Beatles Without George Martin?

>>I'd say Paul McCartney has had a pretty successful career without George Martin.<<

You missed or ignored my point.

I said, "None of them were nearly successful as the band itself".

That is irrefutable.

"None of them were nearly successful as the band itself".

That's because, while it lasted, the talents of each individual Beatle, including Martin, complemented the others almost perfectly.

Take any of them individually, and while still uniquely gifted in different ways, there is not the overall balance and synergy that characterized the Beatles.

Well, what about George Martin without the Beatles?
There are combinations of talent that existed in time and space and this team/group/ensemble was one of them.

Even when I was kid and Beatles fan in the late 60s I knew the Martin name and equated it with the success of the Fab Four. One thing Martin did effectively was expose them to resources, other instruments, members of LSO that could augment the basic ideas they had.

Another album that Martin did with Geoff Emerick which was OK was Ultravox' Quartet album from 1984; OK but not great and certainly not anywhere near the caliber of the results with the Beatles.

Because he was the producer, George Martin received most of the credit in helping to interpret the Beatles ideas into a workable musical idea. However, a great deal of credit should go to Geoff Emerick who was the engineer that recorded their groundbreaking music and developed a way for those ideas to become a musical reality. Anyone interested should read this excellent book, "Here, There and Everywhere" - My Life Recording the music of The Beatles by Geoff Emerick, it's an eye opener.

I second Cyclonicman's assertion about Geoff Emerick; along with Eddie Kramer, those two are among the finest rock recording engineers/artists ever to have walked the planet.

What I wouldn't give just to have a two hour lesson for miking, recording and mixing drums ALONE!