I always wondered- had the Beatles insisted on keeping Pete Best in the band, would they still have become superstars? Pete's drumming was no better or worse than Ringo's, but he didn't have Ringo's humor- plus Pete didn't sing....
George Martin didnt seem to like Pete or Ringo's drumming- even after Ringo was brought in, Martin used a session drummer on 'Love me Do'.
Would Pete have cost the Beatles stardom had he stayed in the Beatles?
I'm assuming there must have been a major personality clash between Best and the other Beatles- as in a recent interview, Best said he hasnt spoken to any of the other Beatles since they sacked him (though he has tried to contact them)- John did borrow some of Pete's mother's (Mona) medals, which John wore on the cover of the Sgt Pepper album, but he never contacted Pete...the only reason why they would totally cut all communication woith him (I assume) must have because Paul, John and George hated Pete with a passion..
2007-06-25 10:53:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Or perhaps they realized the way they sacked him was a bit cowardly, and they couldn't look him in the eye afterwards...
2007-06-25 10:57:55 · update #1
I think the chemistry would be missing. I think the other Beatles realized in Hamburg when they played with Ringo that he was more of their type. I don't think Pete had the goofy, humorous nature that the other three had. Think of how popular Ringo was in America! Even though Pete was considered good looking, I don't think he had that spark that would keep people interested. I took a class on the Beatles and I heard some interesting theories about Pete, but I can't remember them all now, and I don't want to go find my notes!
Edit: Paul and Ringo are actually kind of discussing this right now on Larry King. They confirmed that the three guys loved Ringo in Hamburg and the chemistry was just there. They joked that Ringo was the one that made them big. :)
2007-06-25 16:32:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the Beatles would have still succeeded with Pete Best. Everyone says that Pete wasn't that good of a drummer and he wasn't. But he wasn't as bad as what people say. I've heard the recordings with him on it and quite frankly, I don't think he's that bad. Now, Ringo is a much better drummer, I'm not arguing that--and I'm not saying Ringo did not contribute to the Beatles as we know them today. I mean, what would the Beatles be without Ringo. However, I think the fact was that Pete just didn't fit in as well as the rest. They may have used the excuse that he wasn't a very good drummer, but I think they just wanted him out of the band. Just listen to anything by the Beatles that has Pete Best playing. I don't think it would have made a difference as far as the success of the Beatles.
2007-06-26 08:28:36 · answer #2 · answered by Scifi Boy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"George Martin didnt seem to like Pete or Ringo's drumming- even after Ringo was brought in, Martin used a session drummer on 'Love me Do'."
They did two takes one with Andy White on the drums and one with Ringo on the drums there were no difference the the drumming.
To answer your question Pete couldn't play the drums that well, also before they went to EMI Pete wouldn't show half of the time and Ringo would sit in.
2007-06-26 03:43:59 · answer #3 · answered by Brian Ramsey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not as successful in the USA.
When they arrived, Ringo was the fan favorite and most popular of the four, with Paul second then John and George
2007-06-28 13:50:05 · answer #4 · answered by Rocklyn80 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope its all about the feel of the band and I don't think they put it together with Pete.
2007-06-27 13:51:09 · answer #5 · answered by SoccerClipCincy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