Search results

Queen is still "active" officially, although without Freddie, it's Queen only in name.

Maybe not, but there's no question that they were bigger than Elvis.

I never said that Elvis was nothing. But if you're just going to totally ignore the Beatles' contribution to music, then you have to ignore nearly every single artist (including Queen) since the mid-1960s.

I won't even justify this completely inaccurate statement with a response.

That's a little rude if you ask me. Colin is defending the Beatles; you're defending Queen. If liking an artist makes you blind to their faults, then I can't honestly say I like any artist. The more you defend Queen and knock the Beatles, the more we'll defend the Beatles--and some will knock...

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...

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

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...

Well, I think that in a "voice of a generation" way, Cobain is definitely comparable to Lennon. But in terms of music...not even close. I'm a fan of both, but when I need a Nirvana fix, it usually just takes a few songs from Nevermind, In Utero, or Unplugged and then I don't listen to them for...

As a big fan of both bands, I have to congratulate them, although anything recorded without Freddie should not be included in the rankings.