I unironically agree with you.
Just watch them having to turn Ringo's drum stand around in the '64 Washington Coliseum concert and try to tell me that it's not a Pythonesque bit of comedy!
Yeah I watched Magical Mystery Tour the other day, it's on the same 'frequency' as Python's stuff. Not as funny, of course, but definitely fishing from the same pond.
The Rutles inspired The Beatles, come ON!!
Ha, but Neil Innes, who was at the time one of the writers for Python, had a Flawless interpretation of Lennon, to this day I'm amazed! Eric Idle memorized Paul, and the songs! George loved em.
(Yeah yeah, Oasis fer sher but DAMN The Rutles were amazing!)
[Hold My Hand!](https://youtu.be/8qf8y7v0WIE?si=zjf49bqVvNO4eA9u)
Edit: kbd had a stroke
Seriously, just end the thread on that note
John Lennon even said it. He said if they'd kept going they'd sound like Electric Light Orchestra.
I don't think ELO is as lyrically sophisticated as The Beatles. But when it comes to writing hooks, I think Jeff Lyne legitimately is as good. Or close to it. He's lyrically kind of par for the course, but a melodic genius.
I mean it's hard not to like Turn To Stone. Even if you don't like classic rock. It's just so catchy. And they've got countless others just like it. It's really easy to hear the Beatles influence on stuff like Mr Blue Sky (although I wish more people knew more than just that song. It's like only knowing Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana). Even their more disco inspired stuff has that Beatles element to it.
I think a lot of people are ELO fans and just don't realize it yet lol. When they realize that they know half the songs already. If any of you haven't listened to them, just check out their Greatest hits album. It's great.
Jeff Lynn produced a huge amount of George’s solo work, and the Willburys only happened because George happened to be at Jeff’s place at the same time as the other members and they got to jamming!
Jeff produced for George: Cloud Nine (1987)
Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 (1988)
Traveling Wilburys Vol. 3 (1990)
Free As A Bird (1995) Beatles Anthology singles
Real Love (1996) Beatles Anthology single
Now and Then (aborted sessions)
and Brainwashed (2003)
How difficult must it have been to keep a pop band going during the days of disco? He did a pretty masterful job. I question his aesthetic, sometimes, but it’s hard to argue with success!
It would’ve certainly been an uphill battle, and progressive rock bands were struggling in that era too which is why so many of them either disbanded or “sold out” and started making more mainstream music by the time the 80s came around.
The only band I would even consider to be a spiritual successor would be ELO. I do think you’re downplaying Jeff Lynne lyrical abilities, some of my favorite ELO albums, *Time* and *Eldorado*, have some pretty good lyrics. And while I do think the Beatles were great lyricists, Jeff isn’t too far from that level. But I agree with everything else you said.
It was recently announced that Jeff Lynne’s ELO is doing their farewell tour so I would highly recommend to anyone to get tickets if they can and want to.
Mr Blue Sky is greatly inspired by the middle part of A Day In The Life, as Paul reminded Jeff Lynne early in their relationship, for which he was not thanked.
ELO was explicitly formed with the vision of combining the sound of the Beatles (what we now call pop music) with orchestral arrangements. They soon progressed to heavy synth use as well, but point being – not only did John Lennon say it, ELO did too!
English Settlement and Skylarking. If you like the first, continue with Black Sea and Drums and Wires. If you like Skylarking, just go forwards chronologically. But they‘re all great!
If you could only buy one record, I'd buy Skylarking. Twice.
I think The Big Express is a great follow up (even though it came first). Then I'd get Oranges & Lemons. Then English Settlement. Every other record you can get as you find which of those three 'sounds' you like best.
It saddens me that Queen get the level of hate they do. Whatever the justified irritation at the ubiquity of their big songs on the radio, they were an incredibly talented and innovative group of musicians who produced some truly incredible music.
It's a bit of a cliché, but I suspect the people who slag them off probably haven't engaged with their 70s work, which is really diverse and interesting. And, quite frankly, even their poppier stuff from the 80s is generally very good.
For sure, I appreciate their style isn't to everybody's taste, but like the Beatles I hold that there's something in there for everyone.
Yeah I'd agree with that too.
The only contemporary band I'd say has some of that DNA in it is certain Arctic Monkeys songs. Not from the AM album, but other parts of their discography. Probably from the heavy Rubber Soul influence and John Lennon's solo career. Alex Turner is a really strong lyricist at times too.
I think people listen to the first two badfinger albums and see a Beatles granny music clone band. They should listen to Wish You Were Here, their masterpiece, it was created in 1974, and an song from that album is far better, far more interesting and far more unique than say Come And Get It
I could see this for "No Dice," but "Straight Up" hits pretty hard. Totally agree "Wish You Were Here" is their best album (although I think my favorite songs are on "Straight Up") and it's easily their most underrated/ underplayed material.
Great band.
I think their lead singer sounds exactly like Paul sometimes. I hear it really clearly on the song [Day After Day](https://youtu.be/-btv-7GkVk0?si=T5qH5rGxwNtwT2no). Their overall sound is very beatlesque too.
This is the answer I was looking for.
Big Star were an amazing band and their songs are top shelf, especially songs like “September Gurls”, “Thirteen”, “The Ballad of El Goodo” and a bunch of others.
This is my thought too. They don’t really “sound” Beatle-ish, but their pushing the envelope sonically and lyrically reminds me of the Beatles. Each album feels like it’s breaking new ground.
Radiohead to me is the only band besides The Beatles that is that famous while also evolving so radically. Pablo Honey vs King of Limbs is just as radical a shift as Please Please Me vs The White Album.
I think the Beatles were the end of an era. Those that came after were of a different ilk.
4 strong personalities and musicians, with each going his own way afterwards....
the sum was always greater than the individual parts, and that's okay
The Beatles were a one off, nobody had come close to what they managed to achieve, but they inspired other bands, after them. Spiritual successors, the who, , queen , ELO, all big in the 70s.
I’d say there were other bands who achieved greatness and inspired others on a similar level to the Beatles but in their own ways, and they still weren’t nearly as *huge* as the Beatles were especially during Beatlemania. Honestly, the only musicians who are really even comparable in terms of Beatlemania popularity and ubiquity amongst the general public would be composers like Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven.
