Why Did The Beatles Let Pete Best Go?

anon · Post by **anon** » Tue Nov 07, 2000 1:13 pm

Let's face it:
Pete Best got screwed, however, listen to the version of Love Me Do on Anthology 1. If I'm not mistaken, he played on that version and it speeds up and slows down through the harmonica solo.
Now, the Beatles were good w/Pete, but improved by leaps and bounds without him. Ringo's drumming, especially in the Help to Abbey Road peiord was stellar. There were better drummers, but no one, NO ONE, complimented a song as well as Ringo while in the Beatles. Also, his happy go lucky personality fit much better than Best's "Mean, moody magnificence". it would've been better used in Nirvana or PJ.
The "make the band stronger" argument holds true,
but I know jealousy can be just as powerful.
The Beatles had some big ones though, because in August of 1962, they were little more than a sucessful regional band and Pete was their most popular member.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sat Nov 11, 2000 8:57 pm

If Pete Best was a good drummer he would have been in. Peter, he may have improved over the last 40 years.

Besides who would have played RINGO in the movies.
Still... it must suck to be remembered as the guy that was sacked by the Beatles. Almost as bad a Chief Wiggum being 86'd from the B Sharps.

Excuse the humor.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Nov 11, 2000 9:16 pm

Great humour Brian and I certainly concur that Pete may have indeed improved over the past 40 years. Nonetheless I still believe that personalities as well as Pete's drumming figured into the reason why he was sacked.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Sat Nov 11, 2000 10:56 pm

These are just my thoughts, but I think we could
all agree that Ringo was the better drummer. Even Ringo has said he thought he was the best drummer in Liverpool! Ringo's personality fit in with The Beatles. Pete did not hang out with the rest in Hamburg that much, from everything I've read. The girls may have liked him but he had more of a 50's look and didn't comb his hair down like the rest, so he didn't fit in there either.
I don't think he could comb his hair down like the rest, it would have never stayed! Even though
The Beatles played and loved a lot of the old rock music, they were onto something new. Part of it was the look, and part of it was the music they were writing on their own. Pete just didn't
have the right image at that time and couldn't be as innovative as Ringo was on the drums. Like I said, this is just my 3 cents worth.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Nov 12, 2000 11:58 am

For whatever reason, obviously Ringo was the man. I think the question about who the most important person to the Beatles is answered simply that each of them added to the whole. Would The Beatles have been The Beatles with Pete Best? I wonder what Pete Best thinks?

M.Light · Post by **M.Light** » Thu Nov 16, 2000 6:18 pm

Re Pete's replacement: Being a musician and former drummer myself, I must say that Decca audition recordings I've heard with Pete playing (@ '62?)don't sound very good, drumming-wise. It sounds like he's rushing the groove, especially on fills & like he's following the band, rather than the other way around. Obviously Pete has improved over the last 35+ years, as most musicians do. Ringo-like a lot of the great British drummers, plays "behind" the beat, which gives a great groove and feel. His tempo isn't perfect, but strict time doesn't always make for a great drummer. Time feels best when it's allowed to breath and flow within the different parts of the song. Strict time can sound like a march, or Disco! Pete just didn't measure up to Ringo's great feel, which he still has today. I also heard Pete refused to get the haircut, which you can see in the photos of the time.
That, combined with his drumming and maybe a bit of jealously on the part of the others(because he was popular with girls) possibly led to his sacking. I've also read that Ringo just "fit in" better, personality wise. They new each other already from the Hamburg days-I think Ringo's sense of humor suited them more. Pete always seemed like kind of a loner, from what I gather. So, that's my opinion!

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Nov 16, 2000 7:57 pm

As I read all of these interesting explanations of why Pete Best was sacked, a common thread seems to be that he just didn't fit in with the group climate and expectations of George, Paul and John. It would seem that their reasons for letting him go are multifactorial and based on his personality, resistance to suggestions forced by management, jealously, a preconceived notion of how long he might stay and a lack of flamboyance with regard to his drumming. It would seem that he had become a good chum, however, and perhaps only Epstein had the clear insight that he had to go. The Beatles had a cohesive unit with Ringo which they did not seem to have with Pete Best. It saddens me, however, to think that The Beatles would have not spoken to him directly and have never, according to Pete, provided him with any explanation for their decision. Surely after nearly 40 years they could level with him.

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 11:42 am

Re-reading the Q magazine Beatles special edition last night, I noticed another theory behind the sacking which I'd never heard before. It refers to all the theories presented above, plus Pete's rejection of Brian Epstein's advances, but also adds "and, more darkly, his mother Mona's pregnancy following a liaison with one of the Beatles' inner circle".

Comments ?

aunt_onamus · Post by **aunt_onamus** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 12:52 pm

Mal ?????

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:57 pm

Tim: Mona's relationship with a member of the "Beatles' inner circle" would certainly be an interesting avenue to explore with regard to the Pete Best sacking. I have always wondered whether there was some issue with the Beatles' leaving the Casbah rather suddenly and appearing at the Cavern. Was the article able to validate this information with regard to Mona?

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 2:54 pm

Peter, the article just mentioned exactly what I posted and no more, but it must have come from somewhere. I think there is a whole book devoted to why Pete left the Beatles, I can't remember the title but I wonder if it came from that source ?

Magical_Mystery_Girl · Wed Dec 06, 2000 5:41 am

The title of that book was Drummed out ! and I thought it was written by Spencer Leigh? I do have another copy of that because I ordered it twice at Amazon. And I thought it was Neil and not Mal.

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Wed Dec 06, 2000 2:51 pm

What conclusion(s) does "Drummed Out" come to over Pete's sacking ? Does it mention a problem with Mona's relationship with Neil ? I thought Neil was the one most upset by Pete's departure, and considered leaving them himself because of it.

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Thu Dec 07, 2000 12:46 am

Boy, can't wait to see the Oliver Stone movie about this great mystery. Maybe it was a conspiracy between the Knights Templar and the Druids. I guess the obvious answer (Pete was an amateur and Ringo was a pro) isn't going to satisfy anyone. Pete Best never again made a living as a drummer other than by trading on his one-time association with the Beatles (who hired him because they had the Hamburg gig and he was the only guy they knew who had a drum set). Ringo Starr is one of the all-time greats. Who would you have picked if you were going into the studio for the first time with (perhaps) your only shot at a recording career on the line?

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Dec 07, 2000 6:10 am

Even the professional Ringo was concerned as he once told Hunter Davies Quote:"I was terrified in the studio. I found that George Martin had got another drummer sitting in my place. It was terrible. I'd been asked to join The Beatles, but now it looked as if I was only going to be good enough to do ballrooms with them, not good enough for records. I was given the maracas. I thought it was the end."