Thanks, Kevin! Good conversation.
Leaving aside the percentage of success contributed per Beatle (I'll have to do some spreadsheets on that at some point I suppose
), I'd like to cling like a bulldog to the original topic, "the importance of competition in creativity and innovation".
just luck of the universe that two young talented guys just happened to meet at an age when they could motivate each other along?
My answer to this is an emphatic, "Yes!" I think there really are individuals who stand out--like Mozart and Einstein and Steve Jobs--people who are farting around in their basements and end up having a major influence on their culture or even the world (well, perhaps Mozart didn't use the basement...).
Now, the Beatles are unique in that list of standouts in that they apparently needed a group dynamic to create that change. I think if these two songwriting lads had not met, Paul would have become a teacher, John would have drifted into art, George would have played in band after band until he was forced to find a real job, and Ringo the same. But John didn't just want to have a partner, although he liked that a lot. At that time, he also wanted to have a gang. The Quarrymen (and later the Beatles) served that purpose. (Paul apparently didn't feel the need for anyone else; he was never in any band until John invited him.)
If they hadn't met, struggled on in their bedrooms alone, and probably given up songwriting and followed the road of their peers to covers oblivion.
It must be competition
Here's where I disagree with your conclusion (and with Dr. Clydesdale above). There were many components to that relationship, and competition was just one aspect. Yes, they talked about competition, but they
worked cooperatively, particularly at the beginning. "Writing into each other's noses", as John put it. They did compete with other bands, wanting to write better songs than "Pretty Woman," and so on, but within the group they were amazingly egalitarian, at least in the beginning. It was only after Sgt. Pepper, perhaps due to lack of outside competition, that they began focusing on competing with each other. And I think that element was as
destructive to the band as it was helpful.
As performing Beatles, they never tried to upstage each other. Paul and John made sure to feature George, and later Ringo, in their acts. Ringo happily recalls one of the good things about the Beatles is that whoever had the good idea, that's whose idea they'd use. There was openness to constructive criticism-- not just among the Beatles, but also with their producer. Yes, John and Paul provided a foil for each other in composition, and it's a valuable tool. But there are so many elements--competition, critique, inspiration, trust, friendship, safety, not to mention talent-- I feel it's overlooking the uniqueness of their gift to try to pare it down to one element.
Were they anymore harmonious during the Abbey Road Sessions, when you say the quality returned?
According to George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and other observers, yes, they were.