| qrock 22.03.2011 11:18 |
Queen's debut has often been compared to Led Zep's debut. Most of the time, Led Zep I is seen as the surperior album (as it is far surperior in popularity and sales) however has Queen I been too underlooked for too long and is Queen I really up there with classic debuts of even better than Led Zep I. Personally, I prefer the depth and variety on Queen I than any of the Led Zep 1. |
| john bodega 22.03.2011 11:30 |
Queen I had way more variety. The only thing that Led Zeppelin I had for it was that Plant was possibly a more honed singer at that point in time. Remember that a couple of years before the first Queen album, Freddie was just a screeching lunatic that couldn't sing much of anything. On the other hand, Plant was arguably at his best on the first LZ album, and then lost his voice through misuse. (Read up on his continual singing-through-illness-and-colds, it's a bit sad actually). Keeping in mind that when I say Plant lost his voice, I mean that he gradually lost the ability to sound the way he did on the first few albums. He's had a few different 'voices' throughout his career, and I like most of them. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 22.03.2011 12:32 |
Led Zeppelin I has something that Queen I hasn't: lots of mistakes. Queen I is a pretty good album with some really interesting ideas. As for Led Zeppelin... well, you know. It's funny how something as poorly performed is considered among the best bands. It's like... making fun of people, actually. Like someone wanted to have fun and started saying that led zeppelin was a great band and then everyone said that too. It's tragic, to me. |
| rottenjohnny1963 22.03.2011 13:45 |
led zep,queen,and rush are my fave bands of all time,so in my view,you can't go wrong with any of them.i think that freddy mercury is the greatest singer/performer/rock star/musician that ever lived by far! led zeppelin is the greatest band ever,slightly ahead of queen to me.i have been fans of both since their 1st ;lps came out,and i'm glad led zep broke up when bonham died.i wish queen would have done the same thing after the benefit concert in 1992 because queen with anybody other than freddy is a piss poor imitation at best! |
| spaceboy1972 22.03.2011 14:10 |
They're both awesome albums in their respective categories. Led Zep were part of the Blues/Progressive movement some of which gave rise to NWOBHM. I guess they both set precedents in terms of "having a game plan" - both Jimmy Page and Freddie Mercury are/were shrewd operators in their respective fields. Either way the 60's / 70's music scene would have been a lot poorer without both! |
| Over the Field 22.03.2011 14:20 |
Zep I is a great album as well as Queen I. But yes, Queen I has more diversity, but that doesn't make Zep I worse. I don't get it that Zep I is poorly performed. By who? Plant sings technically a VERY difficult stuff. Blending between registers and those high notes. He is even a baritone and sang something that even rock tenors of his era couldn't even dream about. If you say that Bonham performed poorly, listen Good Times Bad Times drumming and admit that he was ahead of his time. Jones's melodic bass lines are wonderful and Page guitar works keep me amazed even today. But I still prefer Queen I. A very underrated album indeed. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 22.03.2011 14:29 |
Page's guitar work is what always was: very poor. And Plant's FALSETTO (cause... it's just plain falsetto, it doesn't have anything to do with blending registers) was also quite weak in tuning and phrasing. Bonham was also kinda sloppy in the early days but, unlike Page, he managed to improve lots, over the years. |
| qrock 22.03.2011 14:36 |
You have a good taste in music however unlike Queen and Led Zeppelin, I find that Rush album improved as they went on you know what I mean. The songs on Queen I were plotted down first and then done again and again with many changes which made it an almost complete article. Although the Queen members during their first album already had an innovative and inspirational member in Freddie who improved the other members versitility, Rush started their career with an album that was patchy and they did not have the same depth and creativity they had since Neil Peart joined. Another favourite group of mine is also renowned for a classic debut album in Dire Straits who produced fantastic melodical, rythmical songs with great depth and context. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.03.2011 15:17 |
rottenjohnny1963 wrote: led zep,queen,and rush are my fave bands of all time,so in my view,you can't go wrong with any of them.i think that freddy mercury is the greatest singer/performer/rock star/musician that ever lived by far! led zeppelin is the greatest band ever,slightly ahead of queen to me.i have been fans of both since their 1st ;lps came out,and i'm glad led zep broke up when bonham died.i wish queen would have done the same thing after the benefit concert in 1992 because queen with anybody other than freddy is a piss poor imitation at best! ----------------------------------------------------------- In my case, it's Pink Floyd, Genesis, Queen and Rush as my favorites. Zeppelin are in my Top 10. Zeppelin's first album was a great debut, one of the best debuts in history (only the first albums by Jimi Hendrix, The Doors and Pink Floyd rank much higher in the Greatest Debut Album of All Time List (I didn't forget Queen nor Rush nor Genesis)). |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.03.2011 15:29 |
I should add the first Pink Floyd in there to Greatest Debut Albums Ever. Syd Barrett and Rick Wright were the creative forces on that album, there was only one Roger Waters tune there but it was Syd's magnum opus. "Astronomy Domine", "Matilda Mother", "The Gnome", "Chapter 24" and "Bike" were excellent pieces that were child-like almost fairy tales in lyrics whereas Roger Waters (who became chief Floyd lyricist after Syd went insane) went more for reality based issues. Unfortunately Syd became mentally incapacitated after that wonderful debut. When David Gilmour came in (at first as a second guitarist/singer and made Pink Floyd a 5-piece briefly), he brought in something that Syd didn't have and that was excellent lead guitar skills (Syd didn't really solo whereas David (whom taught Syd how to play guitar and was a childhood friend of Syd's) was more accomplished as a guitarist). By 1970, the psychedelia that Syd had was gone and they went into progressive rock. Genesis didn't start out prog as well. Their first album From Genesis to Revelation sounded like a cross between The Moody Blues, 1960s era Bee Gees and 1967 era Rolling Stones. Luckily they changed once drummer Chris Stewart left and fired Jonathan King and went elsewhere with Trespass. Then after Anthony Phillips quit and found permanent replacements in Phil Collins and Steve Hackett, Genesis found their feet with Nursery Cryme. |
| iluvqueen46 22.03.2011 16:41 |
I love both groups alot, but I have to say Queen because of its variety and I just like the songs more. In my opinion I think Pink Floys's The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn was the best one. Like Rush's first album was like awesome but it wasn't as awesome until Neil joined the band. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 22.03.2011 16:57 |
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is undoubtedly the worst shit I've ever heard. Far worse than anything else, even if it's played by the worst version of Jimmy Page. Pink Floyd was born when Gilmour arrived. What it was before, is just a poor example of what NOT to do. EVER. Long live Gilmour, one of the very best guitar players of the seventies and also a man with great musical vision. The true musical force behind Pink Floyd. |
| *goodco* 22.03.2011 18:59 |
Queen is my favorite band, but to compare the two is laughable IMHO. Their initial offering pales to Zep's. ...but at least there were no covers. |
| Jimmy Dean 22.03.2011 19:51 |
I'm pretty sure EVERYONE HAS IT WRONG.... QUEEN 1 IS UNDENIABLY BETTER THAN LED ZEP 1 It's obvious as to why wouldn't you agree Jazzy Mercurois (notice i didn't mispronounce your name this time)... 1) Jimmy Page is the most overrated guitarist of all time who can barely hold a chord, christ he may as well play with his fingers chopped off - how it's possible he got so rich off Led Zep royalties is beyond me - he didn't deserve a penny because obviously he is the worst guitarist of all time. 2) Led Zep used the blimp on the cover to go back in time to become influenced by Queen - not many know this story - however I do, as I have read the book - Led Zeppelin: The Untold Story.... it specifically states in the book, written by Bone Ham Henry John that Jimmy Page derived any and all of his musical knowledge from Brian May when first hearing a record he bought from the local store entitled "Queen". He then decided to learn guitar by picking up an old Danelectro, practiced on the street earning just enough adjusted for deflation 4 years back for no more than 30 hours fare of studio hours. He then found three guys that would join his band in the homeless shelter down the street. They all jumped on a magical blimp that took them back 4 years, went into the studio and recorded what is now known as Led Zeppelin. 3) The # of mistakes which is noticeable to to any insipid amateur, ie. a die-hard Britney Spears fan, are so detrimenting to Led Zeppelin's first album that it should hardly be noticed among the ranks of the greatest debut albums of all time. In fact Queen I shouldn't be compared to Led Zeppelin I at all. 4) Jimmy Page is so bad at playing the guitar, any album he's on, is by far absolute rubbish - just because he's playing the guitar on it - I have evidence! I have proof! - you can just listen and see for yourself! 5) Jimmy Page sucks balls and testicles. 6) If Jimmy Page stood right next to me and he held a guitar and I held a guitar - my playing would overpower him so much that he would just give me the millions and mllions of cash he unjustly earned and give it to me instead because he would realize that compared to an amateur he never should have earned that cash to begin with. 7) And of course - Brian May is actually God and for Him time is no concept - He created time itself and is responsible for all the great guitar playing in the world. In fact, He is so humble that he cites Jimmy Page as one of His influences. Queen I was just a disguise of what was to come - that's why it wasn't as good as all those albums that followed it. In fact, he even planted that blimp for Jimmy, because he felt that Jimmy should have a second chance given all the real-life mistakes he had since he was born up to 1973. In case your wondering..... everything above is bullshit :-) Led Zeppelin was recorded in 30 hours, contains 2 cherished rock classics - Dazed and Confused and Communication Breakdown.... the album is basically flawless and was ahead of its time in terms of production and sound. It is clearly one of the greatest debut albums in the history of music (there are many rivals, such as Funeral by Arcade Fire, Are You Experienced by Jimi, The Doors by The Doors, and Appetite for Destruction by Guns N Roses just to a name a few) Queen took 3 years to create, doesn't have a cherished rock classic (maybe a couple of fan favorites)... a sad attempt at controversy with songs like Jesus and band members named Deacon John... However, it is nonetheless a great album and should be compared along side other very good debut albums, such as Electric Light Orchestra's first album (also entitled No Answer in the US due to a naming error). Other great comparisons: Aerosmith, Elton John, Cheap Trick, Kill Em All, Bleach, etc... 2nd rank greatest debut albums, really. |
| Jimmy Dean 22.03.2011 20:05 |
******************************************************************************************************** jazzy mercurois wrote: The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is undoubtedly the worst shit I've ever heard. Far worse than anything else, even if it's played by the worst version of Jimmy Page. Pink Floyd was born when Gilmour arrived. What it was before, is just a poor example of what NOT to do. EVER. Long live Gilmour, one of the very best guitar players of the seventies and also a man with great musical vision. The true musical force behind Pink Floyd. ********************************************************************************************************** I agree with you partially - I think the true musical force was both Waters and Gilmour together - the band was never the same with either apart - evidenced on the Final Cut (when Waters recorded his solo album with Pink Floyd) and Momentary Lapse of Reason and Division Bell (Floyd without Waters) (apart from High Hopes and Learning To Fly - those were great tracks). Gilmour provided the melody to Waters lyrics - but Waters also provided design and drama to Gilmour's arrangements... Early Pink Floyd was exciting... and really Piper was the only album he wasn't on... he was with them for Saucerful - which was nowhere near as good Piper. He was also with them for Ummagumma and Obscured By Clouds... also worse than Piper. They got their act together when the wrote Atom Heart Mother... that's where they figured out how to stretch Careful With That Axe into a 25 minute piece. They perfected that art on Echoes - which is probably the greatest non-classical 20-minute-plus suite ever composed. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 22.03.2011 20:11 |
My God... |
| masterstroke_84 22.03.2011 20:11 |
Piper better than Obscured?? hahah.. And Division Bell is a great album with amazing songs on it: Coming back to life, Keep talking, Poles apart, What do you want from me (only take the middle eight and is better than anything on Piper), A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM.- You're deaf. xD |
| masterstroke_84 22.03.2011 20:18 |
p.s: Queen didn't have the freedom to record their first album in the way they wanted to. May sound like an excuse, but it isn't. Just look at Queen II, there are months between the 2 albums. |
| Jimmy Dean 22.03.2011 20:20 |
actually your dumb - I never said piper was better than momentary or division bell... i just implied they weren't as good as prime pink floyd.... Meddle, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and that little ditty entitled the Wall.... these were evidence of Gilmour + Waters = Great Pink Floyd. Division Bell is, however, FAR BETTER than Final Cut and better than Piper as well. Also, Piper is never considered a great debut album - it's really just the best of Syd Barrett.... you can't rank that album anywhere notable. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 22.03.2011 20:23 |
I think Zeppelin was best from their 4th album on. In many ways Zeppelin were the best band ever. Queen were hugely influenced by them. Having said that...Queen 1 is superior. Remember, Queen released their debut after Zeppelin had 5 albums already under their belt. I LOVE Queen's debut, and only *like* Zeppelin's debut. |
| Jimmy Dean 22.03.2011 20:24 |
p.p.s. Queen WERE free to record whatever they wanted. However, they DIDN'T blow away record labels like Zeppelin did when they delivered their first set of songs. Led Zeppelin, at its time, was a breath of fresh air... it was diferent, ambitious, alive. And I'm pretty sure there's an interview around where Freddie or Brian said they spent a lot of time perfecting their first album. |
| jpf 22.03.2011 21:49 |
Led Zep I blows away Queen I. Not even close. |
| john bodega 23.03.2011 05:57 |
re: Pink Floyd... You're retarded cunts for leaving Rick Wright out of the equation. That is all. |
| masterstroke_84 23.03.2011 09:21 |
"BM: So that’s how that album was made. So although we had great technology around us we didn’t really have much freedom to use it. It really was grabbing little bits of time and we were regarded as sort of the new boys who didn’t really know anything and nobody really wanted to listen to the way we wanted to do things." Brian May, 2011. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 23.03.2011 10:25 |
jpf...could you explain how "Led Zeppelin 1 blows away Queen1", please. In terms of popularity, indeed it does. But as far as performance and songwriting...I don't think so. |
| rottenjohnny1963 23.03.2011 12:14 |
every song on led zeppelin I is a classic,there are maybe 3 classics on the 1st queen lp MAYBE!keep yourself alive being the standout track.that is why the 1st led zep album blows away the 1st queen album. |
| rottenjohnny1963 23.03.2011 12:18 |
as far as debut lps go,that first VAN HALEN album was pretty damn good too!and the 1st BLACK SABBATH album also kicks ass! |
| masterstroke_84 23.03.2011 12:22 |
"classic", "more famous" or "best selling" doesn't mean that they are better in terms of musicality, perfomance, etc. The first 5 songs in "Queen" are way better than almost everything Zepp have done.. in terms of musicality, complexity, and perfomance.. and.. Freddie Mercury sings on it. .. |
| rottenjohnny1963 23.03.2011 12:25 |
"Queen I had way more variety. The only thing that Led Zeppelin I had for it was that Plant was possibly a more honed singer at that point in time" LED ZEP is my fave group of all time,plant was a good singer in the 1970s,but in my humble opinion,freddy mercury is the greatest singer in the history of music!he was by far the greatest rock star that ever lived! he had such a gift that enabled him to sing and compose any type of music he choose too!he could take any song and make it his like he did when he sang that old budapest folk song in budapest in 1986.he sang it in their language,did'nt know what it meant,but when you hear him sing it,you'd think he'd sang it every day of his life! never seen anybody do that ever! |
| The Real Wizard 23.03.2011 12:34 |
What other response did you expect on a Queen forum? Let's get a dose of reality into the thread.. The fact remains, Led Zeppelin I is one of the most influential albums of all time... and arguably the most revered debut album of any band. There are many great songs on Queen's debut album, but not a single track on that album is more innovative and influential than Dazed And Confused or How Many More Times. Stylistically, Led Zeppelin I is all over the map. Queen's sound didn't expand to include other genres of music until Sheer Heart Attack. Zeppelin may not have written all their music, but that's because they were bluesmen. It was common for bluesmen to build on the music that came before them. It wasn't until copyright lawyers got involved in the 80s that this became an issue that anyone cared about. LZ I reveals a band who are fusing blues with heavy metal (by 1968 standards) for the first time, and after LZ II came out, this launched them into being the biggest band of the 1970s. At the end of the day, both bands were brilliant, both tackled many genres of music, and both were incredibly influential on those who came after them. But regarding their debut albums, there is no contest, LZ is the winner. Not that it should be a contest, anyway... |
| Reid_Special_98 23.03.2011 15:19 |
Sir GH... The best reply on this thread - it sums everything up. No question. A. |
| brENsKi 23.03.2011 16:32 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Having said that...Queen 1 is superior. Remember, Queen released their debut after Zeppelin had 5 albums already under their belt. I LOVE Queen's debut, and only *like* Zeppelin's debut. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ you're going have to explain how that's relevant to the argument. Because unless ledzep travelled back in time and released their "debut" AFTER releasing II, III & four symbols...i can't understand what possible advantage you think they gained... the argument is ledzep 1 vs queen 1....nohing else |
| john bodega 23.03.2011 18:26 |
"but not a single track on that album is more innovative and influential than Dazed And Confused or How Many More Times." Zeppelin's tracks are indisputably more influential. But more innovative?? There's not much innovation in playing covers/adaptions, half of them in E. Again, the album is so much bigger in the public consciousness than Queen's debut, which can't be argued against - but the innovation or originality is clearly down to how you look at it. For me it still comes down to Zeppelin's first album having a more practiced singer. It's the same with early Elf stuff - some of it is very much like early Queen, but the real difference is that Dio was miles beyond Freddie *at the time* because he'd been doing it longer. I love Freddie's singing but I don't think he got the full use of his voice until a couple of albums later. |
| iluvqueen46 23.03.2011 22:05 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: Piper better than Obscured?? hahah.. And Division Bell is a great album with amazing songs on it: Coming back to life, Keep talking, Poles apart, What do you want from me (only take the middle eight and is better than anything on Piper), A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM.- You're deaf. xD I love Syd Barrett and I think he's an absolute genius. Yes all those Pink Floyd albums are awesome, but it's all a matter of opinion. So shut the hell up/ |
| Sebastian 23.03.2011 22:35 |
I agree with Zeb: I love LZ(I), and I think it deserves all the success it had, but innovative? |
| Matias Merçeauroix 23.03.2011 23:55 |
It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better. What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact? To you, it clearly does. Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note? I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize). The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? |
| PrimeJiveUSA 24.03.2011 00:41 |
To each their own. Take away all of this "influence" bull****, or what's considered a "classic" and on and on and on. I like Queen 1 better and I think it's the better album. Let Led Zeppelin 1 "blow" whatever you want it to...Queen 1 tops it. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 02:54 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...could you explain how "Led Zeppelin 1 blows away Queen1", please. In terms of popularity, indeed it does. But as far as performance and songwriting...I don't think so. ----- "Good Times Bad Times", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" , "Dazed and Confused", "Your Time Is Gonna Come", and "Communication Breakdown" beat "Keep Yourself Alive", "Doing All Right" , "Liar", and "Son and Daughter" by a wide margin. "Queen 1" is a rather weak lp whether you compare it to the Queen catalog or to other rock bands' debut lps. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 02:57 |
*goodco* wrote: Queen is my favorite band, but to compare the two is laughable IMHO. Their initial offering pales to Zep's. ...but at least there were no covers. --- "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. |
| john bodega 24.03.2011 04:50 |
"What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?" In a discussion purely about influence? Absolutely! It's unfortunate, but people will usually resort to talking about how influential or well-loved an album is, as opposed to getting bogged down in the details of what was actually on the thing. This is why Sgt. Pepper is still 'the' Beatles album, even though there are 3 better albums out there by the same guys. |
| Jimmy Dean 24.03.2011 06:16 |
******************************************************************************************** jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better. What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact? To you, it clearly does. Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note? I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize). The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ****************************************************************************************** I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status. Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better. Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live! Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol.... Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers. Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status. Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play. As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh. |
| Holly2003 24.03.2011 08:28 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: ******************************************************************************************** jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better. What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact? To you, it clearly does. Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note? I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize). The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ****************************************************************************************** I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status. Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better. Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live! Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol.... Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers. Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status. Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play. As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh. =============================================================== I don't disagree with everything you say -- at least the bits I can understand :) -- but I would say Queen I wasn't very successful not because it is overcomplicated but because it didn't get enough promotion. There was a market for Queen music (as Queen II demonstrated) but hardly anyone knew they existed. And the audience who might've bought Queen I were turned off because of unsympathetic press coverage: remember, some journalists portrayed Queen as a manufactured band which hadn't done the spade work of live shows and touring. |
| Sith 24.03.2011 09:23 |
I was wondering when you were going to comment on this thread Bob. I couldn't agree with you more, but at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion and as long as we are free to express our opinions, this thread can go on and on. I personally love both debut albums and try not to compare them. They are both great in their own respect. Hope all is well . |
| brENsKi 24.03.2011 09:34 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ....i agreed with all you said except for this bit ^^^^ i think there was a lot more to why Queen I bombed....queen hyped themselves...they "arranged" (if i remember rightly)...for press people to be at "specially arranged" gigs...they refused point-blank to so the small venue circut that all the other bands did...they considered the college/uni/pub circut an "unnecessary" grind...and this "pretentiousness and self-importance" backfired a little.... |
| rottenjohnny1963 24.03.2011 10:02 |
anybody ever heard queen do immigrant song?they did it in some countries on the magic tour,only did about a minute of it! |
| Soundfreak 24.03.2011 10:19 |
You cannot compare these albums at all. Cause their impact or it's failure has a lot to do with the time when they were released. When Led Zeppelin started in 1969 their were pioneers of hard rock. And they were an absolute live attraction. You find no two concerts that are identic, they re-invented their songs every night on stage. And by 1971 they had defined that hardrock genre with the album IV (or however it is called). Queen were influenced heavily by Led Zeppelin. And when they finally appeared in 1973 most people and the press thought they were part of the Glam-Rock scene. A kind of the next "Sweet". And the "Larry Lurex" single in England did not help either..... And that glam-scene with bands like Sweet and T.Rex was not taken seriously by the music press for whatever reasons. |
| john bodega 24.03.2011 10:42 |
"only did about a minute of it" And with good reason!! |
| PrimeJiveUSA 24.03.2011 11:18 |
You can list all the "classic" songs you want off of Led Zeppelin 1...it's a bluesy, boring album in my estimation...and Zeppelin is my 2nd favorite band, btw. I love every song on Queen 1...in fact, I'll take "Mad The Swine"(which was left off the album) over ANYTHING on Zeppelin 1. For all of you talking about Zeppelin 1 "blowing away" Queen1, I'll go even further..."My Fairy King" blows away anything on Zeppelin 1. Go ahead with your snooty snickers. I LOVE 4, Houses Of The Holy, Physical Graffiti, Prescence and In Through The Out Door. LZ 1 has alays bored me, and I rarely play it. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 24.03.2011 13:13 |
My Fairy King blows away anything on any Led Zeppelin album, even all of them put together. |
| brENsKi 24.03.2011 13:19 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: My Fairy King blows away anything on any Led Zeppelin album, even all of them put together. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ grow the f*** up... you're saying that a song (as good as it is) that a whole verse was "lifted" from a Robert Browning classic...is better than EVERYTHING led zep ever did? kashmir, trampled, thank you, in the evening, carouselambra, fool in the rain? clean your ears out... you're stepford in the extreme....there is room for all music in your ears/head...allow some of it in at least |
| The Real Wizard 24.03.2011 15:20 |
jpf wrote: "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. ================================== Hmm, that's debatable, since Brian May was one of the two songwriters. Good point for discussion, though.. |
| Gregsynth 24.03.2011 15:37 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. ================================== Hmm, that's debatable, since Brian May was one of the two songwriters. Good point for discussion, though.. ========== Elton John first recorded Skyline Pigeon in 1969. He then re-recorded it in 1972 with his band. I think the Doing All Right thing is simply a re-recording (not a cover version), because one of the writers was still there. A cover version would be van Halen's "You really got me." (Different artists/writers). |
| Sebastian 24.03.2011 17:08 |
Cover has more to do with it having been previously recorded. So, Paul's rendition of 'For No One' for 'Broad Street' is a cover even if he wrote it. Same for 'Here, There and Everywhere'. For 'Eleanor Rigby', he was the main writer, but not the only one (technically speaking). It's not related to whether one of the performers was also one of the authors. In the case of DAR, it could be quibbled that, while recorded, it hadn't been released. For the few dozens who'd known Smile and heard Smile's version, it was a cover. For the remaining 99.99% of the record buying population, the song was only officially released on 13th July 1973. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 24.03.2011 17:57 |
jpf wrote: *goodco* wrote: Queen is my favorite band, but to compare the two is laughable IMHO. Their initial offering pales to Zep's. ...but at least there were no covers. --- "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. ---------------------------------------------- KISS DID MORE COVERS THAN QUEEN! What do you call "Kissin' Time", "Then She Kissed Me", "Any Way You Want It", "Is That You", "Odyssey", "Do You Remember Rock and Roll Radio". Also, add "Goin' Blind" and "She" to the list. Again I OWN YOUR MONKEYASS! |
| Jimmy Dean 24.03.2011 20:56 |
Where the hell did Kiss come from?! In my opinion Doin' Alright does not count as a cover if it was not officially released by Smile. I'm not sure on whether that bootleg that's floating around is actually a vinyl rip of an official release or a vinyl rip of a demo / independent release awaiting a label t pick it up. Come And Get It (written by Paul McCartney) originally released by Badfinger Because The Night (written by Bruce Springsteen) originally released by Patti Smith Both of those songs were recorded as demos by The Beatles and The Boss (released much later than the originally and officially released versions by other artists as demo tracks).... but they were initially sold to Badfinger and Patti Smith to record as their own. Can these be classified as cover songs? No. Can the demos released later by the original artists or a new official release by the original artist be considered a cover? Not really... I think Doin' Alright falls in this grey area.... and therefore shouldn't be considered a cover. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 24.03.2011 21:08 |
jpf...so if anyone of us refuse to accept your premise that LZ 1 "blows away" Queen 1 we are close minded and need to "grow the F*** up"? Hmmm...LZ1 is Zeppelin's worst album in my opinion. You can shape what you like by how much "influence" and "respect" it has. Me? I couldn't give a crap. I like what I like...Queen 1 rules! |
| PrimeJiveUSA 24.03.2011 21:10 |
Sorry^^^^jpf! I meant to address this to Brenski! |
| PrimeJiveUSA 24.03.2011 21:24 |
Now...this IS aimed at jpf. You say how LZ 1 "blows away" Queen 1 and list songs like "Communication Breakdown" (yawn) and "Good Times Bad Times" (double yawn) we're all supposed to quiver at those tired, bland songs. It's basically a blues album played extra loud. To me, the "blues" are just plain boring...and this album is totally frozen in the '60's. Zeppelin would go on to make some of the greatest music ever...but this disc ain't IT. Queen 1 is full of color and wonder...Led Zep 1...drab, muddy and old. And talk abnout lacking cohesion!!!...LZ 1 is a mess! |
| Jimmy Dean 24.03.2011 22:39 |
finally someone properly explains why Queen 1 may be regarded as better LZ 1 (obviously from a Queen fan's perspective). Myself, I prefer Queen 1 over LZ 1 - I agree that LZ is a generally boring album - the only song I like hearing over and over again is How Many More Times... simple and aggressive. Queen I is very colorful. But still, hands down, in terms of which album is better - in terms of its music, cultural significance, contribution to music, technique and landmark songs... LZ wins....wins....wins! My top 5 favorite albums of all time are: 1) News of the World, 2) Insomniac by Green Day, 3) The Holy Bible by the Manic Street Preachers, 4) Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirty Cowboy by Elton John and 5) In Utero by Nirvana Would I ever argue that any of these are among the top 10 albums of all time? top 100? (maybe In Utero for top 100)... NO... these are my favorite albums.... Anyone saying Queen I is better than LZ is saying so PURELY because they are Queen fans. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 22:46 |
NOTWMEDDLE wrote: jpf wrote: *goodco* wrote: Queen is my favorite band, but to compare the two is laughable IMHO. Their initial offering pales to Zep's. ...but at least there were no covers. --- "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. ---------------------------------------------- KISS DID MORE COVERS THAN QUEEN! What do you call "Kissin' Time", "Then She Kissed Me", "Any Way You Want It", "Is That You", "Odyssey", "Do You Remember Rock and Roll Radio". Also, add "Goin' Blind" and "She" to the list. Again I OWN YOUR MONKEYASS! ---- The only ass you get is when you tear the toilet paper, dumbass autistic fuckup. LOL "Is That You" wasn't a cover song, someone outside of the band wrote it. Same goes for "Odyssey". "Odyssey" was later released by the outside songwriter. "Rock and Roll Radio" was for a tribute cd. "Goin' Blind" isn't a cover song. "She" and "Love Her All I Can" fall in the same category as "Doin' Alright"; they were songs from both bands' previous groups. The difference with the two KISS songs is the style of music was changed. You can now go fuck yourself. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 22:51 |
Gregsynth wrote: Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: "Doin' Alright" was a cover song. ================================== Hmm, that's debatable, since Brian May was one of the two songwriters. Good point for discussion, though.. ========== Elton John first recorded Skyline Pigeon in 1969. He then re-recorded it in 1972 with his band. I think the Doing All Right thing is simply a re-recording (not a cover version), because one of the writers was still there. A cover version would be van Halen's "You really got me." (Different artists/writers). ---- "Skyline Pigeon" was re-recorded. (The piano version is so much better than the harpsichord version). "Doin' Alright" wasn't re-recorded by Queen; Queen didn't record it the first time, Smile did. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 22:55 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...so if anyone of us refuse to accept your premise that LZ 1 "blows away" Queen 1 we are close minded and need to "grow the F*** up"? Hmmm...LZ1 is Zeppelin's worst album in my opinion. You can shape what you like by how much "influence" and "respect" it has. Me? I couldn't give a crap. I like what I like...Queen 1 rules! ---- LZ1 blows away Queen 1. My opinion. If you don't share my opinion, I couldn't care less. BTW, where did I use the term "grow the fuck up" in any of my posts? I'll save you the time; I didn't. Try understanding what you read next time. |
| jpf 24.03.2011 22:59 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Now...this IS aimed at jpf. You say how LZ 1 "blows away" Queen 1 and list songs like "Communication Breakdown" (yawn) and "Good Times Bad Times" (double yawn) we're all supposed to quiver at those tired, bland songs. It's basically a blues album played extra loud. To me, the "blues" are just plain boring...and this album is totally frozen in the '60's. Zeppelin would go on to make some of the greatest music ever...but this disc ain't IT. Queen 1 is full of color and wonder...Led Zep 1...drab, muddy and old. And talk abnout lacking cohesion!!!...LZ 1 is a mess! ---- You're dislike of a certain genre of music doesn't negate that genre of music. LZ1 was an influential lp. Queen 1 wasn't influential. It was one of Queen's lowest selling lps. It was an lp that Queen abandoned live when they wrote much better material later on. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 00:11 |
Jpf...why don't you try "understanding what you read" next time. I mistakenly put jpf to the "grow the F*** up" quote and corrected it in my next post. Yeah, you're right the whole LZ 1"blows away" Queen 1 is "your opinion"...happily I don't share it. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 00:15 |
Jpf...LOL...once again with the "influential" and "biggest seller" thing. If you don't care what people think, why is something "better" to you because it's supposed to be more influential? |
| brENsKi 25.03.2011 04:33 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: Myself, I prefer Queen 1 over LZ 1 - I agree that LZ is a generally boring album - the only song I like hearing over and over again is How Many More Times... simple and aggressive. Queen I is very colorful. But still, hands down, in terms of which album is better - in terms of its music, cultural significance, contribution to music, technique and landmark songs... LZ wins....wins....wins! My top 5 favorite albums of all time are: 1) News of the World, 2) Insomniac by Green Day, 3) The Holy Bible by the Manic Street Preachers, 4) Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirty Cowboy by Elton John and 5) In Utero by Nirvana Anyone saying Queen I is better than LZ is saying so PURELY because they are Queen fans. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ you nailed it with that last comment. why does anyone starting a thread on QueenSychophants.com expect anything other than narrow-minded, ultradefensive "queen are best" crap responses? whole thing is simple: taste is subjective (and not always objective)....some of my favourtie albums probably wouldnt make the top of any radio station list rainbow -rising, elo out of the blue, badfinger straight up, beatles abbey road, queen II, sabbath heaven & hell, blondie parallel lines, love forever changes, julian cope world shut your mouth, perhaps this whole discussion is one that needs the benefit of time? in the early 70s i hated ledzep 1....couldnt understand why it was so great...as i get older i understand better..it's influence, it's groundbreaking, it's power... i prefer queen I...by miles...but ledzep I is a much better album - in every context that matters...and i don't even like led zep queen I brought nothing new...to an already oversaturated generation...glam, prog and heavy rock were already in full flow BEFORE queen I...all they did was melt them all together..... led zep - like floyd and the beatles...did something new with music now if this discussion was about queen II vs ledzep II...then the thread starter would have a point...cos Queen II is FAR FAR more innovative than led zep II one other point....have a look round the other bands' forums...beatles, who, ledzep, floyd, purple etc....there arguments are objective, and balanced...none of this purile gainst-saying....perhaps this is because those bands have been taken more seriously than queen ever will? |
| Sebastian 25.03.2011 07:25 |
There are loads of albums by loads of artists which are way more influential than Queen I. Led Zeppelin I is one of them. There are loads of albums by loads of artists which are way more innovative than Queen I. Led Zeppelin I is not one of them. |
| mike hunt 25.03.2011 08:25 |
brENsKi wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: Myself, I prefer Queen 1 over LZ 1 - I agree that LZ is a generally boring album - the only song I like hearing over and over again is How Many More Times... simple and aggressive. Queen I is very colorful. But still, hands down, in terms of which album is better - in terms of its music, cultural significance, contribution to music, technique and landmark songs... LZ wins....wins....wins! My top 5 favorite albums of all time are: 1) News of the World, 2) Insomniac by Green Day, 3) The Holy Bible by the Manic Street Preachers, 4) Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirty Cowboy by Elton John and 5) In Utero by Nirvana Anyone saying Queen I is better than LZ is saying so PURELY because they are Queen fans. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ you nailed it with that last comment. why does anyone starting a thread on QueenSychophants.com expect anything other than narrow-minded, ultradefensive "queen are best" crap responses? whole thing is simple: taste is subjective (and not always objective)....some of my favourtie albums probably wouldnt make the top of any radio station list rainbow -rising, elo out of the blue, badfinger straight up, beatles abbey road, queen II, sabbath heaven & hell, blondie parallel lines, love forever changes, julian cope world shut your mouth, perhaps this whole discussion is one that needs the benefit of time? in the early 70s i hated ledzep 1....couldnt understand why it was so great...as i get older i understand better..it's influence, it's groundbreaking, it's power... i prefer queen I...by miles...but ledzep I is a much better album - in every context that matters...and i don't even like led zep queen I brought nothing new...to an already oversaturated generation...glam, prog and heavy rock were already in full flow BEFORE queen I...all they did was melt them all together..... led zep - like floyd and the beatles...did something new with music now if this discussion was about queen II vs ledzep II...then the thread starter would have a point...cos Queen II is FAR FAR more innovative than led zep II one other point....have a look round the other bands' forums...beatles, who, ledzep, floyd, purple etc....there arguments are objective, and balanced...none of this purile gainst-saying....perhaps this is because those bands have been taken more seriously than queen ever will? You make some good points....i'm not a led Zep guy either and prefer queen 1 anyday (great album) but can't deny Zep 1 was and is the stronger debute, and agree Queen 1 wasn't the most original of albums..... i can't say i agree with you on the whole balance and Objective that these other forums have. If anything queenzone has way more negativity than any other forum i visited. Queen fans arn't the only band that has stepfords. Rush, Iron Maiden, Zep all are far worse than Queen fans. Have you looked at the forum lately?....Even this thread?....lots of Negativity towards Queen, I don't see that nearly as much on other forums.... another silly comment is these other bands are taken more seriously than Queen. By who?....The music critics?....who cares what they think!!..... Yea, If we're talking to a metal head he might say Deep Purple is better, but generally Queen are considered the better band. The Influence they had on music, as a whole you can't deny. They also have respect from their peers. What else could you ask for?....Queen are a top ten band no question about it. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 10:46 |
Mike Hunt abd Sebastian...thank you for contributing without obnoxious arrogance and insults. As far as being a "sycophant", Brenski, I assure you I am not. Simply thinking Queen 1 is a better album does not make me so. There are quite a few people that think Queen 1 is one of or THE best rock albums of all time...and they don't like much else from Queen. It's not just "stepfords" that see something great in this album. Rob Halford and David Lee Roth call it their favorite albums ever. Are they "stepfords"? Is it a minority that thinks Queen 1 is the better album...surely it is...but that doesn't make us wrong and you right...or vice versa. Calling people names and laughingly dismissing them never tells us WHY LZ1 is "better" in your eyes, just that you feel snidely comfortable reveling in it's influence and bigger sales. Just keep letting LZ 1 "blow" on you and enjoy yourself. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 10:56 |
Brenski...obviously you didn't read my earlier post where I said "In Many ways Zeppelin was the greatest band ever". So you can stop with blanket statements about people thinking Queen 1 is the better album as "ultra-defensive, Queen are best types". I have clearly stated that from their fourth abum on...Zeppelin were absolutely greater than great. Queen 1 is like a magical ball of wonder. LZ1 is like a soggy, wet blanket. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 11:00 |
Sorry Brenksi...the "blow" comment was aimed at JPF...evidently he likes the way LZ 1 does that. |
| brENsKi 25.03.2011 11:51 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Sorry Brenksi...the "blow" comment was aimed at JPF...evidently he likes the way LZ 1 does that. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PrimeJive, i never insinuated you were a stepford...there is nothing in anything i said that indicates that...i am referring to the plethora of replies in this and many similar threads that state "queen are best because they are" without saying anything at all as for my comments....ledzep1 did something new with music, queen1 didn't.....listen all around you in 1973.....trex, sweet, bowie, roxy, ledzep, yes, genesis....queen just fused the lot |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 12:01 |
brenski...fair enough, Queen did kinda "fuse the lot", I agree. Thanks for clarifying! That's why I brought up( a day or two ago) that Queen 1 was released after Zeppelin alrerady had 5 albums under their belt. Queen were just building on, and refining, on the ground that Zeppelin had already broke 5 years earlier. So, of course, it wasn't going to have the impact that Zeppelin's debut had. I'm just saying that, to *me*, that doesn'r automatically make it a better album than Queen 1. In fact, I think Queen 1 is superior. Sorry, I just bristle at accusations of being a "stepford" because I happen to think a Queen album could possibly be better than a Zeppelin album. Happy to hear you weren't lumping me into that category. |
| mike hunt 25.03.2011 12:48 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Mike Hunt abd Sebastian...thank you for contributing without obnoxious arrogance and insults. As far as being a "sycophant", Brenski, I assure you I am not. Simply thinking Queen 1 is a better album does not make me so. There are quite a few people that think Queen 1 is one of or THE best rock albums of all time...and they don't like much else from Queen. It's not just "stepfords" that see something great in this album. Rob Halford and David Lee Roth call it their favorite albums ever. Are they "stepfords"? Is it a minority that thinks Queen 1 is the better album...surely it is...but that doesn't make us wrong and you right...or vice versa. Calling people names and laughingly dismissing them never tells us WHY LZ1 is "better" in your eyes, just that you feel snidely comfortable reveling in it's influence and bigger sales. Just keep letting LZ 1 "blow" on you and enjoy yourself. I'm trying too change my ways, lol. If Queen 1 had no influence why did Brian May say that he was surprised by how many people "including muscians he knows and fans" still think the first album was their best?.... Brian said he hears it all the time. Brian himself said the first Album was very good, but they didn't find the queen sound until a few albums later, that's why it surprises him, not because the album wasn't good, but because they didn't find their sound yet...... So you're not alone in thinking queen 1 was magical. Despite the album not being as original as Queen2 to ADATR I think it's a great album, and rounds out my top 5 from them. Funny, Brenski say's Freddie stole a whole verse in my fairy king, which is a brilliant song, but doesn't mention all the songs Zep borrowed or Stole?....on their Debute or even later albums they stole shit. Why doesn't that count Mr. Brenski?....nothing wrong with sticking up for your favorite band, and it doesn't make you a stepford. |
| maxpower 25.03.2011 13:27 |
Personally I would take Zep 1 over Queen. It's all down to personal opinions but the opener "Good Times Bad Times" is still one of my favourite Zep tracks |
| brENsKi 25.03.2011 14:39 |
mike hunt wrote: Funny, Brenski say's Freddie stole a whole verse in my fairy king, which is a brilliant song, but doesn't mention all the songs Zep borrowed or Stole?....on their Debute or even later albums they stole shit. Why doesn't that count Mr. Brenski?....nothing wrong with sticking up for your favorite band, and it doesn't make you a stepford. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mike my comment wasn't stating that Ledzep were original and never stole anything...of couse they did!!! i never disputed zep's ability to blur the boundaries bridging "inspiration" and "plagiarism".... my reference comment re: "My Fairy King" was in response to another's comment haling it as some great bastion of originality and unique....not a chance!!! For those that don't know, what i referred to was Freddie having "lifted" "liberated" and "stolen" a passage from "the pied pier of hamlyn" by Robert Browning...without this "inspiration" the whole structure of MFK would be nothing...that grand opening to the song paints such a wonderfully imaginative picture - shame it wasn't FM's own original imagination: MY FAIRY KING In the land where horses born with eagle wings And honey bees have lost their stings There's singing forever to you Lions den with fallow deer THE PIED PIPER The sparrows were brighter than peacocks here, And their dogs outran our fallow deer, And honey-bees had lost their stings, And horses were born with eagles' wings: and finally, "sticking up for your band"? no nothing wrong with that at all...but it does become stepfordism (new word)...when no cognisant argument is presented other than "queen are best because they are"... neither yourself Mike or PrimeJive have done this...so this is not directed at you......in fact you and I see quite similarly Mike...on queen matters....excepting of course your stance on "Opera" and mine on "II" |
| The Real Wizard 25.03.2011 18:05 |
Btw.. To our neighbourhood friend talking about musical execution (with the suggestion that Page was always sloppy) .. watch and learn .. link Around 14:30 commences one of the greatest guitar solos I've ever heard... top 10 in about 100,000. Page plays this solo in Thank You with such precision and feeling that words cannot describe. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 25.03.2011 18:41 |
It's really funny because you talk about Page's precission, while you seem to like Dream Theater. But, on the other hand, it's probably one of the best things I've heard of Jimmy. Not because of the solo itself. To me, it was just another guitar solo. But he didn't make God cry this time, good for him. WHICH IS VERY, VERY FAR FROM PERFECT. But, what the hell? What am I doing here? You people like Jimmy Page, there's nothing I can do about that. It's like talking about colors with blind people. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 25.03.2011 19:41 |
Jazzy...well, I absolutely LOVE Jimmy Page! Where I have a problem is when so many Queen fans say that on Queen 1 they "haven't found their *sound* yet" but Zeppelin already had on LZ1. I don't ,personally, think they had found their true greatness on LZ 1, either. Sure it's a heralded album by the rock community in general...but I find it a generally dull album. I think that LZ 2 was quite an improvement with songs like "Thank You" and the thundering "Whole Lotta Love". On LZ 3 they really expanded their horizons...but it wasn't until LZ 4 that they found their "sweet spot" in my opinion. From that point on they were rock gods(bar none). I would take the first 3 Queen albums ANYDAY over the first 3 Zep albums...after that I dunno...it depends on my mood. They are my top 2 favorite bands for a reason! I guess I just don't like primitive, childlike comments like "LZ 1 BLOWS AWAY Queen 1" when the only thing that the person(jpf) can say to back up that claim is the talk about "influence" and "record sales". If you like LZ 1 better fine! I like some Zeppelin albums better than certain Queen albums as well(but it's definitely NOT LZ1). I just find comments like jpf's, to be incendiary and not constructive. Especially when he's posting on a Queen website. |
| jpf 26.03.2011 02:28 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Jpf...why don't you try "understanding what you read" next time. I mistakenly put jpf to the "grow the F*** up" quote and corrected it in my next post. Yeah, you're right the whole LZ 1"blows away" Queen 1 is "your opinion"...happily I don't share it. ---- I replied in the order of the posts. You fucked up. It's your problem. |
| jpf 26.03.2011 02:32 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Jpf...LOL...once again with the "influential" and "biggest seller" thing. If you don't care what people think, why is something "better" to you because it's supposed to be more influential? ---- LZ1 was far more influential and a far bigger seller than Queen 1. Sorry if that truth makes you wet your pants. "Better" is an opinion. "Influential" can be seen in record sales and through other bands calling LZ and LZ1 an influential band and lp. |
| jpf 26.03.2011 02:34 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Sorry Brenksi...the "blow" comment was aimed at JPF...evidently he likes the way LZ 1 does that. ---- Dumbass, try getting your quotes correct for once. |
| jpf 26.03.2011 02:40 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Jazzy...well, I absolutely LOVE Jimmy Page! Where I have a problem is when so many Queen fans say that on Queen 1 they "haven't found their *sound* yet" but Zeppelin already had on LZ1. I don't ,personally, think they had found their true greatness on LZ 1, either. Sure it's a heralded album by the rock community in general...but I find it a generally dull album. I think that LZ 2 was quite an improvement with songs like "Thank You" and the thundering "Whole Lotta Love". On LZ 3 they really expanded their horizons...but it wasn't until LZ 4 that they found their "sweet spot" in my opinion. From that point on they were rock gods(bar none). I would take the first 3 Queen albums ANYDAY over the first 3 Zep albums...after that I dunno...it depends on my mood. They are my top 2 favorite bands for a reason! I guess I just don't like primitive, childlike comments like "LZ 1 BLOWS AWAY Queen 1" when the only thing that the person(jpf) can say to back up that claim is the talk about "influence" and "record sales". If you like LZ 1 better fine! I like some Zeppelin albums better than certain Queen albums as well(but it's definitely NOT LZ1). I just find comments like jpf's, to be incendiary and not constructive. Especially when he's posting on a Queen website. ----- LZ 1 blows away Queen 1. Deal with it. Your last sentence is quite amusing. Everything Queen did wasn't top notch. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 26.03.2011 03:00 |
