Queen's place in rock history.

[QUOTE] [b]McFluid wrote:[/b]

Everyone back in the mid 90's wanted to look and act like Liam Gallagher. they wrote classical rock hymns, that got played on the radio a lot more than Muse's succesful singles, i bet just Wonderwall beat any of muse singles in terms of selling, playlist on radio etc.
[/QUOTE]

Fair play, and you're definitely right.

I remember in the 90s how people were comparing Oasis to the Beatles and how ludicrous it sounded at the time, but in hindsight I can't name a single musician of the last 30 years who inspired millions to want a haircut like them.

That said - I think Muse will still ultimately come out on top because they have staying power. They have been consistently relevant and successful for over a decade now, while Oasis were more of a fad that lasted a few years (but a big one!!) because of the in-fighting. But ever so often it's conflict that breeds great art.

[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]

In terms of fame, I think Michael Jackson is the only dead rock star more famous than Freddie Mercury right now. Freddie's never been as big as he is now. You get 14 year old girls going crazy for him on Facebook, it's unbelievable. Elvis and John Lennon would come third and fourth.[/QUOTE]

There's no way Mercury is more popular in death than John Lennon. Lennon was an ambassador for peace and literally changed the world with his music and actions. Freddie would be the first person to tell you he was not bigger than any of The Beatles.

[QUOTE] [b]Bo Alex wrote:[/b]

The Who is a very overrated band. Not in the same league as the big 5 from the UK: Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd and Queen. [/QUOTE]

Then make it a top six.

The Who were extremely innovative as a live band in the 60s. Watch the Smothers Brothers footage. They wrote the fu&king book.

Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia are easily more beloved and influential than any three Queen studio albums.

We all love Queen here, but we need to take our blinders off and see the bigger picture.

[QUOTE]

[b]Costa86 wrote: [/b] In my view, which is probably biased because of my huge Queen fandom, Queen are considered the biggest band ever in the UK. Bigger than The Beatles I'd say, although The Beatles were probably more popular in their time, and also possibly a better band.

[/QUOTE]

on what basis? - ok let's face some facts here:
beatles vs queen  in their home UK territory:
[b]beatles 17[/b] no1 singles / [b]queen 5[/b] no1 singles
[b]beatles 8[/b] no1 EPs / [b]queen 0[/b] no1 EPs
[b]beatles 11[/b] no1 albums / [b]queen 7[/b] no1 albums

best selling [b][i]original[/i][/b] album titles:
Sgt Pepper - 1,000,000
ANATO - 300,000

worldwide album sales:
beatles - [b]2,300,500,000[/b]
queen - [b]350,000,000[/b]

the number of beatles albums being sold equates to [b][i]one for every three people living on the planet[/i][/b].
the figure for queen is [b][i]one in every 20 people [/i][/b]on the planet.

the only UK thing that queen actually trump the beatles at is sales of Greatest Hits albums - 6 million for greatest hits vol 1. but then the beatles already won the singles argument with the number of no1s.

The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suck

That's a bold statement Jeff.

[QUOTE] [b]Jefffabiano wrote:[/b]

The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suck [/QUOTE]

If you are remotely a fan of rock music and think that a) Revolver isn't a good or important album or b) The Beatles were not at the forefront of the evolution of music recording in the 60s, you need a full lobotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_technology

Please make sure your next post indicates that you have more than a double digit IQ.

No I admit the beatles are integral to the history of rock and the history of recording . But there have been better groups.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b] Please make sure your next post indicates that you have more than a double digit IQ.[/QUOTE]

Hey, 99 is alright.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

There's no way Mercury is more popular in death than John Lennon. Lennon was an ambassador for peace and literally changed the world with his music and actions. Freddie would be the first person to tell you he was not bigger than any of The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]

Don't know about that, there really is an almost exaggerated FM hype going on these days.

D'oh, double post.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia are easily more beloved and influential than any three Queen studio albums.[/QUOTE]

Interesting statement. While I agree that Queen never really were a very influential band, I think it's safe to say that for example ANATO, NOTW and The Game, for example, are more "beloved" albums.

PS: Keith Moon rocks.

[QUOTE] [b]Jefffabiano wrote:[/b]

The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suck [/QUOTE]

Pretty sure this statement alone confirms the fact that you're an absolute idiot, and nothing you say should be taken seriously.

Overrated? Maybe. But you can't deny their influence, however big or small, on every rock group that followed.

All their songs suck? That's ridiculous, for almost any artist. To say that you genuinely can't enjoy a single Beatles song, I think, is untrue.

I'll be honest here, I'm being biased, as they're my favourite artist, in a three way tie between both Bob Dylan and Queen, of course.

Mad I admit they had influence but all their songs sound the same to me and just because I dont like the Beatles does not mean Im an idiot

[QUOTE] [b]Jefffabiano wrote:[/b]

Mad I admit they had influence but all their songs sound the same to me and just because I dont like the Beatles does not mean Im an idiot [/QUOTE]

I didn't say that you not liking them makes you an idiot, I said that making a statement like that makes you an idiot.