I’ll accept U2. Good pick. Queen is on the edge for me.
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.
Yeah, Freddie is God. 
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.
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.
The Ramones
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.
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.
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.
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.
In terms of hits, popularity and songwriting ability, I’d put Billy Joel in the same ballpark as the Beatles. Seriously.
Maybe Bruce Springsteen?
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.
Steely Dan
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.
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.
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.
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
Twisted Sister
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: