Queen vs. The Who

I don't get the attraction to Queen. I guess they're kind of funny, but does anyone like any of their songs without a large amount of irony? And I don't just mean the popular hits. The earlier 'serious' stuff's actually a lot funnier than stuff like Bicycle Race.

So The Who.

Has to be Queen for me. Really like both, but Queen has a few extra dimensions in the case of vocal harmonies and musical verseability.

I think it's a choice between Queen's self important pomposity, and The Who's ernest over-ambition. Which looks the same at a far enough distance. So I'm voting for The Who.

I was looking at a double CD Greatest Hits set of Queen today, and thinking how crappy much of it was. Yes there are great songs like Fat Bottomed Girls or Under Pressure, but what is

Somebody to Love Breakthru
Don't Stop Me Now Save Me
Play the Game It's a Hard Life
I Want it All A Kind of Magic
I Want to Break Free The Miracle
The Show Must Go On Now I'm Here
Headlong Who Wants to Live Forever

good for?

Queen has a better singer and a lot of amazing bells & whistles. But The Who get my vote for more reasons than I care to list here.

i frigging love Queen but c'mon this is no contest

As for singers, I think...

Daltrey > Mercury
Townshend <<< Taylor
Entwistle > May
Moon > Deacon

I was looking at a double CD Greatest Hits set of Queen today, and thinking how crappy much of it was. Yes there are great songs like Fat Bottomed Girls or Under Pressure, but what is

Somebody to Love Breakthru
Don't Stop Me Now Save Me
Play the Game It's a Hard Life
I Want it All A Kind of Magic
I Want to Break Free The Miracle
The Show Must Go On Now I'm Here
Headlong Who Wants to Live Forever

These are separate latter era songs.

Somebody To Love - not my cup of tea, but a huge hit and beloved by some
I Want To Break Free - a pretty good song

And The Who has just as many 'what the hell is that?' songs.

As for singers, I think...

Daltrey > Mercury
Townshend <<< Taylor
Entwistle > May
Moon > Deacon

Oh I have to strongly disagree re: Daltrey > Mercury, especially since Mercury also did most of the writing. I'll give you Moon > Deacon. But

Townshend <<< Taylor
Entwistle > May

May was the guitarist, and he's just as great as Townsend.

The Who. Not that I'm that fussed about The Who, but ... yeh. The Who.

people actually voting for the who on this thread wtf?

(xxpost) I think that Townshend went a lot further with the guitar while having considerably less technical skill on the instrument.

That's pretty debatable, considering May's pioneering of multi track overdubs.

... which reminds me of that snotty "No synthesisers were used in the making of this record" thing Queen slapped on the back of some of their 1970s output. Wow, that was tossy.

(Mind you: Kitchens of Distinction did the same thing. And I love them. Graah.)

'No synthesizers' had much different connotations in the 70s than it does today, I wouldn't take that the wrong way.

It's also kind of weird that stuff like 'Body Language' and 'Flash Gordon' use a ton of synths.

I think that originally the "no synths" label was because a lot of reviewers were mistaking May's guitar sounds for synths. But later it became snobby. Then they actually started using synths and it turned out to be fairly lame.

Who songs would be better if performed by Queen, Queen songs would not be better if performed by The Who.

Queen.

xpost - I think it was just a matter of clinical accuracy, 'cause when they finally added synth, they announced it in an equally matter-of-fact fashion ("This album marks the first appearance of synthesizer...") and even helpfully identified the model (Oberheim OB-X.)

Anyways, I admire Queen for being more democratic (and less the product of one mind) than The Who, and appreciate that their own particular brand of pretentiousness was more self-mocking and less pompous than The Who's. But Deacon/Taylor couldn't hope to approach Moon/Entwistle.

da croupier, that's dumb logic. I know some technically great musicians & singers, who could probably play anything The Who can better than them, but they couldn't write songs like The Who. Technical virtuosity doesn't make a band.

(xpost) The Who's synth work predates Queen's by nearly ten years, so I suppose that they have the edge because no-one had much of an idea about how to integrate a synth into the sound of a rock band. When Queen got around to doing it, they didn't have to come up with any innovative ideas, they just had to look at what other bands had been doing with synths during the 70's.

Deacon certainly nowhere near Entwistle on bass. Taylor has some straight ahead rock moments where he beats what Moon might have done in similar circumstances.

they couldn't write songs like The Who. Technical virtuosity doesn't make a band

But "songwriting" virtuosity does? And when did I praise technical virtuosity anyway? I'm just saying I'd rather hear Freddie Mercury yell about a pinball wizard than hear Roger Daltrey try "Bohemian Rhapsody." Really, I'd rather hear Freddie Mercury than Roger Daltrey, period.

I'd say points to The Who for hitting the operatic ambitions first, but it took a group as campy as Queen to make operatic ambitions in rock enjoyable.

All Queen make me think about are pissed middle-aged women singing. That is not enjoyable. Rock & opera shouldn't mix. The Who and Queen are both responsible for that atrocious concoction ...

Smithers: "I think women and seamen don't mix."
Burns: "We know what you think!"

Queen. Better tunes, wilder ambitions, denser moustaches. Love the pomp and circumstance, the ironic foppery, the unspeakable violations of taste. I dunno. I like a lot of Who songs, but they've never endeared themselves to me the way Queen do.

yeah, if there's one thing The Who were lacking in, it's wild ambitions

ambitions = ambitions
ambitions + bicyle shorts = wild ambitions

http://falsedawn.blogspot.com/AL_KeithMoonBackstageCal1976_600.jpg

that's a whole nother kinda ambition

i have tried to like the who, but i can not get past roger daltrey. i dont even know what it is, but i can not listen to that dude sing, it completely sets me on edge.

It's pretty much consensus that Daltrey was the weak link

Well, that's like saying Jimmy Garrison was the weak link in the Coltrane quartet. If there's a weak link, it's Daltrey. If there's a weak link.

There's not a weak link in either group - both are superb. This is just a hypothetical 'vs' thread purely for entertainment.

rock operas (a quick one, tommy, quadrophenia (sorta) v. rock opera

As for singers, I think...

Daltrey > Mercury
Townshend <<< Taylor
Entwistle > May
Moon > Deacon

― snoball, Friday, January 2, 2009 9:05 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink[

what the hell is wrong with u

pre-tommy daltrey had a nice voice! by the time of it's hard it is horrible tho
the mere existence of the who sell out means the who would win most taking sides threads
queen were sorta ok in small doses like most tacky things

I vote Who because even Queen admitted loving the Who. Queen are admittedly inspired by The Who fell off their peak (which for me is Quadrophenia)

I can't compare by quality of songs or virtuosity of performance, because they're about even for awesomeness and gaffes.

haha, sorry about that 2nd sentence. Queen gained momentum right around the time The Who were losing it.

on one hand, Queen never had a Sell Out album.
on the other hand, the Who never had a News of the World (and I'm alone in thinking NOTW is one of the best rock albums ever, I admit)

We know Who's in Queen. And we know who the Queen is in the Who!

Nothing wrong about being pretentious. Queen were better than The Who (and we're speaking of two really great bands here, mind you) because they were even more pretentious than The Who.

And yet The Who had more good songs. Crazy.

^^ Exactly. Except not.

Bullshit re the pretentious thing.

There's nothing wrong with having ambition - if you have the talent to match it. Dylan's Masters of War is a great war protest song, whereas Mercury's Hammer of War is a shitty pretentious one, simply because of a difference in ability. Both have the same ambition in writing a song like that, but Dylan had the lyrical ability necessary to approaching such a subject whereas Mercury just had a pack of cliches on the leash of fake sentiment.

You might argue that real music is judged only in terms of melody or some nonsense like that. It's not true. If you're just judging things in terms of melody or harmony, fuck pop music - just listen to classical and jazz. What's the point in listening to pop? Even the stupidest most pretentious prog band will never match a real classical composer. Pop music has to be a tasteful integrated whole in terms of melody, harmony, lyrics and rhythm, which Queen never were and The Who only occasionally were. Which is why it's possible to take The Who seriously as a band if you ignore a large portion of their career whereas Queen will only ever be a bit of a joke.

oh boy

Pop music has to be a tasteful integrated whole in terms of melody, harmony, lyrics and rhythm

You what now?

Queen vs. Bob Dylan --- now THAT would be tough.

I mean with Who vs. Queen it's just a matter of whether you want to take your hard rock opera "seriously" or not (also Hot Space vs. It's Hard). But the merits of Dylan against those of Queen is some real apples vs. oranges: FITE! material.

