QUEEN VS THE BEATLES

[God_of_Luck]

Found this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/

It's disturbing there is not an album of Queen.

[Don Beegles]

I agree that is distrbing. Queen really needs somebody to love them.

EDIT: JUst to clarify, I do, in fact, love Queen. I just hadto make that reference, adn I hope you understand.

[God_of_Luck]

I'm going to start WW III.

Queen Vs The Beatles.

My vote is for Queen.

[EloquentRune]

I second that vote

Queen is amazing

[The Demented One]

I believe Queen wins for no reason other than Bohemian Rhapsody.

[EloquentRune]

Not to mention doing the Highlander soundtrack for the movie

ever song in the origional movie was Queen

[Gorbash Kazdar]

I love Queen. But the Beatles are in a whole other league.

[Vaynor]

THE BEATLES CONQUER ALL

[Beleriphon]

Well, The Beatles have 8 out of the top 100 albums, and the number 1 spot.

I'm also shocked that Queen isn't listed in the top 100, given that A Day at the Races and A Night at the Opera are just terrrific rock opera style albums.

I will say that I'm glad to see Dark Side of the Moon on there at number 43 and The Wall at 87.

If you keep going A Night at the Opera comes in at 230, so they do have one entry out of 500.

[McBish]

The beatles kick queens arse.

[Jarl]

The Beatles win this battle, but it truly is reprehensible there's no Queen on that list.

-Ah, Rolling Stone, flamebait incarnate.

[Silly_Bean]

Queen are sooooooo much better than the Beatles.

[Jarl]

Queen are sooooooo much better than the Beatles.
In Bizarro world, maybe.

-They're good, don't get me wrong, but they just aren't as good as the Beatles.

[JellyPooga]

Have you ever actually listened to the Beatles? Really listened? I bet you haven't. They are nowhere near the same league as Queen. Queen are just...well better...Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles, I think they're a good band. But no more. I don't rate them as being all that good and the only reason other people think they're amazing is because they're told that they are. Queen, on the other hand, are actually a good band with original songs and a variety of styles.

Oh, Queen also have one other thing going for them - Freddie Mercury. Arguably one of the most powerful voices in popular music in the past 40 years.

[bosssmiley]

Found this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/

It's disturbing there is not an album of Queen.

Voted for and compiled by pseudy music snobs for the benefit of other pseuds. The keynote of that entire poll is a sneery: "I only liked their early stuff." ::)

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Have you ever actually listened to the Beatles? Really listened? I bet you haven't. They are nowhere near the same league as Queen. Queen are just...well better...Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles, I think they're a good band. But no more. I don't rate them as being all that good and the only reason other people think they're amazing is because they're told that they are. Queen, on the other hand, are actually a good band with original songs and a variety of styles.
Here's the thing - which band influenced the other, and which band influenced nearly every rock and roll band that has made music since they did (not to mention other music styles)?

The Beatles have numerous unique and original songs, and explored many different styles - in fact, they were often the first band to even use certain staples of modern genres (such as intentional feedback from a guitar). I can understand not being a Beatles fan, but one shouldn't deny their influence on music and that they often pioneered new concepts. The Beatles don't sound like everyone else - everyone else is trying to sound like the Beatles.

Now, I'm not knocking Queen. Queen certainly does have many excellent and original songs, and weren't afraid to experiment. And Freddy Mercury was certainly one of the greatest singers to grace rock and roll. But for longevity, overall success, consistency, quality, innovation, range, and influence on other artists, the Beatles occupy a position that only a handful of bands in all of rock and roll history have ever attained (the Rolling Stones being the only other band I can think of that qualifies with essentially no argument).

[Don Beegles]

I admit, I'm not particularly familiar with the Beatles, and so I say right up front that I have a bias, but in my opinion, QUeen is definitely one of the best bands I've ever heard. I have the Greatest HIts, adn there is not one song on those CDs that I odn't like. ANd that's not only because it's teh greatest hits CD, because I love BIlly JOel as well, and there are several there that I'm not a fan of. Given my limited knowledge of te Beatles, they're good, but not as good as QUeen.

[JellyPooga]

Here's the thing - which band influenced the other, and which band influenced nearly every rock and roll band that has made music since they did (not to mention other music styles)?

The Beatles have numerous unique and original songs, and explored many different styles - in fact, they were often the first band to even use certain staples of modern genres (such as intentional feedback from a guitar). I can understand not being a Beatles fan, but one shouldn't deny their influence on music and that they often pioneered new concepts. The Beatles don't sound like everyone else - everyone else is trying to sound like the Beatles.

Now, I'm not knocking Queen. Queen certainly does have many excellent and original songs, and weren't afraid to experiment. And Freddy Mercury was certainly one of the greatest singers to grace rock and roll. But for longevity, overall success, consistency, quality, innovation, range, and influence on other artists, the Beatles occupy a position that only a handful of bands in all of rock and roll history have ever attained (the Rolling Stones being the only other band I can think of that qualifies with essentially no argument).

So your argument for the Beatles being better is that they came before Queen...

No, I totally agree that the Beatles have their place in Rock and Roll history and deserve credit for their achievments, but as good as a club is, it's not better than a sword because the sword came after and was developed from it. Both have merit, but the sword is clearly better. Now I'm not saying that the Beatles are as crappy as a club and Queen are a sword in comparison (it's more like Beatles=Navy Colt, Queen=Desert Eagle), but the metaphor stands.

[kriklaf]

...I'm home!

Seriously, I had no idea that there were so many Queen fans on the boards. Queen is my all-time favorite band.

That said--better than the Beatles? Eh, just different than. They're both rock bands, and the Beatles are THE seminal rock band, but the two don't really have much in common. So what's your rubrik? Queen's certainly been influential to a large number of later bands, the fact that the Beatles influenced them notwithstanding.

My vote goes for Queen because I like their music more. I like Brian May's guitar MUCH better, and Freddie's voice is in a class by itself.

I'd put Queen II up there with NatO and DatR for best album candidates, but that's just me.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

So your argument for the Beatles being better is that they came before Queen...
My argument is that the Beatles have had far more influence over all of music, were even more experimental in their day, and produced more quality music over a longer period of time than Queen. Certainly the death of Freddie Mercury cut Queen's run short, but I still would place them second.

All that being said, saying which is "better" is a matter of personal preference and opinion. My argument was mainly in reaction to the statements that a) people only think the Beatles are good because they've been told they are (I contend that the Beatles continued influence and popularity stem from the quality of the music and its ability to capture new fans), and b) the implication (that I very likely could have misconstrued) that the Beatles weren't as experimental or covered as wide a variety of styles. The later, I think, is quite simply not the case. That being said, being experimental or varied doesn't neccessarily equate to quality - though I think it does in the case of the Beatles, and also in the case of Queen. I just think presenting Queen as more experimental, and the Beatles as overrated, is unwarranted.

Regardless of preference between the Beatles and Queen, I certainly find it ridiculous that not a single Queen album cracked the top 100.

ADDENDUM: I think Queen is one of the most underrated bands, in all actuality. They certainly do have a strong influence on rock and roll and produced numerous iconic songs, as well as lots of other quality music.

For me, this is like picking between mint and chocolate ice cream - I like them both quite a bit, but I prefer mint.

[JellyPooga]

All that being said, saying which is "better" is a matter of personal preference and opinion. My argument was mainly in reaction to the statements that a) people only think the Beatles are good because they've been told they are (I contend that the Beatles continued influence and popularity stem from the quality of the music and its ability to capture new fans), and b) the implication (that I very likely could have misconstrued) that the Beatles weren't as experimental or covered as wide a variety of styles

I absolutely agree that it is a matter of preference and I didn't mean any insult, if insult was taken.

RE: a) - Yes, many people do come to like the Beatles becasue they like the music (yourself being one of them), but too many, I feel, are swayed by the fact that the Beatles were so experimental and influential. Yes, these are things to respect them for, but not neccesarily to like their music for (a lot of people I once knew raved about how good the Beatles were, depite never having actually listened to half their music...when I played some of the stuff they hadn't heard, without telling them who it was, they said that it was crap. As soon as I told them it was the Beatles, they suddenly had a change of heart...).

RE: b) - I did imply that the Beatles weren't experimental, didn't I? I didn't mean to. Honestly. I am well aware that they were revolutionary with their music and would totally agree that while it's not something that neccesarily makes music good, in their case it often did.

I do respect the Beatles, don't get me wrong, I just don't like their music all that much and in my experience, too many people like them for the wrong reasons.

