Would Paul be great if wasn't a Beatle??

by **bianca_macca** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:15 am

if if if if.....I think the combination of the musical skills of Paul, John, George and Ringo (especially the first two), their shared experiences (puberty, dead mothers, Hamburg, etc, etc), their friendship and a good bit of fortune made it all happen!
I've wondered what IF John or Paul had had the kick at the head after a gig, which Stu got. Horrible thought.....

by **eleanorigby** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:30 am

My Dad likes to say that history doesn't have a conjunctive mood...

by **dsnito** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:23 pm

Well, I think the "IF" story on this case is quite interesting, because trying to think about Paul starting his musical career WITHOUT his known mates makes me imagine how it could had been...
Would he made a successful career as Elton John, a solo performer
(well, it's true taht he ever had a good supporting band and a amazing lyricist)??

Peace.

by **dsnito** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:27 pm

In the other hand, would THE BEATLES be that amazing band WITHOUT Paul???LOL[:D] I think the History should be all re-written to know such things...[;)]

Peace.

by **jamie** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:10 pm

fate is fate !

by **Maestri09** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:18 am

none of the 4 would have been as big if it weren't for the beatles. If paul ever did get into music, I think he'd probably be a mix between elton john and james taylor, but not as successful as elton john.

by **admiralvanderbilt** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:20 pm

quote:Originally posted by jamie
fate is fate !

Remember where John and Paul met?

Fete is fate.

[;)]

by **Bluebird** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:44 am

I have an interview where he wrote that he was going to be musicteacher before he met John.

by **Liam OSM** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:31 am

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!

by **Bluebird** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:02 am

Liam OSM wrote: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!

Without Paul Beatles was nothing compared to what they are now, I think Paul was the leader, musician and the man with most influence on the group from "We can work it out" was released until the end. Without Paul we´ve haven´t got "Let it be", " Penny lane" "Lady Madonna" and "Hey Jude", and must be some of their greatest. Without Paul maybe John could have done something, and He want have lived a longer life.

Would Paul be great if wasn't a Beatle??

Who is online