Long hair wasn't a good look for Lennon.
He should have kept it like he had it in the psychedelic days.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
queen are better, mercury voice is better, brian playing is better, beatles are a legend but they can create something like love of my life or we are the champions it's above their good level anyway.
Back to the lesser Beatles songs, etc. Yesterday, the classic rock station in Toronto played Good Day Sunshine from Revolver, a song I've heard . IMHO, there is nothing special about this song. There are tons of Queen songs that are equal or better than this that radio doesn't play. For instance, In the lap of the Gods (revisited) is a superb piece of music. I've never heard it in my travels on the radio, yet it stacks up favourably against the best of The Beatles stuff. I'd guess 70 to 80% of the Beatles catalogue gets played on rock radio, maybe 10% of Queen's catalogue (in North America) tops.
What I don't like about the Beatles is that general feeling that if you like classic rock and pop you MUST like the Beatles and there are no two ways about it. True enough there were some brilliant songs but there were also some truely awful ones. You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) is just strange, high point is the saxophone solo from Brian Jones but the rest is just nonsense.
What with every music critic and group in the world, or so it seems, sucking up to the Beatles and George Martin, completely glossing over the worse songs of their catalogues and elements of their music, or worse bigging it up and making it appear something it's not (Yellow Submarine=a Timeless Child's Classic, oh please it's a JOKE) makes me wonder if the Beatles can be described as 'overrated'. But woe betide you if you dare to call the Beatles overrated. Or worse, much worse, prefer the Stones. Now that's a MAJOR no-no.
Having said that, there's no denying the Beatles were a great band and Lennon McCartney and Harrison great songwriters but then so were all the members of Queen who similarly wrote groundbreaking and catchy music (not at the same time:P) I do prefer Queen. And I'll never ever change my mind when it comes to Beatles v. Stones. I'm sorry.
What with every music critic and group in the world, or so it seems, sucking up to the Beatles and George Martin, completely glossing over the worse songs of their catalogues and elements of their music, or worse bigging it up and making it appear something it's not (Yellow Submarine=a Timeless Child's Classic, oh please it's a JOKE) makes me wonder if the Beatles can be described as 'overrated'. But woe betide you if you dare to call the Beatles overrated. Or worse, much worse, prefer the Stones. Now that's a MAJOR no-no.
Having said that, there's no denying the Beatles were a great band and Lennon McCartney and Harrison great songwriters but then so were all the members of Queen who similarly wrote groundbreaking and catchy music (not at the same time:P) I do prefer Queen. And I'll never ever change my mind when it comes to Beatles v. Stones. I'm sorry.
no matter what you people say, the beatles have gone down as legends in music and rock n roll history as great artists...as with queen.
as long as they wrote songs that people bought and enjoyed, and still enjoy, then I think they've done their job haven't they?
as long as they wrote songs that people bought and enjoyed, and still enjoy, then I think they've done their job haven't they?
@RBQ. Judging from your sig I see you like Jumpin Jack Flash. Nice...one of my favourite Stones songs...(do you like Wild Horses? A wonderful song!)
Anyway, the Beatles had an immense output i.t.o songs. And some of them, granted, were utter rubbish. Others, mediocre throwaway songs. To be expected. Same applies to some Queen's tracks. Of importance is not how many mediocre songs they released; but rather how many brilliant, timeless, groundbreaking ones. And I'd say, more than any other band. And also, what was the quality of these songs? Again, bands like Queen are perhaps on the same level. But generally, they stand way above the rest.
Anyone who dismisses the Beatles' music entirely (or Queen's music), deserves to be chastised.
Yellow Submarine is a bit of a joke. Curse that silly composition. I've been mentioning this song far too much already, but honestly I think that 'Octopus' Garden' is easily one of the Beatles' best. And one of the loveliest songs I've ever heard.
@BTR: Re In the Lap of the Gods (Revisited). It's a superlative live/concert song, no doubt about that. A real pity it wasn't played more. I always look for it on the tracklist when considering a live performance. Musically, though, I don't think it's better than mediocre.
A genuine pity that Queen did not achieve their deserved popularity in the USA, though.