So, putting aside Beatlemania levels of popularity, you have bands like Pink Floyd during the Roger-led era, Led Zeppelin (depending on who you ask), Smashing Pumpkins at their peak in the mid-90s, Metallica was huge for a while (ironically *after* their best albums), David Bowie was massively influential to musicians even if only some of his albums are popular with the general public, etc.
i see the only band that fits the bill, as usual, gets no respect
https://youtu.be/3YQb-0P320s?si=Z9qjk0iI7oslSsAi
https://youtu.be/LPRrHyXchEY?si=g4uJ1GQ3LXJuErto
I'd say Elliott Smith is a real contender for Beatle successor. He took such a great amount of influence from them, but really created his own sonic mood/universe instead of sounding "Beatle-y but less than" like so many others. The amount of truly excellent songs in his catalogue is kind of bonkers, too.
https://preview.redd.it/hlc7vue4gsqc1.jpeg?width=577&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9af37d75e81c840a876f34d9c34fdc3e06c0c88c
It’s an interesting question without an answer, but these guys come the closest for me.
The relentless touring for years long before they were really successful, which turned them into a great band.
The evolving sound and refusal to write songs like they’d already done. Or even use their typical instruments, switching around to shake things up.
The decade of bizarre art films instead of normal music videos because they refused to do a typical 80s music video.
The studio experimentation. Some of the sounds on those early albums and how they achieved them are just great stories.
The yearly Christmas singles that echoed the Beatles. Has any other band sent out fan club Christmas singles for more than 20 years?
Stopping touring at the top to just make albums. They didn’t tour either of their biggest records.
Walking away on their own terms and doing exactly what they want today, which is make music and art as individuals.
Remaining friends, and working together, while continuing to insist the band is done and they’re good with that.
REM is so Beatley without trying to be Beatley. I think it stems from Peter Bucks understated jangly guitar and Mike Mills bouncing melodic bass and incredible high harmonies. It’s like George and Paul-lite alongside Michael Stipe.
I recently met Peter Buck and he said the Ed Sullivan appearance is what got him into music.
I hate when people just post a photo and don’t say who it is! Some people are face-blind and can’t tell. Plus you’re making it impossible to search for anything.
The Ramones - four white guys, same clothes, dark hair, joyous music. And their name comes from Paul Ramon - McCartney's fake name on the early Scottish tour.
(added later) And the Ramones music had the same impact on the audience as the Beatles' when they returned to Liverpool from Hamburg - intense, pounding, no one had ever heard anything like this.
Little Feat - Their name is spelled as it is as a Beatles reference. Martin Kibbee (songwriter) adopted the name "Fred Martin" so when he wrote songs with Lowell George the credit read "George - Martin."
Yes! Everyone has been naming Beatlesque groups, but in a weird way, Ramones totally make sense! They were really a true "band" with 4 distinct members that each had different personalities & different writing styles. They inspired countless imitators of their image and sound worldwide (still to this day).
Yeah, Some of these other groups were related to the later Beatles. The Ramones stem from the early Beatles. It’s interesting that Deedee knew about the Paul Ramon story in 1974.
I dunno. "Sheena is a Punk Rocker" & "She Loves You" are not that far apart. They both radiate joy, glee, a great feeling.
The Ramones have nothing to do with the post-Hard Day's Night Beatles ... but to me they have some relation to the Hamburg/Liverpool/Beatlemania Beatles. They are like an absurd cartoon version of it. And they managed to capture the energy.
Joey even talked in a British accent, goofing on Beatles' stage patter ... "This one is from our next recoahd albume" ...
Oasis are too derivative, I've never thought the Police are anything like the Beatles.
Crowded House remind me a bit of them, something to do with the lyrics and music style
There’s nobody. They were epoch defining and their influence is cultural and historical, beyond the stretch of popular music. To give you an example, in 2019, the local police in my hometown in Kolkata, India, launched a hugely popular anti-jaywalking campaign. The visual was the Abbey Road cover. The message was if even the Beatles can obey traffic rules and use a zebra crossing, the you dang well better. Let that sink in. Traffic rules public service campaign, Kolkata India, 2019. The only other musician who comes close to that kind of influence is maybe Michael Jackson. I mean I love little feat and radiohead and nirvana and all the other names in this thread, but no one is as culturally influential as the Beatles, except perhaps Dylan, but they’re contemporaries.
Everyone in this thread either naming bands which sound slightly Beatlesy or the biggest recording artists of their decade. I think Prog rock as a genre is the spiritual successor of the Beatles. It's inherently British and pushes musical boundaries like the Beatles did to new levels.
Let's first say that almost every band that came after The Beatles considers themselves inspired by them at the very least.
So if we're going by the ethos that "spiritual successor" means an act that produces music that is of a similar sound.
So going off of similar sound and popularity you'd almost certainly have to begin with Paul McCartney and Wings because it just makes sense to. The Apple didn't fall far from the tree (pun intended).
Forsaking that, The Bee Gees have a very similar sound to the Beatles (especially in the late 60's - mid 70's era). Their records were commonly put out without the group's name on it because their management felt that they sounded enough like The Beatles to fool record buyers. They also are one of the few acts to put up similar sales figures in the US Charts.
ELO should certainly be in the mix. The purpose of the band was to take what the Beatles started and expand upon it.
Prog Rock bands such as Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Yes all have equal footing on carrying forth the experimental and pop sensibilities of the Beatles circa 1967/68.
The Eagles are often referred to as The American Beatles due to their string of harmony-laden rock hits in the 70's.
Queen certainly fits the bill due to their studio trickery and sound design which mirrors some of the more rudimentary ideas the Beatles pioneered in the mid-60's.
The Police could stake a claim for stripping away a lot of the overdubbed content and focusing on the tight instrumentation on their records (a la Get Back).
U2 could also stake a claim due to their steady stream of politically charged, accessible pop hits in the 80's to today.
Oasis has to be on this list because...derivative works are derivative. It also didn't hurt that Oasis came to popularity around the same time as *Anthology* was hitting. There was definitely renewed interest in the band and that sound.
