WI: Beatles Kept Pete Best

I think this topic has been brought up previous, but I'll try my best (*waka* *waka*) to make it a more thorough discussion.

In 1962, after Brian Epstein had discovered them and became their manager and after a turned down Decca audition, the Beatles were picked up by Parlophone Records. Shortly thereafter, the Beatles dropped their drummer Pete Best. Pete Best had toured with the band as their only drummer since I believe 1960, and was there with them when they played the Cavern and when Epstein discovered them and through Hamburg right up till shortly after they were picked up by Parlophone.
The explanations for why Best was dropped vary, and it's a bit of a game of who has a bias and who is fudging the truth to make themselves look better. The general story goes that Best was dropped because producer George Martin didn't think he was up to par. Martin, however, has said that he didn't suggest he be fired. Martin says his suggestion was Pete Best could play on tour, but in studio they should have a session drummer. Martin admitted years later that when Ringo first came in, he didn't think he was up to par either. So there's the hole in that theory.
The reasons as to the motivation for firing Pete Best also vary depending on bias and who is saving their reputation. The statement from the Beatles camp and musical historians that favor their side was and has been he was a nice guy and all, but he wasn't a good enough drummer, he could only play fours, Ringo is a much better drummer and the plan was never to keep Best on permanently anyway. The message from the Pete Best camp and from those musical historians who support Best is that Pete Best was a good drummer, that the reports and stories and opinions from those people who actually went and saw the Beatles when Best was drummer corroborates that, and that the reason Pete was let go was jealousy; Pete Best was the prettiest one, was the one the girls liked and wanted to see and see at the expense of all the other Beatles members, the boys favored him too, he was the most popular Beatle, that when John and George and Paul would have two or three girls around them, Pete would have easily fifty, he would be the one to get mobbed for attention and autographs after the show, and the others grew to resent this. There's also the defense that in spite of what you hear on the Decca audition tapes and the Best recordings, those were when Best was nervous and are not reflective of his musical talent, and the other Beatles were just as nervous and showing equal flaws. There's also the explanation, and I think this may be from both sides, that Best wasn't fitting in with the others besides just the potential favorite Beatle issue: he was said to be a bit shy and quiet and wouldn't wear his hair like the other Beatles. Oddly, if you look at pictures of him after he was let go, he donned a Beatles haircut, so that issue may have been something that would have gone away.

Of course we know how things panned out: when they popped onto the world stage, Paul McCartney had become the pretty one, John the leader and the biting wit, George the silent one, and Ringo the most comedic Beatle, and the focus was right on Lennon and McCartney. There would be that balance until after 1966 and John Lennon's loss of direction and ambivalence, in which time Paul McCartney took on a increasing role as the leading force; a fact Lennon and the others would come to resent and which would lead to conflict on and off until things grew too much and they broke up.

What if in an alternate 1962, when the Beatles were picked up by Parlophone, they kept on Pete Best and did not replace him?

I'd like to make a comment on a point I just mentioned in the OP. The dynamic issue is one of the very important parts of this discussion.

Of course we know how things panned out: when they popped onto the world stage, Paul McCartney had become the pretty one, John the leader and the biting wit, George the silent one, and Ringo the most comedic Beatle, and the focus was right on Lennon and McCartney. There would be that balance until after 1966 and John Lennon's loss of direction and ambivalence, in which time Paul McCartney took on a increasing role as the leading force; a fact Lennon and the others would come to resent and which would lead to conflict on and off until things grew too much and they broke up.

Click to expand...

