Well Sir Paul's "Memory Almost Full" rocks more than Van has ever done. Both guys probably are well beyond their creative peaks, but I think Van has the easier time of it. Paul has to keep coming up with neat pop songs whereas Van just has to get into the groove of whatever muse is taking him at the moment.

I am not familuar enough with Van the Man's recent album outings, I have heard some of his albums and they are pretty good especialy his hit songs, however I am not a big bluesy / Jazz fan and a lot of his stuff falls into this catagorie. However Paul I am very familure with. I personaly find Paul's latest albums very mature and musicaly creative, in fact I find his latest releases including "Chaos and Creation In The Backyard" and "Memory Almost Full" more interesting than his work with The Beatles (even though I still Love the Beatles.) So to sum up, despite the fact that Van is a truely great Artist, I would have to Say That Paul McCartney turns out a better album, of course this is my taste to, so to a real big Van fan of course they will Love Vans stuff.

I like Van's music better. Paul's music is too clean. Too mainstream. I like oddstuff. Also I like performers that not many people know about. In my age group not many people know Van.

Paul was good when I was young but now I prefer more challenging artists. "Silly Love Songs" doesn't light my fire anymore.

Sir Paul is an old song and dance man. Van fuses celtic soul and African roots like someone making a daisy chain. Sir Paul is pop, always looking for the hook. Van follows his muse anywhere it takes him. And that road doesn't lead to the town of 'Commercial Success'. No apologies here.

I would love to see an album of Sir Paul's worst songs. That would be embarrassment in the extreme.

I like Van better. i think his music will sustain me as I get older. Something to listen to and talk about. Sir Paul is just rich.

Van is definitely more interesting. He's always surprising. Paul used up his massive supply of talent years ago. He has written 20 or so gems since 1970, but that isn't enough to keep buying his albums. Isn't Bob Dylan amazing?

Van really is interesting. Sir Paul is still trying to write the perfect pop song and the hooks ain't coming. Van's into a groove and follows his muse to where ever it takes him - country, soul, jazz, Irish, etc. Paul is just pop and rock with simple trite lyrics. Van's weird. Paul is your ultimate nice guy while Van is Mr Grumpy. To me that makes Van more real.

Paul is just your normal nice guy. How did he do it? How did this billionaire keep his head together? So he spent a year on cocaine and got busted for weed in Japan? The man is a legend but I wouldn't buy any of his post-beatles albums. Too low in quality.

Paul's bag of tricks dried up in the 70s. Van's still got it. His bag has some jute that he regularly throws on the burning ground.

I like Van's weirdness. It's sublime. (That's the word I'm using a lot this week.)

Van would never be given a knighthood. Think about it.

Paul's voice is shot. Van is incredible.

van hasn't put out new material since 2008 keep it simple. it's over i'm afraid.

I think everyone. Knows the answer to this one. It don't want to say it. Stop performing Paul. It is embarrassing.

I agree with Vernie. Van is better. Much better. Paul's is shot.

This is the stuff I'm talking about. Crappy.

I prefer Van. Van still has a great voice at 77. Paul is older and his voice is shot. Stop singing "I Saw Her Standing There". Bad for the vocal ropes.

Neither. Give me Massive attack.

Define massive.