Who's better John Lennon or Paul McCartney?
September 8, 2007 5:03am CST
John founded the Beatles, but it is Paul who spearheaded the Beatles to its popularity with his superb musical compositions. John was also the first one to leave the group because of a spat with his wife and the other members of the Beatles. After their breakup, Paul had more albums to his name and became a knight. What do you think?
• United States
9 Sep 07
They have 2 totally different styles, so it would be hard to compare, but without each one, there would have never been a group like The Beatles as it took every single member to make them what they were. Ok if I had to choose it would definitely be John Lennon though just because I prefer his experimental style and his unusual lyrics.
18 Jun 08
well dear, i think this will be a very difficult question to answer since we can't really compare the two... each has strengths and flaws...and both had enormous egos... they were good together...john with words, paul with melodies...but still, their big egos got in the way... john's assassination made him a "martyr" thus gaining more and more popularity even though he's already turned to dust...
13 Nov 07
I loved the group as a whole. If I had to choose beteen John or Paul, John would win. I think he was a man before his time. His lyrics really struck home, he had meaning behind his words. Paul's style was more bubble-gummy. John was just getting his career back on track after staying home with Sean only to have his life cut short. John has made a lasting impression on the art world and the general public. When he sang, you listened to the words. He is sadly missed.
11 Sep 07
They are both good in their own rights. Although I would have to respond to the poster's statements... There are a lot of books which pertain to and discuss thoroughly what really went on in the career of the Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It's not as simple as what's mentioned above. It's quite unfair.
10 Sep 07
john and paul - including george and ringo, i tend to see them collectively as the beatles. it is one if not the greatest of the musical groups we've ever come to know about. although having their individual strengths and talents, they're working wonderfully as a team and it's quite unfair to separate the individual parts and compare from among them. it's like the gestalt saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.". each one is a vital contribution to the music they collectively created. and those creations of which they are a part has significantly influenced and gave joy and inspiration to the world - this is the greater essence and effect of thier being a band. i am with the tendency to see it that way. and even after the separation, it is still impossible for me to see who's the better man or the lesser mucisian, since to my mind they're bonded with a common cause and that is music as universal as their message and principles.
9 Sep 07
I think it's not on how many albums an artist has done but on the impact a particular artist has created. Though John's career is much shorter as compared to Paul, its John who has created the greatest impact. On who's better between the two, they only neutralize each other. When it comes to lyrics, I would prefer John. When it comes to melody, its Paul.