Would the Beatles ever have made it without Paul McCartney ?

1 2 3 4 Next
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #6
Hi i grew up in Stoke on trent England ,30 mins drive to Liverpool ,the Beatles birth place ,The first time i heard the Beatles was when my brother who was older that i ,he was 12yrs old and myself 10yrs old bought Love me do,or i think it was  ,and a Beatle fan was born ,i never got to see them live ,but many years later watched Paul McCartney  and his band at the Albert Docks Liverpool ,never has any other moment touched me so much ,i do how ever wonder if the Beatles would have made it if not for Paul McCartney ,just a thought,best wishes scarrabri.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #16
Didn't  he form the band? No they wouldn't.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #17
Hi ,no paul did not form the Beatles ,John did ,but when you look back to most things the Beatles were involved in Paul seems to have took the lead, which probaly caused some of the reasons the Beatles called it a day .  scarrabri
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #23
I think it was the unique combination of the four of them, particularly Paul and John.  I don't think Paul would have been as successful without John, either.  

I'm sure John would have kept playing, and someone would have eventually taught him how to tune his guitar properly.  But would he have kept playing after Julia died?  Hanging with Paul kind of pulled him through that (as much as he pulled through, which was certainly incomplete) since he'd lost his mum recently, too.  Without Paul, he might have turned to Stu and art.  He'd've been a brilliant cartoonist or something.

But without John, Paul would have been a successful musician, but probably not to the Beatles level.  He'd've probably led a band and had everything done His Way.  But that meant that he wouldn't have been challenged the way John did, which made him grow.

They both would have been great, but together, they were brilliant.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #36
Hi geekymary ,i think you are ok in saying John and Paul were brilliant togeather ,but i also think  Paul in the latter years dominated the amount of brilliant songs that were released ,and that John had actualy lost his way ,but still capable of producing fine songs ,maybe the magic was gone for John,whilst Paul went on to form the brilliant Wings with the biggest star of them all ,pauls beautiful wife Linda,now theres a real star carry on no matter what people thought ,so when i think of Wings i think of Linda,best wishes Scarrabri.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #41
Your question is one for Time-Travelers and the "what if?" crowd, but it's a good question. To me, it's just one of those mysteries in life that one comes to accept and appreciate: the Beatles were who they were meant to be. The final four members were meant to be John, Paul, George and Ringo. It would've been a different band if Stu Sutcliffe (God rest His soul) had lived (although he did drop out shortly before his untimely death), or if John didn't fire Pete Best (former band drummer). I wouldn't question the outcome; it feels as though it was all meant to be and what has come out of it all has been simply beautiful and divine (for me). I loved Paul McCartney and Wings too! And I loved what each "Beatle" did as a solo artist. They all went on to make wonderful, individual music; some better than others but it is all good. They even wrote and gave away songs to other artists while they were the Beatles and as solo artists. Their style inspired so many other musicians and singers. They're a gift to the world that keeps on giving. Considering they known each other since the late 1950's, I accept the fact that by 1970 they were a little worn out and wanted to raise their own families and live their own lives. They deserved that and I wish more people would grow up and accept that fact. It's a shock sometimes to realize that Lennon would be murdered in 1980, a mere 10 years after the Beatles broke up. People want to debate which guy was better, Paul or John. The answer is neither. They were both great, especially together. And they each had something to say apart from each other as ex-Beatles. All good.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #43
Hi  2Morrow!  
                   I think what you wrote sums up the Beatles beautifuly, as each of the four members had so much to offer ,and again there is no need to say who was best ,  because they all had a part to play ,and indeed gave the whole world so much pleasure ,and i for one would not have missed it for a single moment,very best wishes Brian ,scarrabri.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #47
The Beatles were a collaborative effort.  In my opinion, they all had talent, but collectively, the were amazing.  Each one of them added to the sucess of The Beatles to give that unique sound. They all brought something to the table.  From George's influence in Indian music to John's sarcasm and sometimes harsh wit which can be heard in many songs.

Would The Beatles have made it without Paul McCartney?  Probably not.  But then, The Beatles wouldn't have been The Beatles without John, George or Ringo either.
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #62
HI...I'm Liverpoolbride(as on the website-forum) and I'm the one who Paul mentioned on his "LIVE chat" back in May of 2010. My birthday is 06-18-51 I would say NO, the Beatles wouldn't have had a prayer without him!lol He was a driving force and talent that is still strong today! I'm STILL the nicest fan that Paul will never meet!..:)

BTW...I'm married to a bloke from Liverpoool, he was born in 1942 same as Paul

May you find peace this day and everyday and learn to laugh!  :)
Posted: 3 years ago Quote #63
They are all good comments, and I agree that the total sum of the parts made them.  Paul was an amazing pop writer, But I think John added the edge and the wit,  and throw in George and Ringo and you had the unique chemistry. There were many talented pop bands in the 60's,  but they rose above the others so much.  that the,  and i don't mean to sound corny,  but the time and space aligned perfectly.  P.S.  I saw George in Montreal in 1974. loved it.
1 2 3 4 Next