Sir George Martin, the First Beatle without whom we never would have heard of the other 4, passed 3-8-16. Pity for us. OTOH, he'll never be far away.
_______________________
Guacamole in my choos
George Martin was The Fifth Beatle, not the First. I have always admired and respected Martin for what he brought to The Beatles, but I think it's fair to also say that he would have remained quite obscure if he never ran into The Beatles.
shareFirst Beatle: John Lennon. Been dead for over 30 years.
Second: Paul McCartney. Perhaps dead for about 48 years, but probably alive.
Third: George Harrison. Dead for a little while.
Fourth: Ringo Starr. Not dead at all.
From there, it gets more subjective. I'll go with:
Fifth: Brian Epstein. Dead for a long time.
Sixth: Stu Sutcliffe. Dead for even longer.
Seventh: Pete Best. Not dead, but his career is.
Eighth: George Martin.
Ninth: Billy Preston
Tenth: Jimmy Nicol
Eleventh: Alan Civil
Twelfth: Eric Clapton
Thirteenth: Yoko Ono
Fourteenth: Mal Evans
Fifteenth: The guy who stood in for George in rehearsal for the Ed Sullivan show.
Pete Best is "Gone" but not forgotten; he made Hayden's Green, the most Beatlesque album since Band on the Run, only a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFWbM7C7cHM
"Fashion sense is an oxymoron." - KWL aka MNW
He was not the First Beatle. The Beatles formed long before they met George Martin. And being their record producer doesn't make him a member of the group.
shareWow, really? Jeez, tell me everything else I don't know. Y'see, *I* formed long before the Beatles did. I'm George's age. Ringo taught me drums. Played professionally 1965-75. Which Beatle does that make me?
_______________________
Guacamole in my choos
Don't be silly. The beatles were a group long before george martin ever heard of them, therefore he was not the first Beatle. How could he be? And what have you got to do with it? Surely you're not claiming to be a Beatle as well? John Lennon was the first Beatle, as everyone knows.
share