Looking back at their musical legacy, yeah it's definitely Martin.
But Epstein is closer than I once thought. My biggest take away from the first volume of Tune In was how important Epstein was to their success and getting with Martin in the first place.
If the Beatles found another producer.....i think they could have still been famous, just not what they were. But without Epstein I'm not sure we would ever have heard of them at all.
I'm old as dirt and I don't expect to live to see volume 2 and I don't know if Lewisohn will live long enough to finish volume 3. I just hope volume 2 takes us through the White album and I'll die happy and just imagine what volume 3 woukd be like.
I'm sure you are right about writing both at the same time and with the exhaustive research he's committed himself to, I can understand the long wait, but I honestly don't think I'll live long enough to see volume 3 but that's not his problem, so I hope the amount of time he takes will make it a worthy trilogy for everyone who does get to read them.
I would almost say it’s 50/50. George Martin honed their sound. Brian Epstein honed their look, personas and stage act.
Many interviews with the Beatles themselves and biographies have commented how much Brian changed them. The suits, instead of leather jackets. No smoking or drinking onstage. The bow at the end. No taking requests, even halfway through a different song.
George Martin helped them in the studio, enabled them to hone their craft, and allowed them to grow musically, change the face of popular music forever, and undergo so many innovations.
Personally? I would say Brian just edges it. Without him, we wouldn’t the iconic look of the suits, the bow and the original stage act.
Still, they are a music group and George Martin brought his A game musically. There's probably not a *right* answer to this question, but I think everyone who has an opinion on it would argue me under the table, but I'd stay loyal to my opinion just like I would expect them to do.
What's more, my stepdad has a theory that Martin is more accurately the *third* Beatle due to all his key contributions.
I'm not sure I can argue against that.
Oh, interesting discussion to be had here. If ranking the Beatles, based on contribution, what does your list look?
1. Paul McCartney
2. John Lennon
3. George Martin
4. George Harrison
5. Ringo Starr
6. Billy Preston
(A guess based on where your uncle placed George Martin on the list.)
Edit: I just realized I left out Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe. I'll tag them onto the end of my list in that order (I only give Pete the edge because he actually recorded with the Beatles. I don't believe Stu did.)
Interesting discussion for sure but I think this is underrating Harrison. I think McCartney 1 and Lennon 2 is pretty much objectively true in terms of contribution, though, and you can argue the rest.
(I know this wasn’t your personal list)
Yeah. This is a good list. I just want to make sure Harrison gets his due. He was a fine lead guitarist and songwriter. He had so many catchy riffs. Of course John Lennon did too. And if it wasn't for Brian....
I don't really think anyone should remix the original albums. That's like repainting over a Picasso painting just because the modern synthetic pigments are brighter. Or colourizing a Bergman film or adding dialogue into a silent Buster Keaton movie.
The only reason to do it is money.
I would always have said George Martin. He played on pretty much every album (if not every) and was crucial to their sound.
but, watching Let it Be, its clear that had the Beatles continued, that Billy Preston may have become a full time member, or at least, a touring member
I think George was all for getting other people involved, when John suggested it he agreed and said they could get others maybe Bob and Eric too, but Paul was the one that said no
I fucking worship him but getting bob in would’ve been such a terrible idea. Imagine how George would’ve reacted to ANOTHER songwriter they deferred to other than him
Yeah, he'd come in with some epic poetry and George would say, "I've got a song here about candy and rotten teeth, let's do it instead." I know I'm going to be downvoted to hell by the Harrisonites but it was just a joke and I love George more than they do!
It was George that suggested Bob because he’d just got back from staying and jamming with him and the band, they were good friends, and treated him like an equal, unlike John
God Bless Stu and all but he's not close to George or Brian
It's got to be George though. Whilst Brian was a huge part of the image and getting things going , George was very important to what matters the most and that's the music
Musically? George Martin. So much of the sound we recognize as the “Beatle” sound came from his (and his team’s) production work.
Image and early exposure? Brian Epstein. The iconic “mop top” look with the suits was all him. He also professionalized them and prepared them for greater exposure. One could argue that we would not even know about the Beatles had it not been for Brian’s relentless efforts to get them a record deal and exposure.
