Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joost]

If the Beatles wouldn't have met, who would've had the best chance to make it anyway?

My guess:

Paul: He definately would've made it on his own. He had everything he needed to make it as a pop star. I think he would've done great as a solo artist as well.

John: Had everything too, but I think that maybe he was too stubborn and rebellious for the pop music culture of the early 60s. I'm just not sure if he would've been fine with that teen idol image if he would've had to do it on his own. Maybe he would've been a late bloomer and had his breakthrough later in the 60s.

George: Not a chance, I think. I don't think he even would've had the ambition of becoming a star if he never would've met John and Paul. My bet is that he would've been a locally well-respected part-time or amateur musician. The type that would play killer jam sessions in bars, where everyone would say "That guy could've made it big if he just would've tried a little harder".

Ringo: Was known to be one of the best drummer of the Liverpool scene, so someone probably would've picked him up anyway. He wouldn't have been the star he became as a Beatle, but I'm sure he would've made a living playing the drums anyway.

[DaveRam]

Paul he was born to be a pop star .Great idea for a thread Joost .

[PaulieBear]

I think John was good but he couldn't have become his own to me he was more of a writer and Paul was more of a performer.

[Andy Smith]

i think Paul, i always have. he just has a natural gift for writing songs & he's a fantastic entertainer
& performer. i think he was the one who loved the limelight more than the others, he may have changed
now. i could imagine him in the 60's starting off writing songs for other artists & then breaking out on his
own if he didn't meet the others.
John would have made it in someway i think, as he was different, maybe a writer of books or something.
George didn't like his fame at times so that's obvious & Ringo may have played in bands over the year's.
i think if you've naturally a talented person, then you've got determination & will do well in some way
or another.  

[theBEATLESrock_on]

i would actually have to say george because he was the best guitar player on his own (the other beatles learned most of what they knew about the guitar from him" and he actually wrote a lot of good lyrics, but as he was considered the 'kid' among the beatles, he wasn't allowed to preform many of them. paul and john a part arn't very good with lyrics but together they are the best, but george was alway good at righting on his own. he would have had the best chance as a musician with out them, and don't even get me started on how he didn't want to be in a big, famous group, because he followed john around for weeks asking to audition 4 the beatles ( all john ever said was f*** off) and when he did atlast get the chance, he played a well-rehearsed 'raunchy" that sounded as if it came off the album. if that isn't determination, i don't know what is.

[BlueMeanie]

i would actually have to say george because he was the best guitar player on his own (the other beatles learned most of what they knew about the guitar from him" and he actually wrote a lot of good lyrics, but as he was considered the 'kid' among the beatles, he wasn't allowed to preform many of them. paul and john a part arn't very good with lyrics but together they are the best, but george was alway good at righting on his own. he would have had the best chance as a musician with out them, and don't even get me started on how he didn't want to be in a big, famous group, because he followed john around for weeks asking to audition 4 the beatles ( all john ever said was f*** off) and when he did atlast get the chance, he played a well-rehearsed 'raunchy" that sounded as if it came off the album. if that isn't determination, i don't know what is.

If the best George could come up with was 'Don't Bother Me', when Paul and John were coming out with songs like 'She Loves You, and 'All My Loving', then I'm not surprised that he didn't get the opportunity to record them. And you don't think that Lennon was a very good lyricist?

John:
But of all these friends and lovers
There is no one compares with you
And these mem'ries lose their meaning
When I think of love as something new
Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more.

George:
Said you had a thing or two to tell me.
How was I to know you would upset me?

I can't believe that she would leave me on my own.
It's just not right when every night I'm all alone.

Kind of speaks for itself.

Where were these great George songs when they were crying out for songwriting help on 'Beatles For Sale'?

