; but as far as we were concerned, it was strictly a professional decision. If he wasn't up to the mark – slightly in our eyes, and definitely in the producer's eyes – then there was no choice. But it was still very difficult. It is one of the most difficult things we ever had to do.
Anthology
On 24 June 1962 Mona Best closed the Casbah Coffee Club; The Beatles were the last group to perform there. The venue was later reopened as a tourist attraction.
This myth built up over the years that he was great and Paul was jealous of him because he was pretty and all that crap. They didn't get on that much together, but it was partly because Pete was a bit slow. He was a harmless guy, but he was not quick. All of us had quick minds but he never picked that up.
Anthology
Epstein and The Beatles didn't tell Pete Best about George Martin's offer of a Parlophone contract in July. For his part, Martin later claimed the decision to exclude Best wasn't his.
I never suggested that Pete Best must go. All I said was that for the purposes of the Beatles' first record I would rather use a session man. I never thought that Brian Epstein would let him go. He seemed to be the most saleable commodity as far as looks went. It was a surprise when I learned that they had dropped Pete. The drums were important to me for a record, but they didn't matter much otherwise. Fans don't pay particular attention to the quality of the drumming.
On 15 August 1962 Best received a call at his home from Brian Epstein.
He said he wanted to see me [in his Whitechapel office] tomorrow morning at 11.30. That was nothing unusual. He'd often ask me things about halls or bookings that I knew from the time when I'd been handling the dates.I went bouncing into Brian's office. As soon as I saw him, I could tell there was something up. He said: 'The boys want you out of the group. They don't think you're a good enough drummer.' I said, 'It's taken them two years to find out I'm not a good enough drummer.' While I was standing there, the phone rang on Brian's desk. It was Paul, asking if I'd been told yet. Brian said, 'I can't talk now, Peter's here with me in the office.'
I went outside and told Neil. He said, 'Right then, that's it. I'm out as well.' Brian followed me and asked me if I'd still play the dates in Chester as they wouldn't be able to get a replacement drummer in time. I said OK, I would. We went outside, and Neil went straight away to ring home and tell Mo about it. I just went off and had a few pints – numb, I'd been cut and dried and hung out on the line.
Shout!, Philip Norman
Neil Aspinall was furious at the news and threatened to stop working with The Beatles, but Best persuaded him to stay on. He did, however, end his relationship with Mona shortly afterwards.
Neil Aspinall was really friendly with Pete Best and his family and so for a while he wouldn't set my kit up. This lasted for a few weeks, but he got over it. He was all we had; he was driving the van, setting up the gear and everything, and he was a little miffed.
Anthology
Wow! If there ever was a person with a solid desire to commit suicide. Pete Best has got to have one helluva strong character to have forged on after being left out of the Beatles at the moment they were hitting the big time! My props to him for sure!
I agree, I can’t imagine how hard it was for him. I also have major props for how zen he is about it all now. It truly show how strong a character he has. I really do believe things happen for a reason. I hope that it became clear and gave him some peace of mind. How wonderful that his early recordings with the Beatles were included in the 1st Anthology. Now hopefully Pete’s financially set for a happy and do whatever you want retirement.
Yes, Pete Best got raw deal, uet he endured and kept playing, eventually becoming a multi-millionaire after ‘Anthology’.
Thank Neil Aspinall for this.
Ringo was better drummer and final piece for Beatles.
I recently began wondering whether the sacking of PB had more to do with the complicated implications of Neil Aspinall impregnating Mona Best in December 1961 (Vincent Best b. August 1962), instead of the often cited reasons like drumming, more attractive, more aloof. As the crucial ramping up period (Jan/62-Sept/62) with Brian Epstein and marketing became more critical….might the boys have considered the Mona-Neil situation problematic to their success?
Have a listen to Pete’s hamfisted performance on Love Me Do-Anthology 1. There’s your answer. If Pete didn’t get sacked….imagine a world without Rubber Soul or Revolver or….Ringo forever!!!
From what I’ve heard, John and Paul wanted Ringo in the band the first time they met him which was in August 1960 after the Beatles first arrived in Hamburg, but Ringo was in a much more popular group at the time, so they didn’t think they could get him. Sounds like Petes sacking was inevitable from the moment they met Ringo. It was just a matter of time and the Beatles becoming more successful.