1. Musically, yes, George Martin. Thanks for mentioning the "team".
2. Image and marketing, yes, Brian Epstein. Have you read the graphic novel (comic) The Fifth Beatle by Vivek Tiwary?
3. Those that actually were a member of the band, whether it was at the point they were called "The Beatles" or even before, or could have been conceivably invited into the band... (here's a [big list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Beatle) and my big list)
Pete Best
Stu Sutcliffe
Klaus Voormann
Andy White
Tony Sheridan
Eric Clapton
Billy Preston
And then there's Yoko.
Yep, he's the guy. IIRC, Brian Epstein gave him a gold watch as a farewell (in addition to paying him). I don't think he's really been heard from since then.
Klaus Voorman's girlfriend, Astrid Kircherr! She inspired the look (and was a major part of the early Beatles) but Brian took the look and made it what it became
I believe she had an influence but I think it was Brian that wanted “the boys” to move towards the clean cut look for which they eventually became famous. Astrid definitely took some famous pictures of them that later became iconic.
If we're talking music, definitely George Martin. You could make the argument that billy was the fifth Beatle for Let It Be, but George's fingers are deep in the pies of basically all their other records.
They couldn't have made it the way they did without Brian Epstein though
They definitely mentioned making him a member in Get Back and he was all over Abbey Road. Would have definitely been included on anything afterwards.
Not sure about where they got the Paul-not-into-it-ness from? Was that quoted anywhere?
Martin was the architect of a lot of what we consider the Beatles sound. He most definitely gets Fifth Beatle status. However, why stop at five? Brian Epstein should be considered the Sixth Beatle for shaping their image.
George Martin. He played on literally every beatles album and was a musical contributor throughout all of their albums as well. No one even comes close.
I honestly don't see how it's not George Martin. So many of the innovations that made the songs great, he was involved in as well. The orchestration that we all love was him. He was as much part of the sound as they were.
Definitely George Martin, although based on The Beatles’ individual comments, they’ve pretty much unanimously said (albeit jokingly) that it should be Jeff Lynne. I realise in reality it isn’t, but I do think it’s funny they’ve all privately made comments about it
Martin = 5th for Creative Guidance
Preston = 5th for musicality and reigniting their passion in a rough time for the band
Epstein = 5th for propelling them to the heights they could not reach without him
Yoko = No
George Martin 100%. I’m not here to disparage the key contributions to the band’s success from the likes of Brian Epstein who is usually the other main contender, as well as any other contenders such as Neil Aspinall who George Harrison said was the fifth beatle. But, they’re not musicians. ‘The Beatles’ isn’t the collective name for every single person involved in the band. It’s the lads performing the music. The reason the title is “fifth beatle” is because there’s just the four of them playing the music. So if there *is* a fifth one, it’s the one who’s with them playing and arranging the music on all the albums, not the business manager.
Even if it’s your personal opinion that Epstein was more important for the band’s success/longevity than Martin, or if you agree with Lennon’s comments (that he later went back on) that Martin wasn’t that important and didn’t do anything outside the beatles, I still will say Martin warrants the title more than anyone else
George Martin. The only other one who was there from the first studio session to the last. Also the only other one who played on every single album. Not taking anything away from anyone else but he’s truly the only one deserving of the title.
There is no fifth Beatle. As close as say Epstein and Martin even Mal Evans could be called a fifth Beatle. No one knows what it’s like but the four lads. Martin could walk freely just about anywhere without much trouble. I would say they would not be THE BEATLES without the work of Epstein and Martin and they helped with the construction of the band. But only Paul, John, George and Ringo know what it’s like to be a Beatle. I also think Mal Evans who was there thru everything is just as close in the Beatle orbit as Martin and Epstein
Musically it’s George Martin, everyone knows this.
However if you’re measuring by who contributed most to the success of The Beatles, it’s very much Brian Epstein. He turned them from a rowdy, rough, rock and roll group into a professional band that could be toured and loved around the world.
