| SomebodyWhoLoves 22.09.2008 22:13 |
Are some of you so stupid that you think "All you need is Love" is superior to "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "March of the Black Queen" or "Hammer To Fall"? What people don't understand is, the Beatles wrote mainly POP songs that were absurdly simple and boring. They are like Elevator Music compared to the Real Genius in Queen Songs. Why do some people love Beatles so much? It's the same question as Why do some people love Elvis or Madonna so much? They were talentless artificially propped artists with no soul, no talent. You actually think that Freddie Mercury is on the same level as a John Lennon or Paul McCartney? Sorry. Freddie Mercury is much much higher than either John Lennon or Paul McCartney. Now..politically and historically, the Beatles made a difference because they came in the 60s. Their music helped to define an era. But technically, and artistically, the Beatles were vastly inferior to Queen. If you throw away all the social and political relevance to a Band, the Beatles were very very average that only appealed to teenagers with their pop simple sing along type songs. |
| L-R-TIGER1994 22.09.2008 22:26 |
They were the first my friend it all started with them 1,100 million records sold speak for themselves. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 22.09.2008 22:40 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: They were the first my friend it all started with them 1,100 million records sold speak for themselves.Record sales rankings do not mean Quality and Talent Rankings! Elvis Presley is #1. I think Michael Jackson is up there too. There's a reason why many consider Queen to be the best Music Group ever. Because Freddie had the most amazing most beautiful voice that Paul LOL McCartney or John Lennon could never touch. Freddie and Queen also wrote brilliant complex timeless songs that dwarf "Imagine" or "All you need is love" drivel. |
| Lester Burnham 22.09.2008 23:38 |
THE BEATLES RIP 1960 - 1970 |
| john bodega 23.09.2008 01:08 |
In their defence, the Beatles never wrote "Let's Turn It On". Seriously though, I'm not surprised to open another one of your threads and find that it's total nonsense. Could you be any more close-minded, musically? |
| scallyuk 23.09.2008 01:21 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: What people don't understand is, the Beatles wrote mainly POP songs that were absurdly simple and boring. They are like Elevator Music compared to the Real Genius in Queen Songs. Why do some people love Beatles so much? It's the same question as Why do some people love Elvis or Madonna so much? They were talentless artificially propped artists with no soul, no talent. You actually think that Freddie Mercury is on the same level as a John Lennon or Paul McCartney? Now..politically and historically, the Beatles made a difference because they came in the 60s. Their music helped to define an era. But technically, and artistically, the Beatles were vastly inferior to Queen. If you throw away all the social and political relevance to a Band, the Beatles were very very average that only appealed to teenagers with their pop simple sing along type songs.wow. Such pretention from one so young. Without the Beatles there would have been no Queen, without the Beatles few music groups would have been permitted to experiment in the studio and there could never have been a Black Queen, Bo Rhap or Prophet's song. The pressure was on EMI to allow the Beatles the their freedom for purely commercial reasons. Record sales generated by Beatlemania were enough to enable the beatles to demand artistic freedom to produce things like Tomorrow Never Knows, Sgt Pepper, #9 dream. They were not only influenced by their era they became part of the influence OF that era. Something Queen will never do. Not denying their artistry or musical proficiency but Bo Rhap in all it's weirdness did not influence people to experiment to the same extent as the white album or revolver. |
| Winter Land Man 23.09.2008 01:41 |
scallyuk wrote:There was always The Beach Boys...SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: What people don't understand is, the Beatles wrote mainly POP songs that were absurdly simple and boring. They are like Elevator Music compared to the Real Genius in Queen Songs. Why do some people love Beatles so much? It's the same question as Why do some people love Elvis or Madonna so much? They were talentless artificially propped artists with no soul, no talent. You actually think that Freddie Mercury is on the same level as a John Lennon or Paul McCartney? Now..politically and historically, the Beatles made a difference because they came in the 60s. Their music helped to define an era. But technically, and artistically, the Beatles were vastly inferior to Queen. If you throw away all the social and political relevance to a Band, the Beatles were very very average that only appealed to teenagers with their pop simple sing along type songs.wow. Such pretention from one so young. Without the Beatles there would have been no Queen, without the Beatles few music groups would have been permitted to experiment in the studio and there could never have been a Black Queen, Bo Rhap or Prophet's song. The pressure was on EMI to allow the Beatles the their freedom for purely commercial reasons. Record sales generated by Beatlemania were enough to enable the beatles to demand artistic freedom to produce things like Tomorrow Never Knows, Sgt Pepper, #9 dream. They were not only influenced by their era they became part of the influence OF that era. Something Queen will never do. Not denying their artistry or musical proficiency but Bo Rhap in all it's weirdness did not influence people to experiment to the same extent as the white album or revolver. |
