| mike hunt 27.02.2011 08:02 |
How does A Night At The Opera stand up to say Zep4 or The stones popular albums, or the Who's Next?.....I think opera holds it's own, but some might say it's the weakest of all these albums. In the shadow of the The stones, ect. How great do Queen fans think Opera really was compared to their contemporaries? |
| PrimeJiveUSA 27.02.2011 10:23 |
Unfortunately, the general public sees Queen as more of a "singles band and not an "album" band. It's a shame, because I would hold up ANY of Queen's albums of the '70's to the 3 artists that you mentioned. |
| rhyeking 27.02.2011 11:23 |
My understanding is Led Zepppelin was never really a singles-oriented band. Yes, they released singles, but their popularity was based on issuing rock solid albums. The same went for Rush, who also released singles but their fanbase was built of the strength of epic albums. Queen's success was partly (mostly?) based on having an ear second to none when it came to picking singles and putting them forward, the result being two and a half Hits albums worth of successful songs. For sure, they could rock out with stellar albums, but because they could string together popular rock hits, where Zeppelin appealed to a less broad market (rock afionados and concert goers, less radio listeners), Queen built that legacy. I'd like to add, though, that Queen is recognized by album fans as having at least few that stand up to anything other bands put out. Maybe that's where the push to focus on the albums is coming from, resulting is the Deep Cuts collection. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 27.02.2011 15:32 |
Are you serious? OPERA compared to... anything by Led Zeppelin? If A Night At The Opera were just Death on Two Legs and Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, it'd already be far better than anything Led Zeppelin did on their career, put together. On everything. But I would compare A Night at the Opera with Out of the Blue by the Electric Light Orchestra. I'd stick for Queen but you can't ignore how brilliant some songs on that album (Out of the Blue) are. |
| br5946 27.02.2011 16:06 |
In my humble opinion, A Night At The Opera TRIUMPHS over Led Zeppelin IV. Four reasons why it triumphs: 1. Brian could kick Jimmy Page's butt to Neptune just by using one hand and being blindfolded. 2. The album cover of IV is unbelievably simplistic compared to the artistic wonder of the ANATO cover 3. Led Zeppelin IV has Stairway to Heaven on it - ANATO has Bo Rhap 4. ANATO is without a doubt a milestone of rock 'n' roll. Personally, I don't really like Stairway to Heaven. Mainly because its so freaking overrated. You can't believe how many 'greatest rock songs' lists have it at #1. It's unthinkable. What really annoys me is when Bohemian is 2nd on somebody's list, and Stairway beats it to the top. How in the name of all things heavy and rocking is that possible?!??!!?? If you think I'm being paranoid and making that claim up, search on Youtube. Such a thing has happened at least three times on seperate lists. People say 'oh Stairway is the holy grail, it goes through so many musical changes...' - PFFFFTT to that! The song has a plain repetitive guitar melody that never changes in any way for about five-and-a-half minutes, then a minute-long solo by Page which sounds like he did it backwards while drunk, then a minute-and-a-half section that barely qualifies as hard rock. Sorry to any Zeppelin fans, but I'm on the backlash side. Bo Rhap on the other hand - there's a song that goes in all directions you want it to! Six sections in six minutes! Acapella through to emotive ballad - and please note the ballad section is minimialist for a time because for the first thirty seconds it has no drums, and the guitar track is only harmonic most of it. Then a blistering solo, multi-tracked opera choirs, through to a headbangingly furiously heavy metal part to a sweeping outro. Enough said - best song in rock. Or quite frankly, best song in music. Explanations aren't necessary of why, because it would take about ten pages worth of typing to explain. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 27.02.2011 16:22 |
br5946 wrote: 1. Brian could kick Jimmy Page's butt to Neptune just by using one hand and being blindfolded. Personally, I don't really like Stairway to Heaven. Mainly because its so freaking overrated. You can't believe how many 'greatest rock songs' lists have it at #1. It's unthinkable. What really annoys me is when Bohemian is 2nd on somebody's list, and Stairway beats it to the top. How in the name of all things heavy and rocking is that possible?!??!!?? If you think I'm being paranoid and making that claim up, search on Youtube. Such a thing has happened at least three times on seperate lists. People say 'oh Stairway is the holy grail, it goes through so many musical changes...' - PFFFFTT to that! The song has a plain repetitive guitar melody that never changes in any way for about five-and-a-half minutes, then a minute-long solo by Page which sounds like he did it backwards while drunk, then a minute-and-a-half section that barely qualifies as hard rock. Sorry to any Zeppelin fans, but I'm on the backlash side. I agree. But I do like the song, it's a nice song. The problem is... as you said, it's the same thing going on, for hours. No changes, no arrangements... no nothing! There's a version by John Miles, which is very nice. Of course Mr. Miles is a much muuuuuuuuch better singer than Plant but still being much better performed than the original, it's still an 8 minute song which could be a 4 minute one and be the same. Besides... the heavy medieval folk-feel... I mean, really? What's original about that? Not that it SHOULD be original but you need to see something different in that song if you're gonna compare it with Bo Rhap. What I see is a song... a nice song, poorly performed by Led Zeppelin. By other performers, it could be perfectly played and all but it's still a nice song, not more than that. It doesn't really have any musical element that stands out as brilliant. The arpeggio progression is nicely written with the cromatism goin on but come on, it's not something we've never seen before. It's like... if you say Stairway to Heaven can be compared with Bohemian Rhapsody, then Kissing a Fool by George Michael (which I enjoy much more than Stairway to Heaven, and I find more interesting musically) can also be compared to Stairway to Heaven or Bo Rhap. |
| Jimmy Dean 27.02.2011 18:28 |
Great question...between Opera, Who's Next and IV I'm going to use a point system. Epic songs means that it's widely acclaimed and well-liked by the general public. Note that Rock And Roll is not included as such even though it fits that description - it's a fairly basic rock number that loses its appeal with every listen unlike every other epic song classified below. For that reason, I bumped it to "very good". Very good songs are those that are considered among the better songs of the band's cannon and help the album's cause. Ok songs are those that are good but don't add to the album. Filler means the album would have been better if the song wasn't on it! Out of the three bands, the Who is my least favorite - I own all of Queen's and Zeppelin's albums but only a handful of Who albums (My Generation, Sell's Out, Tommy, Who's Next & Quadrophenia) - and regardless of that fact, I would still argue that Who's Next is better than A Night At The Opera. Opera: Epic songs - Bohemian Rhapsody, You're My Best Friend, Love of My Life (3) Very good songs - Death on Two Legs, I'm In Love With My Car, '39, Sweet Lady, Prophet's Song (5) Ok songs - Lazing, Seaside Rendezvous, God Save The Queen (3) Filler: Good Company (1) Points: [ (3 x 5) + (5 x 3) + (3 x 1) + (1 x -1) ]= 32 / 12 x 10 = 27pts Who's Next: Epic songs: Baba O'Riley, Behind Blue Eyes, Won't Get Fooled Again (3) Very Good Songs: Bargain, My Wfe, Getting In Tune (3) Ok songs: Love Ain't For Keeping, The Song Is Over (2) Filler: Going Mobile (1) Points: [ (3 x 5) + (3 x 3) + (2 x 1) + (1 x -1)] = 25/9 x 10 = 28pts Untitled (IV): Epic Songs: Black Dog, Stairway to Heaven (2) Very Good Songs: Rock And Roll, Misty Mountain Hop, When The Levee Breaks (3) Ok Songs: Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks (2) Filler: Going To California (1) Points: [ (2 x 5) + (3 x 3) + (2 x 1) + (1 x -1)] = 20/8 x 10 = 25pts |
| Matias Merçeauroix 27.02.2011 20:54 |
I'm sorry but that's totally nonsense. |
| Jimmy Dean 27.02.2011 21:24 |
of course it's nonsense... A Night At The Opera is the best of the three because Queen is totally the greatest band of all time... |
| Jimmy Dean 27.02.2011 21:40 |
Ok... new comparison folks... 1) A Night At The Opera 2) The Transformed Man 3) Metal Machine Music. Be honest now. Don't let favoritism get in the way here! |
| The Real Wizard 27.02.2011 22:31 |
Good Company is filler? As far as I'm concerned it's the single most important piece of guitar innovation in the 70s, next to Eddie Van Halen. |
| master marathon runner 28.02.2011 02:15 |
Going to California is filler? as far as i'm concerned its the singlemost piece of guitar innovation in the 70's, after Brian May. Master Marathon Runner |
| Matias Merçeauroix 28.02.2011 02:52 |
I do thing Jimmy Page was highly innovative. I don't think anyone could play as poorly. Everyone thought you had to know how to play the guitar to... well, play the guitar. He proved them all wrong! |
| Holly2003 28.02.2011 03:10 |
