the bear - 2012-06-08 6:07 PM
alltom1 - 2012-06-08 2:26 PM In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.
alltom1, where you been man? Great to hear from you.
ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 2:29 PM
Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.
Thank you rlysi!
The Rolling Stones are one of the five most influential recording artists of the rock era, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, and the Velvet Underground.
Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)
Music is very personal. If you like Queen, there's nothing wrong with that. I like Queen myself. But a comparison to the Stones is ludicrous.
Want a more objective measure?
If the Stones came out of nowhere, recorded Exile on Main Street, and disappeared, their artistic output would have easily outstripped that of Queen. And nearly every other band of the rock era, for that matter.
But they also released Let it Bleed. and Beggars Banquet. and Sticky Fingers. That's four albums (Nos. 7, 32, 57, and 63) in the first hundred of Rolling Stone magazine's Top 500 Albums of All Time. You can find five more Stones albums before you get to the sole Queen album on the list, A Night at the Opera, at #239. Stones have 13 total albums on that list. I would defy most casual fans to name even two Queen albums.
How can Queen even be mentioned in the same breath?
This is truth.Read it.