Interview with Pete Best

Interview with Pete Best

October 16, 2005

More than 40 years later, Pete Best says he still doesn't know why the Beatles dumped him for Ringo

By BILL HARRIS -- Toronto Sun

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2005/10/16/1264163.html

Was Ringo Starr a better drummer than Pete Best?

"No," the friendly Best said, with a chuckle of resignation, during an exclusive interview with the Toronto Sun.

"Some people might say that's just drummer's pride being the way it is. But being truthful, no. That's my own personal opinion. Others may voice their own opinion, but you've asked me my opinion and I'm giving it."

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of rock 'n' roll knows the name Pete Best.

He was the drummer for the Beatles but was kicked out of the band and replaced by Ringo mere months before the lads gained international fame.

Amazingly, there still has been no communication between Pete Best and the Beatles since the day he was fired. Not a phone call. Not a card. Not a letter. No chance meetings on the streets of Liverpool.


"That's true," said Best, 64. "A lot of people might say, 'Oh, it's so easy to get in touch with them.' But when you actually put it in black and white, it brings reality home.

"Life goes on and you hold your head high. But I've done that basically on my own. Once the decision was made and the split actually took place, they went their way, I went mine, and there has been no sort of reconciliation since then."

Best continues to tour with his own band, something he has done since 1988, following 20 years in the British civil service. Best will play three shows in this area later this month (Oct. 25 at the Casbah in Hamilton, Oct. 26 at J's Place in Brantford and Oct. 27 at the Drake Hotel in Toronto).

Best recently released a new DVD, Best Of The Beatles, that tells his life story. It includes some shocking tales, such as the time Beatles manager Brian Epstein -- who was as openly gay as you could be in the 1960s -- propositioned Pete.

Did Pete's rejection of Brian's sexual advances have something to do with the ouster?

"It's just something that, yeah, it happened," Best told the Sun. "We were aware of Brian's gayness. The hit on me was made. It was rejected. People who were aware were like, 'You rejected him, you're in trouble.' Well, it's not my cup of tea. You do what you want, but you're not doing it with me."

Best does not recall there being any palpable tension between himself and Epstein afterward.

"Nope, not that anyone was aware of," Best said. "John (Lennon) and Cynthia (Lennon's first wife) killed themselves laughing, saying, 'What?' People around Liverpool said, 'You got (Epstein's) feathers ruffled because you wouldn't drop your (pants).' But look at it from my point of view."

Equally eyebrow-raising was Best's recollection of the night in Hamburg, Germany, in the early 1960s when the four lads from Liverpool tried to mug a sailor.

Paul McCartney and George Harrison chickened out at the last minute. So Pete and John jumped the guy. A scuffle ensued. They grabbed the sailor's wallet. But then they noticed the sailor had a gun in his hand.

"We heard this blast and we didn't wait around to see if it was a gas gun or a real gun," Best said. "We ran off."

Pete and John hurried back to where they were staying and met up with Paul and George again. Pete thought John had the wallet. John thought Pete had it. As it turned out, the wallet had been dropped in the panic and confusion.

"It had seemed so easy," Best said.

Obviously, any discussion with Best eventually drifts back to the same question. Theories have abounded through the years as to why Best got the axe.

"In my heart of hearts, I really don't know," Best said. "That's the enigma, the whole thing that is clouded in subterfuge. That mystery still prevails.

"There's at most only two or three people alive who may know the definitive reason, or would be prepared to say what the definitive reason was. But if that is mentioned as the definitive reason, it still is going to lay itself open to criticism. People would ask, 'Where is he coming from? What's his angle?' "

Best is past the point of bitterness. He has led a full life in the interim. But he does puzzle over the fact that the Beatles never have been able to keep their stories straight.

"They've never stuck to one particular, logical reason," Best said. "First of all, I was a crap drummer. Then they said I'd left the band. Then I was anti-social. Then Brian was inhibited. Then you get George turning around and saying I was becoming unreliable. We played 1,000 gigs and I missed four, so I plead the Fifth.

