Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

20 Reasons Why Paul McCartney Is Better Than John Lennon

by Richard Wood
18 June 2014 207 Comments

Yes, McCartney might be guilty of the double peace sign, dodgy waistcoats and the bloody frog song, but his work in The Beatles and as a solo artist pisses all over that of Liam Gallagher's hero...

Let me begin this list with a disclaimer. Let me recant before I even begin. Comparison between artists is almost always meaningless. What we must do is understand the artist individually, on their own merits and for their own purposes. No, I don’t think Paul McCartney is better than John Lennon, nor can the reverse be true. Maybe Lennon was more literate while McCartney was more musical; to denigrate either for failing to have aptitudes in both areas is to miss the point of the complementary nature of the pair. Having said that, here is a list of all the ways in which McCartney bests Lennon. My rationale is as follows: his is the critical reputation that most needs rehabilitation. Esteem him! Or, take to the comments section…

1. McCartney played drums, bass, piano, maracas and sang backing vocals on ‘The Ballad of John and Yoko’, a self-indulgent sub-par b-side.

2. Lennon played bass so badly that mistakes on the master are still audible (try 0:28, 2:10, 2:52 etc) on ‘The Long and Winding Road’, an understated and graceful actual ballad.

3. He wrote what might be Lennon’s most iconic song introduction (the mellotron opening to ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’).

4. McCartney is loved by sentimental pop music enthusiasts and hated by hipsters. Lennon is lovedby both.

5. The most covered Beatles song is ‘Yesterday’ -whose opening line was originally “Scrambled eggs, oh my baby how I love your legs.” Anyone who can pen a melody that profound to lyrics like that is a considerable talent.

6. Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was McCartney’s idea. In fact, most everything the band did post-Epstein’s death in ’66 was driven by him. We have McCartney to thank for their entire post-66 catalogue.

7. McCartney explored chamber music and classical, resulting in esoteric and original compositions like ‘Eleanor Rigby’, and ‘When I’m 64′. Lennon explored psychedelic drugs, resulting in lumpen and enervating compositions like ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’, and ‘Baby You’re a Rich Man’.

8. He never beat his wife.

9. McCartney’s bass-playing was the envy of his contemporaries and still ranks among the most restlessly melodic playing around.

10. McCartney recruited his friend George Harrison into the group. Lennon attempted to recruit Yoko Ono into the group. These recruitments had varying level of success.

Lennon’s post Beatles material was sanctimonious and navel-gazing

11. Lennon betrayed a political and ideological naïveté by campaigning for peace from his bed with the slogan “War is over, if you want it”, as though a slogan and bed rest ever resolved any serious conflict.

12. Lennon’s post Beatles material was sanctimonious and navel-gazing. McCartney’s is consistently melodic, unpretentious, and winningly optimistic.

13. He had the sense to excavate Let It Be from under the musical submersion of Phil Spector’s whitewashing string arrangements. Delivering his partner’s classic ‘Across the Universe’ in pristine acoustic glory.

14. McCartney moved toward the avant garde underground of London before Lennon, by virtue of distance (Lennon lived in the country with his first wife Cynthia). Tape loops on Revolver were his innovation.

15. Lennon’s quip in response to the question “Is Ringo Starr the best drummer in the world?” was “He’s not even the best drummer in The Beatles.” He was talking about Paul.

16. He never grew a pretentious messiah-beard. Nor adopted pretentious Ghandi frames.

17. McCartney’s Ram and Band on the Run are the only solo-period works which could be considered lost Beatles albums.

18. He wanted the finale to the Let It Be film to be the band attempting a live show somewhere they wouldn’t be allowed and being ejected, and that would be the show. This idea became the infamous rooftop concert.

19. There’s no personality cult surrounding McCartney. Ageing hippies simply listen to his songs.

20. He’s still alive.

Enjoy this? Then you’ll want to have a go on these great reads…

The Beatles At 50: Why I Hate The Fab Four

John Lennon’s Anniversary & The American Way Of Death

The Beatles – Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band: Keep Or Cull?

The Curious Case Of Sir Paul McCartney’s Death

Paul McCartney And The Iconic Abbey Road Sessions

Click here for more stories in Music

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Mike Mullins 11:08 am, 18-Oct-2012

Someone talking sense at long, long last.

Jimi Limpet 11:18 am, 18-Oct-2012

I know I shouldn't get involved with this dreadful piece of ill-researched tosh but... 1. It was an A-side. 4. Doesn't that mean Lennon's „better“, by your own criteria? 5. The melody came first. 7. … and „I am the Walrus“, not quite so lumpen. „When I'm 64“ was written in the 50s. 8. How do you know? 10. It's doubtful whether Lennon wanted Ono in the Beatles. 11. You don't understand the 60s! 16. Yes he did. 17. So? 20. Cheap and nasty. Not sure if you were trying to make a serious point or have a laugh; either way, this is very poor.

Paul Brown 11:35 am, 18-Oct-2012

I actually agree with much of this and as an ardent Beatles geek have often argued that McCartney's genius is often overlooked in comparison to Lennon's, however (the inevitable however ;-))to call Ram and Ban On The Run the only post-Beatles solo works the only one's to be considered 'lost Beatles albums' could be considered wrong on 2 counts. Firstly, The Beatles were a band, not a collection of solo artists (the White Album notwithstanding) and as such thier efforts, even in the messy days towards the end, were very collective. John and Paul would often add little touches to and impart bits of advice on the others songs (Lennon convincing Paul to leave the line "the movement you need is on your shoulders" in Hey Jude is a good example) and so to call any of their solo albums 'lost Beatles works' is to misunderstand the creative dynamic that existed amongst them. Secondly Imagine and Plastic Ono Band are easily as good as anything Paul managed post-Beatles, although neither of them are as good as George's All Things Must Pass, and let's be honest here, none of them produced solo work that stands along side an album like Revolver. Apart from these minor grumbles (hey, what did you expect, haha) this list is spot on... ;-D

Drew 11:46 am, 18-Oct-2012

The list should be a lot longer than this. McCartney's solo work IS the clear superior to Lennon's. It's only in the UK where people seem influenced by these immature notions of "cool" that you don't recognize that. Music critics in the U.S. have been praising Ram and McCartney II and a lot of Macca's recent solo output for about a decade now. Catch up. Paul did have a beard. An awesome beard. No. 16 should have said: McCartney rocked the bearded, Fair Isle sweater look in 1970 -- 40 years before today's hipsters took it over. Ahead of his time. And No. 4 is right on the mark. Lennon gets celebrated for some of his soppiest songs purely because his personality was so vicious at times. People somehow thinks that balances out Lennon's sentimental streak (which is as deep as Paul's.) Meanwhile, Paul, who is "too nice," gets ripped for his sentimental streak because people mistakenly believe that's all he is. As if a man who has been through as much as he's been through isn't one hell of a tough motherfucker. No. 11 is also on the mark. Lennon's "activism" was superficial and he quickly lost interest. What you should have pointed out here is that McCartney has consistently advocated on behalf of animal rights and vegetarian issues for more than 35 years. He has, arguably, had more influence than any other public figure is taking vegetarianism from the fringe lifestyle it was in the 70s and making it mainstream. McCartney has had more of an ACTUAL impact politically than Lennon ever did. And if you don't think what we eat and how it gets to our table is a political issue, you're wearing blinders. Thanks for this. I don't understand why people can't just appreciate McCartney's quirks instead of ripping him apart for them. I do wish he'd go grey, but, whatever. It's his hair, not mine.

Paul Brown 12:23 pm, 18-Oct-2012

It should be added that I don't think this list should be taken too seriously. There's a very obvious sense of flippant facetiousness at work here. Gets people talking though... ;-)

The Baron 12:36 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Both shit.

Lorenzo 12:52 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Utter, utter bullshit. You never would've seen John Lennon doing the f###ing Frog Chorus or Ebony & Ivory. One song, Imagine, eclipses everything McCartney has managed to do in the last 40-odd years. True, John would've grown into a cantankerous old man but he was the face of the Beatles whether Paul liked it or not.

alvin1967 1:29 pm, 18-Oct-2012

If Lennon was the face of the Beatles, then they would not have lasted very long. His contribution from 1966 was often unlistenable, and his songs were only tolerated because the quality of Pauls compositions, made the albums successful.We keep hearing about the Frog Chorus, but that was for children and was never meant to be compared to Helter Skelter, anyway Paul never did a self indulgent album of "screaming" like 2 Virgins.It is amazing that no one ever brings that up. Pauls solo career isn't perfect, but he will always be better than Lennon.

Our Jonf 1:34 pm, 18-Oct-2012

McCartney played drums, bass, piano, maracas and sang backing vocals on ‘The Ballad of John and Yoko’, a self-indulgent sub-par b-side. This was an A-side single released in ‘69 not a B-side, and if we believe ‘We have McCartney to thank for their entire post-66 catalogue’ then this is McCartney’s fault it’s sub-par

Our Jonf 1:35 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'He wrote what might be Lennon’s most iconic song introduction (the mellotron opening to ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’).' Yeah Macca wrote the intro, John wrote the rest of the song.

Our Jonf 1:36 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'McCartney is loved by sentimental pop music enthusiasts and hated by hipsters.Lennon is loved by both.' So does that mean more people like Lennon than McCartney then?

Our Jonf 1:37 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was McCartney’s idea. In fact, most everything the band did post-Epstein’s death in ’66 was driven by him. We have McCartney to thank for their entire post-66 catalogue. Epstein died in ’67. Get your facts right.

Our Jonf 1:38 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'McCartney explored chamber music and classical, resulting in esoteric and original compositions like ‘Eleanor Rigby’, and ‘When I’m 64′. Lennon explored psychedelic drugs, resulting in lumpen and enervating compositions like ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’, and ‘Baby You’re a Rich Man’.' Yeah and those 2 Lennon songs shit on the Macca songs

Our Jonf 1:39 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'. Lennon’s post Beatles material was sanctimonious and navel-gazing. McCartney’s is consistently melodic, unpretentious, and winningly optimistic.' Saturday Night by Whigfield is ‘consistently melodic, unpretentious, and winningly optimistic’ as well

Our Jonf 1:40 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'He’s still alive' Cock

Carol 1:43 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Much damage has been done to McCartney's reputation because a few tin ears didn't like the Frog Song. It is one of the most delicious short pieces of music I know, right up there with A Leaf and Spiral. It's characteristic of McCartney critics that they fling Frog Song in your face as though they've said something, and proceed to trash 54 years worth of mostly outstanding music. As for the list above, it's irrelevant that Lennon beat women and that McCartney is still alive. And personally I think he should leave his hair alone and just touch up his eyebrows, but it is, as Drew notes, his hair. More importantly, he's been guiding his own career for 55 years, and he's doing fine. In the interests of commenter integrity, the postal code I will shortly give myself is that of the National Trust in Swindon, since your site appears to discriminate against those with American postal codes. Not a very international attitude, imho.

Carol 1:50 pm, 18-Oct-2012

In the interests of clarity, the site did not ask for my postal code this time, but posted immediately. So I have no idea how your site works at all, but am glad to be heard. Also, I am happy to see a long-overdue look at McCartney's career without looking through the spectacles of Lennon's worst mood. The young are susceptible to social pressures, when only one thing should determine what music you listen to, and that is how much you like it.

Drew 1:54 pm, 18-Oct-2012

I see the Lennon obsessives have shown up. Hee. It's always fun to watch them froth at the mouth. Like this comment: " You never would've seen John Lennon doing the f###ing Frog Chorus or Ebony & Ivory. One song, Imagine, eclipses everything McCartney has managed to do in the last 40-odd years." Right. That's why John wrote a song about "Beef Jerky" or why he wrote the soppiest ballad of all time in "Woman." Imagine is as sentimental and idealistic a song as Ebony and Ivory. And whatever you think of Ebony & Ivory (I think it's awful, actually, but then I think Imagine is empty, too) the reality is Macca actually meant what he wrote in Ebony & Ivory, and lived it, and believed it. Whereas John never really practiced what he was preaching in Imagine. He imagined no possessions -- for everyone else -- while he lived in six massive NYC apartments with a refrigerated room for Yoko's furs. He imagined no religion, yet made decisions in his life based on astrology, numerology and other pseudo-religious nonsense. And instead of "living live in peace," he was routinely vicious to wives, friends, his children, and his colleagues. That incident Julian Lennon tells -- in which, as a pre-teenager, Julian laughed and John Lennon responded by shrieking at him, "I hate the way you fucking laugh!" -- pretty much says it all about Lennon as a human being. I especially love "Our Jonf" who is so desperate to preserve his Saint Lennon poster on his wall that he's willing to trash the Beatles' entire post-66 output -- albums that John HIMSELF thought contained HIS best work. Keep your blinders on, dude. Both men had faults. It doesn't take anything away from Lennon's genius to suggest that McCartney was a genius, too, and that, in fact, he was not only the band's best musician (as George Martin has always said) but the driving force, musically, behind the band from Revolver on. Lennon provided the edge, which was essential, too, and was the more powerful lyricist, though McCartney was no slouch either in that department. But we're talking about music here -- not poetry. And musically, McCartney runs circles around Lennon. Musically, McCartney's fingerprints are all over Lennon's songs, and the reverse is rarely true, though John helped Paul on the lyrics side. Lennon fans, though, for some reason need to see John as some bullshit higher power. They can't stand the thought that he was McCartney's equal, and that, in some ways, McCartney was the more talented of the pair.

James Horan 2:13 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Agree with the author.. been whipping this horse for years, always greeted with disdain by the hipsters!

Carol 4:01 pm, 18-Oct-2012

The way I prefer to put it is that Lennon envied McCartney's melodies, and McCartney envied Lennon's lyrics, so both learned as much as he could from the other while the collaboration was still in real time. McCartney has reported that when he finishes up a song, he "runs the lyrics by John" mentally. I don't know whether Lennon is on record as saying he admired MeCartney's melodies, but some of Lennon's best later work is more melodic than his earlier more angular tunes. "Imagine" probably benefited melodically from the collaboration, and dozens of post-Beatles McCartney lyrics benefited from the collaboration. I often think that Lennon was a multi-talented man, and music was perhaps not his first love, outside of rock n' roll. Lennon's voice was distinctive and irreplaceable. McCartney's is too, and long may he wave.