Of course everything wasn't top notch BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE! "LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. |
| john bodega 26.03.2011 05:28 |
Jimmy Page is the greatest guitar player in the universe |
| PrimeJiveUSA 26.03.2011 07:06 |
Jazzy...that's all Jpf can communicate about why LZ 1 "blows away" Queen. It all has to do with what OTHER PEOPLE think. Let's see..."it's influential"..."it's sold much more"...it contains many more songs that are considered "classic". He seems to be too illiterate to explain how the actual MUSIC on the album "blows away" Queen 1. While he lets LZ 1 blow on him some more...we'll wait for his in-depth analysis. |
| qrock 26.03.2011 07:56 |
Led Zeppelin I may well be better that Queen I though I personally prefer who Queen I works as an album. However this discussion comparing the music between these two albums. Both albums are different and you can't really come close or have the right to say which one is definetly better. What I do find is that groups such as The Beatles and Led Zeppelin have already been explained and have been explained too many times. Queen have been half explained (with their later stuff being explained the most) but their early stuff has not been explained and a lot of their other stuff has not been explained. This makes Queen not as praised as Led Zep or the Beatles and all of Zep and Beatles albums have been described as essential and diffenitive whereas Queen really have only one studio album that is considered a classic. Groups such as Rush and Dire Straits need some serious explaining. In my opinion Rush is a surperior band to Led Zeppelin in their complicated, intelligent music and they create songs that ncapsulates many different moods and they convey it very well (a bit like Queen). Led Zeppelin could never have created a song like Xanadu and probably won't have the ability and imagination to do it. Neil Peart is a far surperior drummer than Bonham in my opinion and Peart is more of a authentic percussionist than Bonham. Rush are also far more dynamic and veristile than Led Zeppelin and they probably have an advantage in technical ability. Like Queen, Rush had a period of transition in the 1980s with synth dominated tracks and less guitars though their songs still conveyed moods very well. So in my opinion, Rush who are one the most adventurous and skillful bands ever have to be explained as Led Zeppelin and the Beatles have now become too explained. Dire Straits is another band that has not been explained. Like Queen and to an extent Rush they conveyed many different moods and styles. With a great guitarist they produced rock songs such as Sultans of Swing and Money for Nothing, great tunes such as Walk of Life/Twisting by the Pool and rock epics such as Telegraph Rock..... Mark Knopfler had more variety with his guitar skills than Page and he produced some fantastic sounds. He made his guitar sing just like Brian May. So there many other great bands other Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones (and some of Queen's most popular stuff) that are yet to be explained and praised critically. |
| Jimmy Dean 26.03.2011 09:07 |
Here' my take on an in depth analysis of both albums side to side - which I don't believe are comparable. LZ 1 - SIDE 1 Side 1 begins with an absolute roar with Good Times, Bad Times.... although the track is probably one of LZ's most juvenile and simple songs, it's an absolutely appropriate launch to a legendary career (not that this was their intention). Then we get a little more serious with a traditional number arranged by the band entitled "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You". Beautiful acoustic arrangement, not overly complex, but enough to get the listener hooked to what may be a solid album. Robert Plant's vocal performance on this number is dead-on. Here, is showing the listener what he is truly capable of. Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, his voice only suffered through the years - but, in my opinion, this may be one of his greatest takes. A straightforward blues number, You Shook Me - the band rehearsed this one a few too many times - sounds a little flat - not exactly enhancing the album. That's ok, because what comes next definitely makes up for it. Dazed & Confused - not really going to explain this one.... it was a little different for it's time in 1969... yes it may have been a rip-off of a Jake Holmes tune (who? well he tried to sue Jimmy more than 40- years after the fact, lol), but this is where the Zep began to earn a following. A song to trip to ;-) The innovative side of Page is shown here - his use of a bow on a guitar, may sound like an obvious thing to try (a guitar vs, an oversized violin vs. a mini-cello), but not in 1969. I'm not saying it sounds great, or that I ever liked the effect - but he wasn't afraid to give it a shot. Those guitar noises are what makes that landmark track unique. Overall a very strong Side 1 - only 1 turd in the bunch - although this is 25% of the tracks and about 30% of the length - the other 3 tracks more than make up for it. Queen 1 - SIDE 1 Keep Yourself Alive - who the fuck is Queen - Amazing start to a career. (And they Kept themselves Alive for nearly 20 years more!) Absolutely comparable to LZ's opener - and in my opinion a little more ambitious and a lot more exciting. Then we have Doing Alright - which strangely enough is listened to in comparison with Babe I'm Gonna Leave You - actually follow the same type of pattern - direct influence of LZ on Queen (or Smile at the time). We get the soft start, the chorus and then the really loud bridge that comes out of nowhere - it gets very soft and then the the heavy bit following: I've got to hiiiiideaway! that comes out of nowhere - only taken back to reality - "Yesterday, my life was in ruins..." This is VERY Led Zeppelesque. Unfortunately Freddie's vocal performance is nowhere near what Robert Plant Plant had to offer on LZ's debut. So track 2 was a little of a letdown - then comes Great King Rat. What the fuck is this and why do I like it so much?! This is Queen attempting to take a stab on what would eventually become the Queen sound.... only to be enhcanced by the following track. Freddie takes us on a journey on this one and Brian works in hand-in-hand delivering a wonderful guitar track. Tempo changes! Preaching! Don't believe all you read in the bible! (so what if we get a little religious? he's still telling us to stop listening to our parents - so that's cool, right?) This is incomparable to anything on LZ - and is most certainly a highlight track. My Fairy King - over the top, beautiful, challenging chord changes, a solid falsetto performance - harmonies - operatic vocals. Odd lyrics but still a sold song. Then we get Queen's stab at an epic - Liar - again a fairly Zeppelinesque track, but with a twist - it has a third revival - zeppelin would do them in twos, so Queen did them in threes - basically what I mean by this was that there were three bits that increased in intensity just before it slowed down and picked itself back up again - the rollercoaster of sound. May be the strongest track in the bunch. This was a song with *balls*. May not have been as much as a landmark as Dazed was - but you knew that Queen was attempting the same thing, as this was their signature live song in their early shows. Overall, we get a stronger Side 1 from Queen than we did 4 years back with Led Zeppelin. No question. Queen blew it out of the water on Side 1. However, Queen also had more time to write material before they were given the green light to release their first album, whereas the Zep kind of winged it and got lucky. If Led Zep were shot down like Queen were, then LZ 1 *may* have been a hybrid of LZ 1 and LZ 2... Imagine if Heartbreaker, Whole Lotta Love and Thank You ended up on this album! Kind of shows you how much more confidence LZ had in their early years than Queen. That's what I meant when I said in an earlier post that they knew what they wanted to achieve - they had their sound before they walked in the studio... Queen needed more time. On two Side 2... Led Zeppelin - SIDE 2 First track, Your Time Is Gonna Come. Beautiful, haunting - even has an organ (nod to John Paul Jones). Not much to say about this one other than it's a solid track. Not bad at all. Sounds like a single to me. Even has a chorus! Not really a Led Zep thing. On to Black Mountain Side - only kept to 2 minutes - good enough to keep the listener's attention - shows off Jimmy Page's talents - but not much more than this. Basically a song to skip... Communication Breakdown... if you thought the album was beginning to falter, buddy you were fuckin' wrong! Who do they think they were releasing something of this magnitude on the Richter scale?! Perfect pop metal - Best track on the album... the LZ don't let it up - I Can't Quit You Baby. A blues cover (Willie Dixon), but another fantastic Robert Plant performance. A really good John Bonham drum track... and the drum roll leads into.... How Many More Times.... what a way to finish off an album. They kept this for the closer, in the case you had any more doubts... You cannot fault this track for anything other than the length which was originally depicted as 3:30 on the original album sleeve (a 5 minute discrepancy for those that have never heard the song). It includes part of Beck's Bolero which Jimmy wrote for Jeff Beck.... right before we get to more Jimmy Page's bow guitar playing and an interlude by Robert Plant... and then it suddenly changes - Oh Rosie! Oh Girl Oh Rosie!... the marching drummer... these guys don't give a shit what you think... "They call me the hunter!".... a break and then write back to rhetoric...."HOW MANY MORE TIMES!?" This is a fucking fantastic finish to very good album. (The expletives are necessary to review this song - give it a spin.) Side 2 of this album, in my opinion, had a stronger ending than Side 1 - the track listing was well balanced in that they didn't keep all their A-1 material on Side A. They instead sorted it out so that the album keeps together throughout the listen. This is important as it is what helps define a great album from a good one. A good track listing order is essential to its replay value. And this album benefitted greatly from just that. Queen - Side 2 The Night Comes Down - unfortunately this track is stale - was never performed live, with good reason - it doesn't go anywhere. Your Time Is Gonna Come is easily better and more interesting. Brian May couldn't save this one. Modern Times - a straightforward attempt at Communication Breakdown. Not much more than this. It didn't even make Queen Rocks. Not commenting further. Son & Daughter - Queen's attempt at the blues - I preferred the BBC version with the solo - maybe this would have enhanced it. Other than this, there's really nothing special about this. continued.... |
| Jimmy Dean 26.03.2011 09:12 |
....continued Jesus - obviously they were trying to keep with the religious hints - but this was straightforward. This is an obscurity - and if the rest of Side 2 didn't already alienate the listener, then this must have.The music, however, wasn't so bad - could have been a great instrumental. Seven Seas Of Rhye - although it comes off as a throwaway unfinished track - it at least gave you a hint of what was to come. Overall, a fairly weak Side 2. And now we have some definition as to why indeed Zeppelin's first is hailed as a rock classic and Queen's first is thrown away into obscurity. As a cohesive listen - Queen ends on Side 1... there is very little reason to flip the side. Instead, one can argue that Side 1 is equal if not better than *either* of LZ's album sides - this would be a valid point. However, an EP does not an album make and that is an entirely different discussion. The question is, which *album* is better? Led Zeppelin has a batter track listing order, is interesting throughout - delivers a stronger vocal performance by Robert Plant, and vocals are almost always at the forefront of a standard rock album. Brian May's performance, was stronger and if not a lot more interesting than Jimmy's - even WITH Jimmy's use of the bow. Jimmy's was repetitive, when electric, a little more interesting when acoustic - you can at least see has talent when he switched (Babe I'm Gonna Leave You) rather than showing off with obscure techniques, again, such as with the bow. On a Side by side Basis - Queen's Side 1 eclipsed Zeppelin's Side 1 but Side 2 is where the album is silenced by the mighty Zep... and not even Jazzy Mercurois should be album to argue his way out of that point. So there you have it - it may have taken me some time to lay it down on this post - but I enjoy writing every now and again - not something I get to do that often when at work. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 26.03.2011 10:11 |
WOW! Thanks Jimmy Dean for that post. You made a lot of salient points. Just one correction..."Liar" is the first track on Side 2 of Queen. My biggest bone of contention with what you wrote is about Freddie's voice. A lot of people feel that his performance on this album is rather weak or undeveloped...I disagree. I LOOOVE his voice on this album, such clarity and power! Passages that spring to mind is the middle of "Liar" and the "mama gonna be your slave" and his performance on "Jesus" is indeed, Bible-worthy. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 26.03.2011 10:18 |
I also agree that "Modern Times Rock n Roll" and "Son And Daughter" is a weak spot on the album...I don't dislike them at all, but they pale in comparison to the other songs on the album. I love your point about how "tracklisting" can make or break an album...how very true. Someone posted on these forums a while back that if Hot Space hadn't frontloaded all of the dance tracks and just distributed them evenly throughout the album, it may have had a more positive reaction from fans. |
| Jimmy Dean 26.03.2011 10:22 |
oh shit! you're right about Liar. I think I always thought it was on Side 1, possibly because I had the Hollywood Remaster on casette? could it have been on Side 1 there? In any event - Liar alone couldn't save Side 2 in a comparison against LZ's side 2. But Great King Rat with Keep Yourself Alive and My Fairy King, are enough to still eclipse LZ's side 1. And about Freddie's voice - not saying his voice was bad, but if you compare his voice to Plant's on their debuts... Plant's is sublime in 69-71 and then began to deteriorate around the Houses of The Holy era - Freddie's '73 is still a great rock voice - but it got soooooooooooooooooooooooo much better over time. (I think someone else pointed this out). |
| Jimmy Dean 26.03.2011 10:23 |
I think the one who mentioned that about Hot Space, may have been me. I've definitely mentioned this about Jazz... that album would have been way better had they changed the order. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 26.03.2011 11:09 |
HaHa...It probably WAS you that said that about Hot Space. I, on the other hand, think Hot Space's runing order is perfect. I agree that Jazz's track order is kind of a mess...but I still love that album, too. Yes, Plant is one of the greatest rock vocalists ever. You think his voice started deteriorating on the Houses Of The Holy album? Never caught that...his voice was incredible on Presence especially , I think. All I have to say is that it's hard to argue with most of your points...mainly because they are purely subjective. And that's the nature of music and how each individual reacts to it. At least you gave a thorough and comprehensive reason for why you think LZ 1 is better than Queen 1. That's what this thread is about. Jpf wants to call people names who are actually posting what the thread asked for. He calls me a "dumb-ass" when he never tells us WHY he thinks LZ 1 is better...it's just "blows it away" , "sold many more copies" and is "influential". Anyone that can read can understand what the OP was asking for(except for Jpf). We all know LZ 1 is more "inflential" and "sold more copies". The OP asked which do you think is the better album IN YOUR OPINION while stating clearly that he knows that LZ 1 is looked at by most people as the superior album. Does Nirvana's "Nevermind" blow away Queen 1...it's sold a lot more copies and helped propel grunge into a mainstream phenomena? |
| The Real Wizard 26.03.2011 12:33 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: You people like Jimmy Page, there's nothing I can do about that. It's like talking about colors with blind people. ================== I'm sorry you see the guitar in such a black and white way. There is a lot of gray area. It's not just "good" technique and "bad" technique. It's not like a math question where there is only one right answer. How boring the guitar would be if everyone tried to play "perfectly" like jazz guitarist X. Most jazz guitarists sound the same. I don't care how good their chops are - they are boring to listen to because they bring nothing new to the table. They have studied modes, scales and chord substitutions.. big deal. I can go to the big jazz clubs in Toronto and within seconds I can tell which school they went to. These guys all sound the same. Yes, I like Dream Theater (about half of their work, anyway), but Petrucci isn't one of my favourite guitarists. I admire him for what he does, but he is so studied and technically proficient to the point that everything he does sounds so calculated. Any attempt at being bluesy or playing with feel comes off as contrived. He plays completely from his head, not from his soul. He used to. In the 90s he was dripping with soul, combined with the technique. But he chose to go in the technique direction and left his soul at the door as far as I'm concerned. Check out the version of To Live Forever from Tokyo 93 on youtube. It's one of the best combinations of feel and technique I've ever seen. If it is indeed all about technique, then Keith Richards and Neil Young should qualify as crap since they are far from being "clean" players. But they are still valid contributors, because they have created sounds of their own in the vast realm of the electric guitar. They expanded the horizons of what the guitar can do just like Vai - no greater or less. Vai has better technique, but that's only one part of the equation. The fact that there is gray area is the very thing that makes the guitar one of the most versatile musical instruments. If Page's technique doesn't connect with you and you don't see the mysticism that is Led Zeppelin, then most sane people will respect their differences with you. But it's not because they are deaf, blind, or have bad taste. If anything, you're the one who is blind because you're the only one yammering on about how bad you think someone else is, particularly someone who has inspired literally millions of people to pick up the guitar. I'm one of them. |
| The Real Wizard 26.03.2011 12:54 |
Jimmy Dean - excellent analysis. I only think you're too hard on Son And Daughter. The guitar work is fantastic. Great main riff, and the harmonies in the second verse are exquisite. He sped them up to double tempo to make them sound an octave higher, which achieved a new effect that had never been heard before. And there is the very reason why LZ are considered more influential than Queen. Page played with a bow and Bonham played 20 minute drum solos, while Queen pioneered lighting rigs and focused on connecting with people throughout a 2 hour show. And in the studio, the two bands used the technology in very different ways. Page achieved a giant drum sound on When The Levee Breaks, while Queen layered the three voices and guitars in ways that most people can't truly appreciate. Most people see style before substance. As for the respective guitarists - Page was very in your face, whereas Brian May's genius is in much more subtle ways. Brian's dixieland jazz band at the end of Good Company is the single most innovative piece of guitar playing from the 70s, next to Eruption. But very few people are aware of the song (most see it as filler between Love Of My Life and BoRhap), never mind even understanding exactly what Brian created and how monumental an achievement it was. The very idea of influence is embodied in the ability to pass along your craft, inspiring someone to better it in some way. But when someone is too much of a genius, they are lost on most. And this is why most people think Jimmy Page is one of the greatest guitarists ever, and Brian (if they even know his name) is just the guy who played in Queen.... but not as fast as Page or Blackmore, so I guess he's not as good, right? |
| mike hunt 26.03.2011 15:12 |
i think people call Good Company filler because vocally it's Weak compared to the songs around it. prophet song, love of my life and Bo Rhap are among the best vocals from any rock singer IMO. Good Company is a brilliant tune though, especially musically. |
| mike hunt 26.03.2011 15:22 |
brENsKi wrote: mike hunt wrote: Funny, Brenski say's Freddie stole a whole verse in my fairy king, which is a brilliant song, but doesn't mention all the songs Zep borrowed or Stole?....on their Debute or even later albums they stole shit. Why doesn't that count Mr. Brenski?....nothing wrong with sticking up for your favorite band, and it doesn't make you a stepford. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mike my comment wasn't stating that Ledzep were original and never stole anything...of couse they did!!! i never disputed zep's ability to blur the boundaries bridging "inspiration" and "plagiarism".... my reference comment re: "My Fairy King" was in response to another's comment haling it as some great bastion of originality and unique....not a chance!!! For those that don't know, what i referred to was Freddie having "lifted" "liberated" and "stolen" a passage from "the pied pier of hamlyn" by Robert Browning...without this "inspiration" the whole structure of MFK would be nothing...that grand opening to the song paints such a wonderfully imaginative picture - shame it wasn't FM's own original imagination: MY FAIRY KING In the land where horses born with eagle wings And honey bees have lost their stings There's singing forever to you Lions den with fallow deer THE PIED PIPER The sparrows were brighter than peacocks here, And their dogs outran our fallow deer, And honey-bees had lost their stings, And horses were born with eagles' wings: and finally, "sticking up for your band"? no nothing wrong with that at all...but it does become stepfordism (new word)...when no cognisant argument is presented other than "queen are best because they are"... neither yourself Mike or PrimeJive have done this...so this is not directed at you......in fact you and I see quite similarly Mike...on queen matters....excepting of course your stance on "Opera" and mine on "II" I just wanted to make a point about Zep and all the borrowing they did. Of course Queen did it like everyone, but not as much as Zep. No question we agree on a lot of stuff, Queen2 being both of our favorites, with Opera a very close second for me. alway's one of my favorite poster's around here for sure. |
| brENsKi 26.03.2011 16:49 |
Mike I'm not 100% sure about this...but did Queen ever pay out any royalities for "use of someone else's original material" ? i doubt it, cos i think they were quite business savvy...Brian clearly use someone else's song with "See What A Fool.." and Freddie lifted a whole passage from "the Pied Piper"..... not sure about copyright law, but i would think that as Robert Browning had been dead a long time then Freddie was free to do this Zep tended to do similar things....coincidence? or just very good business brains? |
| jpf 26.03.2011 23:59 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: Of course everything wasn't top notch BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE! "LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. ---- LZ was far more influential than Queen. Much bigger band in the U.S. Much bigger band worldwide. Much bigger influence on other bands, guitarists, drummers, and singers. Had far more radio airplay. You like Queen and hate LZ. No big deal. Doesn't change the fact that LZ will always dominate over Queen. Just something you have to deal with. |
| jpf 27.03.2011 00:01 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Jazzy...that's all Jpf can communicate about why LZ 1 "blows away" Queen. It all has to do with what OTHER PEOPLE think. Let's see..."it's influential"..."it's sold much more"...it contains many more songs that are considered "classic". He seems to be too illiterate to explain how the actual MUSIC on the album "blows away" Queen 1. While he lets LZ 1 blow on him some more...we'll wait for his in-depth analysis. ---- LZ 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Queen 1 Deal with it. BTW, you're not worth in-depth analysis. |
| Holly2003 27.03.2011 08:04 |
It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 27.03.2011 10:11 |
LOL...no many times you tell him what the OP is asking for, even though the OP says to disregard "influence" and "sales" and give us YOUR personal opinion, he can only revert back to "influence" and "sales" to back up his claim that "LZ 1 blows awayQueen 1". Holly, I'm not wasting anymore time on this caveman. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 27.03.2011 10:16 |
qrok...Thanks for starting a great, interesting thread. It was fun until that uncommunicative neanderthal walked into it with knuckles dragging on the ground. |
| The Real Wizard 27.03.2011 11:40 |
jpf wrote: Much bigger band worldwide. Had far more radio airplay. ============================ That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable. Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you. In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. |
| john bodega 27.03.2011 11:53 |
While your post is appropriate to the discussion, it's going to go right over jpf's head, because in musical discussions he operates upon two assumptions : A). The Beatles didn't exist B). America is the only country on Earth worth talking about. It makes it a lot easier for him to put Kiss at the top of the food chain when they're realistically a 2nd tier band at best. BEARING IN MIND that I don't have a problem with Kiss and I don't see why people hate them so much ... it's not a question of how good or bad they are. If you know what you are in for, then you know what to expect and thus shouldn't have any great disappointments. It's like going to Remembrance Day celebrations and complaining about the minute's silence. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 27.03.2011 15:02 |
jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: Of course everything wasn't top notch BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE! "LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. ---- LZ was far more influential than Queen. Much bigger band in the U.S. Much bigger band worldwide. Much bigger influence on other bands, guitarists, drummers, and singers. Had far more radio airplay. You like Queen and hate LZ. No big deal. Doesn't change the fact that LZ will always dominate over Queen. Just something you have to deal with. ---- ------- ----------- Yes, dude. That's music to you. Sales and airplay. That's what music is about. In fact, Led Zeppelin is better than Chopin because they sold more albums! Yayyyy, you win! Congratz! |
| mike hunt 27.03.2011 16:55 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Much bigger band worldwide. Had far more radio airplay. ============================ That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable. Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you. In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. That is so true man!......everyone thinks if a band is bigger in America than that means they're bigger everywhere. The fact is if we're going by record sales than Queen blow away Zeppelin. it's not even close. Queen are the biggest selling band aside from the Beatles worldwide. Zeppelin isn't even on the radar. So all these Zep, The stones fans need to deal with the fact that queen out sold them all. |
| The Real Wizard 27.03.2011 22:21 |
