Current Events > Queen vs The Beatles

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't like neither but Bohemian Rhapsody is better than anything the Beatles did.

DirkDiggles posted...

I don't like neither

so youre a fan of both then

MICHALECOLE posted...

so youre a fan of both then

BAH!

Typo LOL

For me, Queen. Some say this is the greatest set by a band ever performed live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9pfbgpYDsk

This poll has gone the correct way.

Both are incredibly overrated. People who claim The Beatles paved the way for every other genre of music should really sit the fuck down and listen to literally any other band. Lennon got so pussy whipped he let Yokos dumbass ruin some of the would-be greatest collaborations. Imagine actually publishing that photo of him wrapped around her like a breastfeeding child.

I love both but Queen is just better, no cap tbh

LonelyStoner posted...

Both are incredibly overrated. People who claim The Beatles paved the way for every other genre of music should really sit the fuck down and listen to literally any other band. Lennon got so pussy whipped he let Yokos dumbass ruin some of the would-be greatest collaborations. Imagine actually publishing that photo of him wrapped around her like a breastfeeding child.

Im fourteen and this is deep

Controversial opinion: I would rather listen to paint dry than listen to anything the Beetles put out. And I say this as someone nearing his 40s. They might have been extremely influential to most bands out there, but their music wasn't anything mind blowing. Queen is so much better.

Okay so this is like one of those questions where technically Queen are better musicians in every way, but the Beatles are still better. Its not about technique or skill. Its about the whole.

Queen did opera-influenced stadium rock.and opera-influenced stadium rockand more opera-influenced stadium rock.

The Beatles however, swung wildly between classic rock, psychedelic, folk, sound collages, parody, odd conceptual things, the first ever speed metal song, etc. It got to the point where every song on an album could be argued was in a different genre entirely. They may not have been good musicians but they were amazing at a vast swath of content.

this is like how metal heads argue about metal. Yeah, Iron Maiden probably are better musicians than Metallica. But Iron Maiden also has played the same galloping triplets for 85 different songs. Metallica switched it up from thrash, to heavy blues, to acoustic, to having a full orchestra behind them, and all of them still good. If Metallica came out with an a cappella album, I wouldnt be shocked. Thats why they remained on top. They werent afraid to do something new. Did it always work? No. But they never stagnated.

beatles never stagnated. Queen did.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Im fourteen and this is deep

Its not deep. The band *was* revolutionary, but the drama from Yoko ruined my respect for Lennon and McCartney. That banshee shouldve been court ordered to stay away from the band. That naked Lennon/Yoko photo was so pathetic.

They always tell on themselves.

Queen by a mile.

Should I just discount the people in this topic who can't spell one of the two bands?

MICHALECOLE posted...

If you cant discuss a topic just keep scrolling.

Okay so lets break this down. You picked a bunch of queen songs that were all opera-inspired to prove that they didnt all do opera-inspired songs. Look I have the 3 disk best of queen set. I like all those songs. Theyre still all the same genre. That was my point.

Beatles switched it up.

and yes. Load and reload are good. They gave us fuel, where the wild things are, bleeding me, fixxxer, devils dance, I forgiven 2, until it sleeps, outlaw torn, the house Jack built, and to hell with it attitude is fun.

And you know what, you dont even have to like any of those songs. point was, Metallica has phases. They went basically punk (kill em all is 3 notes and speed), to slower metal (lightning), to inventing thrash (master), to basically prog metal (justice), to hard rock (black), to heavy blues (load/reliad), to an orchestra (S&M), to a purposely unpolished and disgusting sound (anger), to an acoustic album (helping hands), to basically a hybrid of every style in one (hardwired and 72 seasons). The only thing they havent done was a rap/rock hybrid in the 2000s. Or a techno-metal.

my point was that bands that keep changing have longevity. The mainstream, after 5 years, is sick of you. Doesnt matter how good you are, the mainstream moves on to the next thing. Those that regularly bring something new are the ones that get remembered by the mainstream as the best.

youre not seeing mainstream coverage of sengetsu by Iron Maiden. Youre not seeing of the newest Judas Priest album. Etc. Youre seeing mainstream coverage of Metallica doing an Elton John cover and people speculating if garage inc 2 is happening.

that and ace frehley because holy shit hes not dead and these songs are so much better than whatever kiss is doing right now with the avatar retirement thing. Its a perfect storm of people hating Paul and Gene and wanting the heart of the band to do well and that demos made from the 70-90s sound so fresh once again to modern music.

heck, I could throw kiss up as a band with longevity because they changed. They may be treated as a joke but theres a reason why they had the cruise, why they lasted so long, why they have people buying their merch forever and ever and ever. They went through very distinct eras. Original hybrid era (kinda rock, kinda jazz, kinda metal), to a disco hybrid, to an attempt to be prog, to more traditional metal at the time (creatures), to a hair metal band focused on ballads, to grunge, to acoustic, to the reunion tour of lies, to the nostalgia act. If kiss always sounded like 1973 kiss, theyd wouldnt have remained. Theyd have been a flash in the pan for 5 years and then dropped out after the elder and creatures initially bombed.