Markxist 4:02 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Disagree, and you're actually wrong on a few points; the Messianic beard? Macca had one - look at the early 70s photos. Also Lennon may have had political and ideological naïveté but he didn't write Give Ireland Back To The Irish and then less than 30 yrs later accept a Commander Of The British Empire honour from The Queen now did he? At least Lennon sent his gong back.

Markxist 4:04 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Also post 67 (it wasn't 66) Beatles were a mess. A seething hybrid of animosity and stilted collaboration. Oh and Maxwell's sodding Silver Hammer. Yeah thanks Paul

Markxist 4:06 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Lennon probably wouldn't dye is hair the colour of your Nan's favourite cabinet either.

Ryan Grable 4:37 pm, 18-Oct-2012

"Let me recant before I even begin. Comparison between artists is almost always meaningless." - so true...

Ryan Grable 5:39 pm, 18-Oct-2012

The bass guitar "mistakes" in 'The Long And The Winding Road" were a deliberate sabotage of Lennon's to try and ruin McCartney's song. That being said, I love Lennon/McCartney, it's not an either or situation for me.

Drew 5:42 pm, 18-Oct-2012

"Lennon may have had political and ideological naïveté but he didn't write Give Ireland Back To The Irish and then less than 30 yrs later accept a Commander Of The British Empire honour from The Queen now did he?" What a reductive way of thinking. How are those 2 things McCartney did in ANY way contradictory? It's entirely possible for him to believe that Ireland belongs to the Irish and to like the Queen. Millions of people manage to support Obama while opposing some of his policies. Unless of course you're an extremist nut job.

Markxist 6:22 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Drew, that's rather small minded if you don't mind me saying. You can't express disgust with a colonial aspect of an Empire and then join that Empire taking something as important, significant and weighty as a gong. Like I say, Lennon didn't compromise his political beliefs like Paul; he sent his MBE back. Many people are proud to be British but they have refused gongs because they cannot accept some of the nation's actions/politics and refuse to be seen as a complicit figurehead. John Le Carre, George Melly and JG Ballard immediately springs to mind. Paul was playing 'anything you can do I can do better' with John in writing a political song anyway, he didn't have the heart or the grasp of the situation for it and it showed.

Markxist 6:31 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Oh another one; Lennon married Yoko, that's obviously a HUGE thumbs down. But Macca married Heather. Eek! Seriously though, some iffy choices and odd celeb behaviour aside (when your life hasn't been normal since 1963 and you earn a pound a second you're bound to be a bit of a berk/out of touch) both men contributed a great deal to music and popular culture and were/are extremely talented, so hats off to them both I say. But Lennon still edges it ;)

Markxist 6:33 pm, 18-Oct-2012

But then if Macca died in '80 and Lennon lived I dare say the popular consensus would be more in Macca's camp anyway. Death makes idols of many.

robin lee 6:45 pm, 18-Oct-2012

christ that got Our Jonf's back up. good discourse, I taught you well young Jedi. but who gives a fuck who was better? there are more bands than the beatles, loads more, move on. and why is it people always site the frog fuckin chorus? Macca wrote Helter Skelter and Jet and loads more, also the frog chorus is actually a decent song. like I say, move on, accept that the Beatles were good, and everything about them has been documented and is available for all to indulge, once you have indulged it listen to other stuff and stop relying on it as a source of debate, just like them silly cunts who sit in the pub saying "who remembers Spangles and Texan bars"? grow up and fuck right of and listen to maybe Squarepusher, or My Bloody Valentine, or the Beastie Boys, or Hawley, or Dexys or Sly Stone or Prince or fuck loads of other bands, in fact just listen to Prince, he shits on both Lennon and Mcartney.

Markxist 6:50 pm, 18-Oct-2012

There are too many reasons as to why George is better than both John and Paul, mind

BeatleJim55 6:59 pm, 18-Oct-2012

McCartney BETTER than John Lennon?...yeah,...and then you woke up!!!

Drew 7:40 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Oh come on, Markxist. Paul and John were better singers, better songwriters, and Macca was a better musician than George, and more experimental than George. I'll give you that George was a better guitarist than Lennon. But Lennon had a sharper intellect and was a better interview than George. George had the best sense of humor, I think. And he picked a very narrow brand of music and never really veered from it. Not as diverse as either John or Paul musically. George was no saint, either. Moved his money overseas to avoid British taxes. Cheated repeatedly on both of his wives (and that's according to both of them!) He had has many faults as his fellow Beatles.

Markxist 7:48 pm, 18-Oct-2012

I didn't say he was a saint Drew, nor would I, just that in my opinion he was far better than John and Paul. He wanted out of The Beatles around 67 and that was certainly a wise move. His music may not have been as diverse as the bigger two, but it was of an exceptionally high standard. Plus he was diverse enough to be a part of the greatest supergroup ever, The Traveling Wilburys, as well as being diverse enough to form Handmade Films and, in diversifying, helped create a whole new talent and success for filmmakers and joy for audiences.

Markxist 7:55 pm, 18-Oct-2012

'Paul and John were better singers' Well yeah maybe, but singing and who is better at it is down to the listeners personal taste really. I'd much rather hear George singing on his last album than hear Paul murdering Hey Jude for the nth time at any closing gig of note.

Markxist 8:00 pm, 18-Oct-2012

^for some reason my last sentence(s) there went awol in the copy and pasting? I meant to close with 'at any closing gig of note. But that's just my opinion, others may have found Macca's voice perfectly acceptable at the Olympics or at any other recent gig. As I say, it's all down to the listener I guess' :)

Fatladexamfailure 8:05 pm, 18-Oct-2012

I've done this in case you're unsure if you're in The Beatles or not:- http://www.nickclay.karoo.net/areyouinthebeatles.pdf

Taylor 8:14 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But who's the best member in One Direction? That's the kinda content I'm looking for!

Drew 8:54 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Markxist: Right, because comparing a man's voice on an album at age 58, where his voice could be manipulated to sound good in the studio is really comparable to singing LIVE at age 72. Hint: It's not comparable at all. Personally I find George's voice thin and uninteresting. He can't do much with it but was good at Beatles harmonies and the occasional song. George Harrison's solo records, though, are pretty mediocre after All Things Must Pass. I'll take Ram and Band on the Run and McCartney II and Flaming Pie and Electric Arguments any day over All Things Must Pass.

Drew 8:56 pm, 18-Oct-2012

P.S. George Harrison as a solo artist had one tour in 1974, and it was disastrous. His voice gave out and people actually booed for too much preaching and sitar music. He never toured again. Macca has been touring off and on for 40 years, giving great performances as at Glastonbury. I'm not going to judge him for one dodgy 5-minute vocal at the Olympics. He should have said No rather than always agreeing to participate.

Markxist 9:01 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Drew chill out ffs. I think you're the one 'frothing at the mouth' now not the Lennon defenders you were chuckling at earlier. Yoiu think Harrison's voice is 'thin and uninteresting' fine, that's your opinion. Mine differs. Doesn't make me wrong and you right or me right and you wrong, because 'hint' it just makes us different. For me Macca's voice hasn't held up at all in the last 10 yrs both as a live performer or as a recording artiste. I saw him live in the early 00s and he was Godawful, just as bad as he was at the Olympics. No need to start a debate or be argumentative. It's only a message board mate

Fearghal Duggan 9:36 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Macca was a cracking musician and songwriter. I prefer Lennon's more cynical, harsh lyrics but working together they wrote the greatest songs of all time. However that fucking mullet he had in the 70s is pretty unforgivable.

Gary 9:40 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Typical...nobody stands up for King Ringo.

Markxist 9:50 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Lennon wrote Strawberry Fields. Macca wrote Penny Lane...which isn't even about Penny Lane. Doh

Brandt Hardin 9:55 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Imagine an entire world living in peace… John saw the beauty and inherent good in humanity. I tried to do his legacy justice and channel his world-embracing and loving energy this week with a tribute portrait inspired by his music and his passion for changing the world. You can see this new work of art in memoriam on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/12/john-lennon-just-imagine.html along with some pictures showing how I created it. See John holding the Universe in his hand and spreading his message. When you stop by, let me know how his words and music have affected your life and creativity!

Sgt Pilko 10:17 pm, 18-Oct-2012

I knew before reading it that this article was going to draw some ahem over-excited responses but the bile some of the previous posters have spewed towards two of our best loved and most talented musical sons suggests a few people have lost all sense of perspective... Yes Macca has made some shit records, but so did Lennon... Macca isn't as cool as Lennon, but Lennon was at times a total arsehole... Macca was a better musician, Lennon's lyrics were usually smarter and funnier... but both of them would probably have enjoyed only modest success without the other... Take either one of em out of the equation and the Beatles could have ended up being Gerry & the Pacemakers...

Drew 11:43 pm, 18-Oct-2012

Sgt. Pilko: I like your style.

Ben Glassman 5:16 am, 19-Oct-2012

Both Great artists and simply better together. Mccartney himself defines the Beatles as 4 corners of a square structure, unable to exist without any one corner. Having said that, I believe Mccartney was the ENGINE that drove Lennon AND the Beatles. He simply did more from the start. He was already a songwriter when he met John, he was the de facto Musical director of the group throughout, culminating with his arrangements of Lennons work , which Lennon dismisses, but the intro to Strawberry Fields speaks to this fact. Lennon with his harsh personality and tendency for anarchy, would have had more difficulty making it out of Liverpool without Macca, and I am not sure the same is true for Mccartney. Inspired by Macca and finding his own more mature strength , Lennon did dominate the early records, but did not have the staying power to compete with the inevitability of Macca who took over the group in Late 1965 and never looked back.

michael he who dares wins.. 5:28 pm, 19-Oct-2012

I personally liked Lennon better but i give his due Mccartney

Jillsken 6:04 pm, 19-Oct-2012

Provocative stuff Richard Wood. Slated by some,applauded by others,I think we should all give this piece a chance;it is after all for no one to judge.

cranberry sauce 3:25 am, 20-Oct-2012

As to #17, really? All Things Must Pass, anyone?

Drew 7:06 pm, 20-Oct-2012

Cranberry sauce: All Things Must Pass doesn't sound like a Beatles album.

bentcousin 7:39 am, 21-Oct-2012

C'mon E Rigby and 64 are bloody awful - but I Will is glorious. Sad you had to include the well worn scramble egg platitude - who care. John's Acid meandering also resulted in She Said and Tomorrow Never Knows - very tidy tunes. But let's face it - you provide a false argument. We all know Ringo was the real songwriting genius - altogether now 'I'd like to be, under da sea, in an......' Ooh look - bentcousin happen to rule http://louderthanwar.com/new-artist-of-the-day-bent-cousin/#.UIKUKLWT4GI.twitter

Rachel 2:59 am, 22-Oct-2012

In McCartney's authorized biography Many Years From Now, only a handful of the 700 or so pages are devoted to his post-Beatles life and work. Apparently, even Paul thought he was shit without the others. "Musically, McCartney's fingerprints are all over Lennon's songs, and the reverse is rarely true, though John helped Paul on the lyrics side." Pffft... someone needs to get his/her nose out of the above-mentioned book and just listen to the difference in Paul's songs post-Beatles. Even a lot of the melodies are vapid and forgettable.

Flaming Pie 9:16 am, 22-Oct-2012

Clearly, this article is a joke meant to raise the ire of Lennon fans and get the McCartney fans all hot and bothered. #10 - The author raises the issue of band member recruitment to argue that John lacked discernment. For anyone familiar with the birth of the Beatles, this is hilarious on so many levels.

Derek Hyde 11:16 pm, 24-Oct-2012

Dead or alive, McCartney is a knob end. Always will be. Can't write his way out of a damp paper bag!

Drew 9:09 pm, 25-Oct-2012

Rachel: Perhaps you should actually try listening to McCartney's solo work, rather than pretending to. Fact is: John's solo work is a disappointing mess, as Pitchfork recently acknowledged giving his solo albums an embarrassing 6.2 rating. Paul has his share of weak albums, too, but his best work puts Lennon's (who had one great solo album) to shame. Ram is brilliant and deserved the 9.2 rating it just got from Pitchfork. You need to stop genuflecting at the Lennon altar and realize his music was a dead-end bore without McCartney. And your Beatles knowledge is clearing lacking as well. Whether you or the other St. Lennon types like it or not, McCartney was the musical driving force behind the band, and produced the most genuinely interesting, diverse, and forward thinking solo records.

Drew 9:12 pm, 25-Oct-2012

Derek: The only knob end here is you. When you've contributed something to the world that anyone will remember a day from now, let alone 50 years from now, then your judgment will matter.

Phengren Oswald 1:08 am, 27-Oct-2012

Helter Skelter.

Rachel 3:20 pm, 29-Oct-2012

Pretty sure this Drew character works for MPL Communications as I've seen the same robo-posts word for word on other Beatles-related articles (kind of like how McCartney gives the same interview/anecdotes ad nauseam). I don’t let online fanzines sway my musical opinions. That said, I looked up Pitchfork's Top 100 albums of the 1970's. Couldn't find anything by McCartney on there, not even Ram which upon further review still sucks goats.

bozbo 4:25 pm, 10-Nov-2012

Without PM The Beatles would never have got anywhere and without Lennon they'd' never have been the song writing rivalry. Together in The Beatles they were great. Plastic Ono Band album is better than any PM solo stuff.

Marc Jones 2:03 pm, 16-Nov-2012

POB shits on Macca's solo work from a high altitude bomber. That said, Macca as a beatle? Wouldn't be anything like they were. The ultimate "musical marriage". The list? Obviously there to provoke so I'll not get drawn.

