Talk:Fifth Beatle

Mutterings

Murray The K; Peter Brown: the only two people who can/should be credited as the fifth Beatle

Murray the K never heard ? Is this a joke ?

---

Klaus Voorman was a friend from their Hamburg days but Billy Preston ?

I was surprised by that too. Billy Preston, basically a gospel organist for most of his career, was hired by Little Richard in his "evangelical phase" to play gospel music and went on a European tour with him, but audiences insisted on hearing Little Richard's hits. At any rate, Preston met the Beatles in Hamburg while on that tour, all according to http://wfnk.com/1200/BillyPreston.html. They later reunited in the "Let It Be" era. The web page theorizes that Billy's positive vibes were needed because the Beatles were all mad at each other by then. Ortolan88

It's possible, because Mc Cartney was a great fan of Little Richard.

Eric Clapton?

Didn't Eric Clapton play on "While my guitar gently weeps"? or another track? if so was he not also credited for this? Dainamo 08 October 2004

He did, but I think a single appearance with the Beatles is generally seen as insufficient for being credited as a "Fifth Beatle". Preston appeared on an entire album, and was considered being asked to join the band. If you can find any legitimate reference to Clapton ever being consider the fifth Beatle for this single track, then I guess he could be added to the list, but I don't think it's ever really been the case. -R. fiend 15:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In support of Epstein

You can say Sutcliffe or Best if you want to be literal, I suppose. Aspinall and Evans were mainly roadies and assistants and I don't think that's enough for the claim. Many people say Martin, but, although he did almost all of them, anyone could have produced those tracks. Then we have Epstein. He came in right when the Fab Four were starting out, and fixed them up, introduced Ringo to the band, stayed with them as their manager until he died and, well, really did all of the work. I can't think of anyone else, worthy or not , so I would have to give the title to Brian Epstein.

That's right, Brian Epstein.

--WizardOfTheCDrive 02:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not quite right to say Epstein 'fixed them up, introduced Ringo to the band'. User: DavidFarmbrough 12:24 (BST) 11 APR 2005

What about George Best? He was often referred to as the fifth beatle by the media. SRP 18:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean Pete Best? --WizardOfTheCDrive 17:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean George Best the Manchester United footballer. He was called the fifth beatle due to his haircut and massive celebrity during the late 1960s. SRP 23:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But he had nothing to do with the Beatles. At all. In any way. --WizardOfTheCDrive 16:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither did several of the other people mentioned. If the statement is true and somewhat popular it deserves a single line mention, though I think the legitimate and the spurious holders of the title need to be separated. I believe they were before, but have since sort of been grouped togther. -R. fiend 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't separate them into 'legitimate' and 'spurious'. Apart from the fact that those two adjectives are not binary opposites, it would be subjective as to which applied to which candidate. As this is an encyclopaedia, it is better to use an objective criterion, such as 'these are all people who have been referred to as the Fifth Beatle'. Users can then decide on legitimacy or otherwise of claims. User: DavidFarmbrough 12:25 (BST) 11 APR 2005

I never said George Best had anything to do with the Beatles. I said he was called the fifth Beatle. It was quite a simple statement to understand. This was especially common in the tabloids. SRP 19:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he was. It was because he was living a similar high-profile, privilaged lifestyle at the time.--Crestville 13:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I reworkd the list, moving both Murray K and George B to a smaller, third sublist 'Other well known persons'. How does that do for everybody? (Also not I made substantial changes in the entries referring to Yoko and Spector. Comments?) Eaglizard 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Harry Nilsson isn't there. He was the Beatles' favorite American artist.

Embarrassing?

"The January 1969 recordings for the album were embarassing "? This is POV I think - if someone like Paul said they were embarrassing, then we should say this in the article. I find it hard to believe that an objective assesment would say the tapes are embarrasing in view of their content. DavidFarmbrough

I agree completely; although I'm nearly certain Paul or one of them did in fact use the word 'embarrassing' in referring to the tapes, that doesn't actually matter here, since it would still be POV. However, the fact that the tapes were not up to the usual Beatles standards b/c of the tensions surrounding the recording is indisputible, and NPOV (I think), so I changed it to such. Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, It's Pete...

John and Paul were the first two members of the Beatles to play in a group together (the Quarry Men), which George then joined, followed by Stu. Pete then joined the four-piece, which had by now changed its name to the Beatles, so he was the fifth Beatle and Ringo the sixth.--Paolo Meccano 11:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

... But really, it's George (Martin, not Best).

