3 ms·

He was nowhere around the band in 1969 when this was filmed. IIRC it was more his mother who was an early de-facto manager, not so much Pete himself. Unsure

He was nowhere around the band in 1969 when this was filmed. IIRC it was more his mother who was an early de-facto manager, not so much Pete himself. Unsure what "do the right thing" would have been, really. Most the reports around the time of Anthology (1995) were that he was paid fairly handsomely for the use of a few tracks he appeared on (Decca tapes and EMI first session) - north of a million pounds was mentioned as his payday. The living Beatles would have been able to veto that had they wanted, but they didn't. What else would you have expected them to do? They weren't terribly good friends before - he was someone with drums they latched on to and played with for a couple of years. The more awkward part for Pete (and Neil) would have been Neil Aspinall being involved in Pete's life for decades because of his Neil's affair with Pete's mom, giving Pete a brother (Roag). Pete was essentially permanently connected with someone at the core of the Beatles' inner circle for decades, whether he wanted to be or not.

skinnymuch 5y ago
I didn’t load the site so didn’t know it was 1969. I wouldn’t have asked otherwise, sorry. Pete was the only one with any sort of normal non janitor life expectations before he joined the band. He was getting further education. None of other Beatles were. His life got chaotic because of The Beatles. He ended up being a janitor. Since that likely wouldn’t have happened if the Beatles had never been a part of his life and some Beatles members (Lennon, Harrison to a degree) get kudos and what not for being good guys, is it really that hard to imagine any of them doing almost any thing for him when they became the biggest band of all time a couple years later? Especially with Epstein still trying to help Pete out in the 60s. Do the right thing could have been almost anything besides what actually happened before 1995. The remarks The Beatles had made in the decade or two that followed were pretty weak. Pete Best was a suicidal janitor. As the biggest band in the world and of all time, during their peak, they settled a defamation lawsuit with Pete. The Beatles just being honest would have been better than what they did. Do the right thing could have been as simple as being honest and straight forward and doing what a decent person would do in a vacuum. A lot is rectified by 1995 of course. Wasn’t Aspinall the guy who didn’t acknowledge the half brother as his child for some time? I believe he has flip flopped his wording before for different things. I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, just adding on to how no one in The Beatles inner circle except Epstein seemed to do what I think people would do in a vacuum. When all of these people are worshipped beyond belief. Most media and reports about them are going to lean heavily in their favor too. Making it even harder to get the real truth on stuff. This fact is going to be known to everyone close to The Beatles. This isn’t dissimilar to what happened to Snapchat’s or Twitter’s ousted founders (Twitter’s story is the worst one by far and makes The Beatles and Best look like a fairy tale). Those cases are far worse than Facebook’s Eduardo situation. Yet people find Facebook’s relatively minor incident to be a negative reflection of Facebook and Zuckerberg pretty easily. I am not an exception to this. I fall into this same thinking. Overall, people can have a pretty easy time finding the actions of founder or early people separations like above to be bad. But exceptions or letting people off the hook can happen when I am a fan of or biased for specific people or entities. I get I rambled and didn’t stay in any lane. So probably not very cohesive. I also hope I didn’t write anything insulting toward you.
- lowercased 5y ago
  Nothing insulting. Just... really unsure what was expected of them to do. If you dig in to their stints in Hamburg, Pete never really gelled with the other three. Unsure, but wouldn't surprise me if Aspinall didn't acknowledge Roag for some time. Not saying it was right if he did that, but probably understandable for some folks. > Do the right thing could have been as simple as being honest and straight forward Lennon was quoted a couple of times as saying Pete wasn't a very good drummer. That was being simple and honest and straight forward. Wasn't helpful to Pete, was it? I'd read he was suicidal for a bit, but seemed to get past that and just moved on for a time. I thought he was worked in a bakery (but might be confusing him with someone else), not as a janitor. Something else I read just indicated he worked for the civil service, which might be anything. Again though... "being honest" from the Beatles' perspective was "we didn't think he was all that great, and we used him for a while as a drummer". Doesn't paint him in a great light. Releasing statements from George Martin at the time saying "I don't want Pete on studio recordings" - again, honest, but wouldn't have been terribly kind at the time. Could they have just paid him some money in the 60s? Maybe. Unsure how much he got in '69 from the defamation lawsuit.

skinnymuch 5y ago

I didn’t load the site so didn’t know it was 1969. I wouldn’t have asked otherwise, sorry. Pete was the only one with any sort of normal non janitor life expectations before he joined the band. He was getting further education. None of other Beatles were. His life got chaotic because of The Beatles. He ended up being a janitor. Since that likely wouldn’t have happened if the Beatles had never been a part of his life and some Beatles members (Lennon, Harrison to a degree) get kudos and what not for being good guys, is it really that hard to imagine any of them doing almost any thing for him when they became the biggest band of all time a couple years later? Especially with Epstein still trying to help Pete out in the 60s. Do the right thing could have been almost anything besides what actually happened before 1995. The remarks The Beatles had made in the decade or two that followed were pretty weak. Pete Best was a suicidal janitor. As the biggest band in the world and of all time, during their peak, they settled a defamation lawsuit with Pete. The Beatles just being honest would have been better than what they did. Do the right thing could have been as simple as being honest and straight forward and doing what a decent person would do in a vacuum. A lot is rectified by 1995 of course. Wasn’t Aspinall the guy who didn’t acknowledge the half brother as his child for some time? I believe he has flip flopped his wording before for different things. I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, just adding on to how no one in The Beatles inner circle except Epstein seemed to do what I think people would do in a vacuum. When all of these people are worshipped beyond belief. Most media and reports about them are going to lean heavily in their favor too. Making it even harder to get the real truth on stuff. This fact is going to be known to everyone close to The Beatles. This isn’t dissimilar to what happened to Snapchat’s or Twitter’s ousted founders (Twitter’s story is the worst one by far and makes The Beatles and Best look like a fairy tale). Those cases are far worse than Facebook’s Eduardo situation. Yet people find Facebook’s relatively minor incident to be a negative reflection of Facebook and Zuckerberg pretty easily. I am not an exception to this. I fall into this same thinking. Overall, people can have a pretty easy time finding the actions of founder or early people separations like above to be bad. But exceptions or letting people off the hook can happen when I am a fan of or biased for specific people or entities. I get I rambled and didn’t stay in any lane. So probably not very cohesive. I also hope I didn’t write anything insulting toward you.

lowercased 5y ago
Nothing insulting. Just... really unsure what was expected of them to do. If you dig in to their stints in Hamburg, Pete never really gelled with the other three. Unsure, but wouldn't surprise me if Aspinall didn't acknowledge Roag for some time. Not saying it was right if he did that, but probably understandable for some folks. > Do the right thing could have been as simple as being honest and straight forward Lennon was quoted a couple of times as saying Pete wasn't a very good drummer. That was being simple and honest and straight forward. Wasn't helpful to Pete, was it? I'd read he was suicidal for a bit, but seemed to get past that and just moved on for a time. I thought he was worked in a bakery (but might be confusing him with someone else), not as a janitor. Something else I read just indicated he worked for the civil service, which might be anything. Again though... "being honest" from the Beatles' perspective was "we didn't think he was all that great, and we used him for a while as a drummer". Doesn't paint him in a great light. Releasing statements from George Martin at the time saying "I don't want Pete on studio recordings" - again, honest, but wouldn't have been terribly kind at the time. Could they have just paid him some money in the 60s? Maybe. Unsure how much he got in '69 from the defamation lawsuit.