Queen overtake the Beatles as most successful albums act in UK history (1 Viewer)

[Rick_Brown]

This is very interesting to me as I've often said that Queen were "the new Beatles" for me. A wide variety of song styles, high quality control of released songs and very little self-plagiarizing is what they have in common.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Yep count me in as such. I probably don't own any rock music that was recorded before 1967.The early Beatles and Stones just sounds silly to me, not to mention the few tv recordings from that era I saw especially with the "fab four", always a knee slapper for me.I grew up in the 80's and Queen was always on my best list,they deserve all the kudos they can get IMO. BRAVO!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Early Beatles and Stones sound "silly" but Queen doesn't? That's an odd statement...

 

[Lewis Besze]

No it isn't,but I've never said anything about early Queen anyway, so you made the comparison yourself here, not me.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Early Queen, mid Queen, late Queen - there's an awful lot of silly stuff on display in ANY of their eras. I just think it's odd that someone finds early Beatles/Stones to be silly but not material from the band who did music for Highlander and Flash Gordon as well as songs like "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "Bicycle Race". Love 'em or hate 'em, Queen was one damned silly band at times...

 

[Lewis Besze]

Maybe I should clrify what silly means to me.I won't deny it that Queen showed a lot of "strange" costumes, vocal,musical styles and lyrics, but that's what made them who they are,and nobody copied them to any successful level, that alone should count for something even if you don't like their music. The early Beatles on the other hand was very generic looks and music wise[though "beat music" was supposedly new]they looked like marionetts attached to the some money/melody maker machine.They looked silly becasuse they looked amature and without any kind of individual style. They had the same hair cut,and suits,and acted like fools. And they were copied to death. Ok that's not their fault, but that's not neceserally a plus to me either.If you still find my comments "odd" then you're on your own.Not much else I can add.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Maxwell's Silver Hammer anyone?
I think this is the fundamental difference between Queen and the Beatles - there is nearly always a good number of people who like at least some part of Queen's output. What is silly to one person is another person's favourite (e.g. I love their pomp rock pieces like Brighton Rock, but they're nto everyone's faves). On the other hand, when you look at the real clunkers that the Beatles produced (and face it, there were plenty) it's difficult to find *anyone* who likes them.

 

[AnthonyC]

You just contradicted yourself. Queen produced their fair share of clunkers too (most of The Miracle album is awful), but I understand that a lot of people may like that. The Beatles' "clunkers" have a lot of fans too. I'm not a big fan of "Revolution 9" or "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," but I do enjoy "Rocky Raccoon," "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" and some of their other less-renowned songs.

 

[andrew markworthy]

So you are seriously saying that Hot Space is the same as Queen I is the same as Innuendo? If you mean that Queen is always recognisable as Queen in spite of everything, I'd agree with you - but the same goes for the Beatles.

 

[Dustin Elmore]

Hey, I love "Maxwell's Silver Hammer!"

 

[FeisalK]

Dustin, you're contradicting everyone else!!

 

[AnthonyC]

Because I wanted to point out that all of the Beatles' "clunkers" have their share of fans too--Dustin proved that.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Just find somewhere quiet and dark to lie down. Help is on its way.

 

[Greg.G]

Sorry but Queen are a joke. I don't think they ever intended their audiences to take them seriously and their lyrics are ludicrious. The songwriting talents of Harrison, Lennon, and McCartney dwarfs anyting from the Queen. Well at least Queen were campy and could entertain if you don't try to delve too deep.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

...

 

[Tim Hoover]

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss them so. Sure, they liked to actually have some fun with their music (and, of course, avoid the dreaded "rocker who wants to change the world" syndrome) but they also had their serious moments. I mentioned the album Innuendo before, and most of it has an extremely heavy, desperate vibe to it. The band knew most likely this would be their last album, and they pulled out all the stops for this one. Many of the standout lyrics were very heartfelt and honest statements on the part of Freddie, such as the line from "The Show Must Go On" which reads:

Inside my heart is breaking,
my makeup may be flaking
but my smile still stays on.

Yeah, it's a personal fave of mine

 

[Michael Allred]

Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses there. Queen are a joke? I would think a "band" that broke up over a woman would be more of a joke than anything. God how stereotypical.

and "band"? Wasn't it really the Lennon/McCartney show? Be honest. The Beatles didn't have 4 #1 songwriters for their music, Queen did. Can anyone sanely say that ANY Beatle had a better voice than Mercury? Ringo was a better drummer than Taylor? Brian May is regularly put into a top 10 guitarists of all time list, where's Lennon?

Queen were campy when it was appropriate but at least they all had a sense of humor. McCartney's as bland as you can get, Harrison and Ringo were cardboard cut-outs....

If Queen were a joke then The Beatles are the most overhyped band in history.

 

[AnthonyC]

Macca nowadays is pretty poor, but in the 70s, he had more #1s than Queen and wrote some of the best songs of the decade (Queen did too). I completely disagree on your other statement; Ringo's solo work in the late 70s was quite abysmal, yet he's a lot more interesting than John Deacon. George Harrison's solo career is perhaps the finest of all four Beatles; you should check out All Things Must Pass.

Before you get angry at me, I like both bands, and I just needed to provide a rebuttal for some of your points. It's just that Queen is second to the Beatles IMHO

 

[Marvin]

By those criteria, one would have to say there were plenty of groups better than both the Beatles and Queen.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Actually, I think it was more the fishbowl that did it. No one went through what the Beatles experienced. To be so intensely scrutinized in public for so long while they were still young and growing UP meant they eventually grew APART. All the other bands of the era had it easy compared to the Beatles. They simply became their own people too much and couldn't be a band anymore. But I don't think that's the same as "large egos"...