No way could I give you a definite answer here, so forgive me if I'm entirely subjective about it. I was born in 1970. It was all over for the Fabs by then, of course. I grew up with my dad's Beatles albums and my mum's Elvis records. A pretty good start, I guess. The first Beatles record I really loved was Revolver - aged 8, I had literally never heard anything like it. It was like someone had switched on a light in my brain & I never heard music in the same way again.

This is what the Beatles did / do for people. Time and again, person by person, country by country, decade after decade. What is staggering about them is the musical progress they made - no other group before or since has gone through such a remarkable transformation. From jobbing beat-combo (although they were always more than that, of course) to culture-shifting generation-defining entity in a few short years. Listen to 'I Saw Her Standing There' (1963), then listen to 'Come Together' (1969) - is that the same band? Listen to the rock'n'roll covers on the first few albums, then play 'Being for the benefit of Mr Kite' - utterly mind-scrambling.

Now I love the Stones, the Kinks, the Who - they were great bands - fantastic songwriters, but they weren't on the same planet as the Beatles. Could the Beatles sing, play, write, hell yeah - but they did something else as well. There was alchemy at work - a never repeatable mystery that made them incredibly special.

I hope that helps.

They were just better. Simple as that. Every one of their albums contained tracks which would have been countless other bands' best ever single. To give a few early-ish examples - I Saw Her Standing There, The Things We Said Today, Eight Days a Week, In My Life - not one of them released as a single. The Kinks, Who, Small Faces et al, even the Stones, had purple patches but not the sustained quality of the Fabs.

i love revolver and i own the white album(overrated)

but it's as if they invented pop music

same with the rolling stones

I think you had to be there. How can any of us understand the impact of "She Loves You" only 5 years after "Rock Around The Clock" and 10 years after....what? And of course they had John Lennon. I'm no fan of The Beatles but I get Lennon, McCartney leaves me cold and the other two weren't even the best drummer and guitarist in The Beatles. They were a good band with an astonishing front man and they were in the right place at the right time.

For whatever reason, mainly the good songs, The Beatles dominated pop music in the early 60s. Once established, they had free rein to do whatever they liked. They would not have had that luxury if they hadn't been so successful in the first few years.

I think a lot of it was how they came across as people. I still enjoy watching Beatle interviews and press conferences from the 60s. They came across as natural, cocky, a bit sarcastic and often hilarious. They were likeable, and people gravitate towards that kind of thing. I believe this is why Take That were more successful than other boy bands because they had Robbie doing the gags on Going Live - their audience.

You have to have good songs in the first place, but a phenomenon needs more than that. Maybe not much more - but little extras can turn a good band into a global massive thing.

Don't forget that The Beatles released their first record a year before the Stones and two years before the Kinks and the Who.
They also had a much longer (and harder) apprenticeship than any of those (also) fantastic groups.

robram, I'm sorry you were born in 1972 (the ideal for everything, not just The Beatles, and probably emigrating in about 1972) would have been 1942, but is it really necessary to ask this question?
They represent the best time to live in this country, the 60's.

Of all the famous groups, pop stars, actors since the mid-50's, I'd say that the act where the question of 'why are they so popular?' is least necessary is The Beatles.
I mean look at Madonna.
Can't sing, not especially attractive (actually pig ugly), dubious 'authorship' of songs, American, about as much of a laugh as a fart in a spacesuit......how has she progressed beyond first base in the entertainment industry?

And whilst they are not perfect, surely there are thousands like her before you get anywhere near questioning The Beatles' popularity or legacy?

That have lasted so well but as musicians were they really all that? A huge pop phenomenon yes,A great rock band? not so sure.
Also was George Martin's contribution the spark that has made the songs timeless?
Definately over-rated but then they are so ridiculously feted that they would have to be.
Give me Kashmir any day.

Personally I am glad I didn't grow up in austerity Britain, live through Suez, the Cuban missile crisis, risk being sent to Vietnam (had I been born on the other side of the big pond).

Great art transcends its time and place. I 'get' Shakespeare, Dickens and Van Gogh. I wasn't there, but my emotional and critical senses are in tact. That's how good the Beatles stuff (& other 60s music) is.

I had a wonderful grounding in pop music from my parents' records. I had a standard by which to judge all subsequent music, but I'll tell you this I love my generation's music with a passion too. Born when I was I had the Smiths and the Cure to keep me company as a teenager. Never looked so miserable and had so much fun.

Being there? Different, yes. Better, possibly. But The Beatles greatness lies in their comprehensibility across the decades. Timeless art.

just about wraps it up. Exactly.

for me is the aural equivalent of Horlicks. Soporific and repetitive. Does the job though and you don't need a prescription. I like Horlicks by the way.

In an insanely short time (8 years?) they went from rock'n'rollers (Hamburg) to smart and fresh-faced (Please Please Me), to mop tops (Hard Days Night), to longer hair (Rubber Soul), to very long (Let It Be), and then a bit shorter (Abbey Road); they did the whole stopping touring thing to concentrate on writing / recording; the drug experimentation; the progress in musical style; the stab at acting (OK - Elvis and Sinatra got there before); the side projects (writing for others) and so on.

There wasn't a template for how a group was supposed to evolve - but they made it up and it has been followed by hundreds of bands since. And they did it with the world watching every step. No wonder Harrison craved privacy.

Didn't make it up though. Alan Williams sent them to Hamburg to make some money and they seemed to hate it. The whole mop tops thing was invented by Epstein wasn't it? The long hair thing? wasn't that the hippy style coming over from the US. Please let's not believe that they invented everything,they were good enough without giving them superpowers.

The vast majority of people who are interested in post rock’nroll-boom pop music like a few Beatles songs. Hard not to, as they made so many pretty catchy ones. But lots of their solo stuff flopped, so they can’t be said to have had uncritical adoration. As people they were/are seen for what they were/are: charming, charismatic but not without their flaws and foibles.
The Beatles aren’t “revered”. They’re just well-liked and well-respected. There’s a big difference. Most people I know are aware of lots of Beatles songs and quite like them, but don’t have many of their records. I’m not convinced they’ll be stampeding to buy the reissues either.

said that they 'grew up in Hamburg', where they became a good, tight band for the first time. After building on this their influence was universal and sometimes symbiotic. They were influenced for certain, but they inspired to a far greater level in return. Their musical innovation in the pop world, alongside Brian Wilson, although not entirely new, was opened up and expanded further than seemed possible at the time. They opended the flood gates. Their influence melted into everything in popular culture, and fueled by their own influences, they led the cavalry charge more effectively than anyone else could. I remember reading an interview with Terry Gilliam where he said that the Beales were far more influential and subversive than The Stones or any other of their contempories, because they did it from within and they result was seismic. He was absolutely correct.

As I have stated on other threads, the simple answer is often the correct one. The reason the Beatles manage that rare thing of being revered and liked is that they were great. I was born in '71, came to them late on and was simply amazed at the quality of their output. You will always get some saying the who/stones/beach boys were better or the occassional nutter who thinks George harrison or George Martin were the real talent; this is simply muddled critical thinking. The probability of there ever being another Beatles is so remote that they are unlikely to be bettered any time soon. Isn't it great that the best band ever hails from our shore (and even better not from London!).