# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/41 "2016-04-19T07:28:56Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > The Ramones are a niche punk group with little recognition outside certain circles. The Beatles influenced music and culture globally. The Ramones are one of those groups which are more popular abroad than at home. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/42 "2016-04-19T07:39:51Z")
Pharrel Williams? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/43 "2016-04-19T08:15:47Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Prog rock: Pink Floyd, Yes, ELP, Genesis…I’d probably give Floyd the nod there, though the others are close.) Jethro Tull? Personally, I don’t think the Beatles are all that and a bag of chips, but that’s me, I’m aware of their popularity and influence. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/44 "2016-04-19T08:19:48Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > 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] I think Tull has all of these except, _maybe_, popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/45 "2016-04-19T09:16:48Z")
The Beatles had some mania, but KISS had an army. ---
**Author:** ![Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/les_espaces_du_sommeil/32/308_2.png) [@Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/46 "2016-04-19T09:29:35Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > 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] Great criteria, which I’m shamelessly going to use. **Songwriting** : Beach Boys, Bowie, Dylan, Elton John, Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd, Queen, (Rolling Stones), Springsteen, Stevie Wonder. **Charismatic Performers** : Bowie, Doors, Elton John, Elvis, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Queen, Rolling Stones, Springsteen, Who. **Wide Range of Influences** : Beach Boys, Bowie, Doors, Elton John, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, Who, XTC, Zappa. **Growth & Innovation** : Beach Boys, Bowie, Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, Who, XTC, Zappa. **Popularity/Cultural Impact** : Beach Boys, Dylan, Elvis, Kinks, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Queen, Rolling Stones, Springsteen, U2. I’d say that any contender needs to fit at least 4 of the 5 criteria to be considered. That leaves us with: \*\*- Beach Boys - Bowie - Queen\*\* Falling just short: \*\*- Elton John - Led Zeppelin - Michael Jackson - Pink Floyd - Rolling Stones - Springsteen - Stevie Wonder - Who\*\* **The Rolling Stones** are not in the same ballpark IMHO. They started out with a limited set of influences, found “their sound”, perfected it (I’ll give them that) and… they’ve been recycling the same stuff for the past 45 years. They fail in terms of influence, growth and… songwriting because, while they undeniably have more than half a dozen standards, I personnally don’t think that their music is all that great. Since I’m trying to keep this objective, I still listed them in “Songwriting” category but really none of their songs do anything for me. None. Regarding **XTC** , I don’t think that that are in the same ballpark as **The Beatles** either but they are massively underestimated. _Senses Working Overtime_ and, especially, _Making Plans for Nigel_ are really fine songs. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/47 "2016-04-19T10:07:25Z")
Agree with Nonsuch and Les Espaces. I would just add R.E.M. and Tom Waits to the songwriting category, and maybe to several other categories as well. Between these two, R.E.M. would win out for overall popularity, of course. And, R.E.M. is more of a _rock_ band, which needs to be our focus if we’re comparing acts to the Beatles. (Otherwise, we’ll be wandering into Joni Mitchell territory, etc. etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/48 "2016-04-19T10:23:09Z")
There’s quite a few bands here I’ve never heard of, or only know one song from. I’d suggest any band aspiring to be in the same league as the Beatles needs to have a really broad appeal and be familiar pretty much everyone - regardless of whether they live in Los Angeles, Kuala Lumpur or Madrid. I’d suggest that The Rolling Stones, Queen, The Beach Boys and Led Zeppelin all belong on the list. I’d also nominate U2 and AC/DC as worthy inclusions. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/49 "2016-04-19T10:28:27Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > I would just add R.E.M… And, sorry, pulykamell, there’s only room for one mainly-80s, three-lettered alt-rock band in this thread…it might come down to a transatlantic battle of the bands. 🙂 Martini – if we emphasize international appeal, Michael Jackson has to be included (unless not being a band is a disqualifier). ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/50 "2016-04-19T10:43:23Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Martini – if we emphasize international appeal, Michael Jackson has to be included (unless not being a band is a disqualifier). I was indeed deliberately excluding solo artists. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/51 "2016-04-19T11:02:44Z")
