Comments on: Pete Best

By: MikeP

MikeP — Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:33:15 +0000

Cite the source. I’ve never seen such a quote and it is in direct conflict with other quotes from Lennon on the subject.

By: MikeP

MikeP — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:56:15 +0000

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.

By: ken

ken — Sun, 27 May 2018 19:39:25 +0000

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.

By: Margaret E Merkling

Margaret E Merkling — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:58:13 +0000

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.

By: Ms. Lane

Ms. Lane — Wed, 24 May 2017 16:05:05 +0000

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.

By: nathan beveridge

nathan beveridge — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:37:01 +0000

If you had up all of Pete Best’s work with the Beatles, it wouldn’t equal just one of Ringo’s “drum fills”.

By: Paolo

Paolo — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:20:21 +0000

No way. Paul is an average drummer while Ringo was really good for his time.

By: Djkoala

Djkoala — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:03:31 +0000

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/

By: fra

fra — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:37:26 +0000

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

By: Only a nowhere girl

Only a nowhere girl — Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:10:13 +0000

Does anybody know when the picture on page 3 was taken?

By: TC

TC — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 03:06:56 +0000

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.

By: Roland St Germain

Roland St Germain — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:43:41 +0000

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.”

By: John King

John King — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:39:12 +0000

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.

By: Hector

Hector — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:09:32 +0000

John Lennon said Pete was a better drummer but Ringo was a better Beatle. I think that sums it up

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:42:27 +0000

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!!!

By: TS

TS — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:10:15 +0000

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.

By: TS

TS — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:59:08 +0000

I’m glad he at least got some cash from the Anthology recording.

By: Harry Elzendoorn

Harry Elzendoorn — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:43:12 +0000

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.

By: Jazzbass

Jazzbass — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 15:05:19 +0000

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.

By: castironshore

castironshore — Tue, 12 May 2015 15:50:35 +0000

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 !