"So controversy arises, doesn't it? It's like, 'Hang on, guys, how many more reasons are you going to pile on to say that was the reason you got rid of me?' "

When Best was dumped, the Beatles already were the biggest band in Liverpool. Perhaps Best's good looks and popularity were worrisome to the other Beatles.

It's not as if Lennon, McCartney and Harrison weren't getting any attention. But maybe they felt Best was getting more of the focus than he deserved. For example, when the Beatles signed their first recording contract, at least one publication ran a picture of Pete -- alone.

"After the dismissal there was stigma and there was financial embarrassment," Best said. "One day you're in the No. 1 band in your area, earning damn good money for a kid, and all of a sudden your pay structure disappears overnight.

"You continue in show business for a few years, but once you're married, different priorities take over. I didn't have the best paying job in the civil service, but there was a promotion structure if you worked hard and there was security and safety."

Best insisted it is not painful to talk about his Beatles experience after all these years.

"It's lovely, because down the line maybe someone believes this enigma will be solved," Best said. "But at the present moment I'm as much in the dark as anyone.

"It might remain like the mystery of the Sphinx. If the reason does come out, and if you agree with it -- that's the key, if you agree with it -- then all well and good. But if not, it's not going to make a lot of difference to my life at this point."

Best identified the No. 1 misconception about him.

"The biggest misconception is that I don't talk," Best said. "If I don't talk, I wouldn't be doing this interview would I? And I have a sense of humour. I can make a few people laugh now and again. The guy is vocal."

Well, you were known as "mean, moody and magnificent," Pete. Old images die hard.

"Moody doesn't mean I don't talk," Best said with a laugh.

After what happened to Pete Best, if he can laugh and lead a happy life, surrounded by family and loyal friends, there really is no excuse for the rest of us.

Guess he'll never get over it!

Get over it Pete! Sh*t happens to everyone now and again.

Still, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. How traumatic it must have been for him to a) see people playing him in movies and b) being sacked the way he was. The Fabs had Brian Epstein break the news to him.

One minute he's riding the wave of fame and the next he's wiped out. Sad.

I can understand him going on about it for a few years after it he got kicked out but its been nearly 45 years now!!!

I think I'd respect him a little more if he were like "Yeah, I was good, but Ringo was better and he fit in with the rest of their personalities better than I did, so there you go..." and let it lie. That he acts like he has no idea why he got sacked because, you know, he was so awesome, kind of bugs me. And to blame it on turning down a proposition from Brian seems sort of lame. If he were really that good and that vital to the group, that wouldn't have made a bit of difference. See Lennon, John.

Maybe if we give Pete the script, he can learn the lines and reach that point. Seriously, it sounds as if the dude don't take no responsibility for the way he related (or failed to relate) to the other band members. Plainly it was not a good fit or a good match, otherwise they would never have sacked him. And yeah, if he was that vital to the group, he would never have turned Brian's helping hand away.

It sounds to me as if Pete just has some poor judgment and some big issues that loom large in his legend.

Originally Posted by beatlebangs1964

Still, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. How traumatic it must have been for him to a) see people playing him in movies and b) being sacked the way he was. The Fabs had Brian Epstein break the news to him.

One minute he's riding the wave of fame and the next he's wiped out. Sad.

I don't know...I think it'd be kind of cool to see oneself as a character in a movie. Being fired by the manager, all things considered, was probably the best way of handling a very unpleasant situation. To be honest, I'd have a hard time imagining Pete Best as a Beatle in the later years of more exploratory music. He seems to have been always first and foremost a rocker, and I can't see him fitting into the music of 1965 and after. Maybe the Beatles sensed in Ringo a hint that he was headed to the same place spiritually as they.

What I do object to is the way he got trashed after being kicked out. They could have just said they'd had musical differences, or something of that nature, rather than drag the man through the mud.

I don't know guys, you gotta really think about it. He was in the BIGGEST group ever, and they're even bigger today then they were back then. And there's always something in the news about one of the Beatles, so I think it would be hard forget about it. It's like winning the lottery but you lost the ticket, wouldn't that bug you the rest of your life?
I know I would still bitch about it for a long time coming.

