Talk:Pete Best

References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Love Me Do

Although Martin used a session drummer for The Beatles' first single—as many producers did at the time

As any reliable Beatle source will tell you, the original British single of Love Me Do used a take featuring Ringo on drums. It's the version on the album Please Please Me that uses session man Andy White on drums. By all accounts, the Andy White version didn't turn up on a UK single until 1976, when Love Me Do was reissued by Parlophone along with numerous other Beatle singles. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please provide any reliable Beatle source to that effect. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct my friend! Ringo did play on the first red label pressing: Record Collector Rare Record Price Guide p99. I have ammended the article, thanks! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Best's dimissal

Striving for a page number and a quote about what Epstein said in the office.... --andreasegde (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, I just watched an episode of I've Got a Secret from the Spring of 1964 where Pete Best was a contestant and his secret was "I quit my job two years ago". After the game, he said he quit the Beatles to form his own group and that he did not know they would become even more popular and regretted leaving a little bit.EagleFan (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet neither Paul McCartney nor John Lennon wanted Pet best around, because his good looks threatened to overshadow them. It stands to reason that they'd choose a homely, far less charismatic person in Ringo Starr to replace him. Lucky guy. They could have selected a truck driver with a moving van as Best's replacement and today, he'd be raking in the billions. But that being said, Ringo certainly was not lacking in personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.82.195 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good looks? He looks like crap now, I don't know how hed'd look so much better than the other beatles back then. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

picture

I suggest adding a picture of him or at least his face in the table. Paul Italiano 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a really great one of him sitting behind his kit in Hamburg 'til the image police zapped it! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will upload that one again and put it lower down in the article, but only if you remind me to do it. :) --andreasegde (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

why was pete best dismissed from the beatles? because he was a lousy drummer, that's why. not that ringo was any great shakes as a drummer, but "best" apparently was even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. You really should.--212.241.64.236 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Pete Best himself has been at work on this article. It seems to present him as Mr. Perfect.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.168.31 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it a lot, and I'm not Pete Best. I just told the truth from books I have, and added references. It seems Best was just too quiet and shy to be a troublemaker.--andreasegde (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rocker?

Should The Rocker (film) be mentioned in this article? The film is basically a story about a drummer that goes through the same thing that happened to Best. Pete Best will have a cameo in it as himself.PokeHomsar (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If it has a valid reference, yes.--212.241.64.236 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Backbeat

If you're going to include "The Rocker" you surely must include "Backbeat" ( 1994 )... for one thing It's actually about the Beatles. The film goes into great detail about Stew and Pete both and all of the things that went on in Hamburg. 99.14.99.246 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the Aspinall-Mona Best connection?

This article states (emphasis added):

Neil Aspinall was waiting downstairs in Epstein's NEMS record shop after Best's dismissal, and was the first one to talk to the then ex-Beatle in The Grapes pub, across from The Cavern Club, where The Beatles had often played. Aspinall was furious and said that he would stop working for them as well—he had been employed as the band's road manager and personal assistant—but Best strongly advised him not to. Aspinall decided to stay, but ended his relationship with Mona (and his three-week-old baby, Roag). Aspinall asked Lennon at the next concert why they had fired Best, to which he replied, "It’s got nothing to do with you—you’re only the driver."

I think the bolded sentence needs to be clarified. Prior to this paragraph, nothing in this article has mentioned any Aspinall-Mona relationship. More importantly, the fact that this is all in one sentence (joined by a "but") seems to imply that there was a connection between his romantic break-up and the firing of Pete Best from the Beatles. If this is true, it should be explicitly explained. If it's not true, I suggest that this be broken into two sentences, or even that Aspinall's romance be deleted from this article entirely.

As it stands, the paragraph tells the following story: (1) The Beatles fired Pete Best. (2) Neil Aspinall said to Best, "I'm furious that they fired you; I will quit working for them." (3) Best replied, "No, mate, you should keep your job with them." (4) Neil replied, "Fine, I'll stay with them, but I will break up with your mom." !!!! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note for this, and have cleaned up the section. Well spotted, BTW,--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I revised your edits just with a few clarifying words. I don't have any knowledge of these events; my edits are entirely based on yours, with some rephrasing that is intended to clarify. Could you check my changes and see if they are correct? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, Lawrence King, that to understand what happened, one has to read the whole article.--andreasegde (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Occupations

He was listed as a "vocalist", I removed this since has never really sung on any record or live concert (though there is occasional vocals in pre-fame Beatles demos which could be him, but he's never really been a singer as a way of making a living). Also, I added songwriter, Since The Pete Best Band's 2008 album Haymans Green features 11 songs which he appearently co-wrote. I'm no expert on Pete Best though. Retro Agnostic (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'm no expert on Pete Best though." How interesting... Did you read the article at all? I quote: "When the group returned to Hamburg, Best was invited to sing a speciality number called "Peppermint Twist" while McCartney played the drums, but Best always felt uncomfortable being at the front of the stage.[29]" Some things are better left unsaid.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has an odd, defensive tone. NPOV?

