Queen vs. The Beatles

Over 1 billion album sales worldwide...I wouldn't call that overrated. And if anybody was influenced by the Beatles it is Queen.

 

I don't know how to choose between these two. Different eras. The Beatles pretty much influenced rock music as we know it today. Regardless if you like them or not, if you listen to any form of rock-n-roll, you have to give them their credit.

 

There it is, right there...... come together, yeah!

 

However the Beatles couldn't have exsisted without The Stones and vice virsa. Not to mention The Who.

Queen exsisted by themselves.

 

Same here...

Beatles all the way...

 

Queen by far. Basically I can't stand about 98% of the music from the 60's. That and so many people who grew up listening in that era- the baby boomers- think that they're the best generation on the planet and that we should all really care about their music. Hogwash. Queen was really out there for its time. Freddy Mercury did some stuff that was way ahead of its time and it still sounds great today versus most Beatles stuff which sounds grossly dated and psychedelic.

 

Beatles in a landslide. Without them there would be no Stones or The Who. By the way, I saw them on Ed Sullivan in 1963. I was only 8 but it was all anyone could talk about at school the next day and for about the next 8 years. John Lennon was shot on my 25th birthday. Queen was a very good band with excellent musicians, and Freddy Mercury was a talented singer, but sorry, not in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

 

Bono calling U2 the "Heirs to The Who"

Eddie Vedder saying, "The one thing that disgusts me about The Who is the way they smashed through every door in the uncharted hallway of rock 'n' roll without leaving much more than some debris for the rest of us to lay claim to"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif]Jimmy Page: "The music that influenced the first Led Zeppelin album was Muddy Waters, [Pete] Townshend, [Joan] Baez, a lot of rockabilly. " .....Nope no beatles mentioned.


Maybe I just dont get the Beatles fascination that a lot of people have. But to say the Rolling Stones and The Who would have existed without the Beatles is ridiculous. I guess I am just one of those people that will believe that the Beatles were a good band but were not the godsent.
[/FONT]

 

x 1000000000

 

well, both members lost their lead singer.... except, getting shot by a psychopath, is waaaay cooler than dying of aids.

 

x1000.

 

I like them both. I don't think these 2 can really be compared. Give me some CCR!

 

What are you talking about...the stones were formed two years after the Beatles, so the Beatles didn't need the stones to do anything.