Johan Cavalli 9:31 pm, 28-Nov-2012

Beatles first great hit was a Lennon composition Please Please Me, a composition with a new expressionism! Lennon was the dominant composer in the albums and singles before Yesterday. Just before Help Lennon had four number one hits in succession, all with that new expressionism! All over the world Lennon with the Beatles had 13 number one hits. Lennon composed 10 of the 13 songs in the Hard Day´s Night album. McCartey´s luck was Yesterday, and George Martin who always prefered McCartney´s often boring lightweight music, or conventional music. Martin always did PR for McCartney, and contributed to the split of the Beatles. After Yesterday Lennon had masterpieces as All You Need Is Love, Because and much much more. There are more innovative m e l o d i e sin A Hard Day´s Night than in Sgt Pepper, which has only some innovative arrangements. Even George Harrison said that Pepper only had ordinary songs, with the exception of mainly Lennon´s A Day in The Life. Lennon is perhaps one of the absolute greatest composer of the former century. Recently MOJO had a top fourteen Beatles songs, voted by MOJO readers and Beatles fans,in which Lennon totally dominated!! McCartney had o n l y t w o: For No One on number 6, and Helter Skelter on number 12 !Think of that Johan Cavalli

Johan Cavalli 7:49 am, 8-Dec-2012

Ned Rorem wrote 1968 that McCartney was the Beatles composer (despite the fact that Lennon had composed more songs than McCartney!) After that all writers for many many years appointed McCartney the only composer in the Beatles. An author just write what another has written. That´s an interesting point for media scholars. And all this nagging about Sgt Pepper and McCartney. I the magazine Rolling Stones, "100 greatest Beatles songs", among the first 20 songs, Lennon has 12, McCartney has 4, Harrison 2 and Lennon-McCartney have 2. Not a single song by McCartney from Pepper. Johan Cavalli

TFP 8:51 pm, 13-Dec-2012

Re: lists, if asked to put together my ten favorite Beatles songs I'd probably pick something like three Paul, one George, two Paul/John, and four John. What I'd definitely agree on is that John's solo output is hugely overrated. Even at its very best it's not *that* much better than Paul's best stuff. Maybe if I had to give marks out of ten I'd do: Beatles John - 10; Beatles Paul - 9.5 Solo John - 7; Solo Paul - 6.5.

Johan Cavalli 7:15 pm, 18-Dec-2012

To TFP. You think McCartney almost as good as Lennon? Well i don´t blame you, it´s a matter of taste. I think McCartney is not much comparing with Lennon. Since George Martin and McCartney have done so much PR for Yesterday and Sgt Pepper, people have forgotten the great dynamic music music 1963-1965. Lennon came with the new expressionism: increasing excitement, sudden octave rise, long heavy notes. The m e l o d i e s in A Hard Day´s Night are much more innovative than the melodies in Sgt Pepper. In Pepper only some arrangements are innovative, not the melodies. McCartney´s music is more light weight, oldfaschion and mainsteream, without that excitement.Therefore George Martin prefered McCartney´s. John´s solo output "overrated"? Well, objectively the most listened at, the last six months by Lennon are: 1.Imagine 5 546, 2. Happy Xtmas 2 642, 3. Jealous Guy, 4. Woman 1 306. McCartney´s most listened at: 1. Wonderful Christmas Time 1 644

Barefoot Justine 1:35 am, 1-Jan-2013

RIGHT-stinking-ON! Lennon has been getting far far too much credit. McCartney's work continues to amaze and be relevant... but then again, rather than dismissing his work like many do to bolster their fading hipness and self-image... I've actually listened to McCartney's albums! Keep at it Paul, the dullards will eventually catch up!

Norwegian Wood 4:08 pm, 27-Jan-2013

I worship my Hofner bass 'cause sir Paul played a similar one being the most musical musician but comparable with Michel Legrand who succeeded as a composer only in "The Umbrellas of Cherbour" with a group of other talents. Alone McCartney has made a bunch of nice songs. Lennon - he said "Imagine" or "So this is Christmas" and a world opened 'cause John went straight to the core of the ideas.

Washishu 2:54 pm, 10-Feb-2013

I always quite liked Hermans Hermits

rivaschr 9:27 am, 28-Feb-2013

Huge fan of both. Seriously though McCartney's songs were just better period. I talk to so many people who will say Lennon was the best. Oh yeah, I say, tell me your top three Beatle songs. Most answers are, Hey Jude, Let It Be, and Help, two of which are McCartney songs. And as far as the song imagine being better than anything McCartney has ever done...bull sh&t I submit Maybe I'm Amazed way better. Also, lets talk about Paul's incredible voice from Yesterday to Lady Madonna best singer in Rock. Love them both but long live Paul McCartney the real genius of the Beatles.

Johan Cavalli 4:46 pm, 1-Mar-2013

The three best songs: I Should Have Known Better from 1964. The middle part is innovative (It´s more evident when Lennon sings it the second time)Oposed to the pop music before Beatles, the tension increases in the middle part: transition from short notes to long notes, and two changes of key, not only in the transition to the middle part, but even within it. All You Need Is Love.1967. A masterpiece, seemingly simple. Starts with wonderful sacral notes, then speaking, then recitation, then singing hammering desperately on the same note, then -- the most important note --the little step up, the climax. Lennon said that a good song must have climax and a resolve. Across the universe, the first version from 1968. A cosmic marvellous hypnotic song with a feeling that the melody sometimes cross a line, which sounds dissonance McCartney´s music sounds like the pop music before Beatles

Kathleen 2:36 pm, 7-Mar-2013

Perfect. Could not have said it better. Thank you.

Kathleen 2:42 pm, 7-Mar-2013

Oh wait. Did you forget that McCartney has a better voice? Hands down.

niKanK 12:16 am, 10-Mar-2013

ure just a stuipid.John Lennon is the Legend.

Elena 11:01 pm, 13-Mar-2013

John and Paul are two sides of the same coin. All slander and hypocrisy that we think / say do not affect in any way the respect, esteem and love they felt for each other (until the end: see John's interview to Sholin in the morning of 8 December 1980 and still for Paul, who is transformed when he speaks of the old partner). Who truly loves the Beatles has no doubt about the choice between them: they liked each other, they chose each other and they lived and shared their lives for years (and if a filthy asshole had not decided otherwise, perhaps even our future would be different). All they wanted to say, they said also in the songs that they wrote to each other (as coded messages). Who are we to judge them? We just have to love them, with all their human and wonderful flaws, and bless the moment when their minds have created the soundtrack of our lives and helped transform everything (because the beatles - all four beatles - are the 'beginning of everything)

maccio 6:43 pm, 15-Mar-2013

It's impossible for me to say, instinctively I would say Paul was better but then I think of his contributions in the White Album, compared to John there simply is no match..dear prudence, i'm so tired, julie, happiness, sexy sadie, yer blues... But Paul owns Sgt Pepper and MMT

Alejandro Ramos 5:00 pm, 20-Mar-2013

I'm sorry to say Mr. Richard Wood should be ashamed to be the author of this article; certainly it shows how much ignorant he is about The Beatles' work. The comments by Jimi Limpet are just devastating to Mr.'s Wood nice try...

mclennon 8:10 pm, 26-Mar-2013

john was in love with paul

Reverend Flash 10:14 am, 5-Apr-2013

First of all...Drew - Harrison had TWO tours; one in '74, snd one in '91. As for Richard Wood, some have already called out many of your mistakes. Here's what I'd like to add: The word 'ballad' has more than one meaning, and 'The Ballad of John and Yoko' is indeed a ballad, even if it's not slow. McCartney PLAYED the mellotron intro of 'Strawberry Fields'; he did not write it. John can be seen in film footage from 1964 working out the intro to Strawberry Fields on a melodica. You put down 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' and 'baby You're A Rich Man', even though McCartney made some notable contributions to both. Paul's second wife would indeed tell you that Paul could become physically abusive with her. (I don't personally believe it, but you can't say Paul didn't beat his wife as long as the allegation stands.)

Phil 1:01 pm, 11-Apr-2013

"McCartney PLAYED the mellotron intro of 'Strawberry Fields'; he did not write it." Yes he did write it, according to Geoff Emerick and George Martin who were there. They said Paul was playing around on the mellotron when he came up with the opening. It was based of course on John's song, though, so basically Paul just did what he always did: Built on something John had written and made it better. John often did the same for Paul. But give credit where it's due. Heather's own PR rep said she was lying about that, mostly to get a bigger settlement. Heck, if anyone got abused in Paul's second marriage, it was him. Scary woman. I bet she threw a lot of things at him. Dumbest thing he ever did was marry her, and smartest thing he ever did was file for divorce.

Martin 4:57 pm, 13-Apr-2013

1.Real, but self-indulgent is not an argument to say that a song is bad. 2.Yes, but you forget that Lennon also plays an oustanding bass in Helter Skelter which is the key of the heavy sound of that song. In the other hand, Macca plays a shitty guitar in the same. 3. This is only the small introduction of an entire masterpiece song by John, the best of the single Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. 4. wtf? 5. Ahh Yesterday, or " the most overrated beatle song ". It is not even the Help's best song. In this LP there are Help, Ticket to Ride, both of John and better songs, as well as the ballad You have to Hide your Love Away, also superior. 6. True. But, maybe because of that, it is badly so called "best album of Beatles ". This title corresponds to Revolver or Abbey Road, LP's in that both John and Paul shines (and also George). Because of it they are the best. 7. Certain and very elogiable it of Macca, but you lie about it of John. Lennon explored psychedelic drugs, resulting in marvelous compositions as Tomorrow Never Knows or She Said Said, which were great more advanced for his time than that done by Paul (the classic music has centuries of existence, isn't an innovation). 8.lol. 9. Excessive statement but true. Paul was a great bassist. 10. But John recruited Paul, ¿or doesn't it count? lol. It continues below.

Martin 5:41 pm, 13-Apr-2013

11.True so much like neither you don't understand the 60s context. 12.None of the two approached in his soloists careers that they done as a Beatles, but nevertheless the LP John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band is superior to anything that Paul has ever producing as solo or in Wings. And the firstperson language is also a valid form of expression ¿or you don't read books? lol. 13.True 14.Look if Lennon had or no an illustrious mind, that he didn't need to take ideas of any avant garde underground circle to conceive ideas that he captured in pioneering songs of genres like Tomorrow Never Knows did. If Paul was the more experimental beatle, John had the more illustrious mind and the most synthetic (wich is the really important when we speak about experimentation). 15.lol. 16.or nor adopted pretentious veggie image lol. 17.Could be considered lost Beatles albums in terms of production. In qualit terms the disc John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, as I wrote in 12, is better than any disc of Mccartney post-beatles. The same applies on All Things Must Pass. 18.true. 19.The worship to any prematurely dead rockstar is an obviousness. Its not a fault of the own dead man lol. 20.Get a life lol.

beaugard 4:35 am, 14-Apr-2013

If Paul McCartney was actually better than John Lennon in the Beatles, there would not be a need for you to try to convince people of it.

Martín 3:16 pm, 14-Apr-2013

1.Real, but self-indulgent is not an argument to say that a song is bad. 2.Yes, but you forget that Lennon also plays an oustanding bass in Helter Skelter which is the key of the heavy sound of that song. In the other hand, Macca plays a shitty guitar in the same. 3. This is only the small introduction of an entire masterpiece song by John, the best of the single Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. 4. wtf? 5. Ahh Yesterday, or " the most overrated beatle song ". It is not even the Help's best song. In this LP there are Help, Ticket to Ride, both of John and better songs, as well as the ballad You have to Hide your Love Away, also superior. 6. True. But, maybe because of that, it is badly so called "best album of Beatles ". This title corresponds to Revolver or Abbey Road, LP's in that both John and Paul shines (and also George). Because of it they are the best. 7. Certain and very elogiable it of Macca, but you lie about it of John. Lennon explored psychedelic drugs, resulting in marvelous compositions as Tomorrow Never Knows or She Said Said, which were great more advanced for his time than that done by Paul (the classic music has centuries of existence, isn't an innovation). 8.lol. 9. Excessive statement but true. Paul was a great bassist. 10. But John recruited Paul, ¿or doesn't it count? lol. 11.True so much like neither you don't understand the 60s context. 12.None of the two approached in his soloists careers that they done as a Beatles, but nevertheless the LP John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band is superior to anything that Paul has ever producing as solo or in Wings. And the firstperson language is also a valid form of expression ¿or you don't read books? lol. 13.True 14.Look if Lennon had or no an illustrious mind, that he didn't need to take ideas of any avant garde underground circle to conceive ideas that he captured in pioneering songs of genres like Tomorrow Never Knows did. If Paul was the more experimental beatle, John had the more illustrious mind and the most synthetic (wich is the really important when we speak about experimentation). 15.lol. 16.or nor adopted pretentious veggie image lol. 17.Could be considered lost Beatles albums in terms of production. In qualit terms the disc John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, as I wrote in 12, is better than any disc of Mccartney post-beatles. The same applies on All Things Must Pass. 18.true. 19.The worship to any prematurely dead rockstar is an obviousness. Its not a fault of the own dead man lol. 20.Get a life lol.

Metax 3:05 am, 21-Apr-2013

I don't like the Beatles, but i'm a musician and as a musician i said that Lennon is a genius and Mccartney it's just a good musician. The Lennon's music transmits more complex feelings tha Mccarteny's music, doesn't matter if you are a great composer or musician if your music is boring and flat like Mccarteney music.

Joe 4:22 pm, 9-May-2013

I'm a bit late to the party, but I enjoyed this light-hearted blog. But anyway, there's no real reason for me to comment since Drew summed up everything I would say anyway.

TBF 11:57 pm, 17-May-2013

They're both good, really. I like Paul McCartney more though.

sarah 1:53 pm, 21-May-2013

well.....they both are good really! but i always think that mcca was better!! well...i dont need any list or reason to believe that !!john is more known because of his personality! if you act like a dick and being popular everyone think you're a genius or something!! thats the reality! get over it

Dale 1:09 am, 22-May-2013

John was a better writer. Period paul's music was "sunshine tacky". During and after the beatles. Paul was a little more refined, and much less creative. Wings sucked

James 11:49 pm, 29-May-2013

@Lorenzo Did John Lennon write Live And Let Die or Tug Of War? I don't think so.While John's material is good,Paul's toilet paper wipes out his whole career.And Ebony And Ivory was a #1 hit.It took until John got killed for his singles to get to number one.HE also credited Paul's Coming Up as driving him out of reteirment.

