While most bands have a lead who gets the majority of the attention, the Beatles have never been that group. Instead, all four have been equally exalted and vilified, and all four have an enormous amount of talent in both voice and instrumentation. The fact that all four wrote songs for the group only adds to the question of which Beatles stands above them all.

Though John is the best Beatle (*ducking*), there are are also those who would argue that Paul's looks or songwriting talent place him above John. There are nearly as many George fans who appreciate his shyness and relative lack of ego. Ringo fans may be weirdos, but they appreciate the quirkiness of his vocals and songwriting as well as his scarf-wearing ability.

While every Beatles fan has his or her own favorite Beatle, some fans have chosen to make the case to a national audience. John Cherry did just that with his book "Better Than Lennon," 2009, The Peppertree Press. The book makes a step-by-step case to show why Paul was a superior Beatle to John, based on his levels of talent and creativity. The solo careers of each were also used to examine who had the best talents when the individual members weren't homogenized into one group.

While not everyone will agree with Cherry's assessment, Paul was one of the major forces behind the Beatles. Of course, all four members had a major impact on how the band developed, the music that it created and how the group was ultimately remembered.



So, who was the best Beatle? Paul McCartney, John Lennon or someone else? Or, was it the melding of all four talents that created the magic?