If the members of the Beatles showed up in 1970 as unknowns, how would their solo careers rate?

I'm more generous. I put Ringo at Patrick Stewart level.

 

Of course it's pointless. That's the fun of it.

But again, if our fantasy scenario doesn't work for you, then go the more straightforward way.

How does th solo output of the the four Beatles, stripped of the Beatles mystique, compare to the best work of the early 70s from the likes of Bowie, Elton John, the Stones, etc.?

 

Given the presumption that Lennon and McCartney (and to a lesser extent, George) DIDN’T write all those classic Beatle songs, I presume there would be a latent volcano of creative potential that would have erupted in a lot of great music nonetheless. Those guys were too talented for it to be otherwise.

If you assume that doesn’t happen, then you’re not talking about them, you’re talking about other, different people.

 

As far as the record goes for L&M I have no faith in either of those two guys without the other one.

 

I have no memory of Whatever Gets You Through The Night by John Lennon and I was a rabid top 40 radio listening teen at the time. I think I thought it was just another Elton John song.

 

1. Paul McCartney - Superstar.
2. John Lennon - Relatively unknown musician.
3. Ringo Starr - Relatively known musician/actor.
4. George Harrison - An obscure nobody.

 

Paul would have been a star with Maybe I’m Anazed and Every Night being the first two singles off his debut album.

 

People would have been *very* confused when John sang “I was the walrus, but now I’m John” and “I don’t believe in beetles, I just believe in me”.

 

Paul - McCartney album submitted to label and is rejected as unreleasable, with the criticism that these are "just demos" at best and some songs seem only half-written. He is almost dropped from the label as a result, but the label loves 'Maybe I'm Amazed' and they release it as a stand-alone single (which becomes a big hit) while they bin the McCartney album and tell him to start over from scratch in recording his debut album. The resulting album 'Ram' does "OK" becoming a cult hit (which the critics love due to its quirkiness) but after a weak follow-up album 'Wild Life' (which completely flops with both fans and critics) followed by a few goofy stand-alone singles that all flop - one political, one a children's song and one an ode to sex and/or drugs, he gets dropped by the label. Career over.

John - Debut single 'Instant Karma' b/w 'Cold Turkey' though not a huge hit does reasonably well on the chart. Debut album (released almost a full year after the single - therefore losing all career momentum) gets mostly strong critical notices, but contains no hits and doesn't sell. He follows this with a political single 'Power To The People' b/w 'Do The Oz' (which predictably flops) and he gets dropped from the label. Career over.

George - Records a nine song single album of all normal/secular music, which becomes a hit driven by its extracted 'What Is Life' hit single. He follows this up within a year with another nine song single album, but this one has a much more religious tone to it (with nearly every song). The record company is skeptical, but given the success of his previous album and single, they agree to release the album, which flops as does its extracted single 'My Sweet Lord' b/w 'Hear Me Lord'. Record company drops him - career over.

Ringo - After a few smallish TV and film roles (as a charming, loveable 'everyman' type character) up and coming comedic actor signs a record deal to capitalize on his middling on-screen successes. Firstly he records an unlikely standards album, followed by another genre (this time country) covers album. Both become 'OK' sellers on the back of their tie-in TV series roles that inspired them. He mostly sticks to acting after that, releasing only one single in each of the following two years, which do 'OK' but not well enough for him to take singing seriously/make the switch from being primarily a comedic character actor. Music career ends - acting career continues for several years with middling (and diminishing) success.

 

This thought exercise is not fair to the lads for several reasons, and here are the two biggest.

1. They would not have released the same albums had they been trying to “make it” in 1970. John a scream therapy album? Paul an album of demos? George a triple album? Ringo a covers album? We saw what they did when trying to break in, and it was turning out hits.