Johan Cavalli 9:00 pm, 30-May-2013

I agree with you, Martin, completely. I listen only to the Lennon songs in the Beatles albums.Lennon´s music is sensitive, daring and innovative.He is one of the best composer ever. George Martin never understood Lennon´s daring music. George Martin preferrered conventional commercial popular music, like McCartney´s. George Martin even had the bad judgement to always do PR for McCartney. That was McCartney´s luck. Yesterday could have been inspired by Lennon´s do You Want To Know a Secret. The same upclimbing melody, and the middle parts are even alike

Phil 3:26 pm, 18-Jun-2013

Johan: You do realize that when you're only listening to Lennon's Beatles songs, you are listening to Paul's work there, too? You do realize that -- musically -- Paul's influence is all over Lennon's songs? You're like one of those climate change deniers -- refusing to see what's right in front of you. The beauty of the Beatles was the Lennon-McCartney collaboration: Two people who completed each other and balanced each other's strengths and weaknesses. In a world where individual achievement gets all the attention, there's was a unique and wonderful partnership, which is why they were both so traumatized when it all fell apart. Happy 71st, Paul. Glad you're still with us.

Andy 7:26 pm, 18-Jun-2013

Just stop doing the lists. It's not big and it's not clever trevor. They both wrote immensely well together. One would be there without the other. I'm sure Paul wouldn't agree with this article.

Andy 7:28 pm, 18-Jun-2013

*wouldn't. I'm off back to bed.

Ian Hunter 10:55 pm, 18-Jun-2013

Strawberry Fields is two versions spliced together by George Martin; one by Paul and one by John. There is infamously a join between the versions that drives you mad once someone points it out. Sgt Peppers as a concept was an after thought. The song, Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band, nearly never made the album. Up until close to completion, the album was provisionally titled 'A Day in The Life' The idea of structuring the running order to effect a story-concept only really came about AFTER George Martin did a load of work on the song Sgt Peppers and the idea took shape. Even then, the idea of Sgt Peppers as a concept album was lifted from Harry Nilsson who was working on (or was about to release) The Land of Point. Macca and Lennon were obsessed with Harry Nilsson.

NickR 1:19 pm, 20-Jun-2013

History is now littered with John this or Paul shit. I'm chosing John AND Paul, and the sooner someone writes a decent bio about them - songwriters, visionaries, friends - the better.

Pepe Martinez 9:00 am, 22-Jun-2013

This list is edgy as fuck! You have succeeded in being provocative. I love your slanted and hyperbolic style of journalism. Very appropriate for the world wide intrawebs.

jkfee 6:48 pm, 1-Jul-2013

Look, we all love them both but it's true that Paul is both the better talent & the better man. Sure he has an ego, how couldn't he? So did John. So did George for that matter. Paul has always taken chances musically & didn't much care who he impressed except oddly enough John. John was the one person Paul looked up to, the one person who's opinion Paul craved & John knew it. And both during & after the Beatles John wouldn't hesitate to use that to his advantage. Lennon liked to cut people down to size now & then, a sad quality that you just don't find in McCartney. I know that Paul had a way of minimizing George at times but it didn't come from the same mean-spirited place as John's barbs. But I say it again, we love them both & we're all better off that they found each other. I can't think of two people that better completed & complimented each other than Lennon & McCartney.

sjb 2:47 am, 3-Jul-2013

They were both true geniuses and the world is better for their collaboration. Having said that I always thought Paul was a bit of a better songwriter than John.

Bridget 6:22 pm, 10-Jul-2013

1. I don't think Paul would like anyone bashing John. However, I certainly agree that Paul is SO much more talented. 2. I can't stop laughing at all the comments calling 'Imagine' an amazing song, and then bashing Paul for being too commercial and cutesy. "Imagine" is easily the cheesiest, most trite, idiotic, and all-around TERRIBLE song John ever wrote. Pre-'66 John would have been SO embarrassed by it. I cringe whenever I hear that shit. 3. The list should mention that Abbey Road is frequently refered to as "Paul McCartney's best solo album". Keep in mind that Abbey Road is ALSO considered to be one of the greatest Beatles albums. That says a LOT. 4. Paul always, always practices what he preaches. Not so with John. He preached peace and love, yet alienated his own son and was cruel to people who loved him. He beat women and was an all-around messed up human being. I still love him, but I do not condone his actions as an individual, and as for his post-Beatles career...Well, it's pretty much entirely crap.

clint king 7:03 pm, 14-Jul-2013

Paul is the better all around musician,performer,more versatile singer,hard working artist more commercial but with all that..John was better because he communicated so well and deeply was bigger than the Beatles that he was murdered.

Johan Cavalli 2:54 pm, 17-Jul-2013

Of the 15 songs in Abbey Road, McCartney did 6. To call it "McCartney´s best solo album" is another example of the result of the activity from the Martin/McCartney PR duo. The Martin/McCartney PR duo never makes PR for the best A-side on albums, A Hard Day´s Night. Not the arrangements, but the melodies are there innovative. Yes, McCartney is a better musician, and his bass play is the best I ever heard. But that does n o t mean that he was a better composer.

Dennis 9:41 pm, 27-Jul-2013

Good points,generally. #3: On the film DVD of The Beatles' train ride to DC from NYC in '64;or in a hotel room on the same film,John Lennon can be seen & heard playing some "SFF" themes on a melodica. McCartney arranged & played them on the Mellotron. Also,has anybody else noticed the resemblance of the Strawberry Field Orphanage in Liverpool with The Dakota? #20 is not really necessary,is it?

Mike Buzman 7:29 pm, 3-Aug-2013

John has always been in my opinion the number one greatest rock and roller of all time. Paul is in My top 15. Haven said that . John really needed Paul more than Paul needed John . About 2 years ago , I spent some time going over the contributions of John , Paul , George and Ringo to the Beatles. I scored John with 78 points , Paul with about 56 points and George with about 34 points. Though Ringo scores a good bit less , I seriously doubt the Beatles would have achieved their massive success without Ringos absolutely perfect and awesome drumming and his exceptionally great personality which held the whole group dynamic together .

Jean-Paul 9:23 am, 21-Aug-2013

Nobody ever gives credit to Lennon & McCartney's co-writer: SATAN. Their songs should be credited to: Lennon/McCartney/Lucifer. That's right, kids. The Beatles were heavily involved with the occult. They openly admit that they feel like mediums for the music, that they did not write it (an occult process known as "channeling"). Some lyrics they wrote were taken from Satanist Aleister Crowley's books (the "eggman" for example). The Beatles also pioneered placing backwards messages in music, which they learned from Cowley. Their Sgt. Pepper album features a picture of Crowley on the cover. The record opens with the line, "It was twenty years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play". Crowley died twenty years before the release of the album! Coincidence or tribute? You decide. Their films were loaded with occult imagery. BTW, I like their music. I thought somebody should write something a little more interesting and unknown to most fans of the Beatles....although most people will dismiss this because most people don't believe there exists a world that cannot be seen, that is, the spirit world. My take is that they had some natural musical ability that was "enhanced" by Satan. According to the Bible's description of Lucifer, he had something to do with music in heaven before he was cast out. I know, most people think I'm crazy, but I think the most talented composer in the Beatles was Satan.

JIM2233 2:18 pm, 25-Aug-2013

1)Lennon created the beatles , without john, paul may have never been famous or rich 2)lennon wrote most all of the songs that made the beatles famous 3)Lennon had more money than mac at the time of his death, despsite not touring in the 70's. 4)lennon's solo songs int he 70's are more iconic 5)lennon loved living in nyc 6)lennon put all his own money into the peace campaign 7)magical mystery tour is the better album than pepper 8)lennon signed the deal with Brian 9)lennon was the most prolific songwriter ever

... 5:58 pm, 27-Aug-2013

The hipsters kill my love for Lennon. I'd go with McCartney just to go against the hipster flow towards Lennon (and McCartney was the best musician out of all four - easily).

... 6:05 pm, 27-Aug-2013

Lennon owes more to McCartney than McCartney to Lennon. Anyone who's into The Beatles' history knows that.

Bingobangobongo&irving 8:47 am, 28-Aug-2013

Really silly comments here--but is there anything that can be said that is both meaningful and unimpeachable. Well, I'll try: both were extraordinarily gifted songwriters. Lennon was very prolific--more so than Paul--in the early Beatles years but Paul's early Beatles songs, though fewer in number are the more polished, e.g., All My Loving, And I Love Her. These are finer, more pristine compositions than Lennon's early material. Lennon became less productive in the second half of the Beatles' existence and may well have suffered a decline in his output due to drug issues or other personal issues--I don't know. Revolver is dominated by McCartney. Lennon's "She Said, She Said" is a waste and a great example of how anything sounds profound when you're high. Tomorrow Never Knows is fun but it IS only one chord and it's breakthrough significance has always been overstated. McCartney's Pepper songs ste mostly mediocre but ...64 is a brilliant composition and so is the sappy, She's Leaving Home (some tremendous chords in that one). Walrus will forever be on of the most compelling tracks of music ever written and may well have been beyond McCarney's capabilities--and that's what makes this so difficult: while IMO Paul is clearly the superior talent, every now and then John does something Paul never could have done. Moving along--sadly, if you remove Paul's songs from the White Album, you have crap--the brown album, essentially. I suspect this was a period where John was having serious personal and/or drug problems. Very little White Album material by John is worth a doit. Abbey Road and Let it Be show Paul really pulling away (along with the singles Hey Jude and Lady Madonna). John still comes out with some killer stuff but Paul's output puts John to shame. Compositionally, You Never Give me Your Money and Martha My Dear may actually have been beyond JOHN's mental capacities--in terms of pure musical construction. But who knows--John might have been capable of more were it not for matters unrelated to music and talent at that period. As for the post Beatles stuff, I was glad to hear people compare Imagine to Ebony and Ivory. Imagine is not profound, it's just Marxism straight up--that's all it is damnit and the poetry whereby he expresses in is dog food, terrible lyric writing, e.g. "...and no religion too (or as well, or, I'd like to add, kind of an afterthought, don't want to leave the priests off my shit list --but at all costs let me force this phrase to rhyme with the word "do." Really bad writing! Ebony and Ivory has always Bern derided as a trite and sentimental feel-good song but quite frankly it is in no way inferior to Imagine. Spare me your sanctimonious drivel about world peace and anarchistic Utopias! It's on the same level as preaching about racial harmony, no better. Lastly, in the post Beatles era both John's and Paul's work suffered much and I'm sure for a great many reasons. Even still, Paul's output continued to be greater until the Tug of War Album, which had one or two things worth paying some attention to--after that, he never wrote a song with listening to; his talent had been exhausted. Lennon did very little that was interesting and a lot of really shit. Part of the problem is I suppose he stopped caring, who really knows. All things must pass indeed. I still like them both but give the nod to McCartney in the final assessment: there's just more musical talent there, talent that sadly is often overlooked because his music is more often than not conventional or, to some, corny. Nonetheless, at square one, you have to be just musical as you see in fun numbers like All Together Now, Hello Goodbye, or Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da, which many would deride as vapid and empty but sometimes it's just the joy of musicality that you need as a foundation. That's what makes many people really dislike Paul but you need to start with the vapid feel good tunes to define yourself as a musician and song writer, accept that it's okay just to have a good time and that's what music itself basically is--something for human pleasure and amusement. When seeking to do the more profound artistic statements, you need to have this foundation of simple musical pleasure. Unfortunately, it is his own inherent musical spirit which leads Paul to suffer so much "all-too-easily-made" criticisms. I've spoken my peace. Good night everybody, everybody, everywhere..

NickR 2:26 pm, 4-Sep-2013

In the 70s John was praised for his hard hitting music and his fans chose to ignore his whimsical rubbish like 'Love' 'Oh My Love' and all the stuff on Double Fantasy. He was a man heading towards cosy middle age and suddenly he saw the world as Paul did. Except Paul would still be criticised for empty love songs whereas John's equally empty love songs would be seen as him laying his soul bare. Both of them suffered from quality control in the early 70s. In other words, they didn't have each other to tell them where they went wrong. By 1980 it was too late anyway, as they were too old to be really relevent any more. John was becomming a joke by 1980, his records weren't selling and his writing was trite. His God-like status of course was secured when he was murdered. Paul stays true to himself but his best year was and will always remain 1969.

june 4:42 pm, 8-Sep-2013

"john was in love with paul" Gotta love the Paul-obsessed Beatle slashers. It was more like the other way around, darling. John couldn't wait to be rid of Paul while Paul kept pining away.

june 4:45 pm, 8-Sep-2013

John never wore a mullet. Need I say more.

NickR 12:13 pm, 10-Sep-2013

june - John couldn't wait to be rid of Paul? There was nothing stopping John going solo in 1968 or 1969. And considering the legal wrangles during that time what made John drag Paul into the studio for his self indulgant (but wonderful) 'Ballad Of John & Yoko'unless John really did love Paul and value his input? He loved him like a brother, as Paul did John. And nothing anyone can say will alter that fact. John has said it enough times in interviews around the time of his murder. And his vitreolic attacks on Paul in the early 70s only happened because he loved Paul NOT because he hated him.

NickR 12:13 pm, 10-Sep-2013

But yes, Paul's mullet was dodgy

jen 2:31 pm, 16-Sep-2013

People are hilarious! its like everybody wants to say the last word of this trivial discussion but they fail every single time. I dont blame you since id like to do that too. But that seems to be impossible so im just gonna play my role in this discussion as a minor passerby and write my opinion. Uh.. Hm. I think one of the very few things that people here agree on is that beatles music surpasses what they have done solo. And during the beatles, it is a fact that they influenced each other a lot. A LOT. And even if you fail to consider the..the exclusive bond that is so well known, they were still in the same band and I can guess you can't escape the influence of another member while youre in a band. Well, so I think they had good influence on each other and cannot be spoken apart when you discuss beatles music. For the solo work, i think it was a fail that they didnt get together even for short sessions, but i enjoy both of them though not as much as the beatles songs. When it comes to the solos, i think it really becomes the matter of personal taste. The word "better" is ridiculous. I personally enjoy harrison's individual work the best, though nobody has asked me..haha I always ge a kind of a sad feeling whenever i acknowledge the fact that two out of four are no longer living and nothing musical but i hope the remaining two will live long. Wow i got sentimental! i just wanted to say i would really appreciate it if people just stopped deliberately insulting my two favorite songwriters.