Anyway, the Beatles had an immense output i.t.o songs. And some of them, granted, were utter rubbish. Others, mediocre throwaway songs. To be expected. Same applies to some Queen's tracks. Of importance is not how many mediocre songs they released; but rather how many brilliant, timeless, groundbreaking ones. And I'd say, more than any other band. And also, what was the quality of these songs? Again, bands like Queen are perhaps on the same level. But generally, they stand way above the rest.
Anyone who dismisses the Beatles' music entirely (or Queen's music), deserves to be chastised.
Yellow Submarine is a bit of a joke. Curse that silly composition. I've been mentioning this song far too much already, but honestly I think that 'Octopus' Garden' is easily one of the Beatles' best. And one of the loveliest songs I've ever heard.
@BTR: Re In the Lap of the Gods (Revisited). It's a superlative live/concert song, no doubt about that. A real pity it wasn't played more. I always look for it on the tracklist when considering a live performance. Musically, though, I don't think it's better than mediocre.
A genuine pity that Queen did not achieve their deserved popularity in the USA, though.
I agree Moet, I was point out Revisited more for the fact it's a huge singalong favourite, a la Let it Be, not for it's musical brilliance. But no one, short of diehard Queen fans knows Revisited, everyone knows Let it Be. Same as a song like Dead on Time. That flat out rocks, but again, no one knows it as never ot airplay. DOT destroys anything The Beatles did in the rock genre, and its pace is as merciless as Metallica and Van Halen stuff, but totally unknown.
"Queen always looked decent though. Beatles, circa Abbey Road/Let It Be/etc. looked downright ridiculous!"
Uhm... no??
Go watch the Body Language video. :P
"What I don't like about the Beatles is that general feeling that if you like classic rock and pop you MUST like the Beatles and there are no two ways about it."
That's not true! One doesn't have to like them..... one just has to understand there IS quality in some of what they did and it's foolish to deny it. I readily admit a lot of Beatles stuff can be overrated (starting with Sgt. Pepper) but I'd probably say that about any of my favourite bands (Queen, The Who, whatever).
"Or worse, much worse, prefer the Stones. Now that's a MAJOR no-no"
Well ... yeah. The Rolling Stones are unique in being ranked with contemporaries that they didn't match up with. Not in the long term anyhow. I mean, their Rock and Roll Circus was a telling example of this - they might as well have called it The Who Rock and Roll Circus. Talk about getting upstaged!
And I like "Wild Horses".
"I agree Moet, I was point out Revisited more for the fact it's a huge singalong favourite, a la Let it Be, not for it's musical brilliance. But no one, short of diehard Queen fans knows Revisited, everyone knows Let it Be."
Well... we might be fated to constantly hearing WWRY or WATC at every big event we go to, but WE know there's more to Queen, right?? :P
Uhm... no??
Go watch the Body Language video. :P
"What I don't like about the Beatles is that general feeling that if you like classic rock and pop you MUST like the Beatles and there are no two ways about it."
That's not true! One doesn't have to like them..... one just has to understand there IS quality in some of what they did and it's foolish to deny it. I readily admit a lot of Beatles stuff can be overrated (starting with Sgt. Pepper) but I'd probably say that about any of my favourite bands (Queen, The Who, whatever).
"Or worse, much worse, prefer the Stones. Now that's a MAJOR no-no"
Well ... yeah. The Rolling Stones are unique in being ranked with contemporaries that they didn't match up with. Not in the long term anyhow. I mean, their Rock and Roll Circus was a telling example of this - they might as well have called it The Who Rock and Roll Circus. Talk about getting upstaged!
And I like "Wild Horses".
"I agree Moet, I was point out Revisited more for the fact it's a huge singalong favourite, a la Let it Be, not for it's musical brilliance. But no one, short of diehard Queen fans knows Revisited, everyone knows Let it Be."
Well... we might be fated to constantly hearing WWRY or WATC at every big event we go to, but WE know there's more to Queen, right?? :P
Beatles advantages over Queen:
1. They did it first, from 1964 to 1969. Queen arrived a couple of years after.
2. Beyond the Lennon/McCartney main source of creation, they had George Harrison who serves as one hell of a combination vocalist/guitarist. He deserves some kind of competitive status in what he did for the Beatles, in a comparison with Queen.
3. The Beatles seem to be a more attractive to females, more handsome bunch which speaks alot for their competitive popularity with Queen.
