Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the more creative composer of this duo?

Paul was a remarkable singer in his own right.
Comparing the two is an exercise in futility.
Who knows what nonsense John could have produced if his life hadn't been cut short.

You're right that McCartney is a brilliant composer, but dead wrong about Lennon. Some of the songs he wrote by himself both with and after the Beatles include:

With the Beatles:

"Come Together"
"All I've Got to Do"
"I Should Have Known Better"
"It's Only Love"
"Not a Second Time"
"You Can't Do That"
"This Boy"
"Don't Let Me Down"

Songs After the Beatles

"Imagine"
"Instant Karma"
"Beautiful Boy"

Songs Given Away:

"Bad to Me"

and that's just what I can think of quickly.

"Love take me down to the streets...."

hey-pack. good to see you posting

Hey Panzade!

I nearly always read these types of threads, but usually don't have much to add...in this instance, I came of age a decade or so later than many of our members here, so the Beatles did not change my life, so to speak. As a music lover, I give props to the Fab 4, for what they achieved...musically...socially...etc....but to be honest, there are only a few Beatles songs that I liked, or still listen to today. I kinda relate their music to any of the catchy commercial jingles that were all over the radio and tv, during my youth....30 seconds of a Beatles song, such as Love Me Do....and it's....."Ok, I get it"...next song please.

On the other hand, there are several of the solo songs I listen to quite often, from John, Paul, George and yes, even the almost never mentioned Ringo....he was a pretty good drummer. If I had to pick just one, I'd say Watchin' the Wheels by John, is my all time fav of any "Beatles" song....the slow piano, the poetry...it's just such a easy groove....he is just so calm in that song, while he is telling people to stfu. Then there is Let 'Em In by Paul, a song with a very similar pace and structure...anyway, I don't want to babble, just mainly wanted to say that I find it near impossible to pick...who was the best....between two of our all time greatest talents.

Now if the convo would shift to Stones vs Beatles, then it's a no contest, Stones all the way.

Love take me down to the streets...is a joke, a very cool "Wings" joke, that comes from the movie Role Models.

Hey 2-Pack, I can see why the commercialization of the Beatles puts you off. I only started appreciating them when I read up on their work in Abbey Road studios.

Not to post off topic, Harrison was a great composer too. Here's his Beatles song, "I Need You."

His next song "If I Needed Someone" incorporates the same suspended root chord structure in the opening but one can tell the band was quickly evolving in its recording and harmony skills

Lennon and McCartney were not creative songwriters in any way, shape or form, they were a front for George Martin who arguably ghostwrote the Beatles' famous hits from 1962-1970 while in the process of producing their famous recordings. Lennon and McCartney clearly could not write songs to save their lives as is made glaringly evident on the basis of the absolute difference in the artistic quality and musical style of their recordings and songs written after the Beatles disbanded in 1970. Without the creative genius of George Martin ghostwriting the iconic Beatle songs behind the scenes, the unmistakable and unique musical/literary style that made the Beatle songs famous was never again able to be successfully reproduced or repeated even remotely by either Lennon nor McCartney, for the simple reason that they were never at all creatively capable of composing songs anywhere near to such musical/literary quality as George Martin’s, or that even remotely capture the unique essence of George Martin's songwriting style which was the principal ingredient that made the Beatles what they eventually became as a group.

In direct answer to the question posed here, neither Lennon nor McCartney were in any way, shape or form creative or talented composers. Their only talent was a youthful and fresh stage presence and their vocal talent, both of which served George Martin primarily in placing and establishing the Beatles successfully as a competitive presence in the lucrative teenage market, indeed as the iconic pop group of the period. Pragmatically the band served George Martin in making his personal fortune as well as that of the group. Lennon and McCartney had absolutely no talent in songwriting either during their pre-1962 collaborative years or ever afterward, during their post-George Martin solo careers. McCartney to this very day has no such talent. As far as songwriting is concerned, without George Martin present in point of fact hey proved themselves both before and forever afterwards to be quite dismal and mediocre songwriters and composers from any impartial and reasonable perspective.

Nice try George Martin.

All you've done is point out the glaringly obvious reality that four extremely talented musicians worked better as a collaborative team than they did individually.

I don't discount Martin's influence on the Beatles. But if he were the primary inspiration for their music, then he could have performed the same function for another band following the dissolution of the Beatles.

I was gonna say the same thing but figured you'd do it better

The contention that Martin wrote those songs himself is too stupid to need any other comment. Whether or not one likes the solo productions of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, there is no textual basis for alleging that the quality of the song writing had deteriorated. "Imagine" and "Silly Love Song" are classic examples of the kind of songs Lennon and McCartney wrote. Harrion's last album was a classic of his writing style.