Right on. And let's take it a step further - ask the average American if they know who Nana Mouskouri and Cliff Richard are. Each of them have sold about as many records as Queen have. Nana has sold more records than all the female singers who are purported to be the best-selling female artists ever ... Whitney, Mariah, etc. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 02:52 |
Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 02:54 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: LOL...no many times you tell him what the OP is asking for, even though the OP says to disregard "influence" and "sales" and give us YOUR personal opinion, he can only revert back to "influence" and "sales" to back up his claim that "LZ 1 blows awayQueen 1". Holly, I'm not wasting anymore time on this caveman. ---- I already gave my personal opinion, dumbass. LZ 1 blows away Queen 1. Here's a tissue so you can dry your eyes. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 02:54 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: qrok...Thanks for starting a great, interesting thread. It was fun until that uncommunicative neanderthal walked into it with knuckles dragging on the ground. ---- Yeah, Hollycunt does fuck up a lot of threads. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 03:02 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Much bigger band worldwide. Had far more radio airplay. ============================ That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable. Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you. In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. ---- From wiki: Led Zep More than 30 years after disbanding following Bonham's death in 1980, Led Zeppelin continue to be held in high regard for their artistic achievements, commercial success, and broad influence. The band sold over 200 million albums worldwide according to some sources,[7] while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records,[8] including 111.5 million certified units in the United States,[9] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists of all time, as well as the fourth best selling group of all time in the United States.[9] They have had all of their original studio albums reach the top 10 of the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching the number one spot.[10] Rolling Stone magazine has described Led Zeppelin as "the heaviest band of all time",[11] "the biggest band of the '70s"[12] and "unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in rock history".[1] Similarly, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame described the band in the 1970s as being "as influential in that decade as The Beatles were in the prior one".[13] Queen The band has released a total of 18 number one albums, 18 number one singles and 10 number one DVDs, and have sold over 150 million albums, with some estimates in excess of 300 million albums,[8][9][10][11][12] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists. They have been honoured with seven Ivor Novello awards and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.[13] List of best-selling music artists link |
| jpf 29.03.2011 03:10 |
Zebonka12 wrote: While your post is appropriate to the discussion, it's going to go right over jpf's head, because in musical discussions he operates upon two assumptions : A). The Beatles didn't exist B). America is the only country on Earth worth talking about. It makes it a lot easier for him to put Kiss at the top of the food chain when they're realistically a 2nd tier band at best. BEARING IN MIND that I don't have a problem with Kiss and I don't see why people hate them so much ... it's not a question of how good or bad they are. If you know what you are in for, then you know what to expect and thus shouldn't have any great disappointments. It's like going to Remembrance Day celebrations and complaining about the minute's silence. --- You'd be wrong on both accounts. The Beatles existed. The Beatles sucked. With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three. 2nd tier bands don't last nearly 40 years, sell 100 million units, just come off one of their most successful worldwide tours, will be going into the studio to record their 20th studio cd next week, and have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz. KISS continues to last. They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. They performed more concerts and they released more studio cds than those bands and many other bands. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 03:12 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: Of course everything wasn't top notch BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE! "LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. ---- LZ was far more influential than Queen. Much bigger band in the U.S. Much bigger band worldwide. Much bigger influence on other bands, guitarists, drummers, and singers. Had far more radio airplay. You like Queen and hate LZ. No big deal. Doesn't change the fact that LZ will always dominate over Queen. Just something you have to deal with. ---- ------- ----------- Yes, dude. That's music to you. Sales and airplay. That's what music is about. In fact, Led Zeppelin is better than Chopin because they sold more albums! Yayyyy, you win! Congratz! ---- Of course I win. Led Zeppelin influenced far more musicians than Queen. |
| jpf 29.03.2011 03:16 |
mike hunt wrote: Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Much bigger band worldwide. Had far more radio airplay. ============================ That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable. Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you. In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. That is so true man!......everyone thinks if a band is bigger in America than that means they're bigger everywhere. The fact is if we're going by record sales than Queen blow away Zeppelin. it's not even close. Queen are the biggest selling band aside from the Beatles worldwide. Zeppelin isn't even on the radar. So all these Zep, The stones fans need to deal with the fact that queen out sold them all. --- Nope. Zep sold more than Queen. link |
| Holly2003 29.03.2011 06:14 |
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. |
| The Real Wizard 29.03.2011 11:02 |
jpf wrote: From wiki: ================ Um, the post you replied to was about radio airplay and popularity in specific areas of the world, not record sales as sourced by Wikipedia. Being a troll is one thing, but please, learn to read and contribute to the discussion in a valid, helpful way. |
| The Real Wizard 29.03.2011 11:04 |
jpf wrote: KISS continues to last. They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. They performed more concerts and they released more studio cds than those bands and many other bands. ================== Longevity does not make a good band. If that's the case, then the Stones are better than everyone including the Beatles... and Kiss. When Zeppelin and Queen lost key members, they called it a day. When Ace left Kiss, they should've done the same. Kiss is a corporation that makes a lot of money. They have not been musically or culturally relevant for 30 years. Without Ace and Peter, Kiss are a tribute band. Ace was the sound. If you to make music a competition, Bon Jovi are more relevant than Kiss today. And they have sold more records than Kiss... not that such statistics matter, but you used record sales to try to prove that Zeppelin are bigger than Queen worldwide... so there you go. Bon Jovi's last few albums have sold millions of copies each. The last Kiss album didn't even go gold. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 29.03.2011 11:07 |
The Beatles suck? Arguably the best band to ever exist, but some dude says they suck. A band formed by God, a genius, a great musician and the best human to ever exist. The sense of melody they had has yet to be matched. Great ideas, wonderfully crafted. Clever arrangements, always there to improve the music. The perfect pop band. Whereas Led Zeppelin had a very good drummer, obviously better than Ringo (who is VERY underrated among drummers, even tho he is way above the level of guys like Nick Mason, for example) and a great bass player, better than Paul McCartney... Jimmy Page and Robert Plant don't have much to offer next to Harrison and McCartney as guitar player and singer, respectively. You may say that Jimmy Page bla bla bla but the truth is that Jimmy never got to play something as delicate and gentle as the solo from Something. He tried, of course... but never succeeded the way George did. And that's without mentioning that George later became a much better guitar player than he already was on The Beatles. And Paul... well, let's just say that falsetto screams only doesn't do the whole trick. Paul was an amazing singer with lots of variations and great sense of phrasing. Much better than Robert Plant's early days, later days, new born days, dying old man days... you name the era, Paul was always better. And OF COURSE, they sold more albums than Led Zeppelin. And influenced much more people. MUUUUUUUUUUUCH more people. So according to jpf's POOR musical view, The Beatles are the best band to ever exist. Which is even better because they have too many musical reasons why they indeed could (or should) be considered the best. And now we can add that even when an idiot (who doesn't really know shit about music itself and only deals in sales numbers and other non-important/non-musical things) brings up other reasons why a band should be considered the best, The Beatles still are #1 according to those things too. You gotta admit you can't beat the Fab Four. |
| The Real Wizard 29.03.2011 11:26 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: >Whereas Led Zeppelin had a very good drummer, obviously better than Ringo (who is VERY underrated among drummers, even tho he is way above the level of guys like Nick Mason, for example) That's kind of unfair, as Zeppelin came much later. It'd be like blaming The Beatles for not having 16 track tape and then calling Quincy Jones a better producer than George Martin only for that reason. Ringo really wrote the book for most of the rock drummers who came after him. Most of the things that became commonplace in rock drumming by the late 60s simply did not exist before Ringo. Listen to Rain - nobody was doing that in 1966. >You may say that Jimmy Page bla bla bla but the truth is that Jimmy never got to play something as delicate and gentle as the solo from Something. Listen to The Rain Song and you'll hear delicate. But for a solo, listen to the slide work in What Is And What Should Never Be. But overall, Page was at his most delicate on the acoustic guitar. Most would agree that Page was a far better acoustic player than electric. >you name the era, Paul was always better. 1970-1972 ... Robert Plant was the man. Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer. Otherwise, your post is bang on. Nobody in their right mind can deny that The Beatles are the biggest, best-selling, culturally paradigm shifting and influential artists of the last hundred years. |
| john bodega 29.03.2011 11:41 |
"(kiss) have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz." I bet they're sorry they bothered - I sure as shit would be. It's like hearing your skills as a hairdresser inspired someone to become a scalp-obsessed serial killer. "They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin" I'm not even sure what your point is. No one is telling you that Kiss is a commercial failure or failed to connect with a huge audience. They made a lot of money and have a lot of fans - those are the facts. I'm not sure why you listed 3 bands who made more interesting music to further your point, though. Kiss didn't do Millionaire Waltz or March of the Black Queen, they didn't do Quadrophenia, and they didn't do No Quarter. Quite frankly, I'd exchange a long career for a career where I'd written any of those songs... "With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three" That's nice. While you're listening to some crap like "Spies Like Us", the rest of the world is enjoying some seriously good music that you've missed out on. This doesn't bother me! "Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer." I think they sing in two different idioms, but personally I'm kind of glad that they get compared in this day and age, because people forget that while Paul McCartney wasn't a strutting 70's rock-god frontman, he was still a singer who was comparable to any of them. Perhaps my taste in singers isn't all there (I dig Ted Neeley, whom people regularly accuse of sounding like cats screeching) but Plant and Macca both sit in the same basket as far as I'm concerned - damn fine singers - at least some of the time, in Plant's case. But there again, I don't like his classic era as much as I like the sound he had around Knebworth - husky, fucked up, and desperate to get the high notes again. At least he sounds like he's trying! You can learn technique, but you can't imitate the sound of someone who's ruining their own voice for the sake of art. Crazy days. |
| Gregsynth 29.03.2011 11:50 |
Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). |
| Sebastian 29.03.2011 13:32 |
Regarding Ringo writing the book on rock drumming, I completely disagree. Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compare it to any other and (with only three or four exceptions), it's twice as large. But compare it to the WHOLE world and it's only a small percentage. Same case here: Ringo's by far the most influential drummer of his time. Compare it to any other (even Moon) and Ringo's at least twice as influential. Compare it to ALL of the drummers combined and it's only a small percentage. So: he didn't write the book on drumming. He did write more pages than the others, but his contribution was still just one of the many, many, many that had to be for such book to exist. Same for The Beatles as a whole. |
| john bodega 29.03.2011 13:59 |
Book writing really isn't the analogy for this. For starters, you don't usually invent the language in which your book is written. Books also have things like references, acknowledgements ... all kinds of crap. |
| Sebastian 29.03.2011 14:49 |
It fits then: nothing that Ringo did hadn't been done before. 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done'. Ringo did have a stroke of genius organising existing things in a way nobody had done, just like Shakespeare didn't invent the words 'to' 'be' 'or' and 'not', yet arranged a classic intro for a soliloquy using them. |
| mike hunt 29.03.2011 16:24 |
jpf wrote: Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Much bigger band worldwide. Had far more radio airplay. ============================ That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable. Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you. In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. ---- From wiki: Led Zep More than 30 years after disbanding following Bonham's death in 1980, Led Zeppelin continue to be held in high regard for their artistic achievements, commercial success, and broad influence. The band sold over 200 million albums worldwide according to some sources,[7] while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records,[8] including 111.5 million certified units in the United States,[9] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists of all time, as well as the fourth best selling group of all time in the United States.[9] They have had all of their original studio albums reach the top 10 of the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching the number one spot.[10] Rolling Stone magazine has described Led Zeppelin as "the heaviest band of all time",[11] "the biggest band of the '70s"[12] and "unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in rock history".[1] Similarly, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame described the band in the 1970s as being "as influential in that decade as The Beatles were in the prior one".[13] Queen The band has released a total of 18 number one albums, 18 number one singles and 10 number one DVDs, and have sold over 150 million albums, with some estimates in excess of 300 million albums,[8][9][10][11][12] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists. They have been honoured with seven Ivor Novello awards and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.[13] List of best-selling music artists link That list changed since the last time i looked at it......But going by that list ABBA have sold more than Zep. does that make them better?....I'm not even debating Zep had a bigger Influence, but i'm Just saying record sales don't tell the whole story. kiss don't compare to Queen in any way. not even close. the Beatles are the biggest and most Influencial band ever. Yes, even more so than Zep. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 29.03.2011 18:59 |
jpf...this thread's been my first interaction with you. You've been totally rude and obnoxious...but what the hell, that's the way a lot of people are on the internet. I just have one question...are you a Queen fan? I mean this IS a Queen fan site...and it seems you want to talk about how every other band is better than Queen. I mean...wtf? |
| Matias Merçeauroix 29.03.2011 19:14 |
Sebastian wrote: It fits then: nothing that Ringo did hadn't been done before. 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done'. Ringo did have a stroke of genius organising existing things in a way nobody had done, just like Shakespeare didn't invent the words 'to' 'be' 'or' and 'not', yet arranged a classic intro for a soliloquy using them. ----------- ------- ---- But that's part of the creation as well. |
| Sebastian 29.03.2011 21:49 |
Exactly! And, as such, it should be neither under- nor over-rated. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:09 |
Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. ---- You're a moron. You're a moronic cunt. Sums you up perfectly. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:14 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: From wiki: ================ Um, the post you replied to was about radio airplay and popularity in specific areas of the world, not record sales as sourced by Wikipedia. Being a troll is one thing, but please, learn to read and contribute to the discussion in a valid, helpful way. ---- LZ 1 blows away Queen 1. LZ 1 influenced more bands than Queen 1. LZ was a far more influential band than Queen. LZ sold more worldwide than Queen. BTW, I haven't listened to my LZ lps in more than 20 years, they aren't even in my top 10 favorite groups, and Queen is my 2nd favorite band. With that said LZ was the bigger band. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:24 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: KISS continues to last. They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. They performed more concerts and they released more studio cds than those bands and many other bands. ================== Longevity does not make a good band. If that's the case, then the Stones are better than everyone including the Beatles... and Kiss. When Zeppelin and Queen lost key members, they called it a day. When Ace left Kiss, they should've done the same. Kiss is a corporation that makes a lot of money. They have not been musically or culturally relevant for 30 years. Without Ace and Peter, Kiss are a tribute band. Ace was the sound. If you to make music a competition, Bon Jovi are more relevant than Kiss today. And they have sold more records than Kiss... not that such statistics matter, but you used record sales to try to prove that Zeppelin are bigger than Queen worldwide... so there you go. Bon Jovi's last few albums have sold millions of copies each. The last Kiss album didn't even go gold. ---- KISS continues to last. Those other bands didn't for a variety of reasons. When Ace left KISS he left because he was an alcoholic, drug addicted POS. Good riddance. Same goes for Peter Criss. Ace wasn't the sound of KISS, Paul and Gene were and still are. They're the ones who wrote 85% of the material during '74 - '81. KISS was always their band. They're the two who started it and hired the other two. They were the two who weren't fucked up on alcohol and drugs, didn't lose their musical skills, didn't lose their record contract, and didn't end up declaring bankruptcy. Ace was "the sound". LOL. He had a failed "solo career". So much for your logic. LOL. KISS will start recording studio cd number 20 this coming Monday. Looking forward to another great cd. Who cares about Bon Jovi? LOL Shit music for soccer moms. LOL Some of KISS' best records didn't go platinum. No big deal. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:29 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: The Beatles suck? Arguably the best band to ever exist, but some dude says they suck. A band formed by God, a genius, a great musician and the best human to ever exist. The sense of melody they had has yet to be matched. Great ideas, wonderfully crafted. Clever arrangements, always there to improve the music. The perfect pop band. Whereas Led Zeppelin had a very good drummer, obviously better than Ringo (who is VERY underrated among drummers, even tho he is way above the level of guys like Nick Mason, for example) and a great bass player, better than Paul McCartney... Jimmy Page and Robert Plant don't have much to offer next to Harrison and McCartney as guitar player and singer, respectively. You may say that Jimmy Page bla bla bla but the truth is that Jimmy never got to play something as delicate and gentle as the solo from Something. He tried, of course... but never succeeded the way George did. And that's without mentioning that George later became a much better guitar player than he already was on The Beatles. And Paul... well, let's just say that falsetto screams only doesn't do the whole trick. Paul was an amazing singer with lots of variations and great sense of phrasing. Much better than Robert Plant's early days, later days, new born days, dying old man days... you name the era, Paul was always better. And OF COURSE, they sold more albums than Led Zeppelin. And influenced much more people. MUUUUUUUUUUUCH more people. So according to jpf's POOR musical view, The Beatles are the best band to ever exist. Which is even better because they have too many musical reasons why they indeed could (or should) be considered the best. And now we can add that even when an idiot (who doesn't really know shit about music itself and only deals in sales numbers and other non-important/non-musical things) brings up other reasons why a band should be considered the best, The Beatles still are #1 according to those things too. You gotta admit you can't beat the Fab Four. --- That's correct. The Beatles suck. Can't stand Lennon, Harrison, and Starr. Can't stand their music. "Best human to ever exist". You mean the one who beat his wife, abandoned his son, and was a drug addict. Way to go. Lennon was a POS. Never said The Beatles weren't influential. I said they sucked. I have no use for them. They didn't make me want to pick up a guitar and learn how to play it. Completely overrated band. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:34 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "(kiss) have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz." I bet they're sorry they bothered - I sure as shit would be. It's like hearing your skills as a hairdresser inspired someone to become a scalp-obsessed serial killer. "They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin" I'm not even sure what your point is. No one is telling you that Kiss is a commercial failure or failed to connect with a huge audience. They made a lot of money and have a lot of fans - those are the facts. I'm not sure why you listed 3 bands who made more interesting music to further your point, though. Kiss didn't do Millionaire Waltz or March of the Black Queen, they didn't do Quadrophenia, and they didn't do No Quarter. Quite frankly, I'd exchange a long career for a career where I'd written any of those songs... "With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three" That's nice. While you're listening to some crap like "Spies Like Us", the rest of the world is enjoying some seriously good music that you've missed out on. This doesn't bother me! "Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer." I think they sing in two different idioms, but personally I'm kind of glad that they get compared in this day and age, because people forget that while Paul McCartney wasn't a strutting 70's rock-god frontman, he was still a singer who was comparable to any of them. Perhaps my taste in singers isn't all there (I dig Ted Neeley, whom people regularly accuse of sounding like cats screeching) but Plant and Macca both sit in the same basket as far as I'm concerned - damn fine singers - at least some of the time, in Plant's case. But there again, I don't like his classic era as much as I like the sound he had around Knebworth - husky, fucked up, and desperate to get the high notes again. At least he sounds like he's trying! You can learn technique, but you can't imitate the sound of someone who's ruining their own voice for the sake of art. Crazy days. ----- I thank KISS for not recording "Millionaire Waltz" and "Black Queen". Not exactly Queen's prime material. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:35 |
Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 00:39 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...this thread's been my first interaction with you. You've been totally rude and obnoxious...but what the hell, that's the way a lot of people are on the internet. I just have one question...are you a Queen fan? I mean this IS a Queen fan site...and it seems you want to talk about how every other band is better than Queen. I mean...wtf? --- Queen's my second favorite band. Some people on this site shit themselves when Queen isn't glorified 24/7. I'll call those people out. |
| Gregsynth 30.03.2011 01:42 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. ======== He was in his vocal prime, then. |
| Gregsynth 30.03.2011 01:48 |
Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. |
| Holly2003 30.03.2011 02:02 |
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. ---- You're a moron. You're a moronic cunt. Sums you up perfectly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's just what I'd expect an inbred trailer park Kiss fan to say. You never disappoint. |
| brENsKi 30.03.2011 07:21 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...this thread's been my first interaction with you. You've been totally rude and obnoxious...but what the hell, that's the way a lot of people are on the internet. I just have one question...are you a Queen fan? I mean this IS a Queen fan site...and it seems you want to talk about how every other band is better than Queen. I mean...wtf? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff...let's face facts...nothing and no-one is perfect...esp Queen....they messed up laods...some stupid and awful songs, gigs in sun city, losing america the way they did, the "falsies" in sth america during "i want to break free", they were far from perfect...gett eh fuck over it a band can still be your favourite without you being so far up their (collective) arses as to to praise them "farting in a jar" as being full of artistic merit |
| Sebastian 30.03.2011 07:31 |
Actually, it's great when you respect an artist so much that you can say 'this and that song were hideous' and still like the artist. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 30.03.2011 07:56 |
@jpf: Lennon is God. Paul is a genius. George is one great musician. And Ringo is the best human to ever exist. THE BEST. On the other hand, your view upon them is a magnificent evidence of mental disease, to say the least. They suck because they don't inspire you to learn how to play an instrument? They're overrated? The Beatles aren't even appreciated for what they have truly done, actually. People often think of them as a simple band with simple songs but the truth is they managed to write very clever songs, truly sophisticated music. - You say Black Queen wasn't Queen's prime material. What kind of God would allow a creature like you... well, exist? Of course I'm not gonna ask for arguments, I know you're just plain stupid. - You say Freddie lost his voice over the years... WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!? DUDE, HE HITS A C4 (and higher too) ALMOST ON EVERY SONG FROM THE 80'S!! You probably work for the Rolling Stone magazine. |
