the only one who could beat out any beatles on vocals is freddie. ringo has a better voice then brian and roger in my opinion...ringo didnt sing enough.
songwriting overall goes to the beatles...although queen's isnt too far behind.
queen was a better live act though, they didnt go too far to try and impress audiences with pyrotechnics and all the shawbang...even if they didnt have to their live performances werent nearly as amazing as queens...
talented? No. With the amount of success and legend status both bands have obtained, its pretty even.
although the beatles came first, and queen took it to a whole new level.
i give them both a dead even. both great bands really. legends.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen is about million times better and more talented than the beatles
they cant compare[/QUOTE]
you again.
by the way that statement was te most bullshit thing ever, if yu had any musical taste, or respect for other musicians you would not have said that.
i agree queen are better, but only just.
they cant compare[/QUOTE]
you again.
by the way that statement was te most bullshit thing ever, if yu had any musical taste, or respect for other musicians you would not have said that.
i agree queen are better, but only just.
And everyone should go buy a bottle of champagne and get pissed because it's just all over right now, and you might as well go out in a grand way, you know ?
Surprise, Surprise...another selection of apples and oranges...what do you prefer? IT DOESN'T MATTER...It's all subjective.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]redspecial85 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Surprise, Surprise...another selection of apples and oranges...what do you prefer? IT DOESN'T MATTER...It's all subjective. [/QUOTE]
Amen!
Amen!
I think I might like the Beatles better than Queen now. :B I don't know though...The Beatles were soooooo fab...but Queen was Queen. And they had Freddie, but the Beatles had John Lennon...I don't know. :/
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=fire>Make Love! ? wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think I might like the Beatles better than Queen now. :B I don't know though...The Beatles were soooooo fab...but Queen was Queen. And they had Freddie, but the Beatles had John Lennon...I don't know. :/[/QUOTE]
To me, they're two different groups. You could argue over which one you happen to LIKE better, but I don't know how you'd argue over which one is NECESSARILY better.
To me, they're two different groups. You could argue over which one you happen to LIKE better, but I don't know how you'd argue over which one is NECESSARILY better.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=fuchsia>Thirtynine ? wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=fire>Make Love! ? wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think I might like the Beatles better than Queen now. :B I don't know though...The Beatles were soooooo fab...but Queen was Queen. And they had Freddie, but the Beatles had John Lennon...I don't know. :/[/QUOTE]
To me, they're two different groups. You could argue over which one you happen to LIKE better, but I don't know how you'd argue over which one is NECESSARILY better.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. They are sooo different. And I love them both so much. But I just don't know how you could compare the two. I mean...the Beatles were the Beatles. Probably the single biggest thing in music, period. They set the standard for every single band after them. How do you compare? :/
To me, they're two different groups. You could argue over which one you happen to LIKE better, but I don't know how you'd argue over which one is NECESSARILY better.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. They are sooo different. And I love them both so much. But I just don't know how you could compare the two. I mean...the Beatles were the Beatles. Probably the single biggest thing in music, period. They set the standard for every single band after them. How do you compare? :/
you could argue 1978 queen release "fun it" 1982 release "body language" not a valid arguement yawn
QUEEN are all-rounders whereas Beatles lack in performance
> * John: better bassist/composer of basslines (?)
Many basslines played by John weren't composed by him, same with Macca.
> Also, the Beatles didn't have the technology Queen had to compose such brilliant harmonies.
Harmonies aren't composed on computers, but on a person's head (or heart, or soul, or whatever). So it's not an excuse. Mozart had much less technology than both acts yet he composed things that go way beyond what Paul, Ringo, Roger, Freddie, Brian, George and the two John's combined could have done.
> * Queen has catchier tunes/instrumentals
No way.
> * Better lyrical compositions from Queen
Yeah, right. Compare 'For No One' with 'Sweet Lady'...
> * Because of the different time periods of both bands, Queen became more popular (I guess...)
Bollocks.
> * Queen had the advantage of coming after the Beatles and knowing what to improve on..?
According to that logic, McFly are much better than Queen.