Pop music has to be a tasteful integrated whole in terms of melody, harmony, lyrics and rhythm, which Queen never were and The Who only occasionally were. Which is why it's possible to take The Who seriously as a band if you ignore a large portion of their career whereas Queen will only ever be a bit of a joke.

― rjberry, Saturday, January 3, 2009 10:37 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Bohemian Rhapsody. BOOYA

I like the WHO better. Queen were rubbish until they introduced synthesizers. Particularly on their only good record, the Flash soundtrack.

^^ That's crazy talk.

There's nothing wrong with having ambition - if you have the talent to match it. Dylan's Masters of War is a great war protest song, whereas Mercury's Hammer of War is a shitty pretentious one, simply because of a difference in ability. Both have the same ambition in writing a song like that, but Dylan had the lyrical ability necessary to approaching such a subject whereas Mercury just had a pack of cliches on the leash of fake sentiment.

Are we speaking about music or literature here?

Bob Dylan is a fantastic poet, but Freddie Mercury had more musical ability in his little finger than Bob Dylan has in his entire body.

Queen were rubbish until they introduced synthesizers.

Then they were only occasionally good. "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic" and "Innuendo" were all great albums, remiscent of their fantastic mid 70s prime. The rest, not so much.

It's not like the Who were churning out classics in the 80s either.

This is just a hypothetical 'vs' thread purely for entertainment. ― redmond

Well I'd NEVAH ...!!
;)
Voted The Who, 'ctually.

...Freddie Mercury had more musical ability in his little finger than Bob Dylan has in his entire body. ― Geir Hongro

^^Could this be the first case of Geir utilising a rather vaguely-veiled phallocratic metaphor as a, erm, melodic argument of madmatic megalomagnitude?

It's not like the Who were churning out classics in the 80s either.

But they didn't have to.

well, neither did Queen.

I thought "Hammer to Fall" was cool.

Everything comes from the Who, so no contest, and no disrespect to Queen here.

Dylan's Masters of War is a great war protest song, whereas Mercury's Hammer of War is a shitty pretentious one, simply because of a difference in ability.

― rjberry

No one in their right mind would put Hammer of War forward as an example of Queen at their best. That it's a shitty protest song doesn't diminish Queen, cuz protest songs aren't what they were about. Again, bicycle shorts.

You might argue that real music is judged only in terms of melody or some nonsense like that. It's not true. If you're just judging things in terms of melody or harmony, fuck pop music - just listen to classical and jazz. What's the point in listening to pop? Even the stupidest most pretentious prog band will never match a real classical composer. Pop music has to be a tasteful integrated whole in terms of melody, harmony, lyrics and rhythm, which Queen never were and The Who only occasionally were. Which is why it's possible to take The Who seriously as a band if you ignore a large portion of their career whereas Queen will only ever be a bit of a joke.

― rjberry

None of that makes any sense. No sane person worries about "real music" (vs. what? fake music? imaginary music?), and no one judges pop "only in terms of melody." Different people just happen to like different sorts of things. You're big on "tasteful integrated wholes," which is awesome. But that crap about who can or can't be taken "seriously as a band" has got to go.

and no one judges pop "only in terms of melody"

<Looks around expectantly>

There's this thing called harmony too, you know. Very important... ;)

I like Queen, but the Who kind of wastes them here.

Agreed. I don't hate Queen or anything, but I'm kind of shocked that this is even a question.

I respect the Who, but I love Queen.

Comparing their 80s work is like comparing their 60s work. Kind of irrelevant.

Yeah, but Queen at least sounded like they had something invested in their 80s work -- as much as it pains me to say this, they sounded like they were trying harder on "One Vision" than the Who did on all of It's Hard.

That said, the 00s Who with only two original members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00s Queen with only two original members.

That said, the 00s Who with only two original members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00s Queen with only two original members.

― Sara Sara Sara, Monday, January 5, 2009 7:49 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, Mercury was their main creative force so that's to be expected.

I'd say Mercury was Queen's main creative focus, not force. Cut the other members some slack!

Part of The Who's appeal was how they could be both sloppy and tight and undeniably monstrous live. The Who did everything "wrong". Entwhistle was more of the arpegiattor, whereas Townshend was more of the rhythm, although on the "wrong" guitars.

Both bands were erraticly democratic.

Apple vs. Orange, but still a greater poll the more ya think about it.

i dont think i 'get' queen

If I'm not mistaken I started getting into both of these bands when I was 13, and heard both bands for the first time when I was 10. So on a personal level they should be equal, but somehow Queen is way cooler to me now because they have a dead lead singer.

I'm also going with Queen because I personally think the time when The Who was extremely cool lasted about 7 years, whereas the the time when Queen was extremely cool lasted over a decade.

The Who. I only know of two songs by Queen that I love: "Somebody to Love" and "Under Pressure."

I like quite a few more by The Who (hey, I even like a few ALBUMS). Listening to "Love Reign O'er Me" right now; kinda hard to deny!

queen by miles

queen were better craftsmen, but the who had a billion times more energy.

so in this strange head to head i'm opting to go with the qui

Okay, so I'm estimating The Who's tenure of extreme coolness as between 1964 and 1971..

For Queen it's between 1973 and 1987.

This is debatable, but I think it's accurate.

I'd say Mercury was Queen's main creative focus, not force.

Because May in particular, and also Taylor, were important creative brains, yes. But still, Mercury was very important. Not least as a singer. And when they didn't even try to find a replacement that sounded like him, they were sealed.

This has to be the Who win.

Has to be.

For me it's either the pageantry/fun/ridiculousness V. protopunk/some raucous rockn'roll. I never really listened to the post proto-punk phase of the Who (except for Tommy), so for me this poll is apples+oranges. I've probably had more unbridled fun singling along with Queen, but the quality-song-quality argument resonates with me. I can't name more than... 6 Queen songs off the top of my head. And there are at least two Who albums I love totally. So I went Who.

quality-song quantity* that should read

pageantry/fun/ridiculousness V. protopunk/some raucous rockn'roll

Ha, when I read that I thought, which one is supposed to be the Who? Then I realized, all of the above.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I like Queen. I even LOVE some Queen, but no contest for me. And Mordy, when you say post-proto punk are you only talking early/mid 60s and not the AMAZINGNESS of The Who Sell Out and of course...I submit this for last minute study...

If you've never watched that, you really should, and all the way till the end. I get chills EVERY time.

Yeah, that performance is unreal, I think it was a Selzer post on it a long time ago that had me tracking it down on YouTube. I need to listen to more Queen.

I definitely include The Who Sell Out. I think of the Who as the first 5 albums. I don't know anything after Who's Next, tho.

(I didn't realize Tommy was chronologically before Who's Next...)

I've been advocating that clip since the VHS copy of Rock-N-Roll circus came out. Never saw Kids Are Alright prior to that. Apparently the original Kids film had that clip edited, but for the recent DVD version, they put the full one back in.

The Who Sell Out is too baroque and ambitious to be proto-punk.

That Who clip is a lot more exciting in the context of Rock'n'Roll Circus, where multi-part earnest ambition is a breath of fresh air from all the slack hippie jams.

Actually, that should be "That Who clip is even more exciting...

But, gotta admit, I still prefer "Bohemian Rhapsody"

Mitch Miller!

"I don't know anything after Who's Next, tho."

That's a shame, because that means you don't know Quadrophenia.

eh, see, this is where the Who start to lose it. there's a really strong EP in the entirety of Quadrophenia, mainly in the second half. Otherwise, ugh.

The Who By Numbers is far better, albeit depressing as fuck.

actually, Odds & Sods >>>>>> anything after Who's Next

i've got a lot of love for anyone who votes for queen here. i understand the people who think that the who are on a whole 'nother level, but queen as a group had so much to offer and there is a reason why they are/were so beloved by so many different kinds of people. they were one of those rare bands that me, my brother, AND my sister were completely in love with. you know? they encompass so much of what i love about pop. and they did everything so well! the art-rock and prog and punk and hard rock and metal and electro and disco and pop and musical theatre stuff and funk and ballads. when your bass player can write a song as perfectly perfect and lovely as "You're My Best Friend" you know your band is unstoppable. (and when your drummer can write a class of '77 punk masterpiece like "sheer heart attack" you might think you are bigger than god and not just the who.) i mean, there was a time when rap music consisted of a Chic sample, a Sugarhill 12 inch, and Queen. and i haven't even gotten to Freddie yet! my god, teenage boys all around the world by the millions worshipping their posters and pictures of the gayest man alive! (hats off to rob halford, but he wasn't in the same league back then and he was suitably scary enough as a bearded leatherman to pass as an actual motorcycle enthuisiast.) totally revolutionary. and rock you beat still beats football frathouse wasteland chants by a mile.

but, you know, the who rule too.

