And alot of credit has to go to George Martin who was the real "5th Beatle" how Billy Preston got that title i will never know.

lastdecember said:

Trivial Trivia...



...That title was originally coined & claimed publicly by NYC DJ Murray The K in the mid 60s. (co-signed at the time by either George or Ringo)



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Regardless of what we all think of the Beatles, i think Paul said it best when he said "we were just a good little rock n roll band that could communicate to people" and thats very important at the end of the day, the Beatles didnt talk down to people nor talk about the negativity around them, they were always a very positive force. So the term "best ever" i dont like to use on anyone, but you will never have a combination like theres between the 4 and producer that worked as well.

Like Bill Murray the K was to the Rutles!

A lot of people could claim that title (Billy Preston, Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best, Yoko, Brian Epstein, drugs ) but George Martin is the one who actually played instruments & composed music for their albums. I'd have to give it to him.

Geoff Emerick actually played a bigger part than George Martin would like us to believe, but that was mainly a sonic contribution, not a compositional one.

"The fifth Beatle"?
He met The Beatles while on tour in Little Richard's band in 1962. The then-unknown Beatles were the opening act. The Washington Post explained their subsequent meeting:

They'd hook up again in 1969, when The Beatles were about to break up while recording the last album they released, Let It Be (they would later record Abbey Road, which was released prior to Let It Be). George Harrison, always Preston's best Beatles buddy, had quit and walked out of the studio and gone to a Ray Charles concert in London, where Preston was playing organ. Harrison brought Preston back to the studio, where his keen musicianship and gregarious personality temporarily calmed the tension.

In bootlegged "Let It Be" session tapes, one can hear several heated arguments between John Lennon and Paul McCartney about making Preston a group member (Lennon was all for it) McCartney said there is no point since the group was near its end anyway. It would have made Preston officially "the fifth Beatle," a title he was not loath to exploit over the next three decades. Perhaps as consolation, "Get Back," the only Beatles single (depending on which chart you believe) to enter the British charts at No.1, was credited to "the Beatles with Billy Preston" – the one and only time the band shared the spotlight with a sideman. Preston also accompanied the Beatles during their famous rooftop gig in London, the Beatles' last public performance. [1]

He went on to play on their 1970 Let It Be album and on the songs "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and "Something", from 1969's Abbey Road.

Billy Preston wikipedia entry....




http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ly_Preston

Billy Preston is all over my favorite Beatles song, "Don't Let Me Down." He was jamming -- especially at the end!

NDRU said:

All You Need Is Cash...

During their 1988 induction into the RRHOF, George Harrison said that there were 2 "Fifth Beatles".
Derek Taylor (press agent) & Neil Aspinall (road mgr/personal assistant, CEO for Apple Corps)



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

AlexdeParis said:

His segment on Isn't It a Pity?...



...during the Tribute To George concert is stellar.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

I'll never understand why people always discuss who was the fifth Beatle.

Maybe you should've taken that up with George Harrison.

It's just a sidebar conversation relative to the main topic.
And nothing to get hung about.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

pacey68 said:

Maybe you should've taken that up with George Harrison.

It's just a sidebar conversation relative to the main topic.
And nothing to get hung about.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

I'm delighted to know a BROTHA actually worked with the fucking Beatles! RIP, Billy, we miss you.

But anyway back to THE BEATLES.

Timmy84 said:

It happened! Check out Davey Jones!




[Edited 1/30/08 18:27pm]

There were just four Beatles plain and simple

pacey68 said:

technically there were six, both Stu & Pete were in The Beatles
[Edited 1/30/08 19:41pm]

pacey68 said:

technically there were six, both Stu & Pete were in The Beatles
[Edited 1/30/08 19:41pm]

NDRU said:

Yeah but I'm talking about The Beatles as they became famous, making albums and performing to thousands of fans around the world. Otherwise we would have guys like Tommy Hanley claiming to be the 5th Beatle and that's just wrong! Ask anybody to name The Beatles and they say J,P,G & R... the classic line-up.

pacey68 said:

I know, I'm just being difficult.

But there are reasons people ask who the fifth Beatle was, and it's because as talented as they were, they didn't do it on their own. They had tons of help, but in the end those four guys are the only ones who got the glory of being Beatles.

The funny thing is that when they "shelved" Let it Be, it was Paul McCartney that rang up George Martin and said "will you come produce a record like you used to" and George didnt think he was serious because of what happend on the Let it Be Sessions, so he said "are you sure, does John feel the same way" and Paul said he did, and thats why George Martin came back in, because he thought it was done at that point just from the fighting and issues on "Let it Be"

lastdecember said:

Paul was PISSED OFF during the making of that album. You know he didn't even like Phil Spector's productions on it and he re-released the album as "Let It Be...Naked" stripping Phil's stuff but you can hear George's production and Billy's playing.

There are some tings that just cannot be explained in rational terms and this is one of them.

Let me throw my two cents into the ring as a 59 year old who was "there" when the Beatles were a phenomena.

Look, you can't separate the Beatles from the context/time period they existed in. This is simply a mystical happening and by defintion that which is mystical defies being captured in words.

Vietnam, LSD, flower power, free love, Beatles: all were undeniably connected in an inexplicable way

I don't quite know how to communcate this in a meaningful manner but the Beatles were an archetypal voice for the zeitgeist much in the same way Abraham Lincoln was the "mystically chosen" voice of his time periood.

For whatever reason, the Beatles WERE a mystical phenomena. The Stones Satanic Majesties Request album was an attempt to synthetically emulate what the Beatles did as naturally as breathing. It is testament to the energy the Beatles carried at the time but it is not at all on the same level; a mere copy of the real deal.

As much as I appreciate y'alls attempts to sort this out for yourselves the truth is you will never have the experience of directly knowing the context in which the Beatles appeared.

There are some tings that just cannot be explained in rational terms and this is one of them.

But do go head on and discuss. This is a great thread on its own merits.

Let me throw my two cents into the ring as a 59 year old who was "there" when the Beatles were a phenomena.

Look, you can't separate the Beatles from the context/time period they existed in. This is simply a mystical happening and by defintion that which is mystical defies being captured in words.

Vietnam, LSD, flower power, free love, Beatles: all were undeniably connected in an inexplicable way

I don't quite know how to communcate this in a meaningful manner but the Beatles were an archetypal voice for the zeitgeist much in the same way Abraham Lincoln was the "mystically chosen" voice of his time periood.

For whatever reason, the Beatles WERE a mystical phenomena. The Stones Satanic Majesties Request album was an attempt to synthetically emulate what the Beatles did as naturally as breathing. It is testament to the energy the Beatles carried at the time but it is not at all on the same level; a mere copy of the real deal.

As much as I appreciate y'alls attempts to sort this out for yourselves the truth is you will never have the experience of directly knowing the context in which the Beatles appeared.

There are some tings that just cannot be explained in rational terms and this is one of them.

But do go head on and discuss. This is a great thread on its own merits.

DakutiusMaximus said:

i feel fortunate - my mother grew up in the '60s and was a beatlemaniac from the early days all the way through the end. she was a music lover and i can't imagine a time in my childhood when there wasn't beatles music. we talked a lot about music and how she experienced a lot of "classic" rock when it was considered "modern" rock. of course, i'll never have the knowledge of actually having been there, but through my mother's stories and descriptions, i feel like i have the next best thing.