Why Did The Beatles Let Pete Best Go?

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Thu Dec 07, 2000 11:05 am

I accept that Ringo was the better drummer, but Pete made a living by drumming for the Beatles for 2 years so he also qualified as a "pro". Would he have lasted 2 years with the Beatles if he was no good at all ? I doubt it. According to most accounts his drumming was a big part of their sound at one point, he invented the "Atom Beat" (whatever that was !). In all likelihood the final straw was George Martin's opinion and their desparation to get the recording session, but I'm sure many other factors were involved too.

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Thu Dec 07, 2000 8:38 pm

By the Beatles own admission, they were not very good when they first went to Hamburg. They had been offered the gig but at that point they had no drummer. They saw Best (and his brand new drum set)at Mona's club on Aug. 6, 1960 and asked him to join on the 12th. On the 16th they were off to Germany, amateurs all. In those two years they made great strides, but some made greater strides than others. Stuart Sutcliffe never became much of a player. And judging by the available recordings neither did Best. I think your right, Tim, that Martin's opinion was fatal to Best. And that may have had something to do with Ringo's nervousness. (Ringo's self-doubts throughout his Beatles career are well documented). But in the eyes of the other Beatles, Ringo was the best they knew (hence my reference to him as a "pro"). Best was getting paid just like everyone else, so technically he too was a pro, but his playing was amateurish. They simply outgrew him. Granted, maybe they didn't like Pete much - but they did like Sutcliffe and they dropped him too (or they would have had he not quit on his own). I think we should just face the fact that after two years Best was no longer up to the job.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Thu Dec 07, 2000 10:29 pm

I have to disagree that John, Paul and George were amateurs when they went to Germany the first time. They all met in the summer of '57 and were rock and roll, guitar crazy for three years before heading to Germany in the fall of '60. They weren't just a bunch of kids playing on toy
guitars. John Lennon was 20 years old already and Paul 18 with George being the 'deportable' one at 17. So they were singing and harmonizing together for three years before going to Germany, practicing nearly every day and playing as much as possible. The Scottish tour saw the start of Beatlemania according to Johnny Gentle. I guess George saying the group was pretty crummy at this time doesn't do much to help the picture, but I think he can't remember a lot but is quoting what even he reads in Beatle books. Just think about it and put yourself into their place, three years of practicing together is a long time. And especially when you are gifted like these guys were. Hamburg took what they already had and made it even better. They had Tommy Moore on drums before the Scottish tour and through that tour. George stated once that he was the best drummer The Beatles ever had. Pete Best had played with The Blackjacks at The Casbah and couldn't have been that terrible as he had been playing for about a year at this time. And they all had youth on their side, that great attitude to go for it. Anyway, I think we need to look at this and realize Lennon was 20 the first time he went to Hamburg and had been playing and singing with McCartney and Harrison for 3 years. They were much better at this point than nearly all of the books give them credit for.

Marcel_Daguerre · Post by **Marcel_Daguerre** » Fri Dec 08, 2000 12:52 am

Well we might like to imagine it that way, but the fact of the matter is George and John both felt that at this point they were wankers, and how good could they have been if they couldn't even find themselves a regular drummer. As for Pete Best, we probably both know musicians who have been playing in bands for years who aren't very good, so Best's one year with the Blackjacks is not evidence of much. And the Casbah was his mom's club - wonder how they got that gig. There are no reports of the Beatles picking him because of how great he was - he had a drum set; that's it. Furthermore, they didn't exactly knock them dead in Hamburg when they got there. They were playing to empty houses most of the time. That is where they learned their trade. They became pros in Hamburg - not before.

The_Ed · Post by **The_Ed** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 3:43 pm

Look - someone said it in this list here- M. Light - listen to Love Me Do on the Anthology. Pete Best's timing and feel are terrible. If this is indicative of his CREATIVE contribution to an original song, the Beatles would never have gotten out of the North club scene. Maybe he could play all the covers adequately, but the drumming on the harmonica break of this original - something that called on musical ability more than rote mimicry - is just dreadful. No wonder George Martin was so freaked out. Anyone who has ever been in a band knows that personality and popularity are important things in the beginning, but when you're writing good original material, contribution is essential. Pete Best did not make the grade based on the , albeit, limited evidence available.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 10:27 pm

Terrible and dreadful are pretty strong adjectives. Pete definitely was an adequate drummer, I believe Ringo was a better drummer. Pete may have been popular with the girls in Liverpool, but his personality did not fit with the other Beatles. I think this is even more important than his drumming skills. If he would have hung out more with John, Paul and George and had their great sense of humor it would have made it harder to sack him. You have to put your mind back to late '62. The Beatles wanted to reach the top, but even Ringo said he wanted to make enough money to have several hair dressing salons.
They didn't know how far they would take their music at this time. So I personally think it was Pete's personality that didn't fit and that's why they got rid of him. They had been thinking of sacking him, and when George Martin didn't like his drumming that clinched it.

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:28 pm

Ringo must have been ambitious at the time, and realised the Beatles were going places : he quit Rory Storm's Hurricanes at 3 days notice in the middle of a Butlins season to join them. A recording session must have been seen as a big, big deal for them.

The_Ed · Post by **The_Ed** » Thu Dec 28, 2000 3:59 pm

I agree Pete Best was adequate. I'm sure his drumming carried them through some very important periods. However, be it nerves or a lack of creativity, I stand by the statement that Pete Best's drumming on the available performance of Love Me Do is awful. No reflection on him as a person or his abilities today. Additionally, I think the personality issue was huge, I agree completely -- but (and I admit great hindsight here) the musical problems looming in the immediate future for a Beatles line up w/Pete Best would ultimately have been just as damning. Pete's timing seems (somewhat) steadier on the Decca tapes, but again, his creativity on the originals raises serious questions about what he would (could?) have done with material such as Please Please Me or She Loves You. Additionally, I know the Decca session has a whole host of problems, but the loose, lifelessness of the rhythm section is palpably awkward at times. Yes, he was adequate. However, The Beatles were spectacular with Ringo.

