oh and now you get to experience how pointless and lame arguing over the interwebs is.

nice picture dummy!

One final thing - there were lots and lots of bands, especially coming out of England, that got the same marketing focus when they were starting. The Beatles got popular because there was something special about them, their songs and their presence. I'd be willing to bet that Yesterday will be played when Satisfaction or Johnny B. Goode are long gone. Just a thought.

Hey, thanks for writing back. I was a bit condescending with that part about growing into understanding them. sorry. But there is a a fundamental difference between what they did, and what, say, the Stones came up with. Chuck Berry was awesome, not doubt, but very focused. The Stones, too; great, but fairly limited - they were influenced by the blues artists in the sourthern US and while did amazingly creative things based on that influence, stayed essentially in that genre. The Beatles were far more eclectic - and their ability to draw from a wide variety, and then create their own unique, if evolving sounds, was really pretty remarkable. But, it all comes down to taste. Whatever is important to you is great. There's too much talk about who is better than who, but it comes down to digging music.

Chuck Berry and The Rolling Stones, artists you seem to like, were really more influential and deserve more attention than The Beatles. I mean, nothing against John, Paul and their squad, but some people call their band 'revolutionary' and forget about even more important acts, such as those I've mentioned.

I'll stick with my opinion that The Beatles would be nothing without the huge marketing that was made on their music. And, wtf, why I need to grow to understand them? Don't see nothing really deep on their songs, lyrically or musically talking. I agree that they were big, they were really huge, but I don't get the point of this pointless worshipping. haha (: