Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles

I love both Queen and The Beatles. Don't make me choose! I don't know whether to disagree or not! I'm dying right here! HELP ME! - Misfire

True my friends and I love singing along to Bohemian Rhapsody. "the best song ever." RIGHT!

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.

Last time I heard so is Hey Jude and A Day in The Life, heck even Come Together. - Stalin

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.

There is no comparison. Freddie was a real talent, amazing singer, amazing voice, he was the greatest. There will never be another Freddie.

Fact. Paul McCartney or John Lennon are not in the same team with Freddie in singing skills.

Yes, obviously. And Freddie is a better songwriter and better musician.

I voted for this just so I could say that IT DEFINITELY IS NOT

Hey Jude is a good song, but very repetitive at the end. - Userguy44

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.

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.

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. - TheCuteBeatle

I-- I... I can't... can't choose... - Misfire

Nice try, but Queen comes not even close. A complete crap argument. - SintJohn

Agree. Like, I only know Eleanor Rigby and Golden Slumber as the Beatles songs. Peace!

The beatles didn't do any other genres, but queen did. and when they did a different type of music they rocked it.

What a poor argument! In my opinion Queen and Mercury are getting overrated these days. Some people even believe Mercury is the greatest singer that ever lived. Singers like Callas, Pavarotti or Caruso are way way way better singers. And in rock I can mention Orbison and Arethe Franklin. - SintJohn

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

Eric Clapton isn't a bad guitarist. - Userguy44

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.

George is an underrated guitarist. Nowadays more and more people realize he was pretty good. Not in the same league as Jeff Beck for example. But Brian May is also not in that league.

For me the way George played his 12 string Rickenbacker on the Hard Day's Night album is a moment in rock. It inspired the Byrds to play Dylan in Beatles style and the triangle Dylan-Byrds-Beatles propelled the folk rock scene. Being inventive and creative is more important than being just technical. And for that George is a great guitarist. - SintJohn

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. - SintJohn

Beatles stopped going live so they could experiment more, and this was the era when the Beatles arguably had the best music. - Stalin

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

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. - SintJohn

Paul mastered a lot of instruments though, not a real valid argument - magnolai-ia

Freddie's piano ballads are GORGEOUS! This is not to say Paul is bad though -! And LOVE Brian

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

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. - SintJohn

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.

Whats the difference? They both have really good songs, and they’re both amazing.

What's wrong with it? - Misfire

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. - SintJohn

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 - magnolai-ia

Bad reason - Userguy44

You can also say exaggerated and too theatrical. A matter of personal taste. - SintJohn

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 - magnolai-ia

That is very true

Not true, and now we have streaming and other digital stuff. What's the point? - SintJohn

Incorrect.

The Beatles have 12 queen has 15

Hell yeah! Freddie was like Mozart when he wrote that 😂

The Beatles made far more complex music than Queen. You are misled by the technique modern studio's of the seventies. - SintJohn

There's no comparison. At all.

True

Oh that’s 100% true

While The Beatles have an entire station. this argument is invalid. - Stalin

Complete crap, McCartney is the master of the ballad and John and George were great too. - SintJohn

Love of my life as example - Userguy44

Hahaaaha. Not.

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 - magnolai-ia

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

COOL

Oh yeah!

True

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

They were both good, in different ways perhaps but both were extremely good bassists - magnolai-ia

Paul and John Entwistle are the top bass players. Including their basslines. - SintJohn

Another one bites the dust!

Deacon was better. - Userguy44