Rihanna more talented than the Beatles. Bollocks!

After stumbling across an article quoting in English DJ Tony Blackburn saying "Rihanna is more talented than the Beatles because she can sing and dance", I felt compelled to weigh in on the heated conversations brewing int he comments section:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/9237215/Is-Rihanna-more-talented-than-the-Beatles.html

Comparing Rihanna to the Beatles is like comparing Red to Blue. It's largely a matter of preference as to what music you prefer as the two artists are come completely, undeniably different. There is no comparison at all. To say that Rihanna is better because she can dance as well as sing, doesn't mean she is more talented. The Beatles played all their own instruments - would any Rihanna fans out there care to talk about what that means? You really can't measure talent this way.

Since I believe it is a matter of opinion, I am going to say that making such claims are quite funny. As a fan of the Beatles, and a non-fan of Rihanna and the current generation of pop-stars - if you could measure talent on how many things an artist can do while performing, Rihanna doesn't even come close to some amazing artists that play their own instruments and write their own music. That to me, is the epitome of talent.

On the other hand, reading between the lines, this article might be more about a has been  DJ's failed attempt to penetrate the current spotlight? I'm struggling to understand what his bed post figure has to do with this discussion. Here I am thinking, its not a question of talent as much as a question of taste, but perhaps its a question also pillow credibility.

Lets see if anybody cares to rebut?