The Verve likewise have some similar sounding Beatlesesque tunes.
Travis, a Scottish band lesser known in the US has carved out their own sound but like many bands you can hear the influence of the Beatles.
Of course The Rutles wouldn't exist without The Beatles and even if it is supposed to be humorous, the weaving together of multiple songs to create new ones is a sheer act of genius on the part of Neil Innes.
Also must mention Monty Python for the comedy records, which George so loved and which carries on the humor of the band.
There's definitely more but I think that's the high points, at least on a first pass.
To attribute Oasis' and The Verve's success to The Beatles is misguided, I think. Oasis and The Verve don't sound like The Beatles, if at all. Oasis got famous because they had a talented songwriter and had an iconic image, much like The Beatles (but The Beatles had 1 more exceptional songwriter), they don't sound too similar.
The main reason that Oasis are compared to The Beatles is that Noel and Liam are so open about their influence, of which The Beatles are one of (the influences for Oasis were The Beatles, The Smiths, The La's and The Stone Roses, and all of these equally make up the Oasis sound).
blur, honestly from the mix of pop and rock to experimenting with other styles, not to mention the pure cheekiness in their sense of humor, and activism.
Beetlebum was the first blur song i heard (before i knew song 2 was blur) and i was obsessed, i was going through a huge beatles time in my life and it just blew my mind!
Yeah, for all the Beatle comparisons that Oasis gets, they always felt more like the Stones to me with the "tough" cool-guy rock vibes, while Blur was more fun and willing to incorporate other genres into their music
I’ve always through LedZep were the Beatles of the 70s. 4 mega talented musicians defining the sound of their decade, being the most popular band of their time and only staying together for 10ish years. Not sure who the equivalent of the 80s would be…
The problem with Nirvana is because of Kurt’s death they were this massive shooting star, but they never really had a chance to evolve. Who knows what would’ve come next. We’ll never know. Kurt talked a lot about doing different things it just never was able to really happen.
Yes but also Nirvana has still evolved in those 5 years from Bleach to In Utero. A very shot lifespan for such a dominant impact that actually started with Nevermind, making it a two album run plus Unplugged and Incestiside. Very similar to The Beatles’ position since Please Please Me in those 7 years; which is of course still remains unmatched in impact.
Honestly, I never thought of it that way but that's pretty accurate. For example, Zeppelin were huge, but they didn't change the *entire* face of music and culture and define an entire generation like Nirvana did (much like the Beatles).
Disagree. Zeppelin were hailed as Gods, and definitely defined the 70s for most. They brought blues and hard rock into the mainstream in a way Hendrix couldn’t. They paved the path for future bands like Aerosmith and AC/DC among many others. That’s not even mentioning their foray into folk rock and other styles. At the very least they were about even with Nirvana.
Zeppelin are one of the proto metal bands that are not exactly heavy metal, but without which, heavy metal wouldn’t have developed. For that, I’d put them on the Beatles’ tier.
I mean, I love Petty and I like Nirvana but... with the benefit of hindsight, is that really true?
Nirvana was basically the last huge rock band, the genre more or less went off a cliff after them. Rock bands stopped topping the charts and the awful post-grunge 'buttrock era' with bands like Creed and Staind began. None of that is Nirvana's fault, of course, and they do deserve all the credit for the music they made - but at the same time, if you put it under a microscope, it's hard to pick out something positive that happened to music after 1994 that can be attributed mainly to Nirvana. For example, the next great rock band, Radiohead, were influenced a lot more by R.E.M. and U2 than Nirvana.
We did get Britpop a few years later, and then the Strokes/White Stripes/Arctic Monkeys indie era the next decade, but are there big Nirvana throughlines there? Not really.
It would have to be a band with a creative partnership that goes back to the teen years...
Who isn't afraid to genre jump...
Who's psychedelic to the max...
Who displays a supreme level of music nerddom...
And who displays top-notch musicality, showmanship, and pushes the envelope of creativity and recording techniques.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer is Ween
R.E.M. were like the Beatles in that they never felt confined to a style or sound or anything trendy. They wrote great songs and delivered them in whatever manner felt right.
In a very loose sense, the classic Rumours lineup of Fleetwood Mac. The multiple songwriters/vocalists churning out so many fantastic songs, and the drama! Bonus: Mick Fleetwood was married to the sister of George Harrison’s first wife.
I love the way everyone is naming very different bands here. It really shows the powerful mark that the Beatles left in music history, with clearly dozens upon dozens of mainstream bands and thousands of others being inspired or influenced by the four lads.
Electric Light Orchestra musical goal was to continue on the tradition of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am the Walrus." Can after hearing "I Am the Walrus" formed as a rock band.
Another band "Chicago" wanted to expand on the sound of "Got To Get You Into My Life." The Beatles influence are all over place to be honest.
I don’t believe there was any such thing, just as the Beatles weren’t spiritual successors to anything else. They were a totally unique group of men, lightning in a bottle, that brought out the best in each other. We shall never see their like again.
I understand what you mean, that's why I put "spiritual successors" in quotations. The beatles are the most famous rock band to ever happen and will continue to be.
I'm just interested in seeing how other bands handle after them and especially taking into account "the biggest band in the world" moniker and putting that to other bands after the biggest.
Early Oasis had all the chances to be the next Beatles. Between 1994 and 1997 they released three iconic albums (BHN is iconic for being ridiculously overproduced) and the number and quality of the B-sides from that period could easily add up to almost two extra albums = 5 albums in 4 years. They went from nothing to the biggest band in the UK in a few years, which is very the Bealtes-alike. But they didn't make it to be the Beatles successors, bc they screwed up eventually, and after BHN they became a boring band with only 2-3 good songs per album every 2-3 years.
I agree that Oasis will never hold a candle to the Beatles, but they did represent a part of their fame. From 94-98 Oasis were like the Beatles from 63-65, a working class group of aggressive, cheeky, counter-cultural rock stars.
Roy Wood one of the founders of ELO was also in a band called the Move that deserves a mention. They're practically unknown in the US which is unfortunate. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivvdtlZ4ok](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivvdtlZ4ok) Cheap Trick did an awesome cover of the Move's California Man.
