[DrBenway]

The notion of the "fifth Beatle" has been around for decades. In reading the responses to DavidMahler's recent thead on Lennon/McCartney's most famous song, I started thinking about who might best be described as the fifth member of the Fab Four.

To me, the obvious answer is George Martin, because of his contributions as producer, arranger, and musician. But I think you could make an argument, for better or worse, for any of the people listed. What do you think?

Edit: Here's a very thorough discussion of the subject that I just stumbled across while trying to figure out what subtle was getting at in post #2 (the answer is in the article.) This article lists almost all of the poll choices (leaves out Shankar! Shame!) and adds some that I've never heard. Muhammad Ali? Who knew? But it does make sense.

 

[subtle]

Clarence.

Paul and John conspired from the start to steal all of his good ideas and they succeeded quite well.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Clarence. Paul and John conspired from the start to steal all of his good ideas and they succeeded quite well.

But the comedy/acting thing seems to have worked out pretty well for him...

 

[mbriant]

I've always heard that Billy Preston was considered the fifth Beatle. Then again, I've also heard it suggested that Martin was the fifth Beatle.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, there's even tape of Lennon suggesting Preston be made the fifth Beatle:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia "The Fifth Beatle"? He met The Beatles while on tour in Little Richard's band in 1962. The then-unknown Beatles were the opening act. The Washington Post explained their subsequent meeting: They'd hook up again in 1969, when The Beatles were about to break up while recording the last album they released, Let It Be (they would later record Abbey Road, which was released prior to Let It Be). George Harrison, always Preston's best Beatles buddy, had quit and walked out of the studio and gone to a Ray Charles concert in London, where Preston was playing organ. Harrison brought Preston back to the studio, where his keen musicianship and gregarious personality temporarily calmed the tension. In bootlegged "Let It Be" session tapes, one can hear several heated arguments between John Lennon and Paul McCartney about making Preston a group member (Lennon was all for it) McCartney said there is no point since the group was near its end anyway. It would have made Preston officially "the fifth Beatle," a title he was not loath to exploit over the next three decades. Perhaps as consolation, "Get Back," the only Beatles single (depending on which chart you believe) to enter the British charts at No.1, was credited to "the Beatles with Billy Preston" – the one and only time the band shared the spotlight with a sideman. Preston also accompanied the Beatles during their famous rooftop gig in London, the Beatles' last public performance. [1] He went on to play on their 1970 Let It Be album and on the songs "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and "Something", from 1969's Abbey Road.

 

[wavoman]

Leaving Eddie Murphy aside, I think the phrase "fifth Beatle" should mean there were 5 Beatles, not guest artists, and not subs (who would be "substitute Beatles" or "temporary Beatles").

And I would use "former Beatle" for Best. Or "original, but replaced Beatle".

There was only one epoch when there were 5 Beatles, so the poll answers itself:
Sutcliff.

It is picturesque language to say "fifth Beatle" to mean someone who helped the group tons, like Martin, but such use should be avoided when there is a chance for ambiguity like there is here, since there were 5 Beatles at first.

That's the view of the language police, which I guess I am a member of tonight.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is picturesque language to say "fifth Beatle" to mean someone who helped the group tons, like Martin, but such use should be avoided when there is a chance for ambiguity like there is here, since there were 5 Beatles at first. That's the view of the language police, which I guess I am a member of tonight.

I definitely see your point, but I think it's a bit of a technicality. George Martin was present for virtually their entire recording career, and contributed hugely important elements like the string arrangements for "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby." I'm pretty sure he also played the thundering piano part on their cover of Barrett Strong's "Money," which is surely one of their finest early moments.

I think the argument for Billy Preston is compelling; he arrived in the studio at a time when the continued existence of the band was in grave doubt, and helped immeasurably with three of the best tracks from Let It Be:
the title track, "Get Back," and "Don't Let Me Down." I'm not sure that Abbey Road would have ever happened if he hadn't helped them salvage the Let It Be sessions. Sure, his direct involvement was brief, but it was also crucial.

 

[wavoman]

Language Police Back!

So how about

Honorary "fifth" Beatle

or

"virtually a fifth Beatle"

for Preston, or Martin, or the folks George Harrison is quoted as saying were the only true "fifth Beatles" according to Wikipedia: Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall.

That way we save "fifth Beatle" for the only true fifth Beatle.

The statements of the Beatles themselves were designed to honor their close employees and helpers and friends, not to be historically accurate. No gain for them there.