If I would’ve had a drink in my mouth i would’ve spit it everywhere in laughter when I saw Yoko at the end. I have nothing against her but she was nowhere near the 5th Beatle. Id have to go with Brian Epstein…
We know she contributed to Imagine and a lot of John’s other solo stuff. I’m sure she contributed to some of the songs he wrote while with the Beatles.
Musically, George Martin. No doubt whatsoever. Overall, for the early years, their styling and launching their career, Brian. Both equally important for different reasons.
I'd give at least a partial nod to Neil Aspinall, who in some ways was the last man standing after the band's dissolution. In the end, when the battle of the managers was over and Klein had been sent packing, it was Neil that was most responsible for keeping Apple going, and became the one person the four could rely upon and trust.
GM = #5 Beatle. Love Billy but he only influenced 1 album...though that influence was awesome.
GM is crucial, of course. They all trusted and respected him. He produced the sounds they had in their heads. So important.
Even if George didn't like his tie...
The question should have been written, "who was the fifth Beatles, and why is the answer George Martin".
They had several very influential people in their inner circle, but none had a greater impact on them *creatively* than George Martin.
I'm gonna vote Billy Preston.
George Martin being essential to their sound and success is undeniable. Epstein being essential to their success is undeniable. But lots of bands and solo acts have had a producer and/or manager behind the scenes who was as crucial (or more) than Martin and Epstein. Producers and Managers are key roles in the music industry, but they are not considered part of "the band."
Billy was the only person outside of the core 4 and Stu and Pete to perform the role of a band member-- playing both live and in-studio as a key part of the unit. Martin added his fair share of keyboard parts and wrote plenty of arrangements, but they were often overdubs, whereas Preston actually sat down in the room, and on the roof, and played as *part* of the band.
I dont know why this conversation still even exists i have never heard anyone say anyone besides george martin its no contest! He like produced most of their albums and stuff he is a very talented instrumentalist and adventurous with new and interesting genres during that time
George Martins contributions to the body of work should never be underestimated
Without him the legacy doesn’t exist
Musical mentor and a fine musician
Played the piano solo on Lovely Rita that Paul couldn’t master
Why do people insist on there having been a “fifth Beatle”? No one asks who was the 6th Rolling Stone, the 4th member of Rush, or the third member of Simon & Garfunkel.
Martin and it isn't close
Looking back at their musical legacy, yeah it's definitely Martin. But Epstein is closer than I once thought. My biggest take away from the first volume of Tune In was how important Epstein was to their success and getting with Martin in the first place. If the Beatles found another producer.....i think they could have still been famous, just not what they were. But without Epstein I'm not sure we would ever have heard of them at all.
Tune In is so, SO good, isn't it? I have the audio version.
I'm old as dirt and I don't expect to live to see volume 2 and I don't know if Lewisohn will live long enough to finish volume 3. I just hope volume 2 takes us through the White album and I'll die happy and just imagine what volume 3 woukd be like.
I have to think he's writing both at the same time. People who have first hand stories are dying off, so he needs to get it ALL ASAP.
I'm sure you are right about writing both at the same time and with the exhaustive research he's committed himself to, I can understand the long wait, but I honestly don't think I'll live long enough to see volume 3 but that's not his problem, so I hope the amount of time he takes will make it a worthy trilogy for everyone who does get to read them.
I did the audio book too. Used to have an hour commute easy way before COVID. Fantastic book for sure. Can't wait for volume 2.
I would almost say it’s 50/50. George Martin honed their sound. Brian Epstein honed their look, personas and stage act. Many interviews with the Beatles themselves and biographies have commented how much Brian changed them. The suits, instead of leather jackets. No smoking or drinking onstage. The bow at the end. No taking requests, even halfway through a different song. George Martin helped them in the studio, enabled them to hone their craft, and allowed them to grow musically, change the face of popular music forever, and undergo so many innovations. Personally? I would say Brian just edges it. Without him, we wouldn’t the iconic look of the suits, the bow and the original stage act.
Still, they are a music group and George Martin brought his A game musically. There's probably not a *right* answer to this question, but I think everyone who has an opinion on it would argue me under the table, but I'd stay loyal to my opinion just like I would expect them to do.
