| gmhmagic 29.10.2004 09:07 |
Quite a question isn't it? For me, obviously Queen, I also adore The Beatles, but Queen is Queen... I would like to know most Queen Fans' opinions about both bands. |
| Regor 29.10.2004 09:32 |
In terms of sales ? Concert attendance ? Talking of music I am sure there a loads of people who think that Aqua is the greatest band ever. Or N'Sync. Or 5ive. Or even New Kids on the Block. You just can not define it as long as personal taste is involved. But if we stick to that, seeing it only as personal opinion in terms of the impact a band has on music (you said the "greatest", that implies a discussion about achievements and influence on other artists), the greatest band for me are the Beatles. Simply because they started the whole craze and influenced generations of musicians (incl. our 4 lads) - and still do. But Queen obviously is by far my favourite band ! A love-affair for 18 years now... |
| gabriel79 29.10.2004 09:38 |
pink floyd |
| deleted user 29.10.2004 09:38 |
A good friend of me used to write on his site: Beatles were the first, Queen were the best... I couldn't agree more!! |
| The Real Wizard 29.10.2004 12:15 |
The Beatles had such a huge effect on popular culture that will never, ever be repeated. Queen may have bettered certain things, but they did not pioneer things the way The Beatles did. Sure, Queen concerts were better. Sure, Queen lasted longer as a band. But The Beatles changed the world. Queen did not, not even close to the extent of The Beatles. Queen will always be my favourite band, but I completely bow down to what The Beatles stood for and accomplished in less than a decade. |
| Lester Burnham 29.10.2004 12:24 |
Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote: The Beatles had such a huge effect on popular culture that will never, ever be repeated. Queen may have bettered certain things, but they did not pioneer things the way The Beatles did. Sure, Queen concerts were better. Sure, Queen lasted longer as a band. But The Beatles changed the world. Queen did not, not even close to the extent of The Beatles. Queen will always be my favourite band, but I completely bow down to what The Beatles stood for and accomplished in less than a decade.Couldn't have said it better myself, dear sir. |
| Negative Creep 29.10.2004 12:29 |
If eiter bands are "the greatest" (whatever the fuck that means!) then its The Beatles. They made a bigger impact than Queen socially & musically- plain and simple. Theyve influenced many bands/artists that are still around today, which can't really be said for Queen unfourtunately... the only particuarly Queen influenced band around today are that pseudo-rock band The Darkness that look and sound like a bunch of music teachers who heavily rely on high pitched vocals and fret-wanking due to lack of actual songs. |
| Sonja 29.10.2004 12:34 |
Each band has their time, The Beatles were the greatest at that time, Queen's big time came later. I don't think you can compare them at all, not even say which band is better because they were so different. I don't think that any band in the world could ever top The Beatles and the impact they had. Plus, I don't even think Queen would've been the same band without The Beatles. They were a huge inspiration. As Freddie said in Life Is Real "Lennon is a genius living in every pore" And he truly was! |
| rmtfictionqueen 29.10.2004 13:25 |
Yeah, pick two groups that I obsess over. I'm being Switzerland on this one. I ain't choosing. That way I can stay on my OWN good side. |
| MexQueenFM 29.10.2004 13:30 |
damn it Queen are the best! the Beatles suck |
| Guy 29.10.2004 13:58 |
I'm with Bob. |
| FredMerBul 29.10.2004 14:23 |
Fuck**g Question. Queen is the best band ever! There is no doubt. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 29.10.2004 14:44 |
For me, it's Queen. I think The Beatles are great, and it's amazing how much they changed the face of music in such a short span of time, but I've never fully appreciated their work the way I have with Queen. I think that Queen perfected what The Beatles had accomplished. |
| deleted user 29.10.2004 15:12 |
Sir GH laid it down very nicely. Thanks for that. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.10.2004 15:14 |
