Talk:Fifth Beatle

Crabtree?

The name Enis Crabtree was added to the Fifth Beatle page under the subtitle "Other Individuals" on July 15, 2010 at 00:37 (there were two updates with the same time-stamp). A Google search using "Enis Crabtree" + Beatles" brought up many pages with sentences similar to the Fifth Beatle Wikipedia page, and the few pages I reviewed had no source references. Likewise, the Wikipedia article has no reference. Who is Crabtree? Should the name be deleted from the Fifth Beatle article? I offer my apology if these are impertinent questions: my familiarity with the Beatles is not extensive. Noah Spamoli (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed "Enis Crabtree" was first added in [1] this IP edit from May 2010. Sine the most of the other edits from this IP address were vandalism that was reverted, I've removed this as well. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

El Beatle in Portugal?

Portuguese isn't Spanish...they would say "O Beatle" 69.171.166.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Murray the K

Murray The K; Peter Brown: the only two people who can/should be credited as the fifth Beatle

Murray the K never heard ? Is this a joke ?

Murray the K is mentioned only in passing in the article as it now stands--in the joke section--, but Murray the K was the first person I ever heard called "the fifth Beatle" and for many years the only person I ever heard called "the fifth Beatle". I shouldn't be surprised, in fact, to discover that Murray the K originated the phrase "the fifth Beatle". I do think he deserves a much higher profile in this article. I suspect that those persons who "never heard" of Murray the K in relation to the phrase may be too young to have experienced Beatlemania, may not have been alive when the Beatles were extant--or at least when they first made a splash. TheScotch 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Klaus Voorman was a friend from their Hamburg days but Billy Preston ?

I was surprised by that too. Billy Preston, basically a gospel organist for most of his career, was hired by Little Richard in his "evangelical phase" to play gospel music and went on a European tour with him, but audiences insisted on hearing Little Richard's hits. At any rate, Preston met the Beatles in Hamburg while on that tour, all according to http://wfnk.com/1200/BillyPreston.html. They later reunited in the "Let It Be" era. The web page theorizes that Billy's positive vibes were needed because the Beatles were all mad at each other by then. Ortolan88

It's possible, because Mc Cartney was a great fan of Little Richard.

Eric Clapton?

Didn't Eric Clapton play on "While my guitar gently weeps"? or another track? if so was he not also credited for this? Dainamo 08 October 2004

He did, but I think a single appearance with the Beatles is generally seen as insufficient for being credited as a "Fifth Beatle". Preston appeared on an entire album, and was considered being asked to join the band. If you can find any legitimate reference to Clapton ever being consider the fifth Beatle for this single track, then I guess he could be added to the list, but I don't think it's ever really been the case. -R. fiend 15:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's surely got more claim than some of the weak cases listed there now. If it had been up to George, I imagine he'd have been asked to join the band ;)173.65.219.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

In support of Epstein

You can say Sutcliffe or Best if you want to be literal, I suppose. Aspinall and Evans were mainly roadies and assistants and I don't think that's enough for the claim. Many people say Martin, but, although he did almost all of them, anyone could have produced those tracks. Then we have Epstein. He came in right when the Fab Four were starting out, and fixed them up, introduced Ringo to the band, stayed with them as their manager until he died and, well, really did all of the work. I can't think of anyone else, worthy or not , so I would have to give the title to Brian Epstein.

That's right, Brian Epstein.

--WizardOfTheCDrive 02:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not quite right to say Epstein 'fixed them up, introduced Ringo to the band'. User: DavidFarmbrough 12:24 (BST) 11 APR 2005