| kingogre 23.09.2008 02:11 |
I dont think that many people think of Queen as the best group ever. But it doesnt matter at all for me. These discussions about ranking and whos the best are pointless if you ask me. Ýou can not just compare music like that. Listen to music and enjoy it, if youre gonna have this attitude youre gonnna miss out on some fantastic bands. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 23.09.2008 04:36 |
Zebonka12 wrote: In their defence, the Beatles never wrote "Let's Turn It On". Seriously though, I'm not surprised to open another one of your threads and find that it's total nonsense. Could you be any more close-minded, musically?*cough* the frog chorus or Mull of Kintyre *cough* |
| Sharon G.Queen Fan 23.09.2008 04:50 |
Having seen both live, #1 Beatles, #2 Queen. And there you have it. |
| new one 23.09.2008 06:25 |
/QUOTE] *cough* the frog chorus or Mull of Kintyre *cough* Hey leave the frog Chorus alone. I can't quite remember but it was either the frog chorus or Radio GaGa that wa my first ever single. I hope it was Radio GaGa but to be honest I don't recall as I was only 9 or 10 years old. |
| maxpower 23.09.2008 06:51 |
lordy here we go again Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm The Walrus, Dear Prudence, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Helter Skelter, Back In The USSR,,A Day In The Life, Here There & Everywhere, For No One, In My Life, Drive My Car, Rain, While my Guitar Gently Weeps, Girl, Norwegian Wood, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, I Want You She's So Heavy, I'm So Tired, And Your Bird Can Sing, She Said She Said, Taxman, Blackbird ... I could on forever but that's why! every single one on these tracks which are album tracks or b-sides (in the case of Rain) no band in history can equal this & im talking across the entire planet!! in terms of them being household names. Led Zep are the only possible exception as they never released singles during their lifespan. I could be very childish and purposely but them up against the weaker Queen album tracks but i wont. You ask the average man in the street who sang "ogre battle" or "michelle" i know which one they'll know and im sick of the continual lennon/mccartney bashing & freddie was the greatest thing ever. Freddie was a wonderful talent but he got lazy in the 80's most Queen fans would admit this hence why may/taylor/deacon started to have hit singles. Freddie's biggest single of the 80's "its a hard life" hardly his best was it? (in terms of chart position in the uk number 6) & it wasn't as though he was keeping his best tunes for mr. bad guy like someone else said "lets turn it on". lets be totally truthful if it wasn't for freddie's illness he probably would have continued producing this sub-standard material for the rest of the 80's |
| P-Staker 23.09.2008 06:59 |
It's been said of Queen that they were "artificially propped pop, no soul, no talent." I consider all such claims bullshit by those who know very little, but pretend to be experts. Freddie himself was a huge fan of both Elvis and John Lennon. Incidentally, Freddie once said "It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived." |
| Treasure Moment 23.09.2008 07:04 |
its like comparing shit with Gold, GOLD=QUEEN |
| Saif 23.09.2008 07:54 |
Isn't this fucker the same guy who posted, "Freddie was dumb because he was gay" and "Do girls like getting their hair pulled while being fucked?"? |
| Treasure Moment 23.09.2008 08:05 |
Saif wrote: Isn't this fucker the same guy who posted, "Freddie was dumb because he was gay" and "Do girls like getting their hair pulled while being fucked?"?btw about you sig, you have no idea how much truth it is in that statement! |
| Yara 23.09.2008 08:33 |
It's still going to take some time for people to reach a fair consensus about Freddie's talents as a composer and singer. It happens with every musician. Mutatis mutandis, I know Freddie is nothing like Beethoven, but in his own time such a seemingly, now, indisputed musician as Beethoven was both adored in a preposterous way and despised in an equally absurd manner. That's Freddie, in some way: either hugely overrated by fan-aticism or sadly underrated by people who don't take the due time to give a real and careful listening to his songs. But, for sure, he was a talented musician. Talented enough to be remembered without much reference or deference to the band he was in. Which is kind of weird too, I must say, given that he wasn't a solo artist. Comparing Queen with the Beatles isn't a good move, I think: Queen, which is here taken to be only Freddie by the original poster, was a great band but the impact the Beatles had on music and the history of music is far beyond anything Queen could dream of. It's a misleading comparison done with a too narrow focus. And it's misleading in the sense that when the original poster says "Queen", he actually means Freddie. |