Queen were better musicians, singers, producers and arrangers than the Beatles. They were arguably equal as songwriters. Queen's live shows were spectacular, and they wrote the song of the century and had arguably the greatest frontman in rock and roll history. The Beatles changed the world and have a catalogue that will never be matched. And teh winner is??? The Beatles by a mile. |
| Debbie1 29.10.2004 15:15 |
It's got to be Queen - no-one even comes close in my opinion. I know I must be in the minority but I am not a Beatles fan - their music is ok but in my opinion there are/were better bands than the Beatles. |
| love of my life 14018 29.10.2004 15:29 |
Debbie1 wrote: It's got to be Queen - no-one even comes close in my opinion. I know I must be in the minority but I am not a Beatles fan - their music is ok but in my opinion there are/were better bands than the Beatles.Yes, but you have to ask yourself "Would those bands even exist(or if they would, would they be any good?) if it hadn't been for the Beatles?" I doubt it. I'm not choosing. The Beatles invented it and Queen perfected it. |
| Hank H. 29.10.2004 15:30 |
What if "the best band ever" is out there and you don't even know it? Who cares about rankings? Anyway, you don't find anything in European / US pop music that's "bigger" than The Beatles, it's pretty obvious, and that's probably all we can say. |
| love of my life 14018 29.10.2004 15:38 |
Just to add one thing- The Beatles as a band grew and changed so much over their 10 years. Their early stuff was simple, catchy boy band material. Then George's sitar music, and John's psychedelia gave birth to Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The White Album, I always see as not so much the Beatles as a band. More that each song is "Paul and the band" or "John and the band", etc., etc. A seperation of Lennon/McCartney. They took another direction with Abbey Road, which is IMO, their best album. Queen reached into a ton of different genres, too, not to such an extent, I think, but it was the Beatles' concept. |
| Mr. Mack 29.10.2004 15:53 |
Queen, of course! I want to say hello- I'm a new here! |
| KillerLinda 29.10.2004 16:43 |
I think that the question is wrong, because you can't compare two bands who grew up in different years. Moreover Queen, who came up later, have been inspired from the Beatles, as they said lots of times Freddie & co. Surely, what the beatles did is more innovative because in '60 the musical situation was more limited. Queen had their best time from '70, when rock was consolidated with groups such as Led Zep, Deep Purple, Jimi Hendrix and many more. For the Beatles rock was Elvis, Little Richards, Jerry Lee Lewis...you can compare rolling and beatles or queen and aerosmith..uff...so hard to explain! I love them both so much! |
| LadyMoonshineDown 29.10.2004 17:27 |
You simply cannot compare the two. The Beatles influenced pop culture all over the world, especially in the UK and US. Their branch from the everyday pop scene as a Fab Four icon truly altered not only the music scene, but the culture of society. Queen came in a different era with a different style of music. Both groups had great harmonies, but Queen had an impecable zing with their vocals that no one can do justice to. As far as their musical talent in writing and playing, they were simply amazing. We cannot deny that. Both bands have influenced the world and the rock and roll scene in many ways to the point that we cannot compare the two. They are different in so many ways as well, that choosing one would not make any sense at all. I love them both. |
| deleted user 29.10.2004 17:47 |
Both are very good bands, BUT i have to go with Queen. Queen was so much more complex, musically and put on some of the best concerts ever of any band. I respect the Beatles and their huge impact on the music world. (as somebody else mentioned, Queen may never have existed if it weren't for the Beatles) but I only like a few of their album and songs (Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, revolver, THe White Album). The rest of their music I find quite annoying. In their pschedelic period they were pretty awesome tho. |
| Serry... 29.10.2004 18:11 |
Mozart or Elton John? Who knows... But in this case - Queen. |
| Little_Queenie 29.10.2004 18:30 |
Why can't you people just keep it simple? It was a simple question after all... Queen is the greatest band ever, of course. Leave the fact that The Beatles had bigger influence, actually the biggest ever, but Queen were better musicians. They had far more complicated and more beautiful songs. They had the best shows ever. They wrote anthems that will probably never have any equal. They were the best. |
| KillerQueen840 29.10.2004 18:31 |
I see a lot of first timers here! Welcome to QZ, to all of you! |
| KillerQueen840 29.10.2004 18:31 |
I see a lot of first timers here! Welcome to QZ, to all of you! |
| Sonja 29.10.2004 18:36 |
Little_Queenie wrote: Why can't you people just keep it simple? It was a simple question after all... Queen is the greatest band ever, of course. Leave the fact that The Beatles had bigger influence, actually the biggest ever, but Queen were better musicians. They had far more complicated and more beautiful songs. They had the best shows ever. They wrote anthems that will probably never have any equal. They were the best.I think you can't leave the facts out. You can say which music you prefer but you can't say which band is better. |
| Little_Queenie 29.10.2004 19:22 |
But what facts? I said I do agree Beatles had the biggest influence ever, no one can take that away from them, but I simply cannot say their music is better then Queen's music, just like many other poeple can't. So greatest in what specific way? Influence? Beatles, of course. But music? What facts do you actually reffer to that would put Beatles before Queen in pure music aspect? |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 19:23 |
obviously Queen for me!(duh...) |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 19:24 |
Killaqueen!!! wrote: I think we all know the answer to that one.....let me guess...QUEEN? |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 19:24 |
<font color ="midnightblue">ThomasQuinn wrote: In terms of musical quality: Queen (and that's 100% objective, although I must say that most George Harrison songs are musically very, very good) In terms of popularity: Beatles In terms of concert quality: Queen In terms of innovation: Beatles (but Queen are VERY close behind)true. |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 19:25 |
wait,i mean queen was the best,thomas quinn!!! |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 19:26 |
MexQueenFM wrote: damn it Queen are the best! the Beatles suckthe beatles don't suck, they just aren't as AWESOME as queen!!! |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 29.10.2004 19:36 |
In my objective opinion, the Beatles are inferior to Queen, and they are not even close. Compare songs from each group and it's easy to see which is superior. Talent: Queen > Beatles Songs: Queen > Beatles Live shows: Queen > Beatles Longevity & Resilience (are their songs listenable over time): Queen > Beatles The only possible category that the Beatles might be better than Queen is their social significance. But that's not relevant to their worth as musicians. Queen is #1. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 29.10.2004 19:39 |
I think Elton John was a very good song-writer. And so was Billy Joel. Both artists were better than the Beatles. Queen are as good as Elton John & Billy Joel as far as song writing talent. Of course Queen had superior talent over everybody. And the most beautiful stunning female musician of all time? Gwen stefani. She's so hot. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 29.10.2004 19:41 |
Can I say one more time that GWEN STEFANI IS CURRENTLY MY FAVORITE ARTIST. NO DOUBT IS AWESOME!! |
| Simmer 29.10.2004 20:22 |
Queen and The Beatles are my two favorite bands. The Beatles will always be regarded as the greatest band ever. But my preference goes to Queen... Freddie Mercury was untouchable. |
| SergeantPepperDG 29.10.2004 23:38 |
I cannot and will not answer this question. |
| deleted user 29.10.2004 23:41 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Can I say one more time that GWEN STEFANI IS CURRENTLY MY FAVORITE ARTIST. NO DOUBT IS AWESOME!!No you can't. Oh, well, you did it. What the heck. |
| deleted user 29.10.2004 23:42 |
SergeantPepperDG wrote: I cannot and will not answer this question.Simply torn... |
| Matti 30.10.2004 02:01 |
It's all a matter of opinion. I don't know, I like Queen better but I still think The Beatles are awesome too. |
| antiden 30.10.2004 03:27 |
As a real Queen Fan I say QUEEN :) |
| iGSM 30.10.2004 03:59 |
Queen. The Beatles were too..hmm, how to say this with out being flamed...plain. Also I finally get your signature Sgt. P. Ahh, Lupin. You knuckle head. |
| Giacco 73 30.10.2004 07:57 |
Queen is the greatest band ever. |