What about George Best? He was often referred to as the fifth beatle by the media. SRP 18:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean Pete Best? --WizardOfTheCDrive 17:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean George Best the Manchester United footballer. He was called the fifth beatle due to his haircut and massive celebrity during the late 1960s. SRP 23:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But he had nothing to do with the Beatles. At all. In any way. --WizardOfTheCDrive 16:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither did several of the other people mentioned. If the statement is true and somewhat popular it deserves a single line mention, though I think the legitimate and the spurious holders of the title need to be separated. I believe they were before, but have since sort of been grouped togther. -R. fiend 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't separate them into 'legitimate' and 'spurious'. Apart from the fact that those two adjectives are not binary opposites, it would be subjective as to which applied to which candidate. As this is an encyclopaedia, it is better to use an objective criterion, such as 'these are all people who have been referred to as the Fifth Beatle'. Users can then decide on legitimacy or otherwise of claims. User: DavidFarmbrough 12:25 (BST) 11 APR 2005

I never said George Best had anything to do with the Beatles. I said he was called the fifth Beatle. It was quite a simple statement to understand. This was especially common in the tabloids. SRP 19:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he was. It was because he was living a similar high-profile, privilaged lifestyle at the time.--Crestville 13:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I reworkd the list, moving both Murray K and George B to a smaller, third sublist 'Other well known persons'. How does that do for everybody? (Also not I made substantial changes in the entries referring to Yoko and Spector. Comments?) Eaglizard 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Harry Nilsson isn't there. He was the Beatles' favorite American artist.

Embarrassing?

"The January 1969 recordings for the album were embarassing "? This is POV I think - if someone like Paul said they were embarrassing, then we should say this in the article. I find it hard to believe that an objective assesment would say the tapes are embarrasing in view of their content. DavidFarmbrough

I agree completely; although I'm nearly certain Paul or one of them did in fact use the word 'embarrassing' in referring to the tapes, that doesn't actually matter here, since it would still be POV. However, the fact that the tapes were not up to the usual Beatles standards b/c of the tensions surrounding the recording is indisputible, and NPOV (I think), so I changed it to such. Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, It's Pete...

John and Paul were the first two members of the Beatles to play in a group together (the Quarry Men), which George then joined, followed by Stu. Pete then joined the four-piece, which had by now changed its name to the Beatles, so he was the fifth Beatle and Ringo the sixth.--Paolo Meccano 11:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Pete Best was not the first drummer the Beatles used, and the Beatles at one point had a piano player. TheScotch 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

... But really, it's George (Martin, not Best).

IMHO, at least -- after all, George contributed more actual original musical content than any one EXCEPT John, Paul, George or Ringo. In fact, you could probably argue that George wrote more Beatles music than Ringo or George, too (but that would be a stretch). And as for the claim above that "... anyone could have produced those tracks," I think this probably a statement by someone relatively unfamiliar with the recording process and it's history, as well as the role of a producer / composer like Martin in that process. The claim is patently false; Martin's influence and innovation on the recording process itself is well-documented, and anyone else would NOT have created the same sound. But hey, let's don't argue; the Beatles' music is wonderful no matter what I or anyone else has to say about it, no? Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree with what George Martin said about Epstien. No matter how talented they were, the beatles wouldn't have got as far as they did without Epstien. Lets not forget he was the one who believed in them from day one. Every manager they had before didn't care about making them into stars, all they wanted was a few bob for local gigs here and there and a couple of quid for Hamberg, it was Epstien who, along with the band, set the plan for world wide fame. 74.65.39.59 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

George Martin

Mr. Martin not only produced the Beatles, but in a large way, his classical training helped to turn a basement or cavern band into a sophisticated orchestra. This is evident when listening to their practice sessions in the Anthology album. For example, he performed the Harpsichord middle for "In My Life". Before Martin, 5th and 6th would be Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe in any order. This means that we are really trying to decide on the 6th Beatle. One day it would be Billy Preston and the next day Eric Clapton or possibly another colleague. Rkm3612 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)rkm3612

Fifth Beatle

There are only two people who should (rightly) be credited as the "fifth Beatle"...By the way, George Harrison did NOT dub Murray The K with that name. He took it for himself during repeated radio broadcasts when he camped out in their hotel rooms. But he coined the phrase, however wrongly. And, from the Biography "The Love You Make," comes the notion that there was only one fifth Beatle: Peter Brown, longtime assistant. (unsigned comment added by User:63.110.90.2 11:49 07 June 2007)

