My friend Pat G. from Dallas posts RE: The Beatles Game, Part 1:

Interesting game. I think I'd have taken the Beatles over everyone on your list. I just think Paul needed John and vice versa to be consistently great. Regardless, I wanted to give you a few more to mull over. These are other musicians that (in one way or another) are close in stature to the Fab 4:

The Beatles vs. Frank Sinatra

The Beatles vs. Louis Armstrong

The Beatles vs. Aretha Franklin

The Beatles vs. Radiohead

The Beatles vs. Johnny Cash

The Beatles vs. Willie Nelson

The Beatles vs. Bob Dylan

The Beatles vs. Bruce Springsteen

The Beatles vs. John Coltrane

The Beatles vs. Miles Davis

The Beatles vs. Michael Jackson

The Beatles vs. James Brown

The Beatles vs. Ella Fitzgerald

... and because I think I could be surprised by your answers here:

The Beatles vs. The Bee Gees

The Beatles vs. Blondie

Well, Pat, honestly, I'd take The Beatles over everybody on that initial list except Sinatra and Miles. Lots of folks hate Miles Davis for who he was as a person; however, he introduced the world to Bill Evans, who I think is the greatest jazz pianist in history.

And, for me, Frank Sinatra -- particularly pre-1970s Frankie -- is pretty much unbeatable.

Not that big a fan of Satchmo. Aretha is overrated. Radiohead is terrible. Like the Man in Black, but not that much. Willie's staccato delivery makes me crazy. I've grown to have more of an appreciation for Dylan, but I still don't love his work. Most of Springsteen's stuff bores me to death. Coltrane is greatness, and that's a close one for me. Michael is great, too, but he's done enough terrible stuff to make me side with The Fab 4. Not a fan of James Brown in the slightest, and Ella's great but it's not like she wrote a billion great songs like The Beatles did.

However, for my experience, The Beatles win over all those except Frank and Miles.

As for the two you said could elicit surprise, you'd be correct.

I don't only like the Bee Gees. I revere them, but for me it's only the disco years. The whole late 1960s "Massachusetts" and "To Love Somebody" era is hideous. To me. Give me The Bee Gees by a solid margin on The Beatles.

However, as for Blondie -- and I like this innovative, ground-breaking pop-punk band -- I'd still take The Beatles. However, what's interesting here, at least in my mind, is that I would take No Doubt over both of them. Seriously. Gwen Stefani's rock-ska-pop band of the mid-1990s, I think, perfected what Blondie started.

In fact, "Tragic Kingdom" is still one of the five or so best albums I have ever, ever owned.

I thought about other people from this era I'd pick over The Beatles, and most of it would fall into a "what would I want to listen to right now" sort of question as opposed to "who do I really think is greater" type of scenario. It's pretty much accepted just how great and influential The Beatles were, and most of the time it actually is reflected in these scenarios.

On the other hand, like with No Doubt, I think there are some groups that, given some time, we are all going to come to appreciate vastly more than we do now.