| bomber_dan 01.01.2007 21:18 |
Queen named 'Greatest British band of all time' Tuesday Jan 2 11:53 AEDT The flamboyant rock group Queen has upstaged the Beatles to win the title of "Greatest British Band of All Time" in a vote organized by BBC Radio. Queen garnered 400 more votes than the Beatles when more than 20,000 listeners were asked to choose from among five bands that also included the Rolling Stones, Take That and Oasis. The five emerged from a list of thousands of nominations. Each group was judged on song-writing, lyrics, live performances, originality and showmanship during a three-hour show in which people voted by email, text and phone. The Rolling Stones came third in the vote, followed by Oasis in fourth and Take That in fifth. A BBC spokesman said the vote for Queen had been boosted by a celebrity nomination from teen favourites McFly, who said they had been inspired by the rockers. Queen, led by their iconic frontman Freddie Mercury who died from an AIDS-related illness in 1991, released a string of hits through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. link About time, I say! |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 21:22 |
Queen deserved that recognition...sadly they will never get the respect that they deserve. Why is it so hard for people to realise that they were/are the 'greatest band.' I'll never understand...then again it's only my opinion that they were the greatest band of all time. |
| bomber_dan 01.01.2007 21:28 |
Well it's not only YOUR opinion is it? Mine too. And it seems the majority of people. But here in Australia garbage like Wolfmother and AC/DC are 'good' bands and Queen are shite. Oh well, we can't all like the best, only the best like the best! |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 21:32 |
It's also kind of the stigma from all the talk about Freddie's homosexuality and AIDS...most of the time when I talk to people about Queen, they think Queen is the name of Freddie Mercury (like with the singer of Blondie...who is not Blondie), and I get "But Queen is gay, isn't he?" Besides, who wants to listen to a gay band? I hate ignorance. Queen deserves being named a great band! |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 21:40 |
<font color=gold>Thirtynine<h6>Wooooooo! wrote: It's also kind of the stigma from all the talk about Freddie's homosexuality and AIDS...most of the time when I talk to people about Queen, they think Queen is the name of Freddie Mercury (like with the singer of Blondie...who is not Blondie), and I get "But Queen is gay, isn't he?" Besides, who wants to listen to a gay band? I hate ignorance. Queen deserves being named a great band!I agree a 100%! It was Freddie's homosexuality that brings the band down...wierd isn't it? I for one see nothing wrong with a homosexual frontman. Isn't Mick Jagger bi sexual? And what about David Bowie? And what about Elton John? Those individuals have no problem with coming off as a "good" artist. So why should Queen? |
| user name 01.01.2007 21:58 |
Take That and Oasis! What competition! Not... And McFly influenced the vote? Jesus... Many of the greatest rock bands of all time hail from that island, and these are the bands that are mentioned? Come on, this article makes this poll look like a crock of shit. |
| deleted user 01.01.2007 22:00 |
I think while the gay / AIDS thing brings them down for some people, it brings them up for others, as silly as that is. There ARE people that like Freddie for being a "gay icon". And "AIDS" wins pity points with some people. You win some, you lose some. All for the wrong reasons. Or maybe they're right and I'm wrong. O well, wouldn't be the first time. |
| The Real Wizard 02.01.2007 04:21 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Take That and Oasis! What competition! Not... And McFly influenced the vote? Jesus... Many of the greatest rock bands of all time hail from that island, and these are the bands that are mentioned? Come on, this article makes this poll look like a crock of shit.I agree. If Zeppelin, Floyd, Cream, and The Who were in the poll, then things would have at least been more interesting and competitive. Even so, what is the criteria? In what way are we judging these bands as being "great"? If it's overall impact on popular culture, then the obvious answer would be The Beatles. If it's about the best live band, then I'd pick either Queen or The Who. If it's about the tightest harmonies, I'd pick The Bee Gees. If it's for best musicianship, then it would be Yes. But of course, this isn't the way these things work. Queen have been in the UK media quite a lot over these past couple years, so their current popularity can give them a hand in polls like this. I'm happy they're being recognized and all, but the way these polls work in general is pretty shallow. That's why I never take them seriously. |
| icefire 02.01.2007 04:32 |
i like the statement 'only the best like the best' lol ;) i didn't expect queen to win over the beatles..that is why i am so happily surprised!! |
| on my way up 02.01.2007 06:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:i fully agree. most of these lists are crap. It's just a matter of popularity, not quality.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Take That and Oasis! What competition! Not... And McFly influenced the vote? Jesus... Many of the greatest rock bands of all time hail from that island, and these are the bands that are mentioned? Come on, this article makes this poll look like a crock of shit.I agree. If Zeppelin, Floyd, Cream, and The Who were in the poll, then things would have at least been more interesting and competitive. Even so, what is the criteria? In what way are we judging these bands as being "great"? If it's overall impact on popular culture, then the obvious answer would be The Beatles. If it's about the best live band, then I'd pick either Queen or The Who. If it's about the tightest harmonies, I'd pick The Bee Gees. If it's for best musicianship, then it would be Yes. But of course, this isn't the way these things work. Queen have been in the UK media quite a lot over these past couple years, so their current popularity can give them a hand in polls like this. I'm happy they're being recognized and all, but the way these polls work in general is pretty shallow. That's why I never take them seriously. Still nice when your favourite band comes out of it as the winner though. Not that it helps Queen for getting some more serious recognition. |
| una999 02.01.2007 10:06 |
if it was in america they'd be hardly in the top 200 bands if it was greatest band? why are queen so badly known there? maybe there not...maybe its what we believe! |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 10:10 |
The competition DID suck. Ugh. Oasis? Puh-lease...Queen beats them all! :D Woooo Queen! I'm surprised the Beatles didn't win though... =O! |
| Daniel vZ 02.01.2007 10:57 |
|
| firefox-inqueen 02.01.2007 12:43 |
Its good that Queen won, and that they beat the rest but i dont think there the best, no one is the best |
| brENsKi 02.01.2007 13:04 |
firefox-inqueen wrote: Its good that Queen won, and that they beat the rest but i dont think there the best, no one is the bestsorry. but the beatles are way ahead of the other four British bands named: no 1 singles and albums - beatles total sales - beatles inpiring other bands - beatles cited as influential to other bands (including queen) - beatles making the most of the technology available - beatles beatles...beatles...beatles - any way you slice it...you still see beatles running thru it... (and btw - i love queen) |
| brENsKi 02.01.2007 13:05 |
una999 wrote: if it was in america they'd be hardly in the top 200 bands if it was greatest band? why are queen so badly known there? maybe there not...maybe its what we believe!errrm....Hot Space...I want to break free video....change of musical direction (america hated the whole 80s eurorock sound) |
| PieterMC 02.01.2007 13:14 |
una999 wrote: if it was in america they'd be hardly in the top 200 bands if it was greatest band? why are queen so badly known there? maybe there not...maybe its what we believe!Actually VH1 in the US had a Top 100 Bands a few years ago and Queen were #12. |
| Drowse1 02.01.2007 13:34 |
I placed my vote in this "contest". It was on BBC Radio 2 to be exact. What gets me is how, with all the great Brit bands out there, did Take That get in? Half their hits were either covers or were written for them and only Gary Barlow, to my knowledge, can actually play a musical instrument! Some of the bands who didn't get in the last 5 include, The Who, The Jam, The Kinks, Led Zep, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Rainbow & T.Rex. Yet Take That were in! They should ban under 9's voting in these things. |
| john bodega 02.01.2007 13:50 |
Funny how Queen and The Beatles are the only two bands that belong in that 'top five'. To quote one of my favourite drummers : "WHERE THE FUCK WERE THE WHO???" |
| brENsKi 02.01.2007 14:13 |
one thing that also bugs me a little about this thing....the reason that Queen won? my best guess...is that on the whole Beatles fans are farily secure in the fact that their band IS THE GREATEST EVER BRITISH BAND (and also greatest ever in the world) and so don't need to whip up a frenzy of "GW Bush-style vote rigging") - why do Queen fans need to do this? - this is (at least) the third voting poll in recent months where someone has come onto queenzone and "alerted" the immature and the stepfords that it's their duty to vote as someone put it last time...why can't queen fans let democracy prevail? isn't their some way Richard or Barb could delete any "potential vote-rigging" posts? - personally i would prefer to see the real "florida vote" and not the Bushwhacked arrangement... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.01.2007 15:12 |
