QueenZone discussion #1010187

<font color=aqua>Peaches<h6>rawr wrote: * * Queen is OBVIOUSLY more talented

<font color=aqua>Peaches<h6>rawr wrote: * Because of the different time periods of both bands, Queen became more popular (I guess...) :)

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:

<font color=aqua>Peaches<h6>rawr wrote: * Because of the different time periods of both bands, Queen became more popular (I guess...) :)

I'm sorry???? Queen was more popular than the Beatles? NO WAY!!

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: It's apples and oranges. The Beatles came first and paved the way for all future bands, including Queen, and the styles of music are different of course. However it's true that Freddie is the far superior vocalist. As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Brian and Paul would have a philosophical discussion about getting old - and about what kind of socks are best. .

Gratzi wrote: I only wish Queen were as successful in the States as The Beatles... :(

maxpower wrote: 1963 beatles record "i want to hold your hand" 1966 record "tomorrow never knows" no band in history progressed so much in so little time - history doesnt lie

<font color=660066>Pomponias wrote: Both bands are absolutely wonderful and talented in their own right. Beatlemania was something that will never be repeated again, and so was Queen's legendary live performances.

Atheist wrote: Queen is about million times better and more talented than the beatles they cant compare

redspecial85 wrote: Surprise, Surprise...another selection of apples and oranges...what do you prefer? IT DOESN'T MATTER...It's all subjective.

<b><font color=fire>Make Love! ? wrote: I think I might like the Beatles better than Queen now. :B I don't know though...The Beatles were soooooo fab...but Queen was Queen. And they had Freddie, but the Beatles had John Lennon...I don't know. :/

<font color=fuchsia>Thirtynine ? wrote:

<b><font color=fire>Make Love! ? wrote: I think I might like the Beatles better than Queen now. :B I don't know though...The Beatles were soooooo fab...but Queen was Queen. And they had Freddie, but the Beatles had John Lennon...I don't know. :/

To me, they're two different groups. You could argue over which one you happen to LIKE better, but I don't know how you'd argue over which one is NECESSARILY better.

Sebastian wrote: > *
> Also, the Beatles didn't have the technology Queen had to compose such brilliant harmonies.
Harmonies aren't composed on computers, but on a person's head (or heart, or soul, or whatever). So it's not an excuse. Mozart had much less technology than both acts yet he composed things that go way beyond what Paul, Ringo, Roger, Freddie, Brian, George and the two John's combined could have done.
That's fair Sebastian, but there is no way The Beatles could have recorded Bohemian Rhapsody because the technology didn't exist for multi-layering of vocals. So perhaps they could have written and performed it, but not to the level Queen did 5 years after The Beatles had split up.
> * Better lyrical compositions from Queen
Yeah, right. Compare 'For No One' with 'Sweet Lady'...
Or, compare 'White Queen' or 'Long Away' with 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' or 'Octopuses Garden.'
> to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe)
A better bassplayer isn't neccesarily the one who played the best basslines. A better bassplayer is the one with better command of the instrument, both technical and in terms of "fluency". And in both aspects Deacy was better than Paul (and obviously better than George or John). Yet Macca is obviously more respected, since he was an influence for many more.
Well said.
> Queen's music more complex...yes.
Yes and no. Some orchestrations, for instance the one in 'Strawberry Fields' or 'I Am The Walrus', even the string sections only ('Eleanor Rigby', 'Yesterday') were beyond what Fred, Bri, Rog or John could enable.
Highly debatable. The vocal orchestrations of Bo Rhap are beyond anything attempted by virtually any rock group. For instance, Bo Rhap would be beyond REM, or The Clash, but perhaps The Beatles could have tackled it, perhaps not. I think the orchestrations in WWTLF are beyond novice level, and they were written and arranged by Brian. It was a path they chose not to go down with any frequency, but think they could have, because if Brian can concoct 7 part guitar harmonies with each part playing a different passage, I think he could create the Eleanor Rigby string section.
> However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!
And the opposite happens as well: 'Good Night' and 'Because' are underrated, while 'Ga Ga' and 'Break Free' are overrated.
Very true, but there is a lot of validity in the statement that The Beatles lesser songs are overrated, and that their lesser songs are valued more than Queen's. If Springsteen or Dylan wrote Drowse, it'd be an anthem for the bleakness of life in a small town. But when a blonde drummer from a Brit glam rock band writes it, it's unknown.
It's a totally subjective topic, as stated, but a good one for what it's worth.

