Top Ten Reasons Why Queen is Better Than the Beatles

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.

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

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.

This is not a song but only big production. And it's not the best Queen song either. As Queen has knicked a few things for this song from the Beatles this so called argument backfires on you. - SintJohn

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 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. - SintJohn

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

I'm not a fan of both groups, I have always knew many queen songs even if I didn't know who they were, but on the other side I always knew who the Beatles were but never knew one of their songs.

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

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.

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.

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

A matter of personal taste, still Mercury nicked something from Hey Jude he used for Bohemian.
When Paul sings 'better better better better better ooohhh'
Mercury took it and sings 'to me to me to meee'

And when you listen to Abbey Road B-side you hear other things they knicked from the Beatles.

Bad argument - SintJohn

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

No doubt he was, but Ringo is a 100 times nicer guy and still a good drummer. He was exactely what the Beatles needed. - SintJohn

True! - Userguy44

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

Incorrect.

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

Bad reason - Userguy44

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

Another one bites the dust!

Deacon was better. - Userguy44