Beatles Without George Martin?

The point of this thread is simple:

The older I get and the more I learn about the Beatles, the more I revere George Martin. I've become convinced that Martin wove the common thread of musicality through those very different individuals. In fact, his talent in some ways clearly exceeded theirs.

A man of musical genius no doubt.

Opinions? Trivial tidbits? Let's hear 'em!
I'd say Paul McCartney has had a pretty successful career without George Martin.

Lots of British bands were signed, given talented producers and the opportunity to show what they could do. Most of them fell flat on their faces or managed a hit or two at best.

America is not in the same league as the Beatles. In fact I don't understand their popularity at all.

Diana Krall is a talented pianist and singer. She plays a type of jazz that is accessible and popular. Is that a sin? If so, Nat Cole is burning in hell and so is Miles Davis for recording Kind of Blue. Miles always wanted his music to be popular, by the way, and was frustrated that he couldn't acheive mass popularity.
Martin was/is a talented guy who helped catalyze and more importantly successfully capture (in recordings)in a marketable way the combined talents of the individual Beatles.

It was a unique combination of talent, collaboration and synergy that obviously produced outstanding and most likely timeless results.

Martin was a key member of that particular highly talented and successful team. He has done lots of other good work as well, but nothing as significant culturally as his early work as an innovator with the Beatles.
michael chapman, who produced 'the sweet', did the knack's 'my sharona'...killer riff with the whole 'rave up' thing thrown in....trivia, the knack's doug fieger is the kid brother of super attorney, jeffrey fieger......fieger did two records for rca(pre-knack)with the band 'sky'. they were also killer.
Let me be a little more clear- in no way would I claim Martin was a greater songwriter, or that the Beatles were just a pretty boy band. That of course is rubbish.

It's simply listening to Martin's influence on the guys in studio situations (view old studio footage, listen to behind the scenes tracks) that reveals his ability to take a request McCartney or Lennon had for a certain "sound" and deliver what is now known as a Beatles "defining" sound (Bach Trumpet in Penny Lane, and a zillion other examples).

My point is that many parts of the sound you define as the Beatles- from the multi-layered vocal harmonies to the unique instrumentation often employed- were George Martin's hand delivering what the boys envisioned.