Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles
The Top Ten
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.
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.
But when all say that a girl is more pretty than another than it is true.
True my friends and I love singing along to Bohemian Rhapsody. "the best song ever." RIGHT!
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.
Re the first comment ... true but you don't need a great voice to be highly successful & let's be honest, The Beatles continue to be highly successful in the music industry.
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.
Freddie's voice was much much better, it is not a question!
There is no comparison. Freddie was a real talent, amazing singer, amazing voice, he was the greatest. There will never be another Freddie.
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.
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.
I voted for this just so I could say that IT DEFINITELY IS NOT
That's not true, but their music always sounded the same Queen was different
Really? I don't even know who The Beatles is
The beatles didn't do any other genres, but queen did. and when they did a different type of music they rocked it.
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
Listen to Hey Jude, Let It Be, and Come Together, and then listen to Deliah, Body Language, and Cool Cat, and tell me Queen has more iconic songs.
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
Compare the sales of the Beatles in 1967 to the sales of Queen in 1977. This argument is silly the majority of Queen fans today are under the age of 18, and it's the only rock band they've ever listened to. It's ridiculous to say Queen is better just because they have more mindless children who have never heard anything else before.
Nice try, but Queen comes not even close. A complete crap argument.
For anyone saying Beatles are more iconic: when was the last time a Beatles song was played at a sports match, in anywhere other than a 60s festival, concert etc, or even in a classroom?
In my house, on the radio, in my school classroom (my teacher plays it), I've heard it in advertisements, random YouTube videos I find, movies (like Boss Baby and Sing), in my head, in the car, at the grocery store, etc.
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.
The beatles stopped because they couldn't handle screaming fangirls. Queen stopped touring because freddie got aids. Which is more legit you tell me
No doubt Queen is the best live band ever - confirmed by many polls and artists.
Beatles are amazing as good as queen but queen are a better live band
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.
Beatles better live band? Ha-ha. They toured a year or two I think.
Brian May is the best guitarist ever
Eric Clapton isn't a bad guitarist.
They are influenced of course. Even Brian said it plain. But that doesn't mean that Beatles are better. The student surpassed the teacher. - ilper
Eric Clapton ain't a beatle
George is just an amateur. Very far from Brian who can play anything. - ilper
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?
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.
Freddie's piano ballads are GORGEOUS! This is not to say Paul is bad though -! And LOVE Brian
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.
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.
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.
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.
Queen changed their style as well though, but it did sound good. Later Beatles songs weren’t bad either though.
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?
You can also say exaggerated and too theatrical. A matter of personal taste.
Hear yesterday, and let it be then try again
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.
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.
Ringo Starr is a great drummer, but, Roger Taylor is the best drummer ever. Sorry, Ringo.
Ringo always drummed in a similar fashion. Roger was versatile
While yes, Ringo didn't have the best singing voice, where he shined is that he almost never missed a beat at all.
The Beatles backing vocals are so much better than Queen's.
You should listen to Because, for example.
No that's where they're right TheCuteBeatle- they had Love of my Life, Save Me, You Take My Breath Away
So, what you're saying is Queen has more meaningful songs than a song written about a dream Paul had where his mother, who died when he was 14, told him to just let it be? You're saying that Queen has more meaningful songs then a song John wrote for his mother who he hadn't know almost all his life, met again when he was a teenager, taught him banjo and ukelele, and was killed when he 17 by the car of an off-duty policeman? You're saying that Queen has more meaningful songs then Let it Be and Julia? That's where you're wrong. - TheCuteBeatle
Whats the difference? They both have really good songs, and they’re both amazing.
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.
What's wrong with it?
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
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.
Oh that’s 100% true
They have WAY MORE cassette tapes and CDs than Beatles’ vinyl records
Not true, and now we have streaming and other digital stuff. What's the point?
The Beatles have 12 queen has 15
So you are saying quantity is more important than quality?
Hell yeah! Freddie was like Mozart when he wrote that 😂
As better as a top 5 guitarist can be compared to an amateur paying rhythm.
The Beatles made far more complex music than Queen. You are misled by the technique modern studio's of the seventies.
Absolutely ludicrous. In fact Queen learned from Beatles and took 100 times more complex from the point where Beatles stopped. - ilper
There's no comparison. At all.
Complete crap, McCartney is the master of the ballad and John and George were great too.
Love of my life as example
They both had extremely good ballads, to be honest idek why people r fighting over which is “better” both bands have extremely good songs among decent ones. although freddie might have a better voice john was the leader of a band in the 60s that changed music. who cares who is “better” to be honest they r both amazing bands