So much misinformation behind these statements.
For starters, you can only compare the Beatles to a boy band based on their ages when they started and the reaction of their fans. THEY WROTE SONGS, people. Sure, only 3 minute pop songs in the beginning, but it was some of the best pop to be found in 62, 63, 64, etc.
After they came to America in '64, they only put up with the screaming for less than two years. By '66, they were done performing live. During that same timeframe, they slowed down their rate of recording (early albums had a split between originals and covers which was standard practice for rock bands at the time) and were already breaking new ground with albums like Rubber Soul and Revolver. Even Help - at the tail end of the true Beatlemania - was a far more mature album.
There is a tremendous creative arc in the Beatles' music from 1962 through 1969 that was essentially the primary creative force that turned "rock and roll," a 3-chord, 3-minute, backbeat teen dance genre into the "rock" genre that birthed dozens of styles of popular music we enjoy today.
To judge a band's merits solely on the behavior of its fans is ludicrous.
And this band never produced 40 songs a year for a decade. Not sure where you're getting that. Their recording was done primarily from 1962 - 1969, and half of the stuff that was so popular when they came to America in 1964 was from 1962 & 1963. Their output was pretty limited for the era, especially after their albums stopped including covers.
Saying Lennon & McCartney were just fluff and LSD is no different than saying Page & Plant were Muddy Watters with bigger amps. An uninformed statement made out of ignorance.
Stupid, just stupid. You can dislike the Beatles music, plenty of people do, but to put them in the same category as Menudo and Color Me Badd is a prime example of ignoring facts so that you can show everyone you have a hot sports opinion.
|