Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

I guess the point is with the Beatles is that they were ground-breaking in their time and pretty much invented late twentieth century pop music. It's natural that other artists should refine, improve on, or completely break away from what they've done, and that better 'Beatles-style' records should be made (e.g. by XTC) or indeed that breaking away from 'Beatles-style' records and doing something different should be seen as desirable too- in that case, the Fall are better than the Beatles by not sounding anything like the Beatles. So yes, the Beatles may have been bettered, but that shouldn't take away from their huge achievements in their day which are impossible to match in their wider social, cultural, musicological impact.

IMO.

I guess the point is with the Beatles is that they were ground-breaking in their time and pretty much invented late twentieth century pop music. It's natural that other artists should refine, improve on, or completely break away from what they've done, and that better 'Beatles-style' records should be made (e.g. by XTC) or indeed that breaking away from 'Beatles-style' records and doing something different should be seen as desirable too- in that case, the Fall are better than the Beatles by not sounding anything like the Beatles. So yes, the Beatles may have been bettered, but that shouldn't take away from their huge achievements in their day which are impossible to match in their wider social, cultural, musicological impact.

XTC better then the Beatles?