The Ramones are one of those groups which are more popular abroad than at home.
Pharrel Williams?
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.
I think Tull has all of these except, maybe, popularity.
The Beatles had some mania, but KISS had an army.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
I was indeed deliberately excluding solo artists.
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.
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.
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.
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
Greateful Dead? They sure had a huge following.
not a soul.
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.
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.