Probably/possibly inadvertently, John himself gave Pete a high compliment when he said in a post-break-up interview, “Our best work was never recorded”, referring to the pre-fame 1960-62 days & the excitement that the group generated on-stage in Hamburg & Liverpool. Who was involved in making this “best work”? Pete, that’s who. Even though this work was never recorded for posterity, it was still consider to be their best by the founder of the group. If I were Pete, I would take that as a compliment.
I think it’s unfair to compare Pete & Ringo by recordings alone. For professional recordings with Pete, what do we really have?:
1. The Hamburg Recordings – even though they were used mostly as sidemen, the recordings were still good enough to be released to the public at the time.
2. The Decca Audition – By all accounts, everyone was nervous that day, and it shows. A very pale representation of what the group was capable of at the time. An audition, not a true recording session.
3. The June ’62 EMI Recordings – More nerves. Paul himself admits to having the “screaming heebie-jeebies” when George Martin changed the vocal structure for “Love Me Do”. Accounts still vary as to whether this was an audition, an artist test, or a proper recording session.
By contrast, we have dozens of recordings with Ringo for reference. Kind of lopsided. I think the Liverpool fans & musicians of the time who were there are really the most qualified to judge…
Another thought – Just exactly how long had they been performing/rehearsing “Love Me Do” before they tried it out at EMI? By all accounts, this was a very early pre-Beatles song. Maybe they had just pulled it out of mothballs & Pete wasn’t that familiar with it yet. Just a thought…
No, the arrangement was different for LOVE ME DO in June than it was in September. According to witnesses or the assistant producer and Pete Best, they were not happy with the arrangement of LOVE ME DO. During the June 5 recording session, the Beatles were trying to do the song in a similar style to a current hit at the time by Bruce Channel, HEY BABY. If you listen to HEY BABY, and then listen to the June 62 version of LOVE ME DO, you can hear what they were attempting. They were told to change that arrangement. Over the next three month they changed the arrangement of the song. (All the while searching for a new drummer by their present drummers back). If you were to walk into the Cavern in early August of 62, you would have heard THE BEATLES performing LOVE ME DO (Then an unreleased song) with Pete Best on drums, playing the same arrangement of the song that would be recorded on Sept 4th and 11th. You will notice that Martin did not find out that Pete had been fired until they walked in the door for that Sept 4th session- London’s a long way from Liverpool and the Beatles were still a club band without a record. There was no session drummer on that day, so Pete would have played on LOVE ME DO again. Also, Martin didn’t like any drummers that played in the clubs, few British producers did, and didn’t like Ringo either. Hence the sessions drummer for the 11th.
It’s not only Pete Best that sounds bad on the June recording session, it sounds like a missed opportunity for the band. But unlike the others he didn’t get a second chance to practice and improve three months later.
I think Pete Best is pretty good on the Tony Sheridan recordings, and his playing on the Decca audition tapes aren’t better or worse than the others, and those recordings aren’t much better or worse than the Sheridan recordings almost a year earlier. I think it reveals that The Beatles really started to develop from the released September version of “Love Me Do”, I guess Pete Best never got the chance to go from amateur to professional, which seems to make a big difference for the band and made them start to develop faster in a matter weeks than they had from the early days of The Quarrymen to “Love Me Do”.
Just a few additions to my earlier post: On the Hamburg recordings, the drums are very much in the background, none of this “Mersey Beat”/Hamburg 4-in-the-bar stomp that we’ve all heard about. From what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong on this), Pete wasn’t allowed to use his full kit during the sessions, which would dilute the power of the songs considerably (On a side note, I’ve heard the Bernard Purdie overdubs & they don’t seem to add much, except maybe a little brightness).
Yes, arrangements play a factor in this also. Compare the 1/62 version of “Besame Mucho” (with Pete) to the live Star-Club version (with Ringo) from 12/62. Very similar. Yet the 6/62 EMI version is a much more low-key arrangement with no background vocals. Whose doing was this? Interesting how both “Besame Mucho” and “Love Me Do” were re-arranged for this 1st EMI session. Subconscoious sabotage, maybe?? Who knows?
The Beatles have had a history of drummer woes, going back to the very beginning. John & Paul had been together since ’57, John, Paul & George had been together since ’58, & those 3 had a solid 2 years to get tight with each other before Pete came along in ’60. Age also plays a factor. Paul & George were both younger than John & followed his lead & looked up to him. Pete was older than both Paul & George, didnt feel the need to follow & did his own thing, which the other 3 should’ve respected since that’s what The Beatles were supposedly all about in the first place. Although Pete says that he was closer to John than he was to either Paul or George. John looked up to no one, except possibly Stu, but Stu was out of the equation by mid-’61 anyway.