It's pretty much consensus that Daltrey was the weak link

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Friday, January 2, 2009 1:56 PM (5 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, that's like saying Jimmy Garrison was the weak link in the Coltrane quartet

-― Matt Weston

Haha, Garrison WAS the weak link in the Quartet! (But, yeah, everything's relative. And Daltrey definitely improved upon his lousy early R&B attempts.)

Scott's post makes want to investigate Mercury and the boys more than I have- I'll get around to their albums one of these days.

But as it stands now, pretty much even the Sell Out outtakes trump any Queen I've heard (which admittedly is just some of the famous singles.)

they (Queen) were one of those rare bands that me, my brother, AND my sister were completely in love with. you know? they encompass so much of what i love about pop. and they did everything so well! the art-rock and prog and punk and hard rock and metal and electro and disco and pop and musical theatre stuff and funk and ballads... i mean, there was a time when rap music consisted of a Chic sample, a Sugarhill 12 inch, and Queen. and i haven't even gotten to Freddie yet! my god, teenage boys all around the world by the millions worshipping their posters and pictures of the gayest man alive!

― scott seward

^^^ this this this this this this this! God bless you, Scott Seward.

I think The Who is the better band -- the idea of having to listen to a whole Queen album sounds a bit like torture to me, whereas Who albums are generally only boring.

That said, a Queen greatest hits comp pretty much mops the floor with anything but Who's Next.

I voted for Queen (and, yes, as scott noted above, Queen is worshipped around the world in the way The Who never were and never will be).

"Scott's post makes want to investigate Mercury and the boys more than I have"

get news of the world (just skip rock you/champions if you can't bear their overexposure for some reason. but every song on that album is a gem.). or get Jazz, which has all kinds of weird, cool, lesser-known gems on it aside from the hits of "fat bottomed girls" and "bicycle race". A Night At The Opera is a great album too. (and you can skip bohemian rhapsody if you are sick of that one too. it's the last song (sorta) anyway.)

and any rock music fan who doesn't own a copy of the album Sheer Heart Attack is a sad rock fan indeed. One of the highlights of the 1970's. hard rock or otherwise. so much energy and electricity and so many amazing songs. almost perfect as an album. any fan of the early who should own one too!

and they did everything so well! the art-rock and prog and punk and hard rock and metal and electro and disco and pop and musical theatre stuff and funk and ballads.

Like with another post upthread, I assumed the above was written about the Who.

Best thing about News Of The World is that they front-load the album with their two biggest anthem, and the album doesn't wane at all. In fact, it amps up with the song "Sheer Heart Attack" (not related to the earlier album of the same name). That song was faster and noisier than anything punk at the time. The vocals are crazed..."it was the DNA! What CAN I SAY!!!?". Then goes straight into the dire "All Dead, All Dead".

"Fight From The Inside" = best dinosaur rockfunk this side of Zep.

"Get Down Make Love" = ok if you haven't figured out how gay I am, for fuck's sake, oh never mind, enjoy the weird-ass tempo and bridge sounds.

"Too Late" = best ballad ever. I'd love to hear a modern female R&B cover of this. Beyoncé, are you listening?

...

Similarly, I could go equally off on The Who Sell Out, but I think others would do a better job.

Queen were, along with Madness, the first band I got into aged 11 and I can't imagine not knowing all their singles, even ones I haven't heard in about 15 years. The Who I sought out much later, being unfamiliar with everything bar 'My Generation' and 'Won't Get Fooled Again' and while I don't listen to them much these days I've still got time for Sell Out, Tommy and most of their '60s singles. I've more or less figured out where I stand with them, in other words. On the other hand the only Queen albums I own are II and Sheer Heart Attack which are both great but their back catalogue scares me a bit. As it stands, The Who have higher peaks and Queen lower lows so I'd have to say Who. For now.

This is so not even an argument.

The Who--coasting in on a cultural wave or two, made maybe three solid records, followed by utter decline into yuck.

Queen: Casually threw off classic chamber pop ("Killer Queen"), proto-speed metal ("Stone Cold Crazy"), immortal camp (half the catalog), queered rockabilly ("Crazy Lillte Thing Called Love"), stole from Chic without losing anything ("Another One Bites the Dust"), kept recording world class Queen stuff until Freddy died ("Hammer to Fall", "Show Must Go On", "Save Me", "I Want it All", "These Are the Days of Our Lives"), dressed like old biddies in "I Want to Break Free" and were all the more awesome for the bother, had the sheer pluck to attach a Hadyn-worthy melody to the title words "Radio Ga-Ga"--and have a hit with the results, gave American baseball an official pump-up theme, revolutionized guitar/recording techniques, created Muse and MIKA by accident. Off the top of my head.

"This is so not even an argument."

Yeah, youre right. The Who wins in a bloodbath.

In a way, Queen and The Who are two rare examples of two bands who would always try very hard to be both rock'n'roll and pure pop at the same time. I would say The Who were better than Queen at being a rock'n'roll band while Queen were better than The Who at being pop. Since I prefer pure classic pop to rock'n'roll, it is natural for me to pick Queen, but I love The Who too.

This seems OTM in terms of how thread comments break down, too.

Except I have always thought Queen were horrible at doing funk/disco, which is what some of the ILM funk/disco wing tend to like best of all by them.

Queen vs. The Who (at doing funk/disco)

Unless "Radio Ga Ga" counts as disco, I'd actually vote for "Who Are You" being better than anything Queen ever came up with in that genre :)

I thought Geir thought that EVERYONE was bad at funk/disco...

I don't think of "Who Are You" as funk or disco...

Ah fuck it, I'm too tired to work any of this out right now.

I thought Geir thought that EVERYONE was bad at funk/disco...

Chic and Earth Wind & Fire were both pretty good at it.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

i've also gotta say that when i think of the who i definitely think of two entities: 60's who and 70's who. 60's who are hard to beat no matter how you slice it. (though i'm probably a bigger fan of pretty things, small faces, kinks, stones, and some others) with 70's who, though, there are a zillion bands that i am a bigger fan of. the list is endless. and i definitely dig who's next, odds & sods, live at leeds, quadrophenia, and other stuff a ton (and probably underrate who by numbers and who are you only cuz i haven't heard them in years).

and having said that, if you look at what the who did in the 70's it's pretty friggin' solid. a LOT of cool stuff. cooler than the kinks in that decade (though i like a lot of what they did too), if not cooler than what the stones ended up with. (this might also have something to do with familiarity too. i prefer listening to humble pie and 4000 other 70's rockers more than i do the who, but i'd been listening to the who practically since birth.)

lol i thought this would be close

I did too. Still, proud to be on the losing team in this case.

Queen are fun as overblown Sparks imitators (as I said on some other thread) but jesus christ the Who should've walked away with this.

greatsilentmajority.jpg

I can't even make it through the entirety of the Queen Greatest Hits I have, over half of it is so goddamn ridiculous and silly and not in a good way (ie, not catchy)

also the whole gay-fascist-spectacle aspect of their live shows has always disturbed me to some extent.

The Who were pretty great when Queen didn't exist, but as soon as Queen existed the Who were worse. All due respect to those who can't cotton to silly, gay fascists ("ONE VISION!").

Is Queen's "One Vision" actually a demand for fascism?

When were the Who ever funk or disco?

since i can not come to terms with the terrible nature of these results, i have decided to view them with the outlook that obv a large portion of ILX are either homophobes or child pr0n collectors.

^^ or worse

people who dig 60s Who get pretty passionate abt it (see the bonham vs. moon thread). they're great no doubt but I think Queen wrote better songs and I prefer May's formalism to Townshend's romanticism, especially once T. gets hold of the idea that he's really got Something To Say. I would say that one way of framing this poll is Conservative (the Who) vs. Eccentric (Queen) - as innovative as the Who once were, by '75 they're as capital-C classic as you can get; say what you like about Tommy being "weird," the Who are the very hegemony itself by now & have been for 30 years. Queen are of course also classic rock, but they're also the band who did "Body Language" and the Flash Gordon soundtrack and "Radio GaGa" = they were much less risk-averse, more prone to fun experiments, more willing to go out on a limb. I do think it boils down to pop vs. rock, with Queen firmly on the pop side, whatever high-art terms one wishes to describe either side in.

what this thread needs is duelling POXs, that'd settle things

much less risk-averse, more prone to fun experiments, more willing to go out on a limb.

No one who's heard Endless Wire (or, cripes, "Guitar and Pen" from Who Are You) (or "Did You Steal My Money" from Face Dances) would say that.