Originally Posted by Rellevart

I think I'd respect him a little more if he were like "Yeah, I was good, but Ringo was better and he fit in with the rest of their personalities better than I did, so there you go..." and let it lie. That he acts like he has no idea why he got sacked because, you know, he was so awesome, kind of bugs me. And to blame it on turning down a proposition from Brian seems sort of lame. If he were really that good and that vital to the group, that wouldn't have made a bit of difference. See Lennon, John.

Pete didn't have the willingness to change with the
times and that may have been his biggest flaw as a
Beatle. The Beatles were constantly changing their
style and direction. He wouldn't even change his
haircut, kept it in the 50's style instead. Could he have
kept up with them? I doubt it. Ringo was one of the most
versatile drummers ever, and contributed his skill and wit
to the band.
Was Pete really so hot-looking? I never saw it. He did
appear on "I've Got a Secret" and he was okay and nice
and all. But I can't imagine the Beatles without Ringo.
When I was 5, to me, he was the Beatles!

I feel sorry for what happened to Pete in 1962. But now... yeah I agree, you have to let it go after over forty years. If he doesn't know why he was sacked now, I doubt he'll ever know.
I guess it's all Pete really has to say, though, after all these years of interviews. He's still holding onto that one link he used to have with the greatest band of all time. I suppose you can't really blame him for not wanting to forget that he could've been so famous.

I've never gotten the impression that Pete is still hung up over what happened. It's just that he's constantly asked about it so he has no choice to continually bring up the whole "I don't know why I was sacked". John was asked once how he met Yoko by an interviewer who added "though I'm sure you've answered this question a thousand times in the past". "Yeah but the person asking the question doesn't know so I'll answer it again".

If anyone in the Beatles story has a right to be bitter it's Pete. But this is one of the few guys from their past who hasn't shown up to write a tell all book in an attempt to make money by hurting them. I mean, he could've blown the lid off of their moptop image in 1964 by selling all the seedy Hamburg stories to some paper or publisher and gotten his revenge, but still chose to be quiet and I find that commendable. Lord knows he had nothing to lose.

I think it's a bit tacky when he says things like "Once a Beatle always a Beatle" and releases "Best of the Beatles" albums and books, but I mean if that's the worst that he does...

Hey he missed out on Beatlemania and therefore is literally, the unluckiest guy alive. But he never comes across as bitter or snipping and actually seems content with his life. If he can lose everything and still smile, I think he's pretty cool.

Well said Jongo McHarrison! (brilliant name btw) I think the media keep bringing up the old feuds and stories (as they do with other celebs that have split for whatever reasons) and all a person can do is answer them as they always have. As for Pete Best, I really do feel he has moved on from 1962 (except when others bring it up and he feels he has to answer them. He does have a right to have his voice heard.) and right now he's happy to play his brand of rock and roll with a new band to the delight of his fans.

Originally Posted by Jongo McHarrison

I've never gotten the impression that Pete is still hung up over what happened. It's just that he's constantly asked about it so he has no choice to continually bring up the whole "I don't know why I was sacked". John was asked once how he met Yoko by an interviewer who added "though I'm sure you've answered this question a thousand times in the past". "Yeah but the person asking the question doesn't know so I'll answer it again".

If anyone in the Beatles story has a right to be bitter it's Pete. But this is one of the few guys from their past who hasn't shown up to write a tell all book in an attempt to make money by hurting them. I mean, he could've blown the lid off of their moptop image in 1964 by selling all the seedy Hamburg stories to some paper or publisher and gotten his revenge, but still chose to be quiet and I find that commendable. Lord knows he had nothing to lose.

I think it's a bit tacky when he says things like "Once a Beatle always a Beatle" and releases "Best of the Beatles" albums and books, but I mean if that's the worst that he does...

Hey he missed out on Beatlemania and therefore is literally, the unluckiest guy alive. But he never comes across as bitter or snipping and actually seems content with his life. If he can lose everything and still smile, I think he's pretty cool.

I agree 100% !

I saw the interview he did in Montréal, and he struck me as very much at peace with himself, and with all that situation.