Oberon wrote:

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: It's apples and oranges. The Beatles came first and paved the way for all future bands, including Queen, and the styles of music are different of course. However it's true that Freddie is the far superior vocalist. As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.

Even the rest of the Beatles according to Paul ... ;-)

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.

maxpower wrote: 1963 beatles record "i want to hold your hand" 1966 record "tomorrow never knows" no band in history progressed so much in so little time - history doesnt lie

Brian-Harold-May wrote:

Atheist wrote: Queen is about million times better and more talented than the beatles they cant compare

you again. by the way that statement was te most bullshit thing ever, if yu had any musical taste, or respect for other musicians you would not have said that. i agree queen are better, but only just.

*(azzadude)* ..GET DOWN MAKE LOVE! wrote: I GARANTEE YOU!!!! I GARANTEE YOU THIS.... IF YOU WERE TO ASK BRIAN OR ROG WHO WOULD BE THE BETTER BAND, THEY WOULD LOOK AT YOU LIKE YOU’RE A COMPLETE FOOL!!!! I ASSURE YOU THERE ANSWER WOULD BE THE BEATLES..... So let us not beat are self’s up and argue, even Queen would side for the Beatles... its just they way it is.......

Atheist wrote: i just listened to some beatles songs and came to the conclusion.. Treasure Moment is a 1000 times better band

willem-jan wrote:

Atheist wrote: i just listened to some beatles songs and came to the conclusion.. Treasure Moment is a 1000 times better band

At least! I would even dare to say 1408 times better.

Atheist wrote: i just listened to some beatles songs and came to the conclusion.. Treasure Moment is a 1000 times better band

Mr.Jingles wrote: Brian said it better than anyone else: "Nobody beats The Beatles, ever".

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: For example, put any Queen rocker from Liar to Dead on Time on the radio today, and it would jump at you. Songs like I want to hold your hand, and Twist and Shout on the other hand, have the sonic force of a popgun comparatively speaking, almost like a transistor radio compared to a full blown stereo system. ;)

Atheist wrote: if they would say the beatles are the best they would be lying just to be nice to that mediocre band. In their hearts they know NOTHING even comes close to Queens talent and amazing songwriting.

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

Atheist wrote: if they would say the beatles are the best they would be lying just to be nice to that mediocre band. In their hearts they know NOTHING even comes close to Queens talent and amazing songwriting.

how can someone with the "supposed talent to write and play songs" - such as yourself...be so imbecilically cretinous and vacuous in the discharge of the fecal matter they eject from their vocal orifice? you are nothing more than a fekkin gobshite...crawl away and die quietly you stupid c*nt

<font color=0066FF>? Bad Horsie wrote: The point is that he doesn't know any other bands. "I just listened to some Beatles songs" Is that supposed to mean that he did NOT know the Beatles? The same when I talked about Valensia. He said that Valensia sucked and didn't even listen to him. He just looked in youtube for the first video he could find and started talking as if he had heard all of Valens' records. And now he says he's better than the Beatles. I have nthing but pity to feel for this poor incredibly retarded creature.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I still feel that "size-wise", The Beatles rock and roll pales in comparison to Queen's, as Brian's guitar and Roger's drums dwarf John/George's guitars and Ringo's drumming. It's probably a technology thing with production, but I've always found The Beatles rock stuff to sound very small and dated compared to Queen's.

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh. He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff. He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less. He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song. Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention). I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell. Wiley

Atheist wrote:

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.

just shut up stupid pussy

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.

just shut up stupid pussy

- that the title of your new album? or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them

Atheist wrote:

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.

just shut up stupid pussy

- that the title of your new album? or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them

silent stupid fool

Atheist wrote:

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh. He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff. He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less. He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song. Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention). I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell. Wiley

just shut up stupid pussy

Zebonka12 wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Wiley wrote: I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning. I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh. He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff. He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less. He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song. Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention). I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell. Wiley

just shut up stupid pussy

Is that what you say every time someone criticises you in a way you know you can't bounce back from? Why don't you try addressing what they said? If they're wrong about you, it'll only take a moment to prove it.

Wembley fan86 wrote: 90% of the Beatles' music is baby music. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.......... Bite me. Also, Queen ARE more talented and they did MUCH more with their songs. Their songs were more complicated and sounded better.

