Who's The Best?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:33 pm

Doesn't sound like Ringo on that...that's Pete Best drumming, is it not? Too rushed to be Ringo. I thought I knew my Beatle history better!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:48 pm

I'm sure you already know about this Roy, but I heard about it on the radio this morning.

http://www.bobbyvee.net/

http://www.burschtravel.com/vee.html

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:25 pm

Thanks Bob did know about but chances of me being on it are down to winning lotto,

Yes Jerry that is Pete Best on Drums

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:59 pm

Roy... Despite George Martin's prouncement that they couldn't use Pete for studio recordings, I've always thought that Pete Best was a pretty good drummer. Certainly he was no slouch as those early Beatle recordings show.

What are your thoughts on this? How much of the ouster of Pete was due to his drumming and how much was just that he never clicked with the other three? In my opinion it was 95% the personal factor and I suspect George Martin's position was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Having said that, I think John Paul and George(especially George since he was pushing the issue more strongly than J and P) did make the right decision. A band will function best when everybody are pals, and thats got to be MUCH more true when you see all the craziness that the Beatles went through. If Pete had stayed the Fab Four might not have been able to stick together as well as they did.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:17 am

I agree with your comment, listening to the track, I posted, you would not believe the band would go on to become what they were, they were not top notch musicians listening to the tracks on the decca tapes sessions.
I suppose they ditched him before the fame came, had they not made it, the Pete Best story would have meant nothing, one can't help but feel sorry for him though.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:39 am

Yeah, I would imagine it would be quite expensive for the Bobby vee cruise, not a bad gig though.
I too feel bad for Pete best. I can't imagine how he must have felt, I would have wanted to move to a cave someplace.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:34 pm

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:51 am

The original drummer for Genesis (Peter Mayhew, if memory serves) is now a milkman in Queenstown N.Z...

Kinda like moving to a cave...

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm

A similar story. Peter Green the legendary guitarist from John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers and founder of the blues based line up of Peter Greens' Fleetwood Mac dropped out of the limelight to become a male nurse in 1970.

In recent years he re-emerged and I understand that he was inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame in 1998.

Life can be cruel and lift you up and deposit you in strange places. That's why its best to be thankful for your circumstances even if they are not perfect. Obviously your circumstances can get worse before they get better.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:33 pm

>>>>Obviously your circumstances can get worse before they get better.

aint it the truth! And besides, maybe Peter Mayhew is a happy milkman with a loving family!

I sometimes get carried away with rock'n'roll also, but there is more to life than just fame and fortune.

(actually, I wouldn't know that by first hand experience, but you catch my drift, eh daddyo?)

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm

Speaking (again) of Pete Best, I came across this Lennon quote which I take to be overly critical, even mean spirited. Lennon could be right about the quick mind part but I still say that Pete was a pretty good rock'n'roll drummer, especially for his day, and to suggest that they had monkey-trained Pete to keep the stick going up and down is prety unfair.

"This myth built up over the years that Pete was great and Paul was jealous of him because he was pretty and all that ****. 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.
"The reason he got into the group in the first place was because we had to have a drummer to get to Hamburg. We were always going to dump him when we could find a decent drummer, but by the time we were back from Germany we'd trained him to keep a stick going up and down (four-in-the-bar, he couldn't do much else) and he looked nice and the girls liked him, so it was all right."

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=624527

(note one of the sources is a pete Best interview by Peter McCormack)

chingnchime · Post by **chingnchime** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:32 pm

As huge a contribution as Lennon made to pop culture, and though I am a big Beatles fan, at times i think he shot his mouth off unnecessarily just so he could appear 'quick'. McCartney has said in interviews that John was defensive and insecure- if you popped him in the mouth and asked him if it hurt, he'd say 'no'. I think this was one of those times- if he'd stopped to think how embarrassing for Pete and Pete's family and friends to read that in print, he might've kept his mouth shut. I would've loved it if Best had responded by punching him in the nose! 'Take THAT, Mr. Chief Beatle!!'

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:43 am

This thread about Pete Best began under another topic and has really taken on a life of its own. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of moving it here.

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:54 am

Any of us who have played in a band know the value of being able to get along with each other. I don't know too many bands that make it for any length of time while putting up with a great player with a terrible ego or attitude. Ringo fit in better than Pete, period. Who was in a better position to judge this than George, John and Paul? (For that matter, George's early guitar playing was not very good, but HE fit in, too.) And Ringo was and IS a great drummer. I've yet to play with any drummer who has the power and simplicity of Ringo, although some come close. He is a master of the "rock" ride cymbal. He's funny, too. A perfect match, I'd say. Who knows what "A Hard Day's Night" would have been called if Pete had been the drummer?

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:36 am

The intriguing aspect of this story is that it continues to remain a mystery and this has been reinforced by Pete Best's appearances around the world openly discussing the issue.

Fingers have been pointed in all directions and the sacking has been blamed on Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Epstein and Martin, just to name a few. Was Peter Best seen as a liability or Starkey as an asset, or both.

Insufficient Talent Hypothesis

With regard to talent, accounts from the day would indicate that Best was a mediocre drummer, but good enough it would seem for the Beatles to gain popularity. A compelling argument could also be made for Lennon and McCartney being mediocre guitarists at the same time. I consider that he was good enough to back The Beatles in those days and that his lack of talent is not the core reason for his ousting.

Rising Starr Hypothesis

Was Ringo that much better than Best? Most accounts would indicate that Ringo had the edge on esperience and was more skilled than Pete. As an aside, if we accept that George Martin found Starkey to be superior to Best, why was Ringo side-lined during the first recording session?

Drummers' Market Hypothesis

With regard to using Best's drumming resources during a time of crisis only to regroup later, this argument would seem to have merit. After all this was the day in which, "if you had an amplifier you were in the group." Pete had the drums and drummers were hard to come by. Not to be uncharitable, but Lennon and McCartney would have exploited this in a Mersey minute. I consider that Lennon has been honest and has come clean in this regard. Once Pete's resources were no longer needed, it was time for him to go.

Personalities Rule Hypothesis

Lastly, is the issue of personality which looms large in the explanation of Best's removal from The Beatles. Both McCartney and Lennon were always forces to be reckoned with. That they perceived Best to be beneath their talented level, whether fact or fiction, is central to his leaving. It was simply a matter of who would be the one to do the deed. This was left to the manager, but I believe was a decision of Lennon and McCartney with little argument from Harrison. It was the oligarchical moves of Lennon and McCartney that figured centrally in their fame and Pete Best would not have survived their wrath. Lest this seem too unduly churlish, it will be remembered that more than one Beatle walked away during dictatorial recording sessions, feed-up and deeply hurt.

The raw edge of Lennon's music was consistent with his problems of personality that was embraced by fans and had the world sit up and listen. Ringo's personality was able to withstand the antisocial Lennon and the compulsive McCartney, but in my view Best would never have lasted.

And In The End...

There are, no doubt, many factors that were in play that lead to Pete Best's termination. The Beatles' arguments justifying their actions have always seemed disingenuous to me and a facade for the fessing up to the real reason ... they didn't like him.