| Banshee 30.10.2004 09:02 |
There is no doubt that The Beatles are the greatest bloody band that ever existed. They took Rock&Roll, mixed it with other influences and invented a whole new type of music! Queen would not have existed without The Beatles. It's fairly obvious that Freddies voice was better than that of Paul and John. Also, when you look at the technical skills regarding their instruments Queen was higher evolved than the Beatles. But I don't think those are the defining qualities. (Steve Vai is probably the best technical guitar player in the world today, but his music is too strange to please the majority of the people. So, although he's the best techically, he'll never be the greatest guitarist ever.) The Beatles had such an impact and were greatly innovative (Sgt. Pepper album, Here comes the sun). Didn't they also help build the 8/16-track recording? I feel they earned the right of being the all-time King of music. Queen was a great band. They did some really interesting and groundbreaking work (Brighton Rock for example). Queens music is more complex, but that's simple evolution. Evolution didn't stop with Queen. MUSE might have pushed it to another level in 1999. Personally I like Queens music probably better than that of The Beatles. As I said, it's more complex so you hear new things every time you listen to it. So I'd say that queen earned the right to be the all-time Queen of music. =) As Sir GH put it: "The Beatles changed the world." P.S. Elton John doesn't write songs. He steals his melodies from Mozart. |
| Brianmay1975 30.10.2004 10:38 |
Banshee wrote: There is no doubt that The Beatles are the greatest bloody band that ever existed.Err, I actually think there is :)... Queen would not have existed without The Beatles.Well, many people agree with you, but the truth is you can't say that Queen wouldn't have existed without the Beatles. They wouldn't have made the same music (that's for sure), but, if they had formed a band, they would have made some awesome music... Maybe not glam, hard rock or anything, but their talents would still have done them justice. So Queen may have existed without The Beatles, only different, but no less fine... |
| Brianmay1975 30.10.2004 10:44 |
Love Of My Life wrote: Yes, but you have to ask yourself "Would those bands even exist(or if they would, would they be any good?) if it hadn't been for the Beatles?" I doubt it. I'm not choosing. The Beatles invented it and Queen perfected it.Without Bach, Vivaldi and Haydn, Beethoven wouldn't have written his awesome symphonies. Still Beethoven is greater than Bach, Vivaldi or Bach... And QUEEN are greatest band ever. Just to add one thing- The Beatles as a band grew and changed so much over their 10 years. Their early stuff was simple, catchy boy band material. Then George's sitar music, and John's psychedelia gave birth to Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The White Album, I always see as not so much the Beatles as a band. More that each song is "Paul and the band" or "John and the band", etc., etc. A seperation of Lennon/McCartney. They took another direction with Abbey Road, which is IMO, their best album. Queen reached into a ton of different genres, too, not to such an extent, I think, but it was the Beatles' concept.Couldn't agree more, LOML... |
| brENsKi 30.10.2004 11:10 |
the beatles (my second favourite band) lead the way on innovation - look what they did with only four track-recording! look at the way they pioneered the early synths (mellatrons?) and cut up endless tapeloops - the stuff they did from 66-70 forged a brand new path for popular music and bands like queen (who will always be my favourite) picked up the torch and ran with it and whoever cited elton john as a great songwriter - forget it! he writes great music - but he doesn't do lyrics - in fact the only lyrics he actually wrote up to 1982 were perhaps his worst - see Little Jeannie - elton's lyricist Bernie taupin did most of the hard work |
| Hildur Helga:) 30.10.2004 15:29 |
Queen ofcourse,i don't like the Beatles!!..But i love Queen!!! Its totally Queen..no boubt about that!!!;D -Hildur Helga- |
| Lord Blackadder 30.10.2004 15:56 |
Hangman and his friend said it best. The Beatles were great. But it goes 1. Queen 2. Led Zeppelin 3. The Beatles 4. The Rolling Stones ...and thats fact! |
| crowley 30.10.2004 16:02 |
