An excellent exposition, Peter, and definitely not "unduly churlish".
Wonderful turn of phrase!
Who's The Best?
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
Brilliant, Peter.
We have the luxury of discussing this knowing the impact and level of fame the Beatles achieved. But one thing to remember - when they sacked Pete, they were a popular local band about to sign a deal (after being rejected by many)- not one of them could have known what was in store. That makes it more interesting to me - did they expect to hit the big time? I agree the sacking of Pete Best was a personality clash, compounded by the fact that perhaps they wanted a better drummer. They had jammed with Ringo in Hamburg. Ringo's groove fit extremely well.
We have the luxury of discussing this knowing the impact and level of fame the Beatles achieved. But one thing to remember - when they sacked Pete, they were a popular local band about to sign a deal (after being rejected by many)- not one of them could have known what was in store. That makes it more interesting to me - did they expect to hit the big time? I agree the sacking of Pete Best was a personality clash, compounded by the fact that perhaps they wanted a better drummer. They had jammed with Ringo in Hamburg. Ringo's groove fit extremely well.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
If Pete had stayed on, what would "A Hard Day's Night" been titled?
Perhaps:
"McCartney's Borrowed Comb" or
"I Don't Use FOP--I'm a Dapper Dan Man"
Perhaps:
"McCartney's Borrowed Comb" or
"I Don't Use FOP--I'm a Dapper Dan Man"
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
The two men had amazingly parallel careers...
Incidentally, has anyone seen Rongo in the flesh since Arafat passed away?
Just a thought.
Incidentally, has anyone seen Rongo in the flesh since Arafat passed away?
Just a thought.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
And amazingly parallel wives...
Not to pick away at your typing, JJ (my two-fingered approach affords me extra time to spot my own spelling mistakes), but I'm absolutely loving the name 'Rongo'...if I ever play drums in a Beatles tribute band, that is gonna be my stage name for sure...
Not to pick away at your typing, JJ (my two-fingered approach affords me extra time to spot my own spelling mistakes), but I'm absolutely loving the name 'Rongo'...if I ever play drums in a Beatles tribute band, that is gonna be my stage name for sure...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
I agree that lack of talent was not the main issue. As stated, George Martin was not overly thrilled with Ringo either (the Love Me Do story). Pete's joining was a quick decision made under pressure and in the long run the Beatles certainly did the right thing (for the band) by giving him the boot. As was repeated in "Birth of the Beatles" (accurately or not), JP&G never thougth of Pete as being a "real Beatle".
The "Drummers' Market Hypothesis" certainly has merit. A real drum kit was worth its weight in gold back in that time and place.
As to the "Personalities Rule Hypothisis", I agree that this is the main reason, but disagree that it was J&P leading the way with regards to Pete Best's ouster. From everything I've read, the Beatle most pushing for Pete to go was George.
In sum, I think we all agree that aside from very good drumming (John has said that Ringo was "the perfect drummer for that band"), Ringo's main contribution was to calm down the conflicts and allow for the band's extraordinary talent grow.
The "Drummers' Market Hypothesis" certainly has merit. A real drum kit was worth its weight in gold back in that time and place.
As to the "Personalities Rule Hypothisis", I agree that this is the main reason, but disagree that it was J&P leading the way with regards to Pete Best's ouster. From everything I've read, the Beatle most pushing for Pete to go was George.
In sum, I think we all agree that aside from very good drumming (John has said that Ringo was "the perfect drummer for that band"), Ringo's main contribution was to calm down the conflicts and allow for the band's extraordinary talent grow.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
Here's my theory. Ringo's kit!
In those days all of us were in awe of anyone who had good gear. Ringo always used the best.
Ringo was, on a local scale at least, a very famous drummer. So! "where are we going boys?" "To the top!" To make it to the top you needed to create the perception that you were good. Adding Ringo to the Beatles gave the Beatles even more credibility because Ringo left Rory Storm to join them. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes were the number one act in Liverpool at the time. Now that is the ultimate in bragging rights.
