Queen vs. The Beatles

[Koda, Master Crunchyroller]

Apr 10, 2012 6:28:41 GMT -5 biafra said:

Apr 10, 2012 5:36:26 GMT -5 Koda, Master Crunchyroller said:

Really, though, for the most part I actually would say the two bands are about equal, the big difference for me is that Mercury is, imo, the best f***ing front man to EVER grace rock 'n roll, and that is the reason I truly prefer Queen. His voice makes even their most WTF worthy lyrics sound like they came directly from heaven.

None of the Beatles could honestly sing all that well, imo. They could play the hell out of their instruments and write incredible lyrics, just couldn't sing that well for me. Like a good frontman is all that stops The Beatles from being my all time favorite band.

None of The Beatles had the range of Mercury but I find it hard to believe someone can listen to "Day in the life" and claim none of The Beatles can sing well.

Sorry, but I just don't think they can. To put it another way, I NEVER listen to their songs for the vocals. It is always for the music and lyrics.

[Junkenstein]

Honestly stunned Queen are winning this. They were a solid rock band in the 70s during an era of amazing rock bands. They turned to utter shit in the 80s IMO. Of course it doesn't help that they're totally over-played over here. If I could live the rest of my life without hearing Don't Stop Me Now again I could die a happy man.

The Beatles are in a league of their own. Just a ridiculous number of great songs. It always sort of annoys me when people bleat on about Beatles being overrated, I think in most cases those people just haven't heard enough Beatles. I mean there's such a versatility and depth to their catalog, there's surely something that appeals to you.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 9, 2012 22:57:33 GMT -5 Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill said:

Queen would not exist without the Beatles.

The Beatles wouldn't exist without Buddy Holly and The Crickets, doesn't make them better.

I'm voting Queen on this one, I just enjoy them more, Freddy's amazing, even when he was dying he was putting out amazing vocals.

Obviously The Beatles were more influential, but then they did have a decade long headstart. Queen were pretty influential too, popularising the music video etc.

[King Boo]

BEATLES.

Always and forever.

[Loki-A-Go-Go!]

I "might" even put the Rolling Stones above The Beatles.

[Yami Daimao]

Apr 10, 2012 5:36:26 GMT -5 Koda, Master Crunchyroller said:

Really, though, for the most part I actually would say the two bands are about equal, the big difference for me is that Mercury is, imo, the best f***ing front man to EVER grace rock 'n roll, and that is the reason I truly prefer Queen. His voice makes even their most WTF worthy lyrics sound like they came directly from heaven.

Yeah. "Bicycle Race" has to be one of the most generic and and possibly even lazy songs they've ever wrote, but my god it's so much FUN to listen and sing to. It's always good to dial back from serious, artsy songs to campy, fun songs every now and then, and Queen were terrific at both.

'80s Queen isn't bad, imo. The Game was a great album, and Freddie as a singer and performer, as well as the entire band as unit, were at their absolute peak during the early '80s. Aside from "Under Pressure", Hot Space wasn't that, well, hot (but like "Bicycle Race", "Body Language" is fun to sing along to). Freddie was indulging in that crazy lifestyle (gay clubs and drugs) during this time, and that album reflected that image. Even Brian strongly disliked it, and Roger HATED it. But the live versions of the Hot Space songs are fantastic, especially "Staying Power". The rest of the albums that followed weren't '70s Queen greatness, but they weren't horrible either. Admittedly, I prefer '70s Queen.

[The Ichi]

Beatles were a far more infuential and all around more talented band.

But I'll listen to a Queen song over a Beatles song anyday. Just my own taste.

[stinger]

Apr 9, 2012 17:21:40 GMT -5 Perd said:

The Beatles and it's not even close.