I don't really like The Beatles material, but I respect their talent and influence to the world of music. However Queen mastered their tracks to absolute perfection and I adore them, I always will. Damnit - I'm on the QUEENzone message board! So my answer is Queen! |
| thequeenling 30.10.2004 16:23 |
Roger and Brian don't even consider thmselves to be better than the Beatles. But well done QUEEN FANS yes QUEEN FANS...some ppl just havnt heard those words on here |
| The Real Wizard 30.10.2004 16:26 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Queen were better musicians, singers, producers and arrangers than the Beatles.I'll agree with all of those points with the exception of "producers". We must keep in mind that the technology in the 60s was much inferior to the 70s. Stereo came out only in 1965. Considering what George Martin and The Beatles had to work with, their later material is incredible. Killaqueen!!! wrote: Sure I liked a few of their songs but most of them sound the sameIgnorance to the Nth degree. No two Beatles songs sound even remotely alike. SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Talent: Queen > Beatles - OPINION Songs: Queen > Beatles - OPINION Longevity & Resilience (are their songs listenable over time): Queen > Beatles - OPINIONOpinions, not facts. Of course Queen had superior talent over everybody.Oh boy... folks, where do I begin with this one? |
| brENsKi 30.10.2004 17:25 |
thanks Sir GH for agreeing with my point. without the beatles - and all they did with fourtracks - read that again people! four tracks - no the 24 that queen had to work with there would be no queen the beatles work from rubber soul/revolver/sgt pepper/white album/abbey rd blazed a trail for future band to expand on and their expeirmentation with the mellatron and tape loops encouraged later bands to try stuff ffs - even oasis's "be here now" is like listening to revolver thru again yes queen are great - and will always be my no1 band - but the beatles were/are the greatest band ever, our prblem is objectivity ...and let's face it -the overwhelming defence of our band would be mirrored perfectly by our beatles couterparts on their forum |
| Banshee 30.10.2004 17:41 |
You're totally right Brenski. If you'd ask ALL people in the world about the biggest band ever, I bet The Beatles would be no. 1. Probably with... say... 80% of the votes? |
| Jean Luc 2000 30.10.2004 19:47 |
Queen really picked up the baton were the Beetles ended. Out of the two bands I prefer Queen because of there live performances and of course Bohemian Rhapsody, which really is the crown jewels of all there early work. My opinion isn’t help by old Macca’s actions over the last few years as he is really acted like an A** H**e with regards to crediting of songs. By the way Paul, as the song goes “only the GOOD die young”, which must mean your shit! |
| mistressofmercury 30.10.2004 21:25 |
In answer to this rather complex question I shall have to say Queen. They've become very important to me, seeing me through some very rough times in my life. So for me, greatest band ever: Queen (I am slightly obligated to pick them as I am the mistress of mercury for cryin' out loud :) Love, The Mistress |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.10.2004 21:34 |
What I meant to say Bob, is that the four entities of Queen were better producers than the four entities of the Beatles. I believe that Brian, Freddie, Roger and John contributed more to a "Queen" sound, than George, John, Paul and Ringo did a "Beatles" sound. I think George Marin was the genius behind the Beatles sound, where Roy Thomas Baker was more a collaborator after Queen II. Hard to define "better" anyhow. |
| The Real Wizard 31.10.2004 00:47 |
BHM 0271 wrote: What I meant to say Bob, is that the four entities of Queen were better producers than the four entities of the Beatles. I believe that Brian, Freddie, Roger and John contributed more to a "Queen" sound, than George, John, Paul and Ringo did a "Beatles" sound. I think George Marin was the genius behind the Beatles sound, where Roy Thomas Baker was more a collaborator after Queen II. Hard to define "better" anyhow.Okay, there I agree. :) How'd you know my first name? Have we acquainted? |
| Roger_in_Tigerskin_Trousers 31.10.2004 04:08 |
Queen is better but I think Led Zeppelin were better musicians |
| brENsKi 31.10.2004 05:45 |