For me it's like choosing between Mint and Chocolate ice cream. Loads of people say they like Mint, despite not liking the flavour. I don't like Mint all that much. I can see why people like it, but hate the fact that a lot of people say they do, contrary to the facts. (Well, that's not actually true, it's more like the other way round, I can't stand chocolate under 70% Cocoa solids, which includes ice cream, but I thought I'd stick with your analogy ;D)

[Athanatos]

Here's the thing - which band influenced the other, and which band influenced nearly every rock and roll band that has made music since they did (not to mention other music styles)?

The Beatles have numerous unique and original songs, and explored many different styles - in fact, they were often the first band to even use certain staples of modern genres (such as intentional feedback from a guitar). I can understand not being a Beatles fan, but one shouldn't deny their influence on music and that they often pioneered new concepts. The Beatles don't sound like everyone else - everyone else is trying to sound like the Beatles.

Ah. So you reccomend playing 1st edition D&D and taking occasional breaks to play Wolfenstein 3D and/or Pong?

[Cubey]

Ah. So you reccomend playing 1st edition D&D and taking occasional breaks to play Wolfenstein 3D and/or Pong?

And how is this related??
Just because a band is older, doesn't mean it's less enjoyable or more primitive.

I like the Queen more than the Beatles, but I don't like fallacious arguments. In discussion, bad arguments from your side hurt you more than good arguments from the other side.

[Athanatos]

Calm down, buddy. Time for some metaphor explantion:

Gorby was making a link between "Beatles influenced music greatly" and "Beatles are better than Queen." Thus, by his logic, the influencing force is ultimately better than what comes out of its influence.

Ergo 1st edition is better than 3.5. Ergo Wolfenstein 3D is better than Half-Life 2. Ergo Pong is better than... Turbo Pong? I'm drawing a blank here.

And of course, I've deep-fried this in hyperbole. My condiments are sarcasm and jest. I'm not dissing Gorby's cookery at all.

[Vaynor]

I Feel Fine that I Can't Buy Me Love for The Beatles, but I've Got to Get You Into My Life. Oh! Darling Wait Because We Can Work It Out Eight Days a Week. I Need You to Act Naturally, just Tell Me What You See in Queen and I'll Dig A Pony for The Two of Us Across the Universe. If I Needed Someone to tell me The Beatles aren't as good I'd ask Maggie Mae, or Sexy Sadie, Because I've Got A Feeling that you'd Get Back on the right track, Because right now you're acting like The Fool on the Hill. She Said She Said I Want To Tell You I don't care For No One except Queen, and I Want to Tell You Tomorrow Never Knows. You Won't See Me if you say The Word for I'll be like Nowhere Man, Girl. You better Run For Your Life Because I'm Getting Better Within You Without You but When I'm 64 and I'm So Tired I'll let Rocky Raccoon finish Yer Blues and then you'll Cry Baby Cry until we say Good Night and it's All Too Much.

I don't know if this had a point or not...

[Oeryn]

I'm not going to get into the arguments of who's the more seminal band, because there are good points being made on both sides.

I will say that I'm more partial to Queen, but that's just a personal preference.

[Beleriphon]

My argument is that the Beatles have had far more influence over all of music, were even more experimental in their day, and produced more quality music over a longer period of time than Queen. Certainly the death of Freddie Mercury cut Queen's run short, but I still would place them second.


Functionally the Beatles were a band from between 1960 and 1970. Queen however produced albums betwen 1973 and 1990, and existed as a ban from 1970. So as far as longevity Queen has The Beatles beat by quite a few years. Also I admit that The Beatles were a highly influential band, but at this point they seem to only be popular for being famous.

Part of the problem that Queen isn't better known now is because they never really managed to break into the American market. Which is too bad, they have some terrific albums.

As for that list, well according to The Guinness Book of World Records Queen has had their albums spend more time on the UK charts then any other band. The Beatles are second in that list.

[Umbral_Arcanist]

Functionally the Beatles were a band from between 1960 and 1970. Queen however produced albums betwen 1973 and 1990, and existed as a ban from 1970. So as far as longevity Queen has The Beatles beat by quite a few years. Also I admit that The Beatles were a highly influential band, but at this point they seem to only be popular for being famous.

Part of the problem that Queen isn't better known now is because they never really managed to break into the American market. Which is too bad, they have some terrific albums.

As for that list, well according to The Guinness Book of World Records Queen has had their albums spend more time on the UK charts then any other band. The Beatles are second in that list.