In a timeline where Pete Best were kept on, you very well alter that dynamic. Pete Best would be the pretty one. That could also lead to him being sold as the frontman; in the OTL, there were discussions when the Beatles were signed to Parlophone on who would be sold to the public as the frontman, John or Paul. John was the founder and the assuredly the leader in those days, so the decision was made for John. If the stories of Pete Best being the most popular are true, then you open up the possibility of that discussion including John, Paul or Pete. I don't think John or Paul (or maybe George too) would allow for that, and if Pete were made to be frontman, I think you sew the seeds of resentment and conflict that will end the Beatles very quickly.
There's also the factor that by Pete being in the band, the situation could be like it was reported to be in Liverpool, and Pete Best could become everyone's favorite Beatle and the one's all the girls really wanted and the one everyone's eyes went to when looking at the Beatles, and Pete Best could overshadow the rest of the Beatles. That would affect their dynamic totally, and the Beatles in such a case would become more like background figures and Pete could then perhaps even be de facto leader if not de jure, at least in the perception of the public. Think of a version of "Help!" where Pete Best was the focus, and the rest were asking "what's up Pete?", "how you doing Pete?". The Beatles could be like the Three Stooges to Pete Best's Ted Healy. Such a change in dynamic could also affect the Beatles' musical output and the quality of their output.
Such a thing seems like it'd be an earlier version of what happened in the OTL where Paul became the leading force and the rest grew to resent it. In this ATL, Pete could become the leading force, the most loved one, the one they all focus on and adore regardless of his output, and the rest could resent that and just want to leave.

Of course, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Maybe things would have been perfectly fine, and Pete Best would be no more popular than Paul McCartney of the OTL and wouldn't overshadow the rest of the group. Maybe my previously outlined possibilities are worst case scenarios that wouldn't actually be the most likely. That'd be something I'd like anyone else knowledgeable enough to chime in on.

EDIT: Listening to an interview with Pete Best at the moment, he says that they were all four good looking guys, and different members of the group were getting the most fans different nights and the most girls screaming for them different nights, and it just depended on the night. So maybe those reports of super love for Pete Best are overblown and mythologized.

This will be my bump comment:

If "Haymen's Green" is any indication (Haymen's Green being Pete Best's latest new material album), Pete Best does have potential to keep up with the Beatles if or when they evolved. Though at the same time, that's also almost 45 years to get things right, and may not be an indication of keeping up year to year and moment to moment with the evolution of the others.

There is also the issue of what becomes of Ringo Starr. When the Beatles picked up Ringo, he was a member of "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes", and if memory serves was considered the best drummer in Liverpool. "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes" were one of the biggest, if not the biggest group in Liverpool at the time. They were bigger than even the Beatles. They never made it big outside of Liverpool, though. They never had a successful recording career, and Rory Storm's singing range is notably limited (at least to my ear). If not picked up by the Beatles, Ringo remains in the Hurricanes. I don't know if that could give them more potential for success: Beatlemania picked up many fellow Liverpudlians in the OTL, but it never did bring the Hurricanes to major success or fame. There's also the issue that as fame was elusive, the Hurricanes broke up, and Rory later became a disc jockey. After his father's death, he died in 1972 of an apparent suicide by overdosing on pills and whiskey.

http://www.stutteringhelp.org/almost-famous-singer-rory-storm

Perhaps Ringo would help nudge the Hurricanes just enough into fame and success, and make them one of the groups to take part in the British Invasion (though there's also the question of how long will they last before they split). If not, then when the Hurricanes split up, Ringo is out of a job too and has to either find a new band or become a regular working class citizen like everyone else. I don't know the details of who could potentially pick him up.

I actually know Pete and Roag Best, or we're at least well acquainted.

To hear him tell it: Mona Best (Pete's mother) was doing a great deal of their booking at the time, working as something like acting agent. This continued even after signing with Epstein, much to Epstein's annoyance. Mona Best had to be deleted from the equation for Brian to have full control. The only way to do that without much conflict was to get rid of Pete.

The rest is history.

TheInfiniteApe said:

I actually know Pete and Roag Best, or we're at least well acquainted.

To hear him tell it: Mona Best (Pete's mother) was doing a great deal of their booking at the time, working as something like acting agent. This continued even after signing with Epstein, much to Epstein's annoyance. Mona Best had to be deleted from the equation for Brian to have full control. The only way to do that without much conflict was to get rid of Pete.

