| AnthonyH 28.06.2009 19:48 |
Me and my friend had an arguement over who was better... .As we all know its clearly Queen So we have started two groups on facebook to see who can get the most members... its abit of a stupid thing to do I know but im willing to go along with it because I firmly believe that Queen are ALOT better than the stones Come and support Queen http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98426356633 Thanks All Anthony!! |
| Band Forever 29.06.2009 06:55 |
The Rolling Stones are a poor second to the Beatles, and Queen's material/performances are better than the Beatles. |
| Vali 29.06.2009 07:10 |
never appreciated The Stones; in fact never payed attention to them ... I used to think they were a simple/boring/repetitive bunch of dinosaurs always focused on squeezing their classic hits (more or less ala Queen, actually). But then this friend of mine, a HUGE Stones fan, brought some DVDs, docummentaries, etc and after learning more about them and watching some gigs I changed my mind. Always thought Mick Jagger was a simple frontman; now I think he's pure genius. I like their style; musically and visually; I like Keith, Charlie and Ronnie behaving like total anti-stars. Queen is my band, but I regret I just discovered The Stones too late !! |
| The Real Wizard 29.06.2009 12:21 |
On a Queen forum, what kind of response would you expect?
Keith Richards is the coolest man alive. The fact that he's still alive says it all. He is the master of the guitar riff and playing exactly what's right for the song.
Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are two of the best rock records ever made. And the musicianship on tunes like Miss You (particularly Bill Wyman) is supremely underrated.
The Stones have undeniably left their mark on the evolution of rock music.
Band Forever wrote: Queen's material/performances are better than the Beatles. The Beatles changed the world more than any other entertainers in the last century. Full stop, no negotiations. To prefer Queen would come down to one's opinion, but the songwriting quality, legacy, and longevity of the Beatles' work need no justification. |
| Yara 29.06.2009 12:51 |
Sir GH wrote: On a Queen forum, what kind of response would you expect? Keith Richards is the coolest man alive. The fact that he's still alive says it all. He is the master of the guitar riff and playing exactly what's right for the song. Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are two of the best rock records ever made. And the musicianship on tunes like Miss You (particularly Bill Wyman) is supremely underrated. The Stones have undeniably left their mark on the evolution of rock music. Bring on the intolerant flaming... the kind that a select few Queen fans do better than any other... Hi, folks! How are you? Well...I in fact agree with Sir GH on this one. :) And if we add "Aftermath", a real gem from the late 60's and "Exile on Main Street" to the picture, then, to my taste, it's hard to dismiss the Stones. : -)) These are considered Stones' "average" (!) albums: At Their Sanatic Majesties Request, Tatoo You, 12x5, Rolling Stones Now!, Goats Head Soup, It's Only Rock and Roll, Some Girls...I mean. lol They are huge. ----- Now, my humble taste. To my taste, there's no comparison - The Stones rank almost right up there with the Beatles. Cheers all! Yara. |
| brENsKi 29.06.2009 14:12 |
for years i have tried to explain to some folk here that - while queen are our favourites - undeniably the beatles were the best. they inspired three following generations of bands. All of the members of queen cite them as major influences. and before we get too carried away on the technical sound that queen produced.....if you're even open-minded enough to give any other band a proper listen. - listen to Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Rubber Soul and Abbey Rd....then while you are almost admitting to yourself "that's very good" you will probably console yourself that queen did much better on queen II, ANATO, ADATR etc...However, you forget one key fact - what the betales did - they did with 4 or 8 tracks.....All of queen early recordings were done using 24!!!! The beatles (and George Martin) were technological sound pioneers - they stretched sounds and musical composition to it's limits - which is what hastened the inventions of the late 60s/early 70s...Try and imaging those (almost perfect late 60s) beatles albums with 24 (or 48) track recording? getting back on track (briefly) the stones were good, some of their tracks were standout....but in the main I don't think they touched the likes of the who or pink floyd.... |
| cacatua 29.06.2009 17:05 |
I much prefer listening to Queen. I love the way that Brian plays guitar, and all of the care he took along the way to construct his own guitar and to produce diverse and unique sound effects. My father and I are/were craftsmen and this sort of meticulous stuff is my bag. I appreciate the musicianship of them all, and of course Freddie and his vocals were amazing. They were were great to watch as a group, and I still enjoy seeing Brian and Roger. I enjoy the eclectic and sometimes off-beat nature of their song material. If Queen, the Beatles and the Stones were all intact and playing within striking distance of where we live, I wouldn't even have to think about it before choosing to go see Queen. |
| Bo Alex 29.06.2009 17:35 |
It's a Queen forum. The 99% of the people will chose Queen. |
| April 01.07.2009 03:08 |
Queen were unique. Impossible to reinvent or to repeat. Even Brian and Roger can't repeat what was done by them in those years. While there were and are some bands resembling The Beatles and The Stones. Queen was a jewel! And their shows were the best in the world. |