[fendertele]

none of them would have made it imo well nto to the level of being world wide famous

paul would probably be involved in some sort of musical production but behind the scenes,maybe writing for others, or maybe in another band ? he wouldnt have been a solo star back then when it was guys like elvis and buddy holly and the likes and he would lack stage presence as a young boy. he only became a good solo star after being in the biggest band in the world and his presence came with that.

john would probably be in band/s and never get signed maybe have a good gigging band round liverpool and make a decent living

george would maybe be in band also part time and be working

ringo would be same


if i had to choose which though it would be Paul then John then Ringo then George

Paul's Face would be more marketable than the rest of The Beatles as a solo star
Paul would probably be less opinionated (at the start) than John and would maybe be easier to mould.
John maybe be to opinionated and not as hard working as Paul.
George probably wouldnt get as far as being signed as i think he wouldnt be driven enough and needed the drive of the other members in The Beatles
Ringo would only make it depending on the band he's in

[fendertele]

i would actually have to say george because he was the best guitar player on his own (the other beatles learned most of what they knew about the guitar from him" and he actually wrote a lot of good lyrics, but as he was considered the 'kid' among the beatles, he wasn't allowed to preform many of them. paul and john a part arn't very good with lyrics but together they are the best, but george was alway good at righting on his own. he would have had the best chance as a musician with out them, and don't even get me started on how he didn't want to be in a big, famous group, because he followed john around for weeks asking to audition 4 the beatles ( all john ever said was f*** off) and when he did atlast get the chance, he played a well-rehearsed 'raunchy" that sounded as if it came off the album. if that isn't determination, i don't know what is.

yeah george was the best guitarist but not by much and if im being honest he was limited in his style of playing, he was great for rock and roll and on early beatles songs, but when the beatles started experimenting his guitar was well backin the mix as he was doing nothing very interesting, and only started to writing decent parts again when they went back to playing rock and roll and blues on let it be.

[BlueMeanie]

yeah george was the best guitarist but not by much and if im being honest he was limited in his style of playing, he was great for rock and roll and on early beatles songs, but when the beatles started experimenting his guitar was well backin the mix as he was doing nothing very interesting, and only started to writing decent parts again when they went back to playing rock and roll and blues on let it be.

George had quite a country/rockabilly style. He probably would have done well in the States with that.

I think Paul is the one most likely, but who knows. Possibly a decent living as a songwriter for others. Or maybe a busy session musician?

[DarkSweetLady]

I think maybe Paul could have made it without The Beatles, but would he be as popular? I'm not sure.

John, I he needed The Beatles. He was too rebelious. He needed to get his foot in, to get the door open. Before he could say all that he wanted to say.

George, he never wanted to be famous, he just wanted to be successful. I think he could have been a successful guitarist, but The Beatles just gave him tha extra something.

Ringo, he kind of made it without The Beatles before he joined, but where are Rory Storm and the Hurricanes now?

They all needed The Beatles.

[fendertele]

I think maybe Paul could have made it without The Beatles, but would he be as popular? I'm not sure.

John, I he needed The Beatles. He was too rebelious. He needed to get his foot in, to get the door open. Before he could say all that he wanted to say.

George, he never wanted to be famous, he just wanted to be successful. I think he could have been a successful guitarist, but The Beatles just gave him tha extra something.

Ringo, he kind of made it without The Beatles before he joined, but where are Rory Storm and the Hurricanes now?

They all needed The Beatles.

lol you put what i was trying to put in better words, John wouldnt have got away with all the things he came out with during The Beatles if he hadnt already been succesful and he also needed the other guys to cover for him or take the heat of him that he wouldnt have got being on his own.

i think george just loved playing guitar and it wouldnt have mattered to him if he was playing in front of millions in a stadium or if it was a small club and so might not have went all out to try and make it.

ringo  would only have gone as far as the band he played in, he wouldnt have been able to have a solo career playing drums with no songs and no singing.

[HeatherBoo]

If I had to pick, I also have to go with Paul.  He had the looks and the talent and was willing to do what it takes to make it.  