The rest is history.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I would wonder if you could ask him about the what if here of what he thinks the band would have been like and how he thinks he would have contributed and gone along with the Beatles as they evolved, and how they would have evolved and what his influence could have been and all of that, but I do know that being kicked out hurt him deeply for a number of years so I would worry about asking that. The best person to ask about this topic and the "what ifs" would be Pete Best himself, but I wouldn't want to be rude or impose or make your relationship awkward or introduce any tension into it.

EDIT: Although, could you ask if there is any recording of him singing. I have always been interested in that, because I've seen photos of him singing, but I have never found or heard any recording of it and that is one of the most interesting things to me about Pete Best as a Beatle and as a continuing Beatle in a parallel universe 1960s.

I don't see Pete Best writing something as great, timeless and all aroung best thing ever written by the Beatles-y as An Octopuses Garden.

Japhy said:

I don't see Pete Best writing something as great, timeless and all aroung best thing ever written by the Beatles-y as An Octopuses Garden.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK5lUtQm9AQ

Emperor Norton I said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK5lUtQm9AQ

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a Free Lunch.

Japhy said:

There's no such thing as a Free Lunch.

Click to expand...

(Question mark)

I catch hell for saying this, but.....

I've always felt that the Beatles were a pop phenomenom rather than a musical tour de force. Yeah, they had talent and wrote catchy pop tunes. However, once Beatlemania hit, they could burp into the microphone and the masses would love it, screaming and tearing at their panties. With that said, anything that messes with the group dynamic messes with the pop phenomenom. Ringo fit his role in the band. If Best didn't fit the role, that messes with the sensation known as the Fab Four.

Best would have had to have been a pretty bad drummer to have messed up the team musically. Ringo was lambasted for decades as being the worst drummer in a top band. It's really only from the 80's/90's on that he's gotten any sort of talent recognition. And the Beatles were a very heavily studio engineered band (they routinely struggled in the studio and needed mixing magic to straighten it all out) so I don't think talent is an issue at drums - unless he was really bad.

Watching a snippet of a video documentary on Pete Best, a lot of the people interviewed say that Pete Best's drumming and his bass drum sound was the Beatles sound, which is why they were so surprised when he was let go. If that is indeed true, and not just opinion, then that sheds light and indicates that Pete Best will be very important to Beatles music were he to have been kept on.
The difficulty of course is the lack of a recording to really corroborate this. The official ones, being the Decca sessions and the early Parlophone material, don't shed light on Best as the best drummer. The Parlophone sessions show him as perfectly capable, but there isn't the same strength and vibrancy you see with Ringo on drums or session drummer Andy White. The explanation for that which I've heard is that it was just nervousness at that time, and if that's true, then that means Pete Best did play better but we just don't really have it. I do believe there are bootleg recordings of the Beatles in action on stage with Best, but then you also have the problem of the quality of that audio which complicates things. I can't think of any good recording to really show off Best's drumming.

unprincipled peter said:

I catch hell for saying this, but.....

I've always felt that the Beatles were a pop phenomenom rather than a musical tour de force. Yeah, they had talent and wrote catchy pop tunes. However, once Beatlemania hit, they could burp into the microphone and the masses would love it, screaming and tearing at their panties. With that said, anything that messes with the group dynamic messes with the pop phenomenom. Ringo fit his role in the band. If Best didn't fit the role, that messes with the sensation known as the Fab Four.

Best would have had to have been a pretty bad drummer to have messed up the team musically. Ringo was lambasted for decades as being the worst drummer in a top band. It's really only from the 80's/90's on that he's gotten any sort of talent recognition. And the Beatles were a very heavily studio engineered band (they routinely struggled in the studio and needed mixing magic to straighten it all out) so I don't think talent is an issue at drums - unless he was really bad.

Click to expand...