take that are at number5 because people voted for them .the who are not because people didnt vote for them ,and at this moment in time take that are popular,the who are not.the album and single charts show that. quite simple really ps radio2 is not the channel that kids listen to,so they would not have had any influence at all |
| louvox 02.01.2007 16:24 |
Well said. No Question Queen is great band. In my opinion the could have been more influential almost any other band had they continued to create or incorporate new sound into Queen rather than just copy what others were doing during the 80's. That really hurt them especially here in the USA |
| louvox 02.01.2007 16:26 |
Well said. No Question Queen is great band. In my opinion the could have been more influential almost any other band had they continued to create or incorporate new sound into Queen rather than just copy what others were doing during the 80's. That really hurt them especially here in the USA <font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: one thing that also bugs me a little about this thing....the reason that Queen won? my best guess...is that on the whole Beatles fans are farily secure in the fact that their band IS THE GREATEST EVER BRITISH BAND (and also greatest ever in the world) and so don't need to whip up a frenzy of "GW Bush-style vote rigging") - why do Queen fans need to do this? - this is (at least) the third voting poll in recent months where someone has come onto queenzone and "alerted" the immature and the stepfords that it's their duty to vote as someone put it last time...why can't queen fans let democracy prevail? isn't their some way Richard or Barb could delete any "potential vote-rigging" posts? - personally i would prefer to see the real "florida vote" and not the Bushwhacked arrangement... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.01.2007 16:34 |
louvox wrote: Well said. No Question Queen is great band. In my opinion the could have been more influential almost any other band had they continued to create or incorporate new sound into Queen rather than just copy what others were doing during the 80's. That really hurt them especially here in the USAno need to be alerted here,anyone could of read it on brians site and vote from there.<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: one thing that also bugs me a little about this thing....the reason that Queen won? my best guess...is that on the whole Beatles fans are farily secure in the fact that their band IS THE GREATEST EVER BRITISH BAND (and also greatest ever in the world) and so don't need to whip up a frenzy of "GW Bush-style vote rigging") - why do Queen fans need to do this? - this is (at least) the third voting poll in recent months where someone has come onto queenzone and "alerted" the immature and the stepfords that it's their duty to vote as someone put it last time...why can't queen fans let democracy prevail? isn't their some way Richard or Barb could delete any "potential vote-rigging" posts? - personally i would prefer to see the real "florida vote" and not the Bushwhacked arrangement... however no one is being forced to vote for these things.i didnt. queen are just extremely popular in the uk |
| brENsKi 02.01.2007 17:40 |
...ahem! not more popular than the beatles |
| louvox 02.01.2007 18:04 |
Queen is not badly known here in the USA. They have a large legion of fans. It’s just that most (not all) believe that most of the stuff they released in the 80’s is pure crap. That simple. Most in Europe are under the impression that the video for “I want to break free” that was not really shown in the USA put off their fans because of them being in drag. Not the case at all. When “Another one bites the dust” was issued as a single most hard core fans here really didn’t care for it and sort of dismissed it because there were other better songs on “The Game”, but later on when they issued “Hot Space” that piece of garbage really turn a lot of fans off. Most here kept hoping that they would return to their rock roots, but instead they gave us lightweight pop tunes drenched in awful synthesizers.
They simply sounded like any other Euro-pop-synth band of that time. It wasn’t until “Innuendo” that they finally released something worthy of their greatness. Unlike The Beatles or Led Zeppelin who incorporated new styles and sounds and made it there own, Queen simply copied what others were doing at the time (80’s) Maybe had Roy Thomas Baker had stayed as their producer things might have been different.
