When they was fab, who produced more in the song process-John or Paul

John was deemed more productive than Paul in the first half; Paul the
second half-so which of the two won as far as applied songwriting
material on record? For instance, the song "day in the life" was
two-thirds John and one-third Paul. So if all Lennon-McCartney songs
were divied-up like this which of the two would nudge the other
out..One book claimed Lennon suprisingly.

Runnnerr...

Gee, I didn't know that it was a competition.

Nowhere...

John was the main writer on more songs than Paul. Fact.

BrianQ...

Oh, it was Lennon, straight away.
When you break the songs down into little bits
and see who did what,
John comes up on top 13,357 to 12,994 for Paul.

I keep it in my wallet,
you know,
for those days when I'm just not sure.

Seefor...

Beatlesongs

Out of the catalogue of 209 songs, Lennon wrote 84.55, McCartney 73.65,
Harrison 22.15, and Starr is off the scale.

Lennon was the Beatles. Fact.

Runnnerr...

Another knowledgeable Beatles "fan" speaks with authority, wisdom and
insight.

Seefor...

And another Beatles "fan" doesn't understand irony

Runnnerr...

Poor Seefor, using big words again that he doesn't understand.

Have you mommy show you how to use a dictionary and then explain to you
what "irony" is.

Seefor...

"Irony" has lots of definitions, most of which jusitfy it's use in my last
statement:
1.. The use of words to express something different from and often
opposite to their literal meaning.
2.. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between
apparent and intended meaning.
3.. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical
effect. See Synonyms at wit.
Thanks to my 'mom' for help with that.