mo786 said:
Now tell me I am wrong!
You're wrong.
There were a lot of different types of music and a lot of different artists in the sixties too. We've just listed the major ones. Why don't you go look at some old charts? You'll notice that they don't have those same five bands over and over again. Really, it's only about forty years difference. It's not like the music industry didn't exist until U2 came along.
What's really changed in rock music since then? What's punk doing now that MC5 and the Stooges weren't doing in the sixties? What's indie rock doing now that the Velvet Underground and Nick Drake weren't doing in the sixties? It's gotten a bit more compartmentalized, but it's fundamentally the same shit.
The only major chart force U2 is competing against that the Beatles weren't is rap and hip hop (which I hardly see as direct competition anyway; how do you reason that U2 is directly competing against every form of recorded music in the world right now?). There wasn't as big a divide between country/folk and rock back in the sixties, so it probably evens out anyway. Who's U2's major competition in rock music today anyway? Radiohead and who else? Coldplay? Green Day?
I also don't see why contemporaneous "competition" matters at all, supposing black is white, up is down, and you're right about this. The Beatles are competing against modern music for modern ears as much as ever; people are still discovering their music and discovering that they like it. So even if, as you say, the Beatles were one out of only six bands in the sixties, if they're
still regarded by many as one of the best acts of the last half-century, what does it matter? It doesn't change anything. What's your point?
The best critics like yourself can come up with to explain this is that everyone is so starstruck by the band's legacy that they overinflate the worth of their catalogue, but nobody ever offers a compelling argument to support that claim. You can try if you like. It'd help if you'd have actually
heard the catalogue, of course.
Also, you won't earn much credibility as a rock historian if you base all your impressions on compilations. Don't tell us how the sixties were if you've never even listened to an entire Beatles album from start to finish. Nobody will take you seriously.
Please stop saying stupid things.
(Edit: Here are some lists of some major sixties albums if you truly can't be bothered to do your own googling:
1,
2,
3.)