Martín 7:35 pm, 17-Sep-2013

Watch John playing a similar melody to that of Strawberry Fields Forever in 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=224Hha025KI Another wrong fact...

Martín 7:37 pm, 17-Sep-2013

Watch John playing a similar melody to that of Strawberry Fields Forever intro in 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=224Hha025KI Another wrong fact...

John Paolo 3:02 pm, 19-Sep-2013

Stop this thread people. Let John rest in peace.You will never understand his depth.His journey in life can never be judged by our words.

Jamie 10:28 am, 21-Sep-2013

This should bring you all back to reality. Simply put, no John Lennon no Beatles.

amir 6:51 pm, 22-Sep-2013

comic reason,pleas.....

NickR 4:07 pm, 23-Sep-2013

Jamie, true enough. But I would expand on your sentance. 'No John Lennon, no Beatles 1957 to 1965. No Paul McCartney, no Beatles 1966-1969'.

beejeez 3:56 am, 26-Sep-2013

Anyone who's listened to more than just the hits knows that it's stupid to slag one to prefer the other. I'll take JL, but Macca was a hall of famer from the first bars of "I Saw Her Standing There."

Elena 12:23 am, 29-Sep-2013

How many experienced teachers! How many critics talented! Imagine is "Really bad writing!" , "McCartney's Pepper songs ste mostly mediocre" (Bingobangobongo & irving). Thank goodness that does not judge or even Abbey Road masterpieces such as Hey Jude and Lady Madonna worthless junk ... "Nobody ever Gives credit to Lennon & McCartney's co-writer: SATAN!" (Jean-Paul) Further down so we can not go ... "John could not wait to be rid of Paul while Paul kept pining away" (June) How do you sleep? is the most dramatic, poignant and desperate love song that John did. And I do not want to throw there special tricks. I'm talking about pure love, born between two people who grew up together, with exceptional talents, who were able to complement each other because - despite the quarrels due to the strong male characters, their ego and external pressures - depended on each other and respected each other deeply. "Simply put, no Beatles no John Lennon"...(Jamie) John himself has admitted several times that the Beatles were born thanks to the chemistry that each of them has brought: the perfect harmony of the group was established by the presence of each of the components. To those who decry Paul (the survivor's guilt) or make John as an icon (icon who he never wanted to be), I remember a phrase that has brought Paul, during an interview, talking about how journalists spread news about them: John said: "Do they play me against you like they play you against me? Because there were always people in the background pitting us against each other." And Paul said: "Yeah, they do. They sure do." This conversation took place just two months before the death of John. And it is easy to think that Paul reported the truth, listening John's last interview with Dave Sholin. How much hate can come from so much love? In a world that slaughters children on the first day of school, which puts people in the ghetto who think differently, we should not amaze resentment, envy and hatred of simple musicians who have always proclaimed love and peace. In this world that goes down, where we consider stupid words of songs about peace and love (because of this speaks Imagine. it's not Marxism is logical: is it not hope sublime desire to live in a world that is not divided from political and religious hatreds? I do not want to give lessons in history, but let's not be hypocrites: we all know how the church has always been an economic power created by men and well away from the teachings of Christ; as well as the governments of every inhabited part of this planet are other economic powers that instead of protecting and defending the individual human being, placing it at the center of interest, enslave him for personal interests, relegating him to live the life that is most comfortable to them. Do we want to believe that the unemployed, evicted, soldiers killed or damaged on the war fronts that they themselves do not understand and then are forgotten are a non-existent problem? "Really bad writing" to make people think that you need to change ways of thinking and learn to understand that what happens to our neighbor today can happen to our son tomorrow? And I'm not anything to not seem subversive ...) I'll stop here. I love both of them too much to continue.

Elena 7:39 am, 29-Sep-2013

Because of the speed and passion with which I have written, I have made ​​two mistakes: the quote from Jamie is "Simply put, no, no Beatles John Lennon." My words ... "We Should not amaze resentment, envy and hatred of simple musicians who have always proclaimed love and peace" are actually "we should not be surprised that much rancor, envy and hatred against ordinary musicians .." Sorry for the typo and translation error (I do not think in English ...)

Elena 7:48 am, 29-Sep-2013

mmmm... This quote is so inaccurate that I cannot write it. I'm sorry Jamie! You wrote "No John Lennon no Beatles".

David 12:08 am, 6-Oct-2013

I think we know who is being sanctimonious.

Johan 6:54 pm, 6-Oct-2013

The PR duo George Martin-Paul McCartney succeeded to make people believe, for many many years, that Beatles started 1965 with Yesterday and McCartney, and made people forget the singles and albums 1963-1965, before Yesterday. And not until many many years after, did the public get knowledge of that these songs were mostly composed by Lennon. And these music was innovative, in a way McCartney never could. Because George Martin wasn´t so influential, he never talks about the innovative album A Hard Day´s Night 1964, and the White Album. Even Lennon´s songs on The White Album are masterpieces: I´m so Tired, Dear Prudence, Glass Onion, Happiness is A Warm Gun, Julia and Good Night.

Lee 1:27 pm, 9-Oct-2013

Johan: What ARE you talking about? Take off your Lennon fanboy glasses. They're skewing your vision.

NickR 3:36 pm, 9-Oct-2013

No one forgets 63-65 Johan. And Lennon's work on AHDN was awesome. But remember that in that period McCartney wrote All My Loving, Can't Buy Me Love, She's A Woman, I Saw Her Standing There. She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were 50/50. So although Lennon was dominant, McCartney's stuff was still more popular with fans. As for The White Album, great Lennon songs but Paul gave us Back In The USSR, Ob La Di Ob La Da, Helter Skelter and I Will -real diversity. They were equals all the way down the line.

Elena 7:32 pm, 9-Oct-2013

Of course all these John's songs are masterpieces. But have you ever heard Dear Prudence in the headphones ? Have you ever allowed your mind and your ears to distinguish the sounds of the instruments ? Did you feel the bass sound of Paul ? A sound so deep and visceral and perfectly measured that grips you inside, donating to an already great song a hypnotic and dramatic force. In the same Lp we can find Blackbird , Why do not we do in the road ? , I will , Helter Skelter . These are Paul's songs. And they do not seem to be defined less than masterpieces. In the same year Paul has written Hey Jude and Lady Madonna : what would you call them? The album Abbey Road, with the Matryoshka swirling melodies that merge into one another , find in Paul's compositions best creation. . Even today , listening to repetition , I feel the chills thinking about how Paul was able to create harmonies so unique and enthralling . To say that Paul was the shadow of John is unfair and misleading. And it is an insult to the intelligence of John : a witty and impulsive creative genius like him, might he have " endured " the presence of a partner he considered inferior to him ? If the music of the Beatles has worked (and after fifty years is still fresh and original as when it was created and is still a reference in terms of style and innovation) is also because there was a deep mutual respect between the two principal authors , a mutual attention to consider the opinion of the other as a fundamental element . They grew up together. In 1976 , in a form of personal evaluation , John described Paul as "extraordinary " . We want to say that he did not know what he said ? The strength of the Beatles music is in the genius of John & Paul, in the constant , patient , perfectionist musical's ear of George , in the calm and wise grip on reality of Ringo . Is there anyone today who can do better? And you, like the others, very good at criticizing Paul McCartney, are you able to do one millionth of what he did?

Johan 8:45 am, 10-Oct-2013

Yes Elena, McCartney´s bass play is the best I ever heard; completing melodies, b u t that doesn´t make him the better composer! Is ob ladi a masterpiece? McCartney´s music sounds like he pop music b e f o r e Beatles. But it´s all a matter of taste. That reminds me of the discussion of who is best, Verdi or Wagner? Verdi has "only" (small) melodies, but Wagner has melody, structure excitement and expression, like Lennon!

Colin 12:01 pm, 10-Oct-2013

why do people have the urge to divide? All that does is create an argument of negatives, these are two of the most brilliant songwriters to have ever lived, I prefer to listen to their music, connect to it, and enjoy it. I think more here would benefit from doing the same..... LEGENDS! :)

Gezza 11:31 pm, 11-Oct-2013

Lennon was a cynical, violent, narcissistic and egotistical man who truly believed he was some kind of genius (as is quoted as such). His guitar playing, for a mega-star, was actually also pretty woeful. There is no denying however, when you strip away everything else, he still wrote some amazing songs that are an enduring profound experience for millions of people.

Elena 11:48 pm, 11-Oct-2013

Verdi, Wagner ... As you said, it is all a matter of taste. Verdi wrote " only little melodies " and Wagner composed the great music. ( and I would not slip into the rhetoric saying that Verdi accompanied the Italian Risorgimento and Wagner excited Hitler in the wrong way - even if Hitler did not take much to get excited - Inter alia, the Germans of '33 , apparently , preferred Verdi. Oddities of the music ! . ) . Joking aside , if Obladì Oblada is a game not well managed ( also if it's one of the first anglosaxon songs inspired by reggae ) and Revolution 9 seems the nightmare of a heroin addict (sorry John ! , Not your own masterpiece , although I love this song anyway) , I can not consider little things texts as Lady Madonna , Eleanor Rigby, Let It Be , Golden Slumbers or the beautiful gloss The end .. So as I can not define these and other ( lots of ) songs of Paul not only catchy melodies perfectly successful but also exciting and elaborate compositions. However, after so many considerations, Paul would said that his are just "silly love songs". John would drew his songs from the real facts. Except then laugh about it , with his adorable and brat grin, saying that he was joking : " I just want to make music and have fun ." And this is the key of the game: Paul knows it and he is at skate with a sudden concert in NY. At 71. John would have enjoyed much more his life. And their secret, as in the beginning, would have been to have fun making music, staying humble and passionate

Johan 9:05 am, 12-Oct-2013

Thank you Elena for comments. You have written it very well! Mostly correct. Interesting that you mentioned Revolution 9. Ackording to my point of view, I am often surprised of the similarities between Wagner and Lennon. Just to take one example:In the end of Wagner´s Götterdämmerung there is a chaos, followed by a little light conventional melody -- very alike the chaos in Revolution 9 followed by the little light Good Night.Marvellous. The reason why I am so insisting about Lennon are: 1. the Lennon music, 1963-1965, without help from strings, before Yesterday, was forgotten. 2. That Lennon music was so innovative, a new expressionism; I Should Have Known Better, where the middle part (two changes of key) opposed to the music before, has an INCREASING tension, If I Fell with at least THREE changes of keys in the intro, and the main melody like an madrigal from 1400, I´m Happy Just to Dance with You with a perfect mix of 1940 and Lennon, When i Get Home, where Lennon, using the SAME note, changes the rhytm and melody! revolutionary, A Hard Day´s Night with glissando notes like Arabian folkmusic...

Elena 12:01 pm, 12-Oct-2013

You are a real expert, Johan ! I speak more from the heart and by instinct , empathy being one of my (few) virtue... . And this is another reason why I love both so much: I need the intellectual sharpness of John as much as the passionate melody of Paul, 'cause life is both things, inseparably

Johan 7:37 pm, 12-Oct-2013

Thank you Elena. From my heart and by instinct I love Lennon´s music. When I have listened to McCartney some times, I unfortunately often find him boring. Lennon´s music is growing the whole time! Almost every day I listen to the first half of All You Need Is love and the second half of I Should Have Known Better. Lennon´s songs has not always a little melody. It´s the structure. For example Do You Want to Know a Secret. A bittersweet melody, but it starts and starts, and suddenly it´s away... And sometimes the song consists of several melodies; All You Need Is Love and Happiness Is A Warm Gun. A special thing with Lennon´s compositions are the stress on a specific single note. The hammering on the same note on the refrain on All You Need Is Love is needed to appreciate the little single note upwards in the end of the refrain. These single notes can be difficult to discover. I have heard many covers of Oh My Love, where "...everything is CLEAR IN OUR world" is sung wrongly. Even George Martin missed some notes in his instrumental version of Girl. "...all about the girl who CAME To stay". "Came to" is a half note too low, and that changes the whole tension in the song! Lennon can have a unchanged note, but instead has variations in the chords behind, like Strawberry Fields and Help. Lennon said that a good song must have an increasing tension and a resolve. Most of his songs have that. Lennon can hammer on the same note and then suddenly fall in a dissonance chord as in Across the Universe (the version from 1968 is perhaps the best song ever, all cathegories) Lennon is a kind of minimalist. With fewer notes he can create more tension than McCartney with more notes! Love is one of many minimalistic masterpieces. The similarity with Wagner is 1.the increasing tension and resolve 2.From darkness to light, as for example Happiness Is a Warm Gun. It´s important to emphasize the above mentioned, because McCartney for decades got horriby too much attention because of Yesterady. If we compare to other popular music, classic music and opera music, we will realise that Lennon is one of the absolut best composers in history.

Mark 10:28 pm, 12-Oct-2013

Seems a bit contradictory saying here is 20 reasons why Paul is better than John and then writing underneath I don’t think he is better. This guy has cherry picked a lot of stuff like picking certain numbers and saying Mcartney did this on this song. I cant be bothered to spend ages doing it but I could pick lots of other stuff out of there huge body of work and say john came up with this bit and Paul didn’t. As for Paul’s plays more instruments and better than John. Of course he does Lennon never claimed to be a great musician It was his creativity and spirit that made him unique that’s why they were so formidable together. Paul was better at structuring songs with his musical knowledge while John had more of a spark. I am certainly not saying John is better I am just evening up things here a bit. John had more personality and whit and humour. Johns music was more emotional and had more depth. He grew a beard and wore glasses. Does this make him pretentious hardly. As for the bed ins. They did work because It attracted attention. Veitnam was unlawful war were nothing positive came out off Lennon wasn’t as bothered about fame after the Beatles. What ever John was or wasn’t and a nasty guy in some ways who had a temper problem s the reasons he is remembered as a cult figure was he stood up for the downtrodden and had the balls argue his points with anyone. John was one of the biggest stars in the world but still walked around and mixed like a normal bloke. No wonder he got shot.

