It seems that around here you are. Just because others do it doesn’t mean it’s right.
Didn’t think so.
It’s too subjective. I can’t neatly summarize an entire decade of music into a top ten list.
In no particular order, the Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Beatles, Yardbirds, The Byrds and Cream would be on that list. They all made significant contributions to the development of Rock N Roll. But in different ways. That’s why ranking them is extremely subjective.
Well you were the one that invoked “top 5”. Not me. My point is that naming them makes it possible to have any discussion. So far it’s been phantoms and straw men. It’s easy to say the fabs weren’t as good as someone. “Who?” is the question. Then it becomes clear that most of the talkers are actually just fans of later musicians that depended on genres the beatles made to exist, but the talker doesn’t actually know that, or anything really. They think the world is one big itunes.
For instance: The assertion that Beatles were bland, and acceptable, as their primary attribute, is really an intellectual crime against history, when you are saying the Stones or Cream, or Zeppelin, or anyone was a greater force.
The idea that they were designed to appeal to teenage girls: When they started to make records there was only one thing that was utmost on their minds: The advancing and progression of their composing which appeared to happen faster than a newborn babies brain development, and which was more important then any rock subgenre which superseded them, and which people try to say is the real “rock”. Where does anyone think they found the time in all this for the “teenage girl, get rich” strategy.
Now we can look at your list, and frankly it’s not even a contest with any of these, as I think many of these artists have said themselves. (Crosby, Beach Boys at least. I can’t imagine anyone in the yardbirds or cream claiming this)
I don’t disagree with any of this. Obviously our disconnect is that one side believes that a “boy band” has to be a product completely controlled and manufactured by an outsider. The Beatles absolutely were a “real” band. If Martin, Epstein & Co. hadn’t come along and taken them under their wing, they might have continued acting like they did in maniacs on stage, playing with toilet seats around their necks, and playing “anything, as long as it’s loud”. Epstein got them suits, had them stop drinking and acting like hoodlums on stage, and an audition; they made the most of it. They were fortunate to have good looks, and smart enough to capitalize on them. I believe they were a boy band, and it was a collaborative project to make them. Martin took them on because they were witty, he didn’t think much of their original songs at the time. Under his already experienced direction, they were able to craft them into hits. As was pointed out to me in another thread, Martin didn’t fare so well without them, so he needed someone to write the songs.
Hey, language isn’t a neat thing. Words often have a variety of meanings. You didn’t really seem to misunderstand my application of the term. You appear to just disagree as to whether the content of the material is the focus of the term, or the process that created it. I choose to focus on the output. The sausage making process in popular music varies from being wholly synthetic to all-natural, but very few are wholly one or the other.
Like it or not, The Beatles were already following a well-worn path in their early records. They were pop in the same vein as the Everly Brothers or Ricky Nelson: generally about a pretty safe, sanitized version of love. They also wrote better songs than those two acts, and had a better producer telling them to do things like “speed up the tempo”. I’d listen to an early Beatles record sooner than I’d listen to either of the other acts. If you start to put the Monkees into the mix? Ehh, early Beatles or Monkees, it works for me the same either way.
They were not pop in the same vein as the Everly Brothers or Ricky Nelson. That’s why we’ve been disagreeing with you so strongly. Every contemporary noticed the difference. That was a huge factor in their impact.
Nothing you say to back up your assertions make any historical sense. Once you start with nonsense, the rest of your posts fail spectacularly.
Wow, drugs, drink, etc morphed Munich into maniacs, when I meant Hamburg.
I also sleepwalk, and have shouted things at strangers that I thought I was thinking to myself. Again, I wonder who’s actually driving this thing.
Exactly in what sense were they different on their early releases? I ask this honestly. If anything, “Wake Up Little Susie” is more adventurous content-wise than “I Want to Hold Your Hand”. Yes, The Beatles’ song is more complex musically, I don’t think I’ve disagreed with that at all. They were very good songwriters when coupled with Martin, even when they were directing their content intentionally at the largest market, which everyone seems to agree was teen girls at the time.
scabpicker, you seem to be concentrating on the first couple of years of The Beatles. If they had stopped there, you have a tenuous point - though I still disagree that even the early Beatles were a boy band, as 90 percent would identify the concept. But from at least Help onward, and probably Hard Days Night, the very rapid evolution of the band is what separates them from other bands. The Stones, Who, Kinks and others also evolved, but not to the extent in as short a period as the Beatles.
As for the Monkees, I like them a lot. They had some very good songs (mostly written by others), and unquestionable talent. Mickey Dolenz is a better rock singer than most who have come along, and Mike Nesmith is no musical slouch. But, they were assembled by a producer, and started out only singing - not writing or playing instruments. They probably deserve credit as being the initial boy band, albeit one with more musical talent than most of the boy bands that have periodically been created. But the birth, development and discography of the Monkees is nothing like the Beatles, pretty much refuting the boy band moniker for the Fab Four.
The Monkees are an instructive example, because they were working in arguably the same basic genre as the Beatles, but they were a boy band according to the description given by TonySinclair (though one which, Pinocchio-like, wanted to become a Real Band).
The Beatles were rock, not pop. Boy bands are pop, not rock. Their earliest lyrics were love songs, yes. Just like every other band of the era wrote mostly love songs. Lyrics are irrelevant to whether a song is rock or pop.
I’m not sure, but my impression is that boy bands today appeal to girls. The Beatles did, of course (girls were the screamers) but it was cool for boys to like them also. (I was one, as were my friends.)
If the Beatles were all that intent on concentrating on teeny boppers, they wouldn’t have covered a Broadway show tune or Country-Western tunes, or Chuck Berry for that matter.
If you lived back then, you’d know that rock had a very bad reputation. Tom Lehrer called it children’s music, and Stan Freberg had lots of nasty anti-rock bits. With payola and Tin Pan Alley writing the songs (even if they were great writers) a lot of rock was considered pre-fab. The Beatles broke this model apart. Epstein cleaning them up was to help them appeal to adults. It only lasted four or five years, after all.
With regard to their “boy band” era: Yes, I am referring to their early releases. I had thought I made that clear from the start, and have re-iterated it in subsequent posts, apparently to deaf ears. They absolutely went beyond that, and I also thought I had made that clear.
You very well may have, and I won’t dispute that. There are a lot of posts in this thread, and I wasn’t attempting to address all of yours. I’m glad to Let It Be.
The Beatles apparently had to plead with Martin to record their originals. They had already done a lot of covering other’s work, and to their credit, they knew that doing covers was a dead end. Even so, my favorite early moment of theirs is the cover of Buck Owens’ Act Naturally. That song can take the Pepsi challenge to any of their work up to then, IMHO.
Glad to clear it up 
Great video clip, scabpicker. Thanks! I’ve always loved the country songs from the Beatles, Stones and Kinks.
It’s well known that once George Martin heard Please Please me, their second original song attempted as a single, he never had a problem with their material again.
There is no separating their music into eras to highlight a time before they were a revolution in songwriting. It started right away and didn’t let up til they stopped.
I saw what you did there. 
6 pages of discussion…this thread is more popular than Jesus…