Who is the 5th Beatle? | Yesterday... and today | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Who is the 5th Beatle?
2 December 2009
7.59pm
c64wood
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 228
Member Since:
4 September 2009
Offline

With all the influencial people that came in contact with The Beatles during their career, who do you believe to be the 5th Beatle?

I know you know what you know, but you should know by now that you're not me ~ Ron Nasty
3 December 2009
3.51am
Alissa
Find me in my field of grass
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 401
Member Since:
21 August 2009
Offline

If I had to choose… I think I'd choose. Hm.

Honestly, Pete, if anyone. He was in it all through their Hamburg days lasting until getting the boot, and it was obvious he was talented enough to generate a fan base that was entirely reluctant to let him go and welcome the new Beatle, that guy with the big nose and the funny name, to them!

While I think Stu would be a runner up to the 5th Beatle position, I think it should be Pete purely for the fact that to me, Stu didn't want to play. He wasn't big on performing- he was all their for John. Pete was a musician (more or less) in his own right, while Stu became the bassist because he could afford a decent instrument.

I admit though, I love Stu probably more than I've ever gotten into Pete Best. Sure, I'm positive he was talented if John and Paul let him play in the band, but Stu was an artist, and the best, understanding friend John could ever hope to have. He was an asset to the band in various ways, but really, Pete was the rhythm backbone to the Beatles for a while, so, I think it's Pete.

Tongue, lose thy light. Moon, take thy flight… see ya, George!
5 December 2009
8.51am
mjb
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 536
Member Since:
14 October 2009
Offline

Alissa said:

If I had to choose… I think I'd choose. Hm.

Honestly, Pete, if anyone. He was in it all through their Hamburg days lasting until getting the boot, and it was obvious he was talented enough to generate a fan base that was entirely reluctant to let him go and welcome the new Beatle, that guy with the big nose and the funny name, to them!

While I think Stu would be a runner up to the 5th Beatle position, I think it should be Pete purely for the fact that to me, Stu didn't want to play. He wasn't big on performing- he was all their for John. Pete was a musician (more or less) in his own right, while Stu became the bassist because he could afford a decent instrument.

I admit though, I love Stu probably more than I've ever gotten into Pete Best. Sure, I'm positive he was talented if John and Paul let him play in the band, but Stu was an artist, and the best, understanding friend John could ever hope to have. He was an asset to the band in various ways, but really, Pete was the rhythm backbone to the Beatles for a while, so, I think it's Pete.


That's a very interesting reply. Most always say George Martin because of his influence. but naming Pete does make sense! We must remember, the Beatles' biggest problem in their founding years was the lack of a drummer and Pete stepped in to get them out of a crisis when they needed one for Hamburg. What if they hadn't found a drummer I wonder? OK, they would more than likely (beyond any doubt) have still been as big as they were, but Pete was there at the right time and played a very important part in their apprenticeship.

And the thing I like about Pete to this very day is the dignity he has shown over the years.  Not once has he slagged off the others and I thought it was fantastic that he finally got his "reward" when the Anthology CDs came out and his bank balance was boosted beyond his wildest dreams.

So I second Alissa's nomination: Randolph Peter Best Laugh

"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
8 December 2009
2.23am
RufusWild
New York, NY
The Indra
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
12 September 2009
Offline

What Pete Best went through…. good God, can you even imagine?  It must have been just amazing.  He so easily could have turned into the most bitter, mean-spirited, angry, depressed character.  Could anyone have blamed him? 