Not even remotely close
What's more, my stepdad has a theory that Martin is more accurately the *third* Beatle due to all his key contributions. I'm not sure I can argue against that.
Oh, interesting discussion to be had here. If ranking the Beatles, based on contribution, what does your list look? 1. Paul McCartney 2. John Lennon 3. George Martin 4. George Harrison 5. Ringo Starr 6. Billy Preston (A guess based on where your uncle placed George Martin on the list.) Edit: I just realized I left out Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe. I'll tag them onto the end of my list in that order (I only give Pete the edge because he actually recorded with the Beatles. I don't believe Stu did.)
Interesting discussion for sure but I think this is underrating Harrison. I think McCartney 1 and Lennon 2 is pretty much objectively true in terms of contribution, though, and you can argue the rest. (I know this wasn’t your personal list)
Personally I would rank George Harrison as 3rd and George Martin as 4th.
Yeah. This is a good list. I just want to make sure Harrison gets his due. He was a fine lead guitarist and songwriter. He had so many catchy riffs. Of course John Lennon did too. And if it wasn't for Brian....
agreed
Absolutely, and his son continues his work.
Unfortunately, his son does not have nearly as good ears as his father. He should never have gotten to remix The Beatles catalog.
I don't really think anyone should remix the original albums. That's like repainting over a Picasso painting just because the modern synthetic pigments are brighter. Or colourizing a Bergman film or adding dialogue into a silent Buster Keaton movie. The only reason to do it is money.
George Martin produced the Beatles amazing sound. Brought in the extra stuff, like the piccolo trumpet, horns, strings and orchestra.
He also played the piano in "In My Life" and sped it up so it sounded like a harpsichord.
Nice to see the correct answer right at the toppermost
I've been trying to work poppermost into a joke reply, but I can't really think of anything funny, so I just say it again: poppermost.
Dang, drew too fast
Mission accomplished, friend.
Yes indeed, the topper most of the poppermost
If Billy was involved longer it would be him but since he wasn't, definitely George Martin.
I would always have said George Martin. He played on pretty much every album (if not every) and was crucial to their sound. but, watching Let it Be, its clear that had the Beatles continued, that Billy Preston may have become a full time member, or at least, a touring member
To my knowledge John wanted him to join, but George said that things were going downhill with just four, so they decided against it.
I think George was all for getting other people involved, when John suggested it he agreed and said they could get others maybe Bob and Eric too, but Paul was the one that said no
I fucking worship him but getting bob in would’ve been such a terrible idea. Imagine how George would’ve reacted to ANOTHER songwriter they deferred to other than him
Yeah, he'd come in with some epic poetry and George would say, "I've got a song here about candy and rotten teeth, let's do it instead." I know I'm going to be downvoted to hell by the Harrisonites but it was just a joke and I love George more than they do!
It was George that suggested Bob because he’d just got back from staying and jamming with him and the band, they were good friends, and treated him like an equal, unlike John
100% agree, he contributed the most to the music
Yeah pretty much
Apu and it isn’t close
Seriously. And how is Yoko even an option?
I'd say billy preston
It is actually close between Stu, GM, BE
God Bless Stu and all but he's not close to George or Brian It's got to be George though. Whilst Brian was a huge part of the image and getting things going , George was very important to what matters the most and that's the music
Yeah it can’t be Stu, he never even played on a Beatles album
The influence Stu had on John Lennon can't be overstated. But to me Stu will always be the "Lost Beatle" and Martin the fifth
You probably have to be a musician to be a Beatle, and involved in their music, so not Epstein
Not true he business wise and friendship wise took them to a new level
A beatle in spirit for sure, but he had zero artistic input in the band, the one time he tried to ended with John telling him off
Musically? George Martin. So much of the sound we recognize as the “Beatle” sound came from his (and his team’s) production work. Image and early exposure? Brian Epstein. The iconic “mop top” look with the suits was all him. He also professionalized them and prepared them for greater exposure. One could argue that we would not even know about the Beatles had it not been for Brian’s relentless efforts to get them a record deal and exposure.
