Well, when you put it that way... you still sound kind of crazy. I don't know if what you're saying invalidates the goodness of The Beatles, which is all I really care about.
Nothing is going to invalidate the goodness of The Beatles, you like them and you're going to continue to like them, I would not try to argue against someone liking music because, as I have stated elsewhere, it's one of the most subjective things one can assess. All I do is question how warranted all the love and respect for band is, which I think is debatable just by comparing them to Dylan, not factoring in other bands from that time. The same case, I suppose, can be made against Dylan by using Woody Guthrie, but I think lyrically Dylan reaches heights that Woody never does, conversely The Beatles rarely come close to the lyrical depth that Dylan presents. If I want instrumental sound I go to Rush, if I want pop rock I have The Beach Boys, and if I want lyrics I have Dylan and the Mountain Goats. It puzzles me that The Beatles be classified as pioneers and still retain such high status today when they really didn't do anything all that special.
What you just said made no sense at all.
Do you even listen to songs like "Revolution", "She's Leaving Home", "Blackbird", "Julia", "Let It Be", "In My Life"? The list goes on and on.
In terms of craftmanship in pop music, the Beatles were genius. I don't think they got enough credit as musicians. The riffs in "Ticket To Ride" and "Taxman" are still insatiable and were like nothing that was heard of in pop music at the time. Even a song like "And Your Bird Can Sing" has a performance that I think is quite seminal in terms of production and craftmanship.
Lacking lyrical depth comparing to Dylan?
Come on.
You listen to CINECAST!ing Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers and you think the Beatles lack any lyrical depth in comparison to Zimmerman?
Metallica and Van Halen sucks?
Man, you better not come across some metalheads. They will kill you.