applebonker
What Goes On In Your Heart
" It`s all in the Mind"
Posts: 27
|
Post by applebonker on Sept 11, 2012 23:08:04 GMT
Another four Beatles with the fifth Beatle Jeff Lynn
|
|
rdnzl
I'll Be On My Way
Pastor Of Muppets
Posts: 251
|
Post by rdnzl on Jun 29, 2013 4:25:13 GMT
Petty, Dylan and Lynne were not 5th Beatles by any stretch of the imagination. Only Beatle playing on this is George. Maybe Ringo, but I need to recheck the Wilbury's Vol 3 liner notes. I thought it was Jim Keltner.
|
|
|
Post by ROCKY on Jun 29, 2013 11:58:36 GMT
I think this would be more of a FIFTH Beatle video....
|
|
rdnzl
I'll Be On My Way
Pastor Of Muppets
Posts: 251
|
Post by rdnzl on Jun 30, 2013 23:08:32 GMT
Jimmy does indeed qualify...
|
|
klang
What Goes On In Your Heart
Posts: 65
|
Post by klang on Jul 1, 2013 13:41:48 GMT
I was convinced by a passage in Peter Brown's tell-all book that in terms of spirit and dedication,the real fifth Fab was probably Neil Aspinall.Or maybe he and Mal Evans could be combined for the once coveted slot in Beatles lore...
|
|
ranger
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 153
|
Post by ranger on Jul 7, 2013 6:58:22 GMT
The fifth Beatle was the most important Beatle of all.
With him/it they'd have been The Goons (not a bad thing), or Squeeze (hmmm, OK), or Oasis (dire).
The fifth Beatle was the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Kite on Jul 7, 2013 8:52:37 GMT
Was`nt The Goons around in the 50`s ?
Go up to Jeff Lyne and tell him he is a Fifth Beatle and he will think your on medication and cross the road
All is talk of The Fifth Beatle is very silly . There is only one man who is worthy to be called a Fifth Beatle and thats George Martin .
Produced almost every record and also plays on early albums and even scored and arranged a full side of an album .
Someone who played a few live gigs or pushed Amps and set up microphone stands to me is not a Beatle .
This post is my first and final post in the Fifth Beatle Thread . As it is rather silly .
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jul 7, 2013 15:09:01 GMT
The fifth and sixth Beatles were Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe. They don't appear in the main part of the story. All the other folks are (possibly) collaborators.
|
|
|
Post by The Sun King on Jul 7, 2013 18:10:53 GMT
Was`nt The Goons around in the 50`s ? Go up to Jeff Lyne and tell him he is a Fifth Beatle and he will think your on medication and cross the road All is talk of The Fifth Beatle is very silly . There is only one man who is worthy to be called a Fifth Beatle and thats George Martin . Produced almost every record and also plays on early albums and even scored and arranged a full side of an album . Someone who played a few live gigs or pushed Amps and set up microphone stands to me is not a Beatle . This post is my first and final post in the Fifth Beatle Thread . As it is rather silly . Well said Mr K Totally concur.totally ridiculous to keep going on about The 5th Beatle. What next who was the 6th Beatle. As Kitey said George Martin was the closest to the boys musically. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jul 7, 2013 19:17:44 GMT
The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi must surely qualify for the twentieth Beatle! May be even the ninetieth on a good day!
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Jul 7, 2013 22:19:02 GMT
Mr. Kite: "There is only one man who is worthy to be called a Fifth Beatle and thats George Martin ."
Like the Sun King, I strongly agree with Mr. Kite. I have almost started threads nominating George Martin as the 5th Beatle, but needed to look to see if somewhere this had not been already done.
It is so obvious that if anyone would be a fifth Beatle, it would certainly be George Martin. He contributed 'way too much to their recorded output to be overlooked. Sometimes I wonder, what if the Let It Be recordings had remained unreleased, and its songs re-recorded at Abbey Road under George Martin's supervision?
|
|
ranger
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 153
|
Post by ranger on Jul 8, 2013 16:59:16 GMT
All this is fine, but The Beatles could have existed without George Martin (Ron Richards could have produced them), Brian Epstein (Andrew Oldham could have managed them), Neil, Mal, etc. and, though they clearly would have been a different animal, they could have emerged in London instead of Liverpool (see Rolling Stones), or even never having gone to Hamburg.
The one factor that they categorically needed to be The Beatles, was the era of EXPERIMENTATION that was the 60s. Born 15 years earlier and Lennon and McCartney would have been songwriters in Denmark Street. Born 15 years later and they'd have made one LP every five years like U2, with four 45s taken from each LP.
Easily the most vital factor in their story is the 60s, and without that era their impact would have been considerably less. The 5th Beatle is the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by ROCKY on Jul 8, 2013 18:10:03 GMT
Well the TRUTH is OFFICALLY now known!! 0:53 of this secret EXCLUSIVE video!
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jul 8, 2013 18:55:34 GMT
All this is fine, but The Beatles could have existed without George Martin (Ron Richards could have produced them), Brian Epstein (Andrew Oldham could have managed them), Neil, Mal, etc. and, though they clearly would have been a different animal, they could have emerged in London instead of Liverpool (see Rolling Stones), or even never having gone to Hamburg. The one factor that they categorically needed to be The Beatles, was the era of EXPERIMENTATION that was the 60s. Born 15 years earlier and Lennon and McCartney would have been songwriters in Denmark Street. Born 15 years later and they'd have made one LP every five years like U2, with four 45s taken from each LP. Easily the most vital factor in their story is the 60s, and without that era their impact would have been considerably less. The 5th Beatle is the 60s. Existed? yes. Been as successful? Highly unlikely. Ron Richards was not a classically trained musician, fully conversant in orchestration. This was an essential ingredient to the diversity and ground breaking success of The Beatles. Andrew Loog Oldman could not have managed The Stones(let alone The Beatles) had he not already seen how Epstein operated and then changed it all round. Mal and Neil simply didn't have any managerial experience at any level. What George Martin and Brian Epstein both had was vision. There was no template for producing, recording and presenting such an act - they created it.
|
|
ranger
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 153
|
Post by ranger on Jul 9, 2013 6:42:18 GMT
But if their first record had been recorded in 1952 or 1972, they would have missed the era for experimentation in the recording studio anyway! Not forgetting all the excitement of the 60s within fashion, the Space Race, new technology, that went hand-in-hand with The Beatles' records, and, in-turn, propelled their experimentation forward. The era is easily the most (external factor, if you like) important factor in the fact they were so huge.
No 60s, no Beatles.....though the 60s would have existed without them.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jul 9, 2013 9:21:55 GMT
I agree that it was important for The Beatles that they were there at that point in history. No earlier and no later. However the 'right place, right time scenario' applies to everyone who has ever been successful in history no matter what background.
|
|
ranger
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 153
|
Post by ranger on Jul 9, 2013 18:37:24 GMT
But any ho-hum act since the 60s will tell you that it was the right time/right place for them to be successful, but then they are going to be 'REM, Kylie, U2 successful', not 'Beatles successful'. The only act who could be as big as the Beatles, and their impact on the world, had to come from the 60s.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Jul 9, 2013 21:33:33 GMT
Rocky's Eddie Murphy/SNL link reminded me of another sketch from Saturday Night Live, wherein the Beatle had a trombone player. Named Albert Goldman. Elvis happened by the cavern and suggested they dump their trombonist.
This sketch was from around the time the real Albert Goldman had written a scathing bio of Elvis, followed by one of John Lennon (who in the sketch was the one who informed Goldman he had been fired from the band). Matthew Broderick did not make that good of a John Lennon.
|
|