| GratefulFan 30.03.2011 08:39 |
brENsKi wrote: it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff ===================================== Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic. |
| GratefulFan 30.03.2011 08:46 |
jpf wrote: ...didn't lose their musical skills... ======================== Technically this is true. Just like I didn't lose the keys to my Lamborghini, a third set of adult teeth, or my Oscar statuette for 'On Golden Pond'. |
| Amazon 30.03.2011 12:15 |
brENsKi wrote: "It's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff...let's face facts...nothing and no-one is perfect...esp Queen....they messed up laods...some stupid and awful songs, gigs in sun city, losing america the way they did, the "falsies" in sth america during "i want to break free", they were far from perfect...gett eh fuck over it" True, but not the way Skip does it. |
| The Real Wizard 30.03.2011 16:36 |
jpf wrote: LZ sold more worldwide than Queen. ============================= Yes, but that doesn't make LZ bigger than Queen in every part of the world. Go to Europe, Japan or South America and ask any random person in the street who is bigger.... most people will say Queen. |
| john bodega 30.03.2011 21:21 |
Why do people keep complaining about Queen playing Sun City? I'll never understand. I'm proud that they did it! \m/ |
| The Real Wizard 30.03.2011 21:38 |
As Brian said, the only criticism they got was from outside South Africa. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 23:49 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. ======== He was in his vocal prime, then. ---- Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 23:55 |
Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? |
| jpf 30.03.2011 23:56 |
Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. ---- You're a moron. You're a moronic cunt. Sums you up perfectly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's just what I'd expect an inbred trailer park Kiss fan to say. You never disappoint. ---- You always disappoint. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you. You're a waste of cyberspace. |
| jpf 30.03.2011 23:59 |
brENsKi wrote: PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...this thread's been my first interaction with you. You've been totally rude and obnoxious...but what the hell, that's the way a lot of people are on the internet. I just have one question...are you a Queen fan? I mean this IS a Queen fan site...and it seems you want to talk about how every other band is better than Queen. I mean...wtf? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff...let's face facts...nothing and no-one is perfect...esp Queen....they messed up laods...some stupid and awful songs, gigs in sun city, losing america the way they did, the "falsies" in sth america during "i want to break free", they were far from perfect...gett eh fuck over it a band can still be your favourite without you being so far up their (collective) arses as to to praise them "farting in a jar" as being full of artistic merit ---- Sums it up nicely. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:06 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: @jpf: Lennon is God. Paul is a genius. George is one great musician. And Ringo is the best human to ever exist. THE BEST. On the other hand, your view upon them is a magnificent evidence of mental disease, to say the least. They suck because they don't inspire you to learn how to play an instrument? They're overrated? The Beatles aren't even appreciated for what they have truly done, actually. People often think of them as a simple band with simple songs but the truth is they managed to write very clever songs, truly sophisticated music. - You say Black Queen wasn't Queen's prime material. What kind of God would allow a creature like you... well, exist? Of course I'm not gonna ask for arguments, I know you're just plain stupid. - You say Freddie lost his voice over the years... WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!? DUDE, HE HITS A C4 (and higher too) ALMOST ON EVERY SONG FROM THE 80'S!! You probably work for the Rolling Stone magazine. --- Rolling Stone magazine isn't worth wrapping fish bones in. I play guitar. I sure wasn't inspired to pick up a guitar due to The Beatles. Freddie lost vocal range due to smoking, heavy drinking, drugs (cocaine), and vocal chord nodes. Go watch "Live at Wembley" particularly during the call and response with the audience. Freddie was never going to be able to sing something like "You Take My Breathe Away" in the same key and fashion in '86 as he did in the '70s. Lennon wasn't God, he was a wife beating cunt, a delinquent father, and a drug addict. BTW, you're an ignorant cunt. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:07 |
GratefulFan wrote: brENsKi wrote: it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff ===================================== Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic. ---- Let me buy you one of those drinks. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:08 |
Amazon wrote: brENsKi wrote: "It's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff...let's face facts...nothing and no-one is perfect...esp Queen....they messed up laods...some stupid and awful songs, gigs in sun city, losing america the way they did, the "falsies" in sth america during "i want to break free", they were far from perfect...gett eh fuck over it" True, but not the way Skip does it. ---- You're crying again. LOL |
| Matias Merçeauroix 31.03.2011 00:09 |
freddie lost range?? HELLO????? Show Must Go On = D4 Innuendo = Eb4 Hang in on There = E4 All God's People = F4 |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:10 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: LZ sold more worldwide than Queen. ============================= Yes, but that doesn't make LZ bigger than Queen in every part of the world. Go to Europe, Japan or South America and ask any random person in the street who is bigger.... most people will say Queen. ---- Worldwide sales put LZ higher than Queen. Just posting what's available. Couldn't care less how many lps any band sold. The only lp I care about is the one I purchased. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:11 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Why do people keep complaining about Queen playing Sun City? I'll never understand. I'm proud that they did it! \m/ ---- It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time. KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 00:15 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: freddie lost range?? HELLO????? Show Must Go On = D4 Innuendo = Eb4 Hang in on There = E4 All God's People = F4 --- Show me the clips where he sang those songs live. |
| The Real Wizard 31.03.2011 00:32 |
jpf wrote: Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =================== Freddie was always consistently strong in the studio. Death On Two Legs, Dead On Time, Staying Power, and The Show Must Go On are all strong performances. As for live, his peak was 80-82. Oakland 80, Milton Keynes 82.. he never sang like this in the 70s... bar late 79. |
| The Real Wizard 31.03.2011 00:35 |
jpf wrote: It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time. KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. ==================== Queen didn't make their decision to go to South Africa based on what was or wasn't cool. If being cool was a motivating factor in any of their decision making, they would have called it quits in 1974. They went to South Africa because they thought it was the right thing to do, and the people they played to would probably agree. Playing a rock concert for mixed audiences during apartheid doesn't make them racist or uncool. They were musicians who wanted to play for a new audience, simple as that. Well, and make money, of course.. |
| rhyeking 31.03.2011 00:54 |
jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: Why do people keep complaining about Queen playing Sun City? I'll never understand. I'm proud that they did it! \m/ ---- It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time. KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. ********************************* There was a cultural boycott that Queen disagreed with. They knew the consequences would be a blacklisting by the Musicians Union and the UN, and general criticism, and they had the balls to do it anyway, because they believed it be a positive action towards change. They stood on stage as a united foursome, in and against a country of tyrannical racism. Their lead singer and front-man was both gay and of East African descent. By performing, they committed an act of cultural subversion toward apartheid, rather than passively 'boycotting' South Africa. They showed sexual and cultural diversity in a positive way, in country where both were serious crimes. They risked themselves and their reputations, and were in very real danger if the government had caught on. It's galling that anyone could criticize them for both their bravery and the conviction of their beliefs. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 01:38 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 01:42 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. ======== He was in his vocal prime, then. ---- Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. ============= His studio vocals were better as he aged. As for the live stuff, it's 1979-1982 (Crazy Tour-Milton Keynes). He GAINED range as he aged. He's hit C5s-D5s hundreds of times on the 80s albums. And his highest note in full voice is an F5. I'll provide links, if you are interested. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 01:59 |
Here's some links for everyone: link (Nails the whole song) link (Nails the whole song) link (Hits countless Bb4s, and a C5) link (Goes for everything, even hits the bridge) link (Hits B4s all over the place) link (Nails the song) link (Aces the verses-better than the studio version) link (Hits everything just like the record) link (Best version ever) link (Hits the C5, and all the chorus notes) link (Hits CLEAN B4s--probably the best version) link (Goes for everything) |
| jpf 31.03.2011 02:57 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =================== Freddie was always consistently strong in the studio. Death On Two Legs, Dead On Time, Staying Power, and The Show Must Go On are all strong performances. As for live, his peak was 80-82. Oakland 80, Milton Keynes 82.. he never sang like this in the 70s... bar late 79. --- In the 1970s Freddie had a wider vocal range. In the 1980s Freddie's vocal range wasn't as wide, but his vocal power and confidence in his voice was greater than in the '70s. In the '70s Freddie experimented with his vocals. In the '80s the vocals were more standard, as was Queen's music at the time. Much, if not all, of the experimentations were gone. Every once in awhile you'd get the "Queen sound" on some of the '80s material. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 03:03 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time. KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. ==================== Queen didn't make their decision to go to South Africa based on what was or wasn't cool. If being cool was a motivating factor in any of their decision making, they would have called it quits in 1974. They went to South Africa because they thought it was the right thing to do, and the people they played to would probably agree. Playing a rock concert for mixed audiences during apartheid doesn't make them racist or uncool. They were musicians who wanted to play for a new audience, simple as that. Well, and make money, of course.. ---- It was a politically and morally wrong thing to play in South Africa at that time. Queen suffered the backlash for playing there at that time. Never said they were racist. Playing in a country where everyone wasn't being treated equally due to race should have been a red flag to the band. They were all well educated. They knew the political ramifications. I did not use the word "cool" the way you interpreted it. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 03:09 |
rhyeking wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: Why do people keep complaining about Queen playing Sun City? I'll never understand. I'm proud that they did it! \m/ ---- It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time. KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. ********************************* There was a cultural boycott that Queen disagreed with. They knew the consequences would be a blacklisting by the Musicians Union and the UN, and general criticism, and they had the balls to do it anyway, because they believed it be a positive action towards change. They stood on stage as a united foursome, in and against a country of tyrannical racism. Their lead singer and front-man was both gay and of East African descent. By performing, they committed an act of cultural subversion toward apartheid, rather than passively 'boycotting' South Africa. They showed sexual and cultural diversity in a positive way, in country where both were serious crimes. They risked themselves and their reputations, and were in very real danger if the government had caught on. It's galling that anyone could criticize them for both their bravery and the conviction of their beliefs. ---- They were playing to the well off white people. That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch. Queen playing in South Africa had nothing to do with Freddie's sexuality. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 03:11 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. ---- Prime in popularity? Prime in Paul's vocal performance? Prime in song writing? Prime in record/concert sales? |
| jpf 31.03.2011 03:20 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. ======== He was in his vocal prime, then. ---- Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. ============= His studio vocals were better as he aged. As for the live stuff, it's 1979-1982 (Crazy Tour-Milton Keynes). He GAINED range as he aged. He's hit C5s-D5s hundreds of times on the 80s albums. And his highest note in full voice is an F5. I'll provide links, if you are interested. ---- Studio vocals can be manipulated. You sing until you get it right or, as in modern times, you auto-tune it. Live you either skip the note or you have someone else in the band cover it. IMO Freddie had more range and was more experimental in the '70s. With the '80s came more power in his vocals and more confidence, but again, with less consistant range. "Live At Wembley" shows Freddie not being able to do everything the same as in the past. He still sounded great, but sometimes the occassional cringe worthy note reared its ugly head. |
| john bodega 31.03.2011 03:46 |
"That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch" I'm kind of glad. If there's one thing that annoyed me about the 46664 gigs, it was all the random kids wandering onstage with drums and bongos. Come on guys, what is this - open mic night? Only 4 people need to be on that stage. The rest of you can fuck off. |
| Holly2003 31.03.2011 07:24 |
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park. ----- "frustarting" LOL You're a fucking moron. Dumbass. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. ---- You're a moron. You're a moronic cunt. Sums you up perfectly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's just what I'd expect an inbred trailer park Kiss fan to say. You never disappoint. ---- You always disappoint. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you. You're a waste of cyberspace. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yet you reply to everything I say. I'm leading you around like a puppy on a leash. ps Kiss didn’t have a prime. They sucked in the past, they are currently sucking, and they will continue to suck in the future. They are, though, the world's best known bunch of trannies, which is kinda sweet when you think about it. |
| GratefulFan 31.03.2011 08:10 |
jpf wrote: GratefulFan wrote: brENsKi wrote: it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff ===================================== Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic. ---- Let me buy you one of those drinks. ====================== I was ever in any kind of horrifying situation where you'd be buying me a drink, that's exactly the one I'd want. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 31.03.2011 09:31 |
There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 10:17 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. ---- Prime in popularity? Prime in Paul's vocal performance? Prime in song writing? Prime in record/concert sales? ============= Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave." For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s. I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 10:23 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc). --- Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later. ======== He was in his vocal prime, then. ---- Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. ============= His studio vocals were better as he aged. As for the live stuff, it's 1979-1982 (Crazy Tour-Milton Keynes). He GAINED range as he aged. He's hit C5s-D5s hundreds of times on the 80s albums. And his highest note in full voice is an F5. I'll provide links, if you are interested. ---- Studio vocals can be manipulated. You sing until you get it right or, as in modern times, you auto-tune it. Live you either skip the note or you have someone else in the band cover it. IMO Freddie had more range and was more experimental in the '70s. With the '80s came more power in his vocals and more confidence, but again, with less consistant range. "Live At Wembley" shows Freddie not being able to do everything the same as in the past. He still sounded great, but sometimes the occassional cringe worthy note reared its ugly head. ================== I completely agree that Freddie was more experimental during the 70s, but he didn't start fine-tuning his singing until around the later 70s. He hit countless B4s and higher notes during the 80s (even at Wembley). Check out the early Magic Tour dates (Stockholm, Leiden, Brussels, etc), MUCH better than Wembley, and some of his vocals during those dates surpass his 70s and his "prime live" era material. |
| Holly2003 31.03.2011 10:23 |
GratefulFan wrote: jpf wrote: GratefulFan wrote: brENsKi wrote: it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff ===================================== Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic. ---- Let me buy you one of those drinks. ====================== I was ever in any kind of horrifying situation where you'd be buying me a drink, that's exactly the one I'd want. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lol! Brilliant! But probably lost on him ;) |
| The Real Wizard 31.03.2011 11:15 |
jpf wrote: It was a politically and morally wrong thing to play in South Africa at that time. Queen suffered the backlash for playing there at that time. Never said they were racist. Playing in a country where everyone wasn't being treated equally due to race should have been a red flag to the band. They were all well educated. They knew the political ramifications. I did not use the word "cool" the way you interpreted it. ================= Ok, fair play. But I still think Rhyeking's post is a bang-on interpretation. |
| The Real Wizard 31.03.2011 11:21 |
jpf wrote: They were playing to the well off white people. That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch. ========== No, the audiences were mixed, at least at some of the shows. Free tickets were given away so that the more economically disadvantaged (i.e. blacks) were able to come as well. ticket for 27 Rands - link free ticket - link |
| john bodega 31.03.2011 11:27 |
"Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. " Practically speaking, this is true. Around '84 he definitely underwent a pretty noticeable change in tone, though. He still did the high notes, but it sure didn't sound the same - sounded like a struggle, to be honest. As I've already said in this thread though, I kind of prefer it that way .... screw those wankers who make it sound effortless. |
| Amazon 31.03.2011 12:47 |
jpf wrote: Amazon wrote: True, but not the way Skip does it. ---- "You're crying again. LOL" Skip, that's the best you can come up with? Even for a Kiss fan, you're pretty stupid. |
| Amazon 31.03.2011 13:04 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "Practically speaking, this is true. Around '84 he definitely underwent a pretty noticeable change in tone, though. He still did the high notes, but it sure didn't sound the same - sounded like a struggle, to be honest. As I've already said in this thread though, I kind of prefer it that way .... screw those wankers who make it sound effortless." One of my favourite vocal performances was on IWIA in which Freddie's voice was certainly not flawless. |
| Holly2003 31.03.2011 17:06 |
Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe link Scientists say it was dificult to decipher the ancient symbols but eventually they agreed it says "Kiss suck!" |
| rhyeking 31.03.2011 17:12 |
I just sent the article to a friend and linguist at the Royal Ontario Museum. His professional opinion is that it translates loosely as "More cowbell!" |
| mike hunt 31.03.2011 17:34 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =================== Freddie was always consistently strong in the studio. Death On Two Legs, Dead On Time, Staying Power, and The Show Must Go On are all strong performances. As for live, his peak was 80-82. Oakland 80, Milton Keynes 82.. he never sang like this in the 70s... bar late 79. Unlike what jpf say's, Freddie's voice got better and better until he peaked in 1979 to 1982. In 86 he was at his most powerful, but lost some of his range. I'm talking as a live singer. Studio he was alway's brilliant, but certain albums he peaked. Opera, NOTW, Hot Space were very strong vocally. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 18:20 |
mike hunt wrote: Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =================== Freddie was always consistently strong in the studio. Death On Two Legs, Dead On Time, Staying Power, and The Show Must Go On are all strong performances. As for live, his peak was 80-82. Oakland 80, Milton Keynes 82.. he never sang like this in the 70s... bar late 79. Unlike what jpf say's, Freddie's voice got better and better until he peaked in 1979 to 1982. In 86 he was at his most powerful, but lost some of his range. I'm talking as a live singer. Studio he was alway's brilliant, but certain albums he peaked. Opera, NOTW, Hot Space were very strong vocally. ======= He still was hitting B4s, and C5s live in 1986! He even shouted a couple C#5s and a D5! |
| GratefulFan 31.03.2011 19:01 |
rhyeking wrote:I just sent the article to a friend and linguist at the Royal Ontario Museum. His professional opinion is that it translates loosely as "More cowbell!" ===================== While I have great pride in our home grown expertise I've reluctantly concluded the European scientists are correct. I've decided this because the article states that the tablet 'survived only by accident' which certainly screams 'KISS' to me. Also, the . Finally, it made me laugh until my stomach hurt. So, sadly, I think we have to give this one to the Europeans. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 31.03.2011 20:17 |
jpf...okay, like I said, I had not had any interactions with you in the past and was a bit taken aback on how it seemed you were always slamming Queen in comparison to other bands. Brenski kinda attacked me, so I reviewed some of your posts. Although I don't think it was right the way you called me "dumbass" and other things...I think I understand what you are saying *most times*. I like Kiss too..well, at least up to and INCLUDING "Creatures Of The Night"...but I like Queen MUCH, MUCH more. I actually LOVE "Destroyer", "Love Gun", "Dynasty", "Unmasked", "the Elder" and "Creatures Of the Night". What are your favorite Queen albums? |
| jpf 31.03.2011 20:34 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch" I'm kind of glad. If there's one thing that annoyed me about the 46664 gigs, it was all the random kids wandering onstage with drums and bongos. Come on guys, what is this - open mic night? Only 4 people need to be on that stage. The rest of you can fuck off. --- If that's what you focused on then you missed the message. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 20:37 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. ---- He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 20:43 |
jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. ---- He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ====== It was more of a tounge-and-cheek statement: The bootlegs of the tour, show that he could still hit the higher notes. Wembley was right in the middle of the tour--and Freddie had a cold. He still hit higher notes on Wembley (on the bootleg), than the note he said "he couldn't go higher." |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 20:45 |
jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. ---- He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ========= He had LESS range in the 70s (for the most part), than he did during the Magic Tour. Just compare the Bo Rhaps from the mid 70s to 1986. The Magic Tour versions are the closest versions to the studio (at least in the verses). |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 20:48 |
Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 20:53 |
And here. This kicks the shit out of his 70s vocals. He actually hits EVERYTHING--falsetto, and the studio B4! 1986 live beats 70s live. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 21:24 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. ---- Prime in popularity? Prime in Paul's vocal performance? Prime in song writing? Prime in record/concert sales? ============= Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave." For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s. I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ---- They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider. Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned. Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands. '74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd. Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold. Concert ticket sales were up and down, too. '74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 21:32 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. ---- Prime in popularity? Prime in Paul's vocal performance? Prime in song writing? Prime in record/concert sales? ============= Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave." For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s. I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ---- They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider. Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned. Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands. '74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd. Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold. Concert ticket sales were up and down, too. '74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan ======= Excellent analysis. Thank you. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 21:35 |
Amazon wrote: jpf wrote: Amazon wrote: True, but not the way Skip does it. ---- "You're crying again. LOL" Skip, that's the best you can come up with? Even for a Kiss fan, you're pretty stupid. ---- You aren't worth the effort. I know that makes you cry. When you can pass 400 level Advanced Calculus classes come see me, you dumbass cunt. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 21:37 |
