Fascinating subject - well done to Dsnito for bringing this one up.
Of course Paul's music is great - there's no denying that. Whether they'd have been as big? Interesting.
Without Paul, I reckon that The Beatles would have still been pretty big in the early 60s, but would have floundered around 1967. After all, in terms of Beatles stuff, John's peak was 1965, while Paul didn't hit his until the very end!
It's a very interesting point. I for one find it fascinating, because it's a sad fact that good music doesn't automatically sell itself. I say this because my favourite new studio album of this new millennium is by a relative unknown called Ricky Warwick. He's been around for 15-20yrs in various metal bands, but last year he released his first solo album, "Tattoos & Alibis", which is much lighter, straddling rock and folk styles of music. And it's one helluva great album - I can't find fault with it anywhere. But has the album become a massive worldwide hit? I don't think so. Because people don't know who Ricky Warwick is! And I'll confess I didn't know who he was until last february. I went to see Def Leppard, and he was one of the support acts. The other, interestingly, was The Darkness, who have suddenly become massive . . . they're all right, they do at least play their own instruments, but give me RW any day!
Anybody who goes to see a psychiatrist needs their head examining.