Who was better

I think that this is absolutely absurd. Lennon was just as much a musical genius as Paul McCartney. I really jsut don't know what else to say except that perhaps you should check out some of Lennon's work, its pretty effin good. Im not hatin on Paul, being a bassist myself I like him a lot but to say that Lennon was merely a figurehead of the Beatles is madness. YOur husband knows whats up.

Yes I accept John was the best as an artist however as a team they failed because of John.....

I think that Paul was the best song writer and possibly the bst singer as well with John coming in a close second. John's songs and voice are also amazing, but I tend to like Paul's songs and voice a little better. I guess it comes down to personal prefernce on those two though.

I agree with you about Paul, my brother has read a million biographies on the Beatles and says that John learned how to write music from Paul. I know John was a great lyricist, but as a person who has tried his hand at songwriting for 5 years I can honestly say that writing the music is way harder. Also, someone said that the solo careers can tell who's the genius. While Lennon had more hits than McCartney, is that really any argument for him being better?

Reading this post I think: what about the other Beatles? Surely without George Harrison and Ringo Starr there would have been no band.

Honestly, I think they both were extremely talented musical geniuses. I can't pick which one is better than the other.

I agree with you cyntrow. Mccartney was the brains and the consistent talent in the group whereas Lennon was the off the wall, arty, rebellious one. Most successful bands have one of each type. Of course Lennon was also talented but the genius behind the group? No - I don't think so.

I love them both! They are the best on-screen duo on t.v. right now, I mean they just mesh well together and they bring the show out. Who would've thought that I like a talking dog and a baby....lmao...

I agree with your Husband.. Lennon was a Legend behind the Beatles.. Id say McCartney was more his right hand man..

In my opinion, this was a case where two heads were better than one. Individually, each had strengths and weaknesses. Paul was more melodic but did not not have the "soul" that everyone professes John had. As such, their individual efforts fell short of their combined work which is nothing short of genius. To sum, the magic was the Beatles and that included George Martin. John and Paul wer merely parts of the whole.

Based on their post-Beatles music, I would have to agree with your husband. Lennon may have been a prima donna, but there is not doubting his amazing talent when it came to song writing and performing.

bryan adamss

I think all 4 Beatles were great in their own way. I think Mccartney was great when it came to pop music and fluffy lovey type stuff and that John Lennon was better at new music and changing music. I think he was intellectually brilliant and he was a mover and a shaker. George Harrison was a good songwriter too and just left too much in the shadows and without Ringo and his beat they would have gone not as far as they did. I love each Beatle for what they did for this world. All you need is love after all!

My husband is the one who loves the Beatles and because of him, I have been listening and loving their songs. Paul and John have each of their own hits but I have to say that most of John Lennon's songs are better and more meaningful.