IMHO, at least -- after all, George contributed more actual original musical content than any one EXCEPT John, Paul, George or Ringo. In fact, you could probably argue that George wrote more Beatles music than Ringo or George, too (but that would be a stretch). And as for the claim above that "... anyone could have produced those tracks," I think this probably a statement by someone relatively unfamiliar with the recording process and it's history, as well as the role of a producer / composer like Martin in that process. The claim is patently false; Martin's influence and innovation on the recording process itself is well-documented, and anyone else would NOT have created the same sound. But hey, let's don't argue; the Beatles' music is wonderful no matter what I or anyone else has to say about it, no? Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree with what George Martin said about Epstien. No matter how talented they were, the beatles wouldn't have got as far as they did without Epstien. Lets not forget he was the one who believed in them from day one. Every manager they had before didn't care about making them into stars, all they wanted was a few bob for local gigs here and there and a couple of quid for Hamberg, it was Epstien who, along with the band, set the plan for world wide fame. 74.65.39.59 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

George Martin

Mr. Martin not only produced the Beatles, but in a large way, his classical training helped to turn a basement or cavern band into a sophisticated orchestra. This is evident when listening to their practice sessions in the Anthology album. For example, he performed the Harpsichord middle for "In My Life". Before Martin, 5th and 6th would be Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe in any order. This means that we are really trying to decide on the 6th Beatle. One day it would be Billy Preston and the next day Eric Clapton or possibly another colleague. Rkm3612 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)rkm3612

Fifth Beatle

There are only two people who should (rightly) be credited as the "fifth Beatle"...By the way, George Harrison did NOT dub Murray The K with that name. He took it for himself during repeated radio broadcasts when he camped out in their hotel rooms. But he coined the phrase, however wrongly. And, from the Biography "The Love You Make," comes the notion that there was only one fifth Beatle: Peter Brown, longtime assistant. (unsigned comment added by User:63.110.90.2 11:49 07 June 2007)

The "Fifth Beatle" is a media invention, promoting one or another person as being as - or almost as - vital to the music, image or whatever, as the band members. It isn't important. Of course, once The Beatles were a five man band - so the one who left is technically the fifth Beatle.LessHeard vanU 12:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Absofrigginlutly! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It amases me how very little credit people give Epstien, while heaping it on Martin. How come the guy who went round record company after record company, being shown the door more times that he cares to remember, get's a small mention, about the same size as George Best (nevermind Pete Best). It's very unfair. It's almost like people see Brian as if he was just the tea boy, getting sandwiches for the band and George Martin. 74.65.39.59

The "Fifth Beatle" was Stuart Sutcliffe, not Epstien, Martin, Preston, Clapton or Hilda Ogden Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A fith Beatle has to contribute musically in one way or another and also the REAL fifth. Pete Best was fired, therefor is not a Beatle. Playing on one or two songs doesn't make a band member, only experiences that span years. The number five goes to Stuart Sutcliffe because he died as a Beatle. He left to stay with Astrid Kirchherr and died, but not fired. That leaves us with Brian Epstien and Sir George Martin.

Brian contributed more for the Beatle than the Beatles did themselves. They were scruffy "Teddy Boys" living around seaport towns like Liverpool and Hamburg. Whether Brian knew it or not, he couldn't make anything of them looking like thugs. Brian couldn't keep their mouths shut and they became world famous witty smart mouths. Especially Lennon, whose mouth got him into trouble occasionally. They loved Brian because he made them millions. He is the sixth Beatle.

Sir George Martin is in the music, literally. If you listen to the Anthology tracks, they sound terrible when playing by themselves. With Sir George's arrangement and accompaniment with all of the orchestral instruments, he is without a doubt, the seventh Beatle. Rkm3612 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George Martin & Eppy were Never members of The Beatles. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS They don't sound terrible playing by themselves they sound "Raw" which is how Rock 'n' Roll was meant to sound before tin pan alley sanitised it with the likes of Fabian and and Del Shannon etc, which was the reason Vee Jay signed them and Capitol didn't.

Their early albums sold in tens of millions without any imput from the string quartet brigade Vera, Chuck & Dave PPS And what's wrong with seaport "towns" like Liverpool? (which is a City) Vera, Chuck & Dave

Joseph Tulip?

Is this some arcane in-joke intended to weed out the diehard Fabs nuts? Can anyone elucidate?Widmerpool 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)