Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles
yes, the beatles were good in their time, but I would much rather listen to bohemian rhapsody than something like I want to hold your hand.
Every person has his own greatest song. To proclaim a song is the greatest is as stupid as saying a certain girl is the most beautiful girl in the world.
For me, this is not even the best song of Queen and for Bohemian they nicked a few things for the Beatles.
This is a total invalid argument.
I agree Bohemian Rhapsody is the Greatest Song Ever that Queen made and its as good as Revolution 9 by The Beatles, but that's also the closes it gonna get.
Freddie was such an allround maestro - singer, songwriter, piano player, played the guitar & so forth & so on PLUS he was the greatest rock performer AND he wrote this MAGNIFICENT song, as well as many other songs.
I hope you people at least recognize that John Lennon sang more prominently as lead vocalist at her than Paul McCartney. That being said, Freddie could'nthold his own against either of them. Like many enlightened people have said before me, his voice was meant for Broadway.
Paul has had a wider range than Freddie and has mastered more styles. He is a greater balladeer and rocksinger than Mercury. Mercury has more vibretto and can handle some opera (though not a great opera singer).
Then McCartney is a far better songwriter and he is a far better musician too.
Freddie has a better voice than John, Paul, George and Ringo put together! He's a better musician and a better songwriter. The Beatles were good when they were all together but their individual music was mediocre when they split up.
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!
No one said Hey Jude is the best Beatles song. That list is cringeworthy. Arguments like "They had less albums". Haha. Queen didn't have such good album as Revolver, Abbey Road, White Album, Sgt Pepper. Beatles were far better lyricsts, songwriters, they had better solo careers.
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.
Oh my goodness, Bohemian Rhapsody is FAR SUPERIOR to Hey Jude... NO CONTEST! It's one of the greatest, if not the greatest, song of all time. Hey Jude just rambles on and on ad nauseam ad infinitum.
No comparison whatsoever. Hey Jude is the MOST BORING song ever. It goes on and on ad nauseam ad infinitum whereas Bohemian Rhapsody is the ultimate creme de la creme of songs.
If someone tries to tell me beatles have more iconic songs than queen they are the definition of stupid. No one listens to the beatles anymore they are just a rock band that was good for the time but bands like queen, led zeppelin and more still have a timeless discography. And also I hate beatles fans because they get all defensive when somone gives a good argunent why they aren't the best. I get that they changed music but they aren't amazing anymore. People are finally realising the hard truth that Queen is better than the beatles
What the heck are you all talking about, I can name more Beatles songs that are iconic than queen songs altogether. I'll give 30 right now
She Loves You, I Want To Hold your Hand, Love Me Do, Can't Buy Me Love, A Hard Days Night, I feel fine, eight days a week, ticket to ride, Help, yesterday, we Can Work It Out, paperback Writer, penny Lane, All You Need is love, hello goodbye, hey Jude, get Back, don't let me down, come Together, something, let It Be, for You Blue, Long and Winding road, tomorrow Never Knows, a Day In the life, Revolution, helter Skelter, the end, real love, here Comes the sun, I've Just Seen a Face, I am the walrus, with a Little Help From My friends. The first 20 were all number 1 hits, Queen is great but how many number 1's do they have, 2.
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
Ummm... if we count the iconic songs, it's actually about even between both bands. If we count the non iconic songs, Queen only have about three or four that are actually good songs, while The Beatles didn't make a single song that was bad.
Wings was NEVER a better live band than Queen. That's absolutely ridiculous. Wings was a very mediocre band at best. The Beatles were much better than Wings all round but Queen remains the best live rock band - both generally and at Live Aid.
And during the seventies Wings was a better live band than Queen. Queen made name and fame during the mid eighties. But comparing concerts of the eighties with concerts of the sixties is comparing concerts of the sixties with the forties.
The beatles stopped because they couldn't handle screaming fangirls. Queen stopped touring because freddie got aids. Which is more legit you tell me
Beatles stopped going live so they could experiment more, and this was the era when the Beatles arguably had the best music.
Freddie was a better piano player, though Paul can play classical piano. But Paul masters also at least another 12 instruments which make him the far better musician than Mercury.
George is a better guitarist than Brian. You only have to ask Brian himself, he is actually a great fan of George.
No way, George was for sure better and Paul was too.