Even though Ringo was closer to the other 3 than Pete ever was, this problem still cropped up later when he walked out in ’68 during the White Album sessions. The other 3 carried on without him, that’s why there’s finished tracks on that album where Ringo is not the drummer. Contrast that to what happened 6 months or so later when George walked out of the Get Bacl/Let It Be sessions. Everything basically ground to a halt or drifted aimlessly until the situation could be resolved. Ringo himself said that he felt like an outsider (at least that’s the party line anyway). Being drummer-less for so long in the beginning created a bond between the other 3 that no one could ever completely breach.
A very good analysis. Best did not understand the three core members had gone through a few drummers (Tommy Moore was reported to be George’s favorite per Allan Williams in his book) and they WERE the Beatles and the drummer was expendable. Best was quiet and cultivated the James Dean moody persona which was popular with the girls at that time but it did not fit the image Epstein was trying to cultivate. Also, his hair was curly so he could not adopt the mop top style which set him apart further. His biggest mistake was to not understand that when he was getting a lot of attention from the girls this was annoying the other three. There was a Mersey Beat article and other publications that referred to them as Pete Best and the Beatles. Best should have realized he was causing problems but he was just 20 years old so this is understandable. So Best was kicked out. When Ringo got sick during their first world tour in June, 1964, he was replaced by Jimmy Nicol for two weeks without a hitch. Nicol even reportedly received 5000 fan letters for his short effort. Ringo accepted his place as the least Beatle perfectly and the rest is history.
Thinking about how Pete was in between John, Paul & George age-wise… Maybe within the group’s mindset, he was kind of like the overlooked “middle child”…
For what it’s worth (even though the sound quality is lousy), I think that the early BBC recordings with Pete give a better representation of his drumming than the studio recordings do, although you have to pay attention.
If you have been in a band yourself you know that there a two things that count:
How well do you play and how do you get along with the rest of the band. Pete didn’t play too well and he didn’t get along too well with the other three / four.
So it was time for a new drummer! (And George Martin gave them the final push to do this).
All music played in the early 60’s was simple three chord songs. Guitar work as well as drum work was not that complicated. George Martin did not want The Beatles to get rid of Pete Best. When The Beatles did get rid of Pete, Ringo was playing the drums for the EMI recording of Love Me Do. George Martin was not pleased with Ringo’s drumming either and that’s when he brought in Andy White to play drums.
The Beatles improved as time went on and the same would have been with Pete Best. Early music was catchy and simple and only became more complicated as members matured and learned that there were more then three cord songs to be made.
As someone who lived through the early 60’s, I can tell you for a fact that not “all music played in the early 60’s was simple three chord songs” as you have stated.
The following songs have more than three chords (listed with respective recording artists) are an example: Do You Wanna Dance ( Bobby Freeman), Runaround Sue ( Dion), Runaway ( Del Shannon), Take Good Care Of My Baby ( Bobby Vee), Stand By Me ( Ben E. King), Town Without Pity ( Gene Pitney), Sea Of Heartbreak (Don Gibson), and Teenage Idol ( Ricky Nelson).
Pete Forever Ringo Never
Bruh, no.
I didn’t know about the suicide attempt. It must be horrible when the band that kicked you out are always on the radio, the TV and the papers, selling shedloads of records, playing sellout concerts… I don’t know if I feel sorry for him, as he clearly didn’t make the grade as a drummer, and is far richer than I’ll ever be, but it must have been a really tough time.
Justice was served when he made a substantial amount of money from Anthology, although he had to wait a long time for it. He had the last laugh after being known as the world’s biggest loser for over 30 years. It would be to his credit if he admitted that Ringo was a better fit in the Beatles than him, even if he doesn’t want to concede that Ringo was a superior drummer.
Whilst I sympathise with Pete, he is clearly a man in denial. How else do you deal with the fact that you were in a band which changed the world for two years, only to be sacked on the eve of their breakthrough? Having read Mark Lewisohn’s book however, it’s clear that, whilst he played drums for the Beatles, he was never a full member of the band. Pete did his own thing – he went off on his own after the gigs, he didn’t share the others’ sense of humour and he didn’t hang out with them. If he’d been a great drummer, this might not have mattered so much but he had poor timing, tended to play the same pattern for every song and didn’t seem interested in improving. He was ok for the clubs but once in a recording studio his deficiencies were nakedly apparent. He had several opportunities to address this but didn’t. Sorry Pete, but you’ve only yourself to blame. Enjoy the money you made from Anthology and accept reality.