The Beatles got where they did because of the quality of what they were doing, which was unique for the time, and certainly so to the ears of a world whose Rock n' Roll had left its first era (Elvis was in the army, Little Richard was a minister, Jerry Lee Lewis was a pariah, Buddy Holly and all were dead, etc) and which was caught in the music of the late 50s/very early 60s. That Rock n' Roll was one which was what I think you're accusing the Beatles of, where it was a bunch of session musicians given a name by the record label, given some song written by a corporate music writer about girls or cars or any other teen interest, they recorded it, it was thrown out into record stores for the teenie boppers, and then they did it again, taking different session people, putting them together, having them record a song under a made up name, and selling records to the teen market. It was astroturfing.
The Beatles were certainly marketed heavily, but that was in relation to their talent. They were very good at what they did, and their musical catalog should be proof enough of that fact that it doesn't need to be defended. If the Beatles just sucked, there wouldn't have been a Beatlemania, and Beatlemania continued based on the level of their talent and output. The problem was at the concerts, they got so loud that the live music didn't matter. The music was still there because they still released records, but they wouldn't shut up and the concerts became more of a be-in.

Criticisms of Ringo are unfair, and I believe they largely come from the fact that when the Beatles were put on CD, the mixes were not the best and one of the casualties of that was Ringo's drums, which were strained into a channel and didn't sound very good as a result. The remasters have brightened that drumming and brought it back out again. And the Beatles didn't use studio engineering and mixing magic to fix poor playing. They were perfectly fine at it, and you needed to be because recording back in the day of "Please Please Me" was not a lot of fidgeting around with it in post. What you recorded was what was there. Studio engineering did evolve, and much thanks to the Beatles, because they wanted to tweak and experiment. It wasn't because Ringo wasn't drumming right or John was bad on guitar. It was so that you could get an electronic hum or get the music to play backwards or get distortion or any of that type of thing. It is wholly, wholly unfair and flat out wrong to say that the Beatles couldn't do it in studio so they needed it fixed out like autotune is used today or something. The studio engineering was there because it would allow them to do new things.

I believe I allowed that the Beatles had talent. I simply believe that the phenomenom known as Beatlemania far outshined the talent level. They were plenty talented. It's just that you could assemble the head dieties of 4 religions and you still couldn't match the luster of what people think of when they think of the Beatles. People always misunderstand when I make any comments about the Beatles, because anything short of god-like pronounciations of them is usually interpreted as me saying they're hacks.

The Ringo knocks were a common refrain in the 70's/80's, and that predates CD re-releases. It was only when he started his all-star band (or what ever it was called) in late 80's/90's that the pundits started allowing that he did have musical talent after all.

Emperor Norton I said:

Very interesting. I would wonder if you could ask him about the what if here of what he thinks the band would have been like and how he thinks he would have contributed and gone along with the Beatles as they evolved, and how they would have evolved and what his influence could have been and all of that, but I do know that being kicked out hurt him deeply for a number of years so I would worry about asking that. The best person to ask about this topic and the "what ifs" would be Pete Best himself, but I wouldn't want to be rude or impose or make your relationship awkward or introduce any tension into it.

EDIT: Although, could you ask if there is any recording of him singing. I have always been interested in that, because I've seen photos of him singing, but I have never found or heard any recording of it and that is one of the most interesting things to me about Pete Best as a Beatle and as a continuing Beatle in a parallel universe 1960s.

Click to expand...

He wouldn't really talk about it. Even with Scotch. I didn't press it when we first met. Instead, I held aloft a bottle of his favorite drink and said: "Ringo never, Pete Best forever..."

We got on fine.

His band members though all get the skinny and share it liberally, and Roag being the younger brother has heard the tale all his life. They're more open to referencing the "Beatle" thing than Pete.

It did really affect an already mean, moody, and magnificent Best. It still hurts him, of course.

As for him singing, he typically doesn't. At least, I've never heard it.

