# What bands could seriously be considered in the same ballpark as The Beatles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 19, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616 "2016-04-19T02:27:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/21 "2016-04-19T04:15:32Z")
> [@russian\_heel](#): > > For all the great songs the Beatles put out, they also had quite a share of clunkers or “filler” material. They also only toured as a major act for about 2 years. Its hard to believe the Beatles were only around for 10 years. > > I think U2 is a great if not popular choice. Sound evolved without it never not sounding like U2, same original members, have toured endlessly for over 30 years, with a lead singer who is a cultural icon they really don’t get the credit they deserve from younger fans who might not appreciate how groundbreaking they were in the 1980s. > > I think Queen deserves a mention for their musical diversity and stunning live performances, a band never afraid to try different genres and with some of the greatest hits of all time. > > The Who and the Stones certainly deserve to be in the same pantheon, I just have a hard time comparing them to the Beatles, maybe because they changed lineups so often, and the Whop came back too many times and the Stones are notorious for rolling out some clunker live shows. > > Id love to consider Led Zeppelin, but they just don’t have the longevity or extensive body of work to make it quite just there. > > As for the Beach Boys, I think a lot of readers put them in there because some critics consider Smile and Pet Sounds to be "Sgt Pepper-esque"in terms of their sonic quality. I’ll accept U2. Good pick. Queen is on the edge for me. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/22 "2016-04-19T04:20:40Z")
Now I’m starting to think genres…think of it as a menu. 🙂 Prog rock: Pink Floyd, Yes, ELP, Genesis…I’d probably give Floyd the nod there, though the others are close. Punk is tough; I can’t think of many that evolved much. The Clash, maybe. For pure revolution, X. Blues doesn’t change by definition, but SRV wouldn’t be a bad option. Metal: everybody thinks Metallica, but me not so much. Probably Black Sabbath. I have eclectic tastes. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/23 "2016-04-19T04:21:40Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I’ll accept U2. Good pick. Queen is on the edge for me. Yeah, Freddie is God. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/24 "2016-04-19T04:41:16Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > If I only know one song, then they aren’t very influential, are they? Actually, they (and songwriter Andy Partridge) are quite influential, but that’s probably more with bands than the average listening public. Regardless, I was answering the question from the perspective of what band is in the same ballpark as The Beatles songwriting-wise (and stated it as such). I interpreted your “I think some criteria would be” to be a suggestion, not a requirement. In that case, no, XTC would not be up there in the mainstream with people like Bowie or The Stones or Zep. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/25 "2016-04-19T04:42:37Z")
> [@russian\_heel](#): > > As for the Beach Boys, I think a lot of readers put them in there because some critics consider Smile and Pet Sounds to be "Sgt Pepper-esque"in terms of their sonic quality. I might agree with you in the sense that their early work just doesn’t quite have the depth and breadth of something like Pet Sounds. It’s almost two different bands for me. I include them because, to me, their crowning achievement is something I like better than any of the Beatles albums, and I love all the Beatles albums. But their other work, I’d probably take any of the Beatles albums over it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/26 "2016-04-19T04:47:12Z")
The Ramones ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/27 "2016-04-19T04:53:20Z")
Not quite the popularity of most of the people here, but still popular and in the same pop songwriting vein, I would also put forward The Byrds as being of the same caliber as The Beatles and The Kinks. Their first six albums are pretty much all perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/28 "2016-04-19T04:53:37Z")
I’m a fan of The Kinks but I don’t believe they belong in the same pantheon as The Beatles. Led Zep is close since they were such a huge influence on blues rock. I’d put Queen there. It’s tough because, really, no band had as much influence and success as The Beatles so it’s hard to measure up. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/29 "2016-04-19T04:54:44Z")
Well, I don’t think the Beatles are very good so pretty much any artist I like is “better” than the Beatles to me. I like a lot of solo artists, so I don’t know if those count if it has to be a “band”. But my favorite “band band” of all time is Dispatch. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/30 "2016-04-19T04:55:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The Ramones Well, in WASP land they never get any airplay. I don’t know one single song by The Ramones, although I have read about them. What can I say? I’m ignorant, but then so is probably just about everyone else. The Beatles were known world-wide. Maybe my suggested criteria should have included something to that effect. The Ramones are a niche punk group with little recognition outside certain circles. The Beatles influenced music and culture globally. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/31 "2016-04-19T04:57:14Z")
In terms of hits, popularity and songwriting ability, I’d put Billy Joel in the same ballpark as the Beatles. Seriously. Maybe Bruce Springsteen? ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/32 "2016-04-19T05:03:59Z")
To me the Beatles embody several criteria that place them at the peak of the pop pyramid: [ul] [li] **Songwriting**. Goes without saying, perhaps, but any band that aims to be compared to the Beatles needs to have at least half a dozen standards under their belt. The Beatles themselves had quite a few more.[/li][li] **Charismatic Performers**. The Beatles, by their own admission, were not instrumental virtuosi. But they could work a groove and, as Paul McCartney said, were good enough to pull off nearly every musical idea they tried. Plus special props to Lennon and McCartney as singers: simply two of the finest rock singers ever. (Harmony vocals are an underrated element of their greatness.)[/li][li] **Wide Range of Influences**. The Beatles were generalists, in the best sense of the word. They took inspiration from everything from avant-garde sound collages to television commercials. This was a bit more common in their own day, when kids grew up exposed to a much wider variety of music than we tend to be today.[/li][li] **Growth & Innovation**. The key factor, IMO. Almost every album the Beatles made represented some kind of advance — and often quite a startling one — over the one that came before. It’s staggering to think that _Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver_ and _Sergeant Pepper_ (not to mention singles like “We Can Work It Out,” “Rain,” “Strawberry Fields” and “Penny Lane”) were all produced in the span of about 24 months.