When were the Who ever funk or disco?

disco = "Sister Disco"
funk = "Eminence Front" and all live renditions of "Magic Bus" from 1999 on.

i'm not a big fan of post-68 who tho i do like a fair number of songs but the who sell out is just so great (incl. being risky, experimental, pop and fun). i'd wager most of the who naysayers have never or barely heard it besides i can see for miles, and despite being very much a classic rock guy i had never heard it either until i bought it about 6 years ago. not that it would nec. change any votes but i think it's weird how their greatest work is kinda under the radar still.

JOhn D OTM. But we get to choose each our rationale for the vote here. (I voted Who, because I love both but Queen may not have been the same with The Who)

Had the two bands' peak timespans overlapped at all, this would be more of a concrete battle, mano a mano.

I'm all for duelling POX's and it ain't too late!

"without The Who", oops

I dunno, ain't exactly "Miss You"

Yeah, just because it has "disco" in the title doesn't really mean anything.

I'm very glad The Who won this one. I would have feared for the sanity of ILM if they hadn't. I agree with Shakey's comments on Queen. They come off really pompous to me and I've never had any real interest in them.

They come off really pompous to me and I've never had any real interest in them.

this is exactly how i feel about the who

*shrugs*

Check out Pete telling Rabbit his background vocals need a lot of work at the end of that video.

I think the results reflect the fact that some people really *hate* Queen, whereas it's hard to work up more than boredom and disdain for The Who. I still think a poll that didn't reflect ILX's particular subset of people, whatever that is, would find Queen winning in a landslide.

I think the results reflect the fact that Queen are one of maybe the 20 greatest rock bands of all time but the Who are one of the 5 greatest rock bands of all time.

you're a drummer

I also think the results are skewed by ILX's primarily American demographic - as Queen always seemed to get more cred in the UK and other parts of the world than their Classic Rock peers.

Also skewed by old rock people who used to have a ponytail until you weren't allowed to anymore.

And after Who's Next Townsend's guitar sound became progressively more wretched.

Really, in a better world missing Boomer mythos and Mod bla-bla-bla The Who would be seen as a strong singles band with airs and Queen as, well, Queen.

for me its messed up cuz i think of queen as corny stadium/sports event rock i knew from when i was a kid where as the who was something i got to discover & find out about on my own

also nothing remotely disco about 'sister disco' wtf

since i can not come to terms with the terrible nature of these results, i have decided to view them with the outlook that obv a large portion of ILX are either homophobes or child pr0n collectors.

― R. L. Stinebeck (John Justen), Thursday, January 8, 2009 1:14 AM (6 hours ago)

PLZ TO SHOOSE YOUR SIDE WHO VOTERS

Here in America, The Who are one of the biggest rock bands ever. They used to sometimes win or come in third in the 500 greatest rock songs over Memorial Day Weekend Radio playoffs. Stairway or Freebird level of respect.

Queen are more like Princess Di or Elton John or Dusty Springfield, something we respect or enjoy but don't get worked up over. It's okay though that you other people are really into it.

I think the results are skewed by people who like the Who more.

both bands had the theatrical thing going, but whereas queen seemed to embrace theatre for theatre's sake, the who used it as a device to break down the boundaries of rock music.

Now, Freddie Mercury fronting The Who...

They come off really pompous to me and I've never had any real interest in them.

this is exactly how i feel about the who

If you don't like "pompous" music, then Queen in general and The Who from "Tommy" onwards shouldn't be your thing at all. They are supposed to be pompous.

pls merciful God spare me from any rock band who wants to "break down the boundaries of rock music" or whose efforts can be construed as such

Oh you say that now (as do we all) but 1972 was a very different eenvironment to live through...

pls merciful God spare me from any rock band who wants to "break down the boundaries of rock music" or whose efforts can be construed as such

Ditto. I only listen to the Stray Cats.

J0hn given yr rock vs. pop stake, I'm unclear where the boundary lies, ie where does rock stop being pop music. Particularly in regards to Queen, who had huge prog/classical affectations that were definitely outside of the bounds of the normal three-minute verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus structures, and this was very key to their entire persona. (The Who did too, so I don't really understand what criteria you're using to divide them into their respective camps).

also lolz I originally misread the poll results and thought Queen had won by 8 votes.

ie how is Bohemian Rhapsody somehow "pop" while, say, Won't Get Fooled Again (imho the Who's greatest moment) is "rock"

I'm not sure Bohemian Rhapsody is the best "Queen represent pop" song -- but if I were going to make this argument, I might just settle on "it seems like Queen took themselves less seriously." Of course, the music itself is *seriously accomplished* as far as the kind of technique it takes to record/perform it, but for me, Queen were the kind of band who wrote music to be enjoyed, as opposed to music to protest, or deconstruct, or deliver a political message. The Who Sell Out is probably an example of the Who doing this as well, but even then, it's enjoyment that takes an ironic, post-mod viewpoint to really appreciate. imo Queen would have gotten the same reception in 1798 as now. you know, assuming they wouldn't have been stoned to death for playing magick instruments and being gay.

hahaha

"what are these bisickles ye sing of"

'we will rock you' and 'we are the champions' are undefendable

"We Will Rock You" sample in "When Will They Shoot"? = defended

let me put this in terms you can understand, deej -- "we will rock you" was kind of the "pop champagne" of its day

Crikey, I thought Queen would win this by MILES!

'we will rock you' and 'we are the champions' are undefendable

― opinions4usic (deej), Thursday, January 8, 2009 9:01 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

Any song is undefendable.

What's your beef with those songs in particular?

Any song is defendable!

everyone chanted them at sporting events when i was a kid. ergo not particularly cool

good job!

I mean, I dislike "Another Brick In The Wall" for a similar reason. (everyone liked this song in elementary school and played it over and over again, and I got burned out.) But it's a bit redundant for me to state "Another Brick" is undefendable, no?

i loved that rick rubin remix of we will rock you. it was def.

rick rubin remix:

im only sort of serious in these not being defendable. of course u guys can defend them all you want -- i just dont want to hear it.

Anything indefensible doesn't need defending. Anthing uncool is categorically better than anything cool. And anything that understands and embraces it's own moronic ridiculousness kicks the ass off anything that understands its own artistic importance.

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/lakersblog/images/2008/05/11/hueylewisthenewshiptobesquare298160.jpg

Yeah, but fuck that. It's a fine line, see?

everyone chanted them at sporting events when i was a kid. ergo not particularly cool

the who understands your outcast pain.

HL never embraced anything other than ass

re: "breaking the boundaries of rock," I always loved this xgau quote about townshend (though dude would pick The Who over Queen every day of the week by a mile).

"It's long been evident that what turned Tornshend on about pop art was the art rather than the pop--he didn't want to drag opera down to rock's level, he wanted to raise rock to opera's. In practice, this means he has a fatal weakness for long synth intros."

Queen totally dragged opera down to rock's level.

^^ There's something shameless, smirking, self-mocking in Queen's pretension, something that makes it funny, warm, unpretentious. I hate to say this, but it's like dress-up pretension, drag pretension. It's not only aware of its own ridiculousness, it's in LOVE with its own ridiculousness. It seems to present ridiculousness not as something to be "risked" or even accepted, but as a calling in itself. And I find that liberating, glorious, hilarious, lovable.

The Who, on the other hand, actually seem bad-pretentious to me. Pretentious in the self-important, stultifying, Jim Morrison sense. Where Queen for all their pomp and excess seem effortless to me, light as a feather, The Who seem terribly overburdened, draggy. It's not as though they didn't write some GREAT pop tunes, but to me, there's often something chore-like about them, something educational. I suspect this is Pete Townsend's fault, though everyone likes to point the finger at Daltrey.

I want to defend later period The Who, including Face Dances and It's Hard. I liked the attempts to document Middle-aged Depression and Change Music through By Numbers, Who Are You, Empty Glass, Face Dances, Chinese Eyes, It's Hard. Infidelity, impotence and business problems were a fascinating subject for rock music in the early 80s.

^^IMO a lot of ppl on this thread are sort of acting like the Who's first album was Tommy or something. man...you can't really fuck with the early singles up through Sell Out for me...such great rock songs.

also the Who can be overbearing but then there's those moments like the "listening to you" part in Tommy or "you are forgiven" part of quick one that are just too gorgeous for me.....

I also just think Townsend is fascinating as a person, so fucking neurotic and strange

also:

Emminence Front is the dopest beat

^^ best defense yet of The Who. Agree w/ everything. Esp "listening to you" and Eminence Front.