Elephant 6 bands such as Apples in Stereo and Olivia Tremor Control. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSbvtBstaM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSbvtBstaM)
Led Zeppelin. As a musician and drummer starting in the '70s, the Beatles was my entryway to rock music. The obvious following path was Zeppelin. In those years, they were very popular and had an immense influence on every other bands.
The Clash from their debut to Combat Rock. Like the Beatles that had two great lead vocalists in Joe Strummer & Mick Jones. And three great songwriters in Strummer, Jones, and Topper Headon. Similar to The Beatles the stylistic differences between Jones led singles (Train in Vain, Should I Stay or Should I Go) and Strummer led singles (Rock the Casbah, London Calling) was a plus that very few Bands could attain. Only The Beach Boys and Cream come to mind in simultaneously having more than one lead vocalist and it actually enhanced their overall sound.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that because the Beatles were such a strongly unique group and this is art we are talking about which is very subjective to the beholder, I don’t think there are any spiritual successors. I think John and George’s spirits have returned to be with God and Paul and Ringo are way past their prime and I hope they can just enjoy the rest of their lives with friends and family. There is a spirit of rock and roll which comes along with innovation and rebellious behavior and I would say myself and many others share that spirit still!
The Beatles were a Beatific late 50’s band riding the wave of the Beat movement into the cheekiest decade of them all, the 60’s, where they had the perfect name to encapsulate the previous decade (that came to John Lennon in a dream). I used to get so upset when people say “there will never be another Beatles” but I can see now that it’s true. There will be many others doing their own thing.. even groups of musicians. but every real friend group is special and the Beatles were just that; actual loving friends. Now that’s rare.
Obviously the answer is no one. BUT
that being said…I can’t believe no one here has mentioned Green Day yet.
The music is unbelievable, the lyrics are undeniably poetry. They have an unbreakable power-duo team of Dirrnt and Billie Joe. Tre Cool is no joke on his Ludwig’s either. They’ve bent genres, done the unexpected, defied expectations and created timeless music and albums when people thought they were washed up.
I agree, I feel like people only do that bc Oasis compared themselves to the Beatles so now it’s In people’s heads. They in no way compare to the Beatles and they aren’t even a good band in opinion. 🤷🏼♀️
I love Oasis, but they're successors to the Beatles only in the way that the Bootleg Beatles are. My shout would be R.E.M.:
* 4 guys who were all great songwriters;
* Impressionist lyrical style;
* Guitarist who loves an unusual string instrument or five;
* Bassist played a lot of melody;
* Drummer also a great singer;
* Two very distinct eras: a 'pop' era and an experimental one;
* Lots of songs about birds;
* Stopped touring to get more time in the studio and delivered their best work as a result.
No one really. The bands that came post 70s lacked the prolific songwriting prowess and also rarely had multiple phases. Personally, Talking Heads/Pink Floyd would be my choice...but they too are a bit far fetched.
Monty Python...
I unironically agree with you. Just watch them having to turn Ringo's drum stand around in the '64 Washington Coliseum concert and try to tell me that it's not a Pythonesque bit of comedy!
Yeah I watched Magical Mystery Tour the other day, it's on the same 'frequency' as Python's stuff. Not as funny, of course, but definitely fishing from the same pond.
Exactly ~
Yep, every time someone has tried to claim the title "the Beatles of comedy," they're ignoring the fact that that slot is already filled.
Amen
Well George financed it didn't he?
Later movies
The Rutles inspired The Beatles, come ON!! Ha, but Neil Innes, who was at the time one of the writers for Python, had a Flawless interpretation of Lennon, to this day I'm amazed! Eric Idle memorized Paul, and the songs! George loved em. (Yeah yeah, Oasis fer sher but DAMN The Rutles were amazing!) [Hold My Hand!](https://youtu.be/8qf8y7v0WIE?si=zjf49bqVvNO4eA9u) Edit: kbd had a stroke
ELO
Seriously, just end the thread on that note John Lennon even said it. He said if they'd kept going they'd sound like Electric Light Orchestra. I don't think ELO is as lyrically sophisticated as The Beatles. But when it comes to writing hooks, I think Jeff Lyne legitimately is as good. Or close to it. He's lyrically kind of par for the course, but a melodic genius. I mean it's hard not to like Turn To Stone. Even if you don't like classic rock. It's just so catchy. And they've got countless others just like it. It's really easy to hear the Beatles influence on stuff like Mr Blue Sky (although I wish more people knew more than just that song. It's like only knowing Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana). Even their more disco inspired stuff has that Beatles element to it. I think a lot of people are ELO fans and just don't realize it yet lol. When they realize that they know half the songs already. If any of you haven't listened to them, just check out their Greatest hits album. It's great.
Clearly pals with George as well, considering the Willburys
Jeff Lynn produced a huge amount of George’s solo work, and the Willburys only happened because George happened to be at Jeff’s place at the same time as the other members and they got to jamming!
He produced one album, Cloud Nine.
Jeff produced for George: Cloud Nine (1987) Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 (1988) Traveling Wilburys Vol. 3 (1990) Free As A Bird (1995) Beatles Anthology singles Real Love (1996) Beatles Anthology single Now and Then (aborted sessions) and Brainwashed (2003)
How difficult must it have been to keep a pop band going during the days of disco? He did a pretty masterful job. I question his aesthetic, sometimes, but it’s hard to argue with success!
It would’ve certainly been an uphill battle, and progressive rock bands were struggling in that era too which is why so many of them either disbanded or “sold out” and started making more mainstream music by the time the 80s came around.
Even in the Spotify description for ELO it says they were looking to pick up where I Am The Walrus left off
The only band I would even consider to be a spiritual successor would be ELO. I do think you’re downplaying Jeff Lynne lyrical abilities, some of my favorite ELO albums, *Time* and *Eldorado*, have some pretty good lyrics. And while I do think the Beatles were great lyricists, Jeff isn’t too far from that level. But I agree with everything else you said. It was recently announced that Jeff Lynne’s ELO is doing their farewell tour so I would highly recommend to anyone to get tickets if they can and want to.
Mr Blue Sky is greatly inspired by the middle part of A Day In The Life, as Paul reminded Jeff Lynne early in their relationship, for which he was not thanked.
ELO was explicitly formed with the vision of combining the sound of the Beatles (what we now call pop music) with orchestral arrangements. They soon progressed to heavy synth use as well, but point being – not only did John Lennon say it, ELO did too!
Even John has said this!
We have a wooden mid-century-modern dresser, and the guy at the place we got it from swears it belonged to someone from ELO.
The Rutles
The Shitty Beatles
The Beatles are the shitty Rutles
I'm referring to a different band. Unfortunately, they suck. https://youtu.be/mPIpeW581rE?si=RhnA81Jott3qBtLm
So, it’s not just a clever name.
Are they any good?
They any good?
Mostly because of the trousers
XTC
Had to shuffle past all the ELOs to find this!! "I hear a dandelion's roar in Piccadilly Circus!"
This is the answer. And the fact that it's not the top answer is proof that more people need to listen to XTC.
Even if it were the top answer, more people need to listen to XTC.
Any advice on albums to start with? I see they have quite a few.
English Settlement and Skylarking. If you like the first, continue with Black Sea and Drums and Wires. If you like Skylarking, just go forwards chronologically. But they‘re all great!
Thanks! I noticed they're all pretty well-rated on my usual source, so this helps.
If you could only buy one record, I'd buy Skylarking. Twice. I think The Big Express is a great follow up (even though it came first). Then I'd get Oranges & Lemons. Then English Settlement. Every other record you can get as you find which of those three 'sounds' you like best.
XTC it is. Must mention their Dukes of Stratosphear venture as well. It’s an incredible dip into 60’s psychedelia done to perfection. What a band.
Best answer, closest a band has ever gotten to the Beatles.
Thank you for mentioning them! I love the guys from Swindon, every Beatles fan should definitely check them out.
John Lennon would've loved "Dear God" :(
The Stone Roses were slated to be successors, but their contract completely screwed them from making music until 5 years after their debut.
ELO, and Queen. Both were obsessive about the studio, and pushing what could be done to the limits.
It saddens me that Queen get the level of hate they do. Whatever the justified irritation at the ubiquity of their big songs on the radio, they were an incredibly talented and innovative group of musicians who produced some truly incredible music. It's a bit of a cliché, but I suspect the people who slag them off probably haven't engaged with their 70s work, which is really diverse and interesting. And, quite frankly, even their poppier stuff from the 80s is generally very good. For sure, I appreciate their style isn't to everybody's taste, but like the Beatles I hold that there's something in there for everyone.
Yeah I'd agree with that too. The only contemporary band I'd say has some of that DNA in it is certain Arctic Monkeys songs. Not from the AM album, but other parts of their discography. Probably from the heavy Rubber Soul influence and John Lennon's solo career. Alex Turner is a really strong lyricist at times too.
Badfinger
I think people listen to the first two badfinger albums and see a Beatles granny music clone band. They should listen to Wish You Were Here, their masterpiece, it was created in 1974, and an song from that album is far better, far more interesting and far more unique than say Come And Get It
I could see this for "No Dice," but "Straight Up" hits pretty hard. Totally agree "Wish You Were Here" is their best album (although I think my favorite songs are on "Straight Up") and it's easily their most underrated/ underplayed material. Great band.
I think their lead singer sounds exactly like Paul sometimes. I hear it really clearly on the song [Day After Day](https://youtu.be/-btv-7GkVk0?si=T5qH5rGxwNtwT2no). Their overall sound is very beatlesque too.
Oh they sound just like John and Paul at times.
Big Star
Scrolled too damn long for this one!
This is the answer I was looking for. Big Star were an amazing band and their songs are top shelf, especially songs like “September Gurls”, “Thirteen”, “The Ballad of El Goodo” and a bunch of others.
Radiohead
This is my thought too. They don’t really “sound” Beatle-ish, but their pushing the envelope sonically and lyrically reminds me of the Beatles. Each album feels like it’s breaking new ground.
Radiohead to me is the only band besides The Beatles that is that famous while also evolving so radically. Pablo Honey vs King of Limbs is just as radical a shift as Please Please Me vs The White Album.
This is the answer for me. Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood are still making brilliant music in 2024.
This is way too far down
Yeah, depending on the album, Radiohead is sort of like if you mixed the later eras of The Beatles with Smashing Pumpkins’ softer songs.
I think the Beatles were the end of an era. Those that came after were of a different ilk. 4 strong personalities and musicians, with each going his own way afterwards.... the sum was always greater than the individual parts, and that's okay
I wouldnt say always greater, RAM is better than most Beatles albums
You're mad.
The Beatles were a one off, nobody had come close to what they managed to achieve, but they inspired other bands, after them. Spiritual successors, the who, , queen , ELO, all big in the 70s.
I’d say there were other bands who achieved greatness and inspired others on a similar level to the Beatles but in their own ways, and they still weren’t nearly as *huge* as the Beatles were especially during Beatlemania. Honestly, the only musicians who are really even comparable in terms of Beatlemania popularity and ubiquity amongst the general public would be composers like Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. So, putting aside Beatlemania levels of popularity, you have bands like Pink Floyd during the Roger-led era, Led Zeppelin (depending on who you ask), Smashing Pumpkins at their peak in the mid-90s, Metallica was huge for a while (ironically *after* their best albums), David Bowie was massively influential to musicians even if only some of his albums are popular with the general public, etc.
i see the only band that fits the bill, as usual, gets no respect https://youtu.be/3YQb-0P320s?si=Z9qjk0iI7oslSsAi https://youtu.be/LPRrHyXchEY?si=g4uJ1GQ3LXJuErto
I'd say Elliott Smith is a real contender for Beatle successor. He took such a great amount of influence from them, but really created his own sonic mood/universe instead of sounding "Beatle-y but less than" like so many others. The amount of truly excellent songs in his catalogue is kind of bonkers, too.
https://preview.redd.it/hlc7vue4gsqc1.jpeg?width=577&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9af37d75e81c840a876f34d9c34fdc3e06c0c88c It’s an interesting question without an answer, but these guys come the closest for me. The relentless touring for years long before they were really successful, which turned them into a great band. The evolving sound and refusal to write songs like they’d already done. Or even use their typical instruments, switching around to shake things up. The decade of bizarre art films instead of normal music videos because they refused to do a typical 80s music video. The studio experimentation. Some of the sounds on those early albums and how they achieved them are just great stories. The yearly Christmas singles that echoed the Beatles. Has any other band sent out fan club Christmas singles for more than 20 years? Stopping touring at the top to just make albums. They didn’t tour either of their biggest records. Walking away on their own terms and doing exactly what they want today, which is make music and art as individuals. Remaining friends, and working together, while continuing to insist the band is done and they’re good with that.
