I'm with you. This is nothing to lose sleep over, and I don't mean to be argumentative.
Mate - I really enjoy these discussions. It's nice when this place is more than a Beatles love-in. There's no where else I can do this. I tried discussing the tradition of the songs aababa structure and Everlesk harmonies, not to mention the commonplaceness of its teen-bait lyrics with the wife, but as always when I mentioned The Beatles her eyes glazed over and she left the room. Apparently I'm a "pretentious tosser."
As if.
You know for years I immersed myself in Beatleworld, read nothing but Beatle books etc. One day I thought "how could one band be responsible for so much innovation, change etc" It seemed so improbable, and certainly without any precedent I'm aware of.
Either, I thought, there was something incredibly unique about The Beatles, never repeated, or they were The Million Chimpanzees At Typewriters And One Writes Shakespeare kind of thing. ( I veered towards the first)
Then one day I was reading about The early Stones, and how they didn't put singles on albums because "this was a long standing convention in the British recording industry?"
What! For years I was telling people that The Beatles were so good, so unique, that they didn't need to put singles on albums, or lift album tracks for singles. But everyone was doing it - it's there to see for anyone to check. It's just that I never had. I just convinced myself it was a unique Beatle thing.
So my belief that they invented the musical world began to erode. Now I think that we're one of many chipping away at the coal face. Certainly they were better at it than most, and their fame meant they got more attention and also meant that they had more freedom in the studio to do what they want.