Funky Horsie wrote: I do thing Jimmy Page was highly innovative. I don't think anyone could play as poorly. Everyone thought you had to know how to play the guitar to... well, play the guitar. He proved them all wrong! ======================================================================== Wow, controversial .... Yawn. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 28.02.2011 03:13 |
is it? |
| Holly2003 28.02.2011 06:06 |
Go on .. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 28.02.2011 10:47 |
.. |
| brENsKi 28.02.2011 10:59 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Unfortunately, the general public sees Queen as more of a "singles band and not an "album" band. It's a shame, because I would hold up ANY of Queen's albums of the '70's to the 3 artists that you mentioned. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ your argument falls down slightly in that the stones were primarily a singles band, and the who until at least the mid-70s had had a string of hit singles as regards "opera" - it stands up well against the "pinnacle" albums of the time....but i think therock critic's influence will always put it soemway down the pecking order.. after ledzepIV, who's next, DSOTM, rumours, bat out of hell, machine head, and possibly rainbow rising...this isn't because it's a weaker album (far from it) but because it's not a true rock album. Opera is far too many things to too many people.....there,s ragtime, vaudeville, rock, ballads, opera, pop...a "jack of all trades" i think queen II is a more comparable rock album against the other classics.... |
| mike hunt 28.02.2011 20:02 |
Yea, but no one talks about Queen2 aside from hardcore fans......Sheer heart attack is more of a proper rock album, as is Queen1. I think SHA should be considered one of the best rock albums of all time, Though i think Opera and Queen2 is their most epic. |
| rhyeking 28.02.2011 20:38 |
Interpret this as you will, but "Queen II," "Sheer Heart Attack" and "A Night At The Opera" are listed in 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. I guess somebody, somewhere puts them up with the best albums recorded by other bands and artists. Here's the full list: link |
| Over the Field 01.03.2011 05:01 |
Why everybody here hates Led Zeppelin? I have some Zep's albums and I think they're great. You should remember that Zep IV contains Black Dog, Rock and Roll and Stairway to Heaven, perhaps their best-known songs (Whole Lotta Love and Kashmir missing), but ANATO contains Bohemian Rhapsody but not We Are the Champions and We We Will Rock You. Get it what I mean? Personally I think that ANATO is better than Zep IV. Jimmy Page is technically better guitarist than May but I still prefer May's guitar solos. A friend of mine is a jazz drummer and I asked him that what you think of Roger Taylor as a drummer. He says that when it comes to rock, there aren't many technically great drummers, John Bonham and Bill Ward are good, but when comparing to some jazz drummers like Buddy Rich, they are decent. He says that Roger Taylor drumming is actually quite basic, and I agree with that (I have always seen him as a good singer though). He noted that comparing Taylor to Lars Ulrich, Taylor is a god of drum playing. Broaden your horizons. Queen isn't the only great band in the world. For example Led Zeppelin is also great in my opinion as well as Yes, Deep Purple, Cream, Santana and many other. Of course Queen is the best though :) |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 06:24 |
Over the Field wrote: Why everybody here hates Led Zeppelin? I have some Zep's albums and I think they're great. You should remember that Zep IV contains Black Dog, Rock and Roll and Stairway to Heaven, perhaps their best-known songs (Whole Lotta Love and Kashmir missing), but ANATO contains Bohemian Rhapsody but not We Are the Champions and We We Will Rock You. Get it what I mean? Personally I think that ANATO is better than Zep IV. Jimmy Page is technically better guitarist than May but I still prefer May's guitar solos. A friend of mine is a jazz drummer and I asked him that what you think of Roger Taylor as a drummer. He says that when it comes to rock, there aren't many technically great drummers, John Bonham and Bill Ward are good, but when comparing to some jazz drummers like Buddy Rich, they are decent. He says that Roger Taylor drumming is actually quite basic, and I agree with that (I have always seen him as a good singer though). He noted that comparing Taylor to Lars Ulrich, Taylor is a god of drum playing. Broaden your horizons. Queen isn't the only great band in the world. For example Led Zeppelin is also great in my opinion as well as Yes, Deep Purple, Cream, Santana and many other. Of course Queen is the best though :) I Hear Deep Purple's name brought up a lot......I think their way overated. Not in the same league as a band like Queen who explore so many different styles of music. I'm not a musician, so can't say who's better technically between Brian May and jimmy page. I think Page is More explosive, but Brian is more unique and emotional. I like Brians sound more, of course I'm biased. I agree with you're drumming comments. I see roger as a good, though not great drummer. kind of like a better version of lars Ulrich. From what i hear from drummer's Buddy rich is the man. |
