Was Pete Best really that bad of a drummer?

I acce

I don't know if I agree with that exactly. In later life he seemed more than competent. Maybe he just didn't work hard on it when it counted most.

 

And in 1969 he would have been fired by Allen Klein

 

I haven't heard any late in life examples to have an opinion about that. But in the two years he was in the band, they played sets in Hamburg that lasted for what... eight hours or something at a time? He logged hundreds of hours behind the kit in those two years. If he did not improve despite all that hard work, it does seem likely he'd probably hit the ceiling of where his abilities could go.

 

Competent is as good as it got. I saw him in 2004 and he had his brother as a second drummer! Not really the way to make your case that you shouldn't have been fired from the Beatles. And neither player stood out.

 

Very true, and not at all uncommon. Not everyone is destined to be a great musician no matter how much they practice or play gigs. I hear nothing in Pete's admittedly limited recorded work that shows improvement. In fact, he seems to have regressed by the June EMI sessions. Nerves? Sure, that may have played into it some, but the 1962 BBC sessions aren't much better either. It just seems that Pete was destined to be nothing more than "club" drummer. If he was decent, I'm sure he would have been promoted differently after his sacking. And if he improved then he probably wouldn't have left show business by 1965 or so. Ron

 

AND go a step further, would he have progressed - in 4 years - to Pepper level skill? Would he have embraced the new psychedelic style or been the Mike Love of the group?

Had they gone with your scenario above, would Andy White been able to go with the flow and play on Pepper?

Ringo not being in the band could have had a lot of butterfly effect changed on their future.

 

If they hadn't fired Best, we wouldn't be talking about The Beatles right now.
Remove any of the four along with Martin and Epstein and this applies.

The interrelationships of those six people led to greatness.

When that guy in the Eight Days A Week doc says what a miracle it was that George Harrison was a great songwriter who happens to have met two other great songwriters......that ignores the fact that they influenced each other and grew together.........but Ringo showed from the start an empathy for the song that Best completely lacked. In other words Best's shortcomings were insurmountable in my speculative view. In contrast, even in George's most awkward early moments he seems to show a wide range of influences (including jazz).

 

I'll see your 10 and raise you 10 more...

Let's say the studio becomes The Threetles and Session Man. Could the drummer become a spare part, a la what happened with XTC? Pete is the live drummer until '66, then he is let go when that job is eliminated.

Do the Beatles thrive in this picture?

My gut is that they don't, or in the least it's not the same. Ringo was part of the magic chemistry that took them from very good to huge.

 

Absolutely. Like George said, history has shown Ringo was the last piece needed to complete the group ~ he simply doesn't enter the story till chapter three or so.

 

I was looking for that you tube vid of Pete best drumming to band on the run couldn't find it . I thought it was funny

 

“When we finished the gig, Pete would go off on his own and we three would hang out together, and then when Ringo was around it was like a full unit, both on and off the stage. When there were the four of us with Ringo, it felt rocking." —George Harrison

 

Neither George nor Ringo appear to be bursting with personality in any footage or interviews I have seen. Is it possible that Pete could have had even less personality than those two?

 

My gut is they don't either.

As much as he's derided as the happy go lucky oaf that fell into it ("luckiest man alive") people discount the synergy that those 4 guys brought.

None of the components would fire independently. As many have said, Ringo kept the ego in check.

 

I wonder what his solo scene would have been in A Hard Day's Night? Maybe they would have not cut Paul's bit.

 

By far. As told by George Martin, it was George (H.) who broke the ice after Martin informed the band they were rough and would have to tighten up in order to work with him. George's response: "I don't like your tie" And what about Ringo's classic "I'm a mocker" line? In the '64 documentary of their first visit to America, it's Ringo shaking it on the dance floor in NYC...and bringing his dance partner back to the hotel.

 

No personality? Ringo? George?

 

Buy a copy of The Decca Session and judge for yourself

 

This. Pete was never fully a Beatle. That much is clear from Tune In. That was what really sealed his fate - he was disconnected from them on almost every level and never improved as a drummer. Why would the other three stick their collective neck out for someone like that? OK the way they got rid of him was pretty cowardly as Lennon later admitted but none of them had any real personal attachment to him.

Never mind what he would have been like in A Hard Day's Night, what would he have been like at the first press conference they did in the US? One of the journalists later told George (I think) that they were all ready to bury The Beatles but didn't because the lads answered back...

 

Lots of 60s band members went out in front of the audience to satisfy the screaming girls but deferred to studio musicians for recording. Push come to shove, had Ringo not been available, or if the Beatles had more hunger than integrity, I could see them letting Andy White or others carry on in the studio.

 

According to Wikipedia:

George Martin was surprised to learn that Epstein had sacked Best, hearing the news from Mona Best via telephone. Martin denied that he had ever suggested sacking him, telling Mona:

"I never suggested that Pete Best must go. All I said was that for the purposes of the Beatles' first record I would rather use a sessions man. I never thought that Brian Epstein would let him go. He seemed to be the most saleable commodity as far as looks went. It was a surprise when I learned that they had dropped Pete. The drums were important to me for a record, but they didn't matter much otherwise. Fans don't pay particular attention to the quality of the drumming."​

Besides, after years of playing with the band, McCartney (at least) seemed to have some issues with Ringo's playing, leading him to quit the band during the White Album sessions.

IMO, Ringo was competent enough, had his own style and personality that suited the band. I particularly like his Beatlemania period where the riding cymbals were part of the excitement. However, I don't think he was irreplaceable as a Keith Moon, John Bonham, Ginger Baker would be, especially before their breakout when the world knew none of them. Most of his work was pretty much buried in the mix anyway.

 

It wouldn't have mattered. He could have brought a James Dean mysterious quality to the mix.

 

Pete was so great. I wish he would have replaced Bruford in Yes. Hell, he should have replaced Bruford in King Crimson.

 

the mystery being, why is this guy still in the band?

 

????????????????????

 

If you like overplaying, I guess