Music is not a competition!
In the end it will only be a question of personal taste. This discussions allways leads the fans of one band to say nasty things about the other band.
As far as i´m concern Queen are my favourite, but i have to recognize that we can´t fully explain the Beatles. What happened to them is beyond talent. It´s out of this world. Where did they got the inspiration from? i don´t know, but it was special. The same thing for Queen.
Even though i´m young i feel blessed to have born in this era of great musicians. I don´t think our kids are going to feel the same ; )
Enjoy both!
Take care
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's apples and oranges. The Beatles came first and paved the way for all future bands, including Queen, and the styles of music are different of course. However it's true that Freddie is the far superior vocalist. As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.[/QUOTE]
Even the rest of the Beatles according to Paul ... ;-)[/QUOTE]LOL :P Wasn't it John?
Even the rest of the Beatles according to Paul ... ;-)[/QUOTE]LOL :P Wasn't it John?
Good points Seb and BTR, as usual.
I might add that you can basically ignore anyone who casts aspersions on Ringo's drumming. They *do not understand music or drumming* - that isn't really a 'crime' as such, especially in a subjective topic where one is just arguing which band they like the sound of.. it's still a pitiable thing to see.
On the plus side - it's like a bullshit filter. Soon as someone makes a gaffe that big, you can pretty much ignore anything else they say. Makes reading these discussions a lot quicker!
And usually when I wax lyrical about how great some of the Beatles catalogue is, I'm not just referring to the 4 guys. I am of course also talking about George Martin, Geoff Emerick, or the odd guest trumpeter who'd perform on a Beatles track... I'm really more commenting on the end product than the creative team; at the same time, one can't credit all of that music to just 4 guys.
John says "I want to sound like I'm singing from the top of a mountain" and then the engineer goes and makes it happen. ( Guess the song, muahaha ).
I might add that you can basically ignore anyone who casts aspersions on Ringo's drumming. They *do not understand music or drumming* - that isn't really a 'crime' as such, especially in a subjective topic where one is just arguing which band they like the sound of.. it's still a pitiable thing to see.
On the plus side - it's like a bullshit filter. Soon as someone makes a gaffe that big, you can pretty much ignore anything else they say. Makes reading these discussions a lot quicker!
And usually when I wax lyrical about how great some of the Beatles catalogue is, I'm not just referring to the 4 guys. I am of course also talking about George Martin, Geoff Emerick, or the odd guest trumpeter who'd perform on a Beatles track... I'm really more commenting on the end product than the creative team; at the same time, one can't credit all of that music to just 4 guys.
John says "I want to sound like I'm singing from the top of a mountain" and then the engineer goes and makes it happen. ( Guess the song, muahaha ).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME] As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.[/QUOTE]
that's unfair! Ringo's drumming was excellent from Rubber Soul onwards...
that's unfair! Ringo's drumming was excellent from Rubber Soul onwards...
[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]
i agree...and by 1969 when they recorded their last album they only had eight recording tracks to work on
four years later technology had moved on so far that queen had 24 track sound
put abbey road against sheer hearts attack...abbey road does not sound inferior sound quality
i agree...and by 1969 when they recorded their last album they only had eight recording tracks to work on
four years later technology had moved on so far that queen had 24 track sound
put abbey road against sheer hearts attack...abbey road does not sound inferior sound quality
> there is no way The Beatles could have recorded Bohemian Rhapsody because the technology didn't exist for multi-layering of vocals.
Yes and no. There were 8-tracks at the time of 'White', so they could have done overdubs already. On the other hand I doubt their ranges could cover the low F and the high Bb or neighbouring notes.
> So perhaps they could have written and performed it
I doubt so: 'Bo Rhap' is too advanced for any of The Beatles' compositional vocabulary (which doesn't mean it's better).
> The vocal orchestrations of Bo Rhap are beyond anything attempted by virtually any rock group.
Yes, but they're 80% (or more) parallel harmonies, with the occasional independent bass voice, but that's it. Hardly any counterpoint or really advanced compositional gem, with exceptions (such as the seven "no" or the "thunderbolt" bit).
