Print

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

[Mairi]

Paul and John both had the talent, but Paul had the drive and the ambition. He absolutely LOVES being in the spotlight and nothing would have stood in his way. I can see him as an Elton John type solo artist.
John might've started another band or done something on his own, but I don't think he would have gain popularity until the late sixties or early seventies, when people were ready for a volatile personality such as his.
Ringo would probably be drumming with another band. As for George, I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think he would have gotten anywhere. He needed John and Paul to hold him up in those early years. He probably would have given up once he got married and would've become like a history teacher or something.

[An Apple Beatle]

In a lot of ways Ringo had all ready made it really with Rory Storm & The Hurricanes..

Lennon said of Starr:

[maninthequeue]

In order of likelihood:

1st Paul - He had the drive, the talent & the ego for the spotlight, plus he had those boyish looks that I could imagine would easily impress one of the Pop svengalis of the time. Whilst crucially he would have been more willing to compromise to achieve his goals to become part of the establishment. If he had not met John, I think he could have turned into a vastly superior Peter Noone type of figure or a Graham Gouldman songwriter type figure.

2nd Ringo - A great drummer, a great personality. I could easily imagine him turning up as a drummer for some Top40 chart outfit in the 1960s.

3rd John - I think if he had not met Paul in 1957, then his best window of opportunity may have been around 1965 when the UK folk scene took off. Otherwise, I feel that his rebellious streak would have undermined his chances of being taken on by some Pop svengali.

4th George - I just don't think he would have made it without John & Paul to help push him along & develop his obvious talent that ultimately did not fully blossom until the dying days of the Beatles.

[fendertele]

In order of likelihood:

1st Paul - He had the drive, the talent & the ego for the spotlight, plus he had those boyish looks that I could imagine would easily impress one of the Pop svengalis of the time. Whilst crucially he would have been more willing to compromise to achieve his goals to become part of the establishment. If he had not met John, I think he could have turned into a vastly superior Peter Noone type of figure or a Graham Gouldman songwriter type figure.

2nd Ringo - A great drummer, a great personality. I could easily imagine him turning up as a drummer for some Top40 chart outfit in the 1960s.

3rd John - I think if he had not met Paul in 1957, then his best window of opportunity may have been around 1965 when the UK folk scene took off. Otherwise, I feel that his rebellious streak would have undermined his chances of being taken on by some Pop svengali.

4th George - I just don't think he would have made it without John & Paul to help push him along & develop his obvious talent that ultimately did not fully blossom until the dying days of the Beatles.

agreed 100 percent

[Geoff]

I agree with harihead except for her take on Paul: he had the most raw talent early on (see "Love Of The Loved"), and that might have come out somewhere or other apart from The Beatles. But her speculation that without The Beatles he would have gone off and done something conventional strikes me as being very plausible. Hard to know, really.

[Slave Trader]

Dunno, but i'm sure it would not have been George "who made it": he was a mediocre guitarist and singer, had zero charisma and stage presence, and as a songwriter, it took him until 1968 to come up with something more than acceptable album filler... During his career, he wrote 3 absolute smash classics but  maybe anyone spending so many years with John & Paul would; whereas Lennon & McCartney wrote dozens and dozens of classics, so if anything, George is highly ovverated among Beatle fans (the general public hardly remembers him  :-/, like it or not ). In interviews, he dares to rant and whine about how reluctant J & P were when he asked of their help on songwriting, yet even with John's help, "You Like Me Too Much" (barf3) & "I Need You" (sleep1) can only be classified as mediocre filler; Taxman is a good song, but it is really a Harrison/Lennon song, right?  (okey, to be fair he did write  "If i needed someone" & "My sweet lord" all by himself (rolleyes) (laugh4))

George would be a nobody without John & Paul, their songwriting abilities made him a multimillionaire, yet, in interviews he constantly whined and moaned how unfair the 2 egomaniacs behaved towards him, and how evil they were  they refused to help him write his songs about how terrible it was to be a filthy rich world celebrity (roll)

[Sondra]

John and Ringo were already in bands and had plans to "make it." I think that puts them slightly ahead of the curve. I don't think Paul or George would have even given being in a band a thought had they not met John. I mean, there was no indication of that was there? I think John would have made it regardless of who he hung with. His writing alone would have gotten him somewhere. That and the incredible amount of charisma he seemed to possess.  

[DaveRam]

I think the bleeding obvious is staring us in the face the greatest  duo that never was Lennon & McCartney , they would have made Simon & Garfunkle look like Tom & Gerry.
Sorry Ringo and George but them two really did'nt need you ?

[harihead]

John and Ringo were already in bands and had plans to "make it." I think that puts them slightly ahead of the curve. I don't think Paul or George would have even given being in a band a thought had they not met John.

Paul was never in a band except with John, true. George was always in a band since he was 13: "The Rebels" formed with his brother, some other thing with some friends, then the Quarry Men, and finally The Les Stewart Quartet, which was up to become the resident band at The Casbah Coffee Club when they had a falling out. George hopped on his bike and recruited John and Paul for the gig. The Quarry Men had been dormant for 6 months at that time, as John was presently enamored of Stu and art school. Without George rounding up his old mates, there probably would not have been a Quarry Men revival, and no steady fan base to build from -- hence no Beatles.


