It is NOT a jazz guy thing to diss the Beatles... as writers.
First off, I can only say what I know and feel - there probably are dozens of books about the Beatles' writing process, and if others contribute to this thread, who actually know something, I'll be interested in what they have to say.
Did the Beatles have folks writing their tunes from the back room? I've often wondered about that, because the writing is so polished and sophisticated - I ain't no scholar, but ii V progressions, chromatic progressions, modulations, diminished chords, lots of substitutions and stuff that one associates with the Great American Songbook of tunes from musicals from the 20's through the 50's - songwriter devices that one associates with deep experience and polish that one would not expect from four lads from Liverpool, and which you did not otherwise find from bands of that generation, writing their own stuff.
OTOH, the lads may well have had deep exposure to the British music hall tradition - and to the US "Songbook" as well, and the UK stuff, while often kind of hokey, also contained a strong level of craftsmanship.
They certainly got a lot of polish from George Martin as their arranger and producer - he was an experienced and well-schooled arranger, and may well have helped a lot in pulling the tunes structurally together, as well. But if so much of the basic writing was George Martin, then how come the songwriting credits all say "Lennon-McCartney?"
And here's a thought - Did the Beatles hasten the development of bands writing their own material? My sense is that they did.
Paul's post-Beatle output, while not to my taste, (I think he needed Lennon to balance him out) is consistent with the craftsmanship found in the Beatles tunes.
Overall, I give the nod to the lads, as writers..So many of those tunes are GREAT, and you can hear so much evolution over a short period of time, but the basic tools, sense of melody and comprehension of song structure are there, in the '63-'66 albums.
It's not like they were the Monkees, who took a while to get into the self-writing mode…but how many jazz guys spend decades mastering the standards before they write anything significant on their own?
OTOH still, as players, the Beatles don't stand well against the Motown session players…and when considering the extent to which the Beatles (and the stones, and the led zep guys) were growing from having started out copying Blues and R&B tunes, you can trace derivative elements back to a tradition in which the Motown Funk Brothers were contemporary Masters…this is evident in the Beatles' playing and the writing.
Me, I like to think of the Motown guys listening to the radio and digging on the latest Beatles stuff…and the Beatles listening to the radio and digging on the latest Motown stuff.
And if you are a jazz guy, playing 3000 chords to 3 people, watching the rockers play 3 chords to 3000 fans, it's easy to fall into a diss mode that features an undertone of jealousy and frustration. I've certainly seen that one, and totally get it. Full disclosure - from the mid-70's to late '80's I played trombone for a living - lots of jazz and latin jazz, salsa, commercial stuff, R&B, and even a rock road gig while a "name" band enjoyed a short flirtation with horns. I dug jazz, latin and R&B, thought Rock was dead (until the punks emerged) and thought the Grateful Dead and their followers were the biggest bunch of posers and hosers. Turns out I was largely wrong about the Dead…but not about many of the followers! And I saw a lot of bitterness from a number of jazz guys frustrated with the lack of reward for their achievements and work, while musical losemos jetted the world and strutted in arenas. But that's a function of popular culture and the music business…and you can't possibly equate those losemos with The Beatles. So yes, lots of reason for a jazz drummer to be cynical, but the Beatles are a special case.
