[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthemighty wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...ahem! not more popular than the beatles[/QUOTE]
according to radio2 listeners queen are :-][/QUOTE]
aha...so you also believe that GW Bush got elected (first time) fair and square?
all this says is that queen fans organised themselves, circled the wagons and flooded the polls.....beatles fans on the other hand...DO NOT need some shitty poll to KNOW that their band IS THE GREATEST BRITISH band ever (and also the greatest world band ever)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I agree with Mike and Martin... "No-one can beat the Beatles!" (c) BHM
Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best.[/QUOTE]
that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise
they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75
that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise
they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75
These polls are shit as someone said Take That in there i mean come on (anything to do with a money making comeback?) its personal opinions but The Beatles were greatest phenomenon of the 20th century end of story. For someone like The Clash to be omitted says it all
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Perhaps the Beatles were the greatest, but Queen were the best.[/QUOTE]
that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise
they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75[/QUOTE]
This is the way I see it:
Greatest = Achievement status
Best = Musical terms
You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did.
Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar.
The Beatles were a good band with amazing publicity.
Queen were an amazing band with good publicity.
that doesn't work....for the sake of this argument that HAS to be the same thing....the greatest and the best (in musical terms) -or (in any kind of achievment status) have to be the same thing - and consquently the beatles were the greatest and the best...and if you also consider the technology they had compared to queen...then they were far advanced of queen - sound and production-wise
they did stuff with four-tracks in '66 that would've blown freddie and brian's mind on 24 track in '75[/QUOTE]
This is the way I see it:
Greatest = Achievement status
Best = Musical terms
You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did.
Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar.
The Beatles were a good band with amazing publicity.
Queen were an amazing band with good publicity.
Music Man wrote:
You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did.
Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
in answer to both paragraphs re: four tracks and the "decentmusicians" comments i will say this: you cannot have heard Revolver/Rubber Soul/Sgt Pepper/white album or Abbey Rd - not if you can make such a sweeping statement as that. Queen cite the beatles as a major influence. listen to those albums with an open mind (and ears) then come back and say the same thing.
queen's technolody was better - they had SIX times the storage space for their music! and they had the beatles late 60s influence to inspire them along - listen to stuff like "doing alright, night comes down and much of the first three albums" and you hear some very trippy stuff all over it
as for While My Guitar....again - you are missing some important info...you clearly have never heard George's original demos - without Clapton - they are awesome
as for the "Brian May original guitar" comment - that does not make him great
i could name at least six guitarists that are arguably better players than Brian...you may not have heard of three of em...Bernie Torme, Tom Scholtz, Randy Rhoads, Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend, Gary Moore
You're saying that the Beatles did some good things on four-tracks. But you forget to consider that Queen did far more amazing things. Despite having more advanced technology, I don't think you give them enough credit. The Beatles didn't do things that nobody else would even dare to attempt, and Queen did.
Also, the Beatles were all fairly decent musicians, but Freddie Mercury remains one of the most talented vocalists in rock history, and Brian May boasts on of the most original guitars in rock history. The Beatles' vocals were decent, but nothing to write home about. Also, their guitar work was rather typical, with occasional impressive riffs. Very little about Queen's guitar was typical. The Beatles' best guitar song (in my opinion) featured Eric Clapton on lead guitar.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
in answer to both paragraphs re: four tracks and the "decentmusicians" comments i will say this: you cannot have heard Revolver/Rubber Soul/Sgt Pepper/white album or Abbey Rd - not if you can make such a sweeping statement as that. Queen cite the beatles as a major influence. listen to those albums with an open mind (and ears) then come back and say the same thing.
queen's technolody was better - they had SIX times the storage space for their music! and they had the beatles late 60s influence to inspire them along - listen to stuff like "doing alright, night comes down and much of the first three albums" and you hear some very trippy stuff all over it
as for While My Guitar....again - you are missing some important info...you clearly have never heard George's original demos - without Clapton - they are awesome
as for the "Brian May original guitar" comment - that does not make him great
i could name at least six guitarists that are arguably better players than Brian...you may not have heard of three of em...Bernie Torme, Tom Scholtz, Randy Rhoads, Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend, Gary Moore
To be honest, I somewhat agree with you, but my real point is that I don't believe there is a serious discrepancy between the artistical merit between the two bands. You're saying that the Beatles are the be all and end all of all rock and roll. I'm saying that they are quite even with Queen, and many other great bands such as Led Zeppelin. The Beatles pushed the limits with what they had, and so did Queen. Queen simply had more toys.