> perhaps The Beatles could have tackled it, perhaps not.
By themselves, absolutely not.
> I think the orchestrations in WWTLF are beyond novice level, and they were written and arranged by Brian.
They're done by Michael Kamen after some instructions by Brian. Yet the Queen members rarely did actual "dirty work" with orchestrations. Sure, 'Millionaire Waltz', 'Teo', 'All Dead', 'Bo Rhap' etc are all extraordinary and superb, and they're 100% arranged (and performed) by either Freddie, Brian, Roger, John or a combination of them. Yet they're far from being as complex and sophisticated as what George Martin did for some Beatles' numbers, or what Michael Kamen & Howard Blake did for Queen, what Mike Moran did for Freddie or what Michael Reed did for Brian. Or Yoshiki for Roger.
> 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.
Sad but true.
> macca has had more experience singing & playing bass than anyone if that isnt command of playing an instrument i dont know what is
1. Having more experience doesn't mean somebody's absolutely better. For that matter Bob Dylan's a better singer than Josh Groban, The Edge's a better guitarist than Steve Vai and Keith Richards's a better bass player than Stu Hamm.
2. Of course Paul's got command of the instrument, and of course he's good. But not a virtuoso, not a very technical one, and definitely below Deacy's level, although not by much and although Macca's definitely a much better all-round composer, musician and artist.
> 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
Paul's style is much much much much more than just "playing melodies on his bass".
> The Beatles were your average rock band with your average rock tunes
Sure ... how many 60s bands had 'I Will', 'Piggies', 'Blackbird', 'Martha My Dear' and 'I'm So Tired' on the same side of the same album?
> This discussions allways leads the fans of one band to say nasty things about the other band.
Not necessarily. Some constructive points can be drawn here. Personally I like these kinds of "vs", because you may find some valuable comments and analyses hidden between all that "my band's perfect" crap.
> that's unfair! Ringo's drumming was excellent from Rubber Soul onwards...
And up to 'Help' too...
> put abbey road against sheer hearts attack...abbey road does not sound inferior sound quality
Very true.
Yes and no. There were 8-tracks at the time of 'White', so they could have done overdubs already. On the other hand I doubt their ranges could cover the low F and the high Bb or neighbouring notes.
> So perhaps they could have written and performed it
I doubt so: 'Bo Rhap' is too advanced for any of The Beatles' compositional vocabulary (which doesn't mean it's better).
> The vocal orchestrations of Bo Rhap are beyond anything attempted by virtually any rock group.
Yes, but they're 80% (or more) parallel harmonies, with the occasional independent bass voice, but that's it. Hardly any counterpoint or really advanced compositional gem, with exceptions (such as the seven "no" or the "thunderbolt" bit).
> perhaps The Beatles could have tackled it, perhaps not.
By themselves, absolutely not.
> I think the orchestrations in WWTLF are beyond novice level, and they were written and arranged by Brian.
They're done by Michael Kamen after some instructions by Brian. Yet the Queen members rarely did actual "dirty work" with orchestrations. Sure, 'Millionaire Waltz', 'Teo', 'All Dead', 'Bo Rhap' etc are all extraordinary and superb, and they're 100% arranged (and performed) by either Freddie, Brian, Roger, John or a combination of them. Yet they're far from being as complex and sophisticated as what George Martin did for some Beatles' numbers, or what Michael Kamen & Howard Blake did for Queen, what Mike Moran did for Freddie or what Michael Reed did for Brian. Or Yoshiki for Roger.
> 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.
Sad but true.
> macca has had more experience singing & playing bass than anyone if that isnt command of playing an instrument i dont know what is
1. Having more experience doesn't mean somebody's absolutely better. For that matter Bob Dylan's a better singer than Josh Groban, The Edge's a better guitarist than Steve Vai and Keith Richards's a better bass player than Stu Hamm.
2. Of course Paul's got command of the instrument, and of course he's good. But not a virtuoso, not a very technical one, and definitely below Deacy's level, although not by much and although Macca's definitely a much better all-round composer, musician and artist.
