Yes, but they wouldn’t have been the Beatles. And their personalities- especially John’s- is what really has made them all the more interesting these many years later.

I don’t like this debate because there’s no question Paul is the superior musician. I’m sure John would call that one himself. But even with all the musical prowess, that does not mean that you are a superior songwriter. I believe that Paul has written many beautiful, timeless songs. But John did as well, many times over. In fact, I would often read one or two of these statements about Paul’s songs being the “popular” ones or the ones people preferred and laugh. His songs, actually, were never my favorite. I am a Beatles fan for sure, but not everything they did has moved or changed my life. But just in the fact that collectively they had so many stunning songs they remain my favorite group.

Truthfully, I have always held that John’s songs were the ones that really touched me the most. I guess his voice, lyrics, and the delivery were all so ingenious that I can never forget those songs for the rest of my life.

Bottom line, without John, the Beatles would still have been a huge pop band, sold millions of albums, etc., but they wouldn’t be the Beatles.

To me, the essential difference between both composers was that, on one hand, McCartney was (and still is) a master of melody craftmanship; capable of create a song in virtually any existing musical style; while, on the other hand, Lennon was a revolutionary composer that unconsciuosly created many new styles at the moment. Of course, there have been moments when Paul also had created some new things and others when John had proved he can perfectly copy existing styles too.

But remember that it was John who propelled The Beatles to national (British) stardom when he composed and arranged “Please, Please Me”; a song that officially was the debut on record of the style known as “Mersey Sound” or, simply, British beat. And nobody else could have created such innovatory songs like “Tomorrow Never Knows”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, “Across the Universe” and, above all, “I Am the Walrus”. Pop music was never so fresh and new, so dare and bold.

Also, The Beatles couldn’t have been so popular without Paul’s brilliant melodies in the most-known songs of the band’s catalog; such as “Yesterday”, “Hey, Jude” or “Let It Be”. These beautiful songs were the perfect complement to the (then) strange songs that John made.

All my previous comment is about John and Paul in The Beatles. As solo artists, none had mantained the level of creativity they showed with the legendary band. Lennon made a pair of excellent albums and little more; and McCartney, still living and making good music, had the opportunity to made more good records than his former partner and in the 90’s onward had showed his ability to make musical works drastically apart from pop.

Lennon was a unique talent and brilliant, no doubt, but burned out after a couple of years and if it was’nt for Macca pushing him, he would have stayed at home and smoked hash all day !

I terms of sheer influence on the Beatles… it started out 60-40 John but ended up 70-30 Paul ! Paul was producing and arranging, holding down the low end with his bass, playing and singing more than half the songs, adding his harmony to all Johns songs, etc.
The only Pity is that the Beatles didnt let George run the band after Abbey road, I think they could have sustained if they could have just let go a bit.

Paul was lost at the time the Beatles Broke up… but he pulled himself together, his Musical talent arose and he made it all over again. great albums and singles 18 golden discs
by mid 70’s he was one of the most topping stars and very much in the public eye, breaking even Beatles record sales, while John retired on 1975 cause he simply couldn’t do good music, and when he returned in 1980, he was advised by critics not to , while his return was nothing political at all, a half album shared with yoko similar to BeeGees soft style.
the record wasn’t welcomed as expected, but his trajic death boosted the Records and even older records.

I think Paul side was better from 1970-1980.

John didn’t drive the band until Revolver, writing a few more songs is not the same thing as driving the band and out of their first 5 singles(this is all UK singles), one was McCartney(Love Me Do and very few first singles go straight to number, Love Me Do did very respectably, it got their foot in the door), Please, Please Me was from Lennon and their first # 1, the next three were co-written completely(From Me To You, She Loves You and I Wanna Hold Your Hand). So for the first year it was very equal.

Single number 6 was McCartney’s “Can’t Buy Me Love”. In the US, until Billboard changed how they counted–Can’t Buy Me Love held the record for biggest jump to #1 and it was the song that gave them all top five spots on the countdown(instead of 4 LOL).

Then yes the next four UK singles were John(A Hard Day’s Night, I Feel Fine, If I Fell and Help) but starting with 65’s Ticket to Ride which had some very strong contributions from Paul, including the lead guitar(which Paul played) and how Ringo played the drums, and Day Tripper, which was based on John’s starting point but otherwise co-written, Paul definitely started coming forward again. After those two songs came Paul’s Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, etc.