| The Real Wizard 01.07.2009 15:39 |
Let's be honest with ourselves for just a moment... How many Queen albums changed the world? How many Beatles albums changed the world? It's true, millions of people tried to emulate The Beatles... because their sound is the sound that changed the world of popular music, while their image changed popular culture. And since we're on the topic of the Stones, Mick Jagger's bad boy image had a huge impact on the counter-culture of the 60s. |
| April 01.07.2009 16:35 |
Sir GH wrote: Let's be honest with ourselves for just a moment... How many Queen albums changed the world? How many Beatles albums changed the world? It's true, millions of people tried to emulate The Beatles... because their sound is the sound that changed the world of popular music, while their image changed popular culture. And since we're on the topic of the Stones, Mick Jagger's bad boy image had a huge impact on the counter-culture of the 60s. If we are speaking about the impact, you are right. The Beatles produced the greatest ever impact. But the thread is not about them. It's about Queen and The RS. Not sure the RS are greater. Queen is greater, they changed the sound, combined styles, and their impact is huge as well. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 01.07.2009 16:43 |
Queen! I never cared for the Stones.... Too bad nobody's told Keith Richards he's died yet.... |
| The Real Wizard 01.07.2009 22:03 |
April wrote: Queen is greater, they changed the sound, combined styles, and their impact is huge as well. The Stones combined styles too. Have a listen to Some Girls and Emotional Rescue. I think it's safe to say they both contributed plenty. Threads like this are the antithesis of the spirit of music. Music isn't a competition dividing people... it should be about uniting them out of common enjoyment of art. |
| john bodega 02.07.2009 00:10 |
Umm... guys, why don't you just start arguing whether or not you like nucleotides or ribose?? I'll admit I'm not a big Stones fan, never have been, and don't think they deserve to be in the same tier as The Beatles or The Who. "Wild Horses" is a bonza track though, I love it. The premise of this thread is still bunkum ... |
| mike hunt 02.07.2009 01:51 |
I don't know why the beatles are even in this discussion, but the beatles were in their own league. No one will ever beat them.....The stones, I never been a big fan, but a few songs I love. The stones will always be a little ahead of queen in rock n roll legacy's. |
| ILoveQueen20 02.07.2009 09:39 |
I agree the Beatles are EPIC they should'nt even be in this disscussion! and also WHY!? is there a Queen vs topic? This is a QUEEN forum the majority and going to say Queen so whats the point? |
| April 02.07.2009 15:59 |
I think it's good to have such threads too to highlight the glory of the favourite band! Certainly, I agree that The Stones are great, but they are more traditional rock, which is in abundance. Though Queen is more Glam-rock but with very specific sound, immediately recognizable and unique. There has never been anyone like them since then and I doubt that there will ever be. I believe their contribution hasn't been fully appreciated so far. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 02.07.2009 18:10 |
Sir GH wrote: Let's be honest with ourselves for just a moment... How many Queen albums changed the world? How many Beatles albums changed the world? It's true, millions of people tried to emulate The Beatles... because their sound is the sound that changed the world of popular music, while their image changed popular culture. And since we're on the topic of the Stones, Mick Jagger's bad boy image had a huge impact on the counter-culture of the 60s. Queen admired the Beatles greatly and I think one of the band members said the Beatles were like their Bible. |
| Treasure Moment 04.07.2009 17:23 |
You are actually comparing a shitty band like rolling stones with Queen?! funny stuff. |
| SaskQueenFan 04.07.2009 18:14 |
I like both bands.. I unfortunately never got to see a Queen peformance live.. but I was lucky enough to see the Stones in concert.. I wasn't a huge fan before seeing them live, but now I am a more of a fan. As for the band that has had the greater impact and legacy, it the Stones, and its not even close. |
| PersianPopinjay 07.07.2009 20:22 |
I just joined the Queen group on all three of my facebooks :) |
| dragon-fly 08.07.2009 05:35 |
Never really liked Stones. I can listen to them sometimes but I just can't watch it. I remember when I saw that video with David Bowie. For me it was just a joke. I just can't take it seriously or find some value in it. |
| PauloPanucci 08.07.2009 10:28 |
we can't compare Queen with Rolling stones!!!You know why????? Rolling stones just play a kind of music(Rock),,, Queen know how to play music, playing a lot of music style, Queen mix the styles and make a good song!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sorry the wrong typing,,, i'm from brazil!!!!!!! |
| The Real Wizard 08.07.2009 10:57 |
Are people that closed-minded? The only determining factor of what makes a good band is going on tangents, trying out other genres of music? But since the Stones didn't write Seaside Rendezvous, I guess their records sucked... sigh... |
| mike hunt 08.07.2009 12:01 |
they did mix styles, they mixed rock n roll with the blues. |
| April 08.07.2009 12:38 |
Actually both are great. The rest is a matter of choice. I choose Queen. |
| PauloPanucci 08.07.2009 15:49 |
Sorry,, i expressed poorly,,, but u understood when i said that they mix styles,,, u know,, it's not just that style,, however,,, i like rolling stoness, but I PREFER QUEEN!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry the poor english and grammar errors,,,, i'm Brazilian |