Quick Question: Queen or the Cure?

Not really a fan of either, not that I dislike, just haven't become a fan. Not really familiar with their body of works.

But, would The Cure's involvement in this film instead of Queen have made it any better?

Queen, This ain't a question you can't expect anyone to leave the legend!

are you kidding?

the cure is not even close to being in the same league as queen.

The Cure at least is only bad. Queen sucks.

Queen, without hesitation although I'm not really sure if those two the best comparison.

Are you kidding? This is like asking which is better Transformers or Go-Bots.

Freddie Mercury is the greatest Rock Vocalist of all time. Cure is not even in the same category.

Both are Dad Rock bands but at least Queen has some catchy stuff, so them.

Queen

I can't stand the cure.

I haven't heard much of The Cure but the probability that they're worse than Queen is very small. So Cure.

Can't say I have ever heard a Cure song. But Queen made Under Pressure so Queen baby.

Queen still sucks Shu. Always will.

@LJS9502_basic: Go back to your dubsteps son and let us talk about the real music

Always entertaining when some idiot thinks their opinion is fact.

@LJS9502_basic: It looks like OT has decided, once again, that you're wrong.

I guess you could say... another one... bites the dust.

I hate queen, it's just overly theatrical 'musical' music. Hell, there's even a musical with the music of queen...
Therefore The Cure.

Christ you are one stupid dumbass

The Cure is sooooo much better. And I'm not even a Queen hater (not a fan but I can acknowledge that they have some good songs).

The Cure has their fair share of meh fillerlicious albums, but Queen really can't **** with their best stuff. No way any Queen album is on the level of Disintegration. While Queen writes catchier melodies, their music just doesn't have the same attention to detail and it doesn't have nearly as much atmosphere. And maybe this is just a personal thing, but lots of The Cure's music can be very beautiful with the lush dreamy guitars (see Plainsong, Just Like Heaven, Closedown, etc.) whereas Queen's music, even at its best, is almost always super campy.

Not sure vocal talent alone settles this. I mean, yes, Freddy Mercury is a much more capable vocalist than Robert Smith is, but that's only one element of the composition. Honestly, Celine Dion has a hell of a voice, but there's not many people that will vouch for her music.

One area in which I will say that Queen easily trumps The Cure is as a live band. Much more exciting stage presence. But in most other categories I'll take The Cure.

Queen hands down

Weird comparison. The Cure are better for me. Less operatic and campy, and have evolved their sound over many, many styles and years.

Not a fan of either, with a gun to my head I'd say Queen.

I agree with Grey on music...who'd have thunk it.:P

@Nuck81: Too bad you don't know the history of this question or this place.
But keep pretending you are relevant.

Awww Poor little dumbass got mad.

You shouldn't let this place get to you

As if a total social misfit could get me mad. LOL you do dream.

LOL @ the people in this thread acting like Queen isn't one of the greatest and most diverse musical acts of the past 50 years.

Queen obviously

Writing almost exclusively sh*tty music doesn't sound very diverse to me.

Jesus Christ that is bad. Feels like somebody filled my ears with bubblegum.

Queen. Freddi Mercury's amazing 80's mustache beats Robert Smith's scary Joker face any day. Also, people saying that Queen sucks or their music is bad are plain retarded. You can not like them, that's fine, but you cannot deny Mercury's vocal skill or the band's abilities.

@themajormayor: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Queen started out as a largely fantasy-themed metal/prog band, often cited as a precursor to thrash metal. Then they moved onto the dad rock from the mid-late 70s that still gets the radios, then pop and R&B in the 80s. To deny their music is diverse is to plead complete ignorance.

bubblegum is great

Whether something is good or bad is a matter of OPINION. Any band is fair game for being called bad. One can acknowledge that Freddy Mercury has an incredible voice and that the band is technically skilled and still argue that the music is bad. Simply being talented does not mean that one makes good music. Like I said before, Celine Dion is a powerhouse vocalist, yet the general consensus is that her music is bland and limp (not that one has to think her music is bland; I'm just her as an example based on what I know about her critical reception). By your logic, Celine Dion's music can't be bad because she is such a technically talented singer.

In the same vein, I think that Another One Bites the Dust and Radio Gaga are terrible regardless of Mercury and the band's considerable talent (some of their other songs are great tho like Bohemian Rhapsody and Killer Queen).

Now this doesn't mean that one can't disagree with the notion that Queen sucks/is bad. But I think the idea of having to say "well, I don't like this, but it doesn't suck" is kind of ridiculous. I mean, if I don't like something, it's usually because I think it's bad. There are exceptions to this, but much of the time, an invested listener's opinion on quality lines up with their preferences.

In short, one is allowed an opinion on quality (or the degree to which a band doesn't suck or does suck) regardless of how popular and acclaimed the band is without being called the r-word. There are even people that think The Beatles suck, which fucking blows my mind, but it's a legitimate opinion nevertheless. Just not one that I even remotely agree with.

Their music might be more diverse than some people give it credit for, but if diversity is one measure of how good a band is (and I think it is; all of the bands and artists that I think are really good have an eclectic discography whereas I tend to shun one-note bands and artists), The Cure wins on that score. Not all of The Cure's musical experiments work but their catalog is crazily diverse. They've even dabbled in weird shit like mariachi music (The 13th). Unfortunately, the Cure has started aping their own styles as of late (tho to be fair, any artist/band that's been in the game a long time ends up doing this), but the diversity of their discography is something that should be acknowledged regardless of how good one thinks the actual music is.

It is not diverse in quality. Most is sh*t.

Define "shit".

Queen, they are on a completely different level musically.

Queen

Queen are my least favourite band of all time and I really like the cure so easy answer

The Cure.

Although I did hear Mercury nailed recording "the show must go on" in one take despite the fact he was on deaths door due to AIDS. Props for that. I just hate their music.

I like a lot of Queen songs quite a bit, but, obviously the correct answer is The Cure.

Queen. **** everyone else.

Queen, on the strength of 3 brilliant mid 70's albums that The Cure can never touch.......Sheer Heart Attack,

A Night at the Opera, and A Day at the Races.

I'm not a huge fan of either, but neither are bad in my opinion..so what do I win?

This is a very weird comparison btw.

Sorry Shu...I don't see much diversity in the work of Queen And I have heard different eras of their music. I believe you linked to what you thought was fantastic so I have heard what you're talking about. Not going to say they didn't have some....I refuse to listen to their entire catalog due to suckage. But hell The Cure sure as hell has been a diverse band.

I like both bands but this really isn't even a contest. The cure isn't even in the same ballpark of talent. Queen has better musicians at EVERY position. This is the bonehead question of the day. Queen hands down.