you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid?

-Nope, I wouldn't. I think they're music is unparalleled in the history of popular music/songwriting. If an unknown kid recorded this song or this one or this one, I'd still love them all.

What I'm saying is that knowing the history of a medium shows the constraints the artists had. The Beatles music would (and does) still stand up today along side contemporary pop-rock and they did it with less technology than you have on your laptop right now. If you are actually a fan of music as an art form, you appreciate these things. Also, context informs lyrics. If you know the history of when a band recorded, what was happening etc, you can get a better understanding about what they're singing about. But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation.

To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band.

-I don't think you know much about music. Not trying to be a dick, but even people that don't like the Beatles music have enough sense to recognize that much of it was more complex than a bunch of random teenagers making music.

The history and context do not change the quality of the music

-history changes your perception of what the song is about. It puts you in a place and time. Music can be transcendent.

I'm curious what music, aside from Beethoven/Mozart etc that you do think is "good".

I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them.

-Now I'm wondering if I'm talking with a 12 year old?