Holly2003 wrote: Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe link Scientists say it was dificult to decipher the ancient symbols but eventually they agreed it says "Kiss suck!" ---- It actually says "KISS Rocks". What sucks is you. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 21:43 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...okay, like I said, I had not had any interactions with you in the past and was a bit taken aback on how it seemed you were always slamming Queen in comparison to other bands. Brenski kinda attacked me, so I reviewed some of your posts. Although I don't think it was right the way you called me "dumbass" and other things...I think I understand what you are saying *most times*. I like Kiss too..well, at least up to and INCLUDING "Creatures Of The Night"...but I like Queen MUCH, MUCH more. I actually LOVE "Destroyer", "Love Gun", "Dynasty", "Unmasked", "the Elder" and "Creatures Of the Night". What are your favorite Queen albums? ---- News Of The World A Night At The Opera The Game Innuendo A Day At The Races Sheer Heart Attack The Works Check out KISS' "Revenge" and "Sonic Boom" cds. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 21:48 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. ---- He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ====== It was more of a tounge-and-cheek statement: The bootlegs of the tour, show that he could still hit the higher notes. Wembley was right in the middle of the tour--and Freddie had a cold. He still hit higher notes on Wembley (on the bootleg), than the note he said "he couldn't go higher." --- He could have (and did) have an off night. I watched all of "Live Aid" over several nights last week (that was a chore; '80s new wave sucked). Anyway, there were a few cringe worthy notes coming out of Freddie. The band was excellent none the less. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 22:03 |
Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 22:23 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range. He lost the range or not, it's very simple. Truth is he didn't lose range. At all. ---- He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ====== It was more of a tounge-and-cheek statement: The bootlegs of the tour, show that he could still hit the higher notes. Wembley was right in the middle of the tour--and Freddie had a cold. He still hit higher notes on Wembley (on the bootleg), than the note he said "he couldn't go higher." --- He could have (and did) have an off night. I watched all of "Live Aid" over several nights last week (that was a chore; '80s new wave sucked). Anyway, there were a few cringe worthy notes coming out of Freddie. The band was excellent none the less. ======== Yeah, Freddie did hit a few bad notes--but still: It's great (vocally and the band was tight)! |
| Gregsynth 31.03.2011 22:24 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. =========== Completely agree. Can't dispute that. |
| jpf 31.03.2011 22:29 |
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime. ---- Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too. IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto). BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? ======= 1974-1979 for me. ---- Prime in popularity? Prime in Paul's vocal performance? Prime in song writing? Prime in record/concert sales? ============= Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave." For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s. I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ---- They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider. Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned. Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands. '74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd. Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold. Concert ticket sales were up and down, too. '74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan ======= Excellent analysis. Thank you. --- You're welcome. |
| Jimmy Dean 31.03.2011 22:53 |
Kiss=shiT |
| john bodega 31.03.2011 23:20 |
"If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. |
| jpf 01.04.2011 03:02 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. |
| Holly2003 01.04.2011 03:10 |
jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================ This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award. |
| brENsKi 01.04.2011 05:25 |
jpf can you answer two questions please: 1. why is it odd for british musicians to write about american history?....(we were there first, the pilgrims met the native american's...and key to all of this...many "modern" americans are of british, italian, irish, french, swedish, chinese descent....be interesting to hear what you think a proper american is 2. when did this thread change it's title..to.... Queen i vs Ledzep I vs Kiss I ? ...try and stay on topic |
| john bodega 01.04.2011 05:50 |
"It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. " It's quite different, actually ... the consequences of colonialism and meddling in foreign countries are food for thought, or should be. Mistreatment of native populations is not a purely American issue, but I shouldn't need to tell you that. Regardless of what you thought of the song, "White Man" was a very good statement. A good rule to live by is to pay more attention to what's being said than the identity of the person saying it. RE: "Woman is the Nigger of the World" ... you're not missing anything. It was the right statement to be making, but it's not much of a song. It's eighty billion on the Preach-O-Meter and frankly that's never fun to listen to. |
| Hangman_96 01.04.2011 06:33 |
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? |
| GratefulFan 01.04.2011 15:20 |
With regard to songs about American events/themes by foreign artists, it was funnyish because when I read the posts this morning 5 songs by Canadian artists or bands popped into my head without even trying. I've since forgotten one of the songs, but the others are Ohio and Southern Man (Neil Young), Armageddon (Prism) and American Woman (The Guess Who). None of them are very flattering. I'm sure there are others. I've been trying all day to think of Canadian songs about social issues in any other part of the world outside the African charity singles of the 80's. I've only been able to come up with one 1984 song that referenced the conflict in England/Northern Ireland, and it's a sketchy one because the band had one and eventually two British expats in it. I'm trying to figure out if that's odd. Why are we all singing about America? |
| jpf 01.04.2011 20:10 |
Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================ This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award. --- Honestly, shut the fuck up. You're nothing but a cunt. You bring nothing to the table. You're a dumbass. Nobody gives a shit what you think. |
| jpf 01.04.2011 20:14 |
brENsKi wrote: jpf can you answer two questions please: 1. why is it odd for british musicians to write about american history?....(we were there first, the pilgrims met the native american's...and key to all of this...many "modern" americans are of british, italian, irish, french, swedish, chinese descent....be interesting to hear what you think a proper american is 2. when did this thread change it's title..to.... Queen i vs Ledzep I vs Kiss I ? ...try and stay on topic --- 1. It sounds forced. It has nothing to do with their history or background. 2. If you're not interested in anything related to KISS then don't read it and move along. Simple concept. BTW, I don't see any references to KISS' first lp in this discussion. You're the one who brought it up. |
| jpf 01.04.2011 20:17 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. " It's quite different, actually ... the consequences of colonialism and meddling in foreign countries are food for thought, or should be. Mistreatment of native populations is not a purely American issue, but I shouldn't need to tell you that. Regardless of what you thought of the song, "White Man" was a very good statement. A good rule to live by is to pay more attention to what's being said than the identity of the person saying it. RE: "Woman is the Nigger of the World" ... you're not missing anything. It was the right statement to be making, but it's not much of a song. It's eighty billion on the Preach-O-Meter and frankly that's never fun to listen to. --- RE: "White Man" A bit too preachy for my tastes. Sort of like listening to Stryper and knowing that you're going to be preached to. Not into political rock. I put WM in the meh category. Don't hate it, don't love it. |
| jpf 01.04.2011 20:19 |
Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? --- When have I ever said I wasn't a Queen fan? I'd have to listen to a Budapest show. |
| Holly2003 02.04.2011 03:05 |
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================ This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award. --- Honestly, shut the fuck up. You're nothing but a cunt. You bring nothing to the table. You're a dumbass. Nobody gives a shit what you think. ============================================================================== Honestly no. Nice of you not to care but continue to keep replying, You're not even bright enough to figure that one out. You're my little poodle, barking every time I tell you to. And Kiss suck! lol Now bark some more, bitch. lol |
| Hangman_96 02.04.2011 14:34 |
jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? --- When have I ever said I wasn't a Queen fan? I'd have to listen to a Budapest show. ==== I just thought you were only a KISS fan and you didn't like Queen. Sorry for confusion! Which Queen concerts have you seen? |
| jpf 02.04.2011 19:21 |
Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================ This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award. --- Honestly, shut the fuck up. You're nothing but a cunt. You bring nothing to the table. You're a dumbass. Nobody gives a shit what you think. ============================================================================== Honestly no. Nice of you not to care but continue to keep replying, You're not even bright enough to figure that one out. You're my little poodle, barking every time I tell you to. And Kiss suck! lol Now bark some more, bitch. lol ---- Since this discussion board doesn't have an Ignore feature, consider yourself ignored. You're a fucking cunt, bring nothing to the table, and you're not worth my time. Bye, bye, shit head. |
| jpf 02.04.2011 19:23 |
Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? --- When have I ever said I wasn't a Queen fan? I'd have to listen to a Budapest show. ==== I just thought you were only a KISS fan and you didn't like Queen. Sorry for confusion! Which Queen concerts have you seen? --- I never did get to see Queen in concert. They stopped touring in the U.S. two years before I started going to concerts. I did see Queen + Paul Rodgers on the "Return Of The Champions" tour. |
| john bodega 03.04.2011 11:42 |
"Not into political rock" Yeah, very understandable. I'm willing to listen to it if the song is well crafted enough, like I feel "White Man" is. Very fine line though, between something that's listenable and something that makes you want to gouge some eyeballs out - without really caring who they belong to. |
| Hangman_96 03.04.2011 14:11 |
jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? --- When have I ever said I wasn't a Queen fan? I'd have to listen to a Budapest show. ==== I just thought you were only a KISS fan and you didn't like Queen. Sorry for confusion! Which Queen concerts have you seen? --- I never did get to see Queen in concert. They stopped touring in the U.S. two years before I started going to concerts. I did see Queen + Paul Rodgers on the "Return Of The Champions" tour. ==== Can you please share your memories about that concert? Maybe you took the pics or recorded it? |
| jpf 03.04.2011 15:47 |
Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Here jpf: This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing). ---- Good, powerful vocal performance. To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ==== Ha! So you're a Queen fan too! I knew it. And what do you think about Freddie's voice in Budapest? --- When have I ever said I wasn't a Queen fan? I'd have to listen to a Budapest show. ==== I just thought you were only a KISS fan and you didn't like Queen. Sorry for confusion! Which Queen concerts have you seen? --- I never did get to see Queen in concert. They stopped touring in the U.S. two years before I started going to concerts. I did see Queen + Paul Rodgers on the "Return Of The Champions" tour. ==== Can you please share your memories about that concert? Maybe you took the pics or recorded it? -------- I saw the "Return Of The Champions" tour in Worcester, MA. Great show. Not sold out (which surprised me), but a good size crowd. I had floor seats not too far from the end of the ego ramp. We did not get "'39". Brian had fallen into the piano pit at the show before ours and was still hurting from it, so this song was eliminated from the setlist. Bummer. Was looking forward to hearing it. The band was excellent. The vocals were excellent. Much stronger with 5 people vs. 3 people. You could tell that there were recorded vocals for the "We Will Rock You" chant. Most of the same setlist as "Return Of The Champions". They did play "Dragon Attack". I'd have to look for the setlist to see if there were any other surprises played. Don't remember any flubs. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. No photos or video/audio. Sorry. |
| Holly2003 03.04.2011 17:14 |
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message." It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band. "White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon. --- Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to. It is difficult going to Brian's website these days. Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American. Queen "White Man" Elton John "Indian Sunset" Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills" It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================ This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award. --- Honestly, shut the fuck up. You're nothing but a cunt. You bring nothing to the table. You're a dumbass. Nobody gives a shit what you think. ============================================================================== Honestly no. Nice of you not to care but continue to keep replying, You're not even bright enough to figure that one out. You're my little poodle, barking every time I tell you to. And Kiss suck! lol Now bark some more, bitch. lol ---- Since this discussion board doesn't have an Ignore feature, consider yourself ignored. You're a fucking cunt, bring nothing to the table, and you're not worth my time. Bye, bye, shit head. =================================================================================== Bye bye? In your dreams. You don't get away that easy. As I shall demonstrate in a second ... |
| Holly2003 03.04.2011 17:19 |
jpf wrote: --- -------- I saw the "Return Of The Champions" tour in Worcester, MA. Great show. Not sold out (which surprised me), but a good size crowd. I had floor seats not too far from the end of the ego ramp. We did not get "'39". Brian had fallen into the piano pit at the show before ours and was still hurting from it, so this song was elimitated from the setlist. Bummer. Was looking forward to hearing it. The band was excellent. The vocals were excellent. Much stronger with 5 people vs. 3 people. You could tell that there were recorded vocals for the "We Will Rock You" chant. Most of the same setlist as "Return Of The Champions". They did play "Dragon Attack". I'd have to look for the setlist to see if there were any other surprises played. Don't remember any flubs. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. No photos or video/audio. Sorry. ================================================================================= All lies. Transvestite hillbilly homophobes aren't allowed into Queen concerts. My guess is you never got past the car park before security called the police and they returned you to your trailer park. |
| Hangman_96 04.04.2011 02:57 |
jpf wrote: I saw the "Return Of The Champions" tour in Worcester, MA. Great show. Not sold out (which surprised me), but a good size crowd. I had floor seats not too far from the end of the ego ramp. We did not get "'39". Brian had fallen into the piano pit at the show before ours and was still hurting from it, so this song was elimitated from the setlist. Bummer. Was looking forward to hearing it. The band was excellent. The vocals were excellent. Much stronger with 5 people vs. 3 people. You could tell that there were recorded vocals for the "We Will Rock You" chant. Most of the same setlist as "Return Of The Champions". They did play "Dragon Attack". I'd have to look for the setlist to see if there were any other surprises played. Don't remember any flubs. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. No photos or video/audio. Sorry. ==== Thanks for telling the story! Always nice to hear about Queen concerts from people who attended them. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan too, he's a good singer but I think that Freddie was the best and no-one can replace him. Did you hear about the concert in Kharkov on September 12, 2008? I live in that city. They gathered their biggest audience ever on this concert (350,000!). I was gonna attend it but unfortunately it had failed and I couldn't. I was watching the live TV broadcast. Still remember like it was just yesterday. Great concert! I recommend you to see! |
| GratefulFan 04.04.2011 08:58 |
jpf wrote: Since this discussion board doesn't have an Ignore feature, consider yourself ignored. You're a fucking cunt, bring nothing to the table, and you're not worth my time. Bye, bye, shit head. =========================== Oh boy this made me laugh. Is this the jpf that vowed to 'call out assholes' until the end of time and routinely left 18 inane posts in a row so as not to leave a single one unaddressed? I'm actually reluctantly impressed. Knowing when you've been thoroughly beaten is wisdom I wouldn't have credited you for. LOL |
| GratefulFan 04.04.2011 09:08 |
GratefulFan wrote: With regard to songs about American events/themes by foreign artists, it was funnyish because when I read the posts this morning 5 songs by Canadian artists or bands popped into my head without even trying. I've since forgotten one of the songs, but the others are Ohio and Southern Man (Neil Young), Armageddon (Prism) and American Woman (The Guess Who). None of them are very flattering. I'm sure there are others. I've been trying all day to think of Canadian songs about social issues in any other part of the world outside the African charity singles of the 80's. I've only been able to come up with one 1984 song that referenced the conflict in England/Northern Ireland, and it's a sketchy one because the band had one and eventually two British expats in it. I'm trying to figure out if that's odd. Why are we all singing about America? ============================== Quoting myself because I just downloaded an iTunes album last night relating to a concert I'm going to in May that is in part in support of it, and I found another pretty brutal example. Check out these lyrics: We don't take no prisoners For the funk police We keep our eyes wide open And we protect the peace Got a real basic instinct To use a real big stick Gonna rewrite history Get out the good pen quick Hey, hey, get out of my way We just came from the U.S.A We never listen to revisionists Don't hear a single word Got our own sense of history The best you ever heard Got all the noses to the grindstone To make a brand new deal We're taking everything we need to We gotta oil the wheel Hey, hey, get out of our way We just came from the U.S.A Hey, hey, get out of our way We just came from the U.S.A Cut you open for a nickel Sew you back up for a dime For a quarter I can testify someone else did it Ooh, and for a dollar do it one more time Hey, hey, get out of our way We just came from the U.S.A We don't take no prisoners For the funk police We keep our eyes wide open |
| The Real Wizard 04.04.2011 12:24 |
jpf wrote: I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. ========================== Indeed... regardless of what anyone feels for Paul Rodgers' voice or accomplishments, he is the only person to inspire Brian and Roger to tour together again. There is something to be said for that. |
| qrock 04.04.2011 14:31 |
Hmmm, What was this thread called again? I think it was Queen I vs Led Zeppelin I. Well you all sure do like to go off at a tangent when discussing Queen and Led Zeppelin. Remember Greatest Guitar Work by Brian May? That sort of thing. |
| brENsKi 04.04.2011 16:47 |
qrock wrote: Hmmm, What was this thread called again? I think it was Queen I vs Led Zeppelin I. Well you all sure do like to go off at a tangent when discussing Queen and Led Zeppelin. Remember Greatest Guitar Work by Brian May? That sort of thing. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ah bless...did "your" thread not go where you wanted it to go? welcome to QZone, ;-) one thing you need to realise....round here WE ALL have ADHD.... now can we please get back on topic....? oh yes i'd like to add that most bands and artists at least stick to covention...either giving their debut a "i" or leaving it "self titled"....unless you're Peter fucking Gabriel.....then you make your first three albums look like your debut, by calling them all "Peter Gabriel" |
| qrock 04.04.2011 17:39 |
brENsKi wrote: qrock wrote: Hmmm, What was this thread called again? I think it was Queen I vs Led Zeppelin I. Well you all sure do like to go off at a tangent when discussing Queen and Led Zeppelin. Remember Greatest Guitar Work by Brian May? That sort of thing. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ah bless...did "your" thread not go where you wanted it to go? welcome to QZone, ;-) one thing you need to realise....round here WE ALL have ADHD.... now can we please get back on topic....? oh yes i'd like to add that most bands and artists at least stick to covention...either giving their debut a "i" or leaving it "self titled"....unless you're Peter fucking Gabriel.....then you make your first three albums look like your debut, by calling them all "Peter Gabriel" Hey, I quite enjoy the off topic stuff. It's funny. I this thread was called Queen vs Led Zeppelin you would think it was about the bands not the albums. |
| jpf 04.04.2011 22:36 |
Lostman wrote: jpf wrote: I saw the "Return Of The Champions" tour in Worcester, MA. Great show. Not sold out (which surprised me), but a good size crowd. I had floor seats not too far from the end of the ego ramp. We did not get "'39". Brian had fallen into the piano pit at the show before ours and was still hurting from it, so this song was elimitated from the setlist. Bummer. Was looking forward to hearing it. The band was excellent. The vocals were excellent. Much stronger with 5 people vs. 3 people. You could tell that there were recorded vocals for the "We Will Rock You" chant. Most of the same setlist as "Return Of The Champions". They did play "Dragon Attack". I'd have to look for the setlist to see if there were any other surprises played. Don't remember any flubs. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. No photos or video/audio. Sorry. ==== Thanks for telling the story! Always nice to hear about Queen concerts from people who attended them. I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan too, he's a good singer but I think that Freddie was the best and no-one can replace him. Did you hear about the concert in Kharkov on September 12, 2008? I live in that city. They gathered their biggest audience ever on this concert (350,000!). I was gonna attend it but unfortunately it had failed and I couldn't. I was watching the live TV broadcast. Still remember like it was just yesterday. Great concert! I recommend you to see! --- My not being a Paul Rodgers fan has nothing to do with Freddie. I just never cared for Free or Bad Co. The only Free song that was popular in the U.S. was "All Right Now". O.K. song, but not something I'd go out and purchase. Bad Co. was played far more on U.S. rock radio. Didn't dislike the material, but just wasn't a fan. Guy has a good voice, but since I didn't care for the material, he was never a favorite of mine. I think Paul did a very good job singing the Queen songs. It wasn't supposed to sound like Freddie. Instead it was a more straightforward rock vibe instead of the glammy vibe that Freddie would bring. I have the "Live In Ukraine" dvd. It's good. I like the "Return Of The Champions" dvd a bit more. |
| jpf 04.04.2011 22:38 |
GratefulFan wrote: jpf wrote: Since this discussion board doesn't have an Ignore feature, consider yourself ignored. You're a fucking cunt, bring nothing to the table, and you're not worth my time. Bye, bye, shit head. =========================== Oh boy this made me laugh. Is this the jpf that vowed to 'call out assholes' until the end of time and routinely left 18 inane posts in a row so as not to leave a single one unaddressed? I'm actually reluctantly impressed. Knowing when you've been thoroughly beaten is wisdom I wouldn't have credited you for. LOL ---- Bring something to the table, bitch. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. |
| jpf 04.04.2011 22:43 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: I'm not a Paul Rodgers fan. He has a good voice, but I was never into Free or Bad Co. He did a great job in Q+PR. He gets a thank you for doing it. Otherwise I would never have heard those Queen songs in concert and I would never have seen Brian and Roger play. ========================== Indeed... regardless of what anyone feels for Paul Rodgers' voice or accomplishments, he is the only person to inspire Brian and Roger to tour together again. There is something to be said for that. ---- Without Paul Rodgers I would never have seen Brian May and Roger Taylor in concert. Now, Brian May and Roger Taylor need to motivate themselves to get Spike, Jamie, and Danny back and do a tour playing their Queen songs. Brian and Roger have the ability to sing lead on all of the songs. Spike, Jamie, and Danny can certainly do a great job with the harmonies and background vocals. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2011 02:20 |
jpf wrote: GratefulFan wrote: jpf wrote: Since this discussion board doesn't have an Ignore feature, consider yourself ignored. You're a fucking cunt, bring nothing to the table, and you're not worth my time. Bye, bye, shit head. =========================== Oh boy this made me laugh. Is this the jpf that vowed to 'call out assholes' until the end of time and routinely left 18 inane posts in a row so as not to leave a single one unaddressed? I'm actually reluctantly impressed. Knowing when you've been thoroughly beaten is wisdom I wouldn't have credited you for. LOL ---- Bring something to the table, bitch. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. ==================================================== She's running rings around you. You're just too stupid to realise it Cletus. Kiss suck! |
| mike hunt 05.04.2011 03:40 |
Why do you people pay so much attention to this kiss fan?...it's really getting old guy's! |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2011 11:36 |
jpf wrote: Bring something to the table, bitch. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. ==================================== Shhhhhh. Shhhhhhh. It's OK. It's over. Are you still in the internationally recognized mammalian surrender position? You can roll over and get up now. It's OK. Shhhhh. It's going to be alright. Hardly anybody will remember watching you get totally checkmated live on the internet in a week. Well except me. But hardly anybody else will. |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2011 11:45 |
mike hunt wrote: Why do you people pay so much attention to this kiss fan?...it's really getting old guy's! ========================= Bring something to the table, Mike. Otherwise, shut the f up. (Yeah, sorry, I don't know what the hell that means either! LOL So, just have a nice day I guess.) PS. The honest answer to your question is that the kiss fan has said some really, really brutal and contemptible things to and about people on here. Particularly Amazon and 'Holly' when skip thought 'Holly' was a girl. I find it pretty terrible to take in and I'm not really of any mind to forget about it. As for the Kiss stuff I fully acknowledge not having the strength of character to resist the ridiculous notion of a 45 year old Kiss superfan when their nearly offensive lack of actual talent is such perfect shorthand for what an utter asshole this guy seems to be. That having been said, I can respect that it gets annoying for others so I'll cease and desist thread jacking (for now). |
