The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
The Beatles were the first band to accumulate a large, consumerist fanbase like we know of modern day examples ranging from Taylor Swift, to the niche bands. Their music is genuinely pretty good (Rubber Soul is their best album imo) and doesn't really sound too dated.
Lists of artists considered the best do often feature the Beatles at the very top, but that is both a regional preference geared towards the mostly American internet user-base and commercial film-making capacities and a circlejerk written to earn money, not inform. Other parts of the world might not care about music that's apparently well liked in Anglo countries, among music nerds or the public. Also, subjective quality does not guarantee the band being seen as better. For example, the band De/Vision is imo a better Depeche Mode copycat than Camouflage imo, but it's the latter who had commercial success.
Really, the greatest [x] artist rankings are kinda useless, especially in music - but I'm just rambling.
Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe.
You can go further than that, as it has been pointed out that the canonicity of figures like Beethoven (who, to be clear, was a brilliant musician who deserves to be studied) was in large part due to the projects of historical-cultural revisionism by German nationalists and provides a warped understanding of the history of the development of music in Europe.
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
It's just ossified boomer culture that has become the cosmic background of modern cracker culture
The Beatles were the first band to accumulate a large, consumerist fanbase like we know of modern day examples ranging from Taylor Swift, to the niche bands. Their music is genuinely pretty good (Rubber Soul is their best album imo) and doesn't really sound too dated.
Lists of artists considered the best do often feature the Beatles at the very top, but that is both a regional preference geared towards the mostly American internet user-base and commercial film-making capacities and a circlejerk written to earn money, not inform. Other parts of the world might not care about music that's apparently well liked in Anglo countries, among music nerds or the public. Also, subjective quality does not guarantee the band being seen as better. For example, the band De/Vision is imo a better Depeche Mode copycat than Camouflage imo, but it's the latter who had commercial success.
Really, the greatest [x] artist rankings are kinda useless, especially in music - but I'm just rambling.
You can go further than that, as it has been pointed out that the canonicity of figures like Beethoven (who, to be clear, was a brilliant musician who deserves to be studied) was in large part due to the projects of historical-cultural revisionism by German nationalists and provides a warped understanding of the history of the development of music in Europe.
deleted by creator