Those small but not insignificant considerations I believe (plus the fact that Pete had a blah personality) made the difference in deciding whether to keep him or get someone else.
As far as George Martin goes, he was just being a bit picky on the Love me Do session in my opinion.
In those days all of us were in awe of anyone who had good gear. Ringo always used the best.
Ringo was, on a local scale at least, a very famous drummer. So! "where are we going boys?" "To the top!" To make it to the top you needed to create the perception that you were good. Adding Ringo to the Beatles gave the Beatles even more credibility because Ringo left Rory Storm to join them. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes were the number one act in Liverpool at the time. Now that is the ultimate in bragging rights.
Those small but not insignificant considerations I believe (plus the fact that Pete had a blah personality) made the difference in deciding whether to keep him or get someone else.
As far as George Martin goes, he was just being a bit picky on the Love me Do session in my opinion.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
Kent: I too have read that George played a central role in Pete's being pushed out and your fine point is well taken.
What has bothered me with that idea is that it was inconsistent with the manner in which George seemed to have lived his life. Further, I have never clearly understood what George's issues were with Pete. As far as I can tell, George himself was the brunt of criticism from John and Paul and was not known for his forceful nature.
While purely speculative on my part, is seems to me that there are several different stories coming from John, Paul and George and hence difficult to sort out the specific reason for Pete's departure. It is hard to imagine why the Beatles didn't see Pete as a "real Beatle" when they were so very accepting of Stuart who didn't seem to be able to play bass at all.
You are right, Ringo had the perfect temperament to resolve conflict within the band, but even he had his limits. I wonder what Ringo has to say about Pete's departure? He may be the most credible of the lot.
What bothers me about Pete's sacking is the manner in which it was carried out, without any reasonable explanation. Still to this day, if you believe Pete's story, he does not really know the answer why. I am reminded of George's lyrics which I consider quite appropriate here, "In their eyes there's something lacking, what they needs a damn good whacking."
What has bothered me with that idea is that it was inconsistent with the manner in which George seemed to have lived his life. Further, I have never clearly understood what George's issues were with Pete. As far as I can tell, George himself was the brunt of criticism from John and Paul and was not known for his forceful nature.
While purely speculative on my part, is seems to me that there are several different stories coming from John, Paul and George and hence difficult to sort out the specific reason for Pete's departure. It is hard to imagine why the Beatles didn't see Pete as a "real Beatle" when they were so very accepting of Stuart who didn't seem to be able to play bass at all.
You are right, Ringo had the perfect temperament to resolve conflict within the band, but even he had his limits. I wonder what Ringo has to say about Pete's departure? He may be the most credible of the lot.
What bothers me about Pete's sacking is the manner in which it was carried out, without any reasonable explanation. Still to this day, if you believe Pete's story, he does not really know the answer why. I am reminded of George's lyrics which I consider quite appropriate here, "In their eyes there's something lacking, what they needs a damn good whacking."
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
>>>was inconsistent with the manner in which George seemed to have lived his life.
Hadn't thought of that, and its a good point ... but keep in mind that we're also talking about George the 18-19 year old, not the man he later became. George came from a poorer neighborhood (compared to J&P) and, although younger, was likely as street-tough as anyone in that group when push came to shove. George's problems with Pete (as well and John and Paul's) certainly had a strong personal component and that is always difficult to describe, even (sometimes) by the people involved.
>>>It is hard to imagine why the Beatles didn't see Pete as a "real Beatle" when they were so very accepting of Stuart who didn't seem to be able to play bass at all.
To me, thats the point.... the rejection of Pete was almost all for interpersonal reasons, not the quality of his drumming. Apparently at that time being "a Beatle" had as much or more to do with being 'in' or 'out' of the John's tight-nit club than it had to do with actual musianship. Certainly that was true in the ebryonic days when Stu joined, because even Stu admitted that he couldn't play at all. John wanted his mate in the band and when the money from the art sale came in it was "whammo!"... instant Beatle.
