As the below obit states, he was truly the "5th Beatle". So crucial in helping them realize their musical ambitions and potential all through their career. Just brilliant.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beatles-producer-george-martin-dead-at-90-20160309

• RE: RIP George Martin,kingfish, 01:23 PM, 03-11-16
• RE: RIP George Martin,foonermints, 04:34 PM, 03-12-16
• RE: RIP George Martin,AyaK, 04:35 AM, 03-28-16
  • RE: RIP George Martin,kingfish, 03:35 PM, 03-28-16

The imaginative talent of top arrangers is often underestimated. But it's true that Gorge Martin's contribution to their music is what separated the Beatles from the pack, especially on their later albums. IMO.

Makes me think of Andrew Lloyd Webber, whose "Joseph" started out by him making a song for his children.

An incredible loss of talent, hopefully he passed something on.

LAST EDITED ON 03-28-16 AT 04:37 AM (EST)

k we went through this debate once before. There are four people that could legitimately be called the 5th Beatle: Stu Sutcliffe, Neil Aspinall, Brian Epstein, and George Martin. Martin was the only one left, until his recent passing.

I think the simplest way to put it is that the Beatles probably would have ended up working in working-class jobs if George Martin hadn't signed them to Parlophone. After all, they'd already been rejected by all of the other EMI labels and by British Decca (US London/Deram); the only remaining options in the UK at the time were Polydor, which had already informally rejected them (that was where they made their first record, with Tony Sheridan in 1961, but Polydor's A&R chief didn't like them), and Pye, which was pretty small before Beatlemania.

For me, the claim to having been a fifth Beatle would be appropriate only for those that actually influenced the musical sound that separated them from the crowd.

And that is certainly the case for Martin, and qualifies him (IMO) to be considered a (the?) 5th Beatle. His skill in the role of arranger was as important as a fifth instrument, and definitely allowed him to claim credit for having had a hand in writing much of the music.

I would also credit Geoff Emerick, an engineer, for the success of their recordings (maybe not as an integral, or fifth, part of the Beatles), but he worked (I think) under the direction of Martin and Lennon and the other Beatles to give their better recordings the echo effects, variety, and depth, as well as their musical editing. Not (IMO) a fifth Beatle, although he does have a nice resume.

Pete Best actually was a Beatle, but that was during their formative years and Ringo was the Drummer when they became successful. I'd say no for Pete, and on the same basis, no to Sutcliffe.

It would be difficult for me to credit Aspinall or even Epstein as having had a major musical influence on their sound, although both (esp Epstein) deserve a lot of credit for their success.

But one would have to open up the gates wider than just to include a 5th Beatle if one were to include everybody that had a hand in their success.

(Forgive the rehashing, I do remember this having come up before too).