| im_on_the_wembley_dvd 23.09.2008 08:54 |
Pointless comparison from one of our American cousins Hey We gave you The Beatles & Queen different time different world in music terms.. Freddie would hate to hear this being said, he was inspired by John Lennon and even wrote a song in his memory (go play the Hot Space CD) next you'll have us comparing New Kids On the Block with The Beach Boys |
| mulderakos 23.09.2008 09:38 |
Come on man!Queen is the best group ever!The Beatles were too simple!Queen 4 ever... |
| drwinston 23.09.2008 10:15 |
im_on_the_wembley_dvd wrote: Pointless comparison from one of our American cousins Hey We gave you The Beatles & Queen different time different world in music terms.. Freddie would hate to hear this being said, he was inspired by John Lennon and even wrote a song in his memory (go play the Hot Space CD) next you'll have us comparing New Kids On the Block with The Beach BoysHey, we're not all so dense on this side of the pond! "Christ, you know it ain't easy You know how had it can be The way things are going Their going to crucify SomebodywhoLoves!" I don't understand why there would be a competition. Maybe they can both perform for Simon Cowell and he can put all of this nonsense to rest once and for all! |
| boca 23.09.2008 11:05 |
Beatles are legends, as well as Queen. that's it |
| Benn 23.09.2008 11:19 |
The Beatles came along at a time when the music industry (as we know it now) was in it's infancy and incredibly naive. As a result, their music needs to be viewed in these terms. Post War Britain was a grey, drab, unexciting place where no one other than the very privillaged had any real money. Rationing was still in effect and young people were "to be seen and not heard" as their parents constantly reminded them. All of a sudden, along came Elvis and THOUNSANDS of young men in Britain could see a future and a pathway for themselves. The Beatles were amongst the first wave of people to really take this on and prove to their parents that there was money to be made from making music. Following on from that came The Stones and then The Who, The Small Faces and The Kinks took rock in to the progressive more educated direction. I'm no real fan of the, believe me. Personally, I've always thoguht that they have been over hyped in terms of the quality of the music that they played. Live, IMVHO, they were appauling, although much of that may be down to the extremely primitive equipment they had at that time and the fact that they could barely hear themselves above the crowd screaming. However, what is inescapable is the effect that they had on people of my mother's generation - they were simply adored and loved in a way that people in the media had never been before. The way kids now adore footballers, The Beatles were loved then. They gave kids hope and fed them little two minute long dreams and stories which stuck in their minds (and, it has to be said) still do. There is no bigger influence in the industry and on popular culture than The Beatles - they wrote the processes, set the standard and blazed the trail. Other groups became famous BECAUSE The Beatles had a go and were there first - whether they were the best at it or not is a moot point. Simple fact of the matter is that EVERYONE knows a Beatles song..........who else can boast that? |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 23.09.2008 11:36 |
Not this again... |
| brENsKi 23.09.2008 12:19 |
it's all relative... the beatles inspired the likes of queen. queen will always be my favourites, but the beatles were better.... pioneers in every way...YOU name anything queen did and the beatles had already cleared a path for queen and their generation to do so... queen (and 70s bands) had 24 tracks to experiement with and produce the "kitchen sink"...the beatles had 4 (and latterly 8) tracks listen to abbey rod, sgt pepper, revolver and rubber soul THEN come back and honestly say you are not blown away... for every queen "gem" there is a beatles "gem"...norweigan wood, in my life, rain, paperback writer, taxman, here there and everywhere, and your bird can sing, tomorrow never knows, blue jay way, strawberry fields, penny lane, a day in the life, within you without you, while my guitar..., helter skelter, here comes the sun, come together, and the two abbey rd medleys....you can see where freddie got his best ideas from... and once you take you musical blinkers off and open your ears you may realise that music is not just "queen flavoured"...and you may start to enjoy other fantastic bands, the who, led zep, pink floyd, small faces, purple, acdc, bowies, and hundreds more |