"It's not only aware of its own ridiculousness, it's in LOVE with its own ridiculousness. "

ding! ding! ding!

re: Eminence Front - there is no one remotely as innovative and exciting as Keith Moon in Queen.

though i think eminence front is kenny jones?

it's a put on

do the lakers still come out on the court to emminence front? that was pretty sweet

everyone chanted them at sporting events when i was a kid. ergo not particularly cool

the who understands your outcast pain.

― da croupier, Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:50 PM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

thats not it at all -- i was into sports & enjoyed rocking you, its just when those songs were used in such blatantly serious ways they are really cornball.

i mean maybe if i was young when every who song was being used to sell SUVs id feel the same way about them, but they at least waited til i was 17 to really bleed all over popular consciousness

yes, people taking the whole sports experience seriously is totally cornball

sorry deej, I'll stop picking on you, but c'mon! "when those songs were used in such blatantly serious ways"? for real?

It's not only aware of its own ridiculousness, it's in LOVE with its own ridiculousness. It seems to present ridiculousness not as something to be "risked" or even accepted, but as a calling in itself. And I find that liberating, glorious, hilarious, lovable.

I love the Who for that exact reason, among many others.

It's interesting how a lot of what is attributed to Queen is also present (usually moreso) with the Who. Is it willful ignorance, or are folks just groaning under the weight of years of Classic Rock radio and CSI overexposure?

What could possibly be more gloriously ridiculous than a messiah who plays pinball (to say nothing of "Tommy's Holiday Camp")? What could be more hilarious than "Bell Boy" from Quadrophenia? Or Entwistle's "What're you whining about NOW, Townshend?" interruption on The Who By Numbers ("Success Story")?

What could possibly be more gloriously ridiculous than a messiah who plays pinball (to say nothing of "Tommy's Holiday Camp")? What could be more hilarious than "Bell Boy" from Quadrophenia? Or Entwistle's "What're you whining about NOW, Townshend?" interruption on The Who By Numbers ("Success Story")?

― Sara Sara Sara

That's not anywhere near the same thing. The messiah who plays pinball isn't gloriously ridiculous. It's pop art social commentary, and kinda leaden at that. Big, heavy messidge shit. Same goes for Bell Boy. Less heavy, but just as much a statement. The Who got jokey, sure, but I don't see where they ever got past being artists and just became the art.

Except Keith, of course. Keith had it nailed.

Flipping through Dave Marsh's book about The Who, I Hope I Die Before I Get Old I'm reminded of just how much intellectualizing, agonizing and theorizing about spirituality, high art, metaphor etc. went into the gloriously ridiculous nature of Tommy.

This can be a plus or minus, but it didn't sound very fun.

Watching something like The Kids Are Alright movie on the other hand, shows the other side of the band and puts Pete's brain into a more balanced perspective.

I'm listing to Queen's Greatest Hits right now. I wish they had taken that one bit "Bicycle Races are coming you way, so forget all your duties Oh Yeah" part and expanded it and come back to it more. I love that little (huge) part.

i mean maybe if i was young when every who song was being used to sell SUVs id feel the same way about them, but they at least waited til i was 17 to really bleed all over popular consciousness

ok how solipsistic do you have to be to believe that the Who didn't "bleed all over popular consciousness" until you were 17?

yr missing the point here dude -- queen achieved another level of saturation up til that point -- now with csi & commercials it might be diff but i dont recall anyone playing "wont get fooled again" at sporting events or anywhere but classic rock radio really until my late teens -- 'solipsistic' maybe but facts are that kind of exposure as a kid leads me to find it hard to treat queen v. seriously today -- that shit is corny. plus ugh all those waynes world fans going nuts for 'bohemian rhapsody' -- so tacky. i just have a strong revulsion to that kind of forced cultural appreciation, i dunno -- its like yeah they were campy songs but bcuz they were so culturally omnipresent they didnt feel like camp, they felt really genuine and serious

camp works for me if theres a level of 'hey this is enjoyably campy' but when its like this ... i dunno its the same for me as not wanting to hear "YMCA" or the Chicken Dance -- thats the level of saturation Queen reached on those joints. even "another one bites the dust" which should be their disco jam that id be really into is so culturally overblown that i cant take it seriously

the who's catalogue still has tracks that still feel cool when i listen to them, like the shit off 'sell out' -- i can see for miles ... listening to their performance @ the fillmore ... etc

queens biggest hits are really like family reunion / wedding music imo

That's not anywhere near the same thing. The messiah who plays pinball isn't gloriously ridiculous. It's pop art social commentary, and kinda leaden at that. Big, heavy messidge shit. Same goes for Bell Boy. Less heavy, but just as much a statement. The Who got jokey, sure, but I don't see where they ever got past being artists and just became the art.

That started when they were mods...or when they became the mirror that mods saw themselves in. I got no problem with heavy message shit, especially when it's performed and played in such a gloriously ridiculous way; the Who didn't do the handed-down long-established-as-a-cliche blooz-rock thing that Queen excelled at for a time, and I think in a way that's part of what's missing from the conversation -- the sound and the approach. Queen (whom I DO like) play like happy contended rich folk; the Who play like angry striking workers.

And for playing Sun City during apartheid, Queen can eat my poo.

^^ I get that. Everybody comes to things in their own way at their own time. If I'd been aware of No Wave shit, I might have been less blown by early Sonic Youth, but I wasn't, so I was, and for that reason, they're still a favorite. It isn't solopsistic to appreciate things in the context you experienced them, it's just honest.

For me though, while I agree with you about having Bohemian Rap and We Will Rock U/Champions mashed down my throat by the bogusworld, the songs are strong enough to survive that. (Then again, I knew 'em as songs before I knew em as totems/punchlines. So I dunno.) Still, the GREATNESS and HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE of the Who is just a big a banana. To be fair.

Damn this is really good, this thread has really started a big Queen kick for me.

I think in a way that's part of what's missing from the conversation -- the sound and the approach. Queen (whom I DO like) play like happy contended rich folk; the Who play like angry striking workers.

― Sara Sara Sara

But you can play it the other way, too. Queen play like drag self-invention, the outcast's creation of a parallel fantasy world in which one is THEE MOTHERFUCKING STAR. Whereas The Who play like the artistic aspirations and cultural criticism of folks who were more-or-less at home in their world.

Best thing about News Of The World is that they front-load the album with their two biggest anthem, and the album doesn't wane at all. In fact, it amps up with the song "Sheer Heart Attack" (not related to the earlier album of the same name). That song was faster and noisier than anything punk at the time. The vocals are crazed..."it was the DNA! What CAN I SAY!!!?". Then goes straight into the dire "All Dead, All Dead".

I don't like that album too much. Same about "The Game". Stripped-down Queen just doesn't out. Queen are about bombast and lots and lots of classical influences, opera influences and a whole bunch of backing vocals.

god, I love that two people have used the word "tacky" to criticize Queen on a Which Rock Band Is Better thread.

im not saying its the bands fault, but i cant help how it was received -- village ppl are tacky too, but a level beyond what they probably anticipated

can't have tacky

rock bands gotta make you feel cool

It's funny cuz tacky is so clearly the game. So using as a criticism = o_0 Same goes for VP.

Homer: So I realized that being with my family is more important
than being cool.
Bart: Dad, what you just said was powerfully uncool.
Homer: You know what the song says: "It's hip to be square."
Lisa: That song is so lame.
Homer: So lame that it's... cool?
Bart and Lisa: No.
Marge: Am I cool, kids?
Bart and Lisa: No.
Marge: Good. I'm glad. And that's what makes me cool—not caring, right?
Bart and Lisa: No.

i could see the who being "tacky" too i guess.

either way doesn't mean much to me..

but dudes..."Pictures of Lily"....

pure beautiful art + about wacking off, show some respect

hey if they're not workers than explain the wrenches

omg do not bring up beautiful songs about spooging when trying to distinguish a group from queen

Stripped-down Queen just doesn't out

totally disagree, here are some awesome "stripped down" queen songs:

- all dead, all dead (great quirk-pop, in a diy mccartney way)
- take my breath away (*gorgeous* piano + voice ballad)
- dear friends (classically-leaning piano + voice ballad, written by...Brian May!)
- the game (one of the greatest pop songs queen ever did, and also very mccartney-esque)
- my melancholy blues, and maybe also in the lap of the gods...revisited (queen could do late night, bar closing torch songs really well)
- jealousy (STILL MORE gorgeous balladry)

when i say 'tacky' the problem i have is less w/ the gayness/campness than their place in the overall culture

I know, but it's still funny

"Won't Get Fooled Again" is the #1 Conservative Rock Song

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE=

Now imagine having THAT as your first exposure to The Who

wrt "coolness"/"tackiness" wrt fucking NRO!

but see, the NRO liking it proves that it still has badass power and hasn't been corrupted by grandmas and stuff.

its funny that no one has brought up Queen's early, ridiculously rockist "NO SYNTHESIZERS" bullshit vs. the Who's fairly revolutionary and forward thinking embrace of synthesizers

assholes like lots of good music -- once again this is about the bands overall placement w/in american culture rather than some dbag coopting a song to fit his political views

croupier,

show me a queen song about spooging that's better than pictures of lily

yeah but then Daltrey got old despite his hopes and started dissing everything that wasn't 'proper rock n' roll' so fuck him (xposts)

queen is way more, uh, rockist than the who IMO

show me a queen song about spooging that's better than pictures of lily

Under Pressure?

its funny that no one has brought up Queen's early, ridiculously rockist "NO SYNTHESIZERS" bullshit vs. the Who's fairly revolutionary and forward thinking embrace of synthesizers

― Shakey Mo Collier

I think there was some talk about that the other day? Can't see it as a big deal either way. Credit to The Who though.