> And (in my personal opinion) the Beatles sound somewhat amateur
Sometimes they do, but sometimes definitely not.
> Also interms of songwriting, people say the Beatles were great. Some of their songs were just taken from cutting
Same with Queen songs, Who songs, Extreme songs ... every songwriter's got good and bad moments.
> everyone surpasses Ringo.
Stupid comment from beginning to end.
> The collective total of the Beatles music has become a part of the worlds culture, so it has historical value also.
Yes and no ... the collective total of Beatles' music includes a much greater deal of guest musicians and arrangers. How many people were necessary for 'Bo Rhap' to be as it is? One to write and arrange it, four to perform it, five to produce it, one to engineer it, for a total of six (Fred, Bri, John, Rog, Roy and Mike Stone). How many people were necessary for 'A Day In The Life' to be as it is? Two to write it, three to arrange it, forty-seven to perform it, one to produce it, one to engineer it, for a total of 48 (John, Paul, Ringo, George Harrison, George Martin, Geoff, Mal, and the orchestra). They're both masterpieces, but Queen were professional enough to do most of it themselves, only requiring Roy and Mike for the engineering and mixing, yet not at all for writing or arranging, let alone performing, and as Roy confirmed, Fred mixed vocals, and the band themselves co-produced. Otoh, Beatles needed help in every department: George Martin arranged the orchestra (with Paul), and the lads had very little input in production and engineering.
> The Beatles WERE the benchmark for Queen - Queen simply learned from them...then took the ball and ran with it.
Yes and no. Beatles were *a* major influence on the band, particularly Freddie (and Brian), but they weren't *the only* influence whatsoever. Queen owed loads to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix and of course to themselves. I remember when Deacy was asked in a Jap mag during the 70s which was his biggest influence, and he said "Queen". Quite right.
> to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe)
A better bassplayer isn't neccesarily the one who played the best basslines. A better bassplayer is the one with better command of the instrument, both technical and in terms of "fluency". And in both aspects Deacy was better than Paul (and obviously better than George or John). Yet Macca is obviously more respected, since he was an influence for many more.
> but as individual musicians none of them were outstanding (except perhaps Lennon).
Depends on how you look at it: three of them were multi-instrumentalists, and Paul in particular is a very good guitarist, pianist, bassist and drummer (without being virtuoso on any field, yet still very good), and he's an outstanding singer too. Plus as composers, they've done several masterpieces. There must be more to life than Queen...
Many basslines played by John weren't composed by him, same with Macca.
> Also, the Beatles didn't have the technology Queen had to compose such brilliant harmonies.
Harmonies aren't composed on computers, but on a person's head (or heart, or soul, or whatever). So it's not an excuse. Mozart had much less technology than both acts yet he composed things that go way beyond what Paul, Ringo, Roger, Freddie, Brian, George and the two John's combined could have done.
> * Queen has catchier tunes/instrumentals
No way.
> * Better lyrical compositions from Queen
Yeah, right. Compare 'For No One' with 'Sweet Lady'...
> * Because of the different time periods of both bands, Queen became more popular (I guess...)
Bollocks.
> * Queen had the advantage of coming after the Beatles and knowing what to improve on..?
According to that logic, McFly are much better than Queen.
> And (in my personal opinion) the Beatles sound somewhat amateur
Sometimes they do, but sometimes definitely not.
> Also interms of songwriting, people say the Beatles were great. Some of their songs were just taken from cutting
Same with Queen songs, Who songs, Extreme songs ... every songwriter's got good and bad moments.
> everyone surpasses Ringo.
Stupid comment from beginning to end.
> The collective total of the Beatles music has become a part of the worlds culture, so it has historical value also.
