rialb said:

But how do u feel about John keeping paul because he knew he would be the stronghold of the group? take that into consideration too man.

Sdldawn said:

Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

rialb said:

Well i've just heard interviews where John explained that he needed paul as a strongarm in the group.. he made the group strong and somewhat "commercial".. thats what i got out of it.. he was an excellent marketing person. Not sayin John wasnt, cause he was.. he just acknoledged Pauls capabilities. so I honestly think something would have came out of paul regardless of The Beatles.. granted it was meant to be the way it was.
[This message was edited Mon Mar 29 17:34:38 2004 by Sdldawn]

You are SERIOUSLY out to yank Beatle fans' chains today, aren't ya?

Sdldawn said:

Ok, I getcha. I can agree with that. Lennon himself has said that he is very lazy. Maybe he needed Paul to motivate him to work. And there is another basic fault with my question. If Paul was starting out in 1970 as a 20 year old (or however old he was when the Beatles first gor into a studio) he almost certainly would have been much more creative as a solo artist. Most artists are done artistically by the time they hit their 30's. Ok, that's not strictly true, but I think you get my point.

ThreadBare said:

Really, I'm not. But I see how it could look that way. I am a huge Beatle fan. But I find it odd how crappy, relatively speaking, they were as solo artists.