[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Brian and Paul would have a philosophical discussion about getting old - and about what kind of socks are best.
.[/QUOTE]
And about getting some whoopass from their wifes...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Beatles existed in a totally different world also when they got away more singles airplay than Queen early in their career, then way more AOR airplay later in their career. The Beatles released 34 singles in the UK from May '62 until June '70. That's staggering! Then when they became an album band, virtually everything would be played. So Queen's music is virtually unknown compared to The Beatles in terms of volume.
To be random, as a point of reference from someone who knows a little about Queen's career in North America, songs like White Queen, Long Away, All Dead, All Dead, Nevermore, You and I, Leroy Brown, and Good Company would mean nothing to the average music fan over here. Those songs, plus scores others, are fantastic songs. But they didn't (don't) get airplay to the extent that average Beatles songs like Michelle, Drive my car, or Girl for example did.
So, Queen will never be The Beatles in terms of popularity of the voulme of their works. IMHO, Queen's early catalogue is the equal of The Beatles best stuff, and their later stuff had a lot of great songs also.
To be random, as a point of reference from someone who knows a little about Queen's career in North America, songs like White Queen, Long Away, All Dead, All Dead, Nevermore, You and I, Leroy Brown, and Good Company would mean nothing to the average music fan over here. Those songs, plus scores others, are fantastic songs. But they didn't (don't) get airplay to the extent that average Beatles songs like Michelle, Drive my car, or Girl for example did.
So, Queen will never be The Beatles in terms of popularity of the voulme of their works. IMHO, Queen's early catalogue is the equal of The Beatles best stuff, and their later stuff had a lot of great songs also.
I'm going to have to side with the Beatles as the 'more important' band...which may raise a few eyebrows...
The Beatles WERE the benchmark for Queen - Queen simply learned from them...then took the ball and ran with it.
Queen had the longevity that the Beatles didn't have - in my view this was a circumstance of success -- the Beatles enjoyed AMAZING success in the span of 6 or 7 years which perhaps led to their breakup -- they became too big for themselves - and competition became too fierce within the band.
Queen were reported to have some major fights etc. etc. between themselves - but they knew that it was better to stick together then split apart - nomatter WHAT. Yes - there were some solo projects, but they never broke up - To quote Roger Taylor "We could always come back to Queen - sort of like 'coming back to Mother'.
What amazes me about the Beatles was that their entire career and chart success and touring success etc. etc. etc. happened before either of the band members turned 30. (I think Lennon was 29 in 1970). What can you compare THAT to ??
The Beatles WERE the benchmark for Queen - Queen simply learned from them...then took the ball and ran with it.
Queen had the longevity that the Beatles didn't have - in my view this was a circumstance of success -- the Beatles enjoyed AMAZING success in the span of 6 or 7 years which perhaps led to their breakup -- they became too big for themselves - and competition became too fierce within the band.
Queen were reported to have some major fights etc. etc. between themselves - but they knew that it was better to stick together then split apart - nomatter WHAT. Yes - there were some solo projects, but they never broke up - To quote Roger Taylor "We could always come back to Queen - sort of like 'coming back to Mother'.
What amazes me about the Beatles was that their entire career and chart success and touring success etc. etc. etc. happened before either of the band members turned 30. (I think Lennon was 29 in 1970). What can you compare THAT to ??
to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe) & whoever said queen have better lyrical composition - again i have to diasgree & whoever said "queen have more collective talent" - i have to disagree & whoever said "But, one point I think is significant is how the bands developed. Queen started writing complex material very early on in their musical lives (or so it seems to me) while the Beatles' early material was much simpler for many albums, including many covers." again i disagree - i can back this up if needed
As much as I love Queen. The Beatles kick their asses. :P
I only wish Queen were as successful in the States as The Beatles... :(
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gratzi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I only wish Queen were as successful in the States as The Beatles... :([/QUOTE]
I agree. The Beatles were...HUGE. Everywhere. Queen wasn't. ;_; Though they were very popular, they didn't have half as big of an impact as the Beatles. :(
I agree. The Beatles were...HUGE. Everywhere. Queen wasn't. ;_; Though they were very popular, they didn't have half as big of an impact as the Beatles. :(
Thanks for the replies.
(As a reminder: yes, I know this is a frivolous comparison).
(As Zebonka said): the sum of individual talents in Queen far eclipses that of the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles' members were good at this and at that, innovative, etc. but as individual musicians none of them were outstanding (except perhaps Lennon). However...this alone certainly doesn't mean that Queen > Beatles.
Queen's music more complex...yes. As to the quality of the music...not sure...I think the likes of "Octopus' Garden", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "In My Life", "Here Comes the Sun" and a few others, are sheer aural gratification. Perfection. Queen has a few such songs (I like to think that "'39" is one of them!) but not as many as the Beatles. To my taste anyway.
However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!
(As a reminder: yes, I know this is a frivolous comparison).
(As Zebonka said): the sum of individual talents in Queen far eclipses that of the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles' members were good at this and at that, innovative, etc. but as individual musicians none of them were outstanding (except perhaps Lennon). However...this alone certainly doesn't mean that Queen > Beatles.
Queen's music more complex...yes. As to the quality of the music...not sure...I think the likes of "Octopus' Garden", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "In My Life", "Here Comes the Sun" and a few others, are sheer aural gratification. Perfection. Queen has a few such songs (I like to think that "'39" is one of them!) but not as many as the Beatles. To my taste anyway.
However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!
You can't really objectively measure something that's completely subjective.
Of course not. Though certain aspects, as I said, could be compared with a somewhat-objective approach. E.g. Brian May's ability on the guitar. Freddie Mercury's vocal range, vocal control. And then other aspects which are somewhat more subjective but generally agreed upon (quality of live performance etc.)
1963 beatles record "i want to hold your hand" 1966 record "tomorrow never knows" no band in history progressed so much in so little time - history doesnt lie
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]maxpower wrote: [/QUOTENAME]1963 beatles record "i want to hold your hand" 1966 record "tomorrow never knows" no band in history progressed so much in so little time - history doesnt lie[/QUOTE]1966: For No One
1969: You Never Give Me Your Money
NOW THAT'S TALENT. ABSOLUTELY.
1969: You Never Give Me Your Money
NOW THAT'S TALENT. ABSOLUTELY.
1. Beatles
2. Queen
And there you have it.
2. Queen
And there you have it.
Both bands are absolutely wonderful and talented in their own right. Beatlemania was something that will never be repeated again, and so was Queen's legendary live performances.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=660066>Pomponias wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Both bands are absolutely wonderful and talented in their own right. Beatlemania was something that will never be repeated again, and so was Queen's legendary live performances.[/QUOTE]
I agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D
I agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D