I voted for George, cause he always looked the coolest.

this is tough for me..

I think Ringo is the only one im not really a fan of

Paul for me. I love all the Beatles but with Wings & solo songs, Paul wins.

Well I didn't pick the name Harrison2217.

I think all the Beatles solo material is very patchy. A couple great albums here and there but none of them really continuously dominated at a high artistic level. Unless you count Paul and Wings. Lennon's first two albums are fantastic. After that very hit or miss. Lennon did always manage to release good singles. I think by the mid 70s he just didn't care about making music anymore.

The rather bizarre ELECTRONIC SOUNDS aside, George is the only Beatles never to put out a completely duff solo album.

Reading the extended version of ALL THESE YEARS has only made me realise how important he was as a founding member of The Beatles.

And George always looked cool. And he's a sarcastic bugger like Noel.

John Lennon because of Plastic Ono Band and Imagine.

John Lennon.

Paul has become a cartoon of himself, I like some of George's stuff but I'm not a massive fan and Ringworm, sorry Ringo has become a complete shit head. (Thomas The Tank Engine was good though)

"Don't call me by my stage name!..."

Paul McCartney isn't it?

My favourite post Beatles solo album is All Things Must Pass, but for sheer consistency, it's Paul. Even his new album is brilliant - didn't like Memory Almost Full at all, but most things he releases is quality. The Fireman 2008 album is a really brilliant underrated gem.

Lennon's first two albums are brilliant but there's nothing after that worth mentioning. Perhaps Paul never quite reached the heights of Plastic Ono Band, but he could constantly churn out an album as good as Imagine. Therefore, I'm amazed as to why Lennon is winning this - surely the most overrated Beatle?

Yes. Easily imo. He was the driving force behind The Beatles during their peak. His solo career is also filled with classics. As Alan Partridge once said, "Wings?, they're only the band The Beatles could have been."

I think that some people forget how legendary and prolific he was simply because he is fading out. If Paul had died in 1980 I think he would easily be leading this poll.

People have rose-tinted spectacles when thinking of John. He died at such a young age, so when we think of him, he's still the same man who embodied peace, love and harmony and all that around the time.

Paul's grown old with everyone - he's more like us so he's less unique plus his persona isn't so complex like John, and unfair criticisms such as The Frog Chorus (which was written for a childrens film) does seem to surround the man.

It's not 'cool' to think the man who wrote When I'm Sixty Four, Yellow Submarine, Hey Jude, Let It Be and many major mainstream hits is better than the man who offered philosophical, psychedelic ramblings in Strawberry Fields Forever and Tomorrow Never Knows (which are great tunes don't get me wrong). But get this - I'd rather listen to Ob La Di Ob La Da than Bungalow Bill, the latter of which is Lennon's own childlike song. Yet nobody takes him up on it. And don't start me off with Revolution No 9. This is not me slating John, but I just never hear these similar arguments levelled against him that Paul gets. Another thing I find frustrating is that the centrepieces of arguably their two greatest albums - Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road - is the brainchild of Paul. The second half medley of Abbey Road was an idea conjured up by George Martin and Paul, and Paul himself contributed the greatest part of Abbey Road (notably the last half of the medley). But again, the hipsters like to concentrate on the fact he wrote Maxwell's Silver Hammer to degrade him (but I love that song anyway).

As for Revolver, John makes the album it is with every song of his being brilliant, but the best song is actually Eleanor Rigby personally - I think the poignancy and tragedy and it's almost Dickensian/Victorian like qualities make it the best Beatles song on that album. And for such a psychedelic album, ironically the song is the complete opposite yet works all the better for it as the imagery is so much more realistic stark and vivid than the surreal psychedelia offered on that album. Whereas John's songs are much more of a mindfuck, there's a familiarity with Paul that provided The Beatles with such groundedness to their ambition.

Therefore, I think there's much pretentiousness involved in thinking John's better amongst elitists. This is not for ALL John fans obviously (many genuinely do love his songs more), but it's pseudo-intellectuals who need to drop the pretense and look at it objectively, rather than jumping on the bandwagon to appear 'cool' and 'trendy'.

Wings is really shit in my opinion, but Paul's newest albums have all been decently consistent and his work with The Fireman is pretty good. He had a chance to grow old and he has done it pretty well. There is just something wonderfully magically about Paul's writing it is pure pop perfection even to this day on some of his tracks, he just nails it. If you want to write the most hummable song in the world you need to study Paul's work.

George has the best post beatles album with All Things Must Pass.

But John is my favorite songwriter in the Beatles. He has a couple great solo albums and I just happen to like his Beatles songs the most. He turned out some shit ones but he was fearless in his writing and I really really admire that. I'am the Walrus, In My Life, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Strawberry Fields were all written by the same guy? Damn... (you could say Paul has the same level of diversity but still Paul didn't have as much edge as John did with regard to his songs, for the most part anyway.)

There really isn't a best Beatle, but the Beatles are the best.