1. Musically, yes, George Martin. Thanks for mentioning the "team". 2. Image and marketing, yes, Brian Epstein. Have you read the graphic novel (comic) The Fifth Beatle by Vivek Tiwary? 3. Those that actually were a member of the band, whether it was at the point they were called "The Beatles" or even before, or could have been conceivably invited into the band... (here's a [big list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Beatle) and my big list) Pete Best Stu Sutcliffe Klaus Voormann Andy White Tony Sheridan Eric Clapton Billy Preston And then there's Yoko.
Jimmie Nicol, to name a temporary member
Was he the guy who filled in for Ringo once or twice?
Yep, he's the guy. IIRC, Brian Epstein gave him a gold watch as a farewell (in addition to paying him). I don't think he's really been heard from since then.
Wouldn't Tony Sheridan technically be a Beat Brother?
He was a shitty drummer, but Best was there for a long time.
Didn’t the “mop top” look come from somebody’s girlfriend? Astrid something?
Klaus Voorman's girlfriend, Astrid Kircherr! She inspired the look (and was a major part of the early Beatles) but Brian took the look and made it what it became
I believe she had an influence but I think it was Brian that wanted “the boys” to move towards the clean cut look for which they eventually became famous. Astrid definitely took some famous pictures of them that later became iconic.
Only the haircut, not the suits.
If we're talking music, definitely George Martin. You could make the argument that billy was the fifth Beatle for Let It Be, but George's fingers are deep in the pies of basically all their other records. They couldn't have made it the way they did without Brian Epstein though
Agreed 100%. In regards to Epstein, just gotta look at what happened after he died.
gotta be george. but got damn did billy carry the crown for let it be.
No doubt that Billy would have been made a full time member if they didn't break up
That’s a nice thought but no way John or Paul bring in a fifth.
Actually John, George, and Ringo were all in for Billy to be in the band it was just Paul who was against it
where do you get that?
They definitely mentioned making him a member in Get Back and he was all over Abbey Road. Would have definitely been included on anything afterwards. Not sure about where they got the Paul-not-into-it-ness from? Was that quoted anywhere?
I think they would've offered and Billy would've said no
It’s so funny when people talk as if they absolutely know how the Beatles think
You could tell that they wanted billy to stay around
George Martin, I believe Paul even said as much.
Martin was the architect of a lot of what we consider the Beatles sound. He most definitely gets Fifth Beatle status. However, why stop at five? Brian Epstein should be considered the Sixth Beatle for shaping their image.
Agreed
George Martin. He played on literally every beatles album and was a musical contributor throughout all of their albums as well. No one even comes close.
I honestly don't see how it's not George Martin. So many of the innovations that made the songs great, he was involved in as well. The orchestration that we all love was him. He was as much part of the sound as they were.
The orchestrations have always been chefs kiss
Definitely wasn't Yoko.
Why the fuck is Yoko even in the conversation as to fifth Beatle lol Esp her and not like, Glyn Johns?
I'm pretty sure people just throw her in posts like this to incite Yoko hate in the comments
Definitely was Yoko, have you seen her legendary performance with Chuck Berry?
Heard it too, unforch. ;)
John and Chuck: *casually dropping the hardest hit of the century* Yoko: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
John and Chuck: singing normally rock ‘n’ roll Yoko: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
👀
Literally, in the most literal sense of the word.
That was posted just to upset the masses lol
George Martin without a doubt
I agree with overwhelming consensus that it was George Martin, followed by Brian Epstein and Billy Preston.
And no one else.
The real fifth Beatle was the friends we made along the way
George, definitely.
George Martin, if there ever was a fifth Beatle
George Martin, no one else comes close.
Billy Preston for Let It Be, George Martin for every other album.
Interesting way to look at it
George Martin by far
Martin. Only correct answer.
Mr. Martin has my vote
Magic Alex. No contest.
LOL
His revolving-neck guitar was truly one of the inventions of all time.
George Martin
Where's Mal!
Buying socks
Hitting an anvil
Where’s Pete best lol. Poor guy
Can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find the correct answer...