Jean Luc 2000 wrote: My opinion isn’t help by old Macca’s actions over the last few years as he is really acted like an A** H**e with regards to crediting of songs. By the way Paul, as the song goes “only the GOOD die young”, which must mean your shit! ___________ how can you say such things? - this guy wrote yesterday, penny lane and virtually all of sgt pepper - he also pieced together (from bits of tape) and co-rpodcued with George Martin (imo) their greatest work abbey rd - while john and George were high on drugs (allegedly) and "forgot" to turn up to recording sessions |
| Banshee 31.10.2004 08:33 |
Jean Luc is lucky my girlfriend isn't reading this. She's a Beatle/Macca-fan and would probably make a vicious post about Star Trek or something. =) |
| The Real Wizard 31.10.2004 10:54 |
Roger_in_Tigerskin_Trousers wrote: Queen is better but I think Led Zeppelin were better musiciansCan't agree. Bonham was definitely the better drummer, but May was the better guitarist. Even in his best days, Page still had that sloppiness in his playing. May is a much more diverse and clean player. Almost everything Page has ever played is a variation of a major or pentatonic scale. Mercury, Deacon, Plant, and Jones were all great in their very different ways. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 31.10.2004 11:04 |
I agree. Led Zepplin made good music but Queen were in a different league to them. Stairway and Kashmir are fantastic, but the overall production of Queens music was far more superior. As for the Beatles, I dont know how many times ive spoken about them, they were dog crap. Three chord specialists. Queen didnt pick up the Beatles baton, Status Quo did! They are Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo over-rated its unbelievable! |
| LiveAidQueen 31.10.2004 15:00 |
The Beatles |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 31.10.2004 15:34 |
<font color=blue>5150 wrote: The BeatlesDont talk wet. |
| SergeantPepperDG 31.10.2004 16:11 |
Okay, I've thought about it and I've decided... the Beatles. No, Queen. Then again, the Beatles. No, actually Queen. Wait, scratch that, the Beatles. No no no, Queen. Oh, who am I kidding... you can't expect me to answer a question like this. |
| rendezvous 31.10.2004 16:35 |
Who is the greater composer? Mozart or Beethoven? Well, I don't know. I just know I like Mozart better. Then, again, which is the greatest band? Queen, Beatles or Led Zeppelin? I don't know, either. I just know I love Queen the best. It's just a matter of opinion. |
| onevsion 31.10.2004 19:30 |
Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote: The Beatles had such a huge effect on popular culture that will never, ever be repeated. Queen may have bettered certain things, but they did not pioneer things the way The Beatles did. Sure, Queen concerts were better. Sure, Queen lasted longer as a band. But The Beatles changed the world. Queen did not, not even close to the extent of The Beatles. Queen will always be my favourite band, but I completely bow down to what The Beatles stood for and accomplished in less than a decade.I fully agree with you! |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 01.11.2004 02:34 |
i like both, but ducksoup (i wanna duck!) has a fairly good point. but admit it, some beatles song are pretty trippy and funny to listen to when high/drunk. hell! even when sober they are funny, but in a cool way. Whereas queen i can just listen to whenever the fuck i want, and i always know i'll love it. but sometimes i just feel like the beatles. to answer the question, i prefer queen, but the beatles were a much more influential band. monte |
| crossrog 01.11.2004 05:35 |
Talking about influential ... there weren't many other (serious) bands beside Beatles who did music for the masses all over the world. |
| crossrog 01.11.2004 05:36 |
double-posting *sry* |
| isolar2 01.11.2004 06:11 |
There is no way to compare Queen / The Beatles. Different times, different feelings, different points of view. If both bands would have existed in the same time, then perhaps. |
| Libor2 01.11.2004 07:04 |
Let it be, 'cos both are the champions. :-) Anyway, I like Queen more than Beatles, but Beatles was very good anyway. They were the first and influenced a lot of bands after them. Maybe they use to be a little bit overrated (thanks to fact they were first), but their era after Rubber Souls was really interesting. |
| Sonia Doris 01.11.2004 09:28 |