| Saif 23.09.2008 13:39 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Never said it was untrue, just liked the quote.Saif wrote: Isn't this fucker the same guy who posted, "Freddie was dumb because he was gay" and "Do girls like getting their hair pulled while being fucked?"?btw about you sig, you have no idea how much truth it is in that statement! |
| Saif 23.09.2008 13:43 |
Granted, the Beatles were great, but should we even be taking this topic seriously, considering past topics by this topic-starter? HELLO!? "Freddie was stupid because he was gay" "Women like their hair pulled while being boned" "Africans are poor because they're backwards and inferior" Need I say more? Why the hell isn't this guy banned? |
| P-Staker 23.09.2008 14:19 |
If Queen are compared to the Beatles, should Queen+Paul Rodgers be compared to Traveling Willburys? *ducks* (EDIT: incidentally, if you say "no, to the Wings", then the Obvious Replies Police will get your arse. You've been warned.) |
| Treasure Moment 23.09.2008 15:08 |
mulderakos wrote: Come on man!Queen is the best group ever!The Beatles were too simple!Queen 4 ever...exactly! they were overhyped amateurs |
| Treasure Moment 23.09.2008 15:09 |
Saif wrote:I know, im just saying it is true. trust me, i would have never thought so myself before but now i do.Treasure Moment wrote:Never said it was untrue, just liked the quote.Saif wrote: Isn't this fucker the same guy who posted, "Freddie was dumb because he was gay" and "Do girls like getting their hair pulled while being fucked?"?btw about you sig, you have no idea how much truth it is in that statement! |
| kingogre 23.09.2008 15:14 |
Sgt. Pepper? The White Album? Rubber soul? Revolver? Fashion and music that still sets the rules more than 40 years later? They defined the pop group and continue to do so. Thousands of successful musicians of all ages and eras disagrees with you. One of them is Freddie Mercury, but then again you are not interested in the real Freddie Mercury. Start enjoying music and bands no matter what they come from, it is a lot more fun! |
| April 23.09.2008 15:55 |
Wow! Great posts about the 60s in Great Britain! This time was absolutely fascinating, swinging, promising. There were so many fine bands and singers there at the time, but surely the Beatles were the best, the most original, the most innovative, the most diverse. Besides, they were great personalities, interesting and so different. And certainly they were extremely handsome, charismatic and humorous. Lennon-McCartney are considered the best songwriting duet of the 20th century, the best composers. As for me I love them very much and consider myself to be a fan (after Queen). I truly believe that the Beatles are the best band of the 60s, while Queen is the best band of the 70s. My most beloved singers are Freddie and John Lennon. I am convinced that we can't compare the two bands because they are different rock: The Beatles are pop-rock and Queen is glam-rock, and because they belong to different decades. |
| vadenuez 23.09.2008 16:05 |
Well I love both of them. I guess that makes me a happier person. |
| kingogre 23.09.2008 16:35 |
The Beatles could rock with the best even if it has been somewhat forgotten. There were loads of great bands during the 60s, Beatles were the head of the pack but that doesnt mean others are not worth listening to. Many of the bands definitely had a huge influence on Queen, The Who and The Kinks most obviously. Odessey and Oracle by the Zombies is one of the best albums ever if you ask me. Ogdens Nut gone flake by the Small Faces is another. Great british psychedelia, its not a far stretch that some members of Queen heard them since they have a lot in common with what they did later. The Kinks did a whole lot of great Queen-similar music up until the late 70s aswell. |
| Brianmay1975 23.09.2008 16:54 |
Hey SomebodyWhoLoves, how old are you? You sound like me in my teenage years, when I madly fell in love with Queen and thought that every other band was bullshit! I used to hate the Beatles, to believe they were overrated. Was I so stupid!!! I totally love them now. Yes, I was stupid and so are you now. I honestly hope that in time you'll get over it and start to appreciate other kinds of music, without feeling that your love for Queen is threatened by that. And I do hope you get over your Freddie phase and start to appreciate Queen for what they are, namely a band made of four wonderful musicians, not only an amazing singer. You have no idea how much you miss out by holding on to these beliefs. Take my word for it, I've been in the same situation. Because I now love the Beatles too, a whole new world of music and beauty has opened up for me. Because I can now listen to and enjoy so many bands and music genres, I have the opportunity to discover loads and loads of exciting stuff, older and newer. Queen is not the only band in my world anymore, but it certainly is and will for ever be number one in this world of mine! Don't be obsessed with Queen. Don't be obsessed with anything. It's bad for your soul. Take the word of a future psychologist for it! The goal of the human being is to evolve in his lifetime, to enrich