This is false. Martin never wrote or ghost-wrote a single Beatles song. He made suggestions, as every producer does. There are probably at least a hundred biographies of the Beatles and I've read many of them. The composing process is discussed in detail in some of them and there is no mention of Martin taking a significant hand in composition. I therefore challenge you to cite any Beatles biography in existence which supports your notion that he did.

As for them being mediocre songwriters, you don't have 27 number one hits by luck.

There was from a musically formal standpoint no ‘collaborative effort’ , as such, between the four members of the Beatles band,. from 1962-1970. Each and every one of the Beatles' songs and albums were laboriously and minutely musically written, arranged and/or orchestrated, as the case might be, by George Martin and it was George Martin himself who wrote the songs, not Lennon and/or McCartney who didn’t possess the songwriting talents or skills to write their out of a paper bag, separately or as a team. Paul McCartney to this very day still possesses no such talent.

The most important and fundamental error in your comment is in aknowledging George Martin’s influence on the Beatles but simultaneously failing to acknowledge, recognize or even mention George Martin's total absence or lack of influence, precisely after 1970 during Lennon and McCartney's dismal solo songwriting careers, because essentially therein lies the definitive stylistic musical key or elements that fundamentally and categorically reveals a musicological fact: that each and every song written by Lennon or McCartney individually or as a team, both before 1962 and after 1970, is from a musically harmonic, melodic, literary/textual, formal, analytical and musicological point of view structurally different and mutually exclusive from the hit songs that George Martin wrote and produced for the Geatles during their ‘glory’ years from 1962 to 1970.

The different song catalogues in question, ie., Lennon and/or McCartney's pre-1962 and post-1970 song and album catalogues, on the one hand, and the George Martin Beatles’ song and album catalogue that contains the hit songs that he wrote and produced for the groug from 1962-1970, are fundamentally and categorically different and mutually exclusive from a musicological, ie., artistic and stylistic and form analytical point of view. Lennon and McCartney's trite songs and albums bear their simplistic and unsophisticated stylistic musical fingerprints or imprint, just as George Martin's songs and albums necessarily and unavoidably bear his own stylistic musical imprint, and these stylistic musical imprints or fingerprints, just like our own physical fingerprints, are categorically untransferrable from one person to another.

Given that you make mention of the subsidiary detail, George Martin could indeed have performed the same ‘function’, as you put it, for any band, however, he signed the Beatles under contract not any other band, and it was precisely for considering them to be the ideal vehicle for capturing the lucrative teenage demographic, in Britain and especially in the USA. George Martin made his immense personal fortune along with that of the Beatles precisely by implementing his marketing strategy with phenomenal and unprecedented success from 1962 to 1970, inclusive. What conceivable or rational reason would he, or anyone in his positon, possibly have for seeking out any other band?...Your observations, your rationale and your arguments are pointless, of course.

I suggest to the other participants in this thread that there's no point in arguing with this joker. He's just making it up as he goes along, and his ipse dixit claims are unsupported, while his slurs of the members of the group are belied by their separate performances after 1970.

Don't waste your time, guys.

Each and every one of the Beatles' songs and albums were laboriously and minutely musically written, arranged and/or orchestrated, as the case might be, by George Martin and it was George Martin himself who wrote the songs, not Lennon and/or McCartney who didn’t possess the songwriting talents or skills to write their out of a paper bag, separately or as a team. Paul McCartney to this very day still possesses no such talent. Each and every song written by Lennon or McCartney individually or as a team, both before 1962 and after 1970, is from a musically harmonic, melodic, literary/textual, formal, analytical and musicological point of view structurally different and mutually exclusive from the hit songs that George Martin wrote and produced for the Beatles during their ‘glory’ years from 1962 to 1970.

The different song catalogues in question, ie., Lennon and/or McCartney's pre-1962 and post-1970 song and album catalogues, on the one hand, and the George Martin Beatles’ song and album catalogue that contains the hit songs that he wrote and produced for the group from 1962-1970, are fundamentally and categorically different and mutually exclusive from a musicological, ie., artistic and stylistic and form analytical point of view. Lennon and McCartney's trite songs and albums bear their simplistic and unsophisticated stylistic musical fingerprints or imprint, just as George Martin's songs and albums necessarily and unavoidably bear his own stylistic musical imprint, and these stylistic musical imprints or fingerprints, just like our own physical fingerprints, are categorically untransferrable from one person to another.

Thank you for your reply.

Yup. Just a lame-ass troll and copy/paste "artist."

I guess getting his Wikipedia edits reversed got old, and he's here to see whom else he can snow.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

I asked you to cite a biography or history book which supports your contention, not to restate it. Why didn't you?