| Shaving Foamasi 01.03.2011 06:36 |
Ah who really cares whether Led Zeppelin's fourth album or any other album for that matter beats A Night At The Opera in a poll? Does it make it any less of an album in your own view? Here's something you might try to understand. Not everybody sees the world exactly the same way as you do. Personally, I don't care what anyone else thinks of albums I like - as far as I'm concerned it's whether I enjoy it that matters. Whether someone else's list of favourite albums is important and means something - well, I stopped listing my favourite albums once I passed the age of 14... |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 11:35 |
Jimmy Page better guitarist than Brian May? Not even in his wildest dreams! And I'm talking 100% about technique. You really can't name one single thing in which Page could remotely be better than Brian, seriously. |
| maxpower 01.03.2011 11:38 |
I can ... producing |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 11:41 |
PRODUCING!?!?!?!? Led Zeppelin albums sound as if they were recorded inside somebody's anus, the overall sound is absolutely awful. Not to mention all the mistakes... and not just from Jimmy. The whole band goes out of rhythm every now and then, Plant hits unknown notes. There are millions of flaws. How can a good producer let that happen? |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 11:49 |
obviously Page is pretty good. He influenced a whole generation of guitarists. Not sure what the beef with page is on this site, but I do know a lot of guitarists worship the guy, and many list him above brian. Not saying those other people are right or wrong. i'm just saying he influenced a lot of player's, as did robert plant for vocalists. the guitar and vocals are debatable, i'll vote for freddie and brian personally, but drums and bass clearly go to Zep, and that's not even close. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 12:20 |
Don't agree either. John Paul Jones is certainly not better than Deacon. They were both pretty good, not incredible or anything. But it's not OBVIOUS who is better. As for drums, I wouldn't dare to say as even tho I heard more advanced stuff by Bonham... I've also heard much more mistakes. And Roger, while not always simple as some seem to think, most of the time his performances are great. When it comes to guitar, there really isn't room for any kind of debate. Page could never and has indeed never been able to play like Brian, not even the most simple lick from him. We can argue as much as you want, I've got everything to back me up. |
| Over the Field 01.03.2011 12:48 |
It seems that you hate Led Zeppelin. Brian is great indeed but not that great. Have you ever heard of Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana or Ritchie Blackmore? If you say they suck, you don't know anything about playing the guitar. It's okay that you're a brian may fanatic, but you sound really silly. |
| Over the Field 01.03.2011 12:53 |
IMO Freddie is the best vocalist of all time. But you must admit that there aren't many singers that could pull of song like Rock and Roll by Zep. That goes really really high, and Plant isn't even a tenor and he did that. Still I prefer Freddie. The way he does The Hitman, The Hero and many other high-notes-require-able-rocker-song sound so unique and fantastic. I also love his falsetto work so much. |
| Holly2003 01.03.2011 13:24 |
I agree Brian is technically superior to Page, but it would be surprising if Page is as bad as Funkie says he is, that Brian would consider him one of his early heroes. Same goes with Fred and Robert Plant. Led Zeppelin made a good noise together. That's basically all I'm interested in. Well, that and the fact that "heroes" and "herpes" are separated by only one letter in the alphabet. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 14:04 |
Ok, I don't know anything about playing guitar. |
| masterstroke_84 01.03.2011 14:23 |
