Log In
Register
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?
Look Up The Number
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.
Tongue, lose thy light. Moon, take thy flight… see ya, George!
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 
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
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…
"We were just a band, who made it very very big, that's all."
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?
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
10.30am
31 March 2008
Online
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.
The following people thank Joe for this post:
Von BonteeCan buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
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!
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
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.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
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”
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
11.25am
31 March 2008
Online 
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.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
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
Onward my friends, and glory for the thirty ninth!!
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…….
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
3.26am
20 February 2010
Offline
When the group became known as The Beatles there was:
-Stuart Sutcliffe
-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, Starr Shine?I am the walrus that lives in a yellow submarine because I like to be in an octopus' garden
7.59pm
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline Another fifth Beatle thread? Do I sense a merge or should we leave it?
I like the way sgtpepperbowman 
found the chronological fifth Beatle!
8.07pm
1 November 2013
Offline Mr. Kite said
Another fifth Beatle thread? Do I sense a merge or should we leave it?I like the way sgtpepperbowman
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
7.54pm
28 May 2014
Offline 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.
2 Guest(s)