Danny1 wrote:PieterMC wrote:Hello Pieter, the list was Top 100 hard rock acts and if memory serves Queen was #12 and Zeppelin was #1.una999 wrote: if it was in america they'd be hardly in the top 200 bands if it was greatest band? why are queen so badly known there? maybe there not...maybe its what we believe!Actually VH1 in the US had a Top 100 Bands a few years ago and Queen were #12. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.01.2007 18:57 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: ...ahem! not more popular than the beatlesaccording to radio2 listeners queen are :-] |
| user name 02.01.2007 19:16 |
You have to consider that of all bands, the Beatles do have an unfair advantage as being the most whored out band in history. The media was inundated and saturated with Beatles this and Beatles that. Their music was great, yes...but it wasn't only their music that guaranteed their position in history...it was their publicity. |
| deleted user 02.01.2007 19:48 |
FUCK YEAH! That's great, too bad the greatest band in america would end up being Journey or REO Speedwagon>wtf |
| mike hunt 02.01.2007 23:55 |
I wish Queenzoners would stop making a big deal out of these crap polls. The beatles are and always will be #1, no matter what some stupid poll says. My proof that this poll is crap is "take that" are in the top 5. |
| brENsKi 03.01.2007 12:58 |
joxerthemighty wrote:aha...so you also believe that GW Bush got elected (first time) fair and square?<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: ...ahem! not more popular than the beatlesaccording to radio2 listeners queen are :-] all this says is that queen fans organised themselves, circled the wagons and flooded the polls.....beatles fans on the other hand...DO NOT need some shitty poll to KNOW that their band IS THE GREATEST BRITISH band ever (and also the greatest world band ever) |
| Serry... 03.01.2007 13:39 |
I agree with Mike and Martin... "No-one can beat the Beatles!" (c) BHM |
| user name 03.01.2007 15:15 |
Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best. |
| brENsKi 03.01.2007 16:01 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best.that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75 |
| maxpower 03.01.2007 20:12 |
These polls are shit as someone said Take That in there i mean come on (anything to do with a money making comeback?) its personal opinions but The Beatles were greatest phenomenon of the 20th century end of story. For someone like The Clash to be omitted says it all |
| user name 03.01.2007 21:24 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:This is the way I see it:<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best.that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75 Greatest = Achievement status Best = Musical terms You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did. Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar. The Beatles were a good band with amazing publicity. Queen were an amazing band with good publicity. |
| brENsKi 04.01.2007 05:30 |
Music Man wrote: You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did. Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar. +++++++++++++++++++++++ in answer to both paragraphs re: four tracks and the "decentmusicians" comments i will say this: you cannot have heard Revolver/Rubber Soul/Sgt Pepper/white album or Abbey Rd - not if you can make such a sweeping statement as that. Queen cite the beatles as a major influence. listen to those albums with an open mind (and ears) then come back and say the same thing. queen's technolody was better - they had SIX times the storage space for their music! and they had the beatles late 60s influence to inspire them along - listen to stuff like "doing alright, night comes down and much of the first three albums" and you hear some very trippy stuff all over it as for While My Guitar....again - you are missing some important info...you clearly have never heard George's original demos - without Clapton - they are awesome as for the "Brian May original guitar" comment - that does not make him great i could name at least six guitarists that are arguably better players than Brian...you may not have heard of three of em...Bernie Torme, Tom Scholtz, Randy Rhoads, Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend, Gary Moore |
| user name 04.01.2007 12:56 |
To be honest, I somewhat agree with you, but my real point is that I don't believe there is a serious discrepancy between the artistical merit between the two bands. You're saying that the Beatles are the be all and end all of all rock and roll. I'm saying that they are quite even with Queen, and many other great bands such as Led Zeppelin. The Beatles pushed the limits with what they had, and so did Queen. Queen simply had more toys. As far as guitarists, Brian May was arguably the most original out of all those you listed. Luckily, I do know my guitarists. Unfortunately, Bernie Torme does not come to mind when I consider the best of the best. Brian May certainly does. No one in the world plays or sounds like Brian May. Tom Scholz (if you meant the Boston guitarist) was very technologically innovative and had excellent tone, and is therefore very similar to Brian. I