Album Rating: 5.0

"Most of what queen did was repackage what other people did for a more popular and live audience. They're still talented though, esp mercury."



I'm very, very curious about your explanation for this statement because I'd be super interested in you showing me what bands Queen "repackaged" for a more popular and live audience. There were maybe two other bands on the entire planet making Operatic hard rock like Queen were at this time. In fact I'd actually be pretty astonished if you could show me another band making music similar to something like "The Millionaire Waltz" before this.



And on the ELO and Queen comparison...they share very little in common. Queen was hard rock/proto-metal mixed with operatic themes, ELO were total Beatles worship with some classical influences but I have an extremely difficult time understanding how someone could listen to A New World Record and then News of the World and not be able to point out the glaring differences in influences and style.



Why are we comparing ELO to Queen? I'm a HUGE ELO fan by the way, Telephone Line is one of my favorite songs ever and A New World Record is one of my favorite albums but the bands had very little in common and quite honestly ELO weren't remotely as consistent as Queen were. Queen dropped 3-4 classic albums in the span of a decade, ELO dropped two classic albums, a couple of good ones, and then a whole fucking load of trash. Most of their discography isn't good. Frankly I'd choose A New World Record over any Queen album but A Night at the Opera, a Day At the Races, and News of the World are all legit fan-fucking-tastic albums and when you throw in records like Sheer Heart Attack and Jazz, their work in the 70s totally outclasses ELO. Because a huge chunk of ELO's 70s work was mediocre as fuck if not downright bad, whereas Queen was basically just producing one fantastic album after another for an entire decade with no lulls in production.

Album Rating: 4.0

" whereas Queen was basically just producing one fantastic album after another for an entire decade with no lulls in production."



Roy Thomas Baker making Queen and Jazz sound like utter trash would debunk this statement. ELO at least had the decency to make well produced albums, regardless of its musical quality.

Album Rating: 2.0

Listened to al the first seven Queen studio albums the other day - only one I can remotely fuck with is Sheer Heart Attack :/

Not even Queen II? That's their finest. Sheer Heart Attack is close though.

Album Rating: 5.0

Jazz is a fantastic record. I have no idea why you would rather have a well produced album with mediocre to shitty songs than a badly produced album with great songs. A great song is a great song, and that transcends production 99.9% of the time.



ELO had a great period of music, but Queen had a better one, for longer IMO. I'll take Lynne's 80s stuff over Queen's 80s stuff though.

Album Rating: 4.0

I mean, I could have thw best of both worlds with ELO, rather than sit through Queen's filler tracks.

Album Rating: 2.5

queen's filler tracks? you mean most of their discography?

"ELO were better"
lmao they were just as overrated.

Album Rating: 4.0

You're joking, right?

Album Rating: 4.0

The hoops Queen fans will jump through to add to the myth that they were untouchable in their prime is astounding.

Album Rating: 5.0

I definitely wouldn't claim they were untouchable in their prime, What I'm claiming is that their peak, which lasted a good portion of an entire decade, was better than ELO's peak. And I legit fucking love ELO and was way into ELO twelve years back when I was still in high school and didn't even really delve into Queen's album tracks until a few years ago. I in fact used to find Queen super overrated. But as time has gone on I've changed my mind. So there's no hoop jumping and no biases here, I think Jeff Lynne is a motherfucking musical genius, and like I said before A New World Record is a fuckin masterpiece but I find that Queen's overall catalog of material outweighs ELO.



Man why are we even comparing ELO to Queen? Pretty different bands. Queen went for an operatic, proggish, light-metalish touch, ELO was like Beatles worship orchestral 70s prog with dashes of hard rock. Which I realize that whole description sounds super specific but those are definitely two distinctly different sounds lol

Album Rating: 4.0

"Man why are we even comparing ELO to Queen?



Your guess is as good as mine, honestly. The comparison makes as much sense as comparing Sparks to Queen.

Album Rating: 5.0

"Man why are we even comparing ELO to Queen?"



[2]

Album Rating: 3.0

Would you have this site any other way?

Album Rating: 4.5

Both bands are generally great with a few turds here and there, now let's all shake hands and sing "Kumbaya" together

Album Rating: 2.0

Queen have about 10 listenable songs for me, that’s it

I can appreciate them, but they’ve never done it for me in the slightest. You can say what you want but for me they just haven’t got ‘it’

Album Rating: 5.0

ELO and Queen sound literally nothing alike

Album Rating: 5.0

Oh, looks like Sinternet started that bullshit. Why am I not surprised?

"queen's filler tracks? you mean most of their discography?"
actually based