VRX3000 posted...

Okay so this is like one of those questions where technically Queen are better musicians in every way, but the Beatles are still better. Its not about technique or skill. Its about the whole.

Queen did opera-influenced stadium rock.and opera-influenced stadium rockand more opera-influenced stadium rock.

The Beatles however, swung wildly between classic rock, psychedelic, folk, sound collages, parody, odd conceptual things, the first ever speed metal song, etc. It got to the point where every song on an album could be argued was in a different genre entirely. They may not have been good musicians but they were amazing at a vast swath of content.

this is like how metal heads argue about metal. Yeah, Iron Maiden probably are better musicians than Metallica. But Iron Maiden also has played the same galloping triplets for 85 different songs. Metallica switched it up from thrash, to heavy blues, to acoustic, to having a full orchestra behind them, and all of them still good. If Metallica came out with an a cappella album, I wouldnt be shocked. Thats why they remained on top. They werent afraid to do something new. Did it always work? No. But they never stagnated.

beatles never stagnated. Queen did.

I would definitely not call anything the Beatles did as speed metal, Id actually argue that Queen may have the claim of first speed metal song with Stone Cold Crazy. I say this as someone ultimately on the Beatles side of this debate

VRX3000 posted...

Okay so lets break this down. You picked a bunch of queen songs that were all opera-inspired to prove that they didnt all do opera-inspired songs. Look I have the 3 disk best of queen set. I like all those songs. Theyre still all the same genre. That was my point.

Ill also say that dismissing songs like 39 or Another One Bites the Dust as opera-influenced is pretty silly, Queen was definitely unafraid to experiment, those songs alone have more influences of folk and funk/disco than any kind of stadium rock. They may not have a clean linear genre progression like The Beatles but to act as if they never changed their sound is a little absurd

Tenement Funster/Flick of the Wrist/Lily of the Valley > any Beatles song

I guess Queen but other than a couple songs from them Ive never really been a fan of either. Couldnt even name a Beatles song.

Both have good songs i cant decide

Beatles, and not even close. Individually, they were all better than Queen as well. Well, except for Ringo. He was good solo, but not on the level.

The one thing on my bucket list I'll never be able to fullfill is going to a Queen concert with Freddy still alive. So yeah, Queen by a mile

Beatles are fine, but if I'm flipping through songs, a Queen track is more likely to make stop and say "hell yeah" more than a Beatles one.

Just to be clear, you mean music-wise? Not to the death or anything, right?

They both ruled their respective eras.

Stone cold crazy is one of the speed metal songs in contention. I think helter skelter came before it though.

Hayame_Zero posted...

Beatles are fine, but if I'm flipping through songs, a Queen track is more likely to make stop and say "hell yeah" more than a Beatles one.

Shit.

I love Queen but Ill generally only listen to a couple of songs before moving on to somethjng else.

When I start listening to a Beatles song that album will play to completion.

Queen. The Beatles is the most overrated band of all time and I basically consider them a pop act.

VRX3000 posted...

Stone cold crazy is one of the speed metal songs in contention. I think helter skelter came before it though.

I absolutely love Helter Skelter but I feel like speed metal is really pushing it

Well The Beatles are my favorite band so yeah, easy pick.

Queen is great though of course, especially the 70s stuff. Too bad we never got that Queen/Paul McCartney song Paul wrote. Probably would've been great.

PraetorXyn posted...

Queen. The Beatles is the most overrated band of all time and I basically consider them a pop act.

Thanks for letting us know you know nothing.

While my favourite Queen songs top my favourite Beatles songs(Gimme The Prize, Mustapha, and The Show Must Go On vs I Want You(She's So Heavy), Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite, and Tomorrow Never Knows), I picked The Beatles as being more important to the development of modern music.

Sheiky-Baby posted...

Thanks for letting us know you know nothing.

soo you dont believe in people having a different opinion than you

leonkr41138 posted...

soo you dont believe in people having a different opinion than you

Thats a pretty unsupportable opinion. Indicative of someone who knows nothing about what theyre saying.

In terms of total minutes of awesome: Beatles.