his soul. If you get stuck only with Freddie, you are not evolving at all, my friend! And you are the only one who loses such a great deal!!! You may think now I am wrong. That Freddie is the one and only and there is nothing valuable in this world except him. But this is not making him any justice. If he is the only good musician and everything else is crap is not as great as to be the best musician out of a series of other huge musicians. Downplaying everything else is ultimately downplaying Freddie too. Now about the Beatles: it's not only true that John Lennon was a huge inspiration to Freddie, but Queen has been quite heavily influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles' foray into glam-rock (take the "White Album" or "Abbey Road" for example) has clearly influenced Queen's style. You may not like it, but you can't deny it (of course, you can say this is not true, but I'd love to hear your arguments, if you have any). Oh and... of course you have every right in the world to not like the Beatles. But you have no right to call people who listen to them stupid. You're the only one who might prove himself quite stupid by posting insulting stuff like this... |
| oh-ja 23.09.2008 17:04 |
don't feed the troll ... |
| Ray D O'Gaga 23.09.2008 19:19 |
Zebonka12 wrote: In their defence, the Beatles never wrote "Let's Turn It On".HA! |
| Miss Valentine 23.09.2008 19:21 |
Another thread about Queen versus the Beatles? [sigh] OK. Here's my opinion. Feel free to dispute. The Beatles inspired Queen. They did inventive things, tried new things with chord structure, etc, etc. Whether their songs are pleasing or no, you can't deny their impact on musicians was far greater than Queen's on other muscians. After all, where would Queen be if the Beatles hadn't inspired them? As to the pop thing, don't try to tell me that Queen didn't crank out pop songs, too. What do you call "It's a Kind of Magic"? They're stuff could be called boring and light just as much as any of the Beatles stuff. And yes, I do believe that Paul McCartney and John Lennon were on Freddie's level, and I'm sure if Freddie were here to read this, he'd take it as a compliment. Learn some music theory, too, before you get off making accusations against Beatles as crap. They're really not crap at all. |
| Yara 23.09.2008 20:04 |
Miss Valentine wrote: Another thread about Queen versus the Beatles? [sigh] And yes, I do believe that Paul McCartney and John Lennon were on Freddie's level, and I'm sure if Freddie were here to read this, he'd take it as a compliment.Of course he would because Paul McCartney and John Lennon are way above Freddie's level. It's not even a matter of opinion. Music theory and history of music explain it all. Of course, taste is taste: people may like it Freddie more than Bach, for that matter. But Queen fans' personal taste don't influence the way music has evolved over the centuries, of course. Which doesn't mean Freddie wasn't a great composer and, above all, singer and showman. As I always say, Freddie is still either hugely overrated or hugely underrated: it'll take some time for people to strike a fair balance, as it happens with all good musicians. |
| Winter Land Man 23.09.2008 20:19 |
im_on_the_wembley_dvd wrote: Pointless comparison from one of our American cousins Hey We gave you The Beatles & Queen different time different world in music terms.. Freddie would hate to hear this being said, he was inspired by John Lennon and even wrote a song in his memory (go play the Hot Space CD) next you'll have us comparing New Kids On the Block with The Beach BoysThe Beach Boys could play instruments. |
| doxonrox 23.09.2008 20:23 |
BrianMay1975 - excellent post. Except - how were the White Album and Abbey Road "glam rock"? |
| Danne 24.09.2008 08:55 |
Jake? wrote:Barely. They hardly played anything on their masterpiece, "Pet Sounds".im_on_the_wembley_dvd wrote: Pointless comparison from one of our American cousins Hey We gave you The Beatles & Queen different time different world in music terms.. Freddie would hate to hear this being said, he was inspired by John Lennon and even wrote a song in his memory (go play the Hot Space CD) next you'll have us comparing New Kids On the Block with The Beach BoysThe Beach Boys could play instruments. |
| Treasure Moment 24.09.2008 09:10 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote:lets turn it on is a great song!Zebonka12 wrote: In their defence, the Beatles never wrote "Let's Turn It On".HA! |
| Piut 24.09.2008 09:57 |
Queen vs Beatles...mmmm,as a musician i don't like beatles, as a drummer i like ringo starr only because he was the first one to create a definite and sharp bass drum sound. You know, i think Beatles were the boy band of the 60s, the first one, producing like all boy bands strong hits and commercial records, spreading the image of good boys! the same thing as Wham!,Take That, Backstreet Boys etc etc! and when they changed this image and trademark following the '68 youth rebellion they splitted up because there was no substance behind the make up! while Queen primarly formed their trademarks, skills, their substance and then became superstars! they had no make up, they have always been a strong band! so, beatles vs Queen is on you...if you like the "silly", simple music just listen to the Beatles...if you like an everytime little opera in each song, so choose Queen! and if you want me to side, well, i choose Queen, because i'm a musician not a fashion man! |