Leave the last word to guitarman, he’s got it right!
If one listens to the various attempts at Love Me Do with Mr Best , Starr , and White (ref You Tube) , it appears to me that Mr Best was playing a very early incarnation of the song.
As a musician , and most would agree , songs take “time” to develop , the recording engineers were reported as being very picky over drum tracks , and mainly used “session” drummers because “time was money”, a session drummer having the ability to “lay it down” without too much fuss.
History shows that Ringo was not used on some early recordings , therefore the reason for Mr Best sacking could not have been fundamentally a drumming issue(?)
If one studies the recording of Love Me Do (see You Tube) , it is quite apparent that several drummers were used to attempt the recording.
Studios in the early 1960s used mainly session drummers , probably more economical as “time was money” , and the tracks could could be laid down very quickly.
Mr Best was set aside , as was Mr Starr because that was label policy , all that was required was a commercial product , readied quickly for distribution.
The reasons for Mr Bests sacking are numerous , but i feel that the drumming ability was not the main issue by 1962.
Having read the Extended Edition of Mark Lewisohn’s book, I don’t think that Ringo was set aside because of label policy. George Martin had already booked Andy White to play on the 4 September session. He had heard Pete’s drumming and decided that he wasn’t good enough to record. Consider also that George was ‘told’ to record the Beatles. In the meantime, the Beatles sacked Pete because, if they’d kept him, they would have been forced to use session drummers. There was a question mark over whether Pete would have been able to produce what they wanted in a ‘live’ situation. I would agree that drumming ability was not the main issue but it was one of a number of issues that made the other three Beatles’ minds up.
That is clearly wrong. Martin was set to record Sept. 4 with Pete (no session drummer was present), and was upset with Epstein when they showed up with Ringo instead (who Martin didn’t know, of course). Since the session produced no master for release, the Beatles were brought back on Sept. 11. The producer of THAT session, Ron Richards, was the one who brought in Andy White as he wasn’t taking any more chances on the drummer with this new group.
Several sources, including Lewisohn’s books, back this up.
I think the biggest problem for both Pete and obviously to a lesser extent Ringo, was that Paul was a better drummer than both of them.
No way. Paul is an average drummer while Ringo was really good for his time.
First post so go easy on me…
My feeling is that the issue with best was more one of personality rather than of ability. Pete was renowned as one of the best drummers in liverpool and from the early tapes of the band with him and in the studio i don’t think starr’s early performances are significantly better. The chances are best may well have got better and more adept in a studio environment with time – much like ringo did.
No – the issue was more harrison and mccartney trying to get best out the group. Mccartney was clearly jealous of pete’s success as a heartthrob and harrison apparently didn’t like him from an early stage and had been pushing for ringo to replace him. Lennon i think had other things to think about at that point (he had just found out cynthia was pregnant) so i’m not sure how involved he was in the plot to oust best.
So i do have a lot of sympathy with best,for whilst its now obvious that ringo’s easy going personality and huge workrate made him a better fit for the group than the moodier character of best, you still have to see it from pete’s view. Believing that it wasn’t because ringo was better than him is probably how he has survived down the years so you can’t really grudge him that viewpoint.
I like to think the inclusion of the material with best on anthology1 was and the resulting royalties was the bands belated way of saying “sorry”. He has to be one of the unluckiest musicians ever !
Pete was obviously a talented guy who could play decently. The recordings, in my opinion, show Ringo to have a great sense of timing & a good simple straightforward ability to apply the most appropriate beat to a song.
Pete seems not to sound as comfortable in his timing or application of beat. This I think was contributory in his dismissal, however, the fact that he was a girlie magnet couldn’t have done him any good with either Paul, John or George.
His solitary nature would also have kept him from making that close bond with the others, bands do need to feel close on & off the stage.
I have no doubt that Pete was held in high esteem as a drummer in Liverpool, the German recordings confirm this, they are very catchy tracks tightly & energetically performed.
In short Pete was sacked because Ringo could fit in in every way more comfortably than Pete could; it was a recipe that tasted better that way.
I think the way he was told was deplorable, the others admit to a cowardice & Pete as a human being & fellow musician deserved better, however, history has shown us how great they became & any band with a legacy like that has, I feel, made it’s point & written it’s own epitaph.