"Rockist" has to be the weakest possible criticism of the rock era, though.

no way under pressure is about getting chicks in miami and being an awesome rapper

"Get Down Make Love" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pictures Of Lily"

for spooging

for me to spoog on !!

but see queen was having orgies and fun, mainstream gay sex while the who were keeping it real with their masturbation and guys rule stuff

the who's butch camp you can still be like "aww yeaahh i'm a badass with my who! workers! rar!" about but queen is so accepted as gay camp by the world it's like why bother

Freddie Mercury never put out a solo album portraying himself as a centaur

lolz, this thread reminds me of the scene in Porky's 2 where the preacher and the principal are trying to out-moral each other quoting the dirtiest passages from Shakespeare and The Bible, respectively.

Spooge Index:

GTML ----------------------------------∞
Lily -.

also i didn't cite picture of lily for excellence in spooging per se, but rather as being a wackin' it song

croupier do you really front on the who to this degree, like you don't even bro down to "my generation" or "substitute" or any of those singles? or like you don't think baba o reilly is like super epic and rocking or anything?

^^ Good question, cuz that would be insane.

i didn't cite picture of lily for excellence in spooging per se, but rather as being a wackin' it song

― M@tt the H

It's so genteel about whackin tho. Like with pinkie extended, into a lavendar-scented doily.

The picture of Lily that were in the Who Maximum R&B picture book by Richard Barnes helped me through some sleepless nights when I was young.

"Rockist" has to be the weakest possible criticism of the rock era, though.

― Calling All Creeps! (contenderizer), Thursday, January 8, 2009 3:55 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

except that a lot of the pro-queen talk here is arguing pretty much the same thing but wrt the who instead

over ambitious and prog and serious and all that -- basically calling the who rockist right?? its all code

http://www.thewho.info/images/Daltrey-LP-USA-2.jpghttp://www.chicagogigs.com/images/content/stevie-nicks_stevie-nicks__tickets_1733951.jpg

a lot of the pro-queen talk here is arguing pretty much the same thing but wrt the who instead

― opinions4usic (deej)

No no no. I've called Who fans rockist, because they disagree with me. Therefore rockist. Rock bands, however, are allowed to be however much rockist as they want.

i'm honestly not sure if i'm rockist or not

over ambitious and prog and serious and all that -- basically calling the who rockist right?? its all code

― deej

Okay, you got me there. But that's just by accident. Normally I think ambition and prog are rad, and even "serious" often gets a pass. I don't have any problem with rockists or rockism. My point was that there's this something that The Who do that threatens to bore me with the seriousness. I can't put my finger on it exactly, and they manage to work around it at least 50% of the time, but it keeps me at a distance.

FWIW, at least 50% of Queen songs are straight garbage, even some of the hits, so it's not like I can't understand the opposition.

http://www.thewhocollection.com/thewho/cds/rest/symph.jpghttp://null.perl-hackers.net/archives/51HC7SWJTNL._SS500_.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SLs59nEa4X4/SWZ_Pcxh2pI/AAAAAAAAACc/e10xDHfpgjg/s200/stache.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SLs59nEa4X4/SWZ_Pcxh2pI/AAAAAAAAACc/e10xDHfpgjg/s200/stache.jpg

dammit. that was supposed to be Mercury too. never mind.

just do two of freddy now

Thanks fuck for that - ie The Who win.

Queen get on my tits. Always did, always will.
Mr Bombastic

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SLs59nEa4X4/SWZ_WGUBRyI/AAAAAAAAACk/eVtfe4gbQXI/s200/stache2.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SLs59nEa4X4/SWZ_WGUBRyI/AAAAAAAAACk/eVtfe4gbQXI/s200/stache2.jpg

saved.

Freddie Mercury's parents were Zoroastrians; adherents to this religion leave their corpses atop high pillars to be eaten by vultures.

Roger Daltrey's parents almost doubtless Anglican.

GAME, SET, MATCH

I believe they prefer the term Parsi J0hn

okay J0hn that's the first thing on this thread that has made me want to vote for Queen

my knowledge of the sect is admittedly limited to the awesome part about the vultures & the four-eyed dogs & the tower of silence, so yeah shakey mo my bad

(ftr, Queen is awesome and I would have picked them over both The Beatles and The Stones)

^^^nerd

duh

God the "somebody to love" vocal arrangement is now magnificently stuck in my head, that is some straight-up awesomeness right there

queen were wonderful. deej is missing out. maybe he'll get old and forget about all those ball games that scarred him so horrifically.

was it matos who said he couldn't listen to steve miller cuzza the kids in his school. so sad. nobody should have to live without steve miller in their life.

scott did you ever d/l that Flame album I was posting about on the 70s countryfunk thread?

this thread

(sorry for the derail everybody)

watching that long queen concert on pbs, man, they just cranked them out one after another. they were pure entertainment. and the harmonies between all of them live! and i just love freddie's voice. what can i say? he was inspirational to me.

that's another thing they had in common with the who. they both had three distinct singers. you forget how much of the actual singing on queen songs came from roger taylor. (harmony, backing vocals, etc, as well as lead vocals on some tunes. and i dig brian may's hard rock lead vocals too.)

no, i didn't. i will. when i get a chance. if it's still up. i didn't see that the first time.

"FWIW, at least 50% of Queen songs are straight garbage"

see, i think from the first album to the game most everything they did is good to great with very little garbage. after that i don't listen as much so i forget. but that seven year period or whatever is pretty golden to me.

i can't believe this thread made me buy a copy of who by numbers for 8 bucks today. 8 bucks! what was i thinking? i just needed to hear it. haven't heard it in decades. i still like slip kid. i need to listen to the second side. i think there was a reason why i didn't need a copy for so long.

on the other hand i bought a copy of low budget today for 4 bucks and that sounds better than ever! i love that album. superman by the kinks might be the best 60's rocker disco tune there is except for some stones songs.

who by numbers is pretty cool IMO

My fav Who is the Live At Leeds deluxe package where they run through Tommy in its entirety. I love how everything on that album is at double speed.

Ha, Scott!

I will get around to Steve Miller some day, BUT

as a kid, one time I heard a song on the radio called "Space Cowboy". I f'in LOVED it. Since there was no google in 1984, I had to hope that my mom had the record. She did! Awesome! I play it, and I was soooo fucking bummed. To add insult to injury, mom comes in and "wonders when I'd get around to REAL music from her day" (the only rockist thing she ever said, oddly enough.)

I found out only a few years ago the "Space Cowboy" I initially heard was the Jonzun Crew song. Wow, was I thinking? (I do proudly own Lost In Space, tho)

Scott's right. Low Budget is rad, too.

What is most "rockist"? Concept albums with 10-15 minute suites and empasis on instrumental skills or "punky" outspoken anti-"dinosaur" attitudes?

Geir until you become a death metal fan your attempts to rep for instrumental prowess will always be fraudulent

TS: Queen vs. Foetopsy
"Sleeping on the Sidewalk" vs. "Scab in a Pudding Cup"

Queen are more like Princess Di or Elton John or Dusty Springfield, something we respect or enjoy but don't get worked up over. It's okay though that you other people are really into it.

OK, fuck you and your mom.

yeah nobody ever cared about an Elton John record or Dusty in Memphis

OK, fuck you and your mom.

Hey now, I was getting called a pervo or a hater right before that.

