I believe individually they'd both have phenomenal success, but together they were a force to new reckoned with. Without the duo, I'm scared To think of what crap Would fly as music. John used Paul, Paul used John and the world rejoiced.
Humm...good question my friend, and difficult to answer too. Would will have exist The Beatles without Paul or John? Probably not, perhaps each of them woud have succeed, but I'm not so sure whether or not having succeess as big as The Beatles
Wow i never thought this debate would still be going ,but i would like to say to all the Beatle lovers a warm thank you for all the feedback and thoughts ,it sure has made brilliant reading and i think we all have to agree the Beatles are the Greatest foursome that ever got together and created music that will go on for forever ,there had to be the four to be the Beatles, take care Beatle lovers until we meet again ,best wishes Brian /scarrabri.
liverpoolbride: HI...I'm Liverpoolbride(as on the PM.com 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 ...so 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 Liverpool, he was born in 1942 same as Paul
May you find peace this day and everyday and learn to laugh! :) Hi liverpoolbride ,a warm hello to you and your husband me being a neighbour ,i agree the Beatles did need Paul,but would he have been half as good without John,maybe not ,even George and Ringo gave so much to make the Beatles the Greatest group we may ever see, take care my dear friends from Liverpool,best wishes Brian/scarrabri.
Would the Rolling Stones ever have madie it without Keith Richards, would Queen even have made it without Brian May etc. etc. etc......
Of course not, and Paul McCartney / Brian May/ Keith Richards etc. etc would never have made it this way without their bands. If you ever played in a band you know that the combination of talents is what counts, not the talents themselves. That is why Paul and John, Goerge and Ringo never had the same succes as solo artists, how talented they may have been. John started the Beatles, he was (in the beginning) their natural leader. When he started to lose interest Paul took over and kept the band going for a few years. Without Paul there would have never been "Abbey Road" because George and John were not to keen on recording with the Beatles anymore. So he deserves a lot of credit for that (and many , many other things)
George Martin said Paul and John were two sides of the same coin...as said many times before it was the chemistry of the two principal songwriters...blend in one of the most tasteful guitarists of the sixties and the beat of Ringo and it was magic that hasn't been topped forty years on...for me John was the Beatle's cutting edge...take him out from the beginning and the Beatles may have lasted only three or four years as a fine little pop band with Paul's dominance to be too much for George for the band to continue...take out Paul from the beginning and the Beatles may have been a great band for a few years with a more looser r'n'b feel and less top ten success but with Paul's discipline absent..it was just as well Paul and John saw the value in each other for the band to be around for a good ten years or so and be the greatest ever.
Of course The Fabs wouldn't have made it without Paul or John or George or Ringo or Brian Or George M. If Decca had signed them they wouldn't have been the same. If Stu, or Pete or Astrid or? hadn't crossed their paths there would have been no Beatles as we know them today. Tho I'm not really religious, thank God everyone and everything aligned to give us this "Special Gift."