They set the precedent for innovation in pop music being superficial new-age nonsense and alternative instrumentation. Now any top 40 angel fluffy bunnah who uses cello in a song is an innovator.
Actually, my problem with Beatlemania is that they pretty much blocked the path for the people who WERE innovating. If it weren't for them, you might hear musicians on the radio nowadays rather than hook-machines.
Yeah you are karma free but I agree with you wholeheartedly. Most radio ready music is crap due to it being verse and chorus dominated song structures that are reliant on hooks to entertain the listener. No real musical substance or epic compositions going on whatsoever, just more formulated pop songwriting. Bands are in trouble when they start writing songs over 5 minutes long because of the insane stupidity of the music listening public. Pop songwriting is formulated crap that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for the most part.
Where is the King Crimson lovefest? Robert Fripp is 10 times the musical genius than anyone in the Beatles ever will be. Well as far as integrating jazz multimeter riffs into metal and rock to make progressive rock, King Crimson was awesome. Rush after their first two albums (which were too Led Zep sounding imo) became awesome as well. I will always favour progressive rock/metal over rock pop acts.
I wouldn't blame it all on the Beatles, but they sure didn't help. The retarded masses will always like the simplistic crap. Oh boy you were the first to have the monetary backing to record this or that instrument or use a certain technique, here is a cookie. That type of stuff was bound to happen due to production technology and not so much the will of a great songwriting band. Backed by a big ass label with simple catchy songs, they had the budget and producers to make sweet pop candy for the masses. They were the right band at the right time, for the most part.