"Sorry Pete..."

Paolo Meccano · Jun 16, 2003, 03:16 PM

Hello everyone, [img]graemlins/wave2.gif[/img] *

Does anybody know if John, Paul or George ever apologised to Pete Best for kicking him out of the Beatles? I know John was remorseful later on ("We were cowards..." etc) but did any of Pete's former bandmates say sorry in person at any point? It'd be a terrible stain on the Beatles' history if they never did. [img]graemlins/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

Johnna Lynn · Jun 16, 2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Paolo Meccano:
Hello everyone, [img]graemlins/wave2.gif[/img] *

Does anybody know if John, Paul or George ever apologised to Pete Best for kicking him out of the Beatles? I know John was remorseful later on ("We were cowards..." etc) but did any of Pete's former bandmates say sorry in person at any point? It'd be a terrible stain on the Beatles' history if they never did. [img]graemlins/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

To quote George Harrison "There was alot of ego in that band." I doubt anyone apologised. [img]graemlins/shakehead2.gif[/img]

DizzymissLizzy909 · Jun 16, 2003, 07:55 PM

I think you're right, Johnna. I've never heard of any apology to Pete. Man, I feel pretty sorry for him, though. He nearly became one of the most famous people in the world. Do you think the band would have been as or even more popular if he was the drummer instead of Ringo?

lennon4 · Jun 16, 2003, 08:54 PM

Well...from my point of view, Ringo helped to tie the Beatles together. I don't think they'd all be such a close group had Pete stayed. This, of course, could have led to an earlier breakup.

-lennon4

Rellevart · Jun 17, 2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By DizzymissLizzy909:
Do you think the band would have been as or even more popular if he was the drummer instead of Ringo?

No, I don't think so. Pete just didn't fit, personality-wise.

They probably didn't apologize to him, but then again, few employers apologize for firing people. Yeah, I know you'll say it's different because they were friends and that's true, but perhaps that make the case for not working with your friends......

beatlebangs1964 · Jun 17, 2003, 06:53 AM

George said the Beatles without Ringo was like driving a car with three wheels - Ringo was a vital and integral member of the band.

From all accounts, Pete did not fit in. Many books have chronicled Pete's late arrival to rehearsals, his seemingly casual attitude towards the music and that he was not a good match personality wise with the other Beatles.

In 1993 he was a guest on Oprah! and he said he went into a real depression in 1964 after the Beatles' meteoric rise to fame because he was a heartbeat away from sharing that glory.

Blackguard · Jun 17, 2003, 07:30 AM

Pete Best is a rudimentary drummer. In Hamburg Paul, George and John had to stomp their feet in unison to keep Pete in time.

You can't be creative and explore different styles with a garage band drummer.

abbeysoul9 · Jun 18, 2003, 02:00 PM

EH I didn't like him anyway! What is he trying to do, making some cash off a book with a title which is something called "Beatles: A True Beginning"? It's terribly annoying! Leave 'em alone! Jeez... RIngo's better!
GO ringo! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Magill · Jun 18, 2003, 02:28 PM

Why should the guys apologize? The guy was not a team player and just wasn't very good on the drums. He'd be late or not even show up for the gigs. Eventually, they found someone more reliable and a far better drummer than Pete. If anybody had a huge ego in that bunch, it was Pete; the band's "chick magnet" [img]graemlins/images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] (I didn't think he was cute at all!). IMHO, I don't think the guys owed Pete any apologies. He made his bed. Being let go by Brian was sufficient. I may sound like a hard ass but I really don't feel sorry for Pete.

Paolo Meccano · Jun 18, 2003, 03:04 PM

I really feel I should step in and save Pete from the kicking that he's getting here and try and answer some of the criticisms that are often levelled at him:-

1) He wasn't a good drummer: Before the Beatles went to Hamburg with Pete, they were widely regarded as one of the worst groups in Liverpool: when they returned, they came to be seen as one of the best. The by all accounts volatile Hamburg crowds didn't seem to have a problem with his drumming, neither did Tony Sheridan or Polydor records. Pete isn't the reason the Beatles failed the Decca audition - my money's on Paul. When the group passed the audition for BBC radio, the only Beatle singled out for criticism was again Paul. Only when George Martin said that he'd prefer to use a session drummer in place of the unused-to-the-studio Pete were the Beatles finally given the excuse they were looking for to kick Pete out and get Ringo in: it's often forgotten that initially, George Martin didn't think Ringo was good enough either...

