Who's better John Lennon or Paul McCartney?  

I think it's unfair to try to compare the two careers. After all, Paul's career has had more years to it than John's. If John hadn't been assassinated, who knows what he might have accomplished by now?

I have always liked Paul McCartney the best out of the 2 myself. He seems to have taken better control then John Lennon did.

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.

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.

I love the four Beatles: John, Paul, Ringo and George. They are four men in the history of the music. Each Beatle is the best for me. However, if I must have a choice, I prefer Paul Mc Cartney.

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.

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.

Paul McCartney is a pothead as well as a snob, i.e., a pompous 'arse' as was Linda.

When he was married to Linda, they stayed home, watched the telly, and indulged in smoking pot.

He married Heather who was practically half his age. Being young she was not satisfied being a couch potato and watching the telly. She wanted to go out with her husband and Paul did not. He thought he could just carry on as he did with Linda. This caused much friction between Paul and Heather. Paul should have realised he would not be able to keep up with a wife who is younger than his eldest child.

Cheers!

TrueBrits

Paul McCartney is a pothead as well as a snob, i.e., a pompous 'arse' as was Linda. Paul sucks as does his music and lyrics.

When he was married to Linda, they stayed home, watched the telly, and indulged in smoking pot.

He married Heather who was practically half his age. Being young she was not satisfied being a couch potato and watching the telly. She wanted to go out with her husband and Paul did not. He thought he could just carry on as he did with Linda. This caused much friction between Paul and Heather. Paul should have realised he would not be able to keep up with a wife who is younger than his eldest child.

Cheers!

TrueBrits

My post came through twice. I don't recall this happening previously on this site.

TrueBrits