Once and for All: The Fifth Beatle
By sammymaudlin on May 16, 2007
As we all know, the End Times are upon us.
And there are several rock-related issues that require closure. Up first, Who IS The Fifth Beatle? This term has been bandied about more than Paris Hilton's labia and I for one am more than ready for some closure. And to my mind there is only ONE logical answer but apparently there are others with "opinions" of their own.
Follow up:
The Wikipedia does a pretty good job of outlining the "candidates" here. So good in fact that some of this write-up is blatantly plagarized. There are 25-some odd people mentioned here! A few make sense: Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best. I would genuinely listen to arguments for these gents. Although if you're going to argue these guys, wouldn't - like - Pete be the fourth, Stu the fifth, and Ringo the Sixth? Feel free to Prince Nez me on the chronology here.
But Billy Preston? Klaus Voorman? Phil Spector?!!! Give me a break! And who the fuck is Alf Bicknell?! Please.
Sadly, The Beatles themselves are WRONG on the issue. Depending on your source, either George and/or Ringo declared Murray the K as The Fifth Beatle. At the Beatles' 1988 induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, George Harrison stated that there were only two "fifth Beatles": Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall. That's just bad math. Paul McCartney, in 1997, stated: "If anyone was the fifth Beatle, it was Brian." This statment by Paul precedes Linda's death so I'm more likely to give it credibility. Anything A.L. though is just pops and buzzes.
To make this issue more imminent is the upcoming film, yup, The Fifth Beatle, a biopic on the life of Brian Epstein. Anyone here bi-curious?
OK, so here's the fact: The only possible The Fifth Beatle can be George Martin. George Martin produced nearly all the Beatles' recordings and wrote the instrumental score for the Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, and the string and horn (and even some vocal) arrangements for almost all of their songs (with the famous exception of the Phil Spector re-production Let It Be). Martin's piano playing also appears on several of their tracks, including "Misery" and "In My Life".
So is this just a rhetorical post or does someone disagree? If there is dissent here, let's hear it and afterwards we'll set up a poll and let The People decide.
WARNING: Arguments for Jeff Lynne will be immediately deleted.
37 comments
Barrington Womble?
George Martin.
Not sure what you're looking for here beyond a "vote."
What got me back on this pet peeve was a rash of headlines in mid-April like this: "Fifth Beatle" Aspinall quits top job, referring to Aspinall's departure as the head of Apple Corps.
It just seems so crystal clear to me that if there were a Fifth Beatle it would have to be Martin. I wanted to see if any of the authorities here could possibly believe otherwise.
As easy as it is to dub Martin with that title once and for all, I have to wonder if Epstein should get the credit for his early work on helping the band gel as a commercial entity, believe in themselves, and perfectly form that special "Beatles spirit." The fact that Martin's work with the band far outlasted Epstein's contributions is worthy of consideratino, but I say that without Epstein pushing them and pulling them into an easy-to-digest formulation that there mihght not have been a Rubber Soul and beyond, or that only folks like us would have cared sso passionately.
Not my selection, but the guy who the Beatles were most comfortable having with them inside the inner sanctum was Mal Evans. From the earliest days driving the van to the later days throwing Hells Angels out of Apple Corps, he was the guy they shared the majority of their time and jelly babies with. I'm a Martin man, but I like Mal as my Dark Horse.
Also, I'm convinced that Elliot Mintz is made of wax. I mean, look at him!
he had the biggest input on the music
Yes. And isn't that the criteria for being given band-member status?
I will note that should we decide once and for all that Martin is the 5th Beatle, I can live with that choice. I agree with Sammy that it's important we put an end to this debate.
I agree with Sammy that it's important we put an end to this debate.
END? How long are you dorks planning to live? Every single issue on here has to keep coming back with at least the asymetrical regularity of a comet, until we have the final round of Last Man Standing, which is, of course, played literally. If questions like "Who is the fifth Beatle?" or "Doesn't that ewe bush look just like Rollie Massimino?" are never asked, everyone will actually have to attend to their jobs and the business at hand! Do you want to live in that world? Mr. Gergely might, but count me out! Just take care, Mr. Mod, not to kill the goose that lays the golden "healing."
They kicked him out for being black.
Then he went and formed The Black Beatles.
On a whole other note - I would pay to have the RTH bomb logo with the cracking earth on a dirtweed shirt. Who's gonna make me one? Who?
END?Agreed... to a point. When Jeff Lynne can appear on an "authoritative" list of potential Fifth Beatles, the discussion has clearly gotten out of control. It is at these rare and unfortunate junctures that we at Rock Town Hall, not unlike the Supreme Court, need to step in and make a decisive verdict.
John would never have been able to sing so well without Gummo's steady supply of Wrigley's Spearmint.
I agree with Sally to a point. Ain't no fifth Beatle. None of those people were adopting disguises to live their lives or subject to the same pressures. Where is George Martin when the girls are chasing the lads? Where is Brian when the tunes are layed down? Songs without contributions by Martin aren't less Beatley. The post and pre-Brian periods are still Beatley. I think Mal Evans had the closest experience to Beatlrey within the suspects, but was clealy a lackey and not "musical", except for one organ part. Anvil and alarm clock playing notwithstanding, he seems to have the closest relationship and shared the tour and studio time and inbetween craziness, albeit serving mostly as a trusted buffer.
I do believe George Martin is the fifth Action, and Brian was a Pacemaker or perhaps a Dakota.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Purdie
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/report_only_7_band_names
re. the poll, i'm proud (or am i ashamed?) to have authored the "rock nerd-dom" option, and to know that others feel the same way. thank you rth...
But maybe in the spirit of TIME's Person of the Year in '06 being "you" perhaps we're all the Fifth Beatles. How would the Mop Tops have progressed if no one bought their records, would they have been as experimental or would they just chase trends? We, the collective Fifth Beatles might have been the most important Beatle of all. Give youselves a round of applause, the rest of you just rattle your jewelry.
-db
np Sly and the Famly Stone - STAND!
now i'm less interested in who deserves 5th beatle status than i am interested in the origins of the concept: what's the earliest known reference to a so-called "5th beatle"?I'm pretty sure it goes back to New York DJ Murray the K. He certainly promoted himself as such, but it's unclear whether he took an offhand comment from either George or Ringo and ran with it, or if he just made it up.
Then after the concept was out there, it was variously applied to other more or less deserving people.
i always imagined that the comment by george and ringo (which is documented) was less a way of complimenting Murray the K than it was a way of bringing his 'wannabe' status to the forefront. they were so dry, i always figured it was a dig, which he ran with, as you suggest.
We would never have known about The Beatles if hadn't been for their Mums either.
I thought it was their trousers?
The only problem I have with either George Martin or Brian Epstein is that they already had set roles. To me, "The 5th beatle" tag is a more nebulous role
Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.
| « All-Star Jam | Endurance: The Richard Lloyd Interview » |