| Matias Merçeauroix 24.09.2008 10:11 |
The Beatles are fucking great. I can't believe you people. You talk bout the fab four, and they're shit... I talk about Led Zeppelin or Jimmy Page, and I'm a faggot because Zep rules. You should all get your ears checked. Seriously... someone that prefers Led Zeppelin over the fucking Beatles, has a problem. A big one. Cheers, Hor |
| john bodega 24.09.2008 11:19 |
Piut wrote: You know, i think Beatles were the boy band of the 60s, the first one, producing like all boy bands strong hits and commercial records, spreading the image of good boys! the same thing as Wham!,Take That, Backstreet Boys etc etc!Except, and this is the real kicker; the Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, had a hand in the production (with some genius help and innovation from the guys in charge...) And not one of the bands you just mentioned ever did any of that - and if they did, the result was too fucking shitty for anyone to notice. Beatles = a band with boys. Beatles ? a boy band. You stupid cock. |
| kingogre 24.09.2008 11:31 |
Beatles were hardly a boy band. On the contrary they were among the first bands to take a major part in the production of their records themselves. |
| Benn 24.09.2008 12:00 |
The Beatles were the 60's equivalent of Take That or Boyzone. In exactly the same way that the EARLY Stones, The Who, The Small Faces and The Kinks were. Heavily promoted on the radio via the pirate stations starting off with radio Luxembourg, in print through NME, Disc, Melody Maker, Jackie and FAB and on TV through Ready! Steady! GO! and Top Of The Pops, and pushed hard by their management teams to get out there in front of people to make as much money as humanly possible in as short a time as possible. The biggest difference being the AMOUNT of money they made, the outstanding quality and longevity of their music. Oh, and their contributions to pop culture and the music industry in general of course :-) |
| Yara 24.09.2008 12:46 |
Bad Horsie wrote: The Beatles are fucking great. I can't believe you people. You talk bout the fab four, and they're shit... I talk about Led Zeppelin or Jimmy Page, and I'm a faggot because Zep rules. You should all get your ears checked. Seriously... someone that prefers Led Zeppelin over the fucking Beatles, has a problem. A big one. Cheers, HorYou rock, I mean, shred my world. A minor correction: A HUGE ONE. |
| Holly2003 24.09.2008 13:02 |
Bad Horsie wrote: You should all get your ears checked. Seriously... someone that prefers Led Zeppelin over the fucking Beatles, has a problem. A big one.The Beatles suffer from over familiarity. Their best known songs -- about 30-40 of them perhaps -- are never off the radio and have been endlessly repackaged and sold every year for about the last thirty years. In contrast, Zep have about 5 songs that get huge radio airplay, and a whole bunch of songs that get *relatively* little exposure. Plus they have not exploited their fans *as much* as The (remaining) Beatles have with GH packages etc. As such, the Zep catalogue is still relatively fresh compared to The Beatles and it's no wonder then that they have had a lot of renewed interest lately. |
| Poo, again 24.09.2008 16:30 |
Holly2003 wrote:So true. I agree with every word.Bad Horsie wrote: You should all get your ears checked. Seriously... someone that prefers Led Zeppelin over the fucking Beatles, has a problem. A big one.The Beatles suffer from over familiarity. Their best known songs -- about 30-40 of them perhaps -- are never off the radio and have been endlessly repackaged and sold every year for about the last thirty years. In contrast, Zep have about 5 songs that get huge radio airplay, and a whole bunch of songs that get *relatively* little exposure. Plus they have not exploited their fans *as much* as The (remaining) Beatles have with GH packages etc. As such, the Zep catalogue is still relatively fresh compared to The Beatles and it's no wonder then that they have had a lot of renewed interest lately. |
| April 24.09.2008 16:35 |
The Beatles is such a diverse band that they appeal to everybody. Different people find in their music something to their liking. For a great majority of people the Beatles are the first love, and the first love is remembered forever, it can't be betrayed. I think that the two bands can't be compared, cause they are very different. And both of them are great, the greatest ever!!! |
| AmeriQueen 25.09.2008 00:22 |
