Something that gets to be a huge as the Beatles were will *always* have an influence. That doesn't mean it has to be great, or that ultimately some good doesn't come out of it. I don't think anyone would argue that the Triangle Shirtwaist disaster wasn't a horrible thing, but the influence it's had on fire codes in this country is far-reaching. I think many artists learned how to manage their careers and their business by observing what the Beatles did, and then deciding if that's how they wanted to end up.

I'm in the camp that views the Beatles as extraordinarily lucky in their timing. They were also lucky that Mr. Epstein sold them out to someone who could build an enormous marketing buzz around them. Seltaeb fanned the flames that made them huge, and they cashed in.

Did they make the best music? Not by a long-shot. They got their start by popularizing music made by the likes of Chuck Berry and U.S. blues and r&b artists. I'll plant myself firmly on the third rail here and state that they (as well as Elvis) made it in large part because they were white and generally "clean-cut", a much more palatable medium for the masses. They're no different from the Beach Boys in that regard (who also owe, IMHBSIO, their success to the marketing exploits of their early management).

I will credit them with a handful of very good, sometimes great tunes, but I don't view the entirety of their catalogue as anything remarkable. I also think their renditions of the American r&b catalogue was the weakest, i.e. sterile of their time--as compared to the Stones, Animals, Pretty Things, Who, Kinks, etc.