Elena 11:38 pm, 12-Oct-2013

Thank you Johan. Girl is one of my preferred Beatles' song. So that You've got to hide your love away, I am the walrus, Dear Prudence, Norwegian Wood, Glass onion, I'm so tired, I'm only sleeping... for the melodies and the musical construction, the texts and their meaning, the pathos, .... It is music that penetrate the soul and make it to pieces (I'm not exaggerating: sometimes I have to stop listening because they are too engaging. And knowing that their author was so brutally killed does not help). These songs help you grow, make you think. I listen to I've just seen a face, Penny Lane, Got to get you into my life, Getting better , Get back, She came in through the bathroom window, ... and they are a charge of energy, a more expeditious and decisive step towards the goal (I remember the counterpoint of John to Getting Better "It can't get no worse". After a few years he would resume the sentence in the dedication of love to his son Sean. Love gives balance and optimism). Then For no one, The fool on the hill, Eleanor Rigby, She's leaving home, Golden Slumbers, Carry that weight,... these songs give me melancholy, pining, awareness. I 'm not able to analyze the musical structure of the songs (you are very good, congratulations indeed!). I let myself be overwhelmed by the feeling that this music gives me. And when I listen to A day in the life (the perfect fusion of the two minds) or to The end (with the three guitar solos: I have no words to describe the emotions) I have this feeling, this longing for the time it could have been and that it will no longer. And I can not help but think that despite the structural construction of the music, the words more or less intelligent, the personal ability to convey emotions and thoughts what I feel when I listen to the songs of the Beatles (Beatles), it is joy and sadness, optimism and resignation , awareness and despair. This leads me to say that they are equal: when I listen to them, both bring me to life. P.S. Thanks again Johan for your ability to listen and respond with passion and precision. It 'a pleasure for me to talk about a subject that I love so much with a person so experienced and democratic

Johan 5:17 pm, 14-Oct-2013

Thank you Elena for sympathetic comments. Good you talk about For No One. Most of Lennon´s compositions are masterpieces, and some of McCartney´s are masterpieces, for example For No One. When I bought Revolver from 1966, for e period, I thought For No One was the best. But since many years I think Lennon´s And Your Bird Can Sing is the best song in the album, especially the middle part:consisting of three variations on the same melody, all of them start with the same notes, that give you a feeling that the singer is stuck, cannot come away, a desperation, and the completing counterpart on the solo guitar! and the final when he sings "...I´ll be around" twice, but changes the chord the second time. It´s absolutely marvellous, fantastic. Leonard Bernstein (who composed the music to West Side Story) thinks that the best song in Revolver is Lennon´s She Said She Said. Lennon´s Please Please Me from 1963 is more important than Yesterday, because: 1. it was their first great hit 2. The music is more innovative than Yesterday. Before Please Please Me the pop music had their hits with the different "Bobbies" in AABA structure, and then came Please Please, like a hurricane!long straight falling notes without hesitation,a new call and response style, a middle part with a sudden octave increase! We never got a name for it,it was a new desperation, a new expressionism, not just "rock n roll". And in I Want to Hold Your Hand (co-composition) you have the sudden octave increase too. The establishment and the elder generation discovered the Beatles not until they 1965 heard Yesterday 1965 with it´s strings and AABA structure. After 1965 that new desperation and new expressionsm disappeared a lot with the Beatles. Oh there is much more to add. Sometimes Lennon and McCartney composed together. I often wonder, have there ever before existed in music history two persons who could complete each others composition when they got stuck? It´s hard to believe? One have to be humble to have been living at the same time with these two great genius

Elena 11:16 am, 17-Oct-2013

Humility and passion are the essential luggage to reach and catch goals. John and Paul knew this. This is the reason why we are continuing to talk about singers born in the forties, who constructed themselves day by day, learning from their mistakes, retrying and retrying, squeezing their minds (they are not the result of a "play of laboratory" : I think it is useless to name names...). Humilty, passion and , of course, an enormous, extraordinary, heartwarming talent. Human talent, not digital. With all the scratches and the beautiful imperfections of human talent

Ringo the quiet one 12:40 am, 22-Oct-2013

So sick of his Beatles revisionism.

gerg 1:26 am, 6-Nov-2013

This is so silly. Paul was a world-class musician... and John knew this. But the point is that when you have two almost-dylans and another great musician, and ringo, who was underrated because of his bandmates... the thing about Dylan is he couldn't leverage other people, like Joan Baez. Lennon's beyond genius was that he wanted to collaborate, he didn't have the uber-ego. Dylan was perhaps the most amazing individual, but that's not the most important thing.

Måns Henrik 7:15 pm, 8-Nov-2013

McCartney was always anxious to sing in Lennon´s compositions, but never allowed Lennon to sing in his songs. David Rowley writes in his book about the Beatles (2002) that if McCartney sings in a Lennon song, for example in I Feel Fine ,Rowley calls it a co-composition. When Irwing Berlin or Cole Porter wrote a song, and somebody helped with the arrangement, was it called a co-composition with that person ? I just wonder.

Tastes 2:13 am, 19-Nov-2013

I'm a musician, y make scorings, and honestly Paul's music is very overrated. Yesterday is one of the most boring songs out there, for me, musically is just shit. But i know who pop music works, and the most of the time the most recognized song is not a really good one.

Carl Baumeister 7:35 pm, 2-Dec-2013

I agree with most of your comments, and that McCartney has more musical genius and talent than Lennon, and his post-Beatles period was much more interesting and colorful than Lennon's. That said, both were great, and complimented each other's talents, and filled in each other's weaknesses. Lennon wrote and sang some epic songs, such as "A Day in the Life," but Paul almost always made them better. In "A Day in the Life," he added the middle bit, and came up with the idea of the crazy ascending orchestra, etc. For Come Together, Paul slowed the Lennon composition considerably, and added an iconic bass line, and swampy piano. McCartney added much more to Lennon's and even Harrison's songs that Lennon did to McCartney's and Harrison's. (Lennon seemed to have little interest in George's work -- Paul, I think, was more magnanimous.) BTW, "Baby You're a Rich Man," an overlooked gem, was co-penned by Lennon and McCartney -- Lennon wrote the beginning part (he originally had it as its own song, called "One of the Beautiful People"), and Paul wrote the chorus, which, according to Lennon, was something Paul had "lying around."

Johan 7:22 pm, 3-Dec-2013

To Carl Baumeister. Lennon´s post Beatles songs have the recent years always been listened to more than McCartney´s in You Tube. See in "Lennon songs and albums...": For example: Imagine, Jealous Guy, Woman and so on. McCartney added nothing i the best songs: All You Need Is Love, Across The Universe and I Should Have Known Better. Lennon wrote Do You Want to Know a Secret and I´m Happy Just To Dance With You for Harrison, and composed together with him Cry For A Shadow. Lennon put in the important middle parts in We Can Work It Out and Michelle.

Mans Henrik 8:28 pm, 3-Dec-2013

To Tastes. I agree with you. Beatles most boring and worst songs are Get Back and Paperback Writer. The most recognized songs are not always a product of quality. You can create a hit: If the singer is already world famous, he can just choose a song and make it famous because he is famous. When the Beatles released The White Album, some critics thought Lennon´s Good Night was so good it would be released as a single, but it wasn´t choosen.So it isn´t so wellknown.

tata 11:04 am, 5-Dec-2013

here ill tell u about john lennon, he beat his wife Cynthia lennon, he cheat on his wife ,he and his new wife (yoko ono) made the worst album in the world with it the weird cover with him and yoko naked.....

Mans Henrik 11:45 am, 6-Dec-2013

To tata I think we shall discuss only music, not personalities. Do you know that Debussy forced his wife to prostitute herself in order to maintain him? Does that make him a worse composer?

It doesn't matter 4:51 am, 10-Dec-2013

Everyone supporting this should not call themselves real Beatles fans. This is absolutely disgusting... A real Beatles fan would know that Paul (basically John's BROTHER) would never in a million years support this kind of disrespectful talk. How could you consider yourself a fan if you're hurting Paul by writing or supporting this. You can have a favorite Beatles but please do not write or support anything disrespectful like this. I feel like the author only wrote this for the short lived attention he's receiving. I'm sorry but I have to say that this author tries to seem witty and intelligent on things he does not fully know of. John never beat his wife ( Cynthia said so in her book, John) Without John there would be no Beatles. John was Paul's biggest inspirations and led him to aspire to be great. There is no better Beatles. You can have a favorite; but each are equally talented and beautiful people. Each are needed to complete the Beatles. George, Paul, Ringo and of course John.

Max Halley 9:32 am, 10-Dec-2013

My feeling is that while Paul was the more talented song writer and musician, he had a tendency to be cheesy as hell and John's cynicism kept him in check and forced him to go a bit deeper. John was a dreamer and wouldn't have achieved half the amount he did without Paul pushing him. So ultimately John got the best out of Paul, and Paul got the best out of John. A classic duo who were far better together than they were apart.

Johan Cavalli 9:43 pm, 9-Jan-2014

Today many people knows a lot -- but not all of it -- who composed what in the Beatles. The Beatles is probably the biggest music event, all cathegories, last century. But there is a serious problem about the reputation of the Beatles: The written History about the Beatles music is mainly wrong. You who will read this may wonder;”now, what is he getting at? it´s just to write again, and put it correct, we all know, we don´t care”. But it´s not that simple. I have read about 60 books about the Beatles and pop music where they are mentioned., and articles. In almost all this books, the tendency is: --Often Please Please Me is not mentioned at all. It was their first hit record ! where the music is fare more innovative than Yesterday. And if it is mentioned, it is not written that it´s a Lennon composition. In a l l books there are several pages about Yesterday and McCartney. The reader get the impression that Beatles started with Yesterday! --McCartney composed all the music and Lennon the lyric, or McCartney wrote both music and lyric, and Lennon was just a clown. One example of many is the high ranked encyclopaedia New Grove 1980, “In the beginning McCartney wrote all music…”. Other examples are the articles in New York Review of Books 1968, and in Readers Digest 1968: McCartney composed the music, Lennon did the lyric. --the authors always know exactly what McCartney composed and more! but not what Lennon composed in the Beatles. As a matter of fact we know today Lennon composed most of the music in the singles and albums 1963-1965, and composed a little more music – according to Ian MacDonald´s Revolution in the Head -- than McCartney during the years 1963-1969. All over the world, Lennon had 27 number one hits, and McCartney 22, according to “Song artist 3 the Beatles”. According to “Lennon songs, albums…”, Lennon´s post-Beatles songs are always more listened to than McCartney´s post-Beatles songs. You must imagine the frustration with Lennon! I was a youth during the 60s and really took part in media´s treatment of the Beatles at that time. It was absolute grotesgue! The press people ran around McCartney – “the composer” -- as if he was God. Lennon was just a clown. Look at David Wigg´s interview with “the composer” McCartney 1970. And the pictures! from that time on the albumwith the interview. Lennon hated McCartney the last years, but didn´t dare to broke up. He completely lost his self confidence, and let McCartney have the initiative 1967-1969. How could this arise? There´s is much to say. I don´t take it all now. I can only say. No one will ever win a PR fight with McCartney. Now the problem is, the power of the written word is enormous. If you write to the publisher and tell the faults, he will not change something in the next edition. The authors always copy or write the same what others have written, and faults will last for ever. If a scolar will do some resurch about the Beatles music, he will read some of all this books. He will not read the comments on Beatle songs on You Tube or on other places in Google. And just because the “scholar” can refer to this books as a source, it looks seriously!

Tim 1:11 am, 25-Jan-2014

Subjective. The matter cannot be resolved. Even if every person in the world believes it and one person does not, that does not make him wrong. It simply means he happens not to share your view, which is permitted.

Maggie Rae 8:18 am, 25-Jan-2014

Great thread! There one thing for sure, as long as people keep thinking, writing, and arguing about the Beatles, John, Paul,and George (and Ringo) they will never be forgotten. I've always been a Beatles fan and I still am. Paul was my favorite, but now I'm starting to appreciate John more than before and I'm getting use to George. But Paul McCartney I like because, first, he's a great singer, musician, and song writer; But mainly because he seems to be true to himself and his moral, values, and upbringing. His songs and music seem to reflect who he is as a regular person. In my opinion, those are the qualities that make any art form pleasing and enjoyable, as well as convincing.

john hynds 4:03 pm, 27-Jan-2014

Cruel but... John was assassinated because he was an hypocrite; peace, love, yada, yada, & yet protested with Yoko in bed because his taxes were too high; use the plebs money to sue for peace; the man was full of caca. Paul, simple love conquers all lyrics, with a catchy tune, yet he's accused of being just a jingle writer by comparison to the gravitas of hypocrite John, bigger than Jesus Lennon. Yoko unwittingly said it, 'John was jealous of Paul's financial success'. in other words, John was all about $$$$$. No wonder he was obsessed with living in the US - NYC & was assassinated there. Karma I'd say

Mans Henrik 4:55 pm, 27-Jan-2014

john hynds. Try to differ person from music.

Henry 1:00 pm, 28-Jan-2014

Both were great, but Lennon was clearly the greater songwriter in my opinion. "In My Life", Beatles best song by far, originated with Lennon. He wrote the lyrics, and most of the melody. "Come Together", Beatles coolest song, also a product of John Lennon. "Don't Let Me Down", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Rain", "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", "Because", "All You Need Is Love", "Glass Onions", "Norwegian Wood", "Sun King", "Help!", "Tomorrow Never Knows", not to mention the best part of "A Day In The Life". I love McCartney as well though. Blackbird, Hey Jude and Let It Be are magnificent. And I think McCartney's solo career is far better than most people give him credit for. "Jet", "Band on The Run" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" are true masterpieces. However - they're not as good as "Jealous Guy", "Oh My Love", "Imagine", "How", "Woman" and "Watching The Wheels". Even Christmas-song-wise, Lennon wins. "Happy X-Mas (the war is over)" is far better than "Wonderful Christmastime". But there's no denying that McCartney sold more than Lennon. McCartney is the most successfull composer of all time.