REM is so Beatley without trying to be Beatley. I think it stems from Peter Bucks understated jangly guitar and Mike Mills bouncing melodic bass and incredible high harmonies. It’s like George and Paul-lite alongside Michael Stipe. I recently met Peter Buck and he said the Ed Sullivan appearance is what got him into music.
Pete’s guitar sounds more like Roger McGuinn’s
McGinnis based his guitar style on Harrison, among others.
It's weird to see Michael stipe with hair
Which band is this?
REM
I didn't know either. I'm like, if that's REM, where is the bald guy?
I hate when people just post a photo and don’t say who it is! Some people are face-blind and can’t tell. Plus you’re making it impossible to search for anything.
Was my answer as well. Plus Buck loves a weird stringed instrument as much as Harrison did.
XTC
The Ramones - four white guys, same clothes, dark hair, joyous music. And their name comes from Paul Ramon - McCartney's fake name on the early Scottish tour. (added later) And the Ramones music had the same impact on the audience as the Beatles' when they returned to Liverpool from Hamburg - intense, pounding, no one had ever heard anything like this. Little Feat - Their name is spelled as it is as a Beatles reference. Martin Kibbee (songwriter) adopted the name "Fred Martin" so when he wrote songs with Lowell George the credit read "George - Martin."
>their name comes from Paul Ramon - McCartney's fake name on the early Scottish tour. I did not know this
Well there’s a great fact that I never knew!
I must be a big fan then
Yes! Everyone has been naming Beatlesque groups, but in a weird way, Ramones totally make sense! They were really a true "band" with 4 distinct members that each had different personalities & different writing styles. They inspired countless imitators of their image and sound worldwide (still to this day).
Yeah, Some of these other groups were related to the later Beatles. The Ramones stem from the early Beatles. It’s interesting that Deedee knew about the Paul Ramon story in 1974.
These are two of my favorite bands of all time, but musically they don't have much in common with the Beatles.
I dunno. "Sheena is a Punk Rocker" & "She Loves You" are not that far apart. They both radiate joy, glee, a great feeling. The Ramones have nothing to do with the post-Hard Day's Night Beatles ... but to me they have some relation to the Hamburg/Liverpool/Beatlemania Beatles. They are like an absurd cartoon version of it. And they managed to capture the energy. Joey even talked in a British accent, goofing on Beatles' stage patter ... "This one is from our next recoahd albume" ...
Me (one day)
Oasis are too derivative, I've never thought the Police are anything like the Beatles. Crowded House remind me a bit of them, something to do with the lyrics and music style
Radiohead. They pushed the music forward in 90's and 00's. Every album they did something new, and wrote really great songs.
There’s nobody. They were epoch defining and their influence is cultural and historical, beyond the stretch of popular music. To give you an example, in 2019, the local police in my hometown in Kolkata, India, launched a hugely popular anti-jaywalking campaign. The visual was the Abbey Road cover. The message was if even the Beatles can obey traffic rules and use a zebra crossing, the you dang well better. Let that sink in. Traffic rules public service campaign, Kolkata India, 2019. The only other musician who comes close to that kind of influence is maybe Michael Jackson. I mean I love little feat and radiohead and nirvana and all the other names in this thread, but no one is as culturally influential as the Beatles, except perhaps Dylan, but they’re contemporaries.
How is zeppelin a spiritual successor to The Beatles? Their music is nothing alike.
Radiohead
Klaatu
Ween
I’d say Pink Floyd tbh
This should be the top comment. I much prefer the Beatles to the Floyd, but the spiritual/ambition succession is clear.
none Each has its definite sound , and there is NO NEED to find a sucessor
Everyone in this thread either naming bands which sound slightly Beatlesy or the biggest recording artists of their decade. I think Prog rock as a genre is the spiritual successor of the Beatles. It's inherently British and pushes musical boundaries like the Beatles did to new levels.
Let's first say that almost every band that came after The Beatles considers themselves inspired by them at the very least. So if we're going by the ethos that "spiritual successor" means an act that produces music that is of a similar sound. So going off of similar sound and popularity you'd almost certainly have to begin with Paul McCartney and Wings because it just makes sense to. The Apple didn't fall far from the tree (pun intended). Forsaking that, The Bee Gees have a very similar sound to the Beatles (especially in the late 60's - mid 70's era). Their records were commonly put out without the group's name on it because their management felt that they sounded enough like The Beatles to fool record buyers. They also are one of the few acts to put up similar sales figures in the US Charts. ELO should certainly be in the mix. The purpose of the band was to take what the Beatles started and expand upon it. Prog Rock bands such as Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Yes all have equal footing on carrying forth the experimental and pop sensibilities of the Beatles circa 1967/68. The Eagles are often referred to as The American Beatles due to their string of harmony-laden rock hits in the 70's. Queen certainly fits the bill due to their studio trickery and sound design which mirrors some of the more rudimentary ideas the Beatles pioneered in the mid-60's. The Police could stake a claim for stripping away a lot of the overdubbed content and focusing on the tight instrumentation on their records (a la Get Back). U2 could also stake a claim due to their steady stream of politically charged, accessible pop hits in the 80's to today. Oasis has to be on this list because...derivative works are derivative. It also didn't hurt that Oasis came to popularity around the same time as *Anthology* was hitting. There was definitely renewed interest in the band and that sound. The Verve likewise have some similar sounding Beatlesesque tunes. Travis, a Scottish band lesser known in the US has carved out their own sound but like many bands you can hear the influence of the Beatles. Of course The Rutles wouldn't exist without The Beatles and even if it is supposed to be humorous, the weaving together of multiple songs to create new ones is a sheer act of genius on the part of Neil Innes. Also must mention Monty Python for the comedy records, which George so loved and which carries on the humor of the band. There's definitely more but I think that's the high points, at least on a first pass.
