Band I don't like that other people do

[McC]

(04-13-2017, 11:34 AM)xxlt Wrote: The Stones were shameless thieves, but at least they never lied about it. And by stealing from and mimicking great American Blues artists they put out music that was usually at least good and sometimes even flirted with great.

The Beatles were just hacks during the early years. Then, once they had more money than they could ever spend they actually learned how to play and it wasn't long after that the wheels fell off (go ahead and blame Yoko, I blame a young Obama in Kenya ). Funny thing - the most beloved Beatle, Paul, never got much better. Lennon at least tried some new things and wrote some good music and tried to grow as a human being, and Harrison really learned how to play and churned out some great music after the band broke up. Hell, even Ringo created better stuff post Beatles than McCartney or Lennon, so it is funny that they are so revered. Best Beatle Harrison, then Starr, then Lennon, then McCartney. Yet in the eyes of their adoring public they often would be ranked in the opposite order.

But you're taking the Beatles out of context.  They were something never seen before.  And it was more than just the music.  They were an utter phenomenon.  They were pioneers.   They absolutely deserve their due.  They are deeply woven into the fabric of rock and roll history.

People will say Elvis sucks.  It only means they have no understanding of him or the times in which he lived. 

Without Elvis, there is no Beatles.  Without the Beatles, there is no...name any band that came after.  They were a garage band that inspired the birth of so many other garage bands who grew up to be legends and inspired countless other bands. 

Some people get a moment in history.  They are remembered, probably by some more than others.  Then there are others who make history.  Their stories last forever.

Also don't see how their post-Beatles careers has anything to do with them as a band.