2) Pete was unreliable: By all accounts, Paul was the most unreliable Beatle in those early days...

3) Pete was too quiet: Oh, and none of the other Beatles ever developed a reputation as a 'Quiet One'?

4) He wasn't a creative drummer: Well he really wasn't given the opportunity to develop into one was he? One imagines that if Pete had remained the Beatles' drummer, there would have been a lot more rockers and far fewer mawkish ballads...

It can't be overstated how important Pete Best was to the Beatles' career: If Pete hadn't had joined, they wouldn't have got the Hamburg gig. If they hadn't had got the Hamburg gig, they wouldn't have improved so much, in such a short period of time. If they hadn't had improved so much, they wouldn't have made such an impact on their return to Liverpool. If they hadn't made such an impact, they wouldn't have been the first Liverpool group to gain a recording contract and we all know what happened next... The Beatles were perfectly within their rights to replace Pete with Ringo but they couldn't have picked a worse moment to do so if they'd tried . If they really felt he was such a bad drummer, why didn't they get rid of him sooner? Whichever way you look at it, Pete was treated extremely shabbily by his former bandmates and the apparent absence of a personal apology compounds this ill-treatment further.

Magill · Jun 18, 2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Paolo Meccano:
George Martin didn't think Ringo was good enough either...

No. According to what Sir George said in Anthology, he wouldn't let Ringo play for the recording of "Love Me Do" simply because he didn't know him from Adam. Sir George had already hired Andy White because he was a professional session drummer and was only acting in the best interest of the group at that moment.

Quote:

(2) Pete was unreliable: By all accounts, Paul was the most unreliable Beatle in those early days...

This is a new one on me. Is this in Pete's new book? [img]graemlins/laugh5.gif[/img] C'mon! Paul AND John were the hardest working Beatles, busy writing all those classics we adore today. Yeah, they were very social Beatles ( [img]graemlins/eyebrows.gif[/img] ) but I've never heard Paul being regarded as unreliable by anyone. [img]graemlins/shakehead4.gif[/img]

Quote:

4) He wasn't a creative drummer: Well he really wasn't given the opportunity to develop into one was he? One imagines that if Pete had remained the Beatles' drummer, there would have been a lot more rockers and far fewer mawkish ballads...

Whhhaaaat?!? Put on the White Album. Revolver. Abbey Road. If they rocked any harder they would have been Led Zeppelin. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Quote:

[qb]If they really felt he was such a bad drummer, why didn't they get rid of him sooner?[qb]

I suppose the same reason why the hung on to Stu as long as they did before he left on his own. The were all friends but I think in time they just wanted to get better and just be a good band. Yeah, in the beginning they weren't all that great. They were just kids, learning. They were lucky to hook up with Ringo like they did. I can't even imagine the Beatles with Pete in it. Ringo had the right personality and the right beat. There's no denying that.

Boogaloo Sixty-Four · Jun 18, 2003, 03:53 PM

I swear; it's better than daytime TV...J, P and G were already committed to Pete; but they were bored, so they took up with Ringo behind his back. Then they broke things off with Pete through Brian. Then they made it official with Ringo...even though he was already seriously involved with Rory Storm... [img]graemlins/crosseyed5.gif[/img]

Heck, they could write a soap about it...Only a Northern Band. It would be better than East Enders!

Paolo Meccano · Jun 19, 2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

I swear; it's better than daytime TV...J, P and G were already committed to Pete; but they were bored, so they took up with Ringo behind his back. Then they broke things off with Pete through Brian. Then they made it official with Ringo...even though he was already seriously involved with Rory Storm...

Heck, they could write a soap about it...Only a Northern Band. It would be better than East Enders!