| jpf 05.04.2011 17:05 |
mike hunt wrote: Why do you people pay so much attention to this kiss fan?...it's really getting old guy's! --- Because they're cunts. |
| jpf 05.04.2011 17:07 |
GratefulFan wrote: jpf wrote: Bring something to the table, bitch. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. ==================================== Shhhhhh. Shhhhhhh. It's OK. It's over. Are you still in the internationally recognized mammalian surrender position? You can roll over and get up now. It's OK. Shhhhh. It's going to be alright. Hardly anybody will remember watching you get totally checkmated live on the internet in a week. Well except me. But hardly anybody else will. ---- Your knuckles must be bleeding heavily now. As is your cunt. |
| jpf 05.04.2011 17:11 |
GratefulFan wrote: mike hunt wrote: Why do you people pay so much attention to this kiss fan?...it's really getting old guy's! ========================= Bring something to the table, Mike. Otherwise, shut the f up. (Yeah, sorry, I don't know what the hell that means either! LOL So, just have a nice day I guess.) PS. The honest answer to your question is that the kiss fan has said some really, really brutal and contemptible things to and about people on here. Particularly Amazon and 'Holly' when skip thought 'Holly' was a girl. I find it pretty terrible to take in and I'm not really of any mind to forget about it. As for the Kiss stuff I fully acknowledge not having the strength of character to resist the ridiculous notion of a 45 year old Kiss superfan when their nearly offensive lack of actual talent is such perfect shorthand for what an utter asshole this guy seems to be. That having been said, I can respect that it gets annoying for others so I'll cease and desist thread jacking (for now). ---- You, Amazon, and Hollycunt are cunts. You wet your pants at any mention of KISS. It amuses me to no end. The three of you can either bring something to the table or just shut the fuck up. If you don't like what I post then ignore it. Otherwise I'll just keep posting more about my favorite band. |
| qrock 05.04.2011 17:31 |
It looks like some people need to grow up! |
| PrimeJiveUSA 05.04.2011 18:26 |
jpf...on a scale of 1-10 could you rate these Kiss albums ? I like them but most don't: 1)Unmasked 2)Music From The Elder Creatures Of The Night |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2011 19:06 |
Mr. Chapman...on a scale of 1-10 could you rate these John Lennon albums? I like them, but some don't. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on 'Live in New York City' because of the obvious irony, along with the fact that you're as creepy as they come and a complete and utter degenerate. 1) Imagine 2) Double Fantasy 3) Live in New York City |
| jpf 06.04.2011 00:28 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...on a scale of 1-10 could you rate these Kiss albums ? I like them but most don't: 1)Unmasked 2)Music From The Elder Creatures Of The Night ----- "Unmasked" - 3 I rank this one second to last. Far too poppy. Guitars are way too clean. I like "Shandi", "Tomorrow", and "Easy As It Seems". Nothing else. "The Elder" - 4 I rank this one third from last. Musically I like "Just a Boy" and "The Oath". I like "A World Without Heroes", "Escape from the Island", and "I". "Creatures" - 9 I rank this one third from the top. Great lp. Like everything on it. |
| Holly2003 06.04.2011 01:43 |
Kiss suck! jlpf = microdick! |
| Hangman_96 06.04.2011 06:32 |
jpf wrote: My not being a Paul Rodgers fan has nothing to do with Freddie. I just never cared for Free or Bad Co. The only Free song that was popular in the U.S. was "All Right Now". O.K. song, but not something I'd go out and purchase. Bad Co. was played far more on U.S. rock radio. Didn't dislike the material, but just wasn't a fan. Guy has a good voice, but since I didn't care for the material, he was never a favorite of mine. I think Paul did a very good job singing the Queen songs. It wasn't supposed to sound like Freddie. Instead it was a more straightforward rock vibe instead of the glammy vibe that Freddie would bring. I have the "Live In Ukraine" dvd. It's good. I like the "Return Of The Champions" dvd a bit more. ==== I'm agreed with you about Paul. He's not one of my favourites but if he wasn't with Queen, they wouldn't tour and make all these concerts from 2005 till 2008. |
| GratefulFan 06.04.2011 09:39 |
The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the world: those that are willing to chat up a guy on the same page he's posting about some woman's bleeding c**t, and those that aren't. Lostman, PrimeJive, you're apparently in the former category. Anybody else? If so, in my eyes you're as guilty of polluting our forum as he is. Clearly a person who is willing to pick fights on the internet needs to be prepared to get as well as he or she gives. This isn't that. It's one of the multiple things he's said to multiple people that are well over the line of what should be considered in any way decent or acceptable. He gets away with it wholly because there are too few people willing to push back. And as annoying as I understand picking at the KISS fan can get for others sometimes, as I said yesterday and others have said before it really is largely about pushing back against completely disgusting levels of homophobia, misogyny and general vicious and pig like behaviour. I can't even count how many times I've spoken up for people on Queenzone who have in one way or another had somebody go too far. In an unmoderated forum we're completely free to do the right thing, or the wrong thing, or nothing - and that's a rare and precious freedom on the internet. In a case like this where some degenerate is talking about my (or anybody else's) vagina, I think 'nothing' is pretty well the minimun standard of decency that should apply. Some of you by your actions have (and might yet) disagree. So noted. |
| qrock 06.04.2011 15:56 |
????? Why are you still talking about Kiss? |
| Hangman_96 06.04.2011 16:10 |
GratefulFan wrote: The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the world: those that are willing to chat up a guy on the same page he's posting about some woman's bleeding c**t, and those that aren't. Lostman, PrimeJive, you're apparently in the former category. Anybody else? If so, in my eyes you're as guilty of polluting our forum as he is. Clearly a person who is willing to pick fights on the internet needs to be prepared to get as well as he or she gives. This isn't that. It's one of the multiple things he's said to multiple people that are well over the line of what should be considered in any way decent or acceptable. He gets away with it wholly because there are too few people willing to push back. And as annoying as I understand picking at the KISS fan can get for others sometimes, as I said yesterday and others have said before it really is largely about pushing back against completely disgusting levels of homophobia, misogyny and general vicious and pig like behaviour. I can't even count how many times I've spoken up for people on Queenzone who have in one way or another had somebody go too far. In an unmoderated forum we're completely free to do the right thing, or the wrong thing, or nothing - and that's a rare and precious freedom on the internet. In a case like this where some degenerate is talking about my (or anybody else's) vagina, I think 'nothing' is pretty well the minimun standard of decency that should apply. Some of you by your actions have (and might yet) disagree. So noted. ==== So talking to someone is a murder now? Great... And oh yes, I am polluting that forum with all my findings of videos from 1979. I find them while no-one would notice them never. And if I keep finding them, I'll receive such "thanks" again? Thanks for such "kind" words! I was gonna give a few more findings but I don't wanna do that anymore now because I'll receive such a "good" thanks. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 06.04.2011 22:56 |
Grateful Fan...I'm guilty of "polluting this forum"? Did you not see my exchange that went on for days with jpf? It's funny how you don't include "bREnsk" who berated me on several occaisions when I was in "disagreement" about LZ1 "blowing away Queen 1" with jpf to "get the f***" over it, and that he found jpf's views "refreshing". I've always been respectful to veryone I come I intertact with on these forums and just want to talk to others that share my love for Queen. Jpf has called me all kinds of horrible names. Did I demand you stick up for me? The only "pollution" between the two of us happens to be coming from you. |
| jpf 06.04.2011 23:44 |
qrock wrote: ????? Why are you still talking about Kiss? ---- He/she can't help it. Obviously a closet KISS fan. Or just in the closet. |
| jpf 06.04.2011 23:46 |
Lostman wrote: GratefulFan wrote: The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the world: those that are willing to chat up a guy on the same page he's posting about some woman's bleeding c**t, and those that aren't. Lostman, PrimeJive, you're apparently in the former category. Anybody else? If so, in my eyes you're as guilty of polluting our forum as he is. Clearly a person who is willing to pick fights on the internet needs to be prepared to get as well as he or she gives. This isn't that. It's one of the multiple things he's said to multiple people that are well over the line of what should be considered in any way decent or acceptable. He gets away with it wholly because there are too few people willing to push back. And as annoying as I understand picking at the KISS fan can get for others sometimes, as I said yesterday and others have said before it really is largely about pushing back against completely disgusting levels of homophobia, misogyny and general vicious and pig like behaviour. I can't even count how many times I've spoken up for people on Queenzone who have in one way or another had somebody go too far. In an unmoderated forum we're completely free to do the right thing, or the wrong thing, or nothing - and that's a rare and precious freedom on the internet. In a case like this where some degenerate is talking about my (or anybody else's) vagina, I think 'nothing' is pretty well the minimun standard of decency that should apply. Some of you by your actions have (and might yet) disagree. So noted. ==== So talking to someone is a murder now? Great... And oh yes, I am polluting that forum with all my findings of videos from 1979. I find them while no-one would notice them never. And if I keep finding them, I'll receive such "thanks" again? Thanks for such "kind" words! I was gonna give a few more findings but I don't wanna do that anymore now because I'll receive such a "good" thanks. ---- There are a few here on this discussion board who act like they own the place. Mention KISS or basically any other band and they go into convulsions. Fuck 'em. If they don't like the topic they don't have to read it or comment on it. Lostman, keep doing what you're doing. Ignore the others. They're not worth it. |
| john bodega 07.04.2011 00:13 |
"The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the world: those that are willing to chat up a guy on the same page he's posting about some woman's bleeding c**t, and those that aren't. Lostman, PrimeJive, you're apparently in the former category. Anybody else? If so, in my eyes you're as guilty of polluting our forum as he is." See it's not something I entirely disagree with - people really ought to speak up in the face of certain kinds of behaviour. But in application, this simply doesn't always work. Daniel Nester used to chase me around this forum because of my (alleged) rampant homophobia, but it achieved nothing - other than making a couple of really long and boring threads where he made himself look utterly ridiculous. At the end of the day, if I want to post puns and wordplay that relate to topics that upset him, I'll do it. Now I have no idea if jpf is only trolling the same as I was back in the day, but even if he is deadly serious about these bitches and faggots he keeps on about, there isn't much you can do to 'fix' him as a human being... and if the aim is to spare us his bullshit, then that can't really be done by anyone but the people who run the site; continually engaging him just keeps him on the front page. Now, I'm not an advocate of "don't feed the trolls" at all, because half of the time these arguments are more entertaining than another "Freddie C5 at x gig during y song" post. It's an unfortunate fact that a band has been dead for 20 years simply doesn't generate that much new information; perhaps it's my lower expectations talking, but until we really have something new and interesting to discuss, I don't much care if the kids treat the place like a bit of a sandpit. |
| Gregsynth 07.04.2011 00:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the world: those that are willing to chat up a guy on the same page he's posting about some woman's bleeding c**t, and those that aren't. Lostman, PrimeJive, you're apparently in the former category. Anybody else? If so, in my eyes you're as guilty of polluting our forum as he is." See it's not something I entirely disagree with - people really ought to speak up in the face of certain kinds of behaviour. But in application, this simply doesn't always work. Daniel Nester used to chase me around this forum because of my (alleged) rampant homophobia, but it achieved nothing - other than making a couple of really long and boring threads where he made himself look utterly ridiculous. At the end of the day, if I want to post puns and wordplay that relate to topics that upset him, I'll do it. Now I have no idea if jpf is only trolling the same as I was back in the day, but even if he is deadly serious about these bitches and faggots he keeps on about, there isn't much you can do to 'fix' him as a human being... and if the aim is to spare us his bullshit, then that can't really be done by anyone but the people who run the site; continually engaging him just keeps him on the front page. Now, I'm not an advocate of "don't feed the trolls" at all, because half of the time these arguments are more entertaining than another "Freddie C5 at x gig during y song" post. It's an unfortunate fact that a band has been dead for 20 years simply doesn't generate that much new information; perhaps it's my lower expectations talking, but until we really have something new and interesting to discuss, I don't much care if the kids treat the place like a bit of a sandpit. =========== Freddie hit a C5 during Newcastle's Bohemian Rhapsody. It's in the rock section :) I love Zebonka! |
| Holly2003 07.04.2011 01:53 |
When all is said and done, jpf is a knobber and kiss suck. Oh yeah. |
| john bodega 07.04.2011 06:53 |
"I love Zebonka!" Put it this way - you know you're on your way when you can be impersonated by other QZers! I did a cracking good Sebastian in his birthday thread, but I won't sully it by trying to recreate it. :S |
| spaceboy1972 07.04.2011 23:02 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "I love Zebonka!" Put it this way - you know you're on your way when you can be impersonated by other QZers! I did a cracking good Sebastian in his birthday thread, but I won't sully it by trying to recreate it. :S Er - at the risk of dragging this slightly back on topic - really enjoyed your "Wearing and Tearing" cover Zebonka :-) |
| john bodega 07.04.2011 23:32 |
Haa! That's nice, although I liked doing it a lot more than I liked the end result. |
| freddiefan91 08.04.2011 07:18 |
Am going to throw in my 2 pence worth of thought over Led Zep Not haivng gone through umpteen pages of comments i cant say what anybody has said but i cant say that i care too much for them and just having had a look at their discography and the only song i recognise is Stairway to heaven, perhaps if i had been a fan of them i would recognise their worth and talent, i know they have sold albums on a par with Queen but Queen have also had double their album sales in the UK 8.5 LZ compared to Queen 18.7 but LZ have sold pretty well in the US for a british rock band so they must be doing something right but i am not really keen on them Queen for me are the better band in my opinion they have much better songs and more charisma than LZ |
| The Thinker 08.04.2011 11:05 |
It is surprising that some continue to dwell upon baseless claims and comparisons in order to reignite some meaningful hope of seriousness or similarities much aligned to a preconceived inferred complex. Whilst perhaps at times it probably could have been originally media backed, orientated, created or concocted as a fallacy. There could also be external element of vested interest by commercial parties/sources. In hindsight it is quite ironic that this example and fascination continues to be exercised even though much considerable time has since elapsed. Nevertheless it remains a lurid comparison which seems to be forevermore cast into virtual suspended animation while precariously holding or clinging to an overzealous legacy. Eventually the elitist invariably has to accept they were left behind and things moved on. Almost to gaze into nostalgia as Queen started to re-write the record books. Whilst in short, as in any competition, it can be difficult to accept that something is more superior. Queen were refreshing not only with progressive sounds but they had more depth and variety and of course were a much better Live band. They also became noted for often pioneering firsts in many fields and with risk taking, with hindsight and ambivalence at times some of the ideas and changes were not always to everyone’s liking initially. But the band was also all-round better and polished. For example just imagine when you try to compare the background and thought process of a group of highly qualified, well read universities graduates that also had specialised skills and a variety of trades, it opens up many doors with endless possibilities and there’s really no limits or comparison as regards the quality that was to be produced. The major crux of the matter and fundamentally are the vocals, this is not even close; it would be woefully embarrassing to compare the two in that department (especially live gigs). Further with and importantly the quality and depth in song writing, lyrics and composition, since Queen is the only band that has had number ones by songs written by all four members. Should you wish to base arguments in terms of record sales and popularity Queen is about the 4th or 5th best selling artists of all time that is almost 100 million more in terms of sales, way ahead of Zeppelin even though they had started much earlier too. Technically Queen are the best selling rock band of all time since The Beatles were most averse to the pop genre. Keep in view that this is despite Queen being continuously politically blacklisted and often facing heavy media censorship/control within the United States, hence why Queen Albums rather strangely do not appear or have been spuriously omitted from the American charts. (An exceptional note should also be considered that sales were not even independently verified till the late 1990’s despite certification. Therefore many historic items have anomalies and the figures do not add up). The Wikipedia figures for Zeppelin have been alter and exaggerated numerous times in the last 4 years to evaluate their position. None of the figures are true no reflect genuine sales from verified or authentic sources. In terms of rock history they leave a in print but are not role defining. Led Zeppelin in short stuck to the same comfort zones for the past many years, since the vocals were rather limited. The height of Zeppelin’s success was from 1969 to 1973 before Queen appeared. Zeppelin never achieved a single number one hit in either the key markets in the US or UK. Even the over pre hyped Stairway to Heaven could only manage number 37 in the UK charts when it was subsequently re-released. Their best seller remains Whole Lotta Love which got to number 4 in the US charts in 1969, but was never originally released in the UK, although in 1993 it was re-released in the UK and only managed to get to 21. Historically Zeppelin’s track hits or success do not measure up to the hype. If you wish to attain or revert to the top independent market polls and surveys that are available which provide International global worldwide statistics, trends and information, there is again little doubt which performs better. Comparisons should not be made between Queen and Led Zeppelin they are two different animals It would be better or more favourable to compare Led Zeppelin to Black Sabbath, but Queen is another level, you cannot “regress”, retrograde or divulge such comparative propositions. Even with bias or constraints or pending egotistical aspirations they would struggle to demonstrate any legitimate warrant or claim with action or conversantly even within speculative scenarios. Also a mention to the high level faction of multi clone troll Gods together with the fan boys/girls and the misguided that regularly keep trying to raise Zeppelin’s profile polluting intransigent and counterproductive notions. It could well be just a case for resolve or recognition but reconciliation would require acknowledgement of closure much as a historic ultimate acceptance. That being said Zeppelin could not cope with The Rolling Stones during their prime and a comparison to Queen who were the elite during their reign would be short of embarrassing and comical. |
| brENsKi 08.04.2011 11:10 |
freddiefan91 wrote: Am going to throw in my 2 pence worth of thought over Led Zep Not haivng gone through umpteen pages of comments i cant say what anybody has said but i cant say that i care too much for them and just having had a look at their discography and the only song i recognise is Stairway to heaven, perhaps if i had been a fan of them i would recognise their worth and talent, i know they have sold albums on a par with Queen but Queen have also had double their album sales in the UK 8.5 LZ compared to Queen 18.7 but LZ have sold pretty well in the US for a british rock band so they must be doing something right but i am not really keen on them Queen for me are the better band in my opinion they have much better songs and more charisma than LZ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ i don't think that was even worthy of being a two-pence-worth!!!! you openly admit that you have only ever heard one Led Zep track "stairway..." then go on about who is the better band....even the thread title tells you it's about the BOTH bands' debut albums.....you are not qualified to make ANY comment on this thread unless you have listened to Lez Zep 1 AND Queen 1 all the way thru and as for your comment about "better band"...how can you say that based on hearing most queen songs vs ONE fekkin Led Zep song? what kind of fair constructive appraisal is that? honestly, your comparison wuld be hilarious if it wasn't so bad.....it's like saying "i love films cos i've seen hundreds, but i hate books cos i read one once and i didnt like it" |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2011 11:32 |
^ I approve of this post. |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2011 11:36 |
The Thinker wrote: That being said Zeppelin could not cope with The Rolling Stones during their prime and a comparison to Queen who were the elite during their reign would be short of embarrassing and comical. ========= Perhaps that was the case in the UK, but in the US it was no contest - Zeppelin were the bigger band. Concert attendence (aka choices of venues) are a great indication. Queen are hailed as stadium rockers, but they didn't play a single stadium in the US. Theatres and arenas, yes.. but no stadiums. Zeppelin sold out the stadiums in hours. But this is, of course, not an indication of quality of music. It's simply a statistic illustrating how one of the bands connected with the common man more than the other. |
| GratefulFan 08.04.2011 12:09 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Grateful Fan...I'm guilty of "polluting this forum"? Did you not see my exchange that went on for days with jpf? It's funny how you don't include "bREnsk" who berated me on several occaisions when I was in "disagreement" about LZ1 "blowing away Queen 1" with jpf to "get the f***" over it, and that he found jpf's views "refreshing". I've always been respectful to veryone I come I intertact with on these forums and just want to talk to others that share my love for Queen. Jpf has called me all kinds of horrible names. Did I demand you stick up for me? The only "pollution" between the two of us happens to be coming from you. ===================================== Nobody has to 'stick up' for anybody, and you're free to debase yourself any time by prostrating before the guy that called you all kinds of horrible names right at the moment he's retched out vicious crudity that's notable even for a sewer dweller like him. Knock yourself out. Of course you risk looking like a complete idiot, but at least you now know that he gives Creature Feature or whatever the hell a 6 out of 10. It's not like it was for nothing. |
| Holly2003 08.04.2011 14:17 |
brENsKi wrote: honestly, your comparison wuld be hilarious if it wasn't so bad.....it's like saying "i love films cos i've seen hundreds, but i hate books cos i read one once and i didnt like it" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But what if that book was ... THE BIBLE! link |
| mike hunt 08.04.2011 14:28 |
Sir GH wrote: The Thinker wrote: That being said Zeppelin could not cope with The Rolling Stones during their prime and a comparison to Queen who were the elite during their reign would be short of embarrassing and comical. ========= Perhaps that was the case in the UK, but in the US it was no contest - Zeppelin were the bigger band. Concert attendence (aka choices of venues) are a great indication. Queen are hailed as stadium rockers, but they didn't play a single stadium in the US. Theatres and arenas, yes.. but no stadiums. Zeppelin sold out the stadiums in hours. But this is, of course, not an indication of quality of music. It's simply a statistic illustrating how one of the bands connected with the common man more than the other. what's the big deal guys?.....Zeppelin are considered a top 3 band of all time and Queen are in the top ten. Zep is widely considered a slightly bigger, and overall better, more influencial band, but queen are pretty close. doesn't mean you have to like zep better. I'm not a huge fan of zep, but realize most rock fans, and famous musicians put them ahead of my favorite band, but not by much. It also depends where one's from. In America no contest, Zep wins hands down. The rest of the world it's pretty close popularity wise. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 08.04.2011 14:28 |
Grateful...why do you even care whether I talk to JPF or not? As far as you thinking I look like an "idiot" by doing so...why do you bother noting it? I understand how people can be on the internet and I simply don't let GET TO ME. I told him he was obnoxious and rude, but do you think he cares? He's a big Kiss fan so I wanted to get his opinion about those albums. In the future, when you see my posts...SKIP OVER THEM. |
| *goodco* 08.04.2011 14:51 |
Is this thread still going on? Why don't the moderators delete all of it? Oh..............there are no moderators. silly me |
| mike hunt 08.04.2011 14:54 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Grateful...why do you even care whether I talk to JPF or not? As far as you thinking I look like an "idiot" by doing so...why do you bother noting it? I understand how people can be on the internet and I simply don't let GET TO ME. I told him he was obnoxious and rude, but do you think he cares? He's a big Kiss fan so I wanted to get his opinion about those albums. In the future, when you see my posts...SKIP OVER THEM. I want to add one thing.....Zep is easier to copy than Queen....i heard a bunch of guy's do a robert plant and a Jimmy page. when someone is Influenced by Queen they can't (from what I heard) do a freddie or a Brian May. Even Roger's backing vocals are very unique. even when someone try's they can't get the Queen sound. Of course No one could do a Zep completely, but some have come pretty close. That's why you hear more rock bands with that Zep Influence. easier to do IMO. A singer in the 80's (forget his name) did a song that sounded 100% like plant, plant said it was a great Zep cover song. The song was original but was a plant rip off. George Michael sang somebody to love fantastic, but he still sounded nothing like Mercury. |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2011 17:01 |