Why was Pete sacked ? I know why. I play in a band myself and we have had our share of personell changes. If a guy doesn’t fit it, it can become a big deal, even though he might be doing his best. We had this guy who always turned up when all the equipment was already set up and who was leaving right after the last note was played. So he was sacked for that reason. No big deal, but in Pete’s case it worse because the Beatles became bigger than life. As an example : no-one ever made a big deal of the fact that Tony Jackson was fired from the Seachers. For the record, I knew Pete in the eighties, and I love him. I’m very glad that things turned out well for him.
I’m glad he at least got some cash from the Anthology recording.
People have been kicked out of groups, and companies, and clubs and what-have-you since the beginning of time, because they didn’t fit in. It only seems more tragic in this case because of the Beatles’ huge success. But the simple phrase “He didn’t fit in” covers it all.
I think that you have to view everything in context and ONLY the circumstances up to the point when the decision was made …the ages of the Beatles, a male dominated British society, a music scene where a group had to have a front-man, etc. Pete was part of tipping point when they came back from Hamburg and played Litherland Town Hall. As John said they were at their best, no buts.Stu became a member even though he couldn’t play a note and Pete’s drumming wasn’t good enough??? Give me a break. Pete was getting most of the attention from the female fans and he also had his own feature spot in the act. And the hair style thing ? Freda Kelly said in her movie that Pete couldn’t change his hair style because his hair was too kinky. EVERYTHING else that comes after is irrelevant when discussing Pete’s dismissal, because it’s tainted with an agenda, bias, 20/20 vision etc. Even if it’s said by John, Paul and George.
Bottom line…Pete Best’s legacy will live on because he was an integral part of the Beatles story. His name will be repeated and circumstances discussed long after we are all gone. Current stars, like Katy Perry, will just be another name, in a long list of female singers who were successful around 2010.
Hey we are still talking about it over 50 + years later….isn’t it fun to be a Beatles fan!!!
John Lennon said Pete was a better drummer but Ringo was a better Beatle. I think that sums it up
Cite the source. I’ve never seen such a quote and it is in direct conflict with other quotes from Lennon on the subject.
Having been pushed out of a group into which I invested four years of my life, I know exactly how that feels – especially in light of the fact that, had I not put in that time, there would have been no group to take over. Did Pete feel used? I don’t doubt it – I know I sure was. At least he was able to get something out of it … eventually.
“And in the end … the cash you get … is equal to the wish … to keep your mouth shut.”
Best played with the band for two years in good times and bad if he did not fit in or get along with the other band members why not kick him out sooner? As far as not being a good drummer we must ask the same question why not kick him out sooner? The truth is the three other Beatles Were sellouts. Martin wanted to use a session drummer & they got cold feet and thought they would lose the record deal if they did not act fast. None of the Beatles were good musicians at the time. If Martin would have suggested to use a guitar player for the recording Harrison would have been out or maybe Paul. I also believe the story about other Beatles being jealous especially Paul, after all he later became the favorite with the ladies, what a coincidence. He does come across as a diva. Some had said Johnny Hutchinson the drummer from the Big 3 not ringo was the first choice to replace Pete Best ,why?. And as far as ringo being a better drummer he played a 4/4 big deal. Even today when he plays with his all star band or on other occasions he plays alongside another drummer. The Beatles became a great band but none of them became great musicians. It is said Paul won’t answer any direct questions about Pete Best, seems a little coweredly. Years later Michael Jackson would out bid him for the complete set of Beatles music after Paul suggested he should invest in music. Now that’s karma. I guess Paul should have seen it coming. He did take all those trips to India in the 60s.
Does anybody know when the picture on page 3 was taken?
i think john lennon answered it well when asked was ringo the best drummer in the rock world answer he wasnt even the best drummer in the beatles
John never said that about Ringo! Apparently it is a quote from comedian Jasper Carrot from 1983. Often misattributed to John. http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/john-lennon/ringo-isnt-even-the-best-drummer-in-the-band/
If you had up all of Pete Best’s work with the Beatles, it wouldn’t equal just one of Ringo’s “drum fills”.
I think it was more a matter of The Beatles wanting Ringo than not wanting Pete. I read somewhere in my myriad Beatles books that when one Beatle was in the room, it was amazing; two, it was breathtaking; three, unbelievable, and four, nothing short of magic. Surely, the lads knew this when Ringo became a part of their scene.