mister charlie

Pete played at a local venue (bar) last night and was interviewed by
local TV. When asked about why he was fired he started denigrating all
the known reasons, to wit:

-wouldn't comb hair down
-anti-social
-drumming ability
-pissed Epstein off
-jealousy

yadda yadda

He dismissed each claim and said, for the record, he still has no idea
what the reason for his firing was.

From the source himself. SO much for ridiculous conspiracy 'paid off'
theories.
(Which always begged the question, if he'd been paid off for his silence
why was he broke and working in a bakery only a few years later? As he
wouldn't have been paid much, what would buy his silence now, 40 years
later? Such stupidity.)

aucolonist

Pete Best is simply in denial, but in many ways that is understandable. It's
all a matter of pride.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Pete Best in a live interview for the first time
on the Fox News Channel where he was promoting his book. The interviewer of
course asked him why the Beatles gave him the sack. She gave three supposed
reasons;

1. That he didn't get along with the other Beatles socially.

2. That Ringo was simply a better drummer.

3. That Paul was jealous of Pete's popularity with girls.

In regards to reason #1, Pete said that if he spent two years with the members,
he got along just fine.

Reason #2, he flat out denied and claimed that he and many others regarded him
as better than Ringo.

Reason #3, he said that he couldn't claim to know much about, but he did
acknowledge that he was popular with the girl fans.

It's verified in the Beatles Anthology in their own words that while Pete was
likable and quiet, but that he was definitely of a different mold from the
others. Pete was less likely to mix it up with the crowd, preferring to stay
laid back with the drums. He also went off and did his own thing many times,
plus he was the only one to retain the Teddy Boy hairstyle.

As far as Reason #2, if Ringo were a better drummer than Pete, would Pete ever
admit that? Of course not. There's a matter of pride involved.

It's hard to imagine Paul or any of the other Beatles being jealous about
Pete's popularity with girls. But then again, we have to remember back in 1962,
the oldest Beatle was only 21 years old. It's entirely possible that jealousy
could have been possible, but it's difficult for me to imagine that was the top
reason.

But in the end, it's never denied that George Martin found Pete's drumming to
be so below standard as to warrant his replacement. And since John, Paul, and
George were the closest-knit, Pete was obviously the most dispensible member.
As George Harrison said, "But as you could see, Ringo WAS the member of the
band, it's just that he arrived on the scene a little bit later."

Of course, even John admitted that they were cowards for the way that they left
it to Brian to dismiss him and bring in Ringo. That's just the way life is,
unfortunately.

While Pete Best's efforts may have not equalled those of George Martin, Stuart
Sutcliffe, or even Billy Preston (among those who can claim the title "5th
Beatle), it should not be ignored that he made a valuable contribution as a
member of the quintet/quartet in helping to mold the Beatles into a sharp rock
and roll band on the verge of greatness.

timagine

Funny how people always have lame minds when it comes to fessing-up to
their shortcomings.

voice from the past

mister charlie

I never did. Still, what does that have to do with anything?

usurpertom

It was probably a major factor in Pete's sacking. I don't think the Beatles
wanted to be associated with an American Pie romance.
Usurper

blackmonk

"Very funny, mom."

mister charlie

I don't think it had anything to do with it. It makes no sense. What
would they care if their roadie dipped the old wick? BFD. If it was
one of THEM, then maybe, but even then I doubt it. Let alone sacking
the guy. If they felt Neil did wrong than they owed Pete restitution,
not pissing him off by sacking.

It never made sense and it still doesn't.

peter2best

Maybe. Pray tell what have you done in your life?

PB

fabsforever

Pete Best wasn't Beatle material.

blackmonk

I don't know if I'd agree with the second rate/first rate description in 62.
Best had been fine for them up to that point, when they were mainly a live
cover band.

Maybe it's more accurate to say they were a second rate band who were trying
to become first rate, and Best was a second rate drummer who wasn't. Even in
62, Ringo was a more interesting drummer. Compare "How Do You Do It" to the
drumming on the Decca tracks.