Some of my favorite John songs aren’t the ones most commonly mentioned for him, e.g., “I Feel Fine,” “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away,” “Rain,” “And Your Bird Can Sing,” “Norwegian Wood” and “Ticket to Ride” (Paul contributed some to the writing of the last one).
Paul’s ability to write one beautiful melody after another is truly mind-boggling to me. Obviously, John was less talented in this area, but I feel like his ability to write a melody is underappreciated.
Maxwell Silver Hammer? Ebony and Ivory? Most of his Wings stuff? His abominable Christmas song that is even now stuck in my head like a torture device? This is the guy who wanted to take OUT “the movement you need is on your shoulder” from Hey Jude and John had to tell him not to… He named Yesterday “Scrambled Eggs” at first (and even if that was the working title, surely the melody itself would have lent itself to something more substantial.
Paul is a great musician, probably a genius. He made some really great, meaningful, deep songs. But he is more attracted to the more bubble gum of pop–I don’t think he listened as John did when Dylan said that lyrics matter. YMMV-it is indeed all subjective.
Of course, Lennon had plenty of silliness too. What about the cringeworthy, soupy dreck of “Woman”? (Hell, much of Double Fantasy is crap to me.) The weirdness for weirdness’ sake of “I Am the Walrus” (albeit a great song, musically) and “I Dig a Pony”? The train wreck awfulness of “You Know My Name (Look Up My Number)”? And for the simplistic do-gooding sappy vibe of “Ebony and Ivory” I’ll match you with “Give Peace a Chance” or “War is Over.”
I’ll defend Maxwell’s Silver Hammer" with my dying breath. What’s wrong with black humor? I love its cheery grimness. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s a Monty Python sketch set to music. I’ll counter it with “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.” A song I happen to like, BTW, but I’m just saying if this had been a Paul song we’d be hearing plenty of mockery. And if “Fixing a Hole” had been a John song, people might be pointing to it as more proof of John’s introspective poetry.
Also I don’t see a problem with someone coming up with a silly placeholder text for a melody, especially an artist with a sense of humor. I suppose if it had been Lennon inserting nonsense text, he’d have used something like “oohgaboo” or “purple dog” and decades later everyone would be falling over themselves with how this proves how irreverent and witty he was. 
And for all the praise Lennon gets for reassuring McCartney about “the movement you need is on your shoulder,” McCartney is the one who wrote it in the first place! Lennon (and the others) wanted to take OUT “Yesterday” altogether, for pete’s sake.
McCartney, as influenced by / influential to pop music as he is, obviously also loves the depth of classical music and the experimentalism of the avant-garde, as seen in his work with the Firemen, not to mention Carnival of Light and his other experimental tracks – some of which, if I’m not mistaken, even ended up enhancing Lennon’s “Tomorrow Never Knows.”
I’m not saying Paul isn’t more enamored by pop – which, y’know, isn’t in and of itself a bad thing – my defense is simply that dismissing Paul as “shallow bubblegum” is way too broad a brush for a brilliant musician; seems to be a strawman argument. I don’t object to people calling him “not as deep as Lennon.” It’s only when one says flatly “Paul is shallow” that my hackles get raised.
Although John is my favorite, I appreciate Paul’s creativity in writing songs that paint a scene from everyday life: “Paperback Writer” (Paul wrote it in the form of a letter and added ‘Frere Jacques’ harmony); “Eleanor Rigby” (violin backing was Paul’s idea); “Yellow Submarine” (fun children’s song written for Ringo); “Penny Lane,” (trumpet solo written by Paul); “Lady Madonna” (hard-driving bluesy piano written by Paul). For Sgt. Pepper’s, Paul conceived of the idea of the Beatles role-playing as another band. And, in the aggregate, Paul’s optimism and sense of fun balanced out the often darker and more serious works by John and George, e.g., Paul’s songs “We Can Work It Out,” “Got To Get You Into My Life,” “Good Day Sunshine,” “Lovely Rita,” and “Hello, Goodbye.”
John was the most talented, and the one who shaped the Beatles. But the question is asking… individually, take a mop-topped liverpudlian, look at 'em, who’s your favorite?
Ringo. Cause he’s awesometastic.
Well, that’s to be expected when you’ve written 7 times as many songs as the other guy.
I like some of George’s stuff, but “I Need You”, “You Like Me Too Much”, “Think For Yourself”, “The Inner Light”, “Blue Jay Way”, “Piggies”, “I Me Mine” - I can live without all of them.
OK, choie–so it chaps your ass. So what? YMDV. Whatever. (I’ll never understand why one position seems to require an alternate position. IOW, me saying Paul is shallow must mean that I think John never was–not true. But enough of this. It’s boring).
I hold an alternate position. I found choie’s post really interesting. I’d like to see more knowledgeable people weigh in on the strengths and weaknesses of the various Bealtes in this thread.
I’m not so sure Paul was wrong here. What’s so great about this lyric?
So? Is this really valid criticism? The working title of a song was silly?
I think that John had the best voice, the best lyrics, and the best songs.
That said, I voted for Paul. I think that he was the most talented instrumentally, the biggest “team player” and the driving force throughout the latter half of The Beatles’ career. His bass playing was sublime, but he also contributed many guitar solos that many people probably think were George’s. “Taxman”, “Good Morning Good Morning”, and many other songs feature Paul’s lead guitar playing.
