Off The Beatle Track

“Theory” might be too strong; in the world of financial services marketing, a legal reviewer might call that word “promissory.”¹

But I have a germ of an idea for a theory about what made The Beatles such a successful collaboration. Before I explain, be aware that I’ll be using the word “need” loosely, to mean some combination of “need,” “want,” “benefit from,” “lack,” and “rely upon.” You’ll see what I mean in a minute. Just wanted to make sure that you don’t get hung up on “need.”

Anywhere, here’s the germ: The Beatles succeeded because the group provided each member what he needed.

This will only make sense if I examine everyone individually.

John needed a gang to lead

As young boy, John read Richard Crompton’s Just William books, whose title character led a group called the Outlaws. Then, as a teenager, John assembled and led his own (music) group, The Quarrymen.

A consistent theme of the pre-breakup part of John’s life is that he surrounded himself with people who willingly acceded to his leadership. As late as January 1969’s “flower pot conversation” (the audio of which appears in Peter Jackson’s Get Back), Paul tells John, “You have always been boss.”

Maybe Paul, fearing the breakup, was massaging John’s ego. But the other three were willing to follow John for as long as he was willing to lead them. The Beatles’ leadership dynamic shifted, especially after Brian’s death, but for most of their recording career, John led the gang.

Paul needed a peer

My Gen Z son has told me that the next wave of Beatles’ scholarship will focus on sociological aspects such as the band’s interrelationships.² The most fascinating relationship is obviously between John and Paul.

Paul has deferred to no once since the breakup the way he deferred to John, and he’s worked with some heavy hitters: The Rolling Stones, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Pete Townshend, Dolly Parton, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Chrissie Hynde, Eric Clapton, Elvis Costello, David Gilmour, Rihanna, Kanye West, Barbra Streisand. . . you get the idea.

I’ve written before about the relationship between John and Paul: I don’t really understand it, and I can’t explain it, but it was the engine that drove The Beatles. The Beatles worked because both John and Paul saw the other as worthy of admiration and respect.

On the day he died, John told Rolling Stone that ““There’s only two artists I’ve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. That’s Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono.”³

John was about 20 months older than Paul, and the quantity and quality of the songs that he wrote surpassed Paul’s probably at least into 1965, when The Beatles released Yesterday. Paul seemed to think more highly of John than anyone else else in his life of roughly his age. John asked Paul to join The Quarrymen and then treated him as an equal, which probably did more to give Paul the confidence he needed to succeed as a musician than any other single factor. Paul needed the respect of someone he respected.

George needed time to develop

When discussing Rubber Soul in The Beatles Anthology, George said about John and Paul, “They’d written most of their bad songs before we’d even got into the recording studio. I had to come from nowhere and start writing, and have something with at least enough quality to put on the record alongside all the wondrous hits. It was very hard.”⁴

George was 19 when Love Me Do was released in 1962. He was 26 when Abbey Road–which contained two of his arguably top three Beatles’ tracks– was released in 1969. Think of it this way: John was 26 when he wrote Strawberry Fields Forever; Paul was 26 when he wrote Hey Jude. One might argue that, as Beatles, all three songwriters peaked at around the same age.

George developed right on time, working without the benefit of a genius partner. He used his Beatle apprenticeship time wisely.

Ringo needed brothers

Like John, Ringo was raised as an only child. But because he spent so much of his childhood hospitalized, he didn’t have the opportunity to form friendships at school.

Ringo has said some variation of this many times over several years: “I was an only child, and then suddenly I had three brothers.” I don’t have much to add: Ringo needed brotherhood, which the other three provided.

What do you think of my germ of an idea for a theory? Email me at beatletrack@gmail.com.

1. I used to work as a marketing writer for Vanguard. Easily the worst part of my last role there was dealing with our legal reviewers. Gave me nightmares. ↩︎
2. And he said that before Ian Leslie’s excellent 2025 book John and Paul: A Love Story in Songs was published. ↩︎
3. And, y’know, ouch if you’re George or Ringo. ↩︎
4. George had an amazing ability to sound charming even as he was complaining. ↩︎