Was Pete Best really all that bad?

Yes

 

YES!!!

 

Are you sure?

 

Ringo forever, Pete never.

Having said that, The Pete Best Band album Haymans Green is quite good and I never expected that. No kidding, it's really good.

 

As a drummer? Not so hot.

But it seems the chicks might've dug him more than the other 3 (or 4).

Maybe not so bad.

 

Y-E-S. New Business

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

They should have kept Pete and switched him to tambourine - more eye candy for the girls!

 

Davy Jones hadn't been invented yet.

 

Hmm. Can't disagree! Not bad at all.

 

i believe that was in fact true, although only in the US I think.

 

Mark Lewisohn clearly hates Pete Best and makes every effort to completely discredit him. If you want a balanced look at Pete Best, read Best of the Beatles: The Sacking of Pete Best by Spencer Leigh.

 

Not hate at all, but Ringo being the most important piece of the Beatle puzzle is how he's treated now.
You actually have fans now that claim the Beatles wouldn't have made it big without ringo.
It's funny that someone found a report that in 1963 or 64 Paul talked about Ringo being out front on stage as the Beatle dancer while the other three took turns drumming.

 

yes, that is quite hysterical...

 

wonder why he has so much hate for Pete?

 

I wonder why in this day and age you can't express a critical opinion of something without getting accused of "hating" it?

 

the was a piece in the Sun last week about Johnny Hutchinson who was also offered the Beatle gig. Clearly like Ringo he was a serious pro-drummer, interestingly for all those conspiracy theorists that PB was not that bad, Hutch's view of PB's drumming is pretty scathing. I think if anybody is trying to make the case for PB's drumming they had better start citing the views of some pro-drummers as back up.

 

I used to be firmly in Pete-Best-was-a-total-hack camp. Certainly the 1960-62 recorded evidence doesn't help his case. And he certainly wasn't a great drummer by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I think there are very few people who would deny that the time he was in the band was a time of huge growth - both in terms of their playing and their popularity. Lennon, Harrison, and McCartney have all said that they were at there best as a live band when they were playing in Hamburg and I don't imagine they were just talking about their last spell there (with Starr). Yes, they chafed at the bit about Best's limitations, but we're talking about three people who - it turned out - were quite extraordinary musicians.

As a bass player, I can tell you that there are many drummers I've played with over the years who are very exciting to watch (and listen to) live but who just can't cut it in a recording situation. Again, not making a case that Best was great in any situation, but he was certainly competent enough (ie, not "all that bad") to hold his place in the band for a couple of years. He kept up. Of course the fact that Starr ended up being such a perfect fit - and such an amazing drummer - didn't do Best's rep any good either.

I recently came across an interview with Ron Richards about the first Love Me Do session in which apologizes a bit about his treatment of Best, saying that he - Richards - was always a bit hard on drummers. He explains that he asked Best to change up the feel for the middle section and that Best had a really hard time with it (which explains the inadvertent tempo change). When I listened to Best's version again, although that change in feel is executed terribly - no doubt about that - I'd make the argument that the feel of the verses is better than both the Starr and White versions. To my ears, it swings a bit more.

My guess is that, if you'd been lucky enough to catch the band at the Cavern or in Hamburg somewhere when Best was with them, the last thing you'd have thought was "wow, that drummer really sucks".

 

He was/is an unimaginative drummer with pretty much one beat. As soon as a drummer like that enters a studio, he's found out immediately.

But I really like "Hayman's Green"! Not sure how much input he had on it but it's very catchy.

 

I think that could be a very fair general assessment, Ron Richards was certainly the rarely credited prime mover but as I said Hutch is scathing about Pete Best's drumming ....but not about him, he says that one of the reasons he turned Epstein down is because Pete was a good mate and that he did not want to do the dirty on him.

 

As I understand it, the evidence of that is pretty thin. Hutch was long since on record as looking down his nose at the Beatles (look at that photo of him sitting in with them in 1960; he's just oozing with contempt for them), and it's pretty clear they wanted Ringo well before they fired Pete. At most, I could maybe see them inviting him to fill in until Ringo could come on board. But they wanted Ringo, and if they had to settle for someone else, I doubt they'd have offered it to a guy who had always disliked them.

 

In 1962, wasn't he in Oliver! on Broadway? Maybe Pete should've tried his hand at acting...