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

Drowse1 wrote: The Beatles were a great singles band but, with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums. Queen on the other hand released both great singles and albums. The Beatles were fortunate to exist in a decade when there were one of only a handful of acts that wrote and performed their own material. Saying that they were still a fantastic band and, like any great act, their music lives on. But for me it will always be Queen first.

Zebonka12 wrote: "with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums." That shows a poor understanding of their body of work. Sgt Pepper is somewhat overrated (but well worth having for the Lennon contributions) and the White Album, while having great songs, isn't one of their better efforts regarding studio work.... sounds 'lazy' in spots. The Beatles were, as you say, a great singles band. They were also a great album band, if you pick the right example.

Atheist wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

considered by retards yeah but in truth they are just another mediocre band, there are millions of them

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

Wembley fan86 wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar.

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

Wembley fan86 wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar.

what is your drug of choice? because really - you should have a word with your dealer...he has started cutting it with too much bleach

Atheist wrote: Wembley fan86.. you are dead right! dont pay attention to ignorat fools like some of the people here, they know NOTHING about music

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote:

Atheist wrote: Wembley fan86.. you are dead right! dont pay attention to ignorat fools like some of the people here, they know NOTHING about music

OH, right, mozart man.

Wembley fan86 wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar.

Atheist wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote:

Atheist wrote: Wembley fan86.. you are dead right! dont pay attention to ignorat fools like some of the people here, they know NOTHING about music

OH, right, mozart man.

im not saying mozart is bad coz he isnt and he has a couple of tunes that are great BUT he is NOTHING compared to the almighty Freddie Mercury and that is a FACT

Atheist wrote: im not saying mozart is bad coz he isnt and he has a couple of tunes that are great BUT he is NOTHING compared to the almighty Freddie Mercury and that is a FACT

Wembley fan86 wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar.

Atheist wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways. And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

considered by retards yeah but in truth they are just another mediocre band, there are millions of them

Wembley fan86 wrote:

Atheist wrote:

<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote:

Atheist wrote: Wembley fan86.. you are dead right! dont pay attention to ignorat fools like some of the people here, they know NOTHING about music

OH, right, mozart man.

im not saying mozart is bad coz he isnt and he has a couple of tunes that are great BUT he is NOTHING compared to the almighty Freddie Mercury and that is a FACT

Why the hell are you people comparing MOZART and FREDDIE MERCURY!? Is it even possible?

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: Who the hell is "Treasure Moment" !? Zebonka, I presume that's sarcasm, though I don't who you were referring to... >> "its very possible and freddie is actually alot better musician and of course singer, also more important than mozart" That underlines the fact that either Atheist is remarkably stupid, or that he/she simply enjoys provoking some people. My guess is the latter, for I find it difficult to believe that people can actually be that stupid!

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: Who the hell is "Treasure Moment" !? Zebonka, I presume that's sarcasm, though I don't who you were referring to...

Zebonka12 wrote:

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: Who the hell is "Treasure Moment" !? Zebonka, I presume that's sarcasm, though I don't who you were referring to...

Haha sorry, I assumed you might know. Treasure Moment is Atheist's band. And, up until now I sort of believed Atheist was being serious in his generous comments about his band, but the post just above mine clearly demonstrates he's just kidding... It was a lot more fun when I thought he was genuine :/

tarik wrote: beatles don't have 50% of queen performance, it's obvious, ask them to compose something like show must go on, love of my life or we are the champions, they can't, nobody else but queen can, queen is beating them easily and all other rock n roll bands exept maybe led zeppelin.

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: Atheist. You're a sucker for punishment.

Atheist wrote: im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen. they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:

Atheist wrote: im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen. they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage

No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.

Atheist wrote:

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:

Atheist wrote: im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen. they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage

No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.

no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet. Let me see.. They had the best singer/frontman of all time the biggest single of all time the best live performance of all time 2 worldwide anthems all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis i could go on forever..

Atheist wrote:

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:

Atheist wrote: im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen. they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage

No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.

no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet. Let me see.. They had the best singer/frontman of all time the biggest single of all time the best live performance of all time 2 worldwide anthems all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis i could go on forever..

