A couple weeks ago, someone said to me, "You know a lot of people like Paul McCartney, but when it comes to John, well they just love John Lennon." (referring to solo work, of course) I have to agree because I do like John's solo stuff better. So, Lennon or McCartney?

We've done this so many times already.
but, seeing as you ask ....as much as I like John's dreary self-pitying dirges and his whiney lets-record-in-the-toilet voice, it's That Macca by four lengths.

If you wanted this to be fair, you wouldn't post it in the John section.

I think John & Paul fell short as solo artists, if you want to be honest, with only a few gems here & there, but nothing like their Beatle days.  

Quoted from Mairi

If you wanted this to be fair, you wouldn't post it in the John section.

I was going to post in the Paul section  

They were both pretty strong songwriters but i've preferred McCartney in the
solo songwriter than Lennon, even though i always say that Lennon is my hero.
I love John because he was just so different than anybody else & i can relate to him
in many ways but i always prefered Macca as my fav songwriter of the 3.

Well, of course definitely McCartney. I'll just name some tips because my english is very limited!
The voice: Macca has the best sing, an amazing vocal range, and listen to Lennon... His voice many times cracks in the middle of a note. Just listen to Anthology 1 – when he tries to sing I'll Be Back in an earlier take he says 'too hard to sing' (too hard?). McCartney's voice always sounds strong, just listen to his latest records. Could you imagine John singing like that today, when he can't do it either when he was 40 years old?
The songs: McCartney wrote a major variety of kind of songs. He even recorded Classical. He's the most versatile, innovative Beatle. No question about it. Also consider that Sgt. Pepper is often referred as a McCartney album (as Lennon is the author of the 'A Hard Day's Night' album in its majority, but, can you compare them?).
The hits: Well, we can't discuss this. McCartney success during the 70's (when the 4 ex-Beatles were active!) was maybe as big as the work of the other 3 Beatles putting it together. And he's also making big hits in his 50th year of career.

Paul wins their's just so much stuff to love and hate .
Have been listening to Walls and Bridges, which is really begining to grow on me .
If John had only written a dozen more  solo songs like # 9 Dream , things could have been different . But he was such a lazy git  

DaveRam

Macca has to win hands down. The sheer volume of work speaks for itself even if you only take the period 1970 - 1980 into account. McCartney 13 albums, Lennon 7. In my opinion, of Lennon's 7 albums, only the first 3 are worthy. For the record, I agree with Wayne that I don't think McCartney has written anything as a solo artist that matches some of his best Beatles material, but I think John did it on at least one occasion. Also, as DaveRam said, John was a lazy git, and suffered without someone else to push him on.

I like the solo work of both of them (OK; I haven't heard all the Macca's albums...), cause he has like one album every year!
Of course, I don't like all, but I like songs like Give Me Some Truth and New York City which never appear on John's 'best of' albums...

Quoted from real01

but I like songs like Give Me Some Truth and New York City which never appear on John's 'best of' albums...

Funny that, they're both on 'Working Class Hero'.

As for their Beatles work, for me it changes from day to day. I like both about equal. The solo years I guess Paul had the better songs.

Paul! As a matter of fact, Johns solo stuff is my least favorite out of all of the Beatles.

Contrary to tkitna, I'll say John (regardless of my sub sentance avatar thing). I find Paul really talented (both of them, really, but musically-Paul). John's solo are quite honest and less lovey-dovey and they convey more of a message (and sometimes a global message).  

Paul for me hands down...his music appeals more to me.