wouldn't say he's better, though. Randy Rhoads is obviously a thousand times more technically skilled than Brian is, but he still falls into one of many great technicians such as Satch, Vai, Gilbert, Malmsteen, Johnson, Petrucci, Becker, and Van Halen. In fact, I would say he's inferior to most of these guitarists, but more mainstream and thus got more attention. Jimmy Page - there's a guy who's just as innovative as Brian was, if not even moreso. He's almost always regarded as one of the best players ever, and he deserves it. He is certainly great. Pete Townshend is one of the best rhythm guitar players ever. His lead guitar is very weak, but his compositional skills are excellent, much like Jimmy Page and our own Brian May. He is another rock great. Gary Moore is an excellent guitarist. He is both traditional and innovative. See, you've listed all these other great guitarists, but that doesn't mean that Brian May is not great. These guitarists are all great because they stand out from the crowd. They are an echelon above the rest. Since Brian May is in a league entirely of his own, I would consider him great. Perhaps this is arguable, but I deem him one of the greatest guitarists, among whom you listed. Throw in a little Beck, Clapton, and Hendrix, etc. if you will. I suppose I got sidetracked, but on the original topic, I think Queen and the Beatles were about equal in terms of musical quality, after adjusting for technological differences. |
| icefire 04.01.2007 13:30 |
i read the discussion and i honestly feel like being more on music man's side..i understand brenski's opinion..i realize the beatles as musicians that changed the understanging of what a band means..it became not only a bunch of some musicians playing their instruments..they had a lot to say and put all that in incredibly nice and deep melodies that sometimes were catchy..at least for me 'sometimes'.i personally enjoy abbey road the most..still i am sorry but in my opinion i do not find all that so impressive as queen's achievements. first thing that comes to my mind is songs with incredible harmonies and choirs. tunes are fantastic(the early stuff mostly). the other thing that beatles did not have was an outstanding vocal of freddie mercury.he was able to express himsel with such emotions and rage coming after a falsetto line..all that mixed with blending different voices of roger and brian. what i can say more is that beatles did not 'control' their instruments as queen did. i really haven't seen any rock band playing so tight as queen.. sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's. still i understand that without the beatles there would hardly be queen..some of their discoveries are bloody important! but queen just used that to become my favourite band :) that is my not professional opinion,bye ;) |
| The Real Wizard 05.01.2007 12:49 |
icefire wrote: i really haven't seen any rock band playing so tight as queen..Try these two bands: Dream Theater and Yes. Both are tighter than Queen and are far better musicians. But they didn't write pop songs, so they're rarely mentioned or recognized in the mainstream. Both of these bands have written some truly amazing progressive rock, among so many others. But these two bands are a good starting point for progressive music. sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's.That's not really a fair comparison. The Beatles played concerts with equipment from the 1960s, and couldn't even hear themselves playing because the girls were screaming so loudly. That's why they eventually quit playing concerts and just made albums until they broke up. Queen are my favourite band, but when you compare them to The Beatles with an unbiased ear, Queen had a lot more filler on their albums (the 80s). Every Beatles song is unique. They were such geniuses for the melodies they wrote. But we must remember that The Beatles existed in a different time. Popular music was growing in every way in the late 60s, whereas "the image" was the key thing in the 80s (as it still is today). Queen's creativity diminished in the 80s, and they basically had to keep up with everyone else. For people who weren't around in the 60s, it's hard to truly understand The Beatles' impact as a whole. They were the first band to release an album in stereo sound. You have to put yourself in a "mono only" mindset, and then listen to Revolver, imagining the impact it must have made. There were so many revolutionary sounds on that album that were completely new to the mainstream. This is just one of so many innovative things they were responsible for. |
| emil91 31.01.2007 02:05 |
Polls are for losers who can't get a life. The real question is how can you compare the father to the offspring. Example: Jesus or God Beatles are the start of a new era in music they are the fathers of rock and roll and plus they have the right lyrics which were the first of their kind, plus back then there were not many bands that could play good. The Beatles started the evolution of music, while Queen expanded it with all the other great bands that have given to us their lyrics and music, so please don't compare who is greatest. There is no greatest there are only legents that will live forever in our hearts. |