[lit-ideas] Re: Martiniana
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
Although we love him, in view of Peano's mathematical induction, George
Martin could well claim the title of Beatle No. ... shall we say 7?>
We might replace the six degrees of separation (from Kevin Bacon) debate with
one about which number of Beatle we are. Any future Pope George Ringo would
surely score highly, though not as high as the Pope John Pauls.
DL
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 12:43, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 3/9/2016 4:36:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in "Beatle: No. 5": George Martin
Although we love him, in view of Peano's mathematical induction, George
Martin could well claim the title of Beatle No. ... shall we say 7?
The Beatles built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg
over a three-year period from 1960, with Stuart Sutcliffe initially serving
as bass player.
So there is a case to be made for Stuart Sutcliffe to be one Beatle, Say,
No. 5.
The core of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison went through a succession (alla
Peano, the mathemcian) of drummers, most notably Pete Best --
who could then claim to be Beatle No. 6.
Note that 'succession' IMPLICATES _more_ than 1. So let's assume that
'succession' implicates "at least three". This would have Pete Best as
Beatle No. 9.
In which case George Martin would be one of the Fab Ten?
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
