Why Did The Beatles Let Pete Best Go?

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:59 pm

Maybe they regard it as a closed issue because it's a non-issue. They've said repeatedly that they sacked Best because he wasn't good enough. And according to the bios, Brian Epstein told Best this was the reason when he fired him. In fact, most bios claim that Pete's popularity was not the cause of his firing. Quite the opposite. The boys were reluctant to fire him because they were afraid of losing his substantial following. If he isn't mentioned much in the Anthology, maybe it's because his role in the band's history is modest. He was distant from the rest personally and their inferior musically. And what do they have to be ashamed of? They hired someone who could do the job better than the guy they had. Should a basketball team be ashamed for replacing its center with a better one in order to improve the team? What exactly was their responsibility to Best? Were they suppossed to keep him around out of loyalty? When George Martin said Best wouldn't cut it in the studio, that was it for him. Why is there talk of shame and public apologies?

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 8:17 am

Hi folks. I’ve been reading this thread with interest and would like to make the following comments:

Certainly there are some quotes that should be looked upon with little doubt, such as:

“One thing is for certain, Pete Best would know the reason if he was ever given one and he would not be shy about making that reason public. As recently as September 12, 2000 Pete still did not know what the reason was and has mentioned this on tour extensively. He, as all of us, was waiting for some explanation in the Anthology.”

“The fact of the matter is that the Beatles didn't do a very good job of letting this guy go! They got Brian to fire him, when they should have done it themselves. That is a fact.”

“Even in the new Beatle Anthology book, he doesn't get much say, just a few old quotes from years ago. They blocked his face out on the cover of the book. What's with that! Talk about a kick in the pants.”

“Pete's best friend was the Beatles' driver/roadie so you know he got to the gigs. Why would he not show up? I've never heard a reason for why he didn’t show up from the Beatles. Was he out drunk, did he get sick a lot?? He was the healthiest Beatle as far as I can tell, he never got into pills like the others. He drank but I've never heard the other Beatles say he was a drunk and didn't show up.
I've read that Lennon was really ashamed about the whole thing years later.” (Read on)

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 8:20 am

“Pete Best was a Beatle and you can leave his face off your $60.00 book, but its history. I'm not sure if Lennon would be all that into some of this Beatle business that's going on these days. Who can say?”

Whilst it’s natural for people to comment and speculate on this subject, I must say that there are some that seem content to stick to their opinions no matter what others have to say.

I certainly take exception to comments such as:

“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).”

“There are no reports of the Beatles picking him because of how great he was - he had a drum set; that's it.”

Not a lot of good if he couldn’t play though, and to jog your memory a little, Ringo had a drum kit at that time, why didn’t they ask him, everyone new of Rory Storm back then.

Hey... I heard that The Original Quarrymen did a tour recently, of course this had nothing to do with them having any previous association with the Beatles.

And what of the references to all these bio’s you keep reading, all written off of the backs of the Beatles, and where have a lot of the authors gotten their information from, from other authors I guess, after all, some where not even embryos when the Beatles were born.

“And the Casbah was his mom's club - wonder how they got that gig.”

Guess you’ll have to read my book. I was associated with the Beatles too.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:55 pm

Thanks Ken for adding your comments. It will be interesting to read your comments when the book is published. Any idea when it may go to print?

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 2:32 pm

My pleasure Peter! No news regarding publication I'm afraid, I guess the answer would have to be, as soon as I find a publisher.

Great forum, keep up the good work!!

Many thanks for your continued support.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 3:33 pm

Thanks Ken! Great comments which I agree with.
I have always been into the early days and consider Pete Best as much a Beatle as Ringo. You can't take away what he did as a Beatle to help form that band into what they became. I've
met him a couple times and he is one cool, down
to earth guy. I also met his mother Mo back in '87 at the Casbah, a very nice lady. She even sent us a Christmas card for a couple years. Anyway, if you're book is as well written as your comments here, I can't wait for it to be published. Keep at it!