First, the article begins by saying Best was "never given a full explanation as to the reason why" he was dismissed from The Beatles? Never? Really? Odd that everyone in the world has heard the story but Pete, huh? Second, the section about recording in Hamburg ends with "Best played drums on all tracks and Kaempfert never publicly criticized Best's drumming". This sentence serves no purpose other than to preemptively defend Best against the criticism of his drumming by George Martin. Once again, is this really NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1: He was never given a reason as to why. 2: There is a danger that this article could then go the other way and say George Martin didn't think he was good enough, and he was sacked without a reason. That would be tantamount to saying he only got the job with The Beatles because he had a drum kit, which is not true.--andreasegde (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There again, I have just deleted the "Kaempfert never publicly criticized Best's drumming" because it didn't have a reference. No matter what anyone thinks, if it doesn't have a valid reference, it can not be accepted.--andreasegde (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Never given an explanation? Multiple beatles said that he wasn't good enough, and we have quotes saying that. I think that's a full enough explanation? Saying "never given a full explaination" is obviously defensive. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• After reading this article, I'd have to agree: the tone appears to me to be both odd and defensive, as if it were written by someone close to Pete Best who is clumsily trying to slant the story. I'm not saying Best didn't get a raw deal from the Beatles, but that the article comes off to me as unencyclopedic in regards to WP:NPOV. I wasn't surprised to find this section on the talkpage, but I am surprised at the lack of action on this important subject... it has been nearly two years. Jusdafax 20:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh really?--andreasegde (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I started to work on the intro but saw you were also busy on the article so I stopped, but the article needs a lot of work to make it encyclopedic, in my view. It has numerous issues including being rather poorly phrased and the previously mentioned problems... Jusdafax 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise you to talk about major changes on this page, before you start.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did. Looks to me like we have a pretty big difference of opinion on how to go about fixing this article, so I'm going to tag it as a violation of NPOV to bring in some outside opinion. Jusdafax 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Slipping in "Looks to me like we have a pretty big difference of opinion" when all I said was "Oh really?" and advising you to talk about things here first is very inflammatory. We've both been here for awhile, so we know how these things go, do we not?--andreasegde (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your use of "Slipping in" aside, you neglect to mention your revert of my edit to the lede which convinced me we indeed have a major difference in editing outlook, and the fact that I did in fact mention my concerns prior to editing the article, making your advisement moot. I've tagged the article as NPOV and started a section below regarding what I see as serious problems. I hope we can settle this and move forward. Jusdafax 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. I reverted your edit because the lede is short enough as it is, and the club's name is important enough, considering it was owned by Best's mother, and the Best family actually lived above it. Best still does. Please detail your accusations of non-neutrality below, in the new section you created. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well let's see, you then edit the article nearly 60 times; I must admit, a truly impressive act of article ownership! And after all those edits, I'm to be allowed to make a comment or two subject to your approval? Unbelievable! Jusdafax 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not own this article; I'm the only one that worked on it to get it to GA, and there have been lots of random amateur edits since then. Believe me, I would love to have somebody else to work with (see Badfinger), but Beatles' editors mostly work on the FA articles. They must like the FA 'stars'...

The most interesting thing is that almost exactly at the same time you made your edit here, I started working on it to clean it up. I've been working on Maureen Starkey Tigrett, Badfinger, and The Beatles in Rishikesh, so it's not a one-off show of activity. Now lower that eyebrow. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

Under Parlophone audition It states: The recording convinced Martin that the group was good enough to be signed to a contract (even though he had already signed a contract with Epstein) but with one exception; Martin and his engineers did not like Best's playing.

Under Reasons for Best's dismissal It states: George Martin was shocked that Epstein had sacked Best: "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"

The first statement suggests it was Martin's idea to get rid of Best and the second quote indicates that he had nothing to do with it.

Which is it?

Dstephensusa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The two aren't actually contradictory. What Martin envisioned was that Pete would remain in the band as the visible "face", but not record in the studio (GM was very firm on that point). "On the 6 June Beatles' session (audition) I [Martin] decided that Pete Best had to go [and said to Epstein] I don't care what you do with Pete Best; but he's not playing on any more recording sessions." It wasn't all that uncommon at the time, if not quite rising to a Milli Vanilli level. For their first two years the Monkees didn't play their own instruments on record. Solicitr (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Very true.--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Best Of The Beatles" Cameo Records???!!!??

