Do you think the beatles would have been as "big" if they weren't cute little mop-tops? They are a product of BRILLIANT promotion (akin to Harley Davidson's ability to sell the "lifestyle" of being a badass).
Let me put it this way....If 4 fat, ugly, zit faced guys would have written the songs and sang/played them exactly the same as the "fab four"....there would be no beatles. At most, they would have been a footnote in the rock and roll annals.
Of course they have a few good pop songs, but the majority of it sounds like it could have been written by a 2nd grader (not counting the drug-years). Put anything in heavy-rotation and its bound to get burned into your brain.
I'm not a huge Stones' fan, but I have respect for them. They are a blues band and have proven that they love to play.
The Kinks just plain freaking ROCK.
I've been around music my entire life. I enjoy everything. Just depends on my mood. Opera, Country, Pop, Hard Metal, whatever... I've been in a few bands and the majority of the time, I am the odd man out when the topic of conversation turns to how "paramount" the beatles were to music... I have yet to here an honest reply to my question of
"what if they would have been fat and ugly"?
Beatles.. a good (not even great) pop band, and nothing more.