The Beatles had (realtivly) very little time together, considering what they accomplished (you need to look at the bands in comparison to their era) I'd put the Beatles first, though i do enjoy Queen, i find the Beatles, while they were average muscians (except George) they were excellent songwriters, their is a reason they consistantly are ranked very highly in lists liek best bands and best albums/ songs etc....


and it ain't nostalga

[Logic]

I seriously don't know what the big deal is with the Beatles. Their music just seems so bland and mediocre. None of their music inspires any emotions besides annoyance/anger in me.
So, Queen does win this one easily.
In fact, I might go as far to say that many garage bands beat out the Beatles.

NOTE: These are merely my opinions. I am not stating them to be attacked by Beatles fans, just relaying my lack of empathy with the Beatles.

[Eldred]

Of the two bands, I would definitely be going for Queen. I just prefer their music compared to The Beatles.

[Tengu]

I prefer Queen, their music, as opposed to the Beatels, only inspires a broad range of emotions in me (so basically what the Logic Vampire said but worse gramatically and written in a clumsier way). Their songs also have a much bigger variete - while most of Beatles' tracks sound rather similar, there is nothing in common between, for example, White Man and Millionaire Waltz (apart from that they are both great songs) - and they are from the same album.

[Democratus]

I prefer Queen [...] Their songs also have a much bigger variete - while most of Beatles' tracks sound rather similar, there is nothing in common between, for example, White Man and Millionaire Waltz (apart from that they are both great songs) - and they are from the same album.

You're right. Hard Day's Night, Rocky Racoon and Lucy in Disguise sound exactly alike! ::)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, most Beatles songs are about exactly the same thing. The songs can be quite differant even if they make two in three songs a love song.

I'm going to say the Beatles. I'm not a big beatles fan but I do occaisonally listen to them. Whenever I hear a Queen song I think "is this actually any good?". I find even Bohemian Rapsody quite annoying and absolutely hate We Will Rock You. Don't care for a lot of their other songs either.

[Oeryn]

I find even Bohemian Rapsody quite annoying and absolutely hate We Will Rock You.

I think that right there is exhibit A as to why Queen isn't more popular. Obscene overplaying of two or three songs, which don't even make it on my top 50 list of favorite Queen tunes.

I love Queen, and I hate WWRY.

But if you dig a little deeper into the catalog, their stuff is just genius.

[Tengu]

We Will Rock You, while being the probably most well-knows of Queen's songs, is also (in my opinion) their worst one. The fact of which annoys me, the same with the thing that We Are The Champions is commonly associated with sports - the song has nothing to do with them!

And yeah, the best Queen songs are those much less-known, even though BR is probably still #1 (but it just does not have the impact on you anymore when you've heard it hundreds of times), and there's maybe a dozen of Queen songs that might be considered less then good. Probably less then a dozen.

[NeonBlack]

Less than a dozen? Huh, I don't know, how many songs were in Hot Space again? ;).

I can't decide between The Beatles and Queen. Both were awesome in their time, both are still quite "alive" in almost everyone's playlists, both had great musicians, and both had their low points (Hot Space again for Queen, and maybe some of the most psychodelic stuff from the Liverpool guys... Think "Number niiiine!"). If I had to pick one, I'll take Queen, if only because I still listen to them from time to time, while I've kind of abhorred The Beatles (they were more or less the OST of my early teen years).

And yeah, BR, WWRY and WATC are way overrated and overplayed. Well, BR not so much overrated (it's that good), but much overplayed for sure. I'd like to nominate News of the World as Queen's most underrated album, and It's Late as an absolutely awesome song that no one seems to know about :(, followed closely by Sleeping on the Sidewalk and Flick of the Wrist

[God_of_Luck]

My favorite song

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wm3InzRp0kg

We will rock you is annoying, yes. But Mr. May solo is awesome (that little tune with guitar in one the Nacho Libre trailers).


Note: Queen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28band%29

[Don Beegles]

We Will Rock You, while being the probably most well-knows of Queen's songs, is also (in my opinion) their worst one. The fact of which annoys me, the same with the thing that We Are The Champions is commonly associated with sports - the song has nothing to do with them!

And yeah, the best Queen songs are those much less-known, even though BR is probably still #1 (but it just does not have the impact on you anymore when you've heard it hundreds of times), and there's maybe a dozen of Queen songs that might be considered less then good. Probably less then a dozen.

