Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles

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

McCartney's voice was fuller, and much more versatile, and his range was tremendous. Freddie had good range, but was thin, and pretty much a one-trick pony.

Vocals, Freddie > Paul
Instrumental talent, Paul > Freddie. He can play guitar, bass, vocal, drum, keyboard.

But I like both these bands. - zxm

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.

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.

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.

Incorrect.

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.