Paul mastered a lot of instruments though, not a real valid argument
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the best album ever, Rolling Stone's magazine is the proof.
Also let's not forget Rubber Soul, Beatles For Sale, Help, A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine, White Album, Let It Be, Magical Mystery Tour, Revolver and Abbey Road (and I'm leaving some).
The Beatles stayed amazing until the very end, unlike Queen who went downhill after their Jazz album and made songs like radio ga ga.
This list is so dumb already, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen all day. Every single album The Beatles made was good at the very least, while Queen only has a couple of good albums.
The Night at the opera is the best album ever. Than comes Wish you were here of Floyd, Queen II, Physical Graffity, Innuendo, Dark side of the moon and then some Beatles.
"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.
Eric Clapton isn't a bad guitarist.
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 Beatles ended when John and Paul's relationship ended. Their respective songs were NEVER as good as the songs on which they collaborated, and don't try to tell me they were. I used to be a "Beatlemaniac" back in the day but I think I played their music too much and rarely listen to it now. On the other hand, I listen to Queen's music quite often. It's theatrical and sophisticated rock. Furthermore, the vocal and instrumental expertise of Queen is far superior to that of The Beatles.
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.
Another completely stupid argument. During the second part of their career The Beatles released classic albums like Revolver, Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road. And these albums are constantly at the highest ranks of the all time greatest albums lists. Queen comes not even near.
And Queen was not constantly great, remember crap like Hot Space.
True, Ringo wasn't the best singer.
But I suggest that you listen to Rain, Come Together, Lady Madonna and Paperback Writer before saying Roger Taylor is a better drummer than him.
Also I suppose you don't know that when The Beatles where playing live, Ringo couldn't hear the music and the singing because of the screaming girls so he had to watch John's movement's to know which part to play and he almost never missed a beat, like SintJohn said.
While yes, Ringo didn't have the best singing voice, where he shined is that he almost never missed a beat at all.
No doubt he was, but Ringo is a 100 times nicer guy and still a good drummer. He was exactely what the Beatles needed.
Ringo Starr is a great drummer, but, Roger Taylor is the best drummer ever. Sorry, Ringo.
You can also say exaggerated and too theatrical. A matter of personal taste.
In some cases yes, but it can also be rlly good to not always have too much emotion, it can come over as dramatic both bands have emotional songs
That is very true
As the music of Queen was much more complex the rhythm was also much more sophisticated. Roger Taylor used the percussion in a fantastic way to emphasize the different parts in the songs and their connection. His drums were not just used to hold the beat but I have the feeling on many songs that he weaves the fabric all together with the rest instruments. Almost sounding like melodic instrument and not rhythm.
The Beatles backing vocals are so much better than Queen's.
You should listen to Because, for example.
YES. Roger's background vocals are amazing in somebody to love
Whats the difference? They both have really good songs, and they're both amazing.
Oh that's 100% true
Another crap argument. But it shows how great The Beatles were. They had so much output of such high quality in just seven years time. And with each album they set new standards. This fact alone makes clear The Beatles are the greatest rock band in history.
Mmm not completely tru, they both have A LOT of songs, now I love queen AND the beatles, for life's sake, I grew up with both and they both have a lot of songs
What's wrong with too many good songs?
What's wrong with it?
Obviously whoever votes for this was never around in the days of Beatlemania. The Beatles didn't need to get a crowd going... the crowds were always WILD, to put it mildly. Girls and boys fainting. The whole scene was never before seen, nor has anything ever been seen like that since. I adore Queen but comparing their fans' fanaticism to Beatlemaniacs is like comparing a hill to a ginormous volcano.
Not true, and now we have streaming and other digital stuff. What's the point?
So you are saying quantity is more important than quality?
Complete crap, McCartney is the master of the ballad and John and George were great too.
I don't know, Love of My Life is awesome, but Yesterday, Let It Be and Julia are on the same tier.
The Beatles made far more complex music than Queen. You are misled by the technique modern studio's of the seventies.
As better as a top 5 guitarist can be compared to an amateur paying rhythm.
There's no comparison. At all.
In fact Queen is the band that made much more world known (to almost everyone) songs that the next 5 artists together.
That literally has nothing to do with either of the bands talent. Only the fans can determine wether or not a song is familiar to them
No doubt about this