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:07 am

Thanks for your encouraging comments Larry. I guess the point I was trying to make was that, there are many people who write about the Beatles, or involve themselves in the playing of their music. In my opinion, those that are involved in the performing art, do so primarily because they enjoy playing and/or singing and providing entertainment for the pleasure of others, hence so many tribute bands. Sure, some or all get paid for their effort and input, that’s the way it is, some are better than others, that’s life too, but the all do it because they enjoy it, Pete’s no different in this respect. I don’t hear too many complaints about such bands living off the backs of the Beatles, so why attribute this comment to Pete.

I have mixed views about writers, be it journalists or authors. Sure there are some that make every effort to report and write the truth for the benefit of history etc, but there are others that have written purely for commercial gain, and with little regard to fact. Likewise, some or all get paid for their input, but surely the latter is where the “Living off the backs of the Beatles” tag belongs.

There are some that have aimed similar criticism at my own book, when the truth is, I wrote it simply to record (in the event of my demise) the various and related events which have taken place throughout my life. Hopefully someday, people will find it of interest. Maybe it will be published during my lifetime in which case no doubt I’ll be paid for it, that’s the way it is, maybe it won’t, and someone else will get paid for it, that’s life too I’m afraid.

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Mon Mar 26, 2001 2:17 pm

I too look forward to Ken's book and in fact have expressed this directly to Ken. But since it is my comments that he has taken exception to, I must say that if he would like to refute my claims he will need to provide some evidence. Firstly, did Best go on to have a career as a professional musician or not? My comment that he traded off his association with the Beatles was not itself a criticism. Many have done so and I see no obvious harm in it. I mentioned it in the context of a discussion about his merits as a drummer. If he had gone on to a musical career that might count as evidence of his skills. But he did not. Secondly, if there are reports that the Beatles chose him based on his merits as a drummer, please cite them. At least one source on the issue, Peter Brown, had direct access to those involved. And every source including John, Paul and George say Best was fired because he wasn't good enough. Thirdly, my comment about the gig at the Casbah Club was in response to a claim that Best must have been pretty good because he had a regular gig when the Beatles learned of him. I was pointing out that the gig was in his Mom's club which raises doubts about whether he got the gig on merit. Finally, the reason they didn't ask Ringo first instead of Best was that a) they didn't know Ringo yet and b)Ringo was already gigging with Storm and playing successful dates with the most popular band in Liverpool. Why would the Beatles expect him to leave his group for theirs?

If Pete Best was a great drummer and got screwed over because of personality conflicts and jealousy, then supply the evidence. I'm sure he's a nice guy and it sounds like many of you know him personally. Believe me, none of my comments are personal attacks on him. But the fact that he's a good bloke doesn't change any of the abundent evidence (including the recordings he played on)that his firing was based primarily on George Martin's criticisms and Ringo's musical superiority.

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:01 am

Hi Marcel, it’s nice to communicate with you again. In confirmation, you did indeed express to me that you looked forward to reading my book, and I again thank you for your support and enthusiasm.
In response to your other comments:

“Firstly, did Best go on to have a career as a professional musician or not?”
Pete still tours throughout the world with his band.

“My comment that he traded off his association with the Beatles was not itself a criticism. Many have done so and I see no obvious harm in it.”
No need to mention it then.

“I mentioned it in the context of a discussion about his merits as a drummer. If he had gone on to a musical career that might count as evidence of his skills.”
The issues are unconnected so why link them. Pete has continued touring, by request, and like many others, wouldn’t do so if he didn’t enjoy playing.

“Secondly, if there are reports that the Beatles chose him based on his merits as a drummer, please cite them.”
I didn’t say there were, but then why did they choose to keep him for so long.

“Thirdly, my comment about the gig at the Casbah Club was in response to a claim that Best must have been pretty good because he had a regular gig when the Beatles learned of him. I was pointing out that the gig was in his Mom's club which raises doubts about whether he got the gig on merit.”
Again I don’t see the connection, why would the venue make any difference to whether he got the gig on merit or not, that’s assuming he got the gig in the first place. Mo wouldn’t have entertained any group if they couldn’t play. (Continued)

Ken_Brown · Post by **Ken_Brown** » Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:02 am

“Finally, the reason they didn't ask Ringo first instead of Best was that a) they didn't know Ringo yet and b)Ringo was already gigging with Storm and playing successful dates with the most popular band in Liverpool. Why would the Beatles expect him to leave his group for theirs?”
I find it hard to accept that John, Paul and George were unaware of Ringo at this time, as Rory Storm was playing the Casbah during the same period as The Blackjacks.

