How did they do it?

How did they do it?
Why were they so talented?

By shamelessly ripping off ideas from more talented artists

cite examples

Can, Amon Dull, the list goes on...

Go jerk off to marzipan. The adults are talking.

SHamelessly steal emerging ideas and innovations from more talented musicians and pretend they were their own.
They weren't, but McCartney has/had an ear for melody to be fair.

One obvious example of their genrehopping would be adding sitars (one of the worst instruments ever) to a bunch of their songs during the brief and inexplicable 'raga rock' craze

How did they do it?

Support from the media & CIA

Why were they so talented?

They weren't. Everyone was just high all the time. They have some songs that are admittedly pretty good, esp. on MMT album, but the majority of their songs are utterly skippable.

That was more George than all the Beatles. He genuinely took the Hindu stuff more seriously than the rest.

fake and gay. Can even credit the Beatles (and the VU) as their biggest influence

the Beatles had a Time Machine

You are really fucked up, both those bands came after some of the most groundbreaking Beatles albums. Also your ex-girlfriend used to kiss you with another man's cum traces still on her. And you know it.

Paul, John and to a lesser extent George were all just talented songwriters.
I also think the synergy of John / George pushing Paul and George Martin to experiment more with their music as they aged prevented them from becoming a stale 60's rock n roll band like others of the time did.
The variety of their music means 95% of people will find at least one beatles song they like.
It also helped that Paul is a very talented multi-instrumentalist and a pretty funny guy.

pushing Paul and George Martin to experiment

They didn't, they just copied whatever was the hot new thing in the alternative/underground music scenes and claimed it as their own.

like 99% of popular musicians do ?
if they write the song and construct it then of course it is their own, you act like a song just materialises itself before you because you choose to implement ideas from other artists in it.
you still have to write and construct the song yourself and there's a LOT of video's of at least paul doing that in real time.
I don't care if "the beatles ripped off others" if the music is still good, which it is.
stop being a faggot, go have a cry.

I love them so much bros, I can't even fathom a world without them

Please show us all the plagiarism suits against them. I've got:
1. My Sweet Lord*

Your turn next.

*post Beatles anyway and also I actually believe George that it was subconscious.

No, because there's a difference between stealing songs (looking at you, Led Zeppelin), and stealing production/recording innovations. I will never claim McCartney didn't write his own songs.
You sound like you're absolutely BOILING, anon, calm down. The Beatles were great songwriters, and McCartney is a brilliant melodist. I will always give credit where it's due (and establish when it's not). We should be able to discuss The Beatles with a sober nuance. They could write songs well, but all of their "innovations" where taken from someone else.

Mind stating specifically who?

See
The Beatles wrote all their own songs; it was the production/recording techniques that were taken from other artists.

It depends on which technique you refer to in particular. Mind you, these techniques were in music "scenes" and not necessarily beholden to one particular artist. The Beatles owe A LOT to the London Underground psychedelic scene, by the way.

what i find fascinating is that they were a boy band loved by little girls and top charts for doing "experimental" shit.

try to imagine BTS making something like tomorrow never knows or a day in the life today. it's impossible.

doing "experimental" shit.

None of which they themselves invented or came up with btw

Or even Revolution 9.

stealing production/recording innovations

So nobody in the 50s could use distorted guitars because somebody else used them first? Nobody can use tape looping because it would be stealing? Wall of sound-style production is forbidden because phil spector came up with it first?

I just find these arguments pointless because all of music is at some point leveraging material, influences or "innovations" and styles of playing from other artists, this argument is pointless and makes me think of seething wog's who always argue the same shit.
cavemen who bashed rocks and threw their shit at the wall may as well be hailed as the fathers of all percussion and everyone just stole their innovations if you're going to reduce this argument to it's core.

It's because they all wanked together and used their imaginations. Think about it, no other band has admitted to this, and is there anyone else as talented? No. Wank with your friends. You'll bond with them, and it'll be a special one. Like a bond you have with your fellow soldiers when you serve for your country.

I don't think they wrote all those songs, really.

Strawman. Those artists never took (stole) the credit from the innovations. But thank you for agreeing with me that The Beales weren't the "genius innovators" that folklore pedals - that they merely adapted the innovations that were coming into existence contemporaneously.

Yes, but who would take what other had done and claimed it as their own doing (besides the likes of Led Zeppelin). I have no problem with The Beatles using others' innovations in their music. The problem is they never gave credit where it was due - they took the credit for themselves and made it out to look like they were some sort of "innovative geniuses of music production" when it simply wasn't the case. They were merely very good songwriters who adapted what others had achieved (in terms of production and sonic innovation) into their work.

Fast Freddy & The Crooners

Great artists steal