DaveRam, I agree that Paul and John were a terrific duo. Which is why I place their individual success-- meaning "no Beatles"-- much lower. I think they really depended on and inspired each other, and wouldn't have gone far in music except as a duo. Ringo and George were the steady musicians. I'm enjoying reading everyone else's opinion, but my own is unchanged. We wouldn't have heard of any of these guys if they hadn't formed this particular group of 4.

[alexis]

Paul was never in a band except with John, true. George was always in a band since he was 13: "The Rebels" formed with his brother, some other thing with some friends, then the Quarry Men, and finally The Les Stewart Quartet, which was up to become the resident band at The Casbah Coffee Club when they had a falling out. George hopped on his bike and recruited John and Paul for the gig. The Quarry Men had been dormant for 6 months at that time, as John was presently enamored of Stu and art school. Without George rounding up his old mates, there probably would not have been a Quarry Men revival, and no steady fan base to build from -- hence no Beatles.

DaveRam, I agree that Paul and John were a terrific duo. Which is why I place their individual success-- meaning "no Beatles"-- much lower. I think they really depended on and inspired each other, and wouldn't have gone far in music except as a duo. Ringo and George were the steady musicians. I'm enjoying reading everyone else's opinion, but my own is unchanged. We wouldn't have heard of any of these guys if they hadn't formed this particular group of 4.

I had no idea ... amazing how such a thing could hinge on such a simple twist of fate!

[Beatlemaniac64]

It's pretty hard to tell for sure, 'cause we and the Beatles themselves really have no clue of what directions their lives would go in. But I definitely think Paul would have made it somehow, he was born to be a musician and to be a star. I know in Beatle biographies how his brother Michael explains how he discovered the guitar at 14 and wouldn't ever put it down from then on. Even before that he played a lot of piano and the trumpet. I really think he had a lot of determination and he has a lot of other traits besides musical talent that would make him a star, like his looks and the fact that he's into putting on a show. I know that Beatlemania hysteria was annoying to them all, but I think Paul really loved being on stage and all the attention until it finally got ridiculous. I think he would've been doing the same types of songs/music as he did with the Beatles. Not the same exact songs because John wouldn't be there, but the same style. It's very hard to imagine who else would be in his band.

I think John probably would've made it too, he was also a great songwriter and had that appealing wit. It's hard to tell for me with the other two because we're all so used to them being Beatles and famous that we have a hard time thinking about what they would be doing instead if they hadn't become famous and what type of band they would've been in. I think George was very determined as a teenager, staying up all night until his fingers would bleed, so he could've at least made a good living. I'm just very thankful that all those little things happened when they were teenagers that somehow made them all get together 'cause the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles if they were missing just one of those four guys.

[digna]

I also think that Paul and John also had made it. Together and alone. Of the other two I'm not sure. I think they  became famous but not as much as now.

[fan numero uno]

i would say both paul and john would have. they had what it takes. they both sang nearly all the vocals, and thay could play guitar. paul obviously also had dedication, as being a lefty and playing a righty guitar must have taken work. imagine learning the cords backwards!

[Sgt. Pepper 45822]

But would they have perused it as vigorously if they didn't have each other?? Didn't they push each other to write better and to do more??

[Andy Smith]

Didn't they push each other to write better and to do more??

yes, that's what i always thought, i think they needed to work off each other to better
themselves. i think they learnt from each other & remembered how things worked
when they both went solo.

[harihead]

Aw, what a sweet thought, Andy.

George mentioned he felt like being in the Beatles was being "in school". Of course, he also valued a good producer. I think with any creative art, collaborative and constructive input leads to a stronger product (at least, if you're trying to do anything commercial).

But I think Paul and John missed each other most after the Beatles, because they'd just got so used to writing together. I think they would have gotten back together again at least for an album, had they been given time.

you sometimes read about john making it as an advertising exec, because he was good at coming up with all these slogans -- "all you need is love", "power to the people" etc.
"come together" was actually used as a campaign slogan  once, for some american politician. can't remember his name though

[Geoff]

you sometimes read about john making it as an advertising exec, because he was good at coming up with all these slogans -- "all you need is love", "power to the people" etc.
"come together" was actually used as a campaign slogan  once, for some american politician. can't remember his name though

You could argue it the other way round as well: that advertising guys learned a thing or two from John, especially about the use of high minded vagueness/sentimentality to sell product.

[Kevin]

You could argue it the other way round as well: that advertising guys learned a thing or two from John, especially about the use of high minded vagueness/sentimentality to sell product.

He also did a fabulous PR job in destroying McCartneys seventies career*. Maybe he could have made chief editor for The Daily Mail.

*Image wise of course, and Paul didn't help matters sometimes. But I was going for a maximum-effect attention grabber with scant regard for the truth. John would understand. How do I sleep at night?

[Kevin]

I think apps mentioned this, but maybe he could have been Paul O'Grady.

LFAv6It_2dg