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

[Colin Jacobson]

Obviously you're objective about this. :rolleyes

All four Beatles had distinctive personalities well-known by the general public. All four Beatles had successful solo careers. And all four Beatles have quite a sense of humor. Ever see their movies? Lotsa comedy there.

Who were Queen? Freddie and a bunch of guys few know. That doesn't make them untalented, but it seems odd that you refer to the Beatles as generic when everyone knows who they are but relatively few are aquainted with the non-Freddie members of Queen.

I really think you just don't know much about the Beatles. If you don't like them, that's fine, but your arguments make little sense...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'd argue John and Paul were better than Freddie. Ringo is often cited as the best rock drummer EVER - he's not showy, but he does the job rock-solid. And George is the lead. He's also not showy but more than competent.

But a band isn't about individual musicianship - it's how the factors mesh. Look at how many terrible supergroups we've seen over the decades - all the musicians are excellent, but that doesn't mean they're good bands.

Not sure why I'm wasting my time, though, as I don't think you'll pay attention to any arguments other than "Queen rulez, Beatles droolz"...

 

[Phil A]

Also don't forget that 3 of the 4 Beatles are individually inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I like Queen too and lots of other groups. Queen of course was inducted as well. I think a fairer comparison would be to take the length of the career of Queen and compare it to the length of the career of the Beatles. Queen was formed in 1971 and was a group for over 20 yrs. The Beatles as a group were around for less than half of that, unless you begin counting the efforts of the individual Beatles.

 

[Michael Allred]

I admit I DID get angry in my last post, the comment was completely uncalled for and it sounded like jealousy. Like "OMG! Somebody beat out the Beatles?!?! The heathens! Let's attack them for no sound reason." Afterall, this thread wasn't supposed to be a Queen vs Beatles topic and who was better.

 

[Michael Allred]

heh

 

[Michael Allred]

Maybe it's because you like the Beatles and are therefore blind to their faults? I dunno, you tell me.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I knew it was a mistake to join in this thread. It's getting ugly...

 

[Michael Allred]

IMO you're coming from that "The Beatles are gods" side of the argument and no opinion will sway you from any of their "lesser" qualities. Obviously Queen are a joke to you and you behave that way. That's fine, believe what you want but don't accuse me of being close minded or juvenile when your own posts reflect the very thing you throw my way.

 

[Michael Allred]

It got "ugly" when people got so high and mighty about the Beatles and the "joke" bands like Queen.

I find it silly that some get so defensive about a record being broken and have to insult the bands that break them.

Finally, if you knew it was a "mistake" then why in the world did you contribute to the ugliness with your own dismissive comments? You can't say the things you say and pretend to be constructive. It's like you pop in a boxing ring, take a jab and then proclaim the sport is barbaric and above you. It's very snooty.

 

[AnthonyC]

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 Queen; I personally like them so I won't.

 

[Michael Allred]

I can defend Queen in a reasonable manner, the question is can some defend the Beatles without being insulting to the poster (ok, me) in the process? Colin could say what he wants but he didn't need to insult my intelligence several times and then run off. THAT my friend, is rudeness.

 

[Jan H]

The title of this thread is misleading. The most successful albums act of all time has more to do with the number of albums sold than weeks on the charts. That is a completely meaningless number in comparison. And Queen vs. The Beatles? Hah! That's like comparing Pokemon The Movie with the films of Hayao Miyazaki.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Well, excusing for a moment the bad grammar, the statement is debatable. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison wrote a large number of great songs, nobody is denying this, not even the most ardent Queen supporter. But bear in mind that because they wrote great songs does not deny that others can write great songs as well. This isn't a case of mutual exclusives.

Whether you like them or not, Queen have written some great songs. Bo Rap, Another One Bites the Dust, We Are the Champions, etc, etc, may not appeal to everyone, but they are memorable and widely-liked. Exactly the same applies to the Beatles.

Also, whilst Queen songs at their worst are simply forgettable, Beatles songs at their worst are toe-curlingly embarrassing. Anyone who can listen to the whole of the White Album or Let It Be without wincing once is either besotted with the band or is tone deaf.

 

[Tim L]

I am a fan of both Queen and the beatles,- (why are all the great groups British-oops-did I start another thread battle?) I was lucky enough to see Queen three times in concert (too young for the beatles). Its amazing how passionate we all become when it comes to our tastes in music, movies, etc. Hell, I know people who hate the beatles and say the Monkees made better music) I am not joking)-anyway it reminds me of an argument I had with a professor once- he claimed the beatles were musical geniuses (spelling?) I asked him if the beatles never became famous and nobody ever heard of them-but had written and played the same songs (say in someones garage or basement only-whatever) does this still make them musical geniuses?
I accused him of basing his opinion on their popularity not their musical content-he became rather pissy about it and ended the discussion- but the class got a hoot out of it- I wasn't trying to be a smart ass- but the point I am trying to make is that alot of people base their opinions not on the talents of a group or actor, movie etc but soley on how many records or tickets they sell, and I suppose I may be guilty of this trend also-its hard sometimes when only certian groups get airplay and others don't, but that doesn't make them any less talented. I hope I kinda made sense-its early.

 

[Stu Rosen]

I can understand (well no, not really) why someone would prefer Queen to the Beatles - that's a matter of personal taste. But while Queen may have (figuratively speaking) built some nice houses, the Beatles created the tools to build them in the first place.

A musical world without Queen is easy to imagine. A musical world without the Beatles is unimaginable. Love them or hate them (and how you can hate them is beyond me), the Beatles almost created the vocabulary that successors use. Their importance and influence is incalculable and rivaled only by Bob Dylan. (Oh no, here come the "Dylan can't sing" responses!)

To me, it comes down to the fact that you may prefer Michael Bay action extravaganzas, but it's foolish to compare him to the people who built the foundation of modern film (Hawks, Ford, et al.).

I have so many artists I'll listen to way more than the Beatles - partly because the Beatles are so much a part of my musical history that I almost never need to hear them again. But I never mistake my personal, temporary enthusiasms for a conclusion that artists like the Beatles don't measure up to my current faves.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

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 by a long shot.

And Ringo as the "best rock drummer ever?" You've got to be kidding me. Even Ringo would have a laugh at that one! He's competent, nothing more.

Queen clearly wins the comparison in the technical musical skills department. The Beatles were certainly more influential. Both bands had a lot of great songwriting. Which is "better" is personal and subjective.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Thanks for the enlightening commentary. How did you find the time to do so much research?

 

[Geremia P.]

In other words,

Freddie Mercury > John Lennon

Mariah Carey > Freddie Mercury

I'll stick with Lennon.

 

[Matt Stieg]

Folks, folks, folks, all this bickering over the Beatles and Queen is futile.

We all know The Rolling Stones and The Who are the greatest.

 

[Phil A]

Matt, I agree. It's like discussing vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Both are flavors. It's OK with me if I like chocolate and someone likes vanilla. Too often people don't realize that everyone likes different things. Some might think Zamphir is the greatest and that's OK too