Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles

"Many" who are Queen fans, but not by "Most".

yes it is

Freddie's voice was much much better, it is not a question!

If one listen to the voice of Freddie Mercury then one will realise that it is a natural voice of a real singer. In my opinion there is no replacement to Queen. It is the best

Wear your hearing aid. Freddie Mercury's voice was much fuller and more versatile than Paul's and had a better range. Paul McCartney's voice is high-pitched and THIN!

Paul is better it is a fact - Stardum

My PERSONAL opinion, Let It be is better than Bohemian Rhapsody. Of course there are other good songs of Queen. But Bohemian Rhapsody's not on top 5. - zxm

But not better than In My Life, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, A Day in the Life, or Yesterday.

Bohemian Rhapsody is much better than anyi song from the Beatles. It's a fact.

Bo Rhap is much better than any Beatles song. No doubt.

They definitely do have more iconic songs. Fact is if bohemian rhapsody comes on at a concert or anywhere everyone will be singing no matter what generation they were born into. Queen will withstand the test of time. The beetles were just kept alive by the sales they made in America which had a large teen population at the time because of he baby boom. They were lucky they had a lot of teens to buy their records which is why they hold the record for most records sold

Not even close. Would bet the rent
there are far more folks alive today familiar with far more Beatles songs and covers than are with Queen.

Saying a band is overrated is a awful reason, I'm not the biggest Beatles fan either but come on better reasoning then this would be appreciated. - BoredJeff02

This is true, not many can play like "God" [aka Clapton]; only a fool would think otherwise. Brian May could only wish to be able to play like George Harrison, much less Eric Clapton. You weren't actually thinking of comparing John Deacon with Paul McCartney on bass were you?

"Brian May could only wish...? " Are you serious? George, God rest him, was the most rudimentary of lead guitarists. There is NO comparison here. And Clapton has ALWAYS been overrated.

Okay, well you shouldn't make that assumption unless you really have heard at least half of their songs. What about Somebody to Love, a raw, heartbreaking ballad loved by so many? The Prophet's Song, a powerful, melodic and complex epic that gives Led Zep's best a run for its money? Scandal, a catchy yet sardonic song that actually does tackle a social issue- press harassment? 39, a gorgeous folk song about relativity? And finally, Bohemian Rhapsody itself, which despite having BECOME a drunken singalong, is SO innovative, original, and emotional?

The reality is that all of Queen's music has proven to be nothing but football stadium crowd hype or drunken singalongs, while the Beatles addressed a wide variety of societal, political, and personal issues, in a way that had not been done before or since.
The Beatles were so great, that some of George's songs that were rejected by Paul and John were still better than anything Queen ever did. George's "Northern Songs" catalogue alone is far superior to Queen's catalogue.

No way, George was for sure better and Paul was too.

Beatles are amazing as good as queen but queen are a better live band

There's no comparison. At all.

That is very true