Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7.59pm
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?
3.51am
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.
8.51am
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 
2.23am
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…
7.47pm
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!!!
5.37pm
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?
10.30am
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.
4.22am
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.
7.15am
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!
5.24am
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…
10.31pm
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. 
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."
11.06pm
14 December 2009
Offline
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.
3.34pm
14 October 2009
Offline
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"
11.25am
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.
2.12pm
26 January 2010
Offline
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
3.44pm
14 October 2009
Offline
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…….
3.26am
20 February 2010
Offline
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
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Expert Textpert, Ralphrennick
5 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3438
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1378
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1685
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2400
Posts: 73469
Newest Members: BrettB, Ralphrennick, fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
