<edit>
Sometimes I feel like there should be a special Beatles get-out clause in any 'best of' thread: assume an implied 'apart from The Beatles'. Otherwise the 'correct' answers may start to get somewhat monotonous.
That said, some here don't actually like The Beatles. I find this hard to understand, but usually take it to mean that they don't actually like pop music at all, which is fair enough I suppose. Martin Amis went further: '...to be against the Beatles (late-middle period) is to be against life.'
Kind regards
- Garry
A bit off topic again but yes.. the Great Beatle Divide is an odd thing. I'm pretty sure that at its most basic level it's just one of those 'tribal' things where you took sides.. Beatles v Stones, Cliff v Elvis, Mods v Rockers etc. I always avoided such idiocy. (I didn't much rate Cliff OR Elvis...
) I suspect there's a slightly more subtle and 'nuanced' version of that and maybe a sort of misplaced musical 'snobbery' in there somewhere. "Well yes..of course they were hugely popular.. but they really didn't.... (insert whatever pseudo-intellectual claptrap)". And there's also the simple Brit tendency to knock anything which is popular, as if doing so signals some sort of 'higher' intellect. ( Strictly anyone?
)
For me, the Beatles stand out on several fronts.
1. In all periods their song writing was not only exceptionally good, but it broke the mould. They very quickly progressed from 'aping' standard US Soul/R&B/Pop..like all the other 'Merseybeat' and UK 'Beat' groups, and began producing fresh new songs, with a completely new approach to both melody and lyrics. The old standby sentiments of 'I Love You', 'You Love Me', 'Please Don't Leave Me' 'I'm Leaving You', 'You Dun Me Wrong' 'I Dun You Wrong..Forgive Me', etc., were replaced with more subtle/complex/poetic stuff ('Yesterday'..'Girl'..'In My Life'.. 'Here There and Everywhere')..or 're-worked' with new melodic approaches. ('Any Time At All', 'If I Fell', 'Things We Said Today', 'Tell Me Why')
I'm not sufficiently 'up' on musical theory to get into analysing just why their songs were both lyrically and structurally so fresh and different. They just were. There was hardly a 'filler' anywhere in their albums up to maybe 'Let It Be'. Add to this all of the Beatles 'Documentary', 'Surrealist', 'Psychedelic' 'Spiritual' stuff and it's a truly epic catalogue. Even their 'covers' brought a new and different kind of energy to the songs.
2. The Beatles were outstanding on vocals and harmonies. McCartney for instance, able to switch from a slow ballad like 'Yesterday', to a storming rant on 'I'm Down'. Lennon, able to commit his 'harder' voice to a similar range of styles and Harrison adding his unique, yet entirely appropriate vocals on everything from early 'covers' such as the Cookies' 'Chains' from 'Please Please Me'..and 'Devil in Her Heart' ( Donays 'Devil in His Heart').. on 'With The Beatles' . through to 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Something'.. modern 'Standards', easily ranking alongside anything from 'The Great American Songbook' Even Ringo's 'singing' has its place... fortunately a small one..
All of the above could fool folks into thinking I'm a Beatles obsessive. I'm not. I have all the albums, but other stuff gets more listening. I also find that the Beatles stuff is so unique, that it doesn't easily slot into casual playlists. They, like a very few other true greats, need their own listening sesh.
YMMV obviously..