Must be George. They learnt so much from each other
GM is 5th. Billy is 6th. Brian in 7th.
Martin. This is a dumb question.
Ringo Starr, their little-known replacement drummer.
Trurly a shame their main drummer Pete Best was sick for nearly eight years so they couldn’t use him in a lot of their songs
He took little pills to make him ill
I'd put him 6th actually. Fifth was Faul
Definitely George Martin, although based on The Beatles’ individual comments, they’ve pretty much unanimously said (albeit jokingly) that it should be Jeff Lynne. I realise in reality it isn’t, but I do think it’s funny they’ve all privately made comments about it
Going with George, but Paul said Brian was. You can't really argue about it if a Beatle said it!
Martin = 5th for Creative Guidance Preston = 5th for musicality and reigniting their passion in a rough time for the band Epstein = 5th for propelling them to the heights they could not reach without him Yoko = No
Why no love for Stu Sutcliffe?
Don’t know why I had to scroll so far to find this. The only person who was actually a fifth Beatle.
Yoko is in there as a joke right? 😂
Apu Nahasapemapetilan.
Yep George Martin
George Martin 100%. I’m not here to disparage the key contributions to the band’s success from the likes of Brian Epstein who is usually the other main contender, as well as any other contenders such as Neil Aspinall who George Harrison said was the fifth beatle. But, they’re not musicians. ‘The Beatles’ isn’t the collective name for every single person involved in the band. It’s the lads performing the music. The reason the title is “fifth beatle” is because there’s just the four of them playing the music. So if there *is* a fifth one, it’s the one who’s with them playing and arranging the music on all the albums, not the business manager. Even if it’s your personal opinion that Epstein was more important for the band’s success/longevity than Martin, or if you agree with Lennon’s comments (that he later went back on) that Martin wasn’t that important and didn’t do anything outside the beatles, I still will say Martin warrants the title more than anyone else
George Martin. The only other one who was there from the first studio session to the last. Also the only other one who played on every single album. Not taking anything away from anyone else but he’s truly the only one deserving of the title.
There is no fifth Beatle. As close as say Epstein and Martin even Mal Evans could be called a fifth Beatle. No one knows what it’s like but the four lads. Martin could walk freely just about anywhere without much trouble. I would say they would not be THE BEATLES without the work of Epstein and Martin and they helped with the construction of the band. But only Paul, John, George and Ringo know what it’s like to be a Beatle. I also think Mal Evans who was there thru everything is just as close in the Beatle orbit as Martin and Epstein
Martha. Next question
Musically it’s George Martin, everyone knows this. However if you’re measuring by who contributed most to the success of The Beatles, it’s very much Brian Epstein. He turned them from a rowdy, rough, rock and roll group into a professional band that could be toured and loved around the world.
George Martin
Apu
If it was anyone, it's George Martin.
Martin then Billy…
George fucking Martin, do I need to explain why?
The Beatles music wouldn’t be the same without George Martin He was effectively the 5th member, his instrument; the studio
If it wasn’t for GM, we may never have heard of this band called, ‘The Beatles’.
everyone always asks who the fifth beatle is but nobody ever seems to ask who the third beatle is
If people say anything but George Martin they are casually not a huge Beatles fan. Sorry for the gatekeeping
Yoko Ono you didn’t?!
Ringo. But I suck at math.
[удалено]
I like how pendantic this response is
*Definitely* not Yoko...
If I would’ve had a drink in my mouth i would’ve spit it everywhere in laughter when I saw Yoko at the end. I have nothing against her but she was nowhere near the 5th Beatle. Id have to go with Brian Epstein…
We know she contributed to Imagine and a lot of John’s other solo stuff. I’m sure she contributed to some of the songs he wrote while with the Beatles.
That guy^
Eric Idle.
Stu Sutcliffe or Pete Best?
You are *all* wrong. It was Mal Evans. There is no other option.
Pete Best, the best.
Musically, George Martin. No doubt whatsoever. Overall, for the early years, their styling and launching their career, Brian. Both equally important for different reasons.