The "Fifth Beatle" is a media invention, promoting one or another person as being as - or almost as - vital to the music, image or whatever, as the band members. It isn't important. Of course, once The Beatles were a five man band - so the one who left is technically the fifth Beatle.LessHeard vanU 12:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Absofrigginlutly! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It amases me how very little credit people give Epstien, while heaping it on Martin. How come the guy who went round record company after record company, being shown the door more times that he cares to remember, get's a small mention, about the same size as George Best (nevermind Pete Best). It's very unfair. It's almost like people see Brian as if he was just the tea boy, getting sandwiches for the band and George Martin. 74.65.39.59

The "Fifth Beatle" was Stuart Sutcliffe, not Epstien, Martin, Preston, Clapton or Hilda Ogden Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A fith Beatle has to contribute musically in one way or another and also the REAL fifth. Pete Best was fired, therefor is not a Beatle. Playing on one or two songs doesn't make a band member, only experiences that span years. The number five goes to Stuart Sutcliffe because he died as a Beatle. He left to stay with Astrid Kirchherr and died, but not fired. That leaves us with Brian Epstien and Sir George Martin.

Brian contributed more for the Beatle than the Beatles did themselves. They were scruffy "Teddy Boys" living around seaport towns like Liverpool and Hamburg. Whether Brian knew it or not, he couldn't make anything of them looking like thugs. Brian couldn't keep their mouths shut and they became world famous witty smart mouths. Especially Lennon, whose mouth got him into trouble occasionally. They loved Brian because he made them millions. He is the sixth Beatle.

Sir George Martin is in the music, literally. If you listen to the Anthology tracks, they sound terrible when playing by themselves. With Sir George's arrangement and accompaniment with all of the orchestral instruments, he is without a doubt, the seventh Beatle. Rkm3612 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George Martin & Eppy were Never members of The Beatles. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS They don't sound terrible playing by themselves they sound "Raw" which is how Rock 'n' Roll was meant to sound before tin pan alley sanitised it with the likes of Fabian and and Del Shannon etc, which was the reason Vee Jay signed them and Capitol didn't.

Their early albums sold in tens of millions without any imput from the string quartet brigade Vera, Chuck & Dave PPS And what's wrong with seaport "towns" like Liverpool? (which is a City) Vera, Chuck & Dave

Re: "The "Fifth Beatle" is a media invention, promoting one or another person as being as - or almost as - vital to the music, image or whatever, as the band members. It isn't important.":

I'm not sure what the antecedent of your "it" is supposed to be. The phrase itself? Who the fifth Beatle was? If either of these is not important, it follows that the article itself is not important. If we must have this article in wikipedia, however, and Murray the K really did invent the phrase (as the first remark alleges, comporting with my own childhood memory), then this article needs to say so, and it needs to say so prominently. TheScotch 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Tulip?

Is this some arcane in-joke intended to weed out the diehard Fabs nuts? Can anyone elucidate?Widmerpool 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search of "Joseph Tulip" + Beatles reveals nothing; Joseph Tulip on his own comes up with different people, including a British athlete. I'm not British, so I don't if he's famous (if he is, I guess that's the "joke"). Freshacconci 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

B class

I have upgraded this article to B-class. It needs more references. --andreasegde 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stu Sutcliffe

