I was always a huge Lennon fan but more specifically, a Beatles fan. Post Beatles I was always lukewarm to disappointed in John's post Beatles work. Yeah, the lyrics may have been more compelling than Paul's in a lot of instances but Paul was and is no slouch. Yes, Paul has written some shallow lyrics at times but by the same token, John's post Beatles songs were all too often not all that memorable to me.

Lyrically, when John wrote about a character it was a real person. Paul would fictionalize characters. Is one better than the other in that context? Six of one, half a dozen to me.


Musically, John disappointed me. The lyric may have been autobiographical and high standard but musically they mostly left me unimpressed. Paul may have had average lyrics, sometimes even silly on a few ocassions but the songs were musically melodic and catchy. Which one of the two will I take over the other? Well personally and this is just one man's taste, I put on the headphones to listen to catchy music first and if it has a great lyric, that's icing on the cake. A great lyric with average or less music? I can read a book of poetry for equal effect.

To tell you the truth though, I find George Harrison's work when he's at his best post Beatles to either of them. His lyrics were thought provoking in most cases and musically catchy for me. Did he put out some less than memorable material? Yeah, but they all did. But his best work musically I prefer to either John or Paul.

Then there is the matter of recording quality. John's early Post Beatles records were raw and muddy sounding. I know he was into the "raw" sound back then but it sounded like an average garage band to me. Later his productions became too lush for me.

The Beatles years they all had to have their respective talents together to get that sound. Take out George's guitar work and the individual quality of his harmony and backing vocals and the recipe was missing something. Without Ringo's fills on the drums? Same thing. John and Paul were co-equal in my opinion. They balanced each other and there was also a bit of competition which spurred each on to greater heights.

John's rhythm playing on "All My Loving" with the fast triplets and what he played rhythmically on "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You" was nothing short of amazing. And the acoustic rhythm he played on "Can't Buy Me Love" was like driving a freight train.

Paul's bass playing was innovative to the ridiculous, especially from "Paperback Writer" on.

My personal favorite of all Post Beatles albums... George's "All Things Must Pass."
Minus the third disc jam session there isn't a week song on the album and any of them could have been hits as Beatles songs if Paul and John wouldn't have shut him out at that period of time. All of the songs on "All Things Must Pass" were leftovers from the Beatles last years.

But to hone in on your topic of John Vs. Paul, I take Paul in most cases. Because he was the "cute Beatle?" Nah, I'm not physically attracted to either of them, lol. I just find his body of work much more compelling overall.

As far as being the driving force behind the group, yes in the early years it was John. Most of the songs on the early records, especially "A Hard Day's Night" were John's vocals. The middle years, from Rubber Soul to Revolver they were pretty well split. But after Brian Epstein died there wouldn't have been a Beatles without Paul, and certainly no "Sgt. Pepper." Magical Mystery Tour as a concept for film was silly and failed miserably but the Album has some of the best songs of each of John and Paul.

I Am The Walrus
Penny Lane
Strawberry Fields
Hello Goodbye
George's cheeky "Only a Northern Song"
Your Mother Should Know. (Yeah the lyric is a bit inconsequential but the melody is outstanding in it's reach melodically.

But, that's just one man's opinion.

Stevie

I'm the only person here who is not unique.