mike hunt wrote: Zep is easier to copy than Queen....i heard a bunch of guy's do a robert plant and a Jimmy page. when someone is Influenced by Queen they can't (from what I heard) do a freddie or a Brian May. Even Roger's backing vocals are very unique. even when someone try's they can't get the Queen sound. ========== That's an excellent point. I've never seen a Queen tribute band where everyone has the goods. I have seen many great Freddies and great Brians, but rarely are they in the same band. Here's a great Brian ... the guitarist from WWRY Cologne.. link He has the tone and the feel down to perfection. I have seen hundreds of guys try, but maybe half a dozen of them truly get Brian and can replicate it this well. There are people who can play Bach, Mozart, Genesis, Yes, Frank Zappa, everything .... but there isn't a single group of people in this world who can sound like Queen. The sound will never be heard again. It's probably the single best compliment they could ever get. |
| mike hunt 08.04.2011 17:59 |
Sir GH wrote: mike hunt wrote: Zep is easier to copy than Queen....i heard a bunch of guy's do a robert plant and a Jimmy page. when someone is Influenced by Queen they can't (from what I heard) do a freddie or a Brian May. Even Roger's backing vocals are very unique. even when someone try's they can't get the Queen sound. ========== That's an excellent point. I've never seen a Queen tribute band where everyone has the goods. I have seen many great Freddies and great Brians, but rarely are they in the same band. Here's a great Brian ... the guitarist from WWRY Cologne.. link He has the tone and the feel down to perfection. I have seen hundreds of guys try, but maybe half a dozen of them truly get Brian and can replicate it this well. There are people who can play Bach, Mozart, Genesis, Yes, Frank Zappa, everything .... but there isn't a single group of people in this world who can sound like Queen. The sound will never be heard again. It's probably the single best compliment they could ever get. Good Brian May sound, but not a good Freddie. once again proving you're point of no band has all the goods to get that Queen sound. |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2011 19:14 |
But to their credit, this isn't a Queen tribute ... they do a variety of stuff. Check out the channel - they are excellent. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 09.04.2011 14:05 |
The Thinker wrote: It is surprising that some continue to dwell upon baseless claims and comparisons in order to reignite some meaningful hope of seriousness or similarities much aligned to a preconceived inferred complex. Whilst perhaps at times it probably could have been originally media backed, orientated, created or concocted as a fallacy. There could also be external element of vested interest by commercial parties/sources. In hindsight it is quite ironic that this example and fascination continues to be exercised even though much considerable time has since elapsed. Nevertheless it remains a lurid comparison which seems to be forevermore cast into virtual suspended animation while precariously holding or clinging to an overzealous legacy. Eventually the elitist invariably has to accept they were left behind and things moved on. Almost to gaze into nostalgia as Queen started to re-write the record books. Whilst in short, as in any competition, it can be difficult to accept that something is more superior. Queen were refreshing not only with progressive sounds but they had more depth and variety and of course were a much better Live band. They also became noted for often pioneering firsts in many fields and with risk taking, with hindsight and ambivalence at times some of the ideas and changes were not always to everyone’s liking initially. But the band was also all-round better and polished. For example just imagine when you try to compare the background and thought process of a group of highly qualified, well read universities graduates that also had specialised skills and a variety of trades, it opens up many doors with endless possibilities and there’s really no limits or comparison as regards the quality that was to be produced. The major crux of the matter and fundamentally are the vocals, this is not even close; it would be woefully embarrassing to compare the two in that department (especially live gigs). Further with and importantly the quality and depth in song writing, lyrics and composition, since Queen is the only band that has had number ones by songs written by all four members. Should you wish to base arguments in terms of record sales and popularity Queen is about the 4th or 5th best selling artists of all time that is almost 100 million more in terms of sales, way ahead of Zeppelin even though they had started much earlier too. Technically Queen are the best selling rock band of all time since The Beatles were most averse to the pop genre. Keep in view that this is despite Queen being continuously politically blacklisted and often facing heavy media censorship/control within the United States, hence why Queen Albums rather strangely do not appear or have been spuriously omitted from the American charts. (An exceptional note should also be considered that sales were not even independently verified till the late 1990’s despite certification. Therefore many historic items have anomalies and the figures do not add up). The Wikipedia figures for Zeppelin have been alter and exaggerated numerous times in the last 4 years to evaluate their position. None of the figures are true no reflect genuine sales from verified or authentic sources. In terms of rock history they leave a in print but are not role defining. Led Zeppelin in short stuck to the same comfort zones for the past many years, since the vocals were rather limited. The height of Zeppelin’s success was from 1969 to 1973 before Queen appeared. Zeppelin never achieved a single number one hit in either the key markets in the US or UK. Even the over pre hyped Stairway to Heaven could only manage number 37 in the UK charts when it was subsequently re-released. Their best seller remains Whole Lotta Love which got to number 4 in the US charts in 1969, but was never originally released in the UK, although in 1993 it was re-released in the UK and only managed to get to 21. Historically Zeppelin’s track hits or success do not measure up to the hype. If you wish to attain or revert to the top independent market polls and surveys that are available which provide International global worldwide statistics, trends and information, there is again little doubt which performs better. Comparisons should not be made between Queen and Led Zeppelin they are two different animals It would be better or more favourable to compare Led Zeppelin to Black Sabbath, but Queen is another level, you cannot “regress”, retrograde or divulge such comparative propositions. Even with bias or constraints or pending egotistical aspirations they would struggle to demonstrate any legitimate warrant or claim with action or conversantly even within speculative scenarios. Also a mention to the high level faction of multi clone troll Gods together with the fan boys/girls and the misguided that regularly keep trying to raise Zeppelin’s profile polluting intransigent and counterproductive notions. It could well be just a case for resolve or recognition but reconciliation would require acknowledgement of closure much as a historic ultimate acceptance. That being said Zeppelin could not cope with The Rolling Stones during their prime and a comparison to Queen who were the elite during their reign would be short of embarrassing and comical. ------------------------------------------------------------ Led Zeppelin are the second highest selling group in rock history in the US with over 100 plus million albums sold States side (behind The Beatles but ahead of The Eagles, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen and Metallica). Queen have sold 33 million albums in the States. Zeppelin had SEVEN US #1 albums (Zeppelin II, Zeppelin III, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti, Presence, In Through the Out Door and How the West Was Won) whereas Queen only had one (The Game). Zeppelin mainly played the States in 1975 and 1977 as that was the big music market. Zeppelin was marred by tragedy in its last five years as a band (Robert Plant's car crash, the arrest of Peter Grant and John Bonham for beating a security officer, the death of Robert Plant's son Karac and of course the death of Bonham). |
| Farrokh The Great 09.04.2011 23:23 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: My Fairy King blows away anything on any Led Zeppelin album, even all of them put together. ============================================================================== You really know about music |
| john bodega 10.04.2011 00:07 |
"Zep is easier to copy than Queen" In what universe? I really don't think any of the Led Zeppelin tributes have a Gary Mullen among them - if there is, he's hard to find because I've scoured the Youtubes for him! A lot of them grow the curly hair and strut fairly well, but none of them is too good a singer. I thought Jamesnorthernva was a pretty good facsimile, but the more I've heard of him lately, the weaker he sounds. People carp on about Plant's voice being all kinds of things, but it's funny how no one can ape him accurately ... same sort of goes for Page, but that's not because he's brilliant - it's just because it's sort of impossible to imitate someone so messy. I'm not having a go at him, I'm just saying that guitar players often have a particular way of going about "unstructured noodling", and not all of them can easily go from one style to another. That Roxxbusters guy is a pretty average sounding Brian. I have heard people do studio work that's very Brian, but (perhaps because of the nature of his live rig) I don't think anyone's nailed him live. Ones that sound like the guy linked here (and he's a great player) are a dime a dozen. |
| The Real Wizard 10.04.2011 00:53 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "same sort of goes for Page, but that's not because he's brilliant - it's just because it's sort of impossible to imitate someone so messy." Check out clips of Jason Bonham's latest band... he's got the best Page imitator I've ever heard. All the stylistic elements are there, and he manages to pull it off without the sloppiness. I'll never see another Zeppelin tribute again because this guy just can't be topped. And his Plant was spectacular as well. When I saw them he nailed Since I've Been Loving You and I'm Gonna Crawl, both like the record. His 1970 tone was close, but his 1978 tone was identical. "That Roxxbusters guy is a pretty average sounding Brian. I have heard people do studio work that's very Brian, but (perhaps because of the nature of his live rig) I don't think anyone's nailed him live. Ones that sound like the guy linked here (and he's a great player) are a dime a dozen." Mmm, I disagree. I've seen plenty try, but most are missing the most key element - the vibrato. Maybe his rig wasn't doing him justice on that video. But I've seen him play two feet away from me, and trust me, he's the closest thing to Brian you'll ever hear. |
| brENsKi 10.04.2011 03:23 |
*goodco* wrote: Is this thread still going on? Why don't the moderators delete all of it? Oh..............there are no moderators. silly me +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ well, firstly...it's an open forum with free-speech presiding....secondly, the fact that it has lasted for 14+ pages shows it's a discussion worthy topic.....and a million times better and more interesting than all that "name your favourite track off XXXX album" or "vote for freddie in this frontman poll" crap and lastly, while we're at it...."delete it" ?????????? why???????????? who the f**k died and made you God? |
| john bodega 10.04.2011 07:19 |
"Check out clips of Jason Bonham's latest band... " Indeed, that's who I was referring to actually. They poached the bald singer on the strength of some very good Youtube videos; perhaps touring just isn't for him, because the live stuff I saw was pretty weak sounding unfortunately. Although I think this has something to do with his overall technique - it's pretty clear from his (kickass) Youtube collaborations that he's not exactly belting it out at a high volume. That approach doesn't always translate well to a loud live environment - and for some people it's a road to vocal fatigue. The thing about their guitarist is he plays Led Zeppelin very well. I don't think he sounds like Page though. Technically speaking, that's not a big deal - if I wanted to hear Page, I'd put him on! I like watching tribute acts because of the subtle differences, rather than as part of some everlasting quest to find a band that sounds 'exactly' the same because (for better or worse) they do not exist. Not for Queen, and not for Led Zeppelin - despite what was said a few posts ago. I'm not sure I can put the subtle differences between famous players and their imitators into words. It reeks of mysticism to simply say "it's all in the fingers, players just play differently and you can't account for that" ... but I'm beginning to feel there must be some truth to this. Page just sounds like Page. When you watch "It Might Get Loud" and he does a little bit of 'Whole Lotta Love', you can see Jack White and The Edge just light up because it *sounds* exactly as it should. Different room, probably a different rig, but it's Jimmy playing it - 40 years later, he's still the only one who gets it right. Which is hilarious when you take his inconsistency into account ... "I've seen plenty try, but most are missing the most key element - the vibrato. Maybe his rig wasn't doing him justice on that video. But I've seen him play two feet away from me, and trust me, he's the closest thing to Brian you'll ever hear." It's interesting that you mention vibrato! I found, in my brief travails as a Brian-impersonator, that I really had to reign my vibrato in, as opposed to trying to bring it up to Brian levels. During recording it's not such a biggie, but I always found that the excitement of playing would be like amphetamines for my left hand, making the vibrato too damn rapid sounding for the material. I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't think highly of the guy as a player - he is playing Queen very well in the video you posted. Almost spotlessly! But ... I've heard that before, from more than one player. I think the real leveler with music is to listen to it at some serious volume. I have no doubt that this guy would probably sound more like Brian if I were sitting right in front of his amp. When I saw The Who in 2009, the volume easily took 25 years off Roger's voice. When I watched the video afterwards, he sounded pretty old. *shrug* horses for courses! |
| The Real Wizard 10.04.2011 22:01 |
Zebonka12 wrote: When you watch "It Might Get Loud" and he does a little bit of 'Whole Lotta Love', you can see Jack White and The Edge just light up because it *sounds* exactly as it should. ========== That is a glorious moment. They watch him like they're little boys again, and Page's attitude reeks of "Ok kids, watch grandpa and learn." |
| john bodega 11.04.2011 01:14 |
Ha! Perfectly put. Most of the time I find his expression and attitude to be a bit insufferable, but in that particular scene it's pretty apt. I make no bones about saying that I'd be in pretty much the same frame of mind as the other two, haha. |
| The Real Wizard 11.04.2011 09:46 |
Just about every guitar player would be. Well, maybe except Yngwie, cuz you know, he's faster and all.. |
| Over the Field 11.04.2011 12:59 |
I am a huge Queen and Led Zeppelin fan, and I don't compare them. I think that is stupid and it is not the purpose of music. If you like or hate Zep or Queen who cares. Spend your time better than proving here which one is better. What's the big deal really? Enjoy their music or not. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 11.04.2011 19:34 |
Over The Field...you just wrote the best post in this entire 15 page thread! Kudos! |
| mike hunt 12.04.2011 00:22 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Over The Field...you just wrote the best post in this entire 15 page thread! Kudos! With that being said, End of thread! |
| john bodega 12.04.2011 06:26 |
"I think that is stupid and it is not the purpose of music." You couldn't be more wrong. It is pretty pointless to try and figure out who's "better", but comparing and contrasting bands is usually a pretty illuminating and fun activity ... as long as it's friendly. People make some pretty good points in these threads. |
| The Real Wizard 12.04.2011 11:43 |
^ Now THERE'S the best post in the thread. If you guys believe in passivism and just accept everything as is without scrutiny or debate, then great, I respect that. But why do you even post on a forum then? Wait, I forgot... 99% of the people who post on forums have no interest in learning from others ... they just want to toot their own horns. |
| GratefulFan 12.04.2011 11:49 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Over The Field...you just wrote the best post in this entire 15 page thread! Kudos! ======================== You are WAY too modest. |
| The Thinker 12.04.2011 23:19 |
NOTWMEDDLE wrote: Led Zeppelin are the second highest selling group in rock history in the US with over 100 plus million albums sold States side (behind The Beatles but ahead of The Eagles, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen and Metallica). Queen have sold 33 million albums in the States. ========== Who really cares about American record market and sales figures? It is rather strange in almost all South American countries Queen were colossal as they were in all other continents, but never gained a sizable foothold in the US till after the death of Freddie Mercury. However , as stated previously Queen were continuously politically blacklisted and faced heavy media censorship/control within the United States, hence Queen Albums rather strangely do not appear or have been omitted from the American charts. (An exceptional note should also be considered that sales were not even independently verified till the late 1990’s despite certification. Therefore many historic items have anomalies and the figures do not add up. Likewise grossly inflated historic figures and sales of someone like Elvis were used as “Hard Sell" as an image with media control, marketing, promotion and manipulation by media giants. It promotes a marketable product as an icon, creates a generic legacy to generate and sustains a commercially home grown product, much as in a form of merchandising. Also the sales records in the US markets are very irregular, an example is a band like Milli Vanilli that can be created and sold to masses in the US to achieve millions of certified sales and even claim more number one spots in chart positions singles/albums and better sales figures and statistics than Led Zeppelin. Albeit that in the later years The MTV culture is also to blame together with the advent of media globalization. Therefore it is best to classify the American record market as ever changing and rather volatile and does not give a true reflection historically of popularity or achievements. Please do not quote the doctored numbers and figures of Wikipedia which have been altered numerous times in the last few years to make Led Zeppelin’s position look more respectful. |
| Holly2003 13.04.2011 04:16 |
"Queen were continuously politically blacklisted and faced heavy media censorship/control within the United States," There was some reaction to Queen's South African tour. Queen also faced the same prudish censorship that other artists faced e.g. covering up a bare bottom on a 7" record sleeve. Aside from that, I'm not aware of any blacklist, censorship etc. Are you overstating the issue? |
| john bodega 13.04.2011 11:12 |
"But why do you even post on a forum then?" That's a damned good question! A lot of the time, their sentiment seems to be, "shut up, stop talking" etc. etc. Which really makes me wonder why these people register for the forum. What do they think we should be talking about? 'what brand of sunglasses does roger wear?'. "Aside from that, I'm not aware of any blacklist, censorship etc. Are you overstating the issue?" I'd always imagined that it was just DJ's not bothering to play the music, based on assumptions like 'the listeners won't like these poofters'. People in any kind of broadcasting are often hypersensitive to the ideals of the lowest common denominator - take folks at NBC who didn't want to screen Captain Kirk kissing a black woman. They were terrified the South would erupt into all kinds of racist complaints - which never happened. To be totally honest though I'm still not entirely sure what happened to Queen in the US in the 80's. I hear so many different stories on here that I've basically lost track. I usually go with the most obvious one - Blame The Record Company. |
| jpf 13.04.2011 23:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "But why do you even post on a forum then?" That's a damned good question! A lot of the time, their sentiment seems to be, "shut up, stop talking" etc. etc. Which really makes me wonder why these people register for the forum. What do they think we should be talking about? 'what brand of sunglasses does roger wear?'. "Aside from that, I'm not aware of any blacklist, censorship etc. Are you overstating the issue?" I'd always imagined that it was just DJ's not bothering to play the music, based on assumptions like 'the listeners won't like these poofters'. People in any kind of broadcasting are often hypersensitive to the ideals of the lowest common denominator - take folks at NBC who didn't want to screen Captain Kirk kissing a black woman. They were terrified the South would erupt into all kinds of racist complaints - which never happened. To be totally honest though I'm still not entirely sure what happened to Queen in the US in the 80's. I hear so many different stories on here that I've basically lost track. I usually go with the most obvious one - Blame The Record Company. ---- What killed Queen's career in the U.S.: 1) "The Game" and particularly "Another One Bites The Dust" pissed off the rock fans who supported the band. 2) "Hot Space" and "Body Language" made the rock fans go away. They didn't support this lp. The lp sold poorly. 3) "I Want To Break Free" video is boycotted. Guys in drag wasn't going to settle well with rock fans. 4) Freddie's "coming out"; what he said and how he acted in his interviews and in his style of dress. His sexual preference killed his career here just like Billy Squier and the "Rock Me Tonight" video killed his career. |
| The Real Wizard 14.04.2011 14:27 |
jpf wrote: 4) Freddie's "coming out"; what he said and how he acted in his interviews and in his style of dress. His sexual preference killed his career here just like Billy Squier and the "Rock Me Tonight" video killed his career. =================== Your first three points are right, but I'll challenge you on the last one.. In the 70s just about everyone knew Freddie was gay. Just look at his outfits! The music got the final word, so they simply didn't care. The US liked Elton and Culture Club. It was when Freddie changed his image and looked like your average New York gay clubber that people started to use the "gay" excuse. But interestingly enough, the Hot Space tour shows got the best reviews of all the US tours Queen ever did. Most reviews in the 70s were bad. In 1980 they got better, and almost every 1982 review I've seen was sparkling. Had Las Palabras de Amor and Hammer To Fall been the lead singles instead of Body Language and Radio Ga Ga, things may have turned out very differently. But they did what they thought was right at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20. Another thing is that Capitol Records screwed Queen and many other older artists, opting to market the newer acts instead. But that's a whole other issue.. |
| GratefulFan 14.04.2011 22:50 |
I recall reading/seeing/hearing(?) Bruce Dickinson(? - I'm pretty sure it was him) say that he believed Queen's downfall in the US stemmed from the slow realization that Freddie was indeed gay, which served to make the entire band persona non grata in parts of the country. I really don't think it was as obvious as some might believe. A lot of people looked like that in the 70's and it may have taken the 80's and it's more aggressively masculine rock image (allegedly - I spent the entire decade wishing they'd all just crop all that big hair right off) to fully differentiate his vibe from the rest of the pack. |
| jpf 15.04.2011 01:06 |
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote: 4) Freddie's "coming out"; what he said and how he acted in his interviews and in his style of dress. His sexual preference killed his career here just like Billy Squier and the "Rock Me Tonight" video killed his career. =================== Your first three points are right, but I'll challenge you on the last one.. In the 70s just about everyone knew Freddie was gay. Just look at his outfits! The music got the final word, so they simply didn't care. The US liked Elton and Culture Club. It was when Freddie changed his image and looked like your average New York gay clubber that people started to use the "gay" excuse. But interestingly enough, the Hot Space tour shows got the best reviews of all the US tours Queen ever did. Most reviews in the 70s were bad. In 1980 they got better, and almost every 1982 review I've seen was sparkling. Had Las Palabras de Amor and Hammer To Fall been the lead singles instead of Body Language and Radio Ga Ga, things may have turned out very differently. But they did what they thought was right at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20. Another thing is that Capitol Records screwed Queen and many other older artists, opting to market the newer acts instead. But that's a whole other issue.. ---- The outfits in the early to mid '70s fit in with what other glam rockers were wearing. The androgynous role wasn't a big deal. When Freddie copped the gay biker/gay clone look around the Jazz period that's when it started to turn the U.S. rock audience off. Ironic how it had the opposite affect on Judas Priest/Rob Halford. The costume Freddie wore in the "It's A Hard Life" video would have damaged his career just like Billy Squiers' prancing around in the "Rock Me Tonight" video. It's a good thing that IAHL was never shown in the U.S. when it was released. "The Works" lp would have sold less copies than "Hot Space". Declaring or hinting that you were gay or bi during the glam rock era was just part of the act. Declaring your sexuality after the glam rock era was another story. This was when Freddie was becoming more vocal in his words and actions. By the late '70s Elton was phasing out of rock and into his pop/dance phase. The rock audience wasn't following him any more. The rock audience had no interest in Culture Club. "Hammer To Fall" was the only song played on rock radio in my area. It was great to hear Queen go back to rock. I don't recall "Radio Ga Ga" getting played. Definitely not "I Want To Break Free". The only track from "Hot Space" that I heard on local rock radio was "Under Pressure". By the start of the '80s all '60s and early to mid '70s bands were considered dinosaur bands. The record company not paying attention to Queen isn't a surprise and it happened to other bands on other record labels. |
| The Real Wizard 15.04.2011 15:12 |
jpf wrote: "Declaring or hinting that you were gay or bi during the glam rock era was just part of the act. Declaring your sexuality after the glam rock era was another story. This was when Freddie was becoming more vocal in his words and actions." ============= Yup .. no argument from me there. |
| Lookin' Divine In Good Ol' '89 18.04.2011 17:36 |
God, I hate when people try to compare things that are different. I think that both Queen I and Zep I are 2 of the greatest albums ever, but theres so many opposite elements on either that to compare them or judge one based on the other is kind of unfair, if you get my point. |
