Yeah, I am. Maybe if you listen to an extremely limited type of hard rock/ arena pop Queen would seem more influential, but by any objective standard Bowie has them beat. He was a huge influence not just on rock and glam but punk, post-punk, new wave, the New Romantics, electronica…Like I said, I love Queen, but they, for the most part, followed trends rather than helping create them (“No synthesizers!” - until they were cool to use). I guarantee you many more bands around today would cite Bowie as an influence than Queen.
I like Queen and Bowie about the same. Some of Bowie’s stuff is too weird for me, and Queen gets to be just too operatic for me after awhile. Still, I say Queen has the edge over Bowie, IMHO. BTW, I only own the Greatest Hits (i.e, Best of, or whatever) of each band. I think the deeper cuts from either would be wasted on me. Sorry, fans.
I certainly could. March of the Black Queen, Father to Son, Great King Rat, Stone Cold Crazy, Sheer Heart Attack, Love of my Life, Mustapha, Spread Your Wings, Princes of the Universe, *Too Much Love Will Kill You, Sail Away Sweet Sister, These Are The Days Of Our Lives, Tie Your Mother Down…*There, one LP ! 
Anyway, my vote’s for Queen. Bowie’s music is always interesting and a good listen, but Queen knew how to rock. Plus Freddie comes out on top of their one duet (Under Pressure) as far as I’m concerned.
My favorite piece by either is, of course, Under Pressure.
Both are a lot of fun, but desert island and only one boxed set? Bowie.
Which do I prefer? Queen, and not just because I never really cared for Bowie, but also because I think Queen just brings the rock like few other rocks bands have ever managed to do.
Better singing as against better dancing.
You make me wonder if they’ve preserved any of Freddie’s royal jelly.
I grew into a rock enthusiast listening to Queen and own all their albums, save for Hot Space. Still, Bowie was and is hugely more important. Queen had the superior vocalist and every member of the band was a virtuoso (even unsung John Deacon consistently produced some of the most intricate, smoothest-sounding, most-difficult-to-play-just-right bass lines, perfect for the song), and they had absolutely beautiful orchestration (original Love of My Life, anyone?). Still, Queen put out maybe a couple dozen classic rock and pop songs total amidst loads of tripe, always a bit late in the game (Mercury was already 27 when Queen was released, might have something to do with it). In comparison, Bowie created utter rock and pop classic albums throughout his twenties, creating musical styles like the dramatic piano-driven power pop a la Queen as he went, and never stopped being a musical forerunner and innovator. Most rock musicians I know cite Bowie as an influence, while Queen is typically regarded as shallow if entertaining Stadium pop by the same crowd.
This is an apples and oranges choice. I prefer Queen. I loved the stuff Bowie did with Mick Ronson, and I really like the song Young Americans, but Queen to me is just awesome. Freddie was incomparable, and Brian May is one of my favorite guitarists.
And count me as another vote for Freddie at Live Aid being the best rock front-man performance ever, and I’m a Springsteen fan.
I was wondering after reading this thread if Bowie was going to do more music, and he’s just put out a new single and is coming out with an album in March.
I think the single is lovely. The video is freaky weird.
Bowie.
Queen kind of sucks
But…but…but…wouldn’t hipsters prefer Bowie?!
. . . and here is the music video.
Remind me, what’s Queen done recently?
Wow. Poor taste.
Flash Gordon beats Labyrinth.
I made the point earlier in the Thread- Queen voters have been tearing down later day Bowie works and holding his later career slumps against him as a point of evaluation in contrast to Queen.
My point is that there is no later day Queen works, there will never be any later day Queen works. Holding later career slumps against Bowie when comparing Bowie to Queen assumes that any later career work by Queen would have fully and without disappointment measured up to Queen at their peak.
There is simply no reason to make any such assumption.
Now, if one were to compare Bowie to someone like Tom Waits it would be entirely fair to look at later career slumps for Bowie then to compare and contrast later career works by Tom Waits to evaluate which artist’s work remained more consistent over the years.
“Bowie hasn’t done anything good for 30 years” (even if it were true, which it isn’t) is in no way a valid point when comparing Bowie to Queen.
…unless you count the way the surviving members have diluted the band’s legacy during the past decade by slogging around the stadium circuit with Paul Rodgers as their frontman. Talk about bad taste!
No, it just means that, unfortunately for Bowie, he stuck around to see his artistic decline (to steal a line from Elvis Costello), while Queen was cut short due to death. All we have to judge is the work, and Queen didn’t have anywhere near the string of lousy albums latter-day Bowie does. Would they have if they’d stuck around? Probably - that tends to be the trend. But the fact remains Bowie’s got a bunch of shit in his discography. Why should we ignore that, again?
I have to say, though, that his new single is quite good, and I’ll always be a fan of his work up to around 1980.
If the argument is “Who’s better? Queen or David Bowie?” how about we compare Bowie continuing to put out new material, though it varied in quality, while Queen decided to simply become a Queen cover band rather than attempting anything new?
When Freddie Mercury was alive, no one would ever have said that the other three were merely “Freddie Mercury’s backing band”. Yet, for the past twenty years Queen has done nothing but play Weddings and Bar Mitzvahs preceding each song with a patter of “You folks are beautiful, we’d like to do something a little special for you now, here’s one you might remember” paying tribute to Bill Murray’s lounge singer character from Saturday Day Night Live.
Rrrrrrgh, never in a million years would I have thought I’d end up in a Thread arguing against Queen. 
Because most people would define “Which artist is better” to mean “Whose work do you like better”? You can use whatever metric you want - I’m going by recorded work.