right, i haven't, as it turns out really got much time to do a big bit of writing on this, but i will point out why i like phil more.
the thing is, it's easy to slag them both off, easy to take the anti-MOR stance and say that they're both crap and irrelevant as solo artists, but they'r e not really. both have done good things, either in bands or on their own.
(for the record, anyone who says the beatles were crap or that anything genesis did, even at their best, surpasses the beatles on top form is absolutely certifiable in my book.)
but have both become pariahs mainly thanks to their personal traits - macca's insane quest for recognition and respect and desire to be loved despite being revered and adored as a member of the best pop band ever (really, is that not enough?) and collins’ paul daniels-style toryism and wife dumping by fax stupidity - rather than their musical abilities.
they've both been resposnible for some absolute atrocities on their own, but i really do believe that phil collins can claim a far more cohesive, consistent and all-round better body of work without a band behind him.
marcus and derek have both pointed out the piecemeal nature of mccartney's solo career, a career which he even admits to not being wholeheartedly committed to a lot of the time, whereas phil collins is a lot, lot sharper in his aims.
macca isn't a great bassist and isn't a great singer or songwriter, either (i know he turned out gems with lennon, but he did write obladi oblada, too, so my criticism stands) and, far from being guileless, tries so hard to be all things to everyone that his strike ratio is pretty bad. i mean, who is he, what is he about, what has he been trying to do?
you can't say that about collins, his music is absolutely of its time and totally him. i can't listen to no jacket required without thinking about being about 12/13, watching miami vice on my school holidays and the whole era he managed to capture. returning to his "leaving the country" threat you can even say that he captured it in his own life with his own crapulent thatcherism, therefore as historic documents, his records work remarkably well.
this leads directly on to what i like about phil at his best: the clarity and sense of purpose behind what he was doing (even if some of it's not actually that likeable in itself).
while mccartney dithers and tries his hand at absolutely everthing, wanting to please everyone as bassist, singer, multi-instrumentalist (he plays flugelhorn on his new album!), as a result coming across as aimless and tired, collins sticks to what he believes (wrongly) or knows (absolutely correctly).
what he knows is drumming. listen to any of his records and they're an absolute barrage of percussion. even the weakest moments foreground the rhythm tracks, with all the melodic and vocal elements way down in the mix. you could say this is his ego in effect but i don't buy that because his voice is absolutely submerged on the heaviest tracks, so it's more apt to say that he knows how to play to his strengths, where mccartney lacks the self-control/awareness to rein himself in and not expose his inadequacies.
finally, joe mentions prince, and i say he's right because if you listen to no jacket required and around the world in a day by prince back to back, it actually pretty frightening how similar they are, from the linn drums and brass sections to the basic melodies.
in fact, tracks like who said i would and raspberry beret make perfect companion pieces. while there's no doubt that prince was infinitely more charismatic, more innovative, smarter and just all-round better, it's worth remembering that these records were released within a couple of months of each other, with collins having the slight edge being released in february and prince coming out in may, and share a lot of common traits - and who better exemplifies "good" 80s music than prince.
anyway, by dint of virtuosity, restraint and being able to nail a whole era, phil smashes this particular clash for me.
thank you!