Myself?
McCartney!
You?

McCartney is awesome, but I preferred John's songs on every album. And some of my least favorite Beatle songs happen to be from Paul. I guess it's a coincidence.

Lennon for me and it's not even really close. I also prefer Harrison as well.

I prefer Lennon to McCartney. I tend to gravitate to his style a little more than Paul's. But, having said that, I also like McCartney a great deal. They complimented each other very well, and without one the other may not have been able to fully realize their talents.
Don't call it a comeback. I've been here for years.

Paul has made some brilliant album openers - Drive my car, and the title tracks on Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. But Mull of Kintyre? It's like Scotland's a dampener on musical inspiration (unless you happen to be from there like Annie Lennox). Live and Let Die and The Frog Chorus are great though.

Paul's music is just so dull. He made only 2 decent solo albums - Band on the Run and Venus and Mars. He was Salieri to John's Mozart. Everyone knows that George Martin was on team Paul. He's turned into a one-percenter with his Hampton's crowd and hanging with Warren Buffet. No true R&Rer would have accepted a knighthood (you too Mick). John would have never sold out like Paul.
Ladies and gentlemen, here he is Mr238. Warmth himself, the one, the only - Mr. Don Rickles!

The reason I call Penny Lane nice is McCartney was undoubtedly being inspired by not only The Beach Boys Pet Sounds but also by the for a long time unreleased Smile and McCartney was doing it in a less emotionally affecting way. So genius is a little too strong a word for me on that basis even though, compared to many songs by other artists, it's a good package about a world that was sadly disappearing. And I love Oh Darling - mainly because McCartney sounds Lennon-like on it, husky, angrily passionate. Concept album-wise, by the way, I'll take The Small Faces' Ogden's Nut Gone Flake, Smile and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.

An interesting read.
However, I can explain precisely and in long boring detail why I regard Paul as greateralthough I stress again that I don't think there's much in it. They're almost as great as each other.
Firstly, John was more limited melodically than Paul. His strongest period was during 1964-1965, when they were tending to write simpler style rock songs. Paul's strongest period was end of 1965 through 1966 and 1967, when they wrote their most ambitious and often most brilliant works.
Secondly, George Martin said many times that Paul could articulate exactly what he wanted in the recording studio, whereas John would say things like he wanted it to sound like an 'orange'. As a result, John was often left unhappy with the recordings they made, but that was one of his failings: he couldn't put into words or instruments what was in his head. Does that mean these indescribable sounds were genius? We'll never know.
Thirdly, I have noticed that John would often rewrite himself without even realising it. As an example, listen to the opening piano phrase for Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. Its a wonderful phrase, absolutely masterful. But now sing the words to Dear Prudence right over the top and you'll notice that it fits pe2000rfectly. I love Dear Prudence, but the almost carbon copy of the melody shows John's limitations, and there are other examples of where he did this.
Paul on the other hand wrote mind blowing extremes. For example, during the Help! sessions he presented three new songs on the one day: Yesterday, I've Just Seen A Face and I'm Down. All three range from excellent to genius, and all three are completely different styles from one another. He did this again during the White Album sessions when he wrote Blackbird and Helter Skelter. You cannot be any more contrasting than this, and yet both are brilliant.
But I would like to make commentary on some of your thoughts regarding their albums. You surprise me with your remarks about Magical Mystery Tour: Strawberry Fields, All You Need Is Love, Penny Lane, etc were never on it. They were shoved on there by Capitol records in the US. In actual fact, the only thing that John wrote for that release was I Am The Walrus (my all-time second favourite Beatle song, by the way). Paul contributed the title track along with Fool On The Hill and Your Mother Should Know, George contributed Blue Jay Way, and all four of them contributed the forgettable Flying. So essentially, MMT is very much a Paul record. All the other songs were old singles that Capitol added to flesh out a full album.
Paul contributed more than the bridge on A Day In The Life. He helped John with much of the other section, and was very instrumental in helping to come up with the other great ideas that song presents. Most historians regard it as a true 50-50 collaboration, and I agree with them.
The White album is my favourite album from anyone, period. So much depth, so many amazing songs, and so rich with material were they that they didn't even bother to add Hey Jude (my favourite Beatle song) and Revolution to the album, despite recording them in the same sessions. AMAZING!
I love Abbey Road, but I see it as a sign that John and Paul were finished as infallible Beatles. As far as hits go, they came up with Come Together and Oh Darling: the worst effort by either of them in the band's 7 year career. Ironically, the album had to be saved by George and Ringo, who contributed the brilliant Something and Here Comes the Sun, and the simple but lovely Octopus's Garden. Oh, and I don't like You Never Give Me Your Money. I don't like how Paul follows the piano note for note with his vocal, its an amateurish effort from him. He could always be relied upon to compose multiple layers of melody that never followed the same path at any point during the song. His work on Abbey Road disappoints me, but somehow the album is still great.
One last note: to say that Penny Lane and Here There and Everywhere are 'nice' is ridiculous. I would call them 'genius', just as I would Strawberry Fields and All You Need Is Love.