I was a little insulting in the pursuit of the idea that Queen as an important massive icon band seems more a product of an aspect of UK culture that only had partial penetration in the States.

james k polk I think your assertion is really subjective - it's certainly not backed up by the album charts. here's Queen during their peak, '76-81:

1976 A Night At The Opera Pop Albums 4
1977 A Day At The Races Pop Albums 5
1978 News Of The World Pop Albums 3
1979 Jazz Pop Albums 6
1979 Queen Live Killers Pop Albums 16
1980 The Game Black Albums 8
1980 The Game Pop Albums 1
1981 Flash Gordon Pop Albums 23
1981 Greatest Hits Pop Albums 14
1981 Under Pressure Mainstream Rock 7

Here's the Who:

1967 Happy Jack Pop Albums 67
1968 Magic Bus-The Who On Tour Pop Albums 39
1968 The Who Sell Out Pop Albums 48
1970 Live At Leeds Pop Albums 4
1970 Tommy Pop Albums 4
1971 Meaty Beaty Big And Bouncy Pop Albums 11
1971 Who's Next Pop Albums 4
1973 Quadrophenia Pop Albums 2
1974 Odds & Sods Pop Albums 15
1974 A Quick One (Happy Jack)/The Who Sell Out Pop Albums 185
1975 The Who By Numbers Pop Albums 8
1978 Who Are You Pop Albums 2
1979 Quadrophenia Pop Albums 46
1979 The Kids Are Alright Pop Albums 8
1981 Face Dances Pop Albums 4
1981 Hooligans Pop Albums 52
1982 It's Hard Pop Albums 8

Which one of these bands gets a #1 album? Which one doesn't? I think, yeah, people who think about rock a lot are liable to think of the Who as having greater historical weight. But as far as the charts were concerned, at least, Queen - during a much shorter tenure - were as embraced by Americans as the Who were.

OTOH yeah Queen on the charts in England = something like the #2 band of all time or something.

The weird part about those charts is that the highest charting Who albums are Quadrophenia and Who Are You.

I could understand Who Are You given that Moon died shortly after its release.. it's that uneasy "death bump" in the charts. but Quadrophenia?

Then again, 1971 was an epic year, so who knows (drum fill) what was competing with Who's Next that week.

Flipping back, The Game's #1 spot is entirely due to the success of "Another One Bites The Dust". Sure, there were other singles off the album, but while Queen did get a number one, it did so under the same mechanisms as one hit wonders. Thankfully, Queen had a solid ROCK career under their belt for new fans to go back to after "Another One", hence evading one hit wonder status. "Under Pressure" aside, Queen lost it in the U.S. after The Game/Flash Gordon.

I stress ROCK above because this was 1980 and Disco Sucks was the order of culture, a discoey hit iceberg tip above a mammoth chunk of un-disco ice = roll saving throw

I think polk has a point, j0hn. Queen may have been equally popular in the States, but in my experience, hardcore rock geekdom never accorded them the same status as a "legitimate, important band". They often seem to be treated as second-stringers, and embarassingly tawdry ones at that. In part it's the weird shadow that contintues to be cast by the fist-wave British Invasion bands, but it's probably also the manner in which Queen flaunted their own tackiness.

Did any of the people pooh-poohing the importance/relevance of Queen grow up in the upper midwest? Because it seems like you're totally speaking foreign crazy talk when compared to my experiences growing up in suburban MN,

No. Spokane, Washington. Which is kinda like midwestern, but mostly just WESTERN.
Cream of the crop bands that were cool & important: Sabbath, Zeppelin, Hendrix, Floyd, Maiden, Deep Purp.
Also supremely worthy: The Doors, Skynyrd, Allman Bros, Rainbow, Dio, Ozzy, Crue, Def Leppard.
Stones, Beatles, Elton John and the Who were for geeks, girls and parents.
VU, Stooges, Bowie, Kinks, Byrds, KCrimson, Genesis, Gabriel Pistols and Ramones were for serious geeks.
Queen was weird pop shit, though the hardcore geeks liked the early albums.

Note that this discounts modern types who were into shit like Oingo Boingo, Devo, Flag, DKs, Depeche Mode, Adam Ant and whatever, cuz that shit hadn't yet slotted into the dude rock canon.

I've left out the positioning of Aerosmith (cream of the crop); Cheap Trick, Journey, Boston & Foreigner (geeks, girls and parents); Jethro Tull & BOC (geeks only). And so many more.

Note that positions may have shifted since 1980, and relative to distance from Spokane, Washington.

^^ would love to see a whole thread about these kinds of regional variations in the rock canon

"True Significance" was determined by the intersection of dudes and geeks. Final word given to dudes who were yet geeks. I.e., yes to Hendrix, Floyd, Doors, The Who. No to Def Leppard, Elton John, Queen.

Flipping back, The Game's #1 spot is entirely due to the success of "Another One Bites The Dust".

....aaaand "Crazy Little Thing Called Love."

you never answered my question J0hn

Funny that Spokane's canon still seems "definitive" to me, though it's been decades since I've lived there.

again i like both these bands a lot and both are great

but i did want to chime in with another plus for the who in my book is john entwistle...as a bassist i'm just awed by him, such a cool and distinctive musician

**but i should also throw in that brian may's guitar work is so great and his guitar tone is just next level, love how he eschewed the usual 70s style soloing and did really composed written out harmony stuff, so great

Flipping back, The Game's #1 spot is entirely due to the success of "Another One Bites The Dust". Sure, there were other singles off the album, but while Queen did get a number one, it did so under the same mechanisms as one hit wonders. Thankfully, Queen had a solid ROCK career under their belt for new fans to go back to after "Another One", hence evading one hit wonder status. "Under Pressure" aside, Queen lost it in the U.S. after The Game/Flash Gordon.

― 909090909 Rivethed Brikkchin Reverk now DANZ (Mackro Mackro), Friday, January 9, 2009 12:05 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The Game was their downfall as far as their 'rock' audience was concerned - those people were really turned off by their pop direction, embrace of minimalistic production, funk and new wave. They then came out with Hot Space, which was the nail in the coffin, and they never fully recovered their cred.

which question was that shakey mo

btw I think "tacky" is kind of a bizarre protest to lodge against a stadium rock band - I mean, what's tackier: queen's costumes, or the guy bathing in baked beans on the cover of SELL OUT or whichever one that is? windmilling the guitar, exploding the drums on tv, drums with fish in them...that's not "tacky"? how is it that the Who's excesses code as "excess" but Queen's do as "tacky"?

gay sex is tacky, straight sex is excess

that's what I'm trying to drive at without saying it, thank you Dan

it's silly because all sex is going to be tacky at some point if you're doing it right

not the way I do it, the judges always give me a 9.7 for tastefulness

all three of them

I think you're using the wrong definition of "tacky".

j0hn d has to have a stern west german watch him bone

Gay vs. straight def plays in, but that's not the whole of it. Imagery associated w "The Who Sell Out" is categorically untacky, because it's explicitly criticizing the tackiness of pop culture, in other words placing the band above the tacky fray. Windmilling and drum bombing are kinda tacky, but only a little. The first at least half reads as "feelin it", and the second is a prank. Fish drums FULLY TACKY, but that kind of excess wasn't really what The Who were about.

Queen rarely positioned themselves as critics, and when they did ("Radio Ga-Ga"), they did so in a way that made them seem even more ludicrous than what they were trying to poke fun at. The Who positioned themselves as critics, sneering at falsity and error, which kinda cuts off tackiness accusations at the pass. The Who seemed to embrace EVERYTHING, indulge everything, no matter how foolish or sentimental or even dishonest in a big rococo specacle that often reads as T-A-C-K-Y.

"QUEEN seemed to embrace EVERYTHING..."

fucken fuck

j0hn d has to have a stern west german. watch him bone

― ie: BANGING (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, January 9, 2009 2:15 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark

fxd

Wow. Lookit what i missed in the last hour.

luckily J0hn bones every hour on the hour

The Who positioned themselves as critics, sneering at falsity and error, which kinda cuts off tackiness accusations at the pass.

RONG. It makes the audience say, "Paunchy, sanctimonious fucks" (still love'em)

^ Good point. It does sometimes make me say just that.

I think the question of the thread title is completely ridiculous. Queen was just a bad pop band more than decent rock and roll. The Who was and is the greatest rock and roll band ever and I do not think we will see their likes again. The Beatles came close to them but failed in the long run.

Queen was just a bad pop band more than decent rock and roll

how to proving someone else's point

Dan Landings, positioned himself as a critic, sneering at falsity and error.

Those who choose Queen are choosing wrongly because their music does not mean anything. I think they are good at sports games and not much else.

you are a treat

Which games are they good at?

I'm good at Scrabble, but it's not really a sport.

Those who choose Queen are choosing wrongly because their music does not mean anything. I think they are good at sports games and not much else.

Someone else has downloaded the Geir chip.

