The Beatles were a rock 'n' roll band that formed, woodshedded and began writing original material without management involvement for many years. Management's input (besides cutting business deals) was largely cosmetic and some just focusing on things the Beatles had already started experimenting with - i.e. the "mop-top" haircuts their German pal Astrid talked them into trying. Even after they had management and a recording contract they STILL pursued their own agenda (i.e. championing American R&B and rock 'n' roll).
One Direction et al were/are individuals who are actively, purposefully scouted by management to be made into a "group" and then intensively trained in singing, dancing, doing media interviews, have their look created by a stylist. When they record they exclusively use material by outside composers.
I'm not arguing as to the comparative aesthetic or entertainment value between the Beatles and Backstreet Boys (whatever floats yr boat). But this article (mainly a big pie chart with a little fluffy commentary) shows NO CRITICAL THINKING WHATSOVER.
It'd appear that some editorial meeting some top dog said "we need more Beatles anniversary coverage" and jumped at the first lame idea offered-- actual quality of content not being as important as being able to stick "Beatles" into a headline and include an iconic graphic.
Meanwhile the "meat" of the piece was that marketing "blueprint" that the Beatles established was the range of personality stereotypes involved -- smart one, cute one...which is as flimsy an angle to hang an article as wet toilet paper -- you can make the same observation about ANY grouping of individuals, period. And even sticking with actual bands -- The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. Pointing this out is mainly a function of the media looking to flesh out and personalize coverage.
So, my point? Just disappointment that such a poorly conceptualized piece should take up editorial space in a publication where music coverage is exceedingly slim in a world chock full of interesting stories.