1.) They were the premiere rock n' roll band in the comercial industry their first 5 albums, covering songs to higher levels, writing great pop/rock songs, and representing the corporate/media prize champion of early rock bands in the spectrum. They did it with generic but blueprinting songs that shaped into the basics of rock. 2.) They proceeded after 5th album(Help!) to experiment with drugs and music both, creating 8 or so albums worth of the greatest pre-Queen contributions arguably to rock, Being creative to genius levels only Queen can match consistantly. 3.) All of the above, start to finish, was between late '63/'64 through '69, a little over 5 years for the Beatles ENTIRE career minus the anthologies and their 2 posthumous creations. 4.) Queen has time and time again referred to the Beatles as their number one influence, especially in the studio. I see them as such: Lennon- Genius lyricist and songwriter with the real out of the blue genius moments they had. McCartney- The ultimate instrumentalist, capable of all horns, woods, bass, drums, guitar and could sing. He gave the overal musically talented classical elements with good pop melodies. Harrison- The greatest vocalist/guitarist ever, a beautiful soloist who perfected slide guitar and wrote styles of different types of songs, overall making my favorite music by any Beatle. He's my favorite. Starr- Mediocre add on who over time became a solid writer and excellent drummer above most. It's like basketball.... Jerry West is the greatest Shooting Guard in 1970. Michael Jordan says he wouldn't have created his moves if he hadn't learned Jerry West's. Now Kobe is trying to further things, though he's no Jordan. The point is where would either Jordan or Kobe be had Jerry West not shown them how it's done? Where would Steve Vai be had he never heard May or Eddie Van Halen? Where would Queen be had they never been inspired by the Beatles? Who knows? |
| April 25.09.2008 15:22 |
I would like to add. Lennon had a great voice too. Especially I enjoy his voice in the early albums. When he's singing Anna Go To Him, Baby It's You. I adore Harrison too. His songs are very good. My fave is While My Guitar Gently Weeps with Eric Clapton on lead guitar. And I like George's All Things Must Pass and Cloud 9. That's it. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 25.09.2008 15:31 |
Zebonka12 wrote:dude,i dont want to piss on your parade but there was a certain George Michael writing the songs in Wham! and Gary Barlow writing the songs in Take That so your comment is way off about not having song writers in the bands.Piut wrote: You know, i think Beatles were the boy band of the 60s, the first one, producing like all boy bands strong hits and commercial records, spreading the image of good boys! the same thing as Wham!,Take That, Backstreet Boys etc etc!Except, and this is the real kicker; the Beatles wrote their own music, played their own instruments, had a hand in the production (with some genius help and innovation from the guys in charge...) And not one of the bands you just mentioned ever did any of that - and if they did, the result was too fucking shitty for anyone to notice. Beatles = a band with boys. Beatles ? a boy band. You stupid cock. |
| Sebastian 25.09.2008 20:04 |
Also, all five Backstreet Boys (though they're four now) wrote or co-wrote some material. 'Never Gone' is partly Kevin's, for instance, and 'The One' is partly Brian's. And Kevin also played some instruments, mostly bass and keyboards. |
| Winter Land Man 25.09.2008 21:04 |
Danne wrote:So? That was Brian Wilson's choice. But his brother Carl, usually had his guitar plugged in and was playing, on Pet Sounds.Jake? wrote:Barely. They hardly played anything on their masterpiece, "Pet Sounds".im_on_the_wembley_dvd wrote: Pointless comparison from one of our American cousins Hey We gave you The Beatles & Queen different time different world in music terms.. Freddie would hate to hear this being said, he was inspired by John Lennon and even wrote a song in his memory (go play the Hot Space CD) next you'll have us comparing New Kids On the Block with The Beach BoysThe Beach Boys could play instruments. A lot of their albums, THEY did play. |
| john bodega 25.09.2008 22:56 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: dude,i dont want to piss on your parade but there was a certain George Michael writing the songs in Wham! and Gary Barlow writing the songs in Take That so your comment is way off about not having song writers in the bands.You didn't piss on my parade, and my comment wasn't way off. I left a little clause in there which ran : "if they did, the result was too fucking shitty for anyone to notice" Which certainly covers George Michael, Take That, and the Backstreet Boys.... |
| kingogre 26.09.2008 02:37 |
Some people here knows embarrasingly much about some boybands;) Both John and Paul were/are excellent singers by the way. |
| Marcos Napier 26.09.2008 12:07 |
So I guess Oasis is a boy band too? OK, fine, call Beatles a boy band (like the Osmonds? the Monkees? Herman Hermits?). But they have a difference: they evolved. While George Michael... the closest he was of an evolution was to sing Somebody to Love. Beatles tried LSD and made Rubber Soul, Revolver and others. George Michael went to jail. |
| kingogre 26.09.2008 15:38 |
If you cared to find out anything about where the Beatles came from and what their influences where youd see that all this boy band talk is bullshit. |