That said, I don't think he was aimportant as Brian Epstein or George Martin in the trajectory of the career we are all so fascinated by.  I'd vote for one of those two gentlemen -- or, of course, the ultimate cop-out answer: Us.  We are the Fifth Beatle.  Without us, there's nothing…

"We were just a band, who made it very very big, that's all."
8 December 2009
7.47pm
Amphion
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 31
Member Since:
6 December 2009
Offline

No disrespect to your opinions, but George Martin has to be the 5th Beatle. The evolution of their music, and the evolution of all rock and pop music is as much to do with Martin as it is to do with Lennon and McCartney. Its often been quoted that The Beatles went from 'She Loves You' to 'Pepper' in four short years, and taking nothing away from John and Pauls writing ability, George Martin made a lot of things happen. Like deciphering John's request to have "A sound thats like the end of the world", and turning it into music, was Martin's genius. the Beatles would probably have been as big had they joined Decca in 1962, but whether they would have evolved so fast is open to debate!!!

9 January 2010
5.37pm
skye
AZ
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2288
Member Since:
13 November 2009
Offline

I think I'd have to side with Amphion, but the points for Best were well made. What I don't understand is why after all of the hours spent playing in Hamburg and Liverpool did so much good in improving J, P & G's skill, yet Pete never got beyond average? Or did he improve but just wasn't as talented as Ringo?

Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
11 January 2010
10.30am
Joe
Pepperland
Admin
Forum Posts: 3450
Member Since:
31 March 2008
Offline

As I understand it, Pete developed a style which he called the Atom Beat, which was the four-to-the-floor driving sound that characterized a lot of early beat group performances. Ringo was one of the drummers who adopted the style, but became more confident than Pete Best. Although he was never a great drummer, Best was important enough in developing their Hamburg-era sound.

Please don't spoil my day; I'm miles away

Can buy me love! Please consider using these links to support the Beatles Bible: Amazon | iTunes

16 January 2010
4.22am
roosterrat1
Guest

I know its unconventional, but I would say Billy Preston is as good a 5th Beatles as anyone. Without his work, many songs would lose their musical value.

17 January 2010
7.15am
mjb
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 536
Member Since:
14 October 2009
Offline

roosterrat1 said:I know its unconventional, but I would say Billy Preston is as good a 5th Beatles as anyone. Without his work, many songs would lose their musical value.


Without Billy I think they may have self-imploded sooner too!

"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
18 January 2010
5.24am
Day Tripped
Guest
10

I think Paul said that Brian Epstein was the "fifth beatle ".

Of course, Stuart Sutcliffe,original bassist of The Beatles, is often referred to as the "fifth Beatle".

 

I do believe that Billy Preston is the fifth beatle because he was working with them after 1967.

He should be given some credit…

19 January 2010
10.31pm
iCaramba
Guest
11

I've always maintained that this elusive 5th Beatle you speak of is a combination of George Martin and Brian Epstein. Kind of a 5A/5B situation. Wink

Brian made things happen for them, and Martin, well… need I say more?

As for the Pete Best argument, I'll paraphrase John Lennon, who said: "Pete was a good drummer, but Ringo was a good Beatle."

20 January 2010
11.06pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
12

George Martin for a number of reasons, not least of which the fact that he contributed musical performances to more Beatles recordings than anyone other than the four themselves.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
21 January 2010
3.34pm
mjb
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 536
Member Since:
14 October 2009
Offline
13

iCaramba said:

As for the Pete Best argument, I'll paraphrase John Lennon, who said: "Pete was a good drummer, but Ringo was a good Beatle."


But don't forget the other well known quote: "Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles" Laugh

"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
22 January 2010
11.25am
Joe
Pepperland
Admin
Forum Posts: 3450
Member Since:
31 March 2008
Offline

Isn't that apocryphal? I'm not sure it was ever actually said, though it's normally attributed to John Lennon. Either way it's a great comment.

Please don't spoil my day; I'm miles away

Can buy me love! Please consider using these links to support the Beatles Bible: Amazon | iTunes

30 January 2010
2.12pm
PaulRamon
Liverpool
The Star-Club
Forum Posts: 66
Member Since:
26 January 2010
Offline
15

I don't go in for all this fifth Beatle rubbish. What other group do you ever hear about having a fifth or other member? There was only a fifth Beatle when there was one (if you know what i mean!) In Hamburg when there were five of them. Everyone else was who they were, a producer or a manager or whatever they were. They are all recognised for the contributions they made but none of them knew what it was like to be a Beatle full time. 

