You can't really compare Dick Clark Five, because Paul was writing their songs lol. But, I mean, at the beginning, George Martin wouldn't even let the fab four record their own original lyrics because of how bad they were and they were barely able to bang out some covers of songs from their instruments. They went through a handful of drummers before Ringo, who already had a good following from his membership in another band when he joined. Their whole schtick from the Quarrymen days on was that they emulated their idols like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, but so was every other teddy boy in the UK. They had been turned down by every record label they knew and Martin had been doing primarily comedy albums before he agreed to work with them. Paul credits a lot of the band's greatness to happenstance or serendipity, and I think a lot of that happened in the beginning because of how terrible they were.
I feel like they didn't start really earning that "legend" title until much later, after they were given more creative freedom, after they were able to explore how far they could go with that creativity, and after they were able to harness it. First concept album. First band to do promotional (music) videos. They changed recording as anyone knew it at the time and challenged everyone's idea of what popular music was or, more importantly, could be (would we have had Elton John, Bowie, Queen, etc).
Aaaaand now I'm rambling cuz I am too obsessed with them. I am glad I missed Katy Perry's "Yesterday" though. I feel like I would have thrown up in my hands.
By 1964 -- THE ground zero year for them -- I think they had at one point 7 of top 10 in charts. The Quarrymen -- the Silver Beatles.. the Ratskellar stuff was all the embryonic stuff all great bands have to go through (Maybe Led Zeppelin skipped that awkward zits on face era because they were all solid pros coming together).
And agreed that George Martin really was the fifth Beatle. Paul learned a ton from him. God bless him, even on the Let it Be film he's dialing some of them down .
I think though if you take 1964 as Ground Zero and throw out the early stuff (even Love Me Do -- a Pete Best on drums song ), and then compare to the other bands that were out there, even the 64 era Stones, there is a seismic difference in sound quality, singing, song writing and craftsmanship.
And the other bands and music press and even fans knew it. The joke at the time was that whatever album the Beatles did, the Stones would do a lousier version of it. (Beggar's Banquet might have been the album where the Stones cut the umbelical).
And there is the Brian Wilson psychopathic Sgt Pepper's Meltdown. The Beatles were so far ahead of the field.. even recognized as such in 1967, that went Sgt. Pepper's came out, it sent Brian Wilson on 6 year LSD bender. It was so much better than their best "Pet Sounds" that Wilson felt like a hypocrite.
I'm fricking nuts about them, mystique, hype and all. There are things they do on sounds like "The Night Before" that just blow me away. Yes, again, Ringo was no Keith Moon -- but he was a stinking engine on some of those songs. Is he doing double snare shots on some beats or .. did he just stink? I don't know but its alchemy and sounds perfect.
I think at the time, even outside of the teeny bopper and sales records they were setting, there was a sense that they were a major paradigm shift. Along with Dylan they changed the game and pushed themselves to get better. Whenever they smelt something stale coming out of the speakers ("Good Day Sunshine era Stuf)" they pushed to do Sgt. Peppers.
Yeah - I can go on and on.....me likee