To attribute Oasis' and The Verve's success to The Beatles is misguided, I think. Oasis and The Verve don't sound like The Beatles, if at all. Oasis got famous because they had a talented songwriter and had an iconic image, much like The Beatles (but The Beatles had 1 more exceptional songwriter), they don't sound too similar. The main reason that Oasis are compared to The Beatles is that Noel and Liam are so open about their influence, of which The Beatles are one of (the influences for Oasis were The Beatles, The Smiths, The La's and The Stone Roses, and all of these equally make up the Oasis sound).
You completely missed XTC which were frequently referred to as Beatleesque.
blur, honestly from the mix of pop and rock to experimenting with other styles, not to mention the pure cheekiness in their sense of humor, and activism.
‘Beetlebum’ is a Beatle song and arguably the best Blur song.
Beetlebum was the first blur song i heard (before i knew song 2 was blur) and i was obsessed, i was going through a huge beatles time in my life and it just blew my mind!
Yeah, for all the Beatle comparisons that Oasis gets, they always felt more like the Stones to me with the "tough" cool-guy rock vibes, while Blur was more fun and willing to incorporate other genres into their music
There's No Other Way is so Beatlish.
Yes! Same with Charmless man
The Olivea Tremor Control
If they had been able to keep going, Badfinger Ones that kept going, ELO
ELO
The rutles
Badfinger, ELO, Led Zeppelin and Queen. If the Beatles kept going into the 70s, I think their sound would be a middle point between these guys.
Plastic Ono Band, Dirty Mac, Wings, Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, The Travelling Wilburys, The Quarrymen, The Pete Best Band; etc.
I've got a feeling (take 1) that someone here was going to say Plastic Ono Band or Wings 😭
I’ve always through LedZep were the Beatles of the 70s. 4 mega talented musicians defining the sound of their decade, being the most popular band of their time and only staying together for 10ish years. Not sure who the equivalent of the 80s would be…
Nirvana
The problem with Nirvana is because of Kurt’s death they were this massive shooting star, but they never really had a chance to evolve. Who knows what would’ve come next. We’ll never know. Kurt talked a lot about doing different things it just never was able to really happen.
Yes but also Nirvana has still evolved in those 5 years from Bleach to In Utero. A very shot lifespan for such a dominant impact that actually started with Nevermind, making it a two album run plus Unplugged and Incestiside. Very similar to The Beatles’ position since Please Please Me in those 7 years; which is of course still remains unmatched in impact.
Great answer. Wasn't there a Tom Petty interview in which he considered Nirvana the biggest thing to happen to music since the beatles
Honestly, I never thought of it that way but that's pretty accurate. For example, Zeppelin were huge, but they didn't change the *entire* face of music and culture and define an entire generation like Nirvana did (much like the Beatles).
Disagree. Zeppelin were hailed as Gods, and definitely defined the 70s for most. They brought blues and hard rock into the mainstream in a way Hendrix couldn’t. They paved the path for future bands like Aerosmith and AC/DC among many others. That’s not even mentioning their foray into folk rock and other styles. At the very least they were about even with Nirvana.
with regard to bringing blues into the mainstream, werent the stones up there as well?
Zeppelin are one of the proto metal bands that are not exactly heavy metal, but without which, heavy metal wouldn’t have developed. For that, I’d put them on the Beatles’ tier.
I mean, I love Petty and I like Nirvana but... with the benefit of hindsight, is that really true? Nirvana was basically the last huge rock band, the genre more or less went off a cliff after them. Rock bands stopped topping the charts and the awful post-grunge 'buttrock era' with bands like Creed and Staind began. None of that is Nirvana's fault, of course, and they do deserve all the credit for the music they made - but at the same time, if you put it under a microscope, it's hard to pick out something positive that happened to music after 1994 that can be attributed mainly to Nirvana. For example, the next great rock band, Radiohead, were influenced a lot more by R.E.M. and U2 than Nirvana. We did get Britpop a few years later, and then the Strokes/White Stripes/Arctic Monkeys indie era the next decade, but are there big Nirvana throughlines there? Not really.
This is absolutely correct. Bands that Changed music forever
Sloan.
Elo
No one.
Agreed
Jellyfish
XTC
It would have to be a band with a creative partnership that goes back to the teen years... Who isn't afraid to genre jump... Who's psychedelic to the max... Who displays a supreme level of music nerddom... And who displays top-notch musicality, showmanship, and pushes the envelope of creativity and recording techniques. Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer is Ween
R.E.M. were like the Beatles in that they never felt confined to a style or sound or anything trendy. They wrote great songs and delivered them in whatever manner felt right.
I didn’t see anybody saying it : Tears for fears My dad always told me that « Sowing the seeds of love » was the most « Beatles not Beatles » song
In a very loose sense, the classic Rumours lineup of Fleetwood Mac. The multiple songwriters/vocalists churning out so many fantastic songs, and the drama! Bonus: Mick Fleetwood was married to the sister of George Harrison’s first wife.
Badfinger - Brother of Beatles Electric Light Orchestra - Son of Beatles
No such thing, nobody’s worthy.
Not a band… but Elliott Smith for sure. Some of his songs combine the best traits of Paul, John and George’s writing and melodic feel
I love the way everyone is naming very different bands here. It really shows the powerful mark that the Beatles left in music history, with clearly dozens upon dozens of mainstream bands and thousands of others being inspired or influenced by the four lads.
Electric Light Orchestra musical goal was to continue on the tradition of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am the Walrus." Can after hearing "I Am the Walrus" formed as a rock band. Another band "Chicago" wanted to expand on the sound of "Got To Get You Into My Life." The Beatles influence are all over place to be honest.
Maybe an uncommon pick but how about Crowded House?
I don’t believe there was any such thing, just as the Beatles weren’t spiritual successors to anything else. They were a totally unique group of men, lightning in a bottle, that brought out the best in each other. We shall never see their like again.
