The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Paul McCartney gave a better musical contribution to the Beatles than John Lennon did.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,316 times Debate No: 24461
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Basically we're debating if John Lennon or Paul McCartney was a better musician, but not based on their solo careers, just on their time with the Beatles. I'm arguing that Paul was better. Yeah. Their isn't really anything to define unless you want to define anything.


Since I've got epic latency issues at the moment and can't play a single online game *twitch* I suppose I have a bit more time to do some debates. Like this one, which interests me.

There is a common point made amongst Beatle fans. That despite the sweeping Lennon/McCartney writiing credits on all their songs, that certain songs are "Paul" songs and others are distinctly "John" songs. An example of songs I consider to be "Paul" songs are Blackbird, Hey Jude and Yesterday. Some examples of "John" songs are Helter Skelter, Revolution and Everybodies Got Something To Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey). John didn't necessarily sing John songs and vice versa, but around the Rubber Soul/Revolver period, the songwriting duo definitely began writing different types of songs. I am a massive fan of Lennon and will be flying his freak flag high, god bless him.

There are other aspects outside this, but I will save my ample Beatle related knowledge until after my opponent has made an argument.

I accept this debate and look forward to seeing the outcome.
Debate Round No. 1


I wanna start off by saying that I think that John Lennon is one of the greatest musicians of all time. I'm sure you agree that McCartney is one of the greatest musicians of all time as well. I'm saying this just to remind everyone that a lot of arguments I will that are demeaning to Lennon make are just for the sake of the debate. Alright, lets get to it!

1. McCartney was a better songwriter
Both Lennon and McCartney were good songwriters. However, McCartney possessed a better songwriting talent. We can see this in many Beatles albums, especially the later ones. Lets look at Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart's Club Band, one of the groups most acclaimed albums, and the best selling album of the 1960's, and see who wrote which song:

Paul: Getting Better, Fixing a Hole, Lovely Rita, When I'm 64, She's Leaving Home
John: Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Good Morning, Mr. Kite
Both: Day in the Life, the title song, With a Little Help From My Friends.
Let's first examine Paul's songs. Getting Better is about a man who has anger issues, and how his new girlfriend is helping him get past these deep problems of his. Lovely Rita is about a man finding love in unexpected places, for instance, in a policewoman who is giving him a ticket. When I'm 64 is about a man declaring his undying love to his woman, and asking her to give it back to him as well. And She's Leaving Home, one of my favorite Beatles songs of all time, is a masterful ballad about a young lady who fails to find any meaning in her life, and runs away from her with her lover to find a meaning. Now let's look at John's songs. L.S.D is about and LSD trip, and has no meaning, Good Morning is based on an ad for Corn Flakes, and means nothing, and Mr. Kite is based on an antique poster Lennon bought at a flea market in Spain, and also means nothing. Now, before you tell me 'Your being shallow, these songs have underlying meanings...', Lennon himself made fun of those who tried to find a deeper meaning in his songs, admitting himself that they mean nothing. In fact, I am the Walrus and Glass Onion were written just to confuse people who tried to examine in Lennon's songs. Clearly, we can see that since McCartney's songs had meaning, they were better written then Lennon's.

2. McCartney was better at instrument playing
McCartney was a multitalented musician, something that greatly benefited the band. One instrument he was very good at was the bass. We see this on every album, but some of his greatest Bass lines were on Come Together, Tax Man, and Something. This is because he was innovative and creative with his bass lines, and Paul's bass playing often was the greatest part of songs. He was also a very good pianist. We see this especially in Let it Be, Hey Jude, and The Long and Winding Road. Paul also proved himself to be a very good drummer, playing the drums on Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence when Ringo walked out on the band. John, on the other hand, was a decent guitarist, but his guitar skills were nowhere as good as paul's bass skills were. Neither was John good at switching over to Bass. on The Long and Winding Road, John played bass, making many mistakes, and forcing Spector, the producer of the album, to use his now infamous 'soundwall' techniques to fix up the track. Paul was very good at switching over to guitar though. We see this most clearly in Tax man, with Paul's famous guitar solo, and Another Girl, where Paul used many guitar tricks, proving his skill. Lastly, Paul's vocal 'instrument' was much better than John's. While Paul had a range of G6 to A1, John has a range of G2 to A4. We can argue for pages about who has a better sounding voice, but the fact is that Paul has a much bigger ranger than John did.

3. Paul's songs were the most popular
Out of the last six Beatles singles to top the billboard charts, 5 of them (Hello Goodbye, Hey Jude, Get Back, Let it Be, and The Long and Winding Road) were written by Paul. Without the popularity of Paul's songs, the band would've disappeared from the public's eye in 1966, when the band stopped touring. John and George were more of the experimental musicians, while Paul kept the popular style of music. While popularity doesn't always necessarily mean the song is good, without it, the rest of the Beatles would never have a chance to become famous for their later, excellent music, and the Fab Four would just disappear as another 60's fab.

Thank you for participating in this debate with me. I look forward to reading your arguments!


tvellalott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


sidobagga forfeited this round.


tvellalott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I hate you. I was looking forward to debate this issue that has been pressing me for day's with a fellow Beatles fan, but of course, you just never even post an argument.


I am deserving of your hate and you are deserving of a resounding win here.

I'm sorry. :'(

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sidobagga 6 years ago
I forfeited because you forfeited. Now let's get back to the debate! Don't forget to post your argument this time
Posted by sidobagga 6 years ago
A better musician. As Beatles fans know, towards the end of the band, John and Paul largely split apart when it came to music and it was very easy to distinguish a Paul song and a John song. For example, Yesterday and Hey Jude were overwhelmingly written and sung by Paul, while Across the Universe and Revolution were largely written and sung by John. So pretty much whoever wrote/sung better songs.
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
What is the metric of being "better"? How are you going to measure "better"? A prospective opponent might like to know...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.