Think about it: you wouldn't call an ex-spouse you divorced, or a former spouse now deceased, as "a third partner in my marriage", would you? Does that fit Best and Sutcliff? [Did Sutcliff leave before he died, I don't know the facts here ... but the point is valid either way].

Answer: Sutcliff. Again, leaving out temps and sidemen, you have to say:

1. Lennon
2. McCartney
3. Harrison
4. Best replaced by Starr
5. Sutcliff [left/died]

That would pass my history exam. Another question on the exam: "what non-Beatle had the most influence on the group" and now you have the Preston / Martin debate.

 

[mbriant]

While technically Sutcliffe was the 5th Beatle, he was long gone before they hit the big time and released their first albums. They were little more than a popular regional ( Liverpool and Hamburg ) bar band while he was a member.
99.9999% of the population thinks of the Fab Four as being the Beatles ... anything before they released I Wanna Hold Your Hand and She Loves You, was a practically unknown and ever-changing mishmash of members and even band names. Since Sutcliffe never really contributed to any of the many Beatles hits, the songs that made them household names, Sutcliffe is really a very minor player. IMO at least.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Language Police Back! So how about Honorary "fifth" Beatle or "virtually a fifth Beatle"

I absolutely buy that argument, since it respects the artistic contributions of the "honorary" or "virtual" fifth, while also respecting the historical facts of the band's official personnel.


Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The statements of the Beatles themselves were designed to honor their close employees and helpers and friends, not to be historically accurate. No gain for them there.

Agreed. There is no doubt that the insiders on this bizarre journey would favor those who travelled with them, regardless of the hard facts of who did what in the studio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think about it: you wouldn't call an ex-spouse you divorced, or a former spouse now deceased, as "a third partner in my marriage", would you?

No, but I would definitely refer to such a person as a partner in my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif [Did Sutcliff leave before he died, I don't know the facts here ... but the point is valid either way].

My understanding is that Sutcliff was never really comfortable as a musician; he considered himself first and formost a painter. He left the band to concentrate on his painting. He died not long after, of a cerebral hemmorage (If I remember correctly).


Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Answer: Sutcliff. Again, leaving out temps and sidemen, you have to say: 1. Lennon 2. McCartney 3. Harrison 4. Best replaced by Starr 5. Sutcliff [left/died] That would pass my history exam. Another question on the exam: "what non-Beatle had the most influence on the group" and now you have the Preston / Martin debate.

You are correct in terms of official membership. But I think musical contribution can potentially trump official membership. Think about it: we haven't even gotten into Phil Spector's role in messing with the original Get Back session tapes (that was the working title for what became Let It Be)

I have to defer to your sense of history: the Beatles were, obviously, John, Paul, George, and Ringo. But the magic in the music came from a much, much larger cast than that...

 

[wavoman]

Very good points, both mbriant and DrBenway ...mbriant's point applies to Best too, yes?

But they had settled on the Beatles name by then ... so technically Sutcliff's in. But I agree with both of you -- this is technically only.

"Fifth Beatle when the group was originally five members, with no real impact on the group's utlimate destiny"

We can all agree on that!

 

[drlee27]

The fifth beatle was Brian Epstein, the manager who made them famous.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drlee27 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The fifth beatle was Brian Epstein, the manager who made them famous.

Y'know, I was waiting for someone to bring that. When I roughed out the list that I posted, I had the nagging feeling that I had left someone out.

Great call. Not my choice, but an obvious option. Thanks for putting his name in play.

 

[Nick 214]

Best.

Saw him in a great free show about 2 years ago..

NK

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 214 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Best. Saw him in a great free show about 2 years ago.. NK

Rodeo Bar...?

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very good points, both mbriant and DrBenway ...mbriant's point applies to Best too, yes? But they had settled on the Beatles name by then ... so technically Sutcliff's in. But I agree with both of you -- this is technically only. "Fifth Beatle when the group was originally five members, with no real impact on the group's utlimate destiny" We can all agree on that!

I've re-read your post several times, and at a certain point something sank in: the Beatles were a miracle, not to be repeated. We can analyze every detail and historical fact, but...they were an unreproduceable product of their time.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, in their thrall. I remember a promoter named Sid Bernstein, who had previously booked them, offering an insane (for the time) sum of money for a one-time reunion. As I recall, he took out a full-page advert in the NYT, which had to have cost him some serious money. They responded with dead silience, of course, and this directly led to Loren Michaels's bits on SNL, where he offered them the princely sum of $1000 for a reunion on the show ("guys, you can give Ringo less if you like...").

They were of their time...and they worked with the best musicians of their time.