From Paperback Writer on Paul had 8 of the next 11 singles, with Let It Be being the final single they released. John had 2(All You Need is Love, The Ballad of John and Yoko) and George had 1(the beautiful Something).

So what!

John Lennon formed the Beatles and he named the band and he wrote their first big Hit — Please Please me. Also, John drove the band until Revolver, so by the time Paul took control the band was HUGE. Again, it shows they were both equals.

John Lennon was amazing and Paul McCartney was great too. John died in 1980 and Lennon STILL has more greater songs than Paul. Does that make sense? It shows Paul needed someone to censor his crap …

Thank you so much for the link, it’s great. So glad to have that one.

Interviewer: Do any of you have plans to record on your own?”

John: “We do at home. We might”

George: “In fact, we have done it. Well, Elenor Rigby was Paul ON HIS OWN”

(John nods)

John: “We were Just drinking tea” (!!!!)

Could it be any more clear?

Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5ssBRXt9o&feature=related

No way?! I had no idea. I’ll have to track that down. Well there ya go. Especially at that time, when everything was still very “band” oriented(thus no releasing Yesterday as a McCartney single), if it was said it was his alone, it was likely to be true. Yet in later years, John tried to claim credit for 70 percent of the lyrics.

Guess John liked that Paul song so much he tried to claim more of it as his than he rated.

With regards to the “John gets more credit for adding a line” thing I was actually thinking of other songs - I have that old book that goes through all the Beatles songs and tells you who plays what instruments(it isn’t 100 percent accurate but that was where I first learned that Paul plays the solos on Taxman and Sgt Pepper, etc–it surprised me how many solos he plays, at the time I didn’t know he played any, plays the drums on Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence) and tries to rate the percentages each Beatle contributed to the writing of the songs.

It annoys me to no end that John consistently is given more credit in that book for tossing a couple lines into a lyric than Paul is for musical contributions, some of which signicantly affected the sound of a song and songs by their nature are a “sound” medium.

As for the “Elenor Rigby” controversy, there is a video on Youtube of one of their press conferences. A reporter asks them if they don’t ever think about working solo, to which George replies “Paul wrote a song by himself, Elenor Rigby”. The others nod in agreement, even John. Funny that years later, without the others near, he tried to take credit for the song. It’s in tape that he had nothing to do with it.

How was Lennon’s influence palatable on Hey Jude? That song is ALL McCartney except for John’s suggestion that Paul NOT change ONE line of the lyric. And Paul was a big fan of the type of music that influenced “I’m Down”, he was always into the screamers(the first day he met Lennon, when he was just 14, he sang him with two Little Richard numbers), seems to me “I’m Down” was more influenced by Paul’s love of that than John. Musically Lennon had very little to do with Penny Lane, he helped some on the lyrics. And Yesterday was all Paul, they even thought about releasing it as a Paul McCartney single(NOT on Paul’s suggestion) but Brian Epstein said no. I’m not saying John’s influence isn’t on Paul’s songs(Ob-la-di Ob-la-da would have been a better example) but you didn’t choose good ones.

Paul’s influence musically is ALL over Strawberry Fields(heck John even criticized him for it in later interviews, which is very ironic considering all the credit John gets for it to this day) and A Day In the Life - two songs considered to be among John’s best Beatles songs, it’s all over “Tomorrow Never Knows”(Paul was way into music concrete for months previous to that recording and contributed some of the most prominent tape loops, including the “seagull sounding one”, which is actually Paul laughing sped up), another one considered to be a John groundbreaker. It’s also all over “Come Together”. So it works both ways.

I always find it funny that if John adds a single lyric to a song of Paul’s it gets more credit than Paul does for musically influencing significant portions of a song of John’s.

And what is wrong with being sweet and sentimental, if compositionally brilliant? It’s not objectively better to rough or cynical - it’s just different.

Also would anyone call For No One sweet and sentimental? How about Eleanor Rigby(which, given it was lyrically mainly written “in public”, everyone who was involved, except John, remembered as John having virtually no involvement in, George and Ringo both gave more to it - sounded more to me like John wished he’d been involved)? A whole heck of a lot of Paul’s songs lyrically(including post-Beatles), were in fact rather sad or decidedly not sweet, maybe even rather mean(”I’m Looking Through You” anyone?:). Paul was perfectly capable of writing “non-sweet” songs without much or any input from John. Sometimes it pays to pay attention.

