Lennon or McCartney
 

John Lennon or Paul McCartney?

Who's yer' man and why?

neither. the beatles were the most overated band ever, and a very bad one too but my grandmam' likes the new Paul McCartney CD, and he didnt married someone named "yoko". so paul.

harrison

Damnit.. why do I have to agree with death of capitalism..... ... I suppose of the two choices John Lennon, he really had the vision, Paul was just a pop song writer.

lennon all the way, Imagine. he had the feel
and why cant i change my avatar? 20 x 20 wtf?

McCartney was the beatles

McCartney might have been the Beatles, but Lennon had the insight, and that is why he is regarded as one of the great symbols of international peace today. For sure he had a little help with some catchy pop songs in the beginning, but you can't engulf the world in flames with a couple of matches.
John Lennon gets my vote.

Death of capitalism, you have a good point about Harrison.
Without Harrison's understated influence on the Beatles, I doubt they would have developed in the way they did, particularly with the experimental stuff.

Both Lennon and McCartney had very different styles.
McCartney the romantic love song/ballad but Lennon's lyrics were far more adventurous, even dark at times and in true Lennon style, far more controversial.

If Lennon was alive today he'd still be cool, which is more than can be said of McCartney.

Like Clapton...

McCartney, amazing bass player, one who bassists still look to today for great bass lines. And to whatever donkey said he only wrote pop songs, please be more specicifc, if you think he didn't write anything in the later beatles years you don't know what your takling about, and I don't think "let it be" is the same as "penny lane". I want to know what you mean cause I think Lennon was a conveinent choice here, because he's algedly the "genious" but McCartney to me was the better all around musician.