However, John was determined to have a band and make something of himself, so who knows.  his mouth probablywould have gotten in the way though.  especially back then.

I think when Paul & John got together is when the true magic came out.  So without each other neither would be nearly as big without the group.

George, Like others have said, loved music, loved the guitar.  he probably would be in bands his whole life doing gigs and making decent money, loving life and playing music but never making it to the big time.  And i think he would have been ok with that.

Ringo, well he probably would have been like George, maybe perhaps making it a little bit more, but nothing like the success the Beatles had.

[DaveRam]

I think John would have got himself on one of those 60's satirical shows " The Frost Report " and maybe launched his singing career that way , might have even become a member of  " Monty Python " if he had gone that route ,although not been part of the Cambridge set he might have found it difficulte . But i'm sure is star would have risen.
George would have been in a group and i'm sure any number would have snapped him up.
Ringo would have become the new Charlie Chaplin lol

[BlueMeanie]

Apart from the obvious answer of Paul, I give the next best chance to Ringo. He had the personality to become an all round entertainer. And good drummers are always in demand.

[fendertele]

none of them had the stage presence to be a solo star they would have needed to have been in a band made up of 4 personalities to have made it as a 4 they were great but as 1 person they were no elvis.

[Joost]

but as 1 person they were no elvis.

Yeah, so? Neither were Cliff Richard, Frank Ifield, Billy J. Kramer, Gerry Marsden, Brian Poole... None of them were more talented than Paul and none of them had a John Lennon, a George Harrison or a Ringo Starr in their bands.

[harihead]

Great idea for a thread!

I'm closest with Fendertele on this one. Paul and John were a songwriting team; I don't think either would have developed without the other. They relied on each other, encouraged and spurred each other on. If you take apart that early partnership, started at age 15-17, I don't think Paul would have done diddly in music. He would have done what his dad wanted, and become a teacher. He was the first to quit the band after their first Hamburg gig, and John and George had to lure him back away from the dockyards. Paul=absolute no. Nothing to do with talent, but he needed the Beatles, and John in particular, to get going.

John needed a gang. He said so himself, and I believe him. He always wanted to be part of a group, and to be famous-- but without the group, and the right group, I think he would have ended up in jail like he thought. He was one of those people who could never have fit into normal society. Tragic, but I think that would have been his path.

George never wanted to be famous, but he was a damned determined musician. I can see him being a musician all his life, a sideman for some band or a lot of bands. I don't see him in the limelight, but I see him pursuing his dream. He was the steadiest of the early Beatles in terms of always playing gigs. I doubt he would have written his own songs without John and Paul as an example.

I think Ringo would have enjoyed a few years as a drummer, maybe kept it up on the side. But he was a family man-- adored his family. I think he would have done whatever he could to support them. If drumming didn't pay enough, he'd switch to another job, and just drum for fun.

[fendertele]

Yeah, so? Neither were Cliff Richard, Frank Ifield, Billy J. Kramer, Gerry Marsden, Brian Poole... None of them were more talented than Paul and none of them had a John Lennon, a George Harrison or a Ringo Starr in their bands.

yeah but it was gerry and the pacemakers and cliff and the shadows the may have been the main focus but they were still part of a group, although not as much as the beatles who were all eqauls.

plus you aint gonan see macc and esp john and george singing and shaking there pelvis or hips like elvis and cliff and tom.

the music did the talking and got there foot in the door for being different from the norm.

[HeatherBoo]

Apart from the obvious answer of Paul, I give the next best chance to Ringo. He had the personality to become an all round entertainer. And good drummers are always in demand.

Actually the more i think about that statement, that is so true.  After watching movies that they put out, I really got to see their personalities.  Ringo is really funny! And dorky but in a good way.  He seemed to have a really great personality and great sense of humor.  That could have really taken him somewhere if there were no Beatles.

[tkitna]

George is the only one that I see maybe having a problem.