Oh heck yes!
Commenting on musical trends will always risk painting with a broad brush. There were many fantastic artists and tons of creative talent employed by publishing houses. Just because they were working in teams, sharing creative duties, doesn't mean they weren't talented or their compositions should be discounted. They still sought out the best, and they usually got it.
The Beatles represented a shift in where the creative force would lay. Frank Sinatra did the same thing when he declared that his talent was sufficient that he should be the focus of the music - rather than the orchestra leader which was the standard for the time. Frank brought the spotlight to the vocals.
"The Beatles" chose that name, in fact, because of their love of "The Crickets" (who were almost "The Beetles" themselves). There were lots of talented musicians who owned their own creative processes. However, The Beatles are largely credited with breaking open pop music from the publishers. Studios would wield a lot of creative influence for several decades (The Beatles have an agreement with a computer company, because they trademarked "Apple Music" first as their in house label) giving us Sun Records, Muscle Shoals, Motown, etc.
We used to monetize sheet music. Performers would only play the music so that customers would go buy the sheet music. Then, we obviously sold physical recorded media (records, tapes, CDs, etc). The next trend is less obvious (they never are without hindsight). Music might support itself through touring, or perhaps the era of the "music business" is simply coming to its natural end.