In what way is "During Sutcliffe's tenure, the band was actually a five-piece band, giving Sutcliffe legitimate claim to being the "fifth" Beatle. He was not replaced when he quit the band; Paul McCartney changed from lead guitar to bass" an argument? Fact: The Beatles had five members when Sutcliffe was in the band. Fact: Sutcliffe was not replaced when he left the band. What is the argument? Kingturtle (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument lies with "giving Sutcliffe legitimate claim to being the 'fifth' Beatle" in the context of this article. Sutcliffe was a member of the 5-piece Beatles, but how was he the "fifth" member? Were they numbered? Why wasn't he the fourth or third? In the context of the article, the fifth Beatle concept is an "honourary" title given to someone, usually by the media. So there's no real legitimacy involved. It's all a media construct. My guess is that objection with the inclusion of this material as POV lies with establishing Sutcliffe as the "fifth" Beatle as a fact, when such a thing couldn't ever be established as such. I do understand what you mean: five Beatles become four, so the one who left becomes the fifth after-the-fact, but in the case of the article, there would need to be some sources that name him definitively as the specifically fifth Beatle. freshacconcispeaktome 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of sources, the Stuart Sutcliffe Estate calls him the Fifth Beatle and the BBC calls him that too. Kingturtle (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant no harm, and also did NOT mean to imply, by my edit, that Sutcliffe had a better claim than anyone else. However, the actual text of this section is rather sparse; very little is mentioned about his musical place in the band... There's some information on his relationship with his girlfriend and his life as a painter, but little on his performance in the band. I have added a modified version of the information without the contentious POV part. We should have something in here about the Beetles during his tenure AND on the nature of his leaving the band, without making any contention that his claim to the "fifth beatle" title is any better than anyone elses. It isn't. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent reversions of the article

An editor using a series of IP addresses continues to revert my changes to this article. I removed some links to websites that contained lyrics, music, and other copyright violations. These links are not allowed at Wikipedia for legal reasons, and such policy is explained at the page on Wikipedia's external link policy. In addition, I made several edits cleaning up the grammar and text of the article. These are being sumarily reverted without discussion or comment. It would appear that several IP addresses are doing this, implying to me that it is a dynamic IP address. I will leave requests at the relevent talk page; if you are making these reversions, please discuss it here before continuing to undo my edits. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither the lyrics nor the MP3 you CONTINUE TO DELETE OVER AND OVER AGAIN are copyright violations. Nor are the SNL transcripts. You should KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT before deleting other people's contributions to Wikipedia. I also dispute that you "cleaned up" or "improved" anything in the section, but that's a subjective question. 24.2.82.243 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because the lyrics page you link has NO attribution, so it is unclear WHO is authorizing the use of those lyrics on that page. With no way to verify its content, we have to default to assuming that the lyrics are not being used in a legal way. Also, if you read Wikipedia's policy on external links, you would see that External links, such as you keep readding, are, and I quote, "External links should typically not be in the body of an article." such as you keep readding them. The article is not benefited by these links in any way. Since we are at an impass on this, I am requesting that other editors get involved by posting this at WP:RFC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo, Jayron32. Visit http://www.danbern.com/lyrics.html and click on the OFFICIAL DAN BERN LYRICS ARCHIVE link. 65.100.236.254 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am awaiting further comment from uninvolved editors on this issue. Let us wait until someone who is a better human being than I am to make a decision on how to handle this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. The external links in the Dan Bern sentence aren't appropriate. I'm not sure why the ref tags were removed from the Muhammad Ali part, but they should be in there. As for the two SNL links... admittedly, I'm torn on them. They don't really belong inline, but perhaps listing them under the External links would be okay. Or maybe referencing them. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what lyrics we're talking about here, but no lyrics to a song not in the public domain can legally be printed in full without express permission from the copyright owner. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The lyrics in question are from the OFFICIAL DAN BERN LYRICS ARCHIVE. They are on the internet with the express permission of the copyright owner, Dan Bern. The MP3 in question resides in the DAN BERN DIGITAL ARCHIVE -- again, with the express permission of Dan Bern. (Even if that were not the case with the MP3, however, it's a live recording and is not copyrighted.) The point is that Jayron32 ASSUMED they were copyright violations and deleted them over and over again. One should HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION before deleting other people's contributions to Wikipedia. Don't base your decisions on assumptions. 24.2.82.243 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have to do with copyrights. This is a question of whether or not it's acceptable by Wikipedia standards to put external links in the middle of articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Jayron32: "I removed some links to websites that contained lyrics, music, and other copyright violations. These links are not allowed at Wikipedia for legal reasons." 24.2.82.243 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links belong in the External links section of an article. Kingturtle (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:External links, esp. Points to remember. Kingturtle (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see some bad faith editing on the part of 24.2.82.243: reverts without discussion or edit summaries, with no attempt to explain his/her actions (until now, and even then, with a great deal of uncivility). In short he/she is expecting from other editors what he or she was not willing to do. External links belong in external links. It's pretty simple really. The section in question needs some work, but the edit warring on the anon. IP's part was not helpful. The link to the lyrics should be at the most moved to the external links section, but I'm not convinced it's necessary at all as it seems more promotional and really has nothing to do with the article--it's not an article on Dan Bern. freshacconcispeaktome 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment started