And from there I'd go to my pro Queen list which would take all F-ing day. Queen had a superior lead voice that dominated their catalogue, and the alternate lead vocalists Brian and Roger offered a more diverse departure from Freddie's powerful lead. They had a superior drummer by far. Brian's Red Special guitar with all it's assistance from Vox to Deacy amp gave Queen a guitar sound far beyond any instrumentation the Bestles could ever muster, and furthermore Brian is the superior guitarist to George, especially in Solo creations, and that's a hell of a statement considering how incredible Harrison was. Then stands Queen's incredible dominance as a live performing act.
Queen couldn't have been as great as it was without the influence of it's predecessors, The Beatles. However, to my ears they clearly took Beatles rock to a new place far beyond the greatness of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. The Beatles were Hitchcock, Queen was Kubrick.... The Beatles were Jerry West, Queen was Michael Jordan..... The Beatles were Tracy, Queen was Brando.... The Beatles were Niclaus, Queen is Tiger....
1. They did it first, from 1964 to 1969. Queen arrived a couple of years after.
2. Beyond the Lennon/McCartney main source of creation, they had George Harrison who serves as one hell of a combination vocalist/guitarist. He deserves some kind of competitive status in what he did for the Beatles, in a comparison with Queen.
3. The Beatles seem to be a more attractive to females, more handsome bunch which speaks alot for their competitive popularity with Queen.
And from there I'd go to my pro Queen list which would take all F-ing day. Queen had a superior lead voice that dominated their catalogue, and the alternate lead vocalists Brian and Roger offered a more diverse departure from Freddie's powerful lead. They had a superior drummer by far. Brian's Red Special guitar with all it's assistance from Vox to Deacy amp gave Queen a guitar sound far beyond any instrumentation the Bestles could ever muster, and furthermore Brian is the superior guitarist to George, especially in Solo creations, and that's a hell of a statement considering how incredible Harrison was. Then stands Queen's incredible dominance as a live performing act.
Queen couldn't have been as great as it was without the influence of it's predecessors, The Beatles. However, to my ears they clearly took Beatles rock to a new place far beyond the greatness of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. The Beatles were Hitchcock, Queen was Kubrick.... The Beatles were Jerry West, Queen was Michael Jordan..... The Beatles were Tracy, Queen was Brando.... The Beatles were Niclaus, Queen is Tiger....
beatles don't have 50% of queen performance, it's obvious, ask them to compose something like show must go on, love of my life or we are the champions, they can't, nobody else but queen can, queen is beating them easily and all other rock n roll bands exept maybe led zeppelin.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tarik wrote: [/QUOTENAME]beatles don't have 50% of queen performance, it's obvious, ask them to compose something like show must go on, love of my life or we are the champions, they can't, nobody else but queen can, queen is beating them easily and all other rock n roll bands exept maybe led zeppelin.[/QUOTE]
a day in the life
carry that weight
dear prudence
paperback writer
we can work it out
i will
back in the ussr
these songs are all as good as and maybe better than your list (imo)
listen to the changes in a day in the life....and see where some of Freddie's better ideas came from
although A Day In The Life is a Lennon song...it's subtle changes of direction are attributable to Macc'a compositional styling....Macca did the same again with his solo hit Band On The Run
please DO NOT make sweeping statements BEFORE doing your research
a day in the life
carry that weight
dear prudence
paperback writer
we can work it out
i will
back in the ussr
these songs are all as good as and maybe better than your list (imo)
listen to the changes in a day in the life....and see where some of Freddie's better ideas came from
although A Day In The Life is a Lennon song...it's subtle changes of direction are attributable to Macc'a compositional styling....Macca did the same again with his solo hit Band On The Run
please DO NOT make sweeping statements BEFORE doing your research
Queen pisses all over the beatles
the beatles are like amateur musicians in comparision.
the beatles are like amateur musicians in comparision.
Atheist. You're a sucker for punishment.
Oh, yeah? Well... Lennon and McCartney had a homosexual relationship!
But Paul was the only one who was actually gay.
His choice of clothing in the outdoors scene with the soldiers in the film Help! is a dead give away.
But Paul was the only one who was actually gay.
His choice of clothing in the outdoors scene with the soldiers in the film Help! is a dead give away.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Atheist. You're a sucker for punishment.[/QUOTE]
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage
im just stating facts, the beatles are amateur musicians compared to Queen.
they are NOTHING in comparision, pure garbage