Hmm, I am coming to this thread late! I dunno. In the modern era, I respect a lot of the posted choices, like Dylan, Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Queen, The Who. Superior/complex/not just rock songwriting, and an arc of development that has clear phases and masterpieces. I would add **Marvin Gaye**. I like to think that **Hendrix** would have made the list if he lived longer. I love the Stones, but they operated on a much smaller blues/rock stage, whereas the Beatles explored so many more forms. And The Beatles wrote about themselves; even Paul’s simplest lyrics were about personal issues. The Stones struck the best poses - Sympathy and Gimme Shelter are two of the best songs ever, but are poses. The Stones played for lower, cooler, stakes in their songwriting vs. The Beatles, Dylan. I love the Ramones, but they are arcless and development-less. It is their strength, but a much smaller box. Nirvana is Catcher in the Rye. The Beatles are, I don’t know, James Joyce, moving from form to form, and writing masterpieces within each form, and experimenting with form and language. The two aren’t worth comparing. But I would point to **Miles Davis** in the same breath as the Beatles. Fuck yeah. If I need to geek about his evolution and innovation and popularity and importance and musical mastery, well, that would deserve its own thread. My $.02 for now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/52 "2016-04-19T11:28:25Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > When you say Beatles I think ‘revolutionary.’ So (although relatively much shorter-lived) Nirvana. Nirvana indicated the precise point in history when music no longer could be revolutionary ever again (rather, their arrival explicitly signified that fact, when it had already been made a _fait accompli_ a number of years earlier). They were reactionary, not revolutionary. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/53 "2016-04-19T11:32:51Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Nirvana indicated the precise point in history when music no longer could be revolutionary ever again (rather, their arrival explicitly signified that fact, when it had already been made a _fait accompli_ a number of years earlier). They were reactionary, not revolutionary. They were cute and mopey - but _really_ good at it. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/54 "2016-04-19T12:09:26Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > But I would point to **Miles Davis** in the same breath as the Beatles. Fuck yeah. If I need to geek about his evolution and innovation and popularity and importance and musical mastery, well, that would deserve its own thread. Well, if we’re going that far afield, Beethoven occupies much the same position in classical music that the Beatles do for rock/pop. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/55 "2016-04-19T12:31:04Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Well, if we’re going that far afield, Beethoven occupies much the same position in classical music that the Beatles do for rock/pop. Yep. On one hand, Ludwig and Miles are far afield; on the other hand, they are up at the level of “Historically Important Musician” that The Beatles are and will continue to be. While some of the rock-era artists mentioned have created brilliant work and had rich stages of development, they won’t be discussed at the same level as the Beatles. So, to the OP’s title, those acts aren’t inthe same ballpark as the Beatles. Beethoven and Miles Davis are. Same with Louis Armstrong. ---
**Author:** ![TCMF-2L](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tcmf-2l/32/16553_2.png) [@TCMF-2L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TCMF-2L)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/56 "2016-04-19T13:36:08Z")
I think \*\*David Bowie \*\*is the actual answer. However I would like to mention \*\*Crowded House \*\*who, in their first four albums, absolutely nailed memorable, precise pop plus they had a (small) degree of experimentation. First album a mixed bag of pop. Second album very slightly edgy anti-pop. Third album peerless timeless pop. Fourth album deeper, more adult pop. Sadly ‘pop’ is often used in a derogatory manner. Crowded House were often compared to the Beatles. I think the advertising slogan for their greatest hits summed them up the best: ‘_You know more Crowded House songs than you think you do_.’ TCMF-2L ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/57 "2016-04-19T13:58:27Z")
Greateful Dead? They sure had a huge following. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/58 "2016-04-19T14:13:36Z")
not a soul. ---
**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, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/59 "2016-04-19T14:22:29Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > And, sorry, pulykamell, there’s only room for one mainly-80s, three-lettered alt-rock band in this thread…it might come down to a transatlantic battle of the bands. :). REM certainly had more influence and mass appeal, and also showed great growth throughout their albums. In terms of songwriting, XTC are one of the few bands I’d put i the same ballpark as the Beatles. But, overall, I think you might be right that REM wins out for overall popularity and influence. I never really could get much into REM, but I can respect their accomplishments. ---
**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, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616/60 "2016-04-19T14:26:40Z")
I’d agree **Tom Waits** deserves props for songwriting and innovation. Very few people have pulled off the kind of artistic about-face he did when he made _Swordfishtrombones_. But he’s the very definition of an acquired taste, and I say it as a fan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bands-could-seriously-be-considered-in-the-same-ballpark-as-the-beatles/752616.md?page=4)