if queen came before the beatles (which, in the beatles period a kinda doubt...due to freddie's nationality i guess...) the discussion here would have been different. i know i can find myself better in queen than in the beatles, but i like beethoven too... |
| brENsKi 01.11.2004 12:45 |
what a downright stupid post ...and i make no apologies for it "the beatles suck" are you serious? one of queen's biggest influences suck? you're just returning to your pre-grown-up posts of last month aren't you |
| brENsKi 01.11.2004 12:55 |
Cunning Stunt wrote: but admit it, some beatles song are pretty trippy and funny to listen to when high/drunk. hell! even when sober they are funny, but in a cool way. Whereas queen i can just listen to whenever the fuck i want, and i always know i'll love it. "my baby does, my baby does me good" "you're a cool cat, tapping on the toe with a new hat" "But he wouldn't shake my hand boy, He disappointed me So I got my handgun And I blew him away" "Told my girl I'll have to forget her Rather buy me a new carburettor" "When I was you and you were me and we were very young Together took us nearly there, the rest may not be sung" ....i rest my case |
| PD. 02.11.2004 04:24 |
Beatles were the biggest band ever in terms of fame, sales, wirld wide respect and influence. In terms of catchy music writing I consider both bands to be equally talented. Queen with a richer influencial background (including the Beatles) could write and record more interesting and more "modern" songs. Queen in the sixties provided that they work with the same crew (Abbey Road, George Martin, etc...) probably could not produce much more intereting song-repertoire than the Beatles. On the other hand the Beatles in the seventies probably could not have produced more succesfull and more progressive songs than Queen. As solo artists they surely could not (they didnt want). "you have to ask yourself "Would those bands even exist (or if they would, would they be any good?) if it hadn't been for the Beatles?" I doubt it." "Queen would not have existed without The Beatles" I dont like quotes like these. IMO the "competiotion" bands of the Beatles are heavily underrated in terms of influence whenever they credit the whole musical change of the sixties exclusively to the Beatles, as the quotes often suggest. I tend to consider the Beatles as being the kathalysator of the evolution. I think they are responsible for ca. 5-10 percent of the big change in music of their time, and thinking so still I may overrate them. (5-10 percent is still a HUGE contribution!). That x percent is usually "The Beatles changed the face of music forever", which is actually true, but also misleading. I think that progressive music would have born without the Beatles as well, maybe with a delay of one year. The majority of their innovations (both technical and musical) were in the air in those days, but that's something very underdiscussed. "It's fairly obvious that Freddies voice was better than that of Paul and John" Freddies voice was stronger, more colorful in terms of expressive "special effects", but not "better" IMO. "Didn't The Beatles also help build the 8/16-track recording?" Beatles did not innovate the 8-16 track recording. Before the 4-track Sgt Pepper there were albums recorded on 8 track machine. "Queen really picked up the baton were the Beetles ended." IMO this is a very false observation. (Queen I. vs Abbey Road?) |
| Mr Fred 02.11.2004 09:53 |
I love both of these bands. Sir GH is very close to the answer, I think. They are very good in there own way. They don't even play the same style of music. queen don't have a rhytm guitar. Beatles don't have a brian may. Paul and johnare excellent in singing harmonies together. But freddie is... |
| gmhmagic 02.11.2004 12:55 |
rendezvous wrote: Who is the greater composer? Mozart or Beethoven? Well, I don't know. I just know I like Mozart better. Then, again, which is the greatest band? Queen, Beatles or Led Zeppelin? I don't know, either. I just know I love Queen the best. It's just a matter of opinion.Mozart is the best composer ever, beethoven the second one. Queen is the best, then the beatles... Led Zeppelin... A great band, but not as good as the other two bands. |
| gmhmagic 02.11.2004 12:59 |
HeM<br><font size=1>The Zombie!</font> wrote:If you say that The Beatles suck, let me tell you my dear, that you are a complete ignorant.MexQueenFM wrote: damn it Queen are the best! the Beatles suckAlthought The Beatles have influenced Queen a lot, I have to agree totally MexQueen. :-) |