<font color=fuchsia>Thirtynine ? wrote:

Atheist wrote:

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:

Atheist wrote: im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen. they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage

No, you're not stating facts. What you're stating are called opinions.

no its a fact that Queen is ALOT better than ANY band on this planet. Let me see.. They had the best singer/frontman of all time the biggest single of all time the best live performance of all time 2 worldwide anthems all 4 members of the band had nr1 hits voted the best british band of all time, crushing the SHITTLES and elvis i could go on forever..

Get out of this thread.

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Atheist, Either you're a complete moron or some pathetic idiot hiding behind a computer giggling. Either way you're acting like a degenerate. Perhaps if you were actually genuine I'd consider befriending you. For Christ's sake, you've been ranting on and on about how nobody knows anything about music when it's obvious you have no knowledge of even the most common concepts. For example, it wasn't too long ago you dared to say that Freddie Mercury was (without a doubt) a greater musician than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anybody with a brain could tell you that Mozart was in fact a greater composer and musician. While Freddie Mercury gains more credit as a musician nowadays, nobody can compare the two. They are two seperate eras with two extremely different styles in music. Mozart was a prodigy for crying out loud! One in a million! Not even Beethoven was able to make such an impact as abruptly as Mozart (and his father tried his hardest to make that kind of magic happen). I cannot express how idiotic and obnoxious you are when it comes to this topic because, honestly, it's humorous. Another example is that even I know more about music than you (and I'm not even in a band). You said it yourself that your knowledge in music theory is limited, and that is the reason why you knew nothing of twelve tone or cadences. Now don't think I'm holding you down with just those two statements, let us not forget in your lack of social communication. You're the one Queenzoner in this entire forum who is unable to maintain/gain support from anybody. Hell, I was willing to give you support and even did at one point, but your obnoxious and unforgiving behavior has worked against you. As far as I'm concerned you're seeking attention because there is no way in hell somebody can be as idiotic as you appear to be. In fact, I'd love to see it that everybody would just ignore you. It takes a lot to truly get me pissed off and believe me this is nothing in comparison to what I could have been like. Please take care of your reputation on Queenzone, Atheist. You'd find it to be quite beneficial. Your fellow Queenzoner, Ramirez p.s. For better or worse I will not reply to anything you say from here on out.

Atheist wrote: Man, im just saying how i see it. I think Freddie is without a doubt a much better musician than mozart, im not talking about skills. Ive heard Mozarts stuff and while some of it is complex it isnt something that is special in terms of songwriting, some of it is catchy some of it isnt. I simply think freddie is the best musician/singer there ever was or will be without competition.

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: >> "Bach is the greatest composer of all time. And this is not a question of taste, because every big classical musician said so" I've heard many pianists (and other musicians) say that Bach is their favourite composer. But firstly, in what sense do you use "classical"? Because Bach was a baroque-era composer, not classical. If you are using classical in the broader, perhaps non-technical sense, then that's fine.

Most musicians would agree that (J.S.) Bach was the best baroque-era composer. As for best composer in all of Western "classical" (non-technical use) music...no ways. That's more subjective.

I'm a pianist. I'd go with Liszt - that's simply my (subjective) view. Listen to his 4th, 5th and 10th transcendental etudes (for the 10th one, try Richard Pohl's interpretation). Liszt's music is soul-stirring...I also like Rach's Romantic compositions a lot more than Bach's - he's not Liszt, but he's nevertheless one of the very greatest. Others would differ. And by the way, I'm not crazy about Chopin's compositions (compared with Liszt's, anyway). I support your tirade against Atheist. Just offering my views on your Bach comment though.

Atheist wrote: its a queen vs beatles thread right? all im doing is showing proof that the beatles are garbage compared to Queen. Queen is a million times better band in all areas. You cant compare the two

Cedric6014 wrote: Best Guitarist 1) Brian 2) Daylight 3) Paul 4) Roger 5) John D 6) John L 7) George 8) Freddie

Cedric6014 wrote: Here's the objective stuff: Best Keyboards 1) Freddie 2) Paul 3) Brian 4) John D 5) John L

Micrówave wrote:

Cedric6014 wrote: Here's the objective stuff: Best Keyboards 1) Freddie 2) Paul 3) Brian 4) John D 5) John L

6) Billy P Advantage -> BEATLES. Freddie + Brian + John + Roger all playing at the same time couldn't touch the Great Mr. Preston. Only for a few songs, but they had him. Go ahead Athiest, tell us how Freddie blows Billy Preston away on keys.