Mans Henrik 7:40 pm, 29-Jan-2014

To Henry. Good comments. My little comment to it is: When McCartney´s PR group concluded that McCartney "is the most successfull composer of all time", they have included Lennon´s compositions in the Lennon-McCartney songs (See Wikipedia)

Moo Moo 10:16 pm, 9-Feb-2014

What a badly written article. Seriously, I'm very much a Lennon guy but I could do a better job selling McCartney's accomplishments. I doubt it's even a proper fan writing it. Truth is, if you're a true fan of the Beatles you should be supporting the unity and supportive teamwork the band gave eachother during that amazing period they were together. They helped eachother shine and none of them would have been that successful without the others. Liking certain songs and certain traits of each member is fine but trying to pick out who did what and keeping some kind of scoreboard is silly as the lines get blurred and they all collaborated on most of the songs and spurred eachother on.

Logan 6:34 pm, 10-Feb-2014

Look like non of this people knows about the beatles,john was the genius of the beatles,that's simple.

Lon Jennis 10:18 pm, 20-Feb-2014

3 words: Plastic Ono Band

Michael 11:59 pm, 27-Feb-2014

Paul McCartney is a musical genius, no doubt. His solo albums such as McCartney 1, Ram, Band on the Run & Flaming Pies bear that out.

Chris 6:28 am, 18-Mar-2014

Paul McCartney would have never gotten his chance in the music industry if Lennon hadn't let him into his band...

stupidusATmailDOTcom 2:17 pm, 27-Mar-2014

We can't seem to be able to agree on much but mayhaps we don't have to disagree all that much with the following. Now, I don't claim to be expert on all things Beatles but to me it is painstakingly self-evident that 1) lyrics were Lennon's bread and butter, and 2) McCartney is and was an all-round musician, not a guy who primarily strummed three chord guitar or pounded rudimentary piano melodies over his lyrics It takes time and dedication to learn to play an instrument well. It takes more time and more dedication to learn to play all sorts of instruments that fascinate you. It takes time and dedication to learn how to compose and arrange one's music (in more ways than just one). It takes genuine fascination with music, sounds, different instruments and effects, mic placement possibilities, and so on and so forth to appreciate and enjoy working in the studio. Lennon bothered to learn to play and sing just enough to be able to craft his simplistic but highly effective songs - very much like one Kurt Cobain later on. I'm not putting down either artists, mind you. But not in a million years would I consider Lennon (or Cobain) as capable musician as what McCartney was and continues to be. When ever I want to engage in insightful ideas/ponderings/stories, I just read good books and be done with it. What it comes to their private personalities, I know I'd be much happier spending my time with Macca rather than with John. John just wasn't this impressively nice guy to be around with. I might not personally agree with everything that's been said about Lennon of course, let's just agree that he man had big issues (http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/). Am I the only one who finds it pretty funny and extremely telling when obvious Lennon fanboy Johan Cavalli (at 9:00 pm on 30-May-2013) admits listening ONLY to the Lennon songs... How then would he exactly know that McCartney wouldn't be able to write as "sensitive, daring and innovative" music as Lennon wrote - or in fact even more so? Must by that mythical "intuition". By now Beatles' music is part of most westerners' collective memory/psyche. Does a baby hate mother's milk? No. But at some point he simply stops sucking it and turns to solid food instead. People conveniently tend to forget that it was so much easier to come up with novel sounding pop/rock those days when everything hadn't yet been done million times before. But seriously, how many normal (=meaning non-obsessed fans) people actually still listen to Beatles' albums entirely - let alone enjoy them from the first song to the last? Is any one of them under the 60 year mark? Beatles made good singles for sure, but albums you could imagine listening to from beginning to the end for other than nostalgia reasons - or out of want to appear like a proper muso? I'd much rather take for a spin Pulp's "Different Class", Slowdive's "Souvlaki", Beck's "Mutations", Radiohead's "OK Computer", Nirvana's "Nevermind", or even Type O Negative's "October Rust" over any album that Beatles ever recorded. There I said it. Seriously, there are more satisfying albums made since Beatles showed up that I'm more than little puzzled why so many people still act like their stuff would be pure gold from start to finish. Mansun's "Attack of the Grey Lantern", for example, is more satisfying concept album than anything Beatles ever managed to cobble together. Hell, NOFX's hated-by-fans "Heavy Petting Zoo" has stood the test of time better than most Beatles album. ;) Soldier on, folks.

Mans Henrik 9:54 pm, 27-Mar-2014

That McCartney was a better musician, and always was smiling to the press people, doesn´t mean that he was a better composer.

stupidusATmailDOTcom 9:56 am, 28-Mar-2014

To Mans: Composing is subjective, being an all-round musician is not. You either are a proper musician (as defined earlier) or music is just one of the many interests that appeal to you - at least for now. That's the difference. Since Cobain didn't really compose original music apart from very few songs after he had hit it big with Nevermind, it's pretty suggestive that Kurt would have likely gone on to do other things besides just music (had he not shot himself in a spur of a moment styled doom and gloom). Who knows, he might have dropped doing music entirely. But for example I'm not holding my breath in anticipation that Dave Grohl is one day going to debut as a proper author or visual artist. Music is Grohl's primary thing and the same is true for Macca. Both like to dabble with charity but who doesn't since it's very good publicity? But I personally have no reason to listen to latter days Macca - or Grohl. Grohl made a pretty promising debut album basically all by himself but in hind sight - in my view at least - it may in fact remain as the strongest display of him being a some what engaging songwriter. Grohl is a hard hitting drummer and widely respected as such. But other than that he does precious little for me personally. I'm not convinced of his songwriting capabilities. Technically he's probably gifted enough to churn out killer songs one after another but in reality all that comes out sounds bland. And by now I personally fail to see how Grohl could ever turn from forgettable songwriter to unforgettable. If anyone got incredibly lucky in the Nirvana aftermath it was Dave. Without Nirvana he'd be just another hard hitting drummer in a successful, underground (=semi-successful), forgotten, or a garage band. I was, however, impressed to hear Macca (on tv) perform live incredibly well considering his age (and not so insignificant amounts of "doobies" and other meds he has passed through his body through out his long, long career). In my mind that alone should speak volumes about his overall musicianship, level of talent and enduring love for making - and playing - music. There's a performer if I ever saw one. In contrast by Cobain's own admission he generally hated touring but would have had no objection to playing few gigs now and then when he was in the right mood. I have a hunch that also latter days Lennon would have more or less agreed with such notions. A world of difference BECAUSE music was just one outlet for Cobain's creativity. Nothing suggested that Kurt was genuinely committed in advancing his talents as a musician. Rather there was talk of him "wanting out" of music biz. Isn't this essentially the same thing that happened with Lennon, too? Mans, grow up. Who is/was a better composer is and can only be a matter of opinion. Lennon was a better lyricist - or rather seemed like more capable lyricist - simply because he worked more on his lyrics than Macca worked on his. And Macca was better musician simply because he worked harder at that aspect. Nothing else to it. It's not magic and if you'd try making music too, I'm sure you'd realize this too.

Mans Henrik 7:04 pm, 28-Mar-2014

Lennon had a new desperation in music, he was possessed when he composed, he worked hard when he was composing, but - he was very c a r e l e s s when he recorded it, and therefor he happened to destroy many masterpieces.

Mike 9:58 pm, 1-Apr-2014

All the Beatles made them what they were, stop with all this silliness!

Gavin 9:06 am, 5-Apr-2014

As regards 10., McCartney may have recruited George but Lennon recruited McCartney, so Lennon surely wins that one by the author's criteria

Johan Cavalli 1:34 pm, 6-Apr-2014

To stupidusATmailDOTcom. Yes, I am only listening to those Beatles songs where Lennon is the dominant composer. I think, like Howard Sounes (in his book from 2010 about McCartney), that McCartney is lightweight and Lennon is the musical heavyweight, he has the heaviness. I get soon bored with McCartney. Opposed to McCartney, Lennon has an increasing tension in for example the middle part in I Should Have Known Better, in All You Need Is Love, and in Happiness is A Warm Gun, sometimes makes the melody change only by changing the chords as in Julia, sometimes make the point that only two or a few, notes are important, as in the refrain the third time in All You Need Is Love, when the melody rises in two notes, sometimes climax and resolve as i Girl, sometimes s bittersweet feeling by limited notes as in Do You Want to Know a Secret, sometimes changing from chaos to tenderness in Revolution 1 followed by Good Night, and so on. They were not working so much together, it´s a myth, especially not the two last years 1968 and 1969.

Nyle Paige 3:54 pm, 6-May-2014

They both suck! Eminem is the best artist to ever live!

DICK 5:20 pm, 6-May-2014

FUCK YOU ALL

Common Sense Speaking 10:19 am, 11-May-2014

He isn't good enough to lick the bottom of Lennon's dirty shoes...geesh

Alexis 9:00 pm, 9-Jun-2014

I'm probably the biggest Paul fan in the world, and Lennon is my least favorite Beatle, but #20 is just plain harsh. The world lost a great musician when John's life was taken prematurely in 1980, and Paul, George, and Ringo each lost a very valuable friend. You should have replaced that with the fact that John was an arrogant, pretentious hypocrite who preached at others to give away their possessions and lead a monetary-free lifestyle while he himself lived a life of luxury and extreme wealth.

Johan Cavalli 3:31 pm, 10-Jun-2014

Perhaps Lennon wasn´t so nice as a person. But that´s c o m p l e t e l y irrelevant! I am only interested in his compositions.

mano 71 7:57 am, 18-Jun-2014

of course he"s better he"s still alive. once McCartney is dead and gone I bet its lennon"s music that is remembered most.

Mans Henrik 6:28 pm, 18-Jun-2014

You are quit right, mano 71. Which music will be remebered? I think it is when there is some pain in the music. During the baroque era Tempelmann was much more popular than Bach and Handel, but how is it today? Far in the future, will we be listening to Let it Be or Across the Universe, Girl, This Boy, Jealous Guy?

MsKellyW 1:45 am, 19-Jun-2014

This discourse is like a mother picking which of her 4 children is her favorite....Each Beatle brought something to the table which makes this conversation even possible! I know personally, I had more McCartney vinyl than John, George or Ringo but I NEVER entertained who in the group was the best because, like Mom, I LOVE all my kids! Happy Birthday, Macca, many more!

Mans Henrik 9:52 am, 19-Jun-2014

Correcting myself. I meant Telemann not Tempelmann.

GreenBlade 11:39 pm, 19-Jun-2014

I used to be a John and Paul fan but now I am a Johan and Elena fan.

luz 11:14 am, 23-Jun-2014

Macca has never been better than Lennon,specially if it's about music.He wrote too many pop,vodevile,sugary stuff for Beatles that represented them in worst way,almost as a boy band.He completely ruined Lennon's masterpiece-A day in life.

Johan Cavalli 6:59 pm, 24-Jun-2014

There are different k i n d s o f f m e l o d i e s. if you want to create a sentimental melody, as for example in McCartney´s And I Love Her, the melody can leap in the scale with big intervals between the notes, but that doesn´t work if you want to create a melody with a hypnotic-suggestive feeling as for example in Lennon´s Bring on the Lucie and A Hard Day´s Night. George Martin only understood sentimental melodies with big intervals. He didn´t like Lennon´s masterpiece Tomorrow Never Knows when he heard it the first time (Bob Spitz book about the Beatles 2005 page 601). He didn´t like Lennon´s masterpiece All You Need Is Love, when he heard it the first time (Bob Spitz page 700). He didn´t like Lennon´s masterpiece I Am The Walrus (Geoff Emerick´s book, 2006, page 213)and he didn´t like Lennon´s Please Please Me when he heard it the first time. George Martin always talked distainfully about Lennon´s music, he ruined Lennon´s selfconfidence and contributed to the split of the Beatles.

Jim Turner 4:03 am, 28-Jun-2014

Paul was clearly a better musician on all the various instruments. But when it comes to song writing and vocals you cannot claim one was better than the other. They were both very great, two sides of a coin. You may prefer one or the other but for every great composition that McCartney wrote you look and see something comparably great from Lennon. Same with their vocal performances.

Jane 6:18 am, 30-Jun-2014

If "Imagine" is considered the best thing Lennon ever did, than Paul blows John out of the water. Very simple piano tune with lyrics that only a hippy could really relate to and feel strongly about; I know that to everyone else that song is just a melancholy load of crap. While Macca is universally well-known and liked; I think anyone could listen to and like at least one of his songs. He also has a nicer reputation; no one ever heard of McCartney almost beating a man to death or abandoning his wife and child for a psycho artist. I am a big Beatles fan, but was greatly dissapointed by all of Lennon's solo work, "Beautiful Boy" being the exception.

Drew 11:12 pm, 2-Jul-2014

"Am I the only one who finds it pretty funny and extremely telling when obvious Lennon fanboy Johan Cavalli (at 9:00 pm on 30-May-2013) admits listening ONLY to the Lennon songs?" Nope, you're not the only one. But that is typical of Lennon obsessives. They refuse to see that Paul's fingerprints -- musically -- are all over John's Beatles songs, while the reverse is rarely true. And as solo artists, John's work is a VAST disappointment after Plastic Ono Band. Meanwhile, taking only Paul's 70s work (to be fair to John), Paul produced: (1) McCartney, the first one-man-band album by a major artist; (2) Ram, an indie album 40 years before indie music existed and now widely viewed as every bit the masterpiece that Plastic Ono Band was; (3) Band on the Run and Venus and Mars, two classic pop-rock albums, the latter of which is vastly under-rated and (4) McCartney II, an excellent one-man album in which Macca experiments with electronic music and produces tracks that hold up well today. It's really no contest. John had some serious personal and drug problems that led to a lot of mediocre music in the 70s. Paul's worst work, interestingly, came after Lennon died, which tells me how traumatized Paul was by the loss of the only person whose opinion (musically) really mattered to Paul. It wasn't until the late 90s (curiously about the time Linda died) that Paul got his mojo back and has produced a series of good (tho not always great) albums. His 2008 Electric Arguments albums is excellent, though.

Spurgen Rothchild 10:34 am, 4-Jul-2014

Paul McCartney is definitely worse https://www.facebook.com/paulmccartneybeingadick

Mans Henrik 12:03 pm, 6-Jul-2014

To Jane. OK, if we see upon Lennon´s: solo-songs, perhaps the music in Imagine is not so great,but what do you think about: the speed in Bring On The Lucie, consisting of three melodies where the tension increases in very part. And what do you think about the middle part in Nobody Loves You, I think it is marvellous. And what about Love, #9 Dream, and Oh, Yoko" ?

