Was Pete Best really that bad of a drummer?

More like the incredulous hilarity of people vehemently defending Pete Best in 2015. A moody, mediocre drummer is kicked out of a pop band on the move in 1962 - 53 years ago - and for some reason some still treat it as a horrific betrayal of a beloved talent for the ages.

 

I like Lennon's candid quote, and I never tire of hearing it (it exists on audio -- I wish someone could find it, as it's even more interesting with John's voice actually saying it). The evidence on the existing tracks of Pete Best drumming are blatant evidence enough that his drumming was not very good, and certainly not as good as Ringo's. Even Tony Sheridan has said Pete was a weak drummer. Pete may have been known for his "Atom Beat", but the real proof that he never improved can be heard on things like the Decca Auditions, as well as that horrid version of "Love Me Do" featuring Pete on the skins.

You make a somewhat definitive statement here as to why Pete was kicked out of the band, but John said that was a load of 'crap' with regard to Paul being jealous of Pete and all of that. It makes more sense that Pete just never fit in with the other three Beatles even personality-wise. That is obvious when you see the old photos of the band together, as well as even now whenever we hear Pete in interviews; he just was not a "Beatle". And I've got nothing against Pete personally, as he seems like a nice guy.

 

How many times did you see the Beatles live with Best doing the drumming? Surely it was many, for no one would base the conclusion that he was "mediocre" on a few isolated tentative recordings made during the infancy of their career on which the group's general musicianship level in the then-foreign studio environment was less than stellar. Places and dates please, so I can have some basis to credit your expert opinion. Same for moody, too. Where and how did you experience that personality trait in him? They must have been some really unforgettable encounters.
The anonymity of the Internet makes us all incredulous experts. Many vehement ones.

 

Enough with the sockpuppeting, Pete. You made your money. Let it go.

 

I kinda get some of it. It's hard not to feel for Pete - he got booted from what would become the biggest rock band ever literally on the cusp of their success. I think the sympathy for Pete's plight makes some people want to defend him and make it sound like he didn't deserve to get the boot.

But he did. It's clear he would've held them back musically, and he didn't really fit in the band dynamic, either. Part of what made the Beatles so big in the early days was their chemistry and their personalities. Can you imagine Pete dishing it at press conferences in 1964? I can't...

 

I'm pretty sure that by 1962, they knew a fair amount about their instruments. When they hired Pete? Not so much. By the time they signed with EMI? They knew a lot - and they knew Pete couldn't keep up. They knew that earlier, but the longer they played with him, the more obvious it became.

I'm pretty sure Paul did just fine with the ladies even with Pete in the band. By the time they fired Pete, I'm pretty sure all of them were famous/successful enough to have their pick. I don't think they needed to fire Pete so Paul could get laid...

 

My point is that we don't know how that would have worked out, nor does Sparky in Canada who, by my expert calculations, wasn't yet born while the Beatles were together.
My personal opinion is that Pete's sacking had a lot to do with the reputed personality of his mother Mona and Mr. Epstein's desire to manage the group without her interference, but, as a mere 13 year-old sock puppet living in Ohio, I was not privy to that dynamic.

 

Any facts? I knew Pete in the 1980s and while he certainly is a very nice guy, he's no Beatle.

 

I never bought into the girls thing. I don't think either John or Paul had too much trouble getting girls. Pete was never meant to be. If it were not for the convenience of having Neil and Mona doing lots of work for the band, Pete never would have been in it. And I doubt they thought his drumming was that good. J and P knew music by listening to so much. And his drumming was below average.

 

Yep! That says it all. End of thread.

 

So be it. I'd appreciate you forum experts weighing in on why the Stones never made Ian Stewart, Mick Avory or Ry Cooder members.
After that, please explain why: Al Jardine really is not on the cover of Summer Days; Entwistle and Moon didn't leave the Who to form Led Zeppelin with Jeff Beck; Richard and Linda Thompson split up; Jim Messina left Poco; Bernie Leadon left the Eagles; Neil Young keeps leaving in general; Joni didn't marry Graham; and, for ten bonus points, why the Moody Blues are not in the Rock Hall.
I'm all ears.

 

We have 31 recordings of Pete Best playing with the Beatles. That strikes me as more than "a few." They consist of both studio and live recordings, recorded at several different studios and venues on several different occasions over a one-year period. I think that is more than enough to evaluate his drumming and venture an opinion about his abilities. The drumming on all those tracks is consistently bland, uncreative, and mediocre in my opinion. I suppose it's possible that he was just having an off day on all seven occasions in which the band was recorded over a one-year span, but that seems unlikely to me.

 

But but but but... Pete might have gotten better!!!

 

He was keeping them from making the jump to light speed, and they knew it.

 

I see no problem either way...everyone is entitled to their Best opinion without being chastised for it...Pro or Con...

 

Green is also the most pleasing color to the eyes...

 

for sure..53 years later and it still generated a reply from your keyboard

 

Absolutely, because I enjoy the incredulous hilarity!

 

Best couldn't hack it when nobody even cared about The Beatles. What could he possibly have done in a Beatlemania-type situation in a stadium when the band couldn't hear each other? The guy's sense of tempo was non-existent. Maybe he would have invented avante-garde atom beat rock drumming, and started a new movement in music. More likely, it would have been a 28-minute snare roll with a few awkward, off-time stabs at the kick drum.

 

after all is said and done we will never know what could have been if Pete stayed with the band...IMO Ringo would have faded into oblivion just like his band mates Rory Storm & The Hurricanes if he wasn't a Beatle...

 

Oh I don't know I think he would have been picked up by another band. That holiday camp gig was only going to last so long.

 

OK, which one that became FAMOUS out of the scene back then?

 

Dave Clark might have had him sub for him in the studio he would never been credited of course. The Kinks for one might have considered him. I don't think he would have fit The Who and he doesn't have quite as much swing as Charlie Watts but I think he could do it with the Stones, too.

I think that he could work with Gerry and The Pacemakers as well.

 

wishful thinking...I'm sticking to my opinion. I cannot see any of those.

 

I dunno, I genuinely think that the 2nd BBC session is pretty good actually. I think the evidence is there that Pete didn't work in the studio, but the 2 surviving live recordings actually suggest he was decent live. Certainly I think there's no way the others would have put up with him for 2 years if he couldn't bring it live.