Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I saw Pete Best and his band last night in of all places Liverpool... New York! They played in a club that held about 400 people. Both guitar players used Ricks as did the bass player. They also all had truss rod covers made up that said "Liverpool" on them. They did alot of the same covers the Beatles did as well as a few Beatle songs. "One After 909" "Love Me Do" "My Bonnie" ... He was doing what they did in Hamburg pretty much. They were pretty good but here is the thing that baffles me and maybe somebody can explain it. There were TWO drummers??? We all have read all the reasons given as to why he was fired from the Beatles but the thing that gets me is, if you think it was NOT because of your drumming (like he does) then why would you have/need two drummers to play basic 60's English garage music?? You certainly are not helping dispel the "you are not good enough" crowd.

Isn't he doing a bunch of one-nighters? If so it would be pretty hard on a drummer who must be at least 60 years old to rock out every night.

I understand that but it's not like they are doing Led Zeppelin covers. Ginger Baker is near seventy and Cream did a reunion. It was four nights in five days but those are Cream songs which require ALOT more energy than anything Pete Best plays. His set was about about 75 minutes. He looked fine throughout his set. I don't think it's an energy thing because if it was his timing would suffer and he would be out of sync with the other drummer.

I think the other drummer is his son.

His son would be cool and understandable.

Mitch, were you able to hear enough to form an opinion of Best's drumming?

He plays that 60's style real well. His rolls were crisp and his timing was right on. Maybe back in the day that was not the case as George Martin said his timing was off. Drumming live and drumming in the studio are two totally different animals. Not only is your timing crucial in the studio but so is the consistency of how hard you are hitting your drums. Both of those can be off live (not so much the timing) and you can still make do. He has had forty years of practice since the timing allegation was made. If that was his son then it would certainly explain why there were two drummers.

I saw them in Lincoln,Nebraska 2 or 3 years back and it was 2 drummers as well. The other drummer was his brother. Got a chance to shake his hand and get a couple of autographs. My wife and I went (total cost $30.00) and it was a really good show. We got there early after having pizza and as we were sitting down at a table my wife said isnt that him? He was eating pizza at a table about 5 feet from us. It was strange to see someone you had seen in pictures,one who had played with the biggest bands and here he was at this small bar in the middle of the U.S. He seemed like a really nice guy and the show was well worth the money.

I still wonder what he must feel underneath that smile about going to Beatlefests and playing Beatles tunes. He's been doing the Beatlefest circuit for a long time. I know if that was me I'd have a difficult time accepting the circumstances and finding it hard to bite my tongue everytime someone asks me about my previous band that is now a legend.

I've got a DVD called "Best of the Beatles" (clever title, huh?) that came out last year. It's pretty cool to see/hear his side of the story. Nice interviews with Astrid and Klaus, lots of pictures I'd never seen, etc. etc. It was either $10 or $15 at Best Buy, so it wasn't a big expenditure to check it out.

I read a review of the DVD you are talking about and they said he didn't slam the other Beatles too much about his being fired. He seemed like a real nice guy and after the show signed an autograph for anybody that wanted one which was nearly everyone. Getting kicked out of what would become the world's biggest band ever, has got to eat at you. I would be ****** but then again it's hard to judge without knowing why. If the timing thing was truly an issue than that is a major problem especially since the Beatles became, for the most part, a studio band. Then again being in The Beatles, even before they made it big, has given him a career that has lasted to this day. Granted he's not at Madison Square Garden but it beats some ****** job doing something you hate. Who here on this forum wouldn't rather be playing their guitar for a career than whatever else they do. The Beatles at least gave him that.

Great comments Mitch. I saw him six years ago. Here is my review.

I bet when he got the gig guide for that tour Peter, his first retort was probably "Where the hell's Fredericton.?"

Never read that review before enjoyed it. I am certain he was dropped because of issues other than drumming, supposedly he never gelled with the others who were close.

Had The Beatles never taken off, because let's not forget at time he left they had not released anything, then the Pete Best story would have meant nothing.

However that said it must have been very difficult for him to watch what might have been.

I always think it was to the discredit of The Beatles that they never seemed to acknowledge him or make any comment throughout all the years.

I saw Pete Best too, about 3 years back. He did not perform music, but had an audiovisual presentation of his life and carreer. I found him talented, modest, not a harsh word about his former bandmates, he made a very good impression.
His drumming skills aside: Maybe he didn't posess the expanding talents needed to be a fourth Beatle of the future? Pete Best and psychedelia- does that match? Could he see himself in a Sgt. Pepper uniform? As a Yellow Submarine crew member? I never asked him these questions, but would have liked to hear his answers.

That was a great review Peter! Roy brings up a good point about John, Paul and George not acknowledging Best at all over the years. And that begs the question why, during any interviews... during OR after the Beatles reign, didn't anybody ever ask the question... Why was Pete Best let go? Was it a "forbidden" topic? Einar also brings up a very interesting question... could Best see himself drumming in a band that musically changed so much in such a short period of time. He still plays the same music and style he was playing 40 years ago. Could he have adapted to that. You read all the time about band members quitting because they didn't like the musical direction their respective groups were going in. No disrespect intended but Pete Best hasn't grown an inch musically.... at least not publically. His drumming may have gotten better but he doesn't stray off that same path he has been on all his life. All of our comments may be conjecture but they all raise good points.

Perhaps he hasn't grown musically, but then again, he wouldn't have had the same opportunities to. After all, I wonder how much the whole Beatle "experience" experienced by the Beatles influenced their musical growth? Who's to say how Best might have been influenced and grown had he been personally surrounded by and in touch with great contacts/influences and everything else that must have gone along with the Beatles' connections e.g., the friends they kept, the resources provided to them, their personal travels and exposure to other cultures and music, unlimited gear availability, musical producers/arrangers with great ideas, etc., etc.