And Ringo only was allowed to sing because Rory Storm's "Starr Time!" (a section of the Hurricane's set played and sung by a ham and cheese young Starkey) was SO popular. Pete Best didn't do that. He will talk less than George, behave less than John, and wink more than Paul.

Don't give him any songs a vocalist on ATL Beatle albums, because it just isn't true to his character.

Musically, I'll say that the "Merseybeat" (which really opened the doors for rock music to lose all the "boom-chick" forever) was for all intents and purposes invented by Best, or at least synthesized by him alone out of the various styles in Merseyside at that time. Ringo did rip him off, yes, but Ringo had slightly better time. It lost a good deal of the live fury that made the Beatles so popular in Liverpool and Hamburg, but gave it a precision that would translate well on record. For playing the same basic style, Rings and Pete were and still are quite different drummers.

Ringo was probably the right decision going forward in hindsight, considering the more complex fills and musical playing that drove them after 1965/66. It wasn't simply pop rock with a heavy backbeat anymore and Ringo was kind of a closet percussive arranger in that sense. He really did know what was best for the song. I can't see a more confident Pete Best being so forgiving on the other member's growth and experimentation. He was good, and he was going to shine. Expect a louder kick (he would demand it), a slightly faster tempo, no metronome (unless Martin absolutely insists - and remember - he didn't always, and it shows on some recordings: You Won't See Me, anyone?), and drums on things like Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday in spite of Martin's protests. Best is gonna get real grumpy if he has to be in the studio NOT playing drums.

To that end, if you're working on a timeline I would say shave off a few (hundred? thousand? I'm not sure. Up to you) record sales per album and singles until about 1968, and describe a more hard rocking Beatles sound.

They still have a similar effect, and to a large degree most butterflies won't really affect their songwriting (with the exception, of course of Ringo songs and the title: A Hard Day's Night, which belonged to Rings) until roughly 1967 or even 1968.

The most important thing (according to Best himself) that you would have to deal with is Epstein. Does Mona Best get allowed a position with NEMS? If this is your POD then I would recommend researching a bit about her life and the early business dealings of Brian Epstein.

(And to get rid of Ringo... allow his immigration to Texas. BE doesn't have a choice BUT to allow Pete Best to play. There is no one better in Liverpool now.)


PM me if I can be of any further help.

I'm not planning on making a timeline out of this. It's just that it is one of the more major Beatles points-of-departure, and I wanted to do my best to get the best (is it just me, or are we saying best a lot?) discussion going, given my powers of Beatles knowledge. I'm not sure what to do via PM, so I'd recommend posting anything here unless any input could only come via PM for whatever reason.

Pete Best did sing, and there is photographic evidence of that. He may not do so anymore, but I've also heard him discuss the songs he liked to sing in an interview, one of which was "Matchbox" but I can't remember the other three. One was by Elvis though.

http://www.beatlesbible.com/wp/media/620405_06.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6490029723_21279be5c8_z.jpg

I just can't, in all my infinite searches find any recording of him singing, whether with the Beatles on a bootleg or with Pete Best & the All-Stars, the Pete Best Four, or the Pete Best Combo. Given he did sing, at least occasionally, I do think there's a possibility that he'll sing at least sometimes on Beatles records and Beatles songs. It may give him something to do if he isn't drumming. And if he's qualified enough at it, Epstein may press it to sell more records and singles.

I will venture a guess and wonder if this *Beatles would be closer to the Rolling Stones for their Rockier, more straight forward sound. The difficulty there is where the Rolling Stones evolved, at least based on my knowledge, was in reaction to the ground the Beatles were breaking and following their footsteps in the innovations and directions they were going, as with many other British and American groups. The question then becomes, what drives the Beatles to innovate like that, and if the answer is nothing and Pete Best is holding them to a certain sound where they would otherwise want to evolve like the OTL, the question then becomes what their sound does become, and how they do evolve and what directions they do take. And the major issue is how does that affect everyone else.
That being said, if "Hayman's Green" is an indication, Pete Best could evolve. But the question is if that's just Best following something in hindsight he wouldn't have at the time, and if it would be in his nature at that time and as a Beatle to evolve with it, or if his playing style would permit such evolution.