Pete Best was technically the only fifth Beatle there was because he was the fifth one to join. After that there wasn't one 

Onward my friends, and glory for the thirty ninth!!
30 January 2010
3.44pm
mjb
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 536
Member Since:
14 October 2009
Offline
16

PaulRamon said:

I don't go in for all this fifth Beatle rubbish. What other group do you ever hear about having a fifth or other member? There was only a fifth Beatle when there was one (if you know what i mean!) In Hamburg when there were five of them. Everyone else was who they were, a producer or a manager or whatever they were. They are all recognised for the contributions they made but none of them knew what it was like to be a Beatle full time. 

Pete Best was technically the only fifth Beatle there was because he was the fifth one to join. After that there wasn't one 


When looking at the question in reality you are, of course, quite right with that view. You don't get asked who is the fifth Rolling Stone or Led Zep member do you? But, people like to analyse anything Beatle related and so it will go on……and on and on…….

"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
7 March 2010
3.26am
sgtpepperbowman
Virginia, United States
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
20 February 2010
Offline
17

When the group became known as The Beatles there was:

-John Lennon

-Stuart Sutcliffe

-Paul McCartney

-George Harrison

-Pete Best

So what I did is find when each one joined the group

1. John Lennon- 1957

2. Paul McCartney- 1957

3. George Harrison- 1958

4. Stuart Sutcliffe- 1960

5. ***Pete Best***- 1960

6. Ringo Starr- 1962

 

Please note that there were many other band members when they were known as the Quarrymen, but these members never were actually known as a Beatle, so therefore they are not included in my list

The following people thank sgtpepperbowman for this post:

Mr. Kite, Annadog40
I am the walrus that lives in a yellow submarine because I like to be in an octopus' garden
13 May 2014
7.59pm
Mr. Kite
910 Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Pepperland
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3661
Member Since:
4 February 2014
Offline
18

Another fifth Beatle thread? Do I sense a merge or should we leave it?

I like the way sgtpepperbowman a-hard-days-night-ringo-8 found the chronological fifth Beatle!

If I spoke prose you'd all find out, I don't know what I talk about.

Can buy Joe love! If you're shopping at one of these two websites use the links below to support the Beatles Bible: Amazon | iTunes
13 May 2014
8.07pm
Annadog40
I am here you are here we are here and we are all together
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4113
Member Since:
1 November 2013
Offline
19

Mr. Kite said
Another fifth Beatle thread? Do I sense a merge or should we leave it?

I like the way sgtpepperbowman a-hard-days-night-ringo-8 found the chronological fifth Beatle!

One is about the Book while this is speculation

 

and I still say that Jori Page is the 5th Beatle

 

Never say never, cause it's never 'never'

If you are like a new thingy than introduction your self in the into place here

If you did that then you win!

11 June 2014
7.54pm
thisbirdhasflown
Standing in the dock at Southhampton...
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1439
Member Since:
28 May 2014
Offline
20

There are obviously several candidates for the Fifth Beatle. But I think really they are all the Fifth Beatle. With each of them, the Beatles would never have been what they became: The greatest rock band in the world.

By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Ron Nasty, Ahhh Girl, Bulldog, StrawberryWalrus, She_is_leaving_home
54 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9737

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5105

Ahhh Girl: 4940

mithveaen: 4651

Annadog40: 4113

Zig: 4099

Mr. Kite: 3661

Ron Nasty: 3026

fabfouremily: 2934

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2590

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3161

Posts: 133792

Newest Members: macdog, estoreparka, mouse, ug3hp, tilt

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (4940), meanmistermustard (9737), Zig (4099), Joe (3450)

Administrators: Joe (3450), Ellie (1)

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None