2. The 1970 John, Paul, and George were already reaching the end of their songwriting prime. Ringo never had one.

If you start them all solo in 1970 as the same ages they were in 1962, John and Paul are big stars, and George a minor one. That is assuming George sticks with it. For all the complaining about being stifled in the Beatles, it did encourage and allow him to develop as a songwriter. Ringo would be a great drummer for somebody with no solo career.

 

Yep

 

I’m sure others have mentioned it but you can’t answer this question properly without creating a totally different 60’s to the one that existed.

Without the Beatles there’s no telling what the musical landscape of 1970 would’ve looked like.

 

Forget the Beatles, because that's exactly what they did once they really got their solo careers going! McCartney said he wanted to get as far away from the Beatles musically as he could, and he did! He wouldn't even perform that music for years, so the Beatles effect was short-lived once they really got going.
McCartney would be a major star no matter what, comparing him to Rod Stewart is absolutely ridiculous!
No diss to Rod but he couldn't begin to write the number of absolute classics that McCartney does! What Bob Dylan said about McCartney has nothing to do with the Beatles and everything to do with McCartney's pure skills!

 

As I said in the post, I used people like Rod Stewart as fame comparisons, not musical comparisons.

 

Ringo would have had a great career as a drummer, for other artists.
Probably not as a singer.

 

Ringo becomes a top F1 driver? That’s a career shift.

 

That's still not accurate, someone who continually writes absolute classics would easily surpass Rod Stewart's fame as McCartney actually has!

 

Presumably Ringo doesn’t get Barbara Bach.

Poor Ringo

 

Well I’m guessing if there first albums were things like “Electronic Sounds” “Life with the Lions”, even “Wild Life” or “Beaucoup of Blues” they might not stand a chance!

 

They would be discarded as cheap rip-offs of the solo albums released in that same period by Ron, Jake, Mike and Brillo

 

Thinking about it, Paul would probably secretly replace Jake in 1966 when he dies in a car accident.

 

Honestly?

Their entire solo careers are largely based on their success with the Beatles. Take that away and these would be cult acts at best. Ringo and George dropped by their labels pretty quickly. Lennon and McCartney selling maybe 10,000 copies of albums on some label that the owner liked them. Can you really see any of them making it as new solo acts in the glam or Punk years? No way.

Their singles got into the charts as Beatles fans bought them and once in then normal pop fans may have bought a few as well. Without the base of Beatles fans the records don't chart. They weren't records that could stand up on their own feet during the times we were in. And you would have to say that McCartney wouldn't get invited to do a Bond theme obviously, or Lennon wouldn't be singing with Bowie so you can rule those out.

Same I think with Bowie in the mid 80's on.

This is coming from a big Bowie and Beatles fan.

The more interesting question is if the Beatles didn't exist and instead of putting out the same solo records then they actually started from scratch how would they have changed? I think McCartney was talented enough to write good singles that would have sound good in the era, he was more adaptable, but not sure about the others. Maybe Lennon would have been the new Alvin Stardust.

 

"I don't believe in ...............I just believe in me....Yoko and Me" Plus be puts down Bob Dylan, Jesus and Elvis. What goes in the blank space? I don't think he would have gotten far, being an unknown putting down all these icons. Who does this guy think he is?

You can't take things out of context or remove things from happening in history. You pull the foundation, the building falls down.

 

It's almost impossible to answer, as The Beatles completely changed the landscape of popular music. By the early 70's everything had either directly or indirectly been influenced by The Beatles, including influencing each other. So the world John, Paul, George and Ringo would have appeared in during the early 70's would have been unrecognisable. Rock n' Roll music may have been considered as a fad that happened 15 years ago in this strange earth 2 scenario.

 

I agreed with everything else, but I think this vastly underestimates the talent of John Lennon, and his drive to make it.

He was the one constantly pushing the band in the early days to the “toppermost of the poppermost”. He is one of the top five greatest songwriters of all time, and was a hit writing machine when he wanted to be. And he had one of the greatest voices in the history of rock. Plus, he always had the big personality. John is a star no matter the era.