34
Beatles, c.1964. (so who was the "5th Beatle," anyway) L-R: Lennon, Martin (their producer), Harrison, and Starkey in back. (McCartney likely with the back-head shot) (notes in post)
(media.piefed.social)
Some biographers have actually argued that George Martin was properly the third Beatle, based on his critical song contributions.
And... you know what? That's actually quite a strong argument as I personally see it. I mean, Sir George wasn't just the one who discovered them in the studio sense, but he really did help morph their music over the years, as well as contribute an utter, direct landslide of musical creativity to their songs, things which are well and highly-documented across a load of sources & histories.
That said, for my part, Brian Epstein was an absolute boss. I don't see how he's outside the core.
Again, you look at the facts, and Martin contributed a load of creative content to the Beatles, far in excess of Yellow Submarine. Some examples:
And so on. I understand he also doubled (or tripled or whatever) as session musician on a load of songs. Some examples: Mr. Kite, Lovely Rita, Getting Better and a boatload of others.
So this is the stuff I'm talking about-- Martin's role went considerably beyond the traditional role of producer in to frequent player and composer across all kinds of Beatles songs. Compare to Ringo, who was a super-professional drummer, but arguably not as key as Martin, and George, who certainly came in to his own as a creative force, but did so later in the band's life and in his solo recordings. Again, not as key as Martin.
All contributing to my opinion that George Martin was in fact the 3rd Beatle, in terms of the old debate.
I think you kind of answered your own question on that one. His natural element was orchestral works AFAIK, but he happened to be an unusually gifted producer. Those were his two major areas of interest, musically, so the idea that he'd be putting out records in the style of Sgt Pepper all by himself seems like... quite the reach.