Steve_B · Post by **Steve_B** » Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:36 pm

In August of 1997 I was in Liverpool and ran into Neil Aspinall's sister and her husband near the site of the resurrected Cavern Club. They were nice enough to be "interviewed" on a couple of subjects. One of the questions was "why was Pete Best kicked out". According to them it was because of Pete's frequent unavailability for gigs and also because the other three were jealous of Pete. I tend to believe this as Neil was a very good friend of Pete's and probably passed this info on to his sister at the time of Pete getting the "boot".

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Dec 28, 2000 8:04 pm

These are points that have been discussed previously as reasonable hypotheses for The Beatles getting rid of Pete Best. I attended an evening with Pete Best in September 2000 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Pete did not subscribe to the theory that it was because he missed gigs. He related that perhaps missed on performance. Moreover, The Beatles had the opportunity to fall back on this excuse in their new Anthology but did not do so. I still find, however, that the jealously argument holds some water.

Me · Post by Me » Tue Jan 02, 2001 2:00 pm

I've got a video called "The Compleat Beatles" which came out in 1982. On there, George Martin says that after listening to the Beatles for a couple hours in a studio, just listening to hear what they could do, he decided he wanted to sign them...On one condition...Pete Best would not drum on the albums. He didn't care if they kept him live, but he felt that he just wasn't good enough to keep a beat on an album. He told Brian Epstein, I don't care what you do live, but you're going to need a better drummer to record with, we'll use a session drummer. the reason he didn't say to replace him all together was because he knew Pete had become the most popular one among the girls in Liverpool. When Brian mentioned this to John, Paul and George they all came out and admitted they were unhappy with his drumming as well and decided to go ahead and replace him all together. While John, Paul and George may have resented the fact that Pete was the more popular one and used this as an excuse to get rid of him, it was George Martin who decided from the first listening that he just wasn't a good enough drummer.

Or maybe they just trusted the judgement of George Martin and Brian Epstein that much that they decided to go with their decision...Let's face it, they were young guys being offered a contract. They were told by this big shot guy that he felt the drummer wasn't very good, but they did want the other three...What would you do? Would you say, "We better keep Pete, he's a nice guy." or "We've been feeling the same way for a while, let's get a new drummer." I would say the average person would probably try to impress George Martin by agreeing with him. Just something to think about.

fatrat · Post by **fatrat** » Sun Jan 14, 2001 4:42 pm

Yeah Ringo was the best Drummer for the Beatles, no doubt about it. I used to hear from goofy drummers who would debate "if only the Beatles had had John Bonham." 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 sould have done it themselves. That is a fact.

Here's something to think about. It's 1967, and your Pete Best, the Beatles are the biggest band in the world and you don't have a pot to **** in. Now that had to suck for him.
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.

Yeah, he wasn't as good as Ringo and all that, but that's no reason to black ball the guy from the history of the band. I know it has to be embarrasing for McCartney and for Ringo too. But just say "you screwed up" and move on instead of this whole P.R. thing going on for years saying how bad he was and he wasn't showing up for gigs and he wouldnt get a Beatle hairdo. Well, I've seen photos of him in 65 with one, so stop with all that. If the Beatles would just say, he was stealing some of our fire, and we thought it best to get someone a little lower key, that sounds real.

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 didnt show up from the Beatles. Was he out drunk, did he get sick alot?? 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.

I like the Beatles alot but dont forget they were bastards, and would do anything to make it. It didn't matter who got in the way. That was a Lennon quote by the way, not mine.
Pete was more popular in Liverpool with girls. He had a fan club before the other Beatles had one. He read all the books, it's a fact. Paul had already got Stu out because he was pulling all the women in Hamburg and he had a real close friendship with Lennon. The fact that he wasn't really a bass player, I can see that one.

Now the other three had big egos so Pete being more popular, couldn't have set very well. George says in the new book that it was he that wanted Ringo in the band. I think he is tring to take some heat off McCartney. At the time he was the runt in the band and I dont really think he would have had the pull of a Lennon or McCartney to get someone out of the Beatles.

Im glad the Beatles turned out the band they did, worts and all. I love Ringo's drumming I think he is one of the best if not the best Rock drummer there is. He is very primitive and plays by feel. He is not techical at all. I would give Neil Pert of Rush as the perfect example of overboard. Ringo is maybe second only to Charlie Watts, although I feel Charlie isn't totally on the same playing field, being from a Jazz back ground. I think drummers know what I'm tring to say here. But give a brother a break.

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?

FATRAT

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Sun Jan 14, 2001 4:59 pm

There's no good way to fire someone. Best to make it short and get it over quickly - maybe that's what they did. I should think they're ashamed about it, but history shows that they can hardly regret it.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Jan 14, 2001 5:21 pm

Tim: I agree The Beatles had to move on and Pete Best was in their way, perhaps on several different levels. Having said that, I don't think that there is any statute of limitations with respect to making a public apology. The Anthology book was the perfect opportunity to do this. I was quite disappointed that the living Beatles did not say more about this situation. As it is, why he was sacked depends on which Beatle you talk to and the Anthology reminds me of the inconsistency of The Beatles' explanations over the years.

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. There is more to this than we know. Let's hope we learn more about it in this lifetime.

Tim_Fletcher · Post by **Tim_Fletcher** » Sun Jan 14, 2001 5:48 pm

Peter, I don't think we will. The remaining Beatles seem to regard it as a closed issue and my guess is that it will stay that way.