I think someone would’ve come along with similar ideas, sure. I mean let’s be honest…The early Beatles stuff (prior to 1965) is very much in the style of pop music of that time, just with their own unique twist. I mean, some of their earliest hits were covers like Please Mr. Postman and Twist and Shout. By the time they were starting to evolve with Rubber Soul, you already had other rock bands also doing more ‘evolved’ rock. By the time Sgt. Pepper came out, you already had quite a few psychedelic rock records which were arguably better than that album. The Beatles stopped being innovators after Revolver.
Second rate skiffle band.
The Beetles are fine though I’m kind of miffed at how they ripped off the Monkees.
This song came out in 1963 yet it sounds like it could’ve come out in the early 70s and been an early 70s soft rock tune…My point being there were others doing new stuff in rock besides The Beatles in the early 1960s.
Guitar groups were on the way out, anyway.
The two biggest things The Beatles had going for them were:
-
They had three (or four) unique, interesting, charismatic guys in the same band. The fact that they were by 1960s standards cute helped.
-
Timing. I truly believe if JFK hadn’t been killed, Beatlemania in the States would never have happened. They might have been a thing which as bigger in the UK than the States ala The Bay City Rollers or something if not for the national sense of grief and depression affecting teens after Kennedy was killed.
It’s a good tune, but how does that sound like an early 70s song? That totally sounds like early rock to me. I might have guessed a little earlier than 1963, to be honest.
I suppose you can measure how rated a band is, and by reasonable measures, the Beatles probably are the most-rated band in history. But how do you measure how rated a band deserves to be? All I can think of is one particular person’s opinion (and why that one particular person’s, rather than someone else’s), or the consensus of a large group of people. And the consensus of a large group of people is precisely what the “rating” of a band is.
ok,ok! I’ll pretend to take it back!
I did. I had something mundane and pointless that I felt I must share. I suggest YOU read the forum descriptions.
It wasn’t a discussion. It was a mundane and pointless thing that I felt I must share. Bro, do you even mod?
Oh, sorry, when the mundane and pointless thing I felt I must share was inexplicably moved from the forum titled Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share I thought it would be reasonable to point out how inexplicable that action was. But silly me.
Trust me, I have.
Maybe you should’ve consulted them in the first place before dropping this in their lap? Just sayin’.
I’m going to let the mods handle this other than to point out that IvoryTowerDenizen isn’t a bro.
Aw, what a cute rebel the OP is! First, the Beatles, now the moderation.
A compromise: A few parts Beatles, a few parts Dead and we have JGB Dear Prudence! ( I know it’s not new to you. 
)
It reminds me of the cute little tunes often played during chase scenes in Scooby Doo.
Two or three of The Beatles are overrated. Paul was about 97% of the talent in that band.
John Lennon was a mean, drunken, pompous, abusive sack of shit who, if he hadn’t been a Beatle, would be utterly unknown today.
George was not an asshole but, if he hadn’t been a Beatle, he would likely be unknown too.
Ringo never seemed as up-his-own-ass as the others. I think he would have made a living as an entertainer, regardless.
Personally, I feel Bob Dylan is overrated.
But I feel the Beatles deserve their respect they’ve been given.
I fail to see any connection.
Their overation is highly overrated.
That doesn’t even make sense. If a bro isn’t a bro then how can a mod bro?
You know who is really overrated? Beethoven. I don’t want to discuss it or anything, but boy was he a pompous wanker.