Seconded.
I would say John Lennon’s post Beatles work matched up well to Paul Simons overall, especially to the point of the that tragic day when John was murdered.
Actually I’d say that "Sounds of Silence " is very reflective of an age - not the 1960s, but being 16 - 18. Look at all the songs about suicide and poetry and hiding from a broken love. I loved it when I was that age, but now - bleah. The Beatles early songs covered a lot more ground.
The killer is that their breakthrough - the electric Sounds of Silence - wasn’t even their idea.
Simon deserves prop for his world music stuff, but I still listen to the Beatles all the time, while I listen to S&G, or S alone, very infrequently. Them vote so far accurately reflects reality.
I’m not a big fan of trenchant, and as for haunting… I’ll take this song over it any day. Sometimes I think that the post-Beatles Lennon should have just got the fuck over himself.
Not to disparage all of the Beatles’ work but I always thought that some of their later songs were a joke on their fans. “I’d like to be - under the sea - in an octopus’s garden in the shade???” Ringo may have written it, but they still actually recorded it and put it on an album. Nothing S&G ever recorded approached that magnitude of suck. Come to think of it, “Love Me Do” isn’t a quite a lyric masterpiece either, is it? Don’t get me wrong - the Beatles did some great stuff and I have quite a bit of it. But also some REALLY inane stuff. I can’t say the same about S&G putting out any absolute trash, at least nothing that springs to mind.
IMO, the Beatles were overrated. They had a few good songs, but they also had some really awful ones. I can’t think of an awful S&G song, and some of theirs were every bit as good as the best of the Beatles. So my vote goes for Paul and Art.
I have the exact opposite experience. There are three Beatles songs I personally don’t enjoy listening to and tend to skip (She’s a Woman, Don’t Pass Me By, and Octopus’s Garden), but I find it nearly impossible to listen to a full S&G album–any S&G album. And I adore Paul Simon fiercely. But in order to get to the stuff I really wanted, I just had to buy the “Best Of” collection for S&G (Paul Simon on his own is a completely different story and I think Graceland might be the single best album ever produced by anybody ever).
Paul Simon writes beautiful lyrics. It’s difficult to argue otherwise. But The Beatles represented true innovation. Now, if you prize the lyrics above everything else in an album or a song, you might give the edge to S&G, but from the top down, the Beatles were interested in exploring and experimenting. They had very little to work with and sometimes they demanded things of George Martin that shouldn’t have been possible but they made it possible. When you consider the full scope of what they accomplished, and the fact that they did it in a span of 7 years, it’s difficult to even discuss S&G in the same breath.
The Beatles are overrated but only because everyone goes on and on and on about how great they were - nobody can ever really live up to all the hyperbole that gets thrown around when The Beatles come up in conversation. In my experience a lot of people around my age (20) think the Beatles are great but don’t quite understand what the gigantic deal is. I understand the reasons for this and it happens with lots of super-acclaimed artists like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson.
That said they’re still one of my all-time favourite bands. Simon & Garfunkel are also one of my favourite artists - seeing them live last year was an amazing experience - but the Beatles are better.
At one time it would’ve been the Beatles, hands down, but now with even numbers, it’s harder to say. Is this bare-knuckle, or can they use weapons?
They insist upon themselves.
Would you rather be a Kellogg’s corn flake, floatin’ in your bowl takin’ movies? 
This is way too apples and oranges to me. Anyway, just on sheer volume of recordings, cultural and musical impact/influence, record sales, longevity…I don’t see how anyone could vote against the Beatles.
The Beatles’ body of work is breathtaking, it’s incredible. I love S&G, but come on, this isn’t a fair fight.
What? What does that even mean?!? 
I think Paul Simon is perhaps a more polished writer than Lennon and McCartney, and you can’t argue with the quality of songs such as “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, which is as good as anything the Beatles wrote. But while I can, at a stretch, still imagine Lennon/McCartney coming up with something like that song, I cannot imagine Paul Simon writing “I am the Walrus” or “Strawberry Fields Forever” or one of the other Beatles songs that seemed to come from another dimension. I just think the Beatles, particularly Lennon, were more original. The influences are more apparent in Simon’s work.
As songwriters I’d rank them Lennon, Simon, McCartney, but it would be close.
You find the Beatles bland and boring, but not S&G? What criteria are you using to make that determination? Don’t get me wrong, I like Simon and Garfunkel, but musically, I’d say they’re way more bland than the Beatles. I also find Simon’s lyrics far too college poetry-ish; IMHO, they never wrote a lyric as good as “Eleanor Rigby” (and that one was by McCartney, for God’s sake, who was no Lennon when it came to words).
Agree 100%.
Beatles>Simon & Garfunkle>Hall & Oates
Paul Simon is great but the Beatles had a lot more range in their work.
Well, like I said, it’s very ymmv. I totally disagree with you. And I personally find “Eleanor Rigby” to be a very dull song and would never listen to it intentionally.