> 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
Paul's style is much much much much more than just "playing melodies on his bass".
> The Beatles were your average rock band with your average rock tunes
Sure ... how many 60s bands had 'I Will', 'Piggies', 'Blackbird', 'Martha My Dear' and 'I'm So Tired' on the same side of the same album?
> This discussions allways leads the fans of one band to say nasty things about the other band.
Not necessarily. Some constructive points can be drawn here. Personally I like these kinds of "vs", because you may find some valuable comments and analyses hidden between all that "my band's perfect" crap.
> that's unfair! Ringo's drumming was excellent from Rubber Soul onwards...
And up to 'Help' too...
> put abbey road against sheer hearts attack...abbey road does not sound inferior sound quality
Very true.
In 2005, Brian wrote about attending a Beatles tribute band, how much he loved them, what the music meant to him, and how his daughter initially didn't want to go to the show. He went on to say:
"...it seems her generation have heard of the Beatles, and know they are famous to their parents, and maybe they even could hum along to a couple of the songs, but they relate. They seem to bracket The Beatles with a lot of other things that their parents think are cool, like Beethoven, or Frank Sinatra, or Shakespeare for that matter. They don't appear to have adopted the Beatles' music as THEIR OWN. We as Queen have been very fortunate, somehow, in connecting with a new generation like they are our own people - it certainly felt that way on our tour a couple of months ago. I noticed the Beatles anomaly before, in the reaction to Live 8 ... the young people kinda knew that Paul McCartney was part of something that was BIG, (but didn't really feel involved, it seems. I have not much idea how this happened, but when we entered this new place in the Guinness Book Of Records, in the place the Beatles formerly occupied, I began to look at this stuff with interest.
To us, to me, the Beatles are completely awe-inspiring as writers, performers and "Movers of History" - I can think of no-one else who gives that total feeling of centrality. Sure, the Who and Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix all took the intensity of rock to greater peaks afterwards, and were much more virtuoso-like in the actual playing of their instruments. But for innovation and colour and humour and awareness and sheer bloody jaw-dropping consummate artistry, I can't see anyone within miles. (OK, I hear you, maybe that old Queen group, but it's hard for me to be objective in this area!) In any case, as I say, for US, the Beatles were, and always will be IT. Why are they not exciting the kids of today? I would be very interested to know."
I e-mailed Brian theorizing that The Beatles music doesn't stand up sonically for kids of today, and that it lacks the hugeness of Queen's music. For example, put any Queen rocker from Liar to Dead on Time on the radio today, and it would jump at you. Songs like I want to hold your hand, and Twist and Shout on the other hand, have the sonic force of a popgun comparatively speaking, almost like a transistor radio compared to a full blown stereo system. Therefore, I felt that kids couldn't respond because rock and roll is now about hugeness and being larger than life, something Beatles music couldn't offer. Alas, no response on my theory, as I neglected to praise the musical when closing off my e-mail ;)
"...it seems her generation have heard of the Beatles, and know they are famous to their parents, and maybe they even could hum along to a couple of the songs, but they relate. They seem to bracket The Beatles with a lot of other things that their parents think are cool, like Beethoven, or Frank Sinatra, or Shakespeare for that matter. They don't appear to have adopted the Beatles' music as THEIR OWN. We as Queen have been very fortunate, somehow, in connecting with a new generation like they are our own people - it certainly felt that way on our tour a couple of months ago. I noticed the Beatles anomaly before, in the reaction to Live 8 ... the young people kinda knew that Paul McCartney was part of something that was BIG, (but didn't really feel involved, it seems. I have not much idea how this happened, but when we entered this new place in the Guinness Book Of Records, in the place the Beatles formerly occupied, I began to look at this stuff with interest.