This article needs additional input on the in popular culture section, specifically on which version of the section better complies with the Manual of Style and relevent Wikipedia guidelines and policies, expecially on the external link policy. Please see these two versions: this one and the other one and please help reach consensus as to how this is to be handled. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia artcles "X in popular culture" is usually a euphemism for trivia, and wikipedia officially discourages trivia sections (rightly so). In this case, though, we have nothing but "popular culture" to contend with, and if a "fifth Beatle" is not a trivial matter, I can't possibly imagine what is. This means there is even less justification here for such a section than there would be in a more significant article. I say do away with the section altogether. TheScotch (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the section is overbloated, but it is intended as a section where third-party source reference the concept of the Fifth Beatle (rather than people who fit the title). Looking over it again, it may be better to retitle it "Fictional Fifth Beatles" or some such; most seem to fit this bill... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's re-title it. The entire article is "in popular culture". TheScotch (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Points for future improvement

The article still has some problems, even given the recent clean-up. Among these:

• The article still has too many links. We should probably restrict the more spurious claims and trivial mentions, and return the article to be about those people (real or fictional) who have a verifiable claim to being the fifth beatle (either they called themselves the Fifth Beatle, or someone else did). Not everyone ever associated with the band has had that said about them, and before we include a person in the article, we need to show that the claim has been made by them or about them in reliable sources.
• The article is too listy. If someone is worth mentioning as a Fifth Beatle, we should probably have more than a sentance or two to say about their involvement in the band. Conversely, if we can't say that much, we probably shouldn't include it.

Any ideas on these fixes? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mal Evans

I don´t care who the fifth bealtes is. I just want give correct information about Mal Evans, who played Hammond organ on early takes of "You wont´see me", and get credited on the sleeve album, but he´s not presente on the version released. The anvil on "Maxwell silver hammer" is played by Ringo. In "A day in the life" he counts the bars, set the alarm clock and played in the final piano chord. He sang backgrund vocals on some songs, like "Yellow submarine", in wich he also played bass drum, He played trumpet (amateur) in "Helter skelter" along with Lennon on saxophone just to create some nosies. He played tambourine or other percussion instruments. He even claimed he wrote "Sgt. Pepper..." with Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for all this? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg

The image Image:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

tightening this article up

This article is too loose. There is too much latitude in what defines a Fifth Beatle. Bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia, and if something cannot be referenced, then it must be removed. I am willing to help track down citations, but we really need to get this article tightened up. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour Connection

The book that accompanied the Magical Mystery Tour LP has five main sections, each showing a cartoon of one of the Beatles in one corner, plus a fifth page showing someone else. I always thought that it was George Martin in the fifth picture, but I never found out for sure. Whoever this person was could be viewed as a more or less official "Fifth Beatle" and should be mentioned in the article (at least I didn't see anything about it in my quick scan). Shocking Blue (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Beatle: Harvey Stone

In a 1964 episode of Jackie Gleason and his American Scene Magazine, Harvey Stone performed a novelty song as the fifth Beatle, "I'm the Beatle They Left Behind." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.0.38 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

References in pop culture

I am still relatively new to this so the relevance of this is something I quesion, hence posting it here. I know that in the media, the "Fifth Beatle" has been mentioned over the years such as the "Simpsons" episode where Paul McCartney guest stars and Apu claims to have been the fifth beatle.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.159.25 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Yoko Ono?

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that referred to her as a "Fifth Beatle"? GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, Yoko did contributions to some Beatles songs such as Revolution 9 or Birthday where she did backing vocals or The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill where she sang one line of lead vocals. Of course, she was also important figure in the history of The Beatles --82.139.5.13 (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)