Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Queen vs. Beatles

forum rss feed
Author

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 188 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 13:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

An aimless/frivolous comparison. Nevertheless.

I've been a huge Queen fan for as long as I can remember. I certainly do, though, recognise the matchless genius of the Beatles. So this is something about which my friends and I spend much time arguing: how do the Beatles and Queen compare? Admittedly even I, the biggest Queen fan of the group, sometimes get so mesmerised by the Beatles that I neglect Queen for a while (*deep guilt*).

In which individual respects then can one say, in at least a somewhat-objective way, that Queen was better than the Beatles? E.g.:

* Freddie's unsurpassed vocal abilities and better piano ability than Lennon/McCartney

* Roger: better vocals than some, better drumming than Ringo

* Brian: superior technical ability on guitar...

* John: better bassist/composer of basslines (?)

* Queen a superior live act

More?

(P.S. I'm not saying that Queen was a "better" band than the Beatles!)


Trots om 'n Suid-Afrikaner te wees!
QueenTaylor user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3881 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 13:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yes, I would have to say that Queen-better performers than the Beatles and Freddie is a better singer, but for their time, The Beatles were ana awesome 60's band!! :) Queen is still wayy better though, in my opinion!!


"May you all have champagne for breakfast." (: http://theroyalqueenspad.queenzone.com/
jazzy mercurois user not visiting Queenzone.com
Holy shred!
jazzy mercurois
Royalty: 1716 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 13:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BEATLES


CONLACANTINACONLACANTORACONLATELEVISIONGASTADORA
brian-harold-may 26643 user not visiting Queenzone.com
brian-harold-may 26643
Bohemian: 349 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 13:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=aqua>Peaches<h6>rawr wrote:

*

* Queen is OBVIOUSLY more talented



not sure about the obviously. Although i do think Queen where, it isn't obvious.

FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 13:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=aqua>Peaches<h6>rawr wrote:


* Because of the different time periods of both bands, Queen became more popular (I guess...)


:)


I'm sorry????
Queen was more popular than the Beatles?

NO WAY!!




"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
Treasure Moment user not visiting Queenzone.com
Treasure Moment
Deity: 3413 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 14:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen is about million times better and more talented than the beatles

they cant compare


Freddie Mercury is God

TREASURE MOMENT: Continuing QUEENs footsteps

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=42215463

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 14:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

For one thing.... one can compare individual members of both groups and yet still not have a clear idea of which they perceive to be the better band. I instinctively revert to the Beatles even though you could (with a straight face) say that each of the members of Queen probably outmatched their Beatles counterparts...

But, this is a discussion of the groups, no? Things just... change, when different people are brought together. It takes on a life of its own, becomes a new and interesting thing. Queen would've been a fantastic band without John Deacon, but would they have made it?? Who the hell knows...

One also has to understand, in any topic about the Beatles, is that there will be a strong bias!! The Beatles were to music marketing what Star Wars was to movie marketing, really... they had Beatles CHIA PETS for fucks sake.
For better or worse, a few generations of human beings will always gravitate towards this mythical Beatles thing.... in my opinion it's no bad thing because they happened to be an awesome thing, as a group and in their own right as individuals.

You can pretty much dismiss anyone who wanders into a topic saying "the Beatles were overrated" because, while they might be right, they're clearly not giving the catalogue a chance if they can't find *one* good song in there.

I am really tired and supposed to be doing homework, I don't even know why I'm posting this.

Errr.... Queen. Beatles. Love 'em. Ringo is so under appreciated, he's awesome on Oh Darlin'.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Oberon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 499 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 14:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Very difficult. As a group of musicians, I think Queen had more collective talent, but the prolific nature of Lennon and McCartney is significant.

I think the fact that the Beatles obviously influenced all who followed them (and some contemporaries as well), it's difficult to compare effectively. One can compare bands like Blur and Oasis or Motley Crue and G'N'R much easier.

But, one point I think is significant is how the bands developed. Queen started writing complex material very early on in their musical lives (or so it seems to me) while the Beatles' early material was much simpler for many albums, including many covers.

Now, people may cite the improved technology, but I wouldn't have thought Queen had such access until they got the run of De Lane Lee studios, and they had most of the first album ready by then didn't they?

So I would say that the Beatles (and Lennon/McCartney in particular) really developed their skills over time until they reached Revolver, Pepper, White Album and Abbey Road era, while Queen started very strong in all senses, and actually simplified their material to become more mainstream pop later on.

So in summary, I think Queen had a more natural and complex song writing style early on, whereas the Beatles developed that over time, but The Beatles will always be considered the "best" and most influencial group ever. The amount of material they produced within the 10 years they were a group and the success of their output places them above Queen, but I find Queen material of higher quality over all, which is why they are my favourite band.

But that's just me....


Tatterdemalion and the junketer

There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
Oberon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 499 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 14:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote:

It's apples and oranges. The Beatles came first and paved the way for all future bands, including Queen, and the styles of music are different of course. However it's true that Freddie is the far superior vocalist. As for Roger v. Ringo well...everyone surpasses Ringo.