As you mentionned, the reason he still talks about... is because people still ask him about it, in fact, it's usually what he's asked first and most.

Of all the people involved with The Beatles, Pete could have easily written a book or publicly blasted John, Paulk and George for what happened...

... but he hasn't ! And, if only for that, he deserves credit.

Considering what happened to him... and HOW it happened, the other three should thank their lucky stars that Pete is not on a vandetta.

Also, as much as we could blame him for getting axed from the band, we could and should also look at John, Paul and George's attitudes in all of this.

No matter why Pete was actually booted out, the other three should have been ''men enough'' to tell him to his face, and not make Brian do the dirty work for them.

John was the only one who later had the guts to publicly admit that they had not acted correctly towards Pete at that occasion... but none of them ever called him back to play on one of their solo works...

... which would have been the least that they could have done.

Originally Posted by Rellevart

I think I'd respect him a little more if he were like "Yeah, I was good, but Ringo was better and he fit in with the rest of their personalities better than I did, so there you go..." and let it lie.

... as if John, Paul, George or Ringo wouldn't let their own ego get in the way of saying something like that... about anything ?

I have got into one Argument on here about Pete but in my opinion his arrogance is shown in the "I'm a Better Drummer than Ringo" statement, when George Martin said he couldn't keep time very well, and when i've seen him, he's still rolling away it's like he's obsessed with doing rolls. you can hear it on the early recordings. i know it's been well Documented that George Martin thought Ringo "Couldn't do a roll to save his life" but Ringo Redeemed himself, in my opinion Ringo was a better drummer and a Better Beatle, he had the Voice. Pete's voice was like an old man's back in the early 60's. and he disputes all the Beatles reasons as to why he was sacked? has he ever considered that it might be a number of reasons instead of just one? he's certainly made up for lost time anyway, he's now a millionaire, he gets money from telling the same stories over and over again (i hardly see how "shocking" that story about Brian coming onto him is. i've heard him tell it a million times before that DVD and the story about them Robbing that Sailor) i do feel sorry for what happened to him but i do agree he should get over it, he's had his money off it, he meets new young fans (he still thinks he's a hit with the ladies i've heard) at conventions, he's done ok for himself has "The Beatle That Time Forgot"

-Dom

Originally Posted by Maccaboy

I know it's been well Documented that George Martin thought Ringo "Couldn't do a roll to save his life" but Ringo Redeemed himself

Perhaps more pertinently, he was given the opportunity to redeem himself...

In a sense Best won
For a start he managed to keep the same wife.
He had no problems with mind altering chemicals or transcendental meditation
And in the end he made plenty of money and became even more famous

FCat, you have made some excellent points. True, Best
did not ride the Beatle train and secure a place as a
most beloved rocker, but he did have a stable person-
al life. What you stated above speaks volumes in how
fortunate he was in a major sphere of his life.

Originally Posted by Georgie Girl

Pete didn't have the willingness to change with the
times and that may have been his biggest flaw as a
Beatle. The Beatles were constantly changing their
style and direction. He wouldn't even change his
haircut, kept it in the 50's style instead. Could he have
kept up with them? I doubt it. Ringo was one of the most
versatile drummers ever, and contributed his skill and wit
to the band.
Was Pete really so hot-looking? I never saw it. He did
appear on "I've Got a Secret" and he was okay and nice
and all. But I can't imagine the Beatles without Ringo.
When I was 5, to me, he was the Beatles!

True -- the dude didn't even adopt Beatle coiffed locks
and wore that gruesome pompadour throughout his
short bask in the sun.

The Beatles were major movers and shakers and change
was what they were all about -- Pete never impressed me
as being overly witty and Ringo's wit was a vital part of
the Beatle banter!

I never thought Pete was hot looking. All right, he was
funny on that game show, but I just don't think of Pete
as a Beatle. As for hot looking, we know the Messrs.
Harrison and McCartney (IMHO - subjectively speaking)
were the hot looking fabs!

When I asked at the Beatles Shop in Liverpool whether the DVD was available or if they stocked it I was told "we don't stock Pete Best".They also didn't know anything about it