matias2 31.08.2006 23:29 |
IN YOUR OPINION, WHICH IS THE BEST BAND AND WHY? |
SK 31.08.2006 23:54 |
Wrong forum I believe, and The Beatles simply because them along side the other amazing artists of the 60s(Stones,Dylan,The Who etc) Changed music forever, they brought a certain esscence to the world of music which will never be replicated. I'd love to go into detail, but we'll save that till this topic gets moved ;) |
rocks. 01.09.2006 00:15 |
Mm, well, Queen is my favourite and musically and technically, IMO they are supearior, but as in having a collective impact on the world/the collective fandom, the beatles win, but Queen's my favourite. |
Sebastian 01.09.2006 07:16 |
I think Queen were more capable instrumentalists and Freddie was far better singer than the Fab four. Yet I prefer Beatles' compositions and George Martin arrangements anytime and consider John Lennon to be the greatest genius ever regarding rock music. |
eenaweena 01.09.2006 07:21 |
hm... they are from two different eras, so it's really hard to compare. In my opinon, i believe that they both rock. |
onevsion 01.09.2006 09:59 |
1 Beatles 2 Queen 3 Stones |
coops 01.09.2006 10:37 |
Tough because I am a huge fan of both. Certainly the Beatles had a big impact on popular culture as well as influencing musical styles even today. But both bands are versatile,and the musicianship equally as good, but personally I would choose the Beatles coz Strawberry Fields Forever is my all time fav. piece of modern music. |
farouhkina83 01.09.2006 10:40 |
They are my two favourite bands, so I suppose I know what I'm talking about. The Beatles are the most famous band ever and that's something Queen can't compare with. As instrumentalist I think Queen are better than the Beatles. Freddie's voice is far much better than John's, Paul's, George's and certainly Ringo's. As composers I think the Beatles were better the Queen... I remember I once read an interview done to Freddie in which the interviwer told him that Duran Duran (we are talking the 80's here) have said that they were better than the Beatles and Freddie's answer to that was: "There is no one better than the Beatles", so I suppose this summarize all, doesn't it? |
deleted user 01.09.2006 12:01 |
Well remember the Beatles came first. They alongside other rock legends such as the Who, Led Zepplin, the 'Stones and other great bands like Yes were major influences of Queen. Queen's music is basically all of the above mished and mashed together, coupled with a homemade guitar with one of the most capable players to date playing it, possibly the greatest frontman ever to have lived with an angel's voice, and a damn solid rythm. Though of course Queen had their own style(s). The Beatles started the whole mulitracking and harmonies which Queen then took to another level so you have to hand it to them. They were all geniuses who changed music forever but then so were Queen. I prefer Queen mainly because I love their music more than I like the Beatles'. But in the end they are incomparable. They are two of the greatest bands in British rock music and they are also from different eras. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 01.09.2006 12:20 |
QUEEN rule better for me.... :P |
Bono Mercury 01.09.2006 13:37 |
The Beatles were and still are are a great band but Queen are the best all you have to do is look at Sir Freddie's showmanship compared to john and McCa's and Sir Freddie's was and still is the best and Queen are a louder act. |
deleted user 01.09.2006 14:21 |
I love both but if i'd have to choose..probably Queen because i think they were just better and 'developed'..like Freddie had a more powerful stronger voice and Brian's guitar solos are amazing..Roger could really hit those top notes and John...erm..yea.. LOL! jokes, John helped Queen go in to diifferent genres like with AOBTD was more into dance so loadss more people enjoyed their moooosic..QUEEN ROCK!! yay! xD |
deleted user 01.09.2006 14:38 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: hm... they are from two different eras, so it's really hard to compare. In my opinon, i believe that they both rock.i second your opinion. why does it matter who's better? i like them both for different reasons:P |
Gone. 01.09.2006 16:12 |
How the hell can you ask such a question? There is a difference in the musical genres and style of both bands. They are both amazing in their own "unique" way. I will not choose. The Beatles are one of the greatest bands on Earth, and Queen is also. Stupid question, no offence. |
queenrocks! 10902 01.09.2006 19:08 |
My top ten favourite artists: 1. Queen 2. T. Rex 3. Elton John 4. The Beatles 5. Keane 6. Oasis 7. ELO 8. The Clash 9. R.E.M 10. Jimi Hendrix |
The prophet's song 01.09.2006 22:14 |
I think Queen are the best by far. They're all rounders. They make awesome records, they have natural talent, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is better than them live. Sure, the Beatles were revolutionary, no one can take that away from them, but I just think Queen are stronger musicans all together. |
deleted user 01.09.2006 22:29 |
the beatles were never known for being good technical musicians. they are famous because they were amaaaaazing songwriters and lyricists, and yes, because they revolutionized pop music. it's just silly to judge them based on playing ability. there are no set criteria for judging the greatness of a band...you've gotta just appreciate each one for what it does best. |
The prophet's song 01.09.2006 22:48 |
<font color="66CC00">macbethscrazywife wrote: there are no set criteria for judging the greatness of a band...you've gotta just appreciate each one for what it does best.Thats a good point |
claire powell 02.09.2006 21:00 |
4. The Who |
deleted user 02.09.2006 23:21 |
The prophet's song wrote:why thank you!*bows*<font color="66CC00">macbethscrazywife wrote: there are no set criteria for judging the greatness of a band...you've gotta just appreciate each one for what it does best.Thats a good point |
Ms. Bea Haven 03.09.2006 00:07 |
Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question. |
deleted user 03.09.2006 01:02 |
Miss Bea Haven wrote: Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question.there are so many things wrong with that statement it's not even funny. first of all, it's not even a little bit true. link second of all, if record sales are proof of greatness, than queen's greatest hits albums are their greatest artistic achievements. |
zitface42 03.09.2006 11:04 |
Dude, this is hard. You are asking me to choose between my two favourite bands in the entire world. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM ME!!!!!! I"M ONLY ONE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know, if it wasn't for the influence of the Beatles, we wouldn't have Queen. These guys came together because of their common interest in this type of rock music. Queen praise The Beatles a lot and I think I saw earlier today on this site a quote by Paul McCartney that said "King Mercury." I so wish that one of The Beatles could have recorded with Queen. It would be in my eyes one of the best moments in music history ever. Another fantasy would be if Freddie, John, George and Tupac all came back to life and toured with the surviving members of Queen and The Beatles. Think about. The Queen Beatles Shakur |
deleted user 03.09.2006 15:40 |
zitface42 wrote: Dude, this is hard. You are asking me to choose between my two favourite bands in the entire world. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM ME!!!!!! I"M ONLY ONE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know, if it wasn't for the influence of the Beatles, we wouldn't have Queen. These guys came together because of their common interest in this type of rock music. Queen praise The Beatles a lot and I think I saw earlier today on this site a quote by Paul McCartney that said "King Mercury." I so wish that one of The Beatles could have recorded with Queen. It would be in my eyes one of the best moments in music history ever. Another fantasy would be if Freddie, John, George and Tupac all came back to life and toured with the surviving members of Queen and The Beatles. Think about. The Queen Beatles Shakurlol...those are my favorite two bands too:) |
brENsKi 03.09.2006 17:08 |
<font color="66CC00">macbethscrazywife wrote:and lastly....beatles = 8 yearsMiss Bea Haven wrote: Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question.there are so many things wrong with that statement it's not even funny. first of all, it's not even a little bit true. link second of all, if record sales are proof of greatness, than queen's greatest hits albums are their greatest artistic achievements. queen = 33 yrs...hardly a fair comparison by this kinda reckoning...if the spice girls stuck around for 40 yrs they'd be better than the beatles and queen |
SK 03.09.2006 17:12 |
Miss Bea Haven wrote: Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question.LOL, alright its official, Queen fans are crazy :p |
deleted user 04.09.2006 06:56 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:and thriller is the best album EVER.<font color="66CC00">macbethscrazywife wrote:and lastly....beatles = 8 years queen = 33 yrs...hardly a fair comparison by this kinda reckoning...if the spice girls stuck around for 40 yrs they'd be better than the beatles and queenMiss Bea Haven wrote: Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question.there are so many things wrong with that statement it's not even funny. first of all, it's not even a little bit true. link second of all, if record sales are proof of greatness, than queen's greatest hits albums are their greatest artistic achievements. |
Poo, again 04.09.2006 10:59 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:But the Spice Girls ARE greater than Queen and the Beatles.<font color="66CC00">macbethscrazywife wrote:and lastly....beatles = 8 years queen = 33 yrs...hardly a fair comparison by this kinda reckoning...if the spice girls stuck around for 40 yrs they'd be better than the beatles and queenMiss Bea Haven wrote: Queen sold more records than the Beatles. I guess that should answer the question.there are so many things wrong with that statement it's not even funny. first of all, it's not even a little bit true. link second of all, if record sales are proof of greatness, than queen's greatest hits albums are their greatest artistic achievements. |
Tannya 04.09.2006 11:32 |
Well, I think Lennon was a genius. Both, Freddie and Lennon were THE BEST EVER HAPPENED TO THIS WORLD... |
deleted user 04.09.2006 16:40 |
by an odd coincidence, lennon's father was named freddie. i'm not joking. |
AmeriQueen 04.09.2006 19:39 |
Queen The Beatles to me are the one band that possesses a strong "Better than Queen in history" argument because of 3 major reasons: A) They broke new ground, doing all the production techniques and innovations they share with Queen, first. B) The Beatles did it all in a 7 year period, pushing that wealth of music so tightly. C) The Beatles got better the whole way, peaking(arguably) with their last recording, 'Abbey Road' Both bands had their careers cut short by untimely deaths. Both bands dominate all other bands in album sales(along with Abba and Led Zeppelin). Both were the most popular of British Bands at different times. Arguments for Queen: A.) Queen wrote and recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, the biggest hit of all time! B.) Queen had the better voice in Mercury, and had more range among vocalists, though the Beatles more similar voices were arguably better in depth(depth of singers in number). C.) Queen had Brian May's legendary Red Special sound, a distinct trademark that gave Queen an added glory. D.) It's all opinion, but ultimately Queen's music is just better. I feel like the Beatles broke new ground, establishing a new standard in rock production. Queen took it further, not breaking as much ground maybe, but the results are better for my taste. E.) One final note for Queen, The Beatles had great love from the people, played great shows, and Lennon + McCartney were great stagemen. Ultimately though, there can be only one true champion of the stage, because Freddie has no equal. P.S. Wouldn't it be neat to see a band with Paul McCartney, Ringo, Brian and Roger all working together, just for one album? |
Ms. Bea Haven 09.09.2006 00:28 |
AmeriQueen wrote: P.S. Wouldn't it be neat to see a band with Paul McCartney, Ringo, Brian and Roger all working together, just for one album?That would be worse than the Todd Rungren/New Cars lineup.... |