With all the Beatles talk who was a better artist? They were both really good. I know Paul is better known since he is still alive, but who was a more talented musician.
Not a big Beatles fan, personally. But when I heard the story about how Lennon came up with "Hey Jude" it was pretty clear that that dude clearly had talent for music.
Paul was the better musician. Better question would be who is the more talented song writer. They were both excellent song writers, but the best of Paul is better than the best of John.
John is the more talented of the two. Not a big fan of Paul. I preferred other people covering their songs.
Per wikipedia: In 1968, John Lennon and his wife Cynthia Lennon separated due to his affair with Yoko Ono. Soon afterwards, Paul McCartney drove out to visit Cynthia and Julian, her son with Lennon. "We'd been very good friends for millions of years and I thought it was a bit much for them suddenly to be personae non gratae and out of my life," McCartney said.[2] Later, Cynthia Lennon recalled, "I was truly surprised when, one afternoon, Paul arrived on his own. I was touched by his obvious concern for our welfare.... On the journey down he composed 'Hey Jude' in the car. I will never forget Paul's gesture of care and concern in coming to see us."[3] The song's original title was "Hey Jules", and it was intended to comfort Julian Lennon from the stress of his parents' divorce. McCartney said, "I started with the idea 'Hey Jules', which was Julian, don't make it bad, take a sad song and make it better. Hey, try and deal with this terrible thing. I knew it was not going to be easy for him. I always feel sorry for kids in divorces ... I had the idea [for the song] by the time I got there. I changed it to 'Jude' because I thought that sounded a bit better."[2] Julian Lennon discovered the song had been written for him almost twenty years later. He remembered being closer to McCartney than to his father: "Paul and I used to hang about quite a bit—more than Dad and I did. We had a great friendship going and there seems to be far more pictures of me and Paul playing together at that age than there are pictures of me and my dad."[4] Although McCartney originally wrote the song for Julian Lennon, John Lennon thought it had actually been written for him:[5] But I always heard it as a song to me. If you think about it... Yoko's just come into the picture. He's saying. 'Hey, Jude—Hey, John.' I know I'm sounding like one of those fans who reads things into it, but you can hear it as a song to me ... Subconsciously, he was saying, Go ahead, leave me. On a conscious level, he didn't want me to go ahead. Other people believed McCartney wrote the song about them, including Judith Simons, a journalist with the Daily Express.[6] Still others, including John Lennon, have speculated that McCartney's failing long-term relationship with Jane Asher when he wrote "Hey Jude" was an unconscious "message to himself".[7] In fact, when John Lennon mentioned that he thought the song was about him, McCartney denied it, and told Lennon he had written the song about himself.[8] McCartney changed the title to "Hey Jude" because the name Jude was easier to sing.[4] Much as he did with "Yesterday", McCartney played the song for other musicians and friends. Ron Griffith of Badfinger, the first band to join the Beatles-owned record label Apple Records, recalled that on their first day in the studio, "Paul walked over to the grand piano and said, 'Hey lads, have a listen', and he sat down and gave us a full concert rendition of 'Hey Jude'. We were gobsmacked."[4][9]
Imagine-one of the greatest song. Happy Christmas (War Is Over)-one of the best Christmas song. John's song is pretty powerful.
I think McCartney had more pure musical talent. I like his compositions more. Lennon was a more creative lyricist.
I thought that happened jointly. In fact, I thought McCartney brought the song to Lennon and then they finalized it together.
Musician wise, I read that Paul was better and had plenty of stage presence. Creativity and personality goes to Lennon. Together they were just great.
Paul was musically obsessed but had no sense of what was good or bad. Because of this he was like a fountain, turning out volumes and volumes of stuff. John had great critical analysis skills in taking rough bits of music, discarding the dross, determining what was good, and turning it into a great song. But this inner critic was so critical that it limited his creative output by shutting it off before it got started. The two combined Voltron-like to form one whole supermusician. As solo artists, Paul wrote nonstop - some of it was really good, but tons of it sucked. John, conversely, went 6 or so years between Double Fantasy and the album before it.
Crap - I knew that it was written as "Hey Jules" and I coulda sworn Lennon wrote it. Oh well. Like I said.. not the biggest Beatles fan. So, I guess my vote should be for Paul (though I already selected John)
Please, it's not even a contest... Lennon hands-down. I just don't like McCartney I guess. I really don't like his voice most of all.
Paul was a better songwriter, but Lennon's personal and political transformation through the '60s and '70s kept the Beatles relevant for the span of the generation.
"Hey Jude is a damn good set of lyrics and I made no contribution to that." John Lennon, 1980 All We Are Saying, David Sheff http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/hey-jude/ He may have contributed to the music, though.
This is my take as well. John + Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> either of them solo. Each was made substantially better by the other's strengths. Paul had a good sense of pop musicianship, but was pretty shallow in his songwriting. Lennon was a true artist and one of the greatest lyricists ever, but he struggled pairing that with good melodies. George Harrison (IMO) actually did the best job carving out a solo career. He had the best combination of music and writing of any of the individuals. But to the main point - my vote goes to Lennon. Of the two, he's the one I respect most as an artist. When you split the Beatles catalog up into "John" songs vs "Paul" songs (leaving out Harrison's), the Lennon songs are far more interesting to me. Tomorrow Never Knows, Hard Day's Night, Ticket to Ride, Norwegian Wood, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Come Together...I feel those stand up to the test of time better than Paul's bubblegum stuff.
I think Paul is the better "virtuoso" and John may have the tiniest edge with pure creativity. They were a good team because John could stop Paul from getting too mushy, and crappy. That's probably also why Elvis Costello did some good work with Paul, or vice versa. Paul needs someone a little edgier reigning him in. The problem is that not many musicians and songwriters have what it takes to tell Sir Paul he's wrong about something, or to advise him to change things.
