Which artists are/ were on the same level as The Beatles?

[PaleoEuropean]

Generally speaking contemporary music such as Rock and Pop does not require particuliarly great musicianship compared to more complex styles such as Classical or Jazz.

The comparison of the Beatles to autotune musicians is far from accurate in my oppinion.
Today we have lots autotune Pop stars that have maybe a look and some charisma but without the tchnology and some musicians /songwriters propping them up ... they would not have too much to offer.
That was not the case for the Beatles , yes George Martin did a lot to enhance and make some of their albums very interesting.
However the Beatles were great songwriters in my oppinion and their musicianship was adequate for the styles they played.
They were only around for 8 years in that time they made 12 studio albums that were mostly all pretty great.

Their first 7 albums were generic pop music though and their subsequent albums were alright with some memorable and great songs but they can't stand up to the Rolling Stones imo. If you like psychedelic music, there are way better bands than the Beatles. Just to further my argument the Beatles took their later sound from bands like the Kinks and the Stones and all the other more serious bands of the day; they weren't as creative as people remember imo. Bob Dylan too was like that, he wasn't super innovative just popular. He took his entire beginning style from the Guthries and other neo-folk musicians; was he good sounding? Of course but he wasn't like next level original or talented.

[Roy]

The Beatles weren't really good musicians though, they would be like autotune musicians compared actual musicians from their day.

They were not - as in being virtuosos, but they were supremely gifted at creating good melodies.

[Hithaeglir]

The Doors
Led Zepelin
Guns n roses

I would also add Nirvana but I consider them better than the Beatles. Unfortunately short lived

[Roy]

Nirvana is a really tight thing. Their albums sound so nasty and delicious. One of the baddest bands together with Smashing Pumpkins, Megadeth, SOAD and Black Sabbath.

SOAD and Smashing Pumpkins are grossly overrated. Their total amount of good songs is maybe 5.

[Roy]

Their first 7 albums were generic pop music though and their subsequent albums were alright with some memorable and great songs but they can't stand up to the Rolling Stones imo. If you like psychedelic music, there are way better bands than the Beatles. Just to further my argument the Beatles took their later sound from bands like the Kinks and the Stones and all the other more serious bands of the day; they weren't as creative as people remember imo. Bob Dylan too was like that, he wasn't super innovative just popular. He took his entire beginning style from the Guthries and other neo-folk musicians; was he good sounding? Of course but he wasn't like next level original or talented.

The Rolling Stones were highly skilled ... at plagiarism.


And when it comes to the Beatles ... I have to noticed that I wish that 'generic pop' music these days would be at their level. And I am not their fanboy at all.
'