Paul was the most generous Beatle in terms of helping out with other’s songs. While John couldn’t be bothered to even play on most of George’s songs, Paul was always there making a great song even better. It didn’t matter if it was his song, George’s song, John’s or Ringo’s. Most of my favorite John songs are indebted to Paul. Paul recorded all the futuristic tape loops for “Tomorrow Never Knows” at his house and brought them into the studio. He contributed the middle section to “A Day in The Life” and conducted the famous orchestral swell at the end. He played the Mellotron intro to “Strawberry Fields Forever”, which sets the bittersweet, nostalgic mood for the whole song. And by all accounts, “Come Together” sounded like a Chuck Berry song until Paul came in with that grooving bass line.
He wrote his own great songs as well of course. “Penny Lane”, “You Never Give Me Your Money”… it’s pointless to list them all. In the end, I think John relied heavily on Paul and George Martin to realize his songwriting…which isn’t a condemnation. That’s how bands work. I just don’t think that Paul is given the credit he is due.
And I love George and Ringo too.
I think that Paul was the biggest driving force throught out ALL their career, from start to finish. I don’t think that The Beatles would have happened if it hadn’t been for Paul’s ambition. Oh, we might have had a few recordings made by a nearly unknown group from the UK, but without Paul’s ambition and drive, whatever group or groups that formed would have mostly played in taverns. And in turn, the British Invasion probably wouldn’t have happened, and pop/rock music would be vastly different today.
I still like George the best, though. I will admit that Paul was a big factor in making The Beatles (and isn’t it properly The BEATLES?) what they were. Probably he was THE biggest factor.
Fair enough. I actually do find discussions like this interesting, but don’t care for my position being invalidated by someone else differing with it. One of the most fascinating aspects of THE BEATLES is that we are so spoiled for choice–and isn’t it a wonderful thing that we are.
IMO, George Martin was more of a driving force (as was Brian Epstein) with the Fab Four–they had the discipline and the maturity to realize “the poppermost of the toppermost”. That said, Paul was the most disciplined of them all musically.
Shoot - where is the post I pulled together for this thread 
:mad: Darn message-board gremlins…
Anyway, this isn’t quite true. In terms of Epstein, two of the last words to use to describe him would be “discipline” or “maturity” - he was a mess! But he was a mess that was passionate and committed to the Beatles’ success, and willing to knock on doors and negotiate whacky (and, usually, economically ill-conceived) deals that forwarded their cause.
George Martin taught the Beatles the craft of the studio and committing a song to tracks. But to be clear: there is a difference between creating and executing, and the Beatles created while Martin executed. Paul (and John) wrote Eleanor Rigby; Martin participated in the brainstorming about the arrangement, either suggested or ran with the idea of a string section and wrote out the arrangements. But it’s Paul’s (mostly) song, NOT Martin’s. Done.
As for the Beatles themselves, digging into comparisons is a complex slog…
Did anyone see the interview of Paul by Steven Colbert where Colbert asked him “So… who was your favorite Beatle?”
Very funny moment.
From what I’ve read, Paul contributed in significant ways to John’s songs, but John also contributed to Paul’s. (Of course, it’s hard to know the accuracy of after-the-fact reconstructions of who contributed what, especially when they are based on interviews conducted long after the songs were written and recorded, but I find the reported information about the songwriting to be interesting nonetheless.) “I’ve Got a Feeling” from Let It Be is a combination of two unfinished songs, one by Paul and one by John. And John wrote the middle eight for Paul’s “We Can Work It Out” (the part that goes “Life is very short, and there’s no time, for fussing and fighting my friend…”). In both of these songs, the contrast between Paul’s and John’s sections elevates the song. John wrote the famous guitar riff and most of the lyrics for “Day Tripper.” For “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” John grumpily banged out an up-tempo version of Paul’s piano intro; John’s version was ultimately chosen for the song. In “Lady Madonna,” John added the lyric “see how they run,” which refers to children in one verse and stockings in the next. In “I Saw Her Standing There,” John reportedly suggested the lyric “you know what I mean” to replace Paul’s “never been a beauty queen.” As I’ve said, I am in awe of the genius of both Paul and John. But John has always been my personal favorite.
Not quite right - Paul had “you know what I mean” as filler lyric, kinda like using “scrambled egg” before “Yesterday” - and was telling John that he would work the lyric out later, a la “…beauty queen.” John told him to keep the lyric - which is why John was a goddamn genius.
Oops. Sounds like I fell victim to some pro-John propaganda on that one. Good work, Paul - it’s probably my favorite line in that song.
I have to go with Paul. Paul is the Beatle I most relate to.
Paul was less talented than John but more driven and ambitious.
In my opinion, Georges contributions were too small for him to be my favorite. Though he was really coming into his own on Abbey Road.
IMHO, it’s one of the best lines in rock n’ roll - ever!
Why yes, we know exactly what you mean.
and I would give John the credit, frankly - Paul didn’t know what he had but John did. Paul thought things through; John worked from his gut. It took Paul something like a year or more to finally commit the Yesterday hook to a song - he kept wondering who’s song it was that he was remembering, because it was so obvious and elegant a melody and chord structure…
I mostly agree on the mind versus gut analysis, but to be fair to Paul, I’ve read that John, George and Ringo weren’t very supportive of “Yesterday” at the time it was written, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear (possibly because they questioned whether the song fit the group’s image). Maybe Paul was over-thinking the song, but assuming that bit of history is true, then I think it makes sense that Paul might have lacked confidence in the song and worked on it relatively slowly.