Electric Light Orchestra V Queen

Originally posted by The Dark Elf Queen. ELO has nothing comparable to the three consecutive albums Queen II, Shear Heart Attack and A Night at the Opera. Queen was simply a better rock band than ELO,

Queen. ELO has nothing comparable to the three consecutive albums Queen II, Shear Heart Attack and A Night at the Opera. Queen was simply a better rock band than ELO,

ELO

ELO.

Queen is overrated, only handful of above average songs.

Queen made excellent recordings with high levels of performance, but song quality was not of the same standard, otherwise it would have been even better than it was. ELO has many of those qualities too, but the songs are just as  good. Recording skills and writing skills are two different things, one can make up for deficiencies in the other, but of course, it's best when the two meet in harmony.

Originally posted by giselle Originally posted by TheLionOfPrague Originally posted by giselle I prefer ELO because Jeff Lynne is much superior songwriter to anything anyone in Queen can produce, and even though Queen are the superior musicians and a better group. Jeff Lynne is a great songwriter, but not better  than Freddie. Freddie was a great singer and showman, but he couldn't write a song to save his life (!); the 'songs' he did write were amazingly old-fashioned (and camp!) for someone from a supposedly-heavy Rock group. Even the best piece he ever did - parts of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - were snatches of good melody (but with meaningless lyrics) interspersed with trivial/mundane musical interludes heavily laced with bad taste which only a group peddling excess as a norm could get away with. So no, in my opinion Freddie wasn't even in the first league of songwriters, though he certainly had plenty going for him in other ways.

Put me down for Queen. ELO took an album or two to get up to speed, and then their classic period is comparatively brief; Queen had their sound nailed down straight out of the gate and put out more top-flight albums than ELO ever did, in my book.

I'd pick virtually any musical act over ELO.  So, yeah.

Not much into ELO, so no vote. 

Anyway, Queen's style was anticipated by Sparks who did it WITHOUT the pastiche approach that Queen favoured in not only Bohemian..but many other well regarded songs like March of the Black Queen and went for 3-4 minute slabs of smart pop/rock instead.  Sparks also tried many more things so it's not possible for me to hold Queen's compositional skills in the same high regard as I would have before.  Yeah, mainly about the flamboyance of Mercury and May. And as much as I like Freddie's singing, he's NOT my favourite rock singer and is pretty weak when it comes to truly melancholic moments.  His singing on the first section of Bohemian is overwrought but it works because of the band's generally campy style of music.  

Originally posted by TheLionOfPrague Originally posted by giselle I prefer ELO because Jeff Lynne is much superior songwriter to anything anyone in Queen can produce, and even though Queen are the superior musicians and a better group. Jeff Lynne is a great songwriter, but not better  than Freddie.

Freddie was a great singer and showman, but he couldn't write a song to save his life (!); the 'songs' he did write were amazingly old-fashioned (and camp!) for someone from a supposedly-heavy Rock group. Even the best piece he ever did - parts of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - were snatches of good melody (but with meaningless lyrics) interspersed with trivial/mundane musical interludes heavily laced with bad taste which only a group peddling excess as a norm could get away with. So no, in my opinion Freddie wasn't even in the first league of songwriters, though he certainly had plenty going for him in other ways.