But I wonder what might have happened if Paul never stepped into a leadership role, if he had remained completely passive. I think the band would have disintegrated far more quickly without his trying to take charge. His bossiness was not endearing but he deserves a little more credit for trying to hold things together, even if he was annoying.
Again, though, there were so many factors that contributed to the Beatles' breakup, not just the behaviors of the individual band members.
I do agree with you, however, that taking breaks from each other was a good idea. John, George, and Ringo did "quit" the band for a bit. Did Paul ever "quit" and return before he finally left for good?
Yes, I agree with you. I am sure that Paul was the person who was most concerned about the band and its future at least at that time. John was losing interest and then got busy with Yoko, George was discontent with his status and seemed to be happier in religion, spending time in India, Ringo just left and remained passive. And only Paul was preoccupied with the band. Moreover, when he declared his withdrawal, and when they parted it was he who was overwhelmed by the separation more than all the others, who felt even some relief.
Paul took it hardest of all, was thoroughly depressed and called himself "the redundant man".
Nevertheless, though the rest were tired, none of them, I think, had the real desire to disband. Although it was Lennon who had pushed for divorce before that, he, when Paul sued the three of them, said that he couldn`t understand why Paul wanted to break up.
So, who knows, maybe if Paul hadn`t sued them, they might have stayed together longer after just having a break, either short or long, to take some fresh air.
However, on the other hand, they might have never returned to the negotiating table again, and the disbanding would have occurred earlier than it actually did. A dilemma!