It tends to go without saying (even though it should be said) for those people who regard Lennon as the greater of the two that Lennon's music within The Beatles was sometimes ethereal meets pastoral- e.g. Because, Strawberry Fields Forever, I am the walrus. It was Englishn5b4ess meets avante garde. But that wasn't all Lennon did. It seems obvious to say it but many po-faced people don't quite believe it, after Lennon went peacenik in the 70s- Lennon was a very down to earth, humourous person with a streak of seaside postcard sauciness to him. Listen to Mean Mr Mustard, Polythene Pam. Combine all these things together and what you have is a wonderful, beautiful, absurdist in a tradition, I would say, stretching back to the Victorians. Add in the heavy rock of I Want You (She's So Heavy) and, in Lennon, you have the Jim Morrison of The Beatles. Lennon offers so much that it can never be categorically 'proven' that McCartney beats Lennon, although personal arguments can be given why.
People generally don't seem to give a clearer idea why they would rate Paul higher other than that he could play bass guitar, wrote more of the early singles and gives cliched people a sentimental anthem to pin themselves to e.g. Yesterday, Let it Be. Despite, with a few notable exceptions, some crimes against music after he left The Beatles, Paul deserves more than that but neither he nor many of his fans tend to make a good case why.
Paul is, on the surface, the cuddlier one out of Lennon and McCartney. On the surface, he's the Gary Barlow of the 60s. For a long time, he wrote the 'nice' tunes, Here There and Everywhere, Penny Lane. And that it all undoubtedly true. But a streak of English lament also comes through 16d0McCartyney's work in Eleanour Rigby, Blackbird, even in Your Mother Should Know, a lament of a fading music hall world. The Edwardian pianist is in Paul in songs like When I'm 64 (originally written was he was 15) and Martha My Dear.
By the time of Sergeant Pepper, most Beatles songs were no longer more or less 50/50 affairs (although writing credits would always says so) but more or less all composed by one or the other, with a few minor additions by the other Beatle. Pepper is largely a McCartney album. The title song is McCartney's. With A Little Help From My Friends is largely McCarney's song. But what's the best song on the album? A largely Lennon song- A Day In The Life- although Paul contributes the bridge.
Although Magical Mystery Tour was conceived by McCartney, it's far more a Lennon album than the soft in the middle Pepper ever was. Sadly, Magical Mystery Tour often doesn't get regarded as a proper Beatles album because many of the songs featured in a lacklustre film of the same name! Which is a bizarre thing when it has such Lennon classics as I am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever and All You Need Is Love. But, numbers wise, McCartney has more songs on the album- the title song, the mysterious Fool on the Hill, the music hall Your Mother Should Know, the very catchy Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane.
One of the most interesting tracks on the album to me is Baby Your A Rich Man, and it is the only song on there that is genuinely a 50/50 Lennon/McCartney collaboration. As a result, it sounds rich, swirling in 60s fabulousness reminiscent of miniskirted girls waltzing down the street in London as wafts of strange smelling herbs come out of the windows.
The White Album in my opinion was not a great album but I'll call that album a draw between Lennon and McCartney. Back in the USSR , Blackbird and Martha my dear versus Dear Prudence and Glass Onion.
Abbey Road- for me, I can call that a draw because McCartney's You Never Give Me Your Money is a brilliant montage of a song, better than A Day In The Life actually. But Lennon is cool as a cucumber with Come Together and aforementioned tracks.
I just want McCartney himself to give people more of a reason to regard him as equal or better than Lennon by actually playing his quirkier Beatles tracks at concerts instead of his lighters in the air prototype Oasis anthems, no matter how catchy they may be.

No arguments from me.
Not only did he have the incredible foresight to keep them as a group instead of turning one of them into the leader, but his musical arrangement contributions were enormous right from the start.
But he was nobody without John and Paul. They wrote the songs, and arguably they would have eventually found fame without George Martin, while he would have found continued obscurity without Lennon and McCartney.

GeorgeMartin.
Ladies and gentlemen, here he is Mr. Warmth himself, the one, the only - Mr. Don Rickles!

Definitely McCartney, if we're talking musical composition. I regard him as the greatest musical genius of all time, with Lennon a close second. Lyrically I regard Lennon as better, but while they were together Paul's lyrics were excellent. I think this was because he tried harder since he knew John would cast a critical eye and ear over his work. Later, after they'd split, McCartney's lyrics were embarrassingly bad, while John's remained strong.
Harrison I regard as an amateur song writer. He wrote some great songs while with the Beatles, but with John and Paul for inspiration all the time, that's not surprising. Harrison's lack of understanding of the music caused some big problems between him and McCartney. For example, Harrison actually suggested answering each vocal line with a matching guitar line in Hey Jude!! There is a tape of this that exists so that we get to hear George's idea during one of the takes, but fortunately Paul stuck to his guns and shot the suggestion down.
Oh, and just to clarify, yes I do regard Lennon and McCartney as being greater than Mozart or Beethoven. I love classical music and have over a hundred CDs worth of the stuff, but no classical composer could match the quantity and quality of output that L&M produced, and over such a short space of time (7 years). You have to remember, the greats were trained in composing classical music, while Lennon and McCartney were just two kids who practiced guitar together. Considering this, what they came to accomplish is astonishing.

George.

Definitely McCartney for me too.
.we're lucky if we last three months
John Lennon, 1963