Couldn't agree with you more Boogaloo Sixty-Four! [img]graemlins/images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] *

Quote:

Originally Posted By Paolo Meccano:
George Martin didn't think Ringo was good enough either...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. According to what Sir George said in Anthology, he wouldn't let Ringo play for the recording of "Love Me Do" simply because he didn't know him from Adam. Sir George had already hired Andy White because he was a professional session drummer and was only acting in the best interest of the group at that moment.

'I've a feeling that Paul wasn't too happy with Ringo's drumming [on 'Love Me Do'], and felt it could be better. He didn't make too good a job of it. I remember too that there was a fair bit of editing to be done.' - Norman Smith

'George Martin didn't like Ringo. Ringo at that point was not that steady on time. Now he is rock steady, it's always been his greatest attribute and that is why we wanted him. But to George he was not as pinpoint as a session guy would be. So Ringo got blown off the first record.' - Paul McCartney

'I'm not very sure about this, but one of the reasons they also asked Pete to leave was George Martin didn't like Pete's drumming. When I went down to play, he didn't like me either, so he called on Andy White, a professional session man, to play the session.' - Ringo Starr

'I would often do three sessions in one day, and 'Love Me Do' was just another of those sessions. I got a call in the morning [11 Sep 1962] saying that George Martin wanted me to replace Ringo's drumming. When Ringo walked in, I think he was surprised to see me.' - Andy White

The above quotes suggest that George Martin wasn't happy with Ringo as a drummer either (though he later changed his mind of course) and only called in Andy White after seeing Ringo in action.

Quote:

(2) Pete was unreliable: By all accounts, Paul was the most unreliable Beatle in those early days...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a new one on me. Is this in Pete's new book? C'mon! Paul AND John were the hardest working Beatles, busy writing all those classics we adore today. Yeah, they were very social Beatles ( ) but I've never heard Paul being regarded as unreliable by anyone.

'I got to know them [The Beatles] very well and we became close over the months. But, they could be difficult and their timekeeping was not very good. Paul was the worst!' - Bob Wooler

'Three of the Beatles arrived at the appointed time of four o'clock [03 Dec 1961, the Beatles' first meeting with Brian Epstein]. I was very busy ordering records and Paul didn't show at all for at least three-quarters of an hour.' - Brian Epstein

Bob Wooler was of course the resident compere at the Cavern and introduced the Beatles on many occasions. Try as I might, the Brian Epstein quote is the only one I can find where he criticises the Pete Best-era Beatles for their lack of punctuality or reliability. [img]graemlins/thinker.gif[/img] *

Quote:

4) He wasn't a creative drummer: Well he really wasn't given the opportunity to develop into one was he? One imagines that if Pete had remained the Beatles' drummer, there would have been a lot more rockers and far fewer mawkish ballads...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whhhaaaat?!? Put on the White Album. Revolver. Abbey Road. If they rocked any harder they would have been Led Zeppelin.

From 1964 onwards, the Beatles were losing ground to the groups (such as The Kinks, The Who and later, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream and Led Zeppelin) who were in the forefront of the new 'Rock' scene. It wasn't until the emergence of psychedelia in 1966/67 that the Beatles became true innovators once again. If the Beatles had remained an out-and-out rock group (with or without Pete), they would probably have beaten The Kinks to the punch by a year or so. Which would have been no bad thing.

As for whether Pete ever got (is is likely to get) an apology, it seems very unlikely. It would be nice though - hell, even Jimmy Nicol got a gold watch! [img]graemlins/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Magill · Jun 19, 2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Paolo Meccano:
'George Martin didn't like Ringo. Ringo at that point was not that steady on time.

Hmmm..didn't know that. Interesting...

Quote:

The above quotes suggest that George Martin wasn't happy with Ringo as a drummer either (though he later changed his mind of course) and only called in Andy White after seeing Ringo in action.

Yes, at first. Maybe Ringo was a bit nervous, who knows? But, the only evidence of Andy's drumming is buried in the Anthology tapes.

