I think that was another one of their many idiosyncrasies. But lots of bands have interesting idiosyncrasies: IMO none of the other unique attributes/talents of the Beatles were nearly as significant/remarkable as the fact that through chance some teenagers, two of whom later turned out to be genius songwriters, started a band together. Because they are historically top of the pile, all their interesting characteristics come under focus, but I feel people make the mistake of attributing their status to this plethora of qualities. This makes their story seem like either an inexplicable serendipity or a mass delusion, but really it's easy to explain as just one chance occurrence on which everything else rests.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The songwriting aspect, while critical, imo isn't enough. The fact that they were both (all?) charismatic, good looking, and good singers is inextricably tied up in their success, along with the songwriting. Even in the early days, their covers became their own because of their vocals and playing abilities.
And while I agree that most of their characteristics come under scrutiny, the ability for 3/4ths of the band to function as competent singer is something which is still rarely even attempted in most bands.
From what I can tell, the ability of 3/4ths of the band to sing well was a lot less remarkable for the time period. Nowadays it would really set a band apart but back then guitar bands with vocal harmonies was trending. Most such bands just didn't have any songwriting power. Plus when you consider that McCartney was the only really gifted vocalist, it's not that remarkable. Their perceived charisma and attractiveness stems from their status, which was earned through superior songwriting/record-making.
It's hardly suprising that two genius songwriters managed to develop good instrumental abilities, attract other talent (a great drummer, a great producer, a great guitarist), put out records with great vocal arrangements, and bring out the best in covers. And be worshipped by the public. Those things are almost inevitable. The only surprising thing was that they ended up in the same band.
I can't find many examples in the UK of this, nor of many US bands of the era, possibly with the Beach Boys as a major exception.
Group singing - yes, some, but not multiple people rotating the 'lead singer' role. There was no 'lead singer' in the Beatles.
Many of the similar merseyside acts of the time were "so-and-so and the foobars" and such. Lead singer name with accompanying band ('rory storm and hurricanes' for example).
Oh, you mean specifically the rotation of lead singers. You might be right on that count but I view that mainly as a by-product of the fact that they would want to sing the songs that they wrote.
Yes, that's what I meant. And this was evident far earlier than them performing many of their own songs. I suspect both John and Paul were simply rather dominant forces in their own way, but it wouldn't really explain allowing George to sing lead as much as he did.
