Yoko Ono has revealed that John Lennon used to stay awake at night wondering why Paul McCartney's songs were more popular than his own and were more likely to be covered by other artists. Ono implied that Lennon's songs were more lyrically sophisticated than McCartney's. Which of the two Beatles had the greater songwriting talent?

Lennon and McCartney wrote an equal number of really great songs (about ten each). McCartney wrote a lot more good songs than Lennon did - i.e. technically accomplished melodies, well structured. Both wrote some dross. McCartney seemed to bring out Lennon's melodic side whereas competition with Lennon meant McCartney's later habit of writing banal lyrics was held in check in the Beatles. Lennon was the musical underachiever of the two - seeming to be distracted by charlatans and the latest fads. Michael Clarke, Buckinghamshire

Come on now everyone, you are missing the point. The comparison should be Beatles v Stones. Beatles tunes sound incredibly dated and simplistic today and just haven't aged well at all whereas at least the music of the stones has still got the balls, and musicianship. much more interesting too. Peter Davidoff, Woking

I think Ringo Starr is greater than both John and Paul. He wrote timeless classics like Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden. Who can forget these great sing-a-long tunes? Name and address withheld

Some well informed comments. I agree that Lennon and Macca should not be compared and I don't think that Yoko's comments should be taken too seriously either. She's understandably partisan. Geoff Denton, Guernsey

It largely depends on one's definition of good songwriting - Paul was the better musician, technically speaking. He had greater interest in song craftsmanship and the production that went with it. It could be argued, however, that John wrote with more soul - never willing to commit to music that which didn't ring true to him as a person. Compare this with the distance Paul achieves in songs such as Ob-la-di Ob-la-da or Maxwell's Silver Hammer. It is, of course, the juxtaposition of Lennon's snarling (but always heartfelt) delivery with McCartney's melodic, singsong quality that made the Beatles the whole package. Gary Feldman, London

I feel that Paul was the better songwriter. Though labeled simplistic, the mark of a good song is one that can stand as easily with one instrument and voice yet still carry the same impact, and Paul's songs definitely fit the bill. Greg Thompson, Charlotte, USA

John wrote interesting songs, Paul wrote catchy, generally happy ones. Most people listen to music as an escape. I think Paul is the superior musician (as stated earlier, he did darn near all of Sgt. Pepper's and has a wider range of talent), and his songs will be more likely to continue to be accepted because they're not political. John's songs may be interesting, but they're very angry. Mary Gibbons, Minneapolis

People continue to drive a wedge between the members of the Beatles and now the great debate is which was the better song writer. That is like asking, "What is better, Italian or Greek food?". They are both great but it depends what you are hungry for. For me it is the group that was the most important element. How these four guys made the greatest and most exciting sound that popular music ever heard. It is what matters, not who wrote what! Name and address withheld

Paul McCartney, John Lennon? It's not that simple. They were brought into line by each other. If something was lacking in the song the other would contribute and if John thought Paul was going a bit off the rails he would say so. They put each other on the right track. A Day In The Life is one example. John had nearly completed it but thought there was something lacking; Paul came along with the "Woke up got out of bed" bit that completed the song. We Can Work It Out" was two half songs by John and Paul. In their solo years they both had fantastic songs but there is always something lacking, they still needed each other and always will. When Paul wrote songs with Elvis Costello and Denny Lane neither had the status to say "come on Paul, this is crap". Paul's new album is very good and maybe it's because the Producer had the nerve to say what he thinks. The Beatles will alway be the best band in the world, no one has their talent or their lasting power. Rob Owen, Telford

Art cannot rightly be compared when the artists have reached the stage of technical mastery, as both Lennon and McCartney had. That's why the only way to resolve this will be to take a vote. That way it will be official. Richard Gillespie, London

Without a doubt John Lennon's oeuvre was much more sophisticated than Paul McCartney's. However, some songs by McCartney remain timeless classics. Perhaps the Lennon McCartney attribution of many songs remains the most apposite. Jeremy K, Madrid

