I grew up with blues and the rock that morphed out of creative efforts by the likes of Chuck Berry and others. While the Stones picked up on a lot of that bloodline, the Beatles were in a different world. A lot of it good. But, most of it second rate, to me. When I listen to music I like stuff that makes me tap my toe or bounce my knee.
To this day I can't understand why anyone would spend money on a McCartney concert.
Would never spend my own money to go to a McCartney concert, or any other concert, but my wife bought tickets for us prior to our marriage; and he puts on a fabulous performance.
I won't go again, but she certainly will with one of her girlfriends.
Eight Days a Week doesn't do that for you??
I like their music but I can be objective about them because I don't possess the heart of a teenage girl.
While they did play a few rock tunes, they were essentially a pop music band. Some of their music was good and some of it second rate, but the hysteria they engendered boosted their esteem in the eyes of their fans, and add to that the fact that their music was the sound track to the lives of adolescent baby boomers, and you can understand why so many people of a certain generation consider them to be great. It's a very personal feeling for those people and you will not dissuade them.
That being said, they were indeed accomplished musicians, having honed their craft over thousands of hours of playing together.
What really stood out about them was the songwriting team of Lennon/McCartney. They were the top pop music song writing team of the era. Any professional songwriter will acknowledge that fact.
I’m not a Beatles fan. Too sing songy and bee boppy for my taste. I do like Bridge Over Troubled Waters though. I much prefer The Stones.