Yes and no ... the collective total of Beatles' music includes a much greater deal of guest musicians and arrangers. How many people were necessary for 'Bo Rhap' to be as it is? One to write and arrange it, four to perform it, five to produce it, one to engineer it, for a total of six (Fred, Bri, John, Rog, Roy and Mike Stone). How many people were necessary for 'A Day In The Life' to be as it is? Two to write it, three to arrange it, forty-seven to perform it, one to produce it, one to engineer it, for a total of 48 (John, Paul, Ringo, George Harrison, George Martin, Geoff, Mal, and the orchestra). They're both masterpieces, but Queen were professional enough to do most of it themselves, only requiring Roy and Mike for the engineering and mixing, yet not at all for writing or arranging, let alone performing, and as Roy confirmed, Fred mixed vocals, and the band themselves co-produced. Otoh, Beatles needed help in every department: George Martin arranged the orchestra (with Paul), and the lads had very little input in production and engineering.
> The Beatles WERE the benchmark for Queen - Queen simply learned from them...then took the ball and ran with it.
Yes and no. Beatles were *a* major influence on the band, particularly Freddie (and Brian), but they weren't *the only* influence whatsoever. Queen owed loads to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix and of course to themselves. I remember when Deacy was asked in a Jap mag during the 70s which was his biggest influence, and he said "Queen". Quite right.
> to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe)
A better bassplayer isn't neccesarily the one who played the best basslines. A better bassplayer is the one with better command of the instrument, both technical and in terms of "fluency". And in both aspects Deacy was better than Paul (and obviously better than George or John). Yet Macca is obviously more respected, since he was an influence for many more.
> but as individual musicians none of them were outstanding (except perhaps Lennon).
Depends on how you look at it: three of them were multi-instrumentalists, and Paul in particular is a very good guitarist, pianist, bassist and drummer (without being virtuoso on any field, yet still very good), and he's an outstanding singer too. Plus as composers, they've done several masterpieces. There must be more to life than Queen...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]> *
> Also, the Beatles didn't have the technology Queen had to compose such brilliant harmonies.
Harmonies aren't composed on computers, but on a person's head (or heart, or soul, or whatever). So it's not an excuse. Mozart had much less technology than both acts yet he composed things that go way beyond what Paul, Ringo, Roger, Freddie, Brian, George and the two John's combined could have done.
That's fair Sebastian, but there is no way The Beatles could have recorded Bohemian Rhapsody because the technology didn't exist for multi-layering of vocals. So perhaps they could have written and performed it, but not to the level Queen did 5 years after The Beatles had split up.
> * Better lyrical compositions from Queen
Yeah, right. Compare 'For No One' with 'Sweet Lady'...
Or, compare 'White Queen' or 'Long Away' with 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' or 'Octopuses Garden.'
> to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe)
A better bassplayer isn't neccesarily the one who played the best basslines. A better bassplayer is the one with better command of the instrument, both technical and in terms of "fluency". And in both aspects Deacy was better than Paul (and obviously better than George or John). Yet Macca is obviously more respected, since he was an influence for many more.
Well said.
> Queen's music more complex...yes.
Yes and no. Some orchestrations, for instance the one in 'Strawberry Fields' or 'I Am The Walrus', even the string sections only ('Eleanor Rigby', 'Yesterday') were beyond what Fred, Bri, Rog or John could enable.
Highly debatable. The vocal orchestrations of Bo Rhap are beyond anything attempted by virtually any rock group. For instance, Bo Rhap would be beyond REM, or The Clash, but perhaps The Beatles could have tackled it, perhaps not. I think the orchestrations in WWTLF are beyond novice level, and they were written and arranged by Brian. It was a path they chose not to go down with any frequency, but think they could have, because if Brian can concoct 7 part guitar harmonies with each part playing a different passage, I think he could create the Eleanor Rigby string section.
> However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!
And the opposite happens as well: 'Good Night' and 'Because' are underrated, while 'Ga Ga' and 'Break Free' are overrated.
Very true, but there is a lot of validity in the statement that The Beatles lesser songs are overrated, and that their lesser songs are valued more than Queen's. If Springsteen or Dylan wrote Drowse, it'd be an anthem for the bleakness of life in a small town. But when a blonde drummer from a Brit glam rock band writes it, it's unknown.
It's a totally subjective topic, as stated, but a good one for what it's worth.
> Also, the Beatles didn't have the technology Queen had to compose such brilliant harmonies.
