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.

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