Gustav Perman 2:18 pm, 11-Jul-2014

Johan Cavalli.I suggest You write a book about John Lennon.He really deserves an honest book.

Elena 11:01 pm, 12-Jul-2014

It's really a neverending story ... But I do not change my opinion. I still think that either of them would have been so great without the other; that they have created together their best music; that their partnership has been so fruitful and important because supported by a mutual feeling of deep and sincere affection and esteem (ie, they both knew what they were indispensable and important). I think Imagine and Maybe I'm amazed they are both beautiful and perfect. Yes perfect. Because I do not care of their musical construction: I am not an academic but an instinctive and I love music that gives me thrill. I applaud those who think to denigrate Imagine how an anarchist song (for me it's a compliment. Well read the text: we should all think the same way ...). Maybe I'm amazed tears the heart out. To Luz: "Macca ... (has) completely ruined Lennon's masterpiece-A day in the life." I think A day in life is a-day-in-the-life: what happens to you when you live your life. Extraordinary events take place around you. You can be a witness, you can be a participant but your life is getting up in the morning, rushing to get to work, lost in thoughts. Your life is the banality that you would like to refuse, but that keeps you going to endure the horror and incomprehensible that you have around. John sings of Life; Paul sings of life. That's the difference. A day in the life is wonderful as it is: John + Paul. We would never have had the Beatles if it were not for John. We would never have had the Beatles if it were not for Paul.

Happy Nat 1:20 am, 16-Jul-2014

John Lennon recruited Paul McCartney into the group.

Kem Kemal 5:08 pm, 17-Jul-2014

Those who write unkind things about Lennon are typical Lennon haters who are conditioned with limited intelligence.Maccartney better than Lennon,don't make me laugh....without Lennon the beatles would never have been great.I tell you what Lennon had that Maccartney lacked.Lennon had,leadership,vision,presence,courage,ability to unite,get the best out of people,respect,Intellect,the list goes on and on.He changed the direction of the beatles,in writing,when he wrote Nowhere Man the rest of the band were very nervous specially Maccartney who was happy to continue with songs like she loves you,This was when they went to another level from everybody else and became Prophets,all down to Lennon.The album Rubber Soul was the preparation for pepper and greatness.The album is all Lennon.The Beatles started to crumble when Lennon stop leading the band,cause Maccartney didn't possess what Lennon.Every song Maccartney wrote he went to Lennon to check and approve cause Lennon had a much superior brain with words.As for solo stuff,come on get real...Maccartney better,his songs might have made more money but Lennon songs are iconic.You Lennon haters i suggest one thing to you,please watch on you tube....USA verses John Lennon and you will see who the real enemy of USA was.One of the reasons Lennon is loved because he was Honest.The greatest songwriter ever,not even Dylan comes close,and i can tell you why,just say so.

Kem Kemal 5:57 pm, 17-Jul-2014

Can anyone please tell me a line or a quote from a song that Maccartney has written either as a beatle or solo that resinates with you or someone can identify with in life.

Kem Kemal 6:32 pm, 17-Jul-2014

Johan makes some interesting points,yes i am a John Lennon fan.Lennon was light years ahead of all the others and he felt the beatles held him back and i Agee.When ever he came up with a gem the others were so jealous.Someone mentioned Maccartney spoilt Lennon's master piece.....A day in a life,i totally agree with that,i hate that middle 8.When ever Lennon wrote a master piece Maccartney wanted to be part of it.All the albums they wrote,the most memorable song on the album is Lennon's.Lennon wrote from within all the others wrote from the outside and that goes for Dylan too.Dylan as a songwriter is rubbish,his songs hardly have any melody,chorus or bridge's.Great poet but used music to convey his poetry.Dylan secretly admired Lennon specially his intellect.

Me not You 8:25 pm, 20-Jul-2014

Lots of McCartney lines run through my head when the moment beggars, particularly this one when I need a little optimism to get through the day: Soon we'll be away from here - step on the gas and wipe that tear away. One sweet dream came true today. When the night is cloudy, there is still a light that shines on me. Shine until tomorrow - let it be. With the wind in your hair of a thousand laces, climb on the back and go for a ride in the sky. The entire song, "For No One" which I think in a thousand years will be counted among Paul's best. If you haven't listened to Electric Arguments, you are missing some of the best music Paul has done in decades. Your loss. And I will just leave this here: "All You Need is Love" is the single most overrated Beatles song ever. It was a completely commercial effort on John's part because they were to represent Britain in the Our World broadcast. By John's own admission is was a 'slogan, propaganda' song and is not musically interesting (with the exception of the gimmicky French National Anthem and Paul's cheeky "She Loves You" refrain), deep nor profound. I hold no more love for "Imagine" either (and I'm a flaming liberal - the song is over-played and over-revered), although I see no one has given Yoko any co-writing credit for the piece. Not many folks realize the Yoko was taught to play piano as a child. And "Yesterday" is another song I could die happily if I never heard again. I'm in the McCartney camp, and I love a great deal of is post-Beatles work. I just downloaded "Back to the Egg" and if all the haters just stopped focusing on the silly love songs and opened their ears, you'd find that Paul is still creating innovative music that no one else can. Check out "Old Siam, Sir", "Mr. Bellamy", "House of Wax", "Don't Let it Bring You Down", "Call Me Back Again". Hell, even his Unplugged "Be Bop-a-Lula" is a sexy throwback. My personal test is that I cannot listen to an entire post-Beatles John album without skipping tracks. But there are many Paul albums that are just a joy to behold. And don't even get me started on his concerts.

Kem Kemal 3:23 pm, 22-Jul-2014

Hey dude Me not You,why do you hate lennon,Maccartney did write some good songs no question about that,but he couldn't play with words like Lennon or Dylan.He learnt to write because of Lennon.Is that the best you could come up with,Let It Be,I assume you know what the song is about.It's about his Mother and has Christian overtones.Those lyrics of let it be is only related to Paul,how the hell can anyone identify with those lyrics and how the hell is it deep.By the way don't forget to add Mull of Kintyre,great song with deep meaning lyrics.Only a square would write a song like that.I am going to try my best to help you here,there is one good song he wrote as a beatle,but I can't remember it.Paul was amazing,i would say he had the edge on Lennon when it came to melody's.He was more professional,more reliable and coherent.There is nobody past or present that can touch them,the best team ever in anything.Lennon had an extraordinary brain.He new how to capture the moment.Do you know what makes Greatness,simplicity.Lennon can write a simple song with a simple melody,simple lyrics with a powerful message and have a devastating effect.No one has this ability past or present.Before All You Need Is Love was chosen,Paul was trying desperately to write a better song and be chosen but failed.He couldn't write a simple song with a powerful message,they chose Lennon's song,All you need Is love.You mention Imagine,what Is your take on that song.I bet you don't really know the answer,I am not going to tell you everything,you do some research dude,I tell you this much,a simple song with simple melody,simple words but a powerful message.That song is so clever it's probably beyond you.Life is what happens to you while your buzy making other plan.For sheer poetry read the lyrics of across the universe.Lennon's songs have become iconic and are used for various reasons outside music.Do you know dude Overone million people sung the song give peace a chance outside the white house and not long after the vietnam war came to an end.Do you also know dude in Vietnam the US troops were singing In My Life.....when ever they lost a comrade.Dude you can take me on if you want but I promise you I will batter you with facts and my knowledge.I have not said one bad word about Paul and make no mistake Lennon was better with Maccartney than on his own.On their own there is only one winner.I look forward to your post.

Johan Cavalli 9:25 am, 23-Jul-2014

Yes, Kem Kemal. It´s not easy to write a "simple" melody to a "simple" lyric. But this nagging about McCartney writing better "melodies", is just a myth, spred by the selfindulgent and unjust George Martin. Lennon composed two kinds of melodies: 1. songs with an outer well developed melody, with the melody going up and down on the scale, and 2. songs with more complicate music. 1. Are not these songs wonderful melodies by Lennon? Ask me Why, Do You Want to Know A Secret? Girl, Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, It´s Only Love, Across the Universe, Because, Love, Grow Old With Me Me, #Dream. And the middle parts in Bad To Me (among the best I ever heard!), the middle part in This Boy, and the middle part in Yes It Is, marvellous! George Harrison once said that Lennon, opposed to McCartney´s, has more a "sharp edge" in his melodies. 2. More complicated melodies, seemingly unvariable. For example Juia, Help, and the refrain in All You Need Is Love, where the backgrounds changes more. Listen to Purcell´s Dido and Aeneas, where Dido sings twice "...remember me" on the same note. It had not been so expressive without using the same note the whole time. And the marvelous overture to Lohengrin. Is that a developed melody?

Johan Cavalli 9:44 am, 23-Jul-2014

No, Me not You. McCartney did not compose She Loves You. It was his idea to write these words, and probably he composed the refrain. The competitive McCartney himself never said he composed the song. The melody to "...you think you´ve lost your love..." resembles "...if you need somebody to love..." in Lennon´s Anytime At All. Lennon said he "had most of it". This is one of many examples where McCartney gets the credit for what Lennon composed.

Sadie 6:43 pm, 23-Jul-2014

He's still alive!? How does that have to do with being better? Was it Lennon's fault he was shot? No that was profoundly stupid. Oh, and he didn't grow a messiah beard!? Did that have to do with talent? No I don't think so. At least none of Lennon's albums offend me.

Johan Cavalli 11:40 am, 24-Jul-2014

George Martin is - wrongly - supposed to be an oracle. When the first Beatles songs were presented to him the first time: McCartney´s Love Me Do and Lennon´s Ask Me Why + Please Please Me, he preferred Love Me Do. Since Martin is supposed to be an oracle, he ought to be more cautious in his statements.1982 he said:"..John... do his rock´n´roll bits...while the music side was basically Paul". After saying that George Martin praised only Tomorrow Never Knows, Srawberry Fields,A Day In The Life, Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite without mention Lennon as the composer. Strange. Are those compositions "rock n´n´roll"?? George Martin ought to be ashamed over himself! He damaged Lennon´s reputation and contributed to the split of the Beatles. Martin always said John and Paul wrote Please Please Me. That irritated Lennon in later years, because he had written it totally of himself. Ackording to Paul Gambaccini in The Mammot Book of the Beatles 2009,Lennon has written more British number one hits than anyone else, and McCartney the most American number ones. Lennon is one of the greatest composer ever. Sometimes Geoff Emerick was more important in the studio than the oracle George Martin.

Kem Kemal 1:41 am, 25-Jul-2014

Johan you have made some absolutely incredible points and brilliantly expressed.I am guessing you might be involved in music in one way or another.I have a passion in writing and poetry.So when I read some peoples arguments that lacks any depth i just have to get involved.I think the beatles held Lennon back.This was his band that he created and it was taken away from him by people who were inferior to him in every area. Lennon was a psychologically damaged from an early age and an angry man in which he carried this right up to his death.Lot of his anger can be heard in some of his songs.Lennon was also a scared man.He knew he was light years ahead of anybody else and also new what was going on within the beatles,but he was to scared to break away.Lennon needed to be loved and wanted.This he fought with all his life.Brain Epstein loved Lennon and this was a reprieve for John and he produced some of his best stuff.When Brain died in away Lennon died.He came to life again when Yoko came on the scene.Yoko was able to give John what he needed and this inspired him to write amazing songs.I genuinely believe the others including George Martin did not like this because Lennon's songs were so much superior and stood out very clearly.This was when he got his respect back and gave him the strengh to leave the group,Maccartney tried very hard to change Lennon's mind,but he already made his mind up.I honestly think some of his best stuff hiss when he went solo.

maccafan 5:39 pm, 25-Jul-2014

Lennon is good, in fact very good, but McCartney is excellent! It's easy to see, just look at what they did after the Beatles broke up. Lennon never did one world tour, McCartney put together a whole new band, a monumental feat coming after the Beatles. McCartney wouldn't dream of quitting music, Lennon couldn't hang! McCartney has never ever stopped rocking, there's very little rock in Lennon's solo work. He came out with an album titled Rock and Roll, but he forgot to rock. McCartney is the most successful rock star in the entire history of music, it's documented by the Guiness book of world records. He wrote the most covered song in the history of popular music(Yesterday). The international radio show Rockline announced that McCartney was nominated as the greatest singer songwriter of the millennium, he was voted this title not once but twice. Bob Dylan said McCartney is the only artist that he's in awe of! Say whatever you want, but the facts just don't lie, Paul McCartney is the man!

Drew 11:09 pm, 26-Jul-2014

"Can anyone please tell me a line or a quote from a song that Maccartney has written either as a beatle or solo that resinates with you or someone can identify with in life." KEM: ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT? I MEAN COME ON. "The love you take is equal to the love you make." It's the most famous line of any Beatles song and it was written by Paul. Period. End of. But for the bonus round: "I'd love to turrrnn yoouuu onnn." A line written by Paul in a John song.

Drew 11:11 pm, 26-Jul-2014

Well actually the "I love to turn you on" line is a line in a John-Paul song (A Day in the Life) but it's in the part of the song that people think John wrote. But Paul wrote that line -- again one of the most famous Beatles lines and symbolic of an era.

Johan Cavalli 11:59 am, 27-Jul-2014

Yes, Kem Kemal. You are guite right, Lennon was years ahead,his anger is in his songs. You say that Lennon died in a way when Epstein died. I have never thought of that.Interesting. The oracle George Martin thought that a good song must resemble songs from the 1930s by Cole Porter and Irwing Berlin. It was Geoff Emerick who persuaded Martin to record I Am The Walrus! (See Emerick´s book). The oracle´s taste is childish. I can imagine he loves the melody to "Jingle Bells"

Johan Cavalli 12:25 pm, 27-Jul-2014

No, maccafan. The reason why McCartney is supposed to be "the greatest songwriter of this millennium" is that the the Lennon compositions in the Lennon-McCartney songs are included. See Wikipedia. The upclimbing melody in Yesterday is inspired by Lennon´s Do You Want to Know a Secret?

Elena 9:04 am, 28-Jul-2014

OMG! I always thought of listening to the Beatles to get better ...

Leave a comment

1