EDIT: The songs Best sang were "Boys", "Matchbox" and "Wild In the Country", as well as "Pinwheel Twist", written by McCartney.

I just ran across something, and it's similar for how "Starr Time" was what got Ringo to sing, if what I read is true that is. It said that the reason Ringo sang "Boys" on "Please Please Me" was because of the fact that "Boys" was one of Pete Best's song that he sang during their live sets, and since the drummer was the one who sang it at the shows, they gave it to the new drummer to sing.

Infiniteape, I believe you said Pete would not be happy were he in studio and not drumming. How would Best react if a session drummer were brought in as Martin originally intended whilst Best still played in concert, lord help you or if the other Beatles took up the drums to do them better in studio or if that happened later down the line? The latter did happen at least a few times with Ringo, though I believe that was only because Ringo was not around or during the period when he was about to quit the band during the White Album sessions, and not because of poor playing on Ringo's part. Definitely the session drummer seems a strong possibility if Best is kept on, and it was a common practice in those days.
I could see such a thing making Best feel sidelined. Would Pete or Mona Best make an issue out of it? Would that make Pete Best depressed, possibly even making him leave of his own volition at some point? Or would Pete be ok with it, given he could still play drums during the live shows? There may be a plus side, however, where the session drummer being brought in would finally light a fire under Pete to get cracking at bringing his drumming up to par with what the band was asking for. According to a video of Tony Sheridan, Pete Best was told time and time again months and months in advance of his termination that he needed to work on his drumming and he needed to get it better, but he wasn't working on it and wasn't working on getting it better and that's when they finally went ahead and let him go. Had he worked at getting his drumming better, then, he would have been kept on. That of course can't be part of the scenario of this thread because its too much a pre-POD POD. So maybe in a situation where a session drummer is used on the first LP, that could make Best really get to task so that the session drummer is not used on the second LP, or at least not much after the first couple, with Best taking drum duties in studio thereafter. Of course, you could just have a scenario where Best still doesn't work on improving his drumming, and though he plays in concert a session drummer plays on the records, and that leads to all those possibilities of Best just getting more and more depressed at the whole situation and maybe leaving the Beatles or maybe getting kicked out later down the road, and all those possibilities.

With the session drummer scenario, you remove the "Beatles closer to the Rolling Stones" type deal, at least in live concert. Such a scenario is more likely if the Beatles have best for the recordings as well as the live play, which seems more likely if they were to have been picked up by Decca, but this scenario covers that point in 1962 when the Beatles were signed to Parlophone and Martin asked for a better drummer for the recordings. Of course, Pete Best's limitations may limit the Beatles overall, since what is played in the studio will need to be played on stage as well and if Best can't play it, then they can't play it, and if he can't play it well enough then that will be noted by audiences and critics. And that could lock the Beatles into remaining a raw beat group for a long while. Though maybe in a best case scenario, the Beatles still do evolve in studio and those studio recordings are noted for a refined sound, while the live concerts are noted for a raw and electrifying sound which critics and audiences like for its sake. If Pete Best works on his drumming, then this all becomes moot since it will allow for the same possibilities for the Beatles on stage and in studio. There's a lot of possibilities, and the most likely path I suppose is the point of this discussion.

I'm going to be a bit naughty...

...In my second Heligoland TL, I had them do the Radio Caroline thing, then book in the Beatles for a live performance with Best. The result is a musical annual singfest that promotes the Beatles and others. All fun and rather naughty...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=224379&page=2 Post # 32. Have fun.

Whats Heligoland?

Update: I have discovered that Pete Best was a fan a Disco back in the day. This could infer as to what he would be doing musically in the 70s.