To us, to me, the Beatles are completely awe-inspiring as writers, performers and "Movers of History" - I can think of no-one else who gives that total feeling of centrality. Sure, the Who and Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix all took the intensity of rock to greater peaks afterwards, and were much more virtuoso-like in the actual playing of their instruments. But for innovation and colour and humour and awareness and sheer bloody jaw-dropping consummate artistry, I can't see anyone within miles. (OK, I hear you, maybe that old Queen group, but it's hard for me to be objective in this area!) In any case, as I say, for US, the Beatles were, and always will be IT. Why are they not exciting the kids of today? I would be very interested to know."
I e-mailed Brian theorizing that The Beatles music doesn't stand up sonically for kids of today, and that it lacks the hugeness of Queen's music. For example, put any Queen rocker from Liar to Dead on Time on the radio today, and it would jump at you. Songs like I want to hold your hand, and Twist and Shout on the other hand, have the sonic force of a popgun comparatively speaking, almost like a transistor radio compared to a full blown stereo system. Therefore, I felt that kids couldn't respond because rock and roll is now about hugeness and being larger than life, something Beatles music couldn't offer. Alas, no response on my theory, as I neglected to praise the musical when closing off my e-mail ;)
Brian had himself a very good point there.... didn't really apply to me though, because I've always preferred the Beatles to stuff of my own generation anyhow. But it's very true of the crop I grew up in, any road!
Queen is overall better but they did have the advantage of different time periods and technology.
Oddly enough I'm listening to the beatles right now :p
"a taste of honey"
Oddly enough I'm listening to the beatles right now :p
"a taste of honey"
I think that Queen was influenced by the Beatles, I like em both, so I couldnt choose,I mean they were similar, but not the same, etc. Of course the Beatles were more famous, etc, but I liked Queen's also.
I can't imagine what my life would have been like without the music of both The Beatles and Queen. It would be like living my life without apples and oranges :(
Life's a banquet.
Life's a banquet.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian-Harold-May wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
Queen is so much better than the beatles its not even funny. The beatles were OK at best, some ok songs here and there but they have NOTHING on queen!
Queen is so far above them its a joke, you cant really compare the two,
Queen were million times more talented, much more energy, they played all styles of music almost, had the best singer of all time, best songs, best live performance.
the beatles are Queen's urine
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.[/QUOTE]
Queen is so much better than the beatles its not even funny. The beatles were OK at best, some ok songs here and there but they have NOTHING on queen!
Queen is so far above them its a joke, you cant really compare the two,
Queen were million times more talented, much more energy, they played all styles of music almost, had the best singer of all time, best songs, best live performance.
the beatles are Queen's urine
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]*(azzadude)* ..GET DOWN MAKE LOVE! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I GARANTEE YOU!!!! I GARANTEE YOU THIS....
IF YOU WERE TO ASK BRIAN OR ROG WHO WOULD BE THE BETTER BAND, THEY WOULD LOOK AT YOU LIKE YOU’RE A COMPLETE FOOL!!!! I ASSURE YOU THERE ANSWER WOULD BE THE BEATLES..... So let us not beat are self’s up and argue, even Queen would side for the Beatles... its just they way it is.......
[/QUOTE]
if they would say the beatles are the best they would be lying just to be nice to that mediocre band. In their hearts they know NOTHING even comes close to Queens talent and amazing songwriting.
IF YOU WERE TO ASK BRIAN OR ROG WHO WOULD BE THE BETTER BAND, THEY WOULD LOOK AT YOU LIKE YOU’RE A COMPLETE FOOL!!!! I ASSURE YOU THERE ANSWER WOULD BE THE BEATLES..... So let us not beat are self’s up and argue, even Queen would side for the Beatles... its just they way it is.......
[/QUOTE]
if they would say the beatles are the best they would be lying just to be nice to that mediocre band. In their hearts they know NOTHING even comes close to Queens talent and amazing songwriting.
i just listened to some beatles songs and came to the conclusion.. Treasure Moment is a 1000 times better band
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i just listened to some beatles songs and came to the conclusion.. Treasure Moment is a 1000 times better band[/QUOTE]
At least!
I would even dare to say 1408 times better.
At least!
I would even dare to say 1408 times better.