Sebastian wrote: Yes, I think, averagely, Queen would "defeat" The Beatles by far if we left the eight lads alone (without guest arrangers, producers or performers). Still I consider John Lennon to be a better composer than any Queennie, and same with George and Paul. But of course that's a matter of opinion. And if Freddie's God I'm ready to become atheist (no pun intented).

Atheist wrote: Even if this billy preston would be more skilled on keys it doenst really matter.

Micrówave wrote:

Atheist wrote: Even if this billy preston would be more skilled on keys it doenst really matter.

You don't know who Billy Preston is? Well, then you really are a musical idiot. Maybe you think you're a really cool person and could have lots a friends if you applied yourself. The only thing is, those people would only make themselves dumber for having wasted the time interacting with you. I know just in this last minute, I'm feeling a little forgetful... like the life force is being sucked out of my brain thru my lower exit ramp... and there you are to gobble it it up. I wonder what your observations would be on non-Queen related issues. I think we're all a little curious. The world is waiting for someone with a different way of thinking to take charge. Perhaps you are it, I don't know. Let's find out: What are your feelings on: 1. The state of independence on foreign oil. Any thoughts or solutions? 2. Is wearing fur really that bad? Animals are still going to get killed and instead of eating squirrels or alligators, wouldn't my foot look very stylish up it's anus or maybe as a hat? 3. Randy Jackson's relevance to the world. American Idol is pretty lame now, and did you see what he looked like touring with Journey in '87? Please, dogg! 4. Paper or plastic

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: @Atheist: you're obstinate to the point of absurdity -- or rather, stubborn as a 7 year old. While you obviously aren't inherrently stupid, you're unbelievably childish. Shame. @Sebastian. Ha ha. And your comment, "Yes, I think, averagely, Queen would "defeat" The Beatles by far if we left the eight lads alone (without guest arrangers, producers or performers)." perfectly sums up my feelings on this topic. Hear, hear! @Freddie. No, I don't think you're talking out of your ass. There are many Queen songs that I love (e.g. from Hot Space!) that most fans tend to dismiss. I guess, taste seldom overlaps exactly. I don't agree with you, though, that there are "no" crap songs. It's not entirely subjective. Compare Britney Spears, no wait, Paris Hilton's "music" with, say, Bach. Or the Beatles. You use the example of KISS: many people do love them. Though fairly objectively, it is safe to say that although much of their music is catchy, their live acts good etc...the quality of their music does not compare favourably with some other metal acts (e.g. Dream Theater...but now we're comparing glam with prog metal). I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful!

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here? Oh well...as I say I don't think Queen and the Beatles can be compared. I've tried, when I was an obstinate Queen fan I thought no-one was better than them either. I'm still not a great Beatles-fan, but I can appreciate that they changed popular music forever. Plus there are some brilliant peices of music in their catalogue which are timeless because of their lasting charm. But the same holds true for Queen. Queen were in fact inspired by the Beatles so of course the two artists have left an impression on people's minds. One thing I will say. I think Queen did outdo the Beatles in stage performance. Had the Beatles got to the stage when they could perform at stadiums such as Wembley, with the huge screens and 100,000 strong audiences...well we'll never know, the Beatles let their egos get in the way far too soon didn't stay together to make it to that stage.

Atheist wrote:

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?

yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?

Micrówave wrote:

Atheist wrote:

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?

yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?

But you paid attention to him, so he's not mindless, but then I paid attention to you... May I offer the following argument proving that Freddie was the greatest ever? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: @Freddie. No, I don't think you're talking out of your ass. There are many Queen songs that I love (e.g. from Hot Space!) that most fans tend to dismiss. I guess, taste seldom overlaps exactly.

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: I don't agree with you, though, that there are "no" crap songs. It's not entirely subjective. Compare Britney Spears, no wait, Paris Hilton's "music" with, say, Bach. Or the Beatles. You use the example of KISS: many people do love them. Though fairly objectively, it is safe to say that although much of their music is catchy, their live acts good etc...the quality of their music does not compare favourably with some other metal acts (e.g. Dream Theater...but now we're comparing glam with prog metal). I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful!

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful!

teleman wrote:

Cedric6014 wrote: Best Guitarist 1) Brian 2) Daylight 3) Paul 4) Roger 5) John D 6) John L 7) George 8) Freddie

Pretty clear you don't play guitar :) Brian and then George, Paul, John L, Roger, John D, Freddie. Some people on this site will put Freddie at the top of the list of guitarists.

