I agree with this totally, but even following generation are not coming to Beatles music completely ignorant of its social relevance.
Also I make no claims about the persistence of Oasis, but I do not think you can compare apples (pardon the pun) with oranges - Oasis while demonstrating variations on a Beatles’ vibe, also cite Burt Bacharach as a major influence. Oasis also produced music in a considerable more saturated and crowded environment than the Beatles.
For me ‘The Long and Winding Road’ is one of the most beautiful songs written – but as a canon of work when compared to Bacharach or Elvis Costello or Dylan or U2 or The Police should the Beatles unquestionably stand out as something more.
I agree that the Beatles have stood the ‘test of time’ argument, but so has Shakespeare – supported by a whole industry and set of values about ‘classics we should appreciate’. Just standing the test of time does not necessarily equate to excellences. War, famine, greed, British Royal family have all stood the ‘test of time’!
The very title of the thread exemplifies the sort of debate that surrounds their music and no others. Why not ask ‘What is the most overrated song by the Rolling Stones’. There is an assumption that we already place the vast majority of the Beatles work above a watermark that only a few would fall below.
My question is why? And the ‘standing the test of time’ argument does not stand because the minute time passes, new social influences occur and cause a work to take on value way beyond it original context. Equally while the Oasis’s work is not popular at the moment who is to know where it will be in the charts in 2015?
I’m not picking at individual beautiful, amazing, songs that prove the Beatles genius beyond a doubt – I am questioning the value placed on all their work collectively.
To this I'd say I think you may be thinking too much about it. It's kind of like the chicken or the egg. Are the beatles great because we think they are, or do we think they are because they're great?
Try to think of another band that had the combined critical
and commercial success throughout their career (
and afterwards). You had classical music theorists commenting on their songwriting as early as their 3rd album.
The public speak in terms of appreciation and sales. Obviously, sales are not the only valid factor in the judgement of artistic merit, because bands like NKOTB sell millions of records. However, after their brief careers, bands like them and the Spice Girls and whomever else disappear completely and usually become the subject of mockery.
Critical acclaim is the other big factor in judging artistic merit, and most of those flash in the pan successes have absolutely nothing in this regard. Even with artists that have sustained long successful careers, such as Shania Twain, one can hardly argue that she receives a fraction of the critical acclaim as someone like the Beatles.
The Beatles are in their elite status, in my opinion, because they managed to combine these two forms of success more consitently and in a greater scale than any other artists. Sure they had a few flops in their day, such as
Magical Mystery Tour (which of course in hindsight contains some brilliant stuff in my opinion), but for the most part, they sustained a long, successful, groundbreaking career in which they never really had a weak moment.
Yes, many bands have had much longer careers, but I defy you to name any whose star shone brighter during their time and continues to do so afterward.
If they had burnt out shortly after Beatlemania, I could understand your point. But that was only the beginning. They continued innovation after innovation after that and experienced enormous commercial and critical success while doing it. That's the reason they're viewed as legends and not just some significant footnote in music history.
To add to all this, it's interesting to point out that all of the bands you named would, without hesitation, attest to the Beatle's unquestionable brilliance and deserved legendary status.
