The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

also go in with a clear mind and not a "this sucks" mindset already

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

U copying an article or u just going in rn?

it's a meme on music forums

@SBMike I don’t know which songs you listened to or what genres you like but try listening to Revolver or Abbey Road

I'll put it like this: there are certain songs from the Beatles that are accessible from the jump from the Beatles, something like this:

There's different albums I listened to at different periods in my life,

same with any band/artist, you might not feel like hearing one style but rather a later album or something like that, and they do have a lot to offer in their less than a decade of recording albums as a band

Also, if you're telling someone to listen to the White album FIRST, when getting into the beatles bro u f***ed up

^

Who tryna smoke some mid to the Beatles

I just finished it. It was pretty good.

That Walrus song kinda slapped but nigga was speaking gibberish. The f*** was he talking about?

Strawberry Fields & Penny Lane best songs for me.

To answer the previous question:
I listen to other rock, the oldest rock I play a lot and enjoy is Pink Floyd. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Animal my most played albums.

there you go bro

AYYYY lets f***in go

u ever heard octopus by syd barrett

And yeah, pretty sure Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane was a single together

Yeah they took the british ep and added some singles that were released around that era

Animals is GOAT so underrated. You should listen to Revolver next

if you like Piper by Pink Floyd I think you'll at least appreciate Beatles psych era

Peep these: first one is a b-side from Revolver era and the other is a track off Revolver

and idk how true this is but I heard that John wrote I Am the Walrus sorta as a response to people over a***yzing his lyrics

Very true. Same with glass onion

One thing that surprises me and what i love about the beatles was how un-pretentious they were. They knew they were overrated as s*** and always trolled reporters and fans for thinking they were gods especially john and george

Beatles named number 1 hot 100 artists of all time

This list kinda sucks though haha

billboard.com/charts/greatest-hot-100-artists

forreal i feel like if john saw these s***posts with the edgy forced beatles are trash/overrated take john would just be like "i feel you. good morning is trash b"

lmfaooooo facts. he'd prob be the OP of those threads

he'd be fuming when his yoko is better than paul thread got locked before it got past the first page

Mods would be mad cause its true