What a tricky question - without a doubt Lennon was the more iconic of the two, but the better songwriter? If you look at the list, Macca probably wrote a greater percentage of the tracks, and therefore stood a greater chance of writing more great songs. Hey Jude, Let it Be, Yesterday, She's Leaving Home (virtually the whole of Sgt Pepper's) are all fantastic songs. Lennons contributions - I am the Walrus, A Day in the Life, In my Life, Revolution are also fantastic songs. Perhaps the answer lies in their success after the Beatles. Richard Tappenden, Ashford

Paul McCartney's songs were simple, catchy melodies. John Lennon's tunes were more complex and from Sgt Pepper onwards, increasingly more so. Both artists' songs were of equal levels of genius, and without each other, they would certainly not have achieved their iconic status. Tony Daforno, Altrincham

Its ridiculous to try to force a wedge between the two major English songwriters of the 20th century. Without the partnership, encouragement and competition of the other, neither would have reached the heights that they did. While Lennon was undoubtedly the more obscure and inventive, McCartney was more musically versatile, and no mean lyricist - as Ono admits, he wrote the accepted classics. Lennon/McCartney forever. David Knowles, Angouleme, France

It's a stupid question but I'm going to answer it anyway! Music fans will pick McCartney, while fans more impressed by attitude and "coolness" will pick Lennon. Of course it's deeply uncool to say so, but McCartney's songs are more sophisticated and more melodic. He was also more versatile - he wrote the classic rockers like Helter Skelter and Why Don't We Do It In The Road? Lennon's songs were probably more challenging, lyrically, but McCartney was the driving force behind the Beatles. Sean Cummins, Manchester

Why isn't George Harrison included in this debate? The Quiet One was a late starter but finished the Beatles' career with some very strong tunes. Richard Owen, Blaenllechau, Wales

McCartney was the greater songwriter by a mile. Most of the big Beatle songs were written by him. Yes, Lennon was the weird one, his life story is more entertaining, and yes he died tragically. When major artists die young they are elevated to cult status. It was McCartney's concept to do Sgt. Pepper. And the album is mostly made up of his songs. Arguably, the most critically adored Beatle album is Revolver and again this was a McCartney-dominated album. Their producer George Martin said many times that it was McCartney not Lennon who was the inquisitive one in the studio. And Lennon himself said that his music was simple and he liked to steal riffs from other artists and simply change the words. Words were Lennon's gift, much more than music. I don't mean to demean Lennon because he was truly a genius. It's just a sad fact that upon his death he was lionised at the expense of McCartney - and Lennon has become the "fashionable" choice as the better songwriter, partly because of his rebel image. Michael Kaplan, Coral Springs, Florida

Neither. I believe George Harrison was the great songwriting talent in the Beatles. Certainly Lennon and McCartney had talent, but Harrison had to graft to master the craft of songwriting. Witness his book I Me Mine , where you will see progress through the years. That was great talent: taking the raw materials and creating beauty. Something the greatest love song ever written? Mr Sinatra thought so. Peter Fitzpatrick, Dublin

Paul's songs are on the whole more interesting than John's, though John's lyrics are more poetic and basic, while Paul's songs go from one end of the universe to the the other. Jean-Paul Eijkelenkamp, Deventer, The Netherlands

Yesterday vs Imagine ? I don't think so! Why is there a debate? Lennon was a talented artist, as is McCartney. No argument as far as I can see. Their songs are generally memorable - does anyone really care if it was written by Lennon or McCartney? What about the songs they wrote together? There are many of these which are just fantastic. Please stop analysing and just enjoy the music and the lyrics of these two very talented men. Sue Selwyn, Gloucester

I can't believe that this debate has even started. To decide who is a better song writer and then compare the songs is nonsense. One is no better or worse than the other; they are different. The best way to highlight this is the song A Day in the Life. Both parts of the song (independently written) are effectively a nonsense, but combined make a wonderful song. The real debate is why isn't George Harrison considered to be on the same level as Lennon and McCartney when he wrote such beautiful songs such as Something and Here comes the Sun? Jason Wilding, Exeter

The composite songwriter called "Lennon McCartney" undoubtedly had the greatest talent. Like Gilbert and Sullivan, you can't have one without the other. John O'Byrne, Dublin