I have heard their music at basketball games at which they are good. But on the radio it makes me want to switch to another station.

which question was that shakey mo

btw I think "tacky" is kind of a bizarre protest to lodge against a stadium rock band - I mean, what's tackier: queen's costumes, or the guy bathing in baked beans on the cover of SELL OUT or whichever one that is? windmilling the guitar, exploding the drums on tv, drums with fish in them...that's not "tacky"? how is it that the Who's excesses code as "excess" but Queen's do as "tacky"?

― J0hn D., Friday, January 9, 2009 4:03 PM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

gay sex is tacky, straight sex is excess

― ^likes black girls (HI DERE), Friday, January 9, 2009 4:05 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that's what I'm trying to drive at without saying it, thank you Dan

― J0hn D., Friday, January 9, 2009 4:05 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how about you guys read what i wrote k?

i know that queen fans are brave progressives who know how to have fun while who fans are homophobic rockists who only like serious music but im just saying

Do these Who fans know about his penchant for writing about rough trade?

*his = Townshend

Sure, but when he does this, he's positioning himself as a critic, sneering at falsity and error in the pursuit of trade.

i mean u guys can pretend "Dan Landings" (<----strrrrong sockpuppet vibes ok) and geir are the perfect examples of pro-Who fans but thats not really fair to the other arguments presented --

Who were tacky in early 70s bombast period w/ Tommy and quadrophenia and bangers like WONT GET FOOLED AGAIN -- pretty tacky yeah. but the 60s stuff isnt particularly tacky, no

that said, my criticism of 'tacky' wasnt of the bombast or the campiness of queen in the first place. what is tacky was the place queen holds in culture which is so far beyond the tackiness that they themselves were going for -- their biggest hits are just corny, not bcuz of what they 'are' but bcuz of how earnestly and annoyingly theyve permeated popular culture. like i said upthread, whats TACKY is that theyre wedding music for old ppl, that "we are the champions" has become a really obnoxious theme for every sports victory on earth -- who can listen to that shit still without wincing??

the comparable example, again, is village people, not sylvester -- sylvester, gay, camp, tacky, but not holding that same special corny place in society as "YMCA" or "We Will Rock You"

imo

Criticizing bands in 2009 for pop culture ubiquity when a band's albums barely break 100K sold is rather hilarious.

its not about sales -- thought that much should be obvious -- its for the functionality of the songs w/in pop culture. im not mad at radio hits, im just not really feeling it when a song ceases to be a song and becomes an 'event' or a automatic signifier of some cultural event or time. its like "dude how can you not love 'here comes the bride' -- classic melody!!!"

Look, both bands are fat, old, and once pressed different stadium-rock buttons. I much prefer Queen singing "You Better, You Bet" to Daltrey (who sounds like he's doing a pub turn), and only The Who could write "I Can See For Miles." Both bands contain a fair amount of homofascist twaddle.

A band like Queen is made better by their inclusion in cultural events.

like gay people!

yeah i mean i have my issues w/ the who too, im not defending their catalog front to back or something -- i just cant think of queen songs that i love like 'see for miles' or magic bus or baba o'reilly or whatever

i mean maybe im sleeping on some classic queen joints that arent used in 32094802934903 sports films

its not about sales -- thought that much should be obvious -- its for the functionality of the songs w/in pop culture. im not mad at radio hits, im just not really feeling it when a song ceases to be a song and becomes an 'event' or a automatic signifier of some cultural event or time. its like "dude how can you not love 'here comes the bride' -- classic melody!!!"

― xhuxk d (deej), Friday, January 9, 2009 4:54 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol all the best who songs are basically CSI soundtracks at this point

ie in what world is baba o'reilly less of a cultural event than we will rock you?

the only reason they don't use baba o'reilly at halftime is because the who fucked it up with 45 minutes of violin noodling

this thread sucks

J0hn given yr rock vs. pop stake, I'm unclear where the boundary lies, ie where does rock stop being pop music. Particularly in regards to Queen, who had huge prog/classical affectations that were definitely outside of the bounds of the normal three-minute verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus structures, and this was very key to their entire persona. (The Who did too, so I don't really understand what criteria you're using to divide them into their respective camps).

― There was even a brief period when I preferred Sally Forth. (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:44 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i mean maybe im sleeping on some classic queen joints that arent used in 32094802934903 sports films

"Too Late"
"Cold Stone Crazy"
"Brighton Rock"
"'39"
"The Prophet's Song"
"Mustapha"
"Fun It"
"Get Down Make Love"
"Fight From The Inside"
"Under Pressure"

I'm basically about to list every Queen track from '75 to '81 that's not "Champions" and "Rock You" and "Another One Bites The Dust", and I'm just starting

(it gets funnier and funnier that I voted Who in this poll.)

"Mustapha" is great, because I think it was the first song that tricked you into turning up the volume and bass on your receiver, and then

Look, both bands are fat, old, and once pressed different stadium-rock buttons.

have to say daltry keeps in fantastic shape

I got a Daltrey Aerobics DVD for xmas. I still have to buy the denim frills that are recommended for the workout

I voted Who, too!

deej, you appear to be reading SERIOUS INTENT into cheap lols

tommy wasnt cheap lols!

it was serious lols

tommy's serious lol camp

deej have you listened to the following albums:
sheer heart attack
a day at the races
a night at the opera
jazz

'cause they are fly and I think you would love them.

thinking baout starting queen vs beatles and queen vs. stones polls for more butthurt lolz when queen loses and also in the hope of attracting more socks like dan landings

also to shakey mo: both bands are rock bands. queen to my ears has more invested in the pop idea (lack of "here's what it's all about" tropes ala Townshend's constant "standing aloof from the scene, 'offering critique'" stuff), has less invested in the idea of Standing For Something/having Something to Say. As great as the Who are, I can never shake the feeling that Townshend really thinks he could make me more aware of some very crucial shit if I'd only open my eyes for a minute. I hate that. Freddie Mercury never makes me feel that way, he just sounds like a guy stoked to have such an excellent band and so many kick-ass vocal & vocal-arrangement chops.

(lol "butthurt lols" = people who're actually interested in continuing a discussion instead of just ogling poll results)

people interested in continuing a discussion=townshend
people interested in just ogling=mercury

I agree with both of those points, Velko. However I concede there may be merit in the argument that Queen has worth beyond what I have assigned them and I will take it upon myself to listen to one of their studio albums entire.

I applaud you
: D

people interested in continuing a discussion=townshend
people interested in just ogling=mercury

touche!!! :)

Queen has less invested in the idea of Standing For Something/having Something to Say.

this may be true but when what they end up saying has this creepy gay fascist Nuremberg Rally vibe to it I kind of wish they HAD maybe invested a little more thought into what they were actually saying.

like, that's the problem with slavishly priveleging form and style over content or "message" - you end up saying things maybe you should have thought through a little more

or, to put it another way, the content/message is there whether its consciously constructed or not

this creepy gay fascist Nuremberg Rally vibe to it

o_O

accidental xpost to Who vs. Rammstein poll?

like, that's the problem with slavishly priveleging form and style writing songs told from the point of view of a pinball wizard over content or "message" - you end up saying things maybe you should have thought through a little more

this may be true but when what they end up saying has this creepy gay fascist Nuremberg Rally vibe to it I kind of wish they HAD maybe invested a little more thought into what they were actually saying.

with respect SM I think when the posited "fascist" is from a persecuted 10% the dynamics a LITTLE different I think

ie I think they had thought it through maybe a little better than you're imagining

NO HATE NO FIGHT JUST EX-CI-TATION

everyone knows that freddie mercury's name was really Farrokh Bulsara, right? give it up for the fascist gay indian/asian lobby, dudes!

They were all Aryans anyway oh wait.

My local classic rock station is playing requests all this week, and I've heard way more Queen and way less Who than they usually play. (very little Stones now that I think about it) (of course cherry picking the requests may be no different than the normal play list)

I'll have to think about what that says about Houston's rock dude canon or whatever it is called.

Ha Ha, I just switched on to check right this second, A dude requested My Generation, the dj said why not, and then BTO came on instead.

that deserves who-tang action

dude the Nazis were totally gay come on now

what they end up saying has this creepy gay fascist Nuremberg Rally vibe to it.

― Shakey Mo Collier

Wish this were true, cuz whatever band that was, it would be AWESOME. (Or, yeah, Rammstein.)

A dude requested My Generation, the dj said why not, and then BTO came on instead.

james k polk, Saturday, 10 January 2009 03:41 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Smashie and Nicie live on

Queen were a gay version of Rush. I feel like that's the better comparison.

queen 4 bismallah, who for cock-rock