Was Pete Best really that bad of a drummer?

Sort of missed my point there - I am not asking you to say Ringo is the best drummer of all time. I’m asking why you think Pete was a better drummer.

 

I gather from his comments that his point is that the probably-greatest, probably-best-loved commercial band in western history would have been just as well off with a drummer who was merely good enough to "do the job."



Either that or it's a troll. In either case, I can tell he isn't a musician nor does he understand what goes into making a well-functioning band.

 

Then what difference did it make? What relevance is there to the Beatles? Talk about non sequiturs.

 

Off-topic:

I saw Aimee Mann perform last night. On one of more uptempo rocking numbers, her drummer was using a drumstick and a maraca together in one hand while drumming (quite nicely too!). It reminded me about how Ringo did that exact same thing during his first visit to EMI/Abbey Road in early September 1962. And how after watching Ringo perform that unusual action, George Martin and Ron Richards decided that they better get a session drummer (Andy White) at the following week's session.

 

Awful drum sound though.

 

Wait!... Aimee played an uptempo rocking number?!?!?!

 

Yes, snares thrown off -- not sure who came up with this idea, but it pops up in Kinks recordings from time to time.

 

Great post. You make a really good point which is often forgotten - at one point, joining the Beatles would have been a step back for Ringo. Eventually the dynamic changed - Ringo soon realised that the Hurricanes were never going to develop, and their status in Liverpool was diminishing fast. Meanwhile, he starts to get closer to the Beatles (particularly George who lobbies John and Paul to recruit him) and he plays with them. It’s a great experience for everyone involved. There’s no need to use a fill-in anymore. The clock starts ticking for Pete.

 

IIRC Ringo actually went further holding a tambourine in his left hand (to accentuate/double the snare) and a maraca in his right hand (to accentuate/double the high-hat) which was something that would actually be useful in their earliest 2 track recordings, since it would save them the need to record the tambourine/maracas as an overdub, though it might sound weird while he played a drum fill.

 

A RELATIVE uptempo rocking number....

 

Uhm, I don't see anything there that indicates it's a cover. I understand that clearly as meaning Paul then played Peppermint Twist, maybe in a medley.

 

I read this a lot from Beatles fans but I don't agree at all. I think it's just a romantic view. The only actually escencial elements imo were John and Paul. The Beatles of course wouldn't have been exactly the same had any element changed, but they still would have been The Beatles and probably just as successful. It was not some magical combination, some members were clearly more important than others...

Remember they were huge already in Northern England with Pete Best on.

 

We know for sure that Pete wouldn't have played on the Please Please Me LP. That already is a big change.

 

Lots of bands were huge early.....Rory and the Hurricanes ......they didn't set the world on fire.

What we do have with Pete (Decca and early EMI) is really unremarkable --- and I'm not comparing it to Pepper----but to the early stuff with Ringo. It plods. In fairness to Pete, they were all tense at that audition but still nothing Pete does shows any spark.

The "magical" part of it is the recordings-----more than pure songwriting. One cannot underestimate what George and Ringo did for the sound (and in George's case---unsung credit to forming [or outright helping with composing] those "Lennon/McCartney" tracks along with George Martin).

Especially when you hear Harrison's description of John never presenting a given song the same way twice at the genesis stage (so Harrison had to help keep track for him).

Are John and Paul measurably more important? Sure. Would any other producer allowed them as much freedom, evolved with them thru the psychedelic phase? Highly doubt it. The norm then was to have one lead singer-----and based on the Decca audition, it would have been George! An upstart using their own material for a single? Unlikely (a rarity then too)!

Epstein was massive. Training them to charm the press (and audiences)........this was vital to how far they expanded. The leather look had no chance of making it to the Ed Sullivan Show.

Remove any one of those six and the level and intensity of the success would not have been what it was (not to mention the quality of the tracks if you remove any of the four plus Martin).

 

This...

Not this.

 

Quite right. I continue to be amazed that some people don't see and hear it, it seems so obvious to me. When they were doing mostly covers and derivative covers, a drummer who "just did the job" and had a superficially exciting gimmick (the "atom beat", that seems to have been effective in the clubs but did nothing in the recording studio) got them in front of most local bands, but it's clearly audible that as soon as they hired Ringo, everything made a giant leap in excitement and musicality and creativity, and opened the door to their success.

Is this really still in dispute??

 

I'd definitely say so! They hired Ringo when they got the recording contract, and this is the more likely explanation for their leap in creativity.

 

Since the only reference to this was one of the EMI engineers (with more than a hint of stuffy condescension) I suspect that this never happened and was an attempt to paint Ringo as a buffoonish amateur clearly justifying why Andy White was needed.

Why would this have happened, on all days, his first appearance in the studio after his predecessor was just canned? Why would the others have even allowed it?

 

Just listen to their covers of Money and Till There Was You and it's very evident. Night and day difference.

I don't buy the argument that between the Decca audition to the early recordings with Ringo (BBC stuff) they refined THAT MUCH - it has to be the drummer change.

 

Firstly: "Why would the others have even allowed it?" - Seriously?! You actually believe that The Beatles had the clout to flatly refuse *anything* having just been signed by Martin after they had already been turned down by every record label in England?

Secondly: Ringo Starr - Modern Drummer Magazine

From the linked interview:

RF: How did it come to be that George Martin allowed you to play the second session?

RS: I think I drove him mad because we rehearsed for the next record and I had a tambourine in one hand and maracas in the other and played the kit with them. George was just flabbergasted. I didn’t have a stick in my hand, I just had a tambourine and maracas and I was hitting the cymbals and smashing the tom with the maracas, so he thought he’d better do something about it. So he said, “Well, if you use sticks, I’ll let you play.” He never said that really, but I think he just thought I’d gone mad, so he’d better please me and let me play on the next record. And from then on, I played, except for “USSR,” which Paul played on, because I wasn’t there. We just carried on from there, and then got to where it was always John and Paul were the writers and the bass player and rhythm guitar, and George was getting some notice as a lead guitarist but I was still getting, “he’s alright,” so it was a bit of a put down at the time.

I've also read Ringo say this elsewhere, however in the other account I remember, he said he WAS holding a stick in each hand along with the tambourine in his left and maraca in his right hand, so regardless of which account is true (with sticks or without sticks) the story DID come from the man himself, so...

 

Ringo is not holding them, but the maracas and tamborine are in this photo from the first EMI session with Ringo in early September 1962. Also, notice that George is trying to hide his black eye, received during the "Pete Forever, Ringo Never" scuffle at the Cavern :

 

I don't understand why Ringo holding the percussion instruments caused such consternation. I've seen plenty of drummers do similar things. Maybe in this case the maracas and tambourine were interfering with his drumming, but it shouldn't have been a deal-breaker in of itself.

 

Easy there...didn't mean to get you all triggered. I was referring to the others (you know, John, Paul and George) allowing "him" (Ringo) to do something so bizarre on his first session.

No where did I imply the Beatles were making any demands at all.

As far as their "clout" to "flatly refuse anything" remind me again when How Do You Do It was releases...i don't seem to have that in my collection.

FInally, I would thank you for correcting my mistake and posting that interview, but it didn't come from a good place - you seemed more motivated by making someone look stupid than to actually share information.

 

He was such a good drummer, that Bert Kaemphert (sp?) had to remove his bass drum and tom tom from his set, during the '61 Germany recordings, because Pete couldn't keep a beat and Bert didn't want his lousy drumming to ruin the recordings.