I completely agree with you. BR is pretty good, but it doesn't quite top my list, despite being hte best known Queen song. The reason WWRY and WRTC are so popular are the themes of victory which fit with sports, though I really don't like We Will Rock You.

I also agree with the sparseness of sub-par Quieen songs. There is only one song on the QUeen greatest hits that I ever really disliked:Breakthru. I don't what it was, maybe my mood the first time I heard it, but it never really did it for me. Then I really listened to it and now it's up there on my list. Other than that, there is no QUeen song that I have ever really disliked. I don't know if I would feel teh same way about the Beatles, but I doubt that I would.

[ElfLad]

Beatles > Queen.

Funny how the people screaming about Queen being stereotyped by a few songs stereotype the Beatles by their most popular songs.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps, I've Got A Feeling, And Your Bird Can Sing, She Said She Said, I Am The Walrus, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, She Came In Through The Bathroom Window, Norwegian Wood are all some of my favorite songs, but I never heard them on the radio. Only Beatles songs I heard on the radio were Let it Be, I Want to Hold Your Hand, and Hey Jude.

Only Queen songs I heard on the radio were We Are The Champions, and We Will Rock You. Killer Queen is my personal favorite.

Still, I like the Beatles better, and I even like George Harrison's solo career better than Queen.

[bosssmiley]

I seriously don't know what the big deal is with the Beatles. Their music just seems so bland and mediocre. None of their music inspires any emotions besides annoyance/anger in me.
So, Queen does win this one easily.
In fact, I might go as far to say that many garage bands beat out the Beatles.

NOTE: These are merely my opinions. I am not stating them to be attacked by Beatles fans, just relaying my lack of empathy with the Beatles.

Fair point fairly made Logic Vampire. But I think you may be suffering under the 'cliche after the fact' fallacy that affects early film-makers as it does the Beatles. They're so much part of the wallpaper of our lives now that we forget that they invented a lot of the things we think of as cliches.

*In their time* the Beatles were arguably the most revolutionary and eclectic popular band going, as well as one of the biggest selling. In 4 years (63-67) they went from the 'moptop' pure pop of "I wanna hold you hand" to the psychedelia of "Revolver" and "Sgt Pepper". There's no band now that combines their range of sounds, volume of output, daring innovation, and nigh-universal mass appeal.

Like it or not the Beatles are the collosus of 60s music. That's an achievement in itself when you consider you have people like the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac, the Doors and their ilk as the competition. :o

Queen? They're a fun band. They wrote some *great* anthems and had one of the all-time showmen heading them; but they're pygmies compared to the Beatles.

[Vaynor]

Fair point fairly made Logic Vampire. But I think you may be suffering under the 'cliche after the fact' fallacy that affects early film-makers as it does the Beatles. They're so much part of the wallpaper of our lives now that we forget that they invented a lot of the things we think of as cliches.

*In their time* the Beatles were arguably the most revolutionary and eclectic popular band going, as well as one of the biggest selling. In 4 years (63-67) they went from the 'moptop' pure pop of "I wanna hold you hand" to the psychedelia of "Revolver" and "Sgt Pepper". There's no band now that combines their range of sounds, volume of output, daring innovation, and nigh-universal mass appeal.

Like it or not the Beatles are the collosus of 60s music. That's an achievement in itself when you consider you have people like the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac, the Doors and their ilk as the competition. :o

Queen? They're a fun band. They wrote some *great* anthems and had one of the all-time showmen heading them; but they're pygmies compared to the Beatles.
Amazing point. *golf clap*

All I have to say is Queen fans have not fully listened to the Beatles. (I have not listened to Queen much, so I'm not saying they're better, but I love the Beatles, and from what I've heard The Beatles are better)

[EloquentRune]

Queen was great w/ Mercury but has sadlly gone down hill

[Logic]

Fair point fairly made Logic Vampire. But I think you may be suffering under the 'cliche after the fact' fallacy that affects early film-makers as it does the Beatles. They're so much part of the wallpaper of our lives now that we forget that they invented a lot of the things we think of as cliches.

*In their time* the Beatles were arguably the most revolutionary and eclectic popular band going, as well as one of the biggest selling. In 4 years (63-67) they went from the 'moptop' pure pop of "I wanna hold you hand" to the psychedelia of "Revolver" and "Sgt Pepper". There's no band now that combines their range of sounds, volume of output, daring innovation, and nigh-universal mass appeal.

