promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

How can people say Queen is better than the Beatles?

Factually, The Beatles beat Queen in several ways. More number 1 albums, more number 1 songs, more sales, more technological advancement, more output in less time, more influence (pretty much every pop artist that followed the Beatles were influenced by them, more impact on society (you never had girls screaming louder than the band at a Queen concert). And which album sold best for Queen? A compilation (correct me if I'm wrong). Which album sold best for the Beatles? The White Album (an actual studio album, not a compilation). And Fredie Mercury was greatly influenced by The Beatles. Brian May said "I mean I'm the biggest Beatles fan on the Earth..."

Many critics rate John Lennon and Paul McCartney as some of the best songwriters on Earth.

Rolling Stone magazine puts the Beatles at 1st as best artists of all time. Queen is 52nd (although I think Queen should be a little higher than that if I must be honest).

That being said: Freddie Mercury was an amazing singer and possibly the best live performer the world has ever seen (He was definitely entertaining on stage). And Brian May is a genius (he's an astrophysicist that built his own guitar. What other classic rock musician can do that?) and a good guitarist (I'd put George Harrison above him, but I'm biased. It could definitely go either way.) I personally don't know the other members of Queen and that's shame on me I suppose. Most people can name John, Paul, George, and Ringo though.

Statistically speaking The Beatles are better, so how can anyone say Queen was better?

I can understand people preferring Queen over The Beatles and respect their opinions (whatever makes the listener happy. That's what counts). But saying Queen is the better band... How? The Beatles shaped popular music and still have a very loyal following 50 years on.

Update:

You can't say they're the better band without backing up your statement. And I do concede that Freddie Mercury was a better singer than any of the Beatles. I'm in love with John and Paul's voices though. John's voice was so different and Paul could sing anything (just like Freddie could. But Freddie did so with more enthusiasm and entertainment (at least in some people's opinion)). One thing I forgot to mention was The Beatles all had successful solo careers. Unfortunately, Freddie Mercury never had a chance and I believe he would've had a fine solo career if presented the opportunity. Not sure about the other 3.

15 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    Queen rots. Beatles were amazing.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Did you hear? Queen beat the beatles in selling more album. Look it up they have sold over 6 million and are number one on the list. That is one reason why Queen is better.

    Secondly, the beatles were always the SAME sound. Queen had different sounds like hard rock, thrash, rockabilly, pop, disco, punk, opera, and it gooes on.

    They freakin play We Will Rock You and We Are the Champions at almost every sports game you go to nowadays. Freddie had a voice that non of the beatles can ever top. Brian may made is own original guitar with his own hands! What else do you want. And there are tons of more reasons.

    If you say that the Beatles are better, you are just IGNORANT!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    I think some people prefer Queen because Freddie Mercury was a better singer. Some people mostly listen to vocals when they listen to music. I don't have much of an opinion on either band.

    EDIT: I'm not saying Queen is better than The Beatles. I'm just saying why I think some people prefer Queen.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    better at what?

    You have answered the questions of which sold more albums, which was more influential, and which had more critical acclaim, and made fallacious ad populum and ad auctoritatem arguments, but that is still picking out arbitrary criteria to measure a band against. Why not pick out whichever ban plays the fastest and say that is the best band? or the one with the most members? These are all arbitrarily chosen criteria. There is no such thing as a best band, or a better band, because there is no such thing as "best" or "better" without reference to a specific criteria. "better band" is strictly an aesthetic judgement, and as such carries no absolute criteria. Consider the question "who is the best runner?". Is it the person who can run 100 meters fastest, or who can run 10,000 meters fastest? On a track, or in "real-world" conditions?. The original question does not carry any implications as to which of these questions (all of which would point to different runners) will produce the correct answer. Each of the questions must be seen as answering only itself, lest one fallaciously presuppose that a question with no specific meaning be interpreted as any single interpretation, ignoring all others.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    Rolling stone magazine is crap produced by the "music elite"

    Its a matter of opinion, i think Freddie had 50 times the voice that Paul George Ringo or John had but the Beatles had a longer legacy and influence. So yeah

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    well for one thing none of the beatles died from AIDS. and who cares what other people think? that's their opinion. but it's a known fact that the beatles sold more albums and had better success than queen.

    Source(s): i forgot
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Well most of what you say is true, but I guess it's the type of music I mean Beatles played a variety but most of Queen's music was Rock. Plus most of Queen's songs are more universally known than the Beatles (One example being "We will rock you"). So I guess it's just the music, not the accomplishments.

    Source(s): My opinion, I'm neutral fro both of them
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Led zeppelin and the Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles

    Source(s): They are just too beast
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • OU812
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Music is totally subjective. I think the Beatles suck, and no I don't have to back that up in any way. It's my opinion and that's all that matters. Only a total fanboi noob would even think twice about something this damn stupid.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Because I like there songs better.

    Brining sales figures is pointless and irrelevant, seeing as Ke$ha's "Tik Tok" sold more copies than *any* Beatles single.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.