Andrew and Rich, I strongly suggest that at this point, the two of you simply ignore each other's posts in this thread if you want to continue participating in it. If you want to go back and forth with personal comments, please do it via email. Pretty please? I can't imagine that anyone else...
Apropos to this discussion, here's a link to an interesting article about melody in Queen songs. About 3/4 of the way in, there's a statistical (!) comparison to The Beatles' repertoire. "The Queen Anomaly" Again, who's "better" is personal and subjective -- this was just an interesting...
Considering that (until recently, and it's questionable whether this really counts) Queen hasn't played live in well over 10 years, and they still get plenty of radio play, I don't see that happening.
One can subjectively prefer Lennon's or McCartney's voice to Mercury's, but as far as vocal skill and range, Mercury is in a league by himself. No comparison there. I like Harrison, and consider him to be generally underappreciated, but I wouldn't put him on any top 10 guitarist lists -- not...
Geez. . .seriously, gang, my original statement about the early Beatles stuff being dated wasn't really intended as a knock, just an offhand comment. But hey, anything for an interesting discussion! :) Those lists of album ratings from AMG and Rolling Stone are just more evidence of the utter...
I think by "hype" he meant "all Beatles material is classic", not "early Beatles stuff is better than later stuff." Nothing wrong with liking their early material, but it is certainly dated.