Print

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

[Loco Mo]

This is my opinion:  Paul's true destiny was to be an artist in his own right.  He wasn't really meant to be a Beatle.

If he hadn't met John, he would have been in a band but it would have been his own band.  It wouldn't be a group because Paul would have been the whole show.

John was the only person Paul met who could act as a counter-balance to his enormous musical talent.  Without John, no Beatles, thus resulting in Paul as a solo artist only.

When the Beatles broke up, Paul found his true place in life as the master of his own kingdom.  Say his name "Paul McCartney" and it's like you're talking about an institution for which most people have a natural unassuming reverence.  He stands all by himself as a singular greatness and I don't think anyone can touch him despite the many talented people in the world.

[blmeanie]

I agree with the concept of John being one of possibly only a few that could have acted as a counter to Paul, eventually.  Was Paul that way in the beginning though?  If they never met and Paul formed his own backing back, he would not have had the same success as solo as he did following the Beatles.  The wave they all rode allowed them to fail and not affect their reps post Beatles.

interesting to think about though

[Pothos]

I think you are missing a key step in the thought process. Although It is fascinating to think of McCartney as a solo artist from day one. I genuinely think The Beatles are still underappreciated, yes they released great records but they as a group, made song writing within a band the norm, they created new artistic concepts in recording visuals changed haw the media reacted to music, created a separate and distinct British teen culture, They started the revolution in how bands would perform live. They said what they believed in and caused shockwaves in the process and all this came from a few quirks of fate. A manager who really had no experience of the music biz but changed it forever, a producer who had worked in the fields of classical and  comedy music on a non mainstream label. Nothing was like them before and it is staggering to think of how many things needed to fit into place for them to succeed. They changed everything.

[tkitna]

Lets not forget that it was the Beatles that allowed Paul to have huge commercial success with his solo career.  Sure Paul would have been successful, but to what extent without being a Beatle?  He was already the biggest name in music (along with the other three) when he started his solo career.  Thats a hell of a head start.

In the beginning, John and Paul were determined to make it and their talent together got them there.  George and Ringo were parts of the puzzle, but lets face it, they were along for the ride.  John and Paul were the real talents and they were going to make it together regardless of who else were with them.  Without each other and the Beatles factor, would their solo output have as much of an effect?  I hardly think so.

[nimrod]

Lets not forget that it was the Beatles that allowed Paul to have huge commercial success with his solo career.  Sure Paul would have been successful, but to what extent without being a Beatle?  He was already the biggest name in music (along with the other three) when he started his solo career.  Thats a hell of a head start.

In the beginning, John and Paul were determined to make it and their talent together got them there.  George and Ringo were parts of the puzzle, but lets face it, they were along for the ride.  John and Paul were the real talents and they were going to make it together regardless of who else were with them.  Without each other and the Beatles factor, would their solo output have as much of an effect?  I hardly think so.

Good point ...I always thought John meeting Paul was the catalyst of The Beatles greatness they brought the very best out in each other and wrote all those hits... it's interesting that 99% of Paul's best work was with The Beatles and since becoming a solo artist , although he has written many good songs,  he hasn't wrote many really great songs. Let's face it he needed John as a catalyst to bring out his greatness.

[Loco Mo]

It just seems to me that Paul was the most successful solo Beatle in the first post-Beatle decade (the 70s).  Paul has always seemed to be an outlier to me as far as the Beatles go.  Didn't it seem like he sometimes stood somewhat apart when they performed?

I just felt like Paul didn't really need the Beatles more than they needed him.  Certain songs of his were so unique such as "Here, there and everywhere," "For no one," "Yesterday," and "Eleanor Rigby."  Did he need the Beatles in order to write these gems?

I know John remarked with some vexation early on that oftentimes interviewers seemed to favor Paul as "the Songwriter" of the Beatles.  Maybe John was getting short shrift because of those particular songs Paul wrote.  They were so pretty and touching really.

We'll never know how things would have panned out for the individual Beatles if they had never formed a band together but I tend to think that Paul would have done well.  I don't know if John would have continued making music or not.  I think George was an inveterate guitar player - he was meant to play that instrument.  And Ringo was a natural born drummer.  But they probably wouldn't have hit the big time.  They may have been popular in Liverpool but that would have been the limit of their popularity as individuals.

 

[Moogmodule]

Paul was quoted early on (before the Beatles took off) saying that if the Beatles didn’t get anywhere he’d do it on his own. And he certainly had the talent to do it. But being in partnership with John, with George Martin producing and with the contributions from George and a Ringo, helped make Paul and the Beatles bigger than anything Paul could have been on his own.

Once Paul gained in confidence though his tendency to want to control what was played on his songs grew to such an extent that I don’t think he could ever fit in a band situation again. He had the skills to do it all himself and, as you said Loco, he only ever saw John as some sort of artistic equal. He was never going to listen to anyone else on a regular basis. That is a pity because, no matter how good you are, your work can always stand some tweaking. Paul’s ability did show in his consistent success as a solo artist but, as much as I like some of his and the others solo stuff, taken as a whole it’s not a patch on the Beatles work.
.

[Moogmodule]

We'll never know how things would have panned out for the individual Beatles if they had never formed a band together but I tend to think that Paul would have done well.  I don't know if John would have continued making music or not.  I think George was an inveterate guitar player - he was meant to play that instrument.  And Ringo was a natural born drummer.  But they probably wouldn't have hit the big time.  They may have been popular in Liverpool but that would have been the limit of their popularity as individuals.

I think John’s main issue would have been holding his interest. He was a charismatic and unique singer in his own right and a great songwriter too, but he liked to move on and, without the huge anchor of the Beatles I imagine would have drifted into other areas such as writing. Ringo was a very good drummer, I can see him having a good career playing in bands in the region, but wider fame would always depend on who he played with. George in a way was the luckiest. He joined the perfect band that made good use of his then skills, mostly his innovative guitar approach and love of different chord shadings that helped give Beatle songs added depth, and that nurtured the slower burning talent he had when he eventually blossomed into a fine guitarist and songwriter.  Without that I doubt he would have stuck with it for that long as the bluesier guitar hero types were taking the guitar spotlight.

[tkitna]

Good point ...I always thought John meeting Paul was the catalyst of The Beatles greatness they brought the very best out in each other and wrote all those hits... it's interesting that 99% of Paul's best work was with The Beatles and since becoming a solo artist , although he has written many good songs,  he hasn't wrote many really great songs. Let's face it he needed John as a catalyst to bring out his greatness.

And vice versa.  I think Paul wrote a lot of great solo songs (a career that dwarfs Johns to be honest), but neither were ever going to reach their Beatles output.