Quote:

'I got to know them [The Beatles] very well and we became close over the months. But, they could be difficult and their timekeeping was not very good. Paul was the worst!' - Bob Wooler

This is the Cavern days, eh? I was actually referring to the later years but, oh well..
They were all quite the hellyuns in those days. [img]graemlins/beer2.gif[/img]

Quote:

'Three of the Beatles arrived at the appointed time of four o'clock [03 Dec 1961, the Beatles' first meeting with Brian Epstein]. I was very busy ordering records and Paul didn't show at all for at least three-quarters of an hour.' - Brian Epstein

So..Paul is deemed as 'unreliable' for being tardy once? [img]graemlins/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Quote:

[/b]As for whether Pete ever got (is is likely to get) an apology, it seems very unlikely. It would be nice though - hell, even Jimmy Nicol got a gold watch! [img]graemlins/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [/QB]

His name is in the history books. He's probably making millions for his book not to mention his appearances at Beatle functions everywhere. I'd say Pete has a few gold watches of his own. I'm sure Paul ( [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] sad to think he's the only Beatle left to list here [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] ) doesn't respect Pete too much for selling out. Check the footage of when Pete appeared on "What's My Line", back in the early '60's. He says he left the Beatles to pursue his own ventures. Not quite true, is it? A bit contradictory, isn't it? I went out with this guy who knew Pete, travelled with him and partied (drank) with him. He told him that after he was fired, none of the guys ever called or wrote. It makes you kind of wonder what really happened, doesn't it? You'd think he would have surely made one friend within in the Fab Four. [img]graemlins/thinker.gif[/img]

Savoy Truffle · Jun 19, 2003, 07:52 PM

I feel kind of sorry for Pete the way it was handled but as Rellevart said you don't usually apologize to people you fire. I think George summed it up well in Anthology when he said:

"History may show that we may have done something nasty to Pete, and maybe we could have done it better....but...as history also shows, Ringo was the member of the band, it's just that he didn't enter the film until that particular scene" (I'm quoting from memory here so one or two words might be a bit wrong, but I think I've got it pretty accurate)

leonardobeat · Jun 22, 2003, 12:37 PM

I'm sorry for Pete too, must be like if you won the lotery and you lose the ticket.

As far as I know Pete is one of the biggest John's fans. He said once that John was a great guy before and after getting fame.

fabgirl · Jun 23, 2003, 07:07 AM

While Pete's firing perhaps could have been handled more diplomatically, I don't feel sorry for him. The Beatles got him as their drummer at the last minute only because they had to be a 5-piece band for their gig in Hamburg. Also, as others have noted (including the Beatles themselves), he was unreliable about showing up for sessions in Hamburg, and they had to get Ringo to fill in a number of times. Finally, there is something important to be said for having a bond among people you work with, and since the Beatles practically lived together given how much traveling they did in the early days, it was perfectly fine for them to decide to find someone (i.e., Ringo) they felt more comfortable with on a professional and social basis.

Danoota64 · Jun 23, 2003, 07:24 AM

Paolo said:
'Three of the Beatles arrived at the appointed time of four o'clock [03 Dec 1961, the Beatles' first meeting with Brian Epstein]. I was very busy ordering records and Paul didn't show at all for at least three-quarters of an hour.' - Brian Epstein

Paul was in the bath! He wanted to be clean for the big meetin'.

[img]graemlins/peace.gif[/img]

Paolo Meccano · Jun 23, 2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Danoota64:
Paolo said:
'Three of the Beatles arrived at the appointed time of four o'clock [03 Dec 1961, the Beatles' first meeting with Brian Epstein]. I was very busy ordering records and Paul didn't show at all for at least three-quarters of an hour.' - Brian Epstein

Paul was in the bath! He wanted to be clean for the big meetin'.

[img]graemlins/peace.gif[/img]

The fact that Paul was in the bath doesn't change the fact that he was late for the meeting and it doesn't change the fact that this is the only quote I can find where Brian Epstein criticises the pre-Ringo Beatles for poor timekeeping (and Pete wasn't the guilty party). I think it's pretty apparent that the 'Pete was sacked because he was unreliable' argument doesn't stand up: The Beatles always wanted Ringo in the group and George Martin's doubts about Pete gave them the excuse they were looking for to get rid of him.

lennon4 · Jun 23, 2003, 08:53 PM

I'm sure Paul is losing sleep over the whole thing, too...I know I am.

-lennon4