Most definitely an untrue statement. "Best Of The Beatles" was most definitely NOT on Cameo Records. It was released by Savage Records. I am editing the statement about Cameo Records, to reflect the fact that it was, in fact Savage Records that releaed "Best Of The Beatles". --isshii 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshii (talk • contribs)

Confusing sentence

I'm puzzled by the sentence: "In a 1995 BBC Radio Merseyside interview, Kirchherr, who was former bassist Sutcliffe's girlfriend at the time, explained: 'My boyfriend, Klaus Voorman, had this hairstyle,...'". What does "at the time" mean here?. Obviously not 1995 as Sutcliffe was long dead by then, but apparently not at the time Kirchherr is talking about either if the quote is accurate, barring open polyamory. Could someone more knowledgeable than I about very early Beatles history have a look at that and clarify the timing? 99.88.239.1 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Well spotted.--andreasegde (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

POV language in text about Anthology 1 album cover

1) The cited reference in the current version is just the DVD cover which is a visual image not an independent source about the matter

2) The entire collage on all 3 album covers is full of images that have been torn and overlaid by other images. Not one single image on the 3 covers is in its entirety.

2) The word "ripped" in the current version of the text is pejorative and implies that there was a motive to be defamatory to Best. That may or may not be the case. As individuals we can SPECULATE as to whether the removal of Best's head was ill-motivated or simply an artist's way to graphically convey what happened to Best (ie replaced by Starr) - but we can't do that on Wikipedia. We can only present incontrovertible facts.

They are these:

A) All three Anthology album artworks created by Klaus Voormann are in collage style with photographs and visual elements torn and only shown in part.

B) The part of the Savage Young Beatles record jacket in the centre of the Anthology 1 artwork that is torn is at the corner where Pete Best's face had been.

C) Where Best's face was on the poster is the face of his successor, Ringo Starr, on the Please Please Me album cover beneath it in the collage.

D) Best is seen on the Anthology cover in a separate small photograph standing in front of Aspinall's van parked outside The Cavern.

E) The cover of Best's album Haymans Green displays the image of Best's face not seen because of the torn album cover seen on the Anthology 1 cover.

The current text - which has no text sources - presents a POV and it must be NPOV. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it. It was really quite easy to do.--andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag on article

• I have tagged the article per discussion above regarding the "Odd, defensive" nature of the prose, especially in the area of Mr. Best being fired from The Beatles. I will be happy to discuss each sentence as we go along, if need be, regarding specific phrasing that it seems to me needs improvement. Additionally, the article is poorly written and unencyclopedic in spots. The lede is a good example of this, but I seem to be meeting with resistance regarding changes to bring it into line with Wikipedia policy. Jusdafax 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Additionally, I can't agree with the GA rating the article has, and have it in contemplation for reassessment, pending observation of how matters go here. Jusdafax 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here we go...

"Poorly written?" Are you having a laugh, or what? "1. (adverb) poorly, with a low standard of quality, or skill".

"I can't agree with the GA rating". How many articles have you taken to GA? How many have you reviewed, Mr. J. Fax? Please, do tell.--andreasegde (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec - encouraged by your redaction) That sections of the Pete Best article "in spots" (my previous term) were poorly written seems obvious by the huge number of corrective edits you made in the past day, since this came up. I'll take it on good faith that you just happened to start editing on this right after my initial comment and first steps towards cleanup. I have not reviewed all the multi-dozens of edits you have made here, but the ones I have sampled seem clear improvements. The agressive hostility you evince in your posts, however, is offputting to me, as it would be to any reasonable person. WP:OWN says it all. My first look at this article had me shaking my head, and it indeed seemed as if it was written by someone with a stake in Pete Best's reputation. I don't believe in cross-editing, so I'm going to let you finish your work, and then take a look. I don't obsess over this stuff as I have many interests here and belong to many WikiProjects, not just one. Believe it or not, I wish you well. Life goes on; live and let live. Jusdafax 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"agressive [sic] hostility", "offputting [sic] to me, as it would be to any reasonable person". Very aggressive comments, indeed. You, Mr. Fax, are only here for an argument, IMO. Do you want me to detail your own shortcomings? Will you answer the questions about your own knowledge of GA reviews and GA articles? I think you will not, but I'm happy to advise.--andreasegde (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. Your intent appears to be to drive away, not encourage participation. I'm not here to submit to a grilling. I say again, the article obviously needed work or you would not have burst into action. I suggest you drop the stick. Jusdafax 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your intentions are quite obvious, because I've had previous experience with editors like you. Why don't you just work on the articles you "started", which are in dire need of help? Need I say more? :))--andreasegde (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Beatles recordings

I think it would be useful to itemise the Beatles recordings which are officially released, on which Best appears. I think these will all be Anthology / Decca tracks - maybe other semi-official live recordings. Will be a good addition to his career discography.