Queen vs. Beatles

Queen ftw.

Could never really get into The Beatles. From that era I prefer The Doors, probably musically inferior in every way - I'm not qualified to say - but just my personal taste. For me, there's nothing terribly exciting about the Beatles from today's perspective but I appreciate they were very innovative in their time. And despite the street cred I will lose saying this, I think John Lennon is a bellend - a champagne socialist if there ever was one.

@Drowse1. On the contrary -- I think it is Queen who are the greater "singles" band and the Beatles who produced superior albums (but heck, huge singles too). ANATO is generally regarded (at least, by many music critics) as Queen's best album. While I adore the album, I don't believe it is on the whole as good as, say, Abbey Road. However, individual songs like Bo Rhap and '39, IILWMC etc. are at least on par with Abbey Road's best songs.

I do however think that ANATO is easily better than Rubber Soul -- usually considered to be among the (tho not the) Beatles' very best.

The "little competition" observation may be valid -- the Beatles did basically invent pop music...but then, so what? It might affect commercial success but it can't negatively impact on the quality of the music

(Incidentally, I think that Dylan's 'Highway 61 Revisited' is (perhaps) even better than 'Abbey Road'...but that's off-topic!)

90% of the Beatles' music is baby music. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds..........

Bite me.

Also, Queen ARE more talented and they did MUCH more with their songs. Their songs were more complicated and sounded better. I'm a Beatles fan, but they are definitely NOT on the top of my list.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wembley fan86 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]90% of the Beatles' music is baby music. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds..........

Bite me.

Also, Queen ARE more talented and they did MUCH more with their songs. Their songs were more complicated and sounded better. [/QUOTE]

Amen to that

Baby music? I suppose the likes of Octopus' Garden is baby music?

I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever. [/QUOTE]

considered by retards yeah but in truth they are just another mediocre band, there are millions of them

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Drowse1 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Beatles were a great singles band but, with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums. Queen on the other hand released both great singles and albums. The Beatles were fortunate to exist in a decade when there were one of only a handful of acts that wrote and performed their own material. Saying that they were still a fantastic band and, like any great act, their music lives on. But for me it will always be Queen first.[/QUOTE]
think you need to have a rethink...great bands were everywhere during the 60s...it was musics finest decade
beatles, stones, who, kinks, small faces, floyd, led zep, byrds,
not to mention the tamla motown music

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums."

That shows a poor understanding of their body of work. Sgt Pepper is somewhat overrated (but well worth having for the Lennon contributions) and the White Album, while having great songs, isn't one of their better efforts regarding studio work.... sounds 'lazy' in spots.

The Beatles were, as you say, a great singles band. They were also a great album band, if you pick the right example.[/QUOTE]
ie - revolver, abbey road and rubber soul

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever. [/QUOTE]

considered by retards yeah but in truth they are just another mediocre band, there are millions of them [/QUOTE]
you are just an ignoramus

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever. [/QUOTE]

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wembley fan86 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever. [/QUOTE]

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar. [/QUOTE]

what is your drug of choice? because really - you should have a word with your dealer...he has started cutting it with too much bleach

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wembley fan86 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=6600f>Vishnu.<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think the two can be compared. The Beatles' style of music was very different from Queen's. They were both great in their own ways.

And it's just plain ignorant to say that the Beatles' music is "baby music". I mean, they're considered the greatest band ever. [/QUOTE]

I never said they weren't. But seriosuly, a lot of their songs don't have a point. Just for easy listening. Back in their time, they were considered a miracle. But now, as everyone looks back at all the great music acts after them, The Beatles are just pioneers. Their music is not that stellar. [/QUOTE]

what is your drug of choice? because really - you should have a word with your dealer...he has started cutting it with too much bleach[/QUOTE]

Hey, it's just my opinion. Jeez! You ppl are deep.