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: <3>@RBQ...good point. I think perhaps people underestimate the significance of Queen's stage ability. Nobody here has disputed that Queen were the superior live act (in fact, they're *arguably* the best live pop act of all time). A good feather in their cap, but this is also important in other ways. For example, it's significant to me that I have vastly more live Queen material than studio albums. When I tire of the studio albums, I always find pleasure in one of their myriad concerts. And I don't even have a fraction of their live material. I have live Beatles material, but it never solicits repeat listening. Anyway, maybe my former diehard-Queen-fan blood is starting to show. Individual Queen members "beat" individual Beatles members. And now, having just listened to songs such as GOFLB, '39, Killer Queen, Don't Stop Me Now, Bo Rhap...I'm convinced that Queen's best songs are as good as the Beatles' best. It's just a pity, then, that for some reason Queen released a lot of "good" (i.e. just plain good and not stellar) stuff in betweeen the gems. And that their careers took a few unfortunate twists -- lack of popularity in USA etc. The Beatles on the other hand released a heck of a lot of brilliant work. I guess Queen had the potential to be "better" than the Beatles.

Cedric6014 wrote: Woops, was supposed to say this: Well, infact… I do play guitar, or did. I played in a covers band at university. As a huge fan of both bands I attempted to learn their songs. One thing I quickly discovered was that Beatles songs were far easier to learn. Now a lot of this has to do with Queen’s complex approach to song writing. But a small part of this has to do with George Harrison not performing any particularly outstanding guitar pieces on Beatles Material. The best guitar solo on a Beatles song was performed by Eric Clapton (While My guitar…). Now I realise that it doesn’t have to be complicated to be good, but I can assure you that BM can play everything GH performed but the reverse won’t be true. I may have been a bit harsh on ol’ George, but I can also assure you that Paul M is a far better guitarist and performed many of the important lead breaks on his own compositions, as did John L. I’ll concede John D though – don’t know why I put him up there! Haven’t even seen him play a six-string.

maxpower wrote: Its rather ironic with some of the best solos by the beatles george didnt play them WMGGW (eric c)Taxman (macca) good morning (macca) lead guitar on ticket to ride (macca) you cant do that (john)all 3 traded solos on the end (paul, george, john in that order) get back (john)i always thought george refrained himself too much listen to any of the hamburg stuff he could let rip i.e the cover of too much monkey business (live at the bbc) or some other guy but what he did he did perfect i mean the solo on nowhere man (which is brians top solos)isnt terribly difficult but fits the song perfectly & whoever put roger & john l above george h is taking the piss

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: Zebonka, I was talking about their abilities on various instruments. Which was what Sebastian was discussing.

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: @Zebonka. I was not "limiting" my discussion. That was one of many points discussed in this thread.

JasonD. wrote: Why ask this on Queenzone?

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: @Ramirez: thank you. By the way, I'm Vinesh. It's been nice talking to you too! I think I "sort-of" agree with your hypothesis. In contrast to the original post I made, I do in fact think that the most important aspect of music is: how good does it sound. However, this is not all there is to it. Over the years I've found that my taste in music is moulded by my knowledge of theoretical/technical aspects of music. It doesn't determine it entirely, but it certainly influences it greatly. As one's taste develops, some music becomes either abandoned or an occasional "cheap thrill" -- e.g. in my case, the majority of the commercial music that pollutes MTV! I can identify with your example of country music. However, with a song like "Misfire", I'm not sure if it's a case of evolving taste. I've listened to the song countless times, and each time I conclude that musically, it's pretty darn boring. There ARE songs that I love which I also think are not musically meritorious, but those I suspect are not the sort of songs that I'd still love a few years down the line. On the other hand -- I'm sick as hell of some songs, be it a Queen number or a Beethoven composition, and yet with each listening I can still say "ah, this is a fine piece of music!" I guess, if one listened endlessly to cheap commercial pop (a la Paris Hilton), then one may well start to like it. Doesn't mean, though, that there's not more stimulating music out there!

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: beatles...four/eight track recording with george martin doing the tricky stuff queen....24/48 tracks of recording with roy thomas baker, mike stone, mack etc etc doing their bits

<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: We can all say that The Beatles were legendary, therefore they have to be the better of the two. Or we could all say Queen improved what The Beatles were trying to do, therefore they're the better of the two. It's an on going war between two sides.