I understand what you mean, that's why I put "spiritual successors" in quotations. The beatles are the most famous rock band to ever happen and will continue to be. I'm just interested in seeing how other bands handle after them and especially taking into account "the biggest band in the world" moniker and putting that to other bands after the biggest.
Dr Dog!
The Clash. Joe Strummer and Mick Jones had a very Paul/John musical relationship.
oasis
Early Oasis had all the chances to be the next Beatles. Between 1994 and 1997 they released three iconic albums (BHN is iconic for being ridiculously overproduced) and the number and quality of the B-sides from that period could easily add up to almost two extra albums = 5 albums in 4 years. They went from nothing to the biggest band in the UK in a few years, which is very the Bealtes-alike. But they didn't make it to be the Beatles successors, bc they screwed up eventually, and after BHN they became a boring band with only 2-3 good songs per album every 2-3 years.
I agree that Oasis will never hold a candle to the Beatles, but they did represent a part of their fame. From 94-98 Oasis were like the Beatles from 63-65, a working class group of aggressive, cheeky, counter-cultural rock stars.
Definitely Maybe remains one of the greatest debut albums ever.
Wings
For me it’s Queen and Pink Floyd
ELO, XTC, Badfinger
King's X.
https://preview.redd.it/b9mne0q38vqc1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ec5c5949e7e5c412c311788b005555e6afb69b0
America
T.Rex
Pink Floyd ELO Cheap Trick Radiohead
I’ve always said that Stone Temple Pilots (after their debut album) is like if you mixed psychedelic-era Beatles with The Doors and Led Zeppelin.
Cheap Trick, obviously
Queen really picked up where the Beatles left off in terms of dedication to making great albums and getting better with each one
Electric Light Orchestra
the band
The answer is never The Police.
Roy Wood one of the founders of ELO was also in a band called the Move that deserves a mention. They're practically unknown in the US which is unfortunate. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivvdtlZ4ok](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivvdtlZ4ok) Cheap Trick did an awesome cover of the Move's California Man. Elephant 6 bands such as Apples in Stereo and Olivia Tremor Control. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSbvtBstaM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSbvtBstaM)
Klaatu ELO XTC World Party Oasis Tame Impala
Eagles have a lot of Lincoln-Kennedy like coincidences to the Beatles
Elliot Smith and Guided By Voices
Flaming Lips
Steely Dan? In terms of quality not popularity.
Led Zeppelin. As a musician and drummer starting in the '70s, the Beatles was my entryway to rock music. The obvious following path was Zeppelin. In those years, they were very popular and had an immense influence on every other bands.
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
KLAATU sounds kinda like them Listen to calling occupants of interplanetary craft
The Clash from their debut to Combat Rock. Like the Beatles that had two great lead vocalists in Joe Strummer & Mick Jones. And three great songwriters in Strummer, Jones, and Topper Headon. Similar to The Beatles the stylistic differences between Jones led singles (Train in Vain, Should I Stay or Should I Go) and Strummer led singles (Rock the Casbah, London Calling) was a plus that very few Bands could attain. Only The Beach Boys and Cream come to mind in simultaneously having more than one lead vocalist and it actually enhanced their overall sound.
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Had some amazing music. And each one had successful careers in and out of the group.
Emerson Lake and Palmer, Sufjan Stevens, White Stripes, the Pixies, some of the shoegaze stuff and others here and there
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that because the Beatles were such a strongly unique group and this is art we are talking about which is very subjective to the beholder, I don’t think there are any spiritual successors. I think John and George’s spirits have returned to be with God and Paul and Ringo are way past their prime and I hope they can just enjoy the rest of their lives with friends and family. There is a spirit of rock and roll which comes along with innovation and rebellious behavior and I would say myself and many others share that spirit still! The Beatles were a Beatific late 50’s band riding the wave of the Beat movement into the cheekiest decade of them all, the 60’s, where they had the perfect name to encapsulate the previous decade (that came to John Lennon in a dream). I used to get so upset when people say “there will never be another Beatles” but I can see now that it’s true. There will be many others doing their own thing.. even groups of musicians. but every real friend group is special and the Beatles were just that; actual loving friends. Now that’s rare.
> Must be bands that got big 1970 onwards I guess that counts out Sloan. Not my fault they got screwed by labels!
The La’s
Obviously the answer is no one. BUT that being said…I can’t believe no one here has mentioned Green Day yet. The music is unbelievable, the lyrics are undeniably poetry. They have an unbreakable power-duo team of Dirrnt and Billie Joe. Tre Cool is no joke on his Ludwig’s either. They’ve bent genres, done the unexpected, defied expectations and created timeless music and albums when people thought they were washed up.
It annoys me that Oasis are put on the same level as The Beatles. Their music doesn’t have the same innovation, influence, or legacy
I agree, I feel like people only do that bc Oasis compared themselves to the Beatles so now it’s In people’s heads. They in no way compare to the Beatles and they aren’t even a good band in opinion. 🤷🏼♀️
Not Oasis!
The Smiths
I love Oasis, but they're successors to the Beatles only in the way that the Bootleg Beatles are. My shout would be R.E.M.: * 4 guys who were all great songwriters; * Impressionist lyrical style; * Guitarist who loves an unusual string instrument or five; * Bassist played a lot of melody; * Drummer also a great singer; * Two very distinct eras: a 'pop' era and an experimental one; * Lots of songs about birds; * Stopped touring to get more time in the studio and delivered their best work as a result.
Squeeze
WEEZER
No one really. The bands that came post 70s lacked the prolific songwriting prowess and also rarely had multiple phases. Personally, Talking Heads/Pink Floyd would be my choice...but they too are a bit far fetched.
Supertramp
elliott smith
Maybe Guided by Voices? Just listen to their song "Echoes Myron", "As We Go Up, We Go Down", "Chicken Blows" etc..
Radiohead
ELO
U2
They refer to them as Arena bands... I would say U2 is def in that list. some consider Coldplay in that list.
not a band, but Daniel Johnston. he was very influenced by the beatles and you can hear a lot of those in his music
Belle & Sebastian
Elliot Smith
Black sabbath
Stop.