As far as guitarists, Brian May was arguably the most original out of all those you listed. Luckily, I do know my guitarists. Unfortunately, Bernie Torme does not come to mind when I consider the best of the best. Brian May certainly does. No one in the world plays or sounds like Brian May.
Tom Scholz (if you meant the Boston guitarist) was very technologically innovative and had excellent tone, and is therefore very similar to Brian. I wouldn't say he's better, though.
Randy Rhoads is obviously a thousand times more technically skilled than Brian is, but he still falls into one of many great technicians such as Satch, Vai, Gilbert, Malmsteen, Johnson, Petrucci, Becker, and Van Halen. In fact, I would say he's inferior to most of these guitarists, but more mainstream and thus got more attention.
Jimmy Page - there's a guy who's just as innovative as Brian was, if not even moreso. He's almost always regarded as one of the best players ever, and he deserves it. He is certainly great.
Pete Townshend is one of the best rhythm guitar players ever. His lead guitar is very weak, but his compositional skills are excellent, much like Jimmy Page and our own Brian May. He is another rock great.
Gary Moore is an excellent guitarist. He is both traditional and innovative.
See, you've listed all these other great guitarists, but that doesn't mean that Brian May is not great. These guitarists are all great because they stand out from the crowd. They are an echelon above the rest. Since Brian May is in a league entirely of his own, I would consider him great. Perhaps this is arguable, but I deem him one of the greatest guitarists, among whom you listed. Throw in a little Beck, Clapton, and Hendrix, etc. if you will.
I suppose I got sidetracked, but on the original topic, I think Queen and the Beatles were about equal in terms of musical quality, after adjusting for technological differences.
As far as guitarists, Brian May was arguably the most original out of all those you listed. Luckily, I do know my guitarists. Unfortunately, Bernie Torme does not come to mind when I consider the best of the best. Brian May certainly does. No one in the world plays or sounds like Brian May.
Tom Scholz (if you meant the Boston guitarist) was very technologically innovative and had excellent tone, and is therefore very similar to Brian. I wouldn't say he's better, though.
Randy Rhoads is obviously a thousand times more technically skilled than Brian is, but he still falls into one of many great technicians such as Satch, Vai, Gilbert, Malmsteen, Johnson, Petrucci, Becker, and Van Halen. In fact, I would say he's inferior to most of these guitarists, but more mainstream and thus got more attention.
Jimmy Page - there's a guy who's just as innovative as Brian was, if not even moreso. He's almost always regarded as one of the best players ever, and he deserves it. He is certainly great.
Pete Townshend is one of the best rhythm guitar players ever. His lead guitar is very weak, but his compositional skills are excellent, much like Jimmy Page and our own Brian May. He is another rock great.
Gary Moore is an excellent guitarist. He is both traditional and innovative.
See, you've listed all these other great guitarists, but that doesn't mean that Brian May is not great. These guitarists are all great because they stand out from the crowd. They are an echelon above the rest. Since Brian May is in a league entirely of his own, I would consider him great. Perhaps this is arguable, but I deem him one of the greatest guitarists, among whom you listed. Throw in a little Beck, Clapton, and Hendrix, etc. if you will.
I suppose I got sidetracked, but on the original topic, I think Queen and the Beatles were about equal in terms of musical quality, after adjusting for technological differences.
i read the discussion and i honestly feel like being more on music man's side..i understand brenski's opinion..i realize the beatles as musicians that changed the understanging of what a band means..it became not only a bunch of some musicians playing their instruments..they had a lot to say and put all that in incredibly nice and deep melodies that sometimes were catchy..at least for me 'sometimes'.i personally enjoy abbey road the most..still i am sorry but in my opinion i do not find all that so impressive as queen's achievements. first thing that comes to my mind is songs with incredible harmonies and choirs. tunes are fantastic(the early stuff mostly). the other thing that beatles did not have was an outstanding vocal of freddie mercury.he was able to express himsel with such emotions and rage coming after a falsetto line..all that mixed with blending different voices of roger and brian. what i can say more is that beatles did not 'control' their instruments as queen did. i really haven't seen any rock band playing so tight as queen..
sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's.
still i understand that without the beatles there would hardly be queen..some of their discoveries are bloody important! but queen just used that to become my favourite band :)
that is my not professional opinion,bye ;)
sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's.
still i understand that without the beatles there would hardly be queen..some of their discoveries are bloody important! but queen just used that to become my favourite band :)
that is my not professional opinion,bye ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]icefire wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i really haven't seen any rock band playing so tight as queen..[/QUOTE]
Try these two bands: Dream Theater and Yes. Both are tighter than Queen and are far better musicians. But they didn't write pop songs, so they're rarely mentioned or recognized in the mainstream. Both of these bands have written some truly amazing progressive rock, among so many others. But these two bands are a good starting point for progressive music.
[QUOTE]sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's.[/QUOTE]
That's not really a fair comparison. The Beatles played concerts with equipment from the 1960s, and couldn't even hear themselves playing because the girls were screaming so loudly. That's why they eventually quit playing concerts and just made albums until they broke up.
Queen are my favourite band, but when you compare them to The Beatles with an unbiased ear, Queen had a lot more filler on their albums (the 80s). Every Beatles song is unique. They were such geniuses for the melodies they wrote. But we must remember that The Beatles existed in a different time. Popular music was growing in every way in the late 60s, whereas "the image" was the key thing in the 80s (as it still is today). Queen's creativity diminished in the 80s, and they basically had to keep up with everyone else.
For people who weren't around in the 60s, it's hard to truly understand The Beatles' impact as a whole. They were the first band to release an album in stereo sound. You have to put yourself in a "mono only" mindset, and then listen to Revolver, imagining the impact it must have made. There were so many revolutionary sounds on that album that were completely new to the mainstream. This is just one of so many innovative things they were responsible for.
Try these two bands: Dream Theater and Yes. Both are tighter than Queen and are far better musicians. But they didn't write pop songs, so they're rarely mentioned or recognized in the mainstream. Both of these bands have written some truly amazing progressive rock, among so many others. But these two bands are a good starting point for progressive music.
[QUOTE]sorry guys but i haven't seen any nearly as powerful beatles' concert as queen's.[/QUOTE]
That's not really a fair comparison. The Beatles played concerts with equipment from the 1960s, and couldn't even hear themselves playing because the girls were screaming so loudly. That's why they eventually quit playing concerts and just made albums until they broke up.
Queen are my favourite band, but when you compare them to The Beatles with an unbiased ear, Queen had a lot more filler on their albums (the 80s). Every Beatles song is unique. They were such geniuses for the melodies they wrote. But we must remember that The Beatles existed in a different time. Popular music was growing in every way in the late 60s, whereas "the image" was the key thing in the 80s (as it still is today). Queen's creativity diminished in the 80s, and they basically had to keep up with everyone else.
For people who weren't around in the 60s, it's hard to truly understand The Beatles' impact as a whole. They were the first band to release an album in stereo sound. You have to put yourself in a "mono only" mindset, and then listen to Revolver, imagining the impact it must have made. There were so many revolutionary sounds on that album that were completely new to the mainstream. This is just one of so many innovative things they were responsible for.
Polls are for losers who can't get a life. The real question is how can you compare the father to the offspring.
Example: Jesus or God
Beatles are the start of a new era in music they are the fathers of rock and roll and plus they have the right lyrics which were the first of their kind, plus back then there were not many bands that could play good. The Beatles started the evolution of music, while Queen expanded it with all the other great bands that have given to us their lyrics and music, so please don't compare who is greatest. There is no greatest there are only legents that will live forever in our hearts.
Example: Jesus or God
Beatles are the start of a new era in music they are the fathers of rock and roll and plus they have the right lyrics which were the first of their kind, plus back then there were not many bands that could play good. The Beatles started the evolution of music, while Queen expanded it with all the other great bands that have given to us their lyrics and music, so please don't compare who is greatest. There is no greatest there are only legents that will live forever in our hearts.