Harmonies aren't composed on computers, but on a person's head (or heart, or soul, or whatever). So it's not an excuse. Mozart had much less technology than both acts yet he composed things that go way beyond what Paul, Ringo, Roger, Freddie, Brian, George and the two John's combined could have done.
That's fair Sebastian, but there is no way The Beatles could have recorded Bohemian Rhapsody because the technology didn't exist for multi-layering of vocals. So perhaps they could have written and performed it, but not to the level Queen did 5 years after The Beatles had split up.
> * Better lyrical compositions from Queen
Yeah, right. Compare 'For No One' with 'Sweet Lady'...
Or, compare 'White Queen' or 'Long Away' with 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' or 'Octopuses Garden.'
> to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe)
A better bassplayer isn't neccesarily the one who played the best basslines. A better bassplayer is the one with better command of the instrument, both technical and in terms of "fluency". And in both aspects Deacy was better than Paul (and obviously better than George or John). Yet Macca is obviously more respected, since he was an influence for many more.
Well said.
> Queen's music more complex...yes.
Yes and no. Some orchestrations, for instance the one in 'Strawberry Fields' or 'I Am The Walrus', even the string sections only ('Eleanor Rigby', 'Yesterday') were beyond what Fred, Bri, Rog or John could enable.
Highly debatable. The vocal orchestrations of Bo Rhap are beyond anything attempted by virtually any rock group. For instance, Bo Rhap would be beyond REM, or The Clash, but perhaps The Beatles could have tackled it, perhaps not. I think the orchestrations in WWTLF are beyond novice level, and they were written and arranged by Brian. It was a path they chose not to go down with any frequency, but think they could have, because if Brian can concoct 7 part guitar harmonies with each part playing a different passage, I think he could create the Eleanor Rigby string section.
> However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!
And the opposite happens as well: 'Good Night' and 'Because' are underrated, while 'Ga Ga' and 'Break Free' are overrated.
Very true, but there is a lot of validity in the statement that The Beatles lesser songs are overrated, and that their lesser songs are valued more than Queen's. If Springsteen or Dylan wrote Drowse, it'd be an anthem for the bleakness of life in a small town. But when a blonde drummer from a Brit glam rock band writes it, it's unknown.
It's a totally subjective topic, as stated, but a good one for what it's worth.
in a word bollocks macca has had more experience singing & playing bass than anyone if that isnt command of playing an instrument i dont know what is, it all opinions they're far better bass players than deacon & probably macca, john entwhistle paul simonen for two, macca's trick (as he is really a guitarist) is playing melodies on his bass & this on occassions annoys the more "traditional" bassist out there, but each to their own
I didn't care to read everything in this thread, because most of it just repeats itself...just as what I'm probably about to say.
The Beatles and Queen are two very different bands from two very different times. The Beatles were your average rock band with your average rock tunes, they may have reinvented some of the aspects of rock and roll or even invented their own, but in the end Queen reigned supreme in it's musical variations.
The Beatles have been looked upon as being legendary, while Queen has been ignored in some cases. If you were to ask Queen who the greatest band in the land were, they'd say The Beatles. I even recall from somewhere that The Beatles thought of Queen as their favorite band. I could be wrong, but I thought I might add that in there.
That's all I'm going to say because The Beatles and Queen are simply uncomparable. Their both GREAT artists who both made an OUTSTANDING impact in the music industry. The rest of it is just personal preferences, nothing more and nothing less.
The Beatles and Queen are two very different bands from two very different times. The Beatles were your average rock band with your average rock tunes, they may have reinvented some of the aspects of rock and roll or even invented their own, but in the end Queen reigned supreme in it's musical variations.
The Beatles have been looked upon as being legendary, while Queen has been ignored in some cases. If you were to ask Queen who the greatest band in the land were, they'd say The Beatles. I even recall from somewhere that The Beatles thought of Queen as their favorite band. I could be wrong, but I thought I might add that in there.
That's all I'm going to say because The Beatles and Queen are simply uncomparable. Their both GREAT artists who both made an OUTSTANDING impact in the music industry. The rest of it is just personal preferences, nothing more and nothing less.