“If Pete Best was a great drummer and got screwed over because of personality conflicts and jealousy, then supply the evidence. I'm sure he's a nice guy and it sounds like many of you know him personally. Believe me, none of my comments are personal attacks on him. But the fact that he's a good bloke doesn't change any of the abundent evidence (including the recordings he played on)that his firing was based primarily on George Martin's criticisms and Ringo's musical superiority.”

History shows that Pete played as the Beatles drummer for some considerable time, and personally, I find it hard to believe that it was only as a result of his shiny drum kit. The reason for his dismissal despite the assumptions, remains a mystery, not least because two of those who could shed light on the subject, are very sadly, no longer with us, and as Tim mentioned in an earlier post: “The remaining Beatles seem to regard it as a closed issue and my guess is that it will stay that way.”

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Thu Mar 29, 2001 6:38 pm

Ken, thanks for your extensive response to my latest comments. I would not presume to challenge your knowledge of the Casbah days. But I don't see how any of this changes the basic argument. I'll try to take things in order. 1) That Best tours now is evidence for, not against, my claim that he relies on his Beatles association for whatever musical career he has. The point is that he didn't follow-up his firing with a succesful career. 2) The need to mention this was related to the point about his abilities - not about whether he ought to take advantage of his association with the Beatles. 3) I'm not sure what you mean about the issues being unconnected. Are you suggesting that there is no connection between musicianship and musical careers? 4) If no one suggests that Pete was chosen on merit, then why do so many find it difficult to believe that he was fired on merit?

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Thu Mar 29, 2001 6:39 pm

5) Even if they knew who Ringo was at this point, they couldn't have thought it likely he would quit a successful group to join them. They hadn't made their reputation yet. 6) The "shiny drum kit" seems to be the main reason he was asked to audition. When he started with them his abilities were probably not only adequate but comparable to their own. As time passed, John, Paul and George became remarkable musicians. When they were good enough to get a record deal, Pete needed to be replaced. It just does not look like a mystery to me.

I hope that my comments do not come off as too pedantic or argumentative. I love discussing this stuff. Continued good luck with your book and I look forward to further conversations via this terrific forum. Cheers.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Fri Mar 30, 2001 5:23 am

We have to remember to put our minds back to
August of '62. I don't think anyone, including
Pete or The Beatles, knew the magnitude of the
firing of Pete. No one can see into the future,
they had no idea they would still be selling millions of albums in 2001. Ringo wanted to make enough money to buy a chain of hair salons! I think we can blame George Martin more than anyone,
although he didn't want Pete fired, he wanted a
session drummer for Love Me Do. They were all hoping they would have a hit, then a no.1 and
then a hit album. Things were done in steps and
no one knew how big they would become back in '62
when Pete was sacked.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 3:24 pm

It was interesting to hear another version of why Pete Best was let go on "WingSpan" tonight. While I may not have the precise quote Paul McCartney commented Quote:"Pete Best was a great drummer but he just wasn't like the rest of us." From McCartney's retrospective analysis perhaps Pete was good enough after all. This comment may be more to the point than the others that have suggested that Pete was not technically proficient.

Nick_Thiel · Post by **Nick_Thiel** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 5:22 pm

I think you've a got a point, he clearly just didn't fit in, whereas Ringo had the stuff. The thing that made the Beatles the complete package was that they could handle themselves on and off stage, which isn't the case for many other bands of the era. How many Beatle interviews from back in the touring days bring a smile to your face when you hear how these guys answered with their intelligent wit? Do you know of any other band where a drummer who isn't really featured on singles being released be the record company can sit up and sing a song for 50,000 people and have the crowd dig it? These guys were different.

People fell in love with the idea that each Beatle was a character that they thought they knew. I can't tell you how I cringe when I see people writing that Yoko changed John from that loveable guy in "A Hard Day's Night" into that moody monster, give me a break.