I think Ringo could shed light on the issue but only to a point as he was (mostly) not there to witness the tension the others had with Pete. I would think that Paul would now be the only one... as well as Pete himself of course. Pete may say that he's still unsure about the reason, but in his excellent book "Beatle!" he talks about the fact that he was never part of the inner circle. Perhaps he needs to look no further than that for the ulitmate explanation.
Hadn't thought of that, and its a good point ... but keep in mind that we're also talking about George the 18-19 year old, not the man he later became. George came from a poorer neighborhood (compared to J&P) and, although younger, was likely as street-tough as anyone in that group when push came to shove. George's problems with Pete (as well and John and Paul's) certainly had a strong personal component and that is always difficult to describe, even (sometimes) by the people involved.
>>>It is hard to imagine why the Beatles didn't see Pete as a "real Beatle" when they were so very accepting of Stuart who didn't seem to be able to play bass at all.
To me, thats the point.... the rejection of Pete was almost all for interpersonal reasons, not the quality of his drumming. Apparently at that time being "a Beatle" had as much or more to do with being 'in' or 'out' of the John's tight-nit club than it had to do with actual musianship. Certainly that was true in the ebryonic days when Stu joined, because even Stu admitted that he couldn't play at all. John wanted his mate in the band and when the money from the art sale came in it was "whammo!"... instant Beatle.
I think Ringo could shed light on the issue but only to a point as he was (mostly) not there to witness the tension the others had with Pete. I would think that Paul would now be the only one... as well as Pete himself of course. Pete may say that he's still unsure about the reason, but in his excellent book "Beatle!" he talks about the fact that he was never part of the inner circle. Perhaps he needs to look no further than that for the ulitmate explanation.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
-
karl_teten
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:09 pm
The sacking of Pete was simply two things.
One, Pete never entered into the camaraderie that the other three had developed with one another.
Most of us have been in bands with a similar member situation. Nothing scientific about it.
Two, Pete(like Dennis Wilson) was a 4/4 pounder. Pete's drumming did not progress percussively along with the development of Lennon and McCartney's songwriting. George Martin initially saw this in Pete and voiced his professional opinion.
In the end The Beatles made a simple professional choice.
One, Pete never entered into the camaraderie that the other three had developed with one another.
Most of us have been in bands with a similar member situation. Nothing scientific about it.
Two, Pete(like Dennis Wilson) was a 4/4 pounder. Pete's drumming did not progress percussively along with the development of Lennon and McCartney's songwriting. George Martin initially saw this in Pete and voiced his professional opinion.
In the end The Beatles made a simple professional choice.
Succinct Karl and well stated.
While The Beatles' decision may have been a straightforward professional one, I have always wondered why they did not deal with Pete professionally.
While The Beatles' decision may have been a straightforward professional one, I have always wondered why they did not deal with Pete professionally.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
-
karl_teten
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:09 pm
There was definitely a lot of money invested by the summer of 1962 in The Beatles. Epstien was playing some of his last cards. Epstien also had something personally he needed to prove.
After the DECCA rejection, coming from a musicians standpoint, I would say The Beatles were ready to bend over backwards and shave their heads if that's what it would have taken to get signed. They gladly switched from leathers to smart suits quickly.
Cynthia was newly pregnant with Julian at the time of The Beatles first EMI audition. Lennon was feeling the heat and was also not married yet.
The powers of Abbey Road had their say. With everything out on the table and as cowardly as the sacking of Pete was, it was at that point inevitable.
After the DECCA rejection, coming from a musicians standpoint, I would say The Beatles were ready to bend over backwards and shave their heads if that's what it would have taken to get signed. They gladly switched from leathers to smart suits quickly.
Cynthia was newly pregnant with Julian at the time of The Beatles first EMI audition. Lennon was feeling the heat and was also not married yet.
The powers of Abbey Road had their say. With everything out on the table and as cowardly as the sacking of Pete was, it was at that point inevitable.