And Claire - alright, let’s represent for RAM! Love that album - it’s so eccentric and varied(and frankly I think “Too Many People” is a way better song than “How Do You Sleep?” so point to Paul on that one, imo). As for Silly Love Songs - imo that is the best answer to critics ever(”what’s wrong with that, I’d like to know…cause here I go…again….I love you”. LOL It’s a complex song with some terrific vocal arrangements and a fantastic base line.

On the other hand I don’t understand why people hate on Give Peace a Chance. Writing anthems is hard goddammit, and that’s a good one among many Lennon Penned. Meanwhile, my favorite song from ANY musician is “Real Love” with John Lennon alone on the Piano, Haunting and surreal in its beauty and simplicity.

Lennon was the leader of the band for a short time while they were boys, and that’s because he was older. By the time “A Hard Day’s Night” came out they were at least equal, and from “Rubber Soul” and on McCartney was the force behind the band. Note that as he took the lead, their music became more sophisticated and complex.

To see how enormous Paul’s imprint on the band was, let’s take John views on their styles. He saw Paul as the light, the optimism in the group. He saw his contribution as darker, somber and cynical. But who sees the Beatles as dark and somber? I believe their positive outlook is one of the reasons they endure today, and that came from Paul.

John did very little after The Beatles broke up. he dried up for five years, and then he released the kind of record the was always beating on Paul for making.

As for him being an “honest artist” sorry, but the image of a multi-millionaire siting at his grand piano inside his huge mansion telling me to “imagine no possessions” makes me laugh. His preaching “Peace and Love” to the world, while he had none for his son disgusts me. But after his horrific murder, John has been leonized and elevated to an almost saintly state, where everything he did must be considered perfect.

I love the pre Yoko Lennon. But after he met her he became a humorless, hypocritical, self-important jerk.

Paul was miles ahead of John musically. He taught John to properly play a guitar, he made changes that made “come together” the song it is, he was responsible for Sgt Peppers and what is probably the best piece in modern music, Abbey Road side 2. And most of their biggest hits came from Paul.

I’m glad that people are finally waking up to Paul’s genius.

They must really have run out things to write about Lennon and the Beatles. John Cherry is a cheap writer and what a way to make money. I can see why he delved into the subject.

ONE question is why are Mark David Chapman, peter André, john cherry and people as such are alive when incredible human beings like Dr Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and Malcolm X die???????

With that statement, Simon Barrett proves himself a moron with no credibility to opine any further.

I do believe that McCartney is severely underrated as a songwriter and artist by many people, and without him, there would’ve been no Beatles, no Sgt. Pepper especially. However, I also believe that Lennon was the superior artist, and despite both their talents, the whole was greater than the sum of its parts- which is enormous.

I also believe that most of Lennon’s post-Beatles work blows away anything McCartney’s done other than “Maybe I’m Amazed,” “Band on the Run,” amd parts of the “Venus and Mars” album. Ah, had he lived…

the real greats of course are bach, beethoven, mozart, et al, and i’m afraid also the beatles, like it or not.

the ‘is mccartney greater than lennon debate?’ is a device to sell newspapers (and even some blogs). the two together were pure magic, the one complimenting the other. paul is a real nice bloke who, except for brief periods when he was suffering from grave insecurity crises, has always bowed to lennon’s genius, even while stating that an angel lennon was definitely not.

beyond yesterday, hey jude, penny lane, can’t buy me love, i’m down, etc. where lennon’s influence was paplable, a not-insignificant portfolio of mccartney’s work is a bit sweet and sentimental, although compositionally brilliant as always.

whatever else lennon was, he was a totally honest artist. its true he found true love with someone who never understood lennon’s or the beatles genius, not to this day. however, she has done wonders with keeping the great man’s legacy alive. for that i salute her. even mccartney realizes lennon’s genius today and pays tribute to him accordingly. while lennon needed paul’s brilliance as well, i believe, the last decades have proved that mccartney needed lennon more than vice versa.

Just joking. I will check this book. looks interesting.

I agree with Simon about the Beatles, I have found some of their songs that I love, but I don’t get the tremendous popularity of the Beatles.