It was the media that broke the story and rode it. Thats their nature. Strange you'd absolve the media of furorcism when they created and sustained the furorosity. Every press conference on the 66 tour they elicited an obligatory 'john semi-apology'.
Heh?
The plan was to play the Get Back stuff live and record that one performance as the album; they would not have made it a tour setlist. Never mind that it would be ridiculous to tour live with a setlist identical to a new live album, or that bands virtually never tour with only new material, but that the Beatles wouldn't tour playing stuff from the best career discography of all time would never happen.
The BBC asked them to represent Britain and they delivered. If it was a shit song, then you could say they were overrated. Of course they weren't because they delivered. As for hippiedom, I didnt say they invented flower power....it was you said "others shot past them as far as relevance by '67". Well...apparently not, since you seem to indicate they were hippie bandwagoners....in '67(!).
I dont have any solo albums for either Zep or the Beatles...a smattering of mp3s does me fine. McCartneys album sold big because he basically broke up the band with/for it. The self-interview and such.
I think Pepper is the weakest of the post Rubber Soul era...so...no argument here. Pink Floyd wasn't rolling in dough and 'Piper' is comparable. Beach Boys too. What most bands didn't have was George Martin.
What credit did the media give to them that they didn't deserve? That Apple Corps was a well run business ?
I were Lennon at that point, had done practically everything and everyone, conquered my chosen field, was rich for life, all before turning 30, and I'd probably chill out and go freaky from 70-75 too.