I'd take McCartney any day. Lennon hasn't made a decent tune in over 25 years. In all seriousness, thankfully both of these artists existed, Paul was responsible for as many amazing Beatles tunes as John. Some of the Beatles more delicate songs such as 'And I Love Her' are just perfect. Anyway, I'm sure you've just re-started an ongoing debate Air raid. Nice one!

I'd take them both... and if we got a youg lead guitarist... maybe that George guy and the drummer Richard -- no Ringo... well they'd be great.Obviously I like them all a lot, but I really think that the sum surpassed the greatness that they were/are individually... but whadda I know? Nice mix though... My problem, of course is that I have all 125 of their 15 albums...

Well waddya know. Air Raid's back and it's time for our old favourite -- the "great" Lennon versus McCartney debate. I THINK NOT!So let's skip it and examine the mix: Well it's a collection of songs by two of the finest songwriters that ever lived. Hard to go wrong then. Your selections and running order are obviously personal and there's a nifty anecdote to go with it. So it could be full marks. But, oh yes there's a but. But you set yourself an impossible task. Inclusions versus exclusions - the debate could be endless. Good to see "Let Me Roll It" (Paul's best John impression). Also good to see the exclusion of "How Do You Sleep" (a truly mean-spirited creation). "Imagine" - well I suppose this was inevitable, ho hum. No room for "Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five" (a McCartney masterpiece); Where's "Back Seat Of My Car"? Yes, I know, it's pointless, so I won't continue my list.One final point, surely "Revolution" (clearly a Lennon song, I accept) should be accredited to The Beatles; or this some live solo version? You should have chosen Paul for your band - he's a more versatile musician, has a better vocal range, and he won't kick the shit out of you if you piss him off too much; oh, and best of all, he won't bring Yoko Ono along to every rehearsal. You see how I avoided the most obvious drawback. Ah, I'm foolishly fuelling the fire. This is a mix of McCartney and Lennon songs, therefore, it's brilliant. How could it not be?

Nice set. As Nomates writes in his essay How could it not be?;- ]

Hey where's Sting in this mix?

24 "Paul" songs (give or take)
15 "John" songs (take or give)
1 "George" song & 5 written by the proverbial none of the above
Paul is batting .533, while John is hitting a respectable (esp. for a dead guy) .333. You're a closet Paul-guy, fellah!

I'd go with Sir Paul.

What,no Temporary Secretary? When I was younger Lennon was my favourite because his attitude spoke to my inner rebel. As I grew up I switched allegiance to McCartney because he didn't write Imagine. When I saw the video of Imagine with Lennon sitting at a spectacular white piano in a mansion crooning about a better world if we all gave up are possessions I felt overpowered by nausea. Blatant hypocrisy.....or just another case of a popstar who's view of reality is obscured by the walls of his anus?
That said, I think most of McCartney's solo work is insipid and sentimental. Then I consider his non solo efforts, Ebony And Ivory ( McCartney's Imagine), The Girl Is Mine and that thing he did with a bunch of animated frogs....................so once again I say, what, no Temporary Secretary?

I think McCartney has a better jumpshot, but Lennon could be threat in the paint.

Ah, the perennial debate. They're both brilliant in the Beatles, though I've always preferred John's songs (or at least the ones he sang - it's the voice and the style that does it for me). On the other hand, the post-Beatles material is spotty for both. I give it to John for a better high-quality percentage output. Also, I really like the last things he did; the production may be a bit heavy, but I think that his last love songs stack up easily against Paul's. As for a band - I'd rather have Paul for instrumentation and John for vocals. Of course, I'd much, MUCH rather have Ray Davies write the lyrics and the Kinks keep the beat. In fact, the hell with John and Paul!

I'm with you Sean. At least somebody would take Lennon. I just love the way he rocks.

Very nice! I', probably one of the few people who prefers John's solo stuff over The Beatles.

Sod the pair of 'em - give me Yoko Ono.

ah, the rivalry lives. great talents, fortunately they connected and pushed each other along to great heights. good mix.