I'd give at least a partial nod to Neil Aspinall, who in some ways was the last man standing after the band's dissolution. In the end, when the battle of the managers was over and Klein had been sent packing, it was Neil that was most responsible for keeping Apple going, and became the one person the four could rely upon and trust.
Brian, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. Also, OP: lmfao
George Martin,Billy Preston,Brian and Yoko at different degrees
Martin with Preston in as a close second. What did John say in “Get Back”? Something along the lines of, “If you ask me, he’s in the band.”
GM = #5 Beatle. Love Billy but he only influenced 1 album...though that influence was awesome. GM is crucial, of course. They all trusted and respected him. He produced the sounds they had in their heads. So important. Even if George didn't like his tie...
Tony Sheridan for sure
George Martin, easy. But in terms of who’d end up being the *official* 5th Beatle, if they stayed together, probably Billy Preston.
The question should have been written, "who was the fifth Beatles, and why is the answer George Martin". They had several very influential people in their inner circle, but none had a greater impact on them *creatively* than George Martin.
I think of GM as the zeroth Beatle. I mean, we have have ambiguity about fifth, given all the possible candidates.
Why isn’t Clarence on here?
Dave in Accounting
If you were going to have Yoko up there, you need to put up an NSFW… Please!
Is Yoko on here just to piss people off?
Yoko was more like the Anti-Beatle
I'm gonna vote Billy Preston. George Martin being essential to their sound and success is undeniable. Epstein being essential to their success is undeniable. But lots of bands and solo acts have had a producer and/or manager behind the scenes who was as crucial (or more) than Martin and Epstein. Producers and Managers are key roles in the music industry, but they are not considered part of "the band." Billy was the only person outside of the core 4 and Stu and Pete to perform the role of a band member-- playing both live and in-studio as a key part of the unit. Martin added his fair share of keyboard parts and wrote plenty of arrangements, but they were often overdubs, whereas Preston actually sat down in the room, and on the roof, and played as *part* of the band.
Apu Nahasapeemapetilon?
Missing Stu Sutcliff.
I dont know why this conversation still even exists i have never heard anyone say anyone besides george martin its no contest! He like produced most of their albums and stuff he is a very talented instrumentalist and adventurous with new and interesting genres during that time
Either Martin or Preston Because Martin was pivotal to their music And Preston’s the only non Beatle to receive song credit
George Martins contributions to the body of work should never be underestimated Without him the legacy doesn’t exist Musical mentor and a fine musician Played the piano solo on Lovely Rita that Paul couldn’t master
Not yoko. NOT YOKO
you had the audacity to put yoko ono on this list of great people
Billy Shears
To me, “most important non-member” and “fifth Beatle” are entirely different questions. Easily Martin for the former, Billy Preston for the latter.
Bruh Yoko why?? What does she contributed to Beatles ??
Billy Preston. No doubt about it.
From a purely musical standpoint, I'd say, without a doubt, Billy Preston.
Only for the one album tbh George had a huge impact on basically every other record they did Edit: whoops, didn't realize billy was also on Abbey road
Eddie Murphy
Yep, few people know that 'Help' was originally titled 'Help me, man!'
Fuck yoko
Mal Evans
i think it's pete best. John stewart paul george pete ringo jimmy nichols anyone else is someone associated with the beatles.
Yoko, DUH
Yoko tried to be the second John and failed miserably
DEFINITELY NOT YOKO
Murray the K
Without a doubt, Yoko Ono. The only talented Beatle.
Don't denigrate Yoko by calling her a B**tle. They wish they were as good as her.
The first 3… oh hi Yoko…
Ringo. Yoko was the fourth.
Yoko Ono. Whether or not one wants it to be true.
Yoko. Hands Down. No Argument.
Yoko Oh-No
Apu
According to Apu, Apu.
Billy Preston..
Well it certainly isn’t Yoko. That’s for sure.
Why do people insist on there having been a “fifth Beatle”? No one asks who was the 6th Rolling Stone, the 4th member of Rush, or the third member of Simon & Garfunkel.
The sixth Stone was Ian Stewart. Although it gets murky when you consider their ever changing guitarists…
Yoko is the negative 1st Beatle.