Even the rest of the Beatles according to Paul ... ;-)


Tatterdemalion and the junketer

There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

comparing individual musicians is a silly game and proves nothing. The collective total of the Beatles music has become a part of the worlds culture, so it has historical value also.
I am a much bigger Beatles fan than Queen, though both bands have staying power. The Beatles have proven that, Queen are now doing the same.
Comparing bands is kinda pointless, like saying corn flakes are better than coco pops. All in what you like.

The Fairy King user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Fairy King
Deity: 8686 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:



Brian and Paul would have a philosophical discussion about getting old - and about what kind of socks are best.
.


And about getting some whoopass from their wifes...


Killed by drones.
Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Beatles existed in a totally different world also when they got away more singles airplay than Queen early in their career, then way more AOR airplay later in their career. The Beatles released 34 singles in the UK from May '62 until June '70. That's staggering! Then when they became an album band, virtually everything would be played. So Queen's music is virtually unknown compared to The Beatles in terms of volume.

To be random, as a point of reference from someone who knows a little about Queen's career in North America, songs like White Queen, Long Away, All Dead, All Dead, Nevermore, You and I, Leroy Brown, and Good Company would mean nothing to the average music fan over here. Those songs, plus scores others, are fantastic songs. But they didn't (don't) get airplay to the extent that average Beatles songs like Michelle, Drive my car, or Girl for example did.

So, Queen will never be The Beatles in terms of popularity of the voulme of their works. IMHO, Queen's early catalogue is the equal of The Beatles best stuff, and their later stuff had a lot of great songs also.


You know, good times are now.
smileexpert user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 138 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm going to have to side with the Beatles as the 'more important' band...which may raise a few eyebrows...

The Beatles WERE the benchmark for Queen - Queen simply learned from them...then took the ball and ran with it.

Queen had the longevity that the Beatles didn't have - in my view this was a circumstance of success -- the Beatles enjoyed AMAZING success in the span of 6 or 7 years which perhaps led to their breakup -- they became too big for themselves - and competition became too fierce within the band.

Queen were reported to have some major fights etc. etc. between themselves - but they knew that it was better to stick together then split apart - nomatter WHAT. Yes - there were some solo projects, but they never broke up - To quote Roger Taylor "We could always come back to Queen - sort of like 'coming back to Mother'.

What amazes me about the Beatles was that their entire career and chart success and touring success etc. etc. etc. happened before either of the band members turned 30. (I think Lennon was 29 in 1970). What can you compare THAT to ??



maxpower user not visiting Queenzone.com
maxpower
Bohemian: 477 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

to say john is a better bass player than macca - i have to disagree (listen to something, old brown shoe) & whoever said queen have better lyrical composition - again i have to diasgree & whoever said "queen have more collective talent" - i have to disagree & whoever said "But, one point I think is significant is how the bands developed. Queen started writing complex material very early on in their musical lives (or so it seems to me) while the Beatles' early material was much simpler for many albums, including many covers." again i disagree - i can back this up if needed

Gratzi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 594 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I only wish Queen were as successful in the States as The Beatles... :(


'Known for the hugeness of my gong' - Roger
Vincent. user not visiting Queenzone.com
What?
Vincent.
Deity: 2553 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As much as I love Queen. The Beatles kick their asses. :P

Vincent. user not visiting Queenzone.com
What?
Vincent.
Deity: 2553 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Gratzi wrote:

I only wish Queen were as successful in the States as The Beatles... :(


I agree. The Beatles were...HUGE. Everywhere. Queen wasn't. ;_; Though they were very popular, they didn't have half as big of an impact as the Beatles. :(

~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 188 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 15:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thanks for the replies.

(As a reminder: yes, I know this is a frivolous comparison).

(As Zebonka said): the sum of individual talents in Queen far eclipses that of the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles' members were good at this and at that, innovative, etc. but as individual musicians none of them were outstanding (except perhaps Lennon). However...this alone certainly doesn't mean that Queen > Beatles.

Queen's music more complex...yes. As to the quality of the music...not sure...I think the likes of "Octopus' Garden", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "In My Life", "Here Comes the Sun" and a few others, are sheer aural gratification. Perfection. Queen has a few such songs (I like to think that "'39" is one of them!) but not as many as the Beatles. To my taste anyway.

However, I find that most of the Beatles' "throwaway" songs are extremely overrated, while many of Queen's lesser-known songs are severely underrated!




Trots om 'n Suid-Afrikaner te wees!
user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 16:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You can't really objectively measure something that's completely subjective.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 188 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jun 07, 16:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Of course not. Though certain aspects, as I said, could be compared with a somewhat-objective approach. E.g. Brian May's ability on the guitar. Freddie Mercury's vocal range, vocal control. And then other aspects which are somewhat more subjective but generally agreed upon (quality of live performance etc.)


Trots om 'n Suid-Afrikaner te wees!