| Danne 26.09.2008 16:39 |
Jake? wrote:Actually, I didn't mean this as a criticism, although it did sound that way. I really like Pet Sounds (and quite a lot of other Beach Boys stuff too), my only point being that it wasn't their instrumental skills that brought them fame and a place in rock/pop history; it was Brian Wilson's genius and their phenomenal vocal harmonies.Danne wrote:So? That was Brian Wilson's choice. But his brother Carl, usually had his guitar plugged in and was playing, on Pet Sounds. A lot of their albums, THEY did play.Jake? wrote: The Beach Boys could play instruments.Barely. They hardly played anything on their masterpiece, "Pet Sounds". |
| Sebastian 26.09.2008 18:14 |
To be fair, that'd go for The Fab Four too: they were far from being virtuosi on their instruments (though they all played very well), but what is truly extraordinary about them is their songwriting. Loads of people can play bass even better than Paul (even though he's very good), but how many can write Eleanor Rigby, to name just one? Same for piano, guitar, drums and so on. |
| john bodega 27.09.2008 01:55 |
kingogre wrote: If you cared to find out anything about where the Beatles came from and what their influences where youd see that all this boy band talk is bullshit.That was my intial point of view as well, but as Benn rather cannily pointed out; as far as mass marketing goes, The Beatles could be seen as the most successful boyband in history. The Beatles had so much more substance than any manufactured pop group I've heard of, but the fact is that when you have an audience of hundreds of millions, over decades, not every one of those fans is going to be an educated critical thinker or a musical analyst.... Consider that in the very early days, they took approaches to marketing their music that'd probably be called 'viral' in todays vocabulary. They tried everything!! The music itself is hardly cookie-cutter (from Rubber Soul onwards, at least) but from a commercial perspective they were very boy band. You might want to blame the record company people for that though... |
| Danne 27.09.2008 04:19 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Are some of you so stupid that you think "All you need is Love" is superior to "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "March of the Black Queen" or "Hammer To Fall"? What people don't understand is, the Beatles wrote mainly POP songs that were absurdly simple and boring. They are like Elevator Music compared to the Real Genius in Queen Songs.I really would like to know what criteria you use. How do you measure which music is superior to another form of music? To me, it seems, you argue the case that Queen's music is better than The Beatles', because it's more complex. Even though I have issues with that statement overall (I don't think it's generally true, if you really start comparing. Which is more complex, for instance, "Because" with its rather complicated harmonical structure or "Man on the Prowl" with its simplistic rock'n'roll attitude? The final medley on "Abbey Road", with its steady C major/A minor tonal centre, although the songs make many excursions into other keys, or "Body Language" with its monotone synth riff?) I would like to talk abaout this complexity thing a bit. I think there's a serious fault with the idea that more complex=better. IMO, "better" has to do with taste, not with complexity. I like music, both simple and complex. And if it's complexity you're after, Queen isn't the most complex rock/pop artists out there. Much of Frank Zappa's output, Genesis from the 70s, and Mahavishnu Orchestra (to take a few examples) are generally more complex than Queen. And if we bring in the classical masters, Beethoven, Gustav Mahler, Dmitri Shostakovitch (I could pick anyone, almost) there's no competition at all. I would, as I said, really want to know how you measure which music it is better... |
| kingogre 27.09.2008 04:47 |
Well said, Danne. Like I wrote before, there is absolutely nothing simple with lots of Beatles songs. And if it is a competition in complexity Queen falls way short to loads of artists. Apart from those that have been mentioned you can add Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Captain Beefheart and many others. And compared to the classical composers they are nothing. What is Bohemian Rhapsody compared to Springrites by Stravinski? |
| Marcos Napier 27.09.2008 11:30 |
Beatles had complex things too. All you need to do is just try to find and read more about it, but your brainwashed mind doesn't let you go further than the Queen catalog. A day in the life is way far from what you can call a "pop" song, it's as "planned" so to speak as BR. I recommend reading a book about their recording sessions, maybe it helps you to spot the differences between a 60's boy band from one of the 80's or 90's (oh and hi Ricky Martin!). With modern technologies, it's easy to be "complex" if being complex means recording something using 2000 audio tracks. But if you don't have a track in the mix where to record something called "talent", it doesn't matter if it's complex or not. |