[/li][li] **Popularity/Cultural Impact**. This counts too. The Beatles were the rare pop phenomenon that was equally beloved by critics and the public. A Beatles-caliber band makes an indelible mark on the culture.[/li][/ul] So with that said, here are my picks for Beatles-caliber artists. I expect disagreement over many if not most of these. **Bob Dylan** Songwriter nonpareil; created perhaps the most astonishing run of quality albums ever (_Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan_ through _Blonde on Blonde,_ or even _John Wesley Harding_); brought unprecedented literacy, introspection and humor into rock songwriting; expanded the boundaries of pop/rock singing (not to everyone’s satisfaction); continually moving into new and unusual territory, often with unfortunate results, but the man tries. **David Bowie** Probably the most relentless innovator in modern pop; great songwriter; great singer; riveting performer. **Stevie Wonder** Genius songwriter-singer-producer-instrumentalist; virtually owned the Grammys in the early 70s, and deservedly so (Paul Simon, winning his own Grammy, famously thanked Wonder for not releasing an album that year) **Rolling Stones** Not as adventurous or innovative as the Beatles, but what they did they did better than anyone else. That run of albums from _Beggars Banquet_ to _Exile on Main Street_ is as impressive as anything the Beatles or Dylan ever did. **Beach Boys** They suffered by being overworked by Capitol, but at their best, they were as good as it got. _Pet Sounds_ is an astonishing feat of singing, performing and arranging, as is _SMiLE_, although we only got that in dribs and drabs for many years. This is not an exhaustive list; I’m sure there are others that qualify by the above criteria. I’ll write more if I feel inspired. 🙂 Oh, and a special hat-tip to whoever mentioned XTC above. They obviously made nowhere near the kind of mark the Beatles did, but I think they’re the Beatles’ truest successors as purveyors of catchy, harmonically interesting pop songs, and they shared the Beatles’ capacity for growth from one album to the next. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/33 "2016-04-19T05:07:50Z")
Steely Dan ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/34 "2016-04-19T05:16:27Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > The Ramones are a niche punk group with little recognition outside certain circles. The Beatles influenced music and culture globally. The Ramones don’t belong with The Beatles except possibly in impact. Their trip to London in the mid-70’s kick-started the British punk rock scene. I think it was one of the guys in The Clash who said that nobody knew how fast you could play until they saw the Ramones. The Ramones certainly failed on growth, though. Their last albums weren’t much different from their first. And I’m a big Ramones fan. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/35 "2016-04-19T05:18:07Z")
And if were including solo artists then I’d add: - Micheal Jackson - Madonna - Chuck Berry If Elvis had written his own songs he would be in there. ---
**Author:** ![TheInimitableMaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TheInimitableMaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheInimitableMaven)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/36 "2016-04-19T05:32:07Z")
In terms of hits, popularity, charisma, and transcendence/influence, I’d have to put forth Simon and Garfunkel. Especially when you consider that their “America” is neck and neck with “Yesterday” for the most covered song. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/37 "2016-04-19T06:17:16Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > [ul] > [li] **Songwriting**. Goes without saying, perhaps, but any band that aims to be compared to the Beatles needs to have at least half a dozen standards under their belt. The Beatles themselves had quite a few more.[/li][li] **Charismatic Performers**. The Beatles, by their own admission, were not instrumental virtuosi. But they could work a groove and, as Paul McCartney said, were good enough to pull off nearly every musical idea they tried. Plus special props to Lennon and McCartney as singers: simply two of the finest rock singers ever. (Harmony vocals are an underrated element of their greatness.)[/li][li] **Wide Range of Influences**. The Beatles were generalists, in the best sense of the word. They took inspiration from everything from avant-garde sound collages to television commercials. This was a bit more common in their own day, when kids grew up exposed to a much wider variety of music than we tend to be today.[/li][li] **Growth & Innovation**. The key factor, IMO. Almost every album the Beatles made represented some kind of advance — and often quite a startling one — over the one that came before. It’s staggering to think that _Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver_ and _Sergeant Pepper_ (not to mention singles like “We Can Work It Out,” “Rain,” “Strawberry Fields” and “Penny Lane”) were all produced in the span of about 24 months.[/li][li] **Popularity/Cultural Impact**. This counts too. The Beatles were the rare pop phenomenon that was equally beloved by critics and the public. A Beatles-caliber band makes an indelible mark on the culture.[/li][/ul] This seems like a pretty good set of metrics - and I do think Queen scores pretty well on all of them - especially charisma and range. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/38 "2016-04-19T06:31:35Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > This seems like a pretty good set of metrics - and I do think Queen scores pretty well on all of them - especially charisma and range. There’s another metric I’d add. Less definable but let’s call it multi-generational appeal. In other words, “Hey, my mother loves this song!” I love Queen but I don’t know how they’d score with younger/older generations. I’d argue everyone has a favorite Billy Joel song. My two cents ---
**Author:** ![bobo\_blesinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecae2f/32.png) [@bobo\_blesinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobo_blesinger)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/39 "2016-04-19T06:34:45Z")
Twisted Sister ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/40 "2016-04-19T06:47:07Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > There’s another metric I’d add. Less definable but let’s call it multi-generational appeal. In other words, “Hey, my mother loves this song!” > > I love Queen but I don’t know how they’d score with younger/older generations. I’d argue everyone has a favorite Billy Joel song. > > My two cents I would think that some of the older songs especially would appeal to older generations…I’m thinking Seaside Rendezvous, You’re My Best Friend, Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, Good Company (OK, about half of A Night at the Opera)… and who doesn’t love Bohemian Rhapsody? Except those of us who’ve heard it about 40,000 too many times… :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616.md?page=3)