Like it or not the Beatles are the collosus of 60s music. That's an achievement in itself when you consider you have people like the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac, the Doors and their ilk as the competition. :o

Queen? They're a fun band. They wrote some *great* anthems and had one of the all-time showmen heading them; but they're pygmies compared to the Beatles.
Just because they invented it doesn't make them still good now. Yes I am quite aware that much of the music made today would not be here without their influence, but people do not constantly give credit to Tesla everytime they turn on a lightbulb. He did after all, lay the foundation for Alternating current to be used in homes.

[Democratus]

Fair point fairly made Logic Vampire. But I think you may be suffering under the 'cliche after the fact' fallacy that affects early film-makers as it does the Beatles. They're so much part of the wallpaper of our lives now that we forget that they invented a lot of the things we think of as cliches.

*In their time* the Beatles were arguably the most revolutionary and eclectic popular band going, as well as one of the biggest selling. In 4 years (63-67) they went from the 'moptop' pure pop of "I wanna hold you hand" to the psychedelia of "Revolver" and "Sgt Pepper". There's no band now that combines their range of sounds, volume of output, daring innovation, and nigh-universal mass appeal.

Like it or not the Beatles are the collosus of 60s music. That's an achievement in itself when you consider you have people like the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac, the Doors and their ilk as the competition. :o

Queen? They're a fun band. They wrote some *great* anthems and had one of the all-time showmen heading them; but they're pygmies compared to the Beatles.

Quoted again, for truth.

I listen to Queen much more than the Beetles. But even I must admit that the Beatles were the greater band, both culturally and musically.

[JellyPooga]

All I have to say is Queen fans have not fully listened to the Beatles. (I have not listened to Queen much, so I'm not saying they're better, but I love the Beatles, and from what I've heard The Beatles are better)

That comment made me laugh so much. I mean no insult by it, but did you actually mean that in all seriousness? If so, did you actually read what you wrote? Or am I the only one who see's the pot, the kettle and all the blackness? ;D

[kriklaf]

Queen? They're a fun band. They wrote some *great* anthems and had one of the all-time showmen heading them; but they're pygmies compared to the Beatles.

I think that's going a little far. While I might believe that the Beatles were more innovative and more fundamental, I'd say that Queen was by far the more musically skilled group. Vocally they outclass the Beatles in every way--lead singer, harmonic blend, strength of the non-lead singers and vocal color/interest. I think (and a quick survey of 100 Top Rock Guitarist lists agrees) that Brian May is a much more technically adept player. It's my personal opinion that he's also more artistic than Harrison. I feel the same way about Roger Taylor vs. Ringo Starr, too. I can't say I've paid that much attention to the Beatles' bass, but John Deacon's got some impressive chops (which really shine on 'Millionaire's Waltz') I think 'pygmies' underestimates both their technical skills as musicians and their abilities as songwriters, and while they are not as influential as the Beatles, they have indeed left their mark on the rock scene.

[Don Beegles]

I completely agree with Kriklaf. From all of the Beatles songs I know, in comparison to any given Queen song, I would have to say right away that Queen was certainly better at shaping their songs. Beatles may have been revolutionary and new, and they are good music, but they don't quite match-up to Queen musically, though they win culturally and as far as impact on music goes.

[God_of_Luck]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/500songs

This magazine seems to hate Bohemian Rhapsody of Queen (it's in place 163).

[Caillach]

Beatles.
I love queen, but the Beatles can't be beat.

[Democratus]

This magazine seems to hate Bohemian Rhapsody of Queen (it's in place 163).

That song is a decent novelty tune. But nothing of great import.

[Don Beegles]

I agree about Bohemian Rhapsody. It is a good song, especially teh first tiem you hear it, when the ifferent parts of it are surprising, but after that it's pretty good at best, and Queen has other songs with better music and harmonics. For instance, Killer Queen, in my opinion, is a better song, as well as Don't Stop Me Now.

[ZombieRockStar]

Queen was a fantastically diverse band, every bit as exciting as the Beatles, but the Beatles have two things going for them, in my opinion: 1>They were extremely inventive, and 2>their songwriting had much, much more depth (at least in their later years). For that reason the Beatles are on top for me. I still love Queen, though.

Random bit that I didn't know where to post; I figure some Beatle fans might enjoy this. (http://www.sugarjar.com/media/51402/)

[Shea Landford]

Beatles totally win!

But queen is still awesome.