FWIW I would also have said David Bowie, bit annoyed I didn't now.

Also not seen Bjork mentioned. There's a couple others I thought of but they're nowhere near as big as some of the ones posted here and don't deserve to be mentioned.

Yes, besides Davis/Coltrane/Ellington and maybe some occasional Johnny Cash, those artists are crap.

also did some really just list BJORK as one of the most innovative artists of the 1900's? oh my ****ing lord

i aint even a beatles fan, pal

Wow. Just wow. So Equivel, who was innovating with studio trickery long before the Beatles, was just crap? Chuck Berry, who was one of the Beatles' major early influences, was crap? BB King, who was one of the major influences on the rock music of the 60s and 70s, was crap? All I can say is wow.

King and Berry were really skilled guitar players for their time but nothing is very interesting about their music, and very little is interesting at all about any of the music from 1900-1965 besides some of the amazing jazz that was being made.

That's ironic, since the Beatles imitated so much music from that time period.

You're talking about sixty-five years of pop, classical, blues, R&B, bluegrass, country, folk, stride, ragtime, tango, samba, mento, calypso, zydeco, etc., etc. Brushing it all aside with a wave of the hand seems extremely narrow-minded to me.

I definitely don't tend to branch out into whatever you mean by "stride, ragtime, mento, calypso, zydeco" and I never plan to.

I don't think I've ever heard anything pre-1960's besides jazz or classical obviously that I found worth listening to at all. The notable music of that time is all quite bland to me. Of course, there are occasional songs that I find powerful (Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit is really incredible I think!), but I see the Beatles' arrival as when music finally started to branch out, and I don't even like the Beatles that much, I'm just seeing the correlation there.

The Beatles imitated music of that time period initially, but later Beatles stuff absolutely created dozens of genres. There were so many important things that the Beatles did that no one had really done before. I mean that's just a fact.

Fats Dominos, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Prince, Sly and the Family Stone, Queen

Right Said Fred

I don't know why but whenever I see someone who's clearly into their music say they don't like the Beatles, I don't actually believe them and I think they're saying it for effect, or vaguely trolling. They're the only band that this applies to, I can just about get my head around someone not liking any other given artist in existence, but somehow not the Beatles.

or Lawnmower Deth.

Those are all genres of music. If you haven't even heard of them, why would you deliberately choose to never even give them a chance?

Considering that jazz and classical encompass a very large percentage of "the notable music of that time" I think maybe you like more from back then than you think you do.

No, not as much initially. Initially they were really only imitating people like Chuck Berry. Later in their career is when they starting mining a variety of pre-rock music.