I really doubt that Brian has stated Page as one of their heroes.. maybe Hendrix, Clapton and firstly Buddy Holly but not Page.. that's for sure. Even at one of his soapbox entries he stated that he likes some of Page's writing but not his playing... Can't remember the exact words but Brian pointed that Page have turds for fingers.. C'mon, anyone can realize how bad he is... I like some songs (mainly the acoustic ones), but that "drunk-rock-god" and "i-give-a-shit" attitude doesn't match with the great league of guitarists.. Brian wrote dozens of amazing songs, and he translated that to his producing and his guitar playing beatifully and technically flawless: moods, sound, arrngements, solos... etc etc. He KNOW how to use a guitar and gear. Page wrote sloppy shit and played sloppy shit. All his life.. If not.. give Page a guitar and make him play the solo from "Flick of the wrist" or "I was born to love you".. and see what happens. |
| paulosham 01.03.2011 15:04 |
You never hear ANATO being mentioned alongside Dark Side Of The Moon, Led Zep IV etc. Just because you like Queen more doesn't mean that you can hide the fact that they are not as critically acclaimed as the (other) major bands of the 70s. funky horsie you are talking out of your funkie holy |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 15:12 |
I think funky is really Brlan May in disguise. I really do.......lol. Brian is one of the best rock guitarists ever, but like the poster above me said, there is a few better......... sometimes I hear robert plant and he annoy's the hell out of me with that high and winey voice, but other times he'll impress the hell out of me. Out of the three bands i mentioned, Zep, the stones and The Who. I think I like The Who the Best. Fanastic Band. The stones were and are overated. |
| Holly2003 01.03.2011 15:23 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: I really doubt that Brian has stated Page as one of their heroes.. maybe Hendrix, Clapton and firstly Buddy Holly but not Page.. that's for sure. Even at one of his soapbox entries he stated that he likes some of Page's writing but not his playing... Can't remember the exact words but Brian pointed that Page have turds for fingers.. C'mon, anyone can realize how bad he is... I like some songs (mainly the acoustic ones), but that "drunk-rock-god" and "i-give-a-shit" attitude doesn't match with the great league of guitarists.. Brian wrote dozens of amazing songs, and he translated that to his producing and his guitar playing beatifully and technically flawless: moods, sound, arrngements, solos... etc etc. He KNOW how to use a guitar and gear. Page wrote sloppy shit and played sloppy shit. All his life.. If not.. give Page a guitar and make him play the solo from "Flick of the wrist" or "I was born to love you".. and see what happens. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian May: "I don't think anyone has epitomised riff writing better than Jimmy Page. He's one of the great brains of rock music." I've read in a few different places how much Brian and Fred were Zeppelin fans. Queen I is basically a Zeppelin clone album. |
| masterstroke_84 01.03.2011 16:23 |
Being Fred and Brian (and also rog of course) Zep fans doesn't change the fact that Brian is a way better guitarist... not only because is fingers, he's also a more intelligent musician. For fucks sake, just take Good Company... Do I need to keep this nonsense argument going?? Maybe Page is a "good" writer of riffs, along with Angus Young or the guys from Metallica (?) but Brian is another world... not only a easy-riff-maker... Queen (1) a copy of what??. Great king rat, fairy king, liar... hahaha cmon... never can be a copy of Zepp. just because the guitarist in that album knows how to bend notes, and playing the right notes xD |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 16:47 |
The obvious influence on queen1 is apparent, but still sounds nothing like Zep or hendrix. The Influence is the fact that it's in the same heavy style. Every band including Zep did that. Zep took so many idea's from the blues, as did Hendrix. Not one song from Queen1 sounds like a zep coversong, but you do hear the influence. Even Innuendo Freddie told Plant that the song was inspired by Zep. Even at 45 freddie still looked up to them. How can we argue with freddie?......i'm not even a big Zep fan, but i even hear the talent that was in that band.....Overated?....maybe a little, lol. |
| Holly2003 01.03.2011 17:02 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: Being Fred and Brian (and also rog of course) Zep fans doesn't change the fact that Brian is a way better guitarist... not only because is fingers, he's also a more intelligent musician. For fucks sake, just take Good Company... Do I need to keep this nonsense argument going?? Maybe Page is a "good" writer of riffs, along with Angus Young or the guys from Metallica (?) but Brian is another world... not only a easy-riff-maker... Queen (1) a copy of what??. Great king rat, fairy king, liar... hahaha cmon... never can be a copy of Zepp. just because the guitarist in that album knows how to bend notes, and playing the right notes ===================================================================================== Err.. you took issue with my comment that Page was one of Brian's early heroes. You are wrong. Here's another quote from Brian, for you, free of charge: "I'm the world's biggest Led Zeppelin fan. The music, the way they conducted themselves, their whole management structure - they were the blueprint. Queen always used to play "The Immigrant Song" in sound checks just for the glory of the sound." I have already said I think Brian is a better guitarist than Page. But that doesn't mean there is no merit in Jimmy's playing, as Brian May has acknowledged. Page isn't one of my favourite guitarists: he was so high a lot of the time that he could barely lift his guitar, never mind play it. But when Zeppelin got it right they rocked hard. Queen 1 is heavily influenced by Led Zep. I thought that was so obvious it didn't need repeating. |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 17:02 |
paulsmith2001 wrote: You never hear ANATO being mentioned alongside Dark Side Of The Moon, Led Zep IV etc. Just because you like Queen more doesn't mean that you can hide the fact that they are not as critically acclaimed as the (other) major bands of the 70s. funky horsie you are talking out of your funkie holy Well, Maybe not critically acclaimed like some of these other bands, but influence they passed a lot of bands of their time, and true music lover's know Queen were right up there with the best. Maybe we don't see them on the all time great albums list that often, but they do appear on best bands of all time lists these days. The critics would say the top 5 of the beatles, stones, zep, the who, hendrix, then comes floyd, Queen, the doors, ect, but my own opinion is that Outside of the beatles (no one beats them) Queen were right up there with anyone, including Zep and the who. They also kick the stones ass. Most of these bands were on the same level anyway. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 17:33 |
I'm not saying Brian is the best player EVER. Of course there are better guitar players but Brian has a certain quality which is better than being the best: he is very unique. Arguably the best rock guitar player before Eddie Van Halen, which I do NOT consider better than Brian but you can't stop appreciating how much Eddie Van Halen did for the electric guitar world. Hendrix kind of represented what an electric guitar player was suppossed to do but he was far from being the best. Not even the best in his own era. Clapton has always had much cleaner and smoother playing, as Jeff Beck also did. By considering this and how they played the instrument which wasn't really the ultimate guide to electric guitar, I'd say Clapton was arguably the first electric guitar virtuoso. Maybe Gilmour, a few years later. And I speak in behalf of everyone who knows what a virtuoso is, it has NOOOOTHING to do with playing fast or anything. It means 'someone who masters the technique of his instrument.' At that time, nobody seemed to do so. Except Eric and some very very few others, which really played some great tunes with great technique. Up to this day, there isn't much you'd change in them, if they had to play them all over again. And that's something Hendrix never achieved, as he was kind of sloppy. Steve Howe sure was and still is an amazing guitar player... but he's basically a classical guitar player with an electric guitar. Therefore, NOT THE SAME. And honestly, when he plays stuff in a more "Van Halen" way, he's not as good as he usually is when he plays his stuff. I've listened lots of his records and I've seen him live too, I'm not talking out of my ass. But then Brian showed up and I can assure you, there are some minor flaws in the first records but the overall playing is absolutely brilliant. He was the real deal back then, absolutely nobody played like that. LET ALONE, mimicking other instruments with the guitar. To me, if doing so is not "mastering the technique of the instrument", then nothing is. If he did it, it is possible. If nobody else did or thought about it, then he is an absolute genius because he not only created something new, innovative and interesting, he also perfectly succeeded when he had to perform it. And there is so much more to his playing than you can imagine, you've GOT to play his licks to understand this. Such attention to detail, control of dynamics, sense of phrasing, lots of variation. He's like the Leonardo da Vinci of the guitar, seriously. It's not what he plays, it's how he plays it. He's probably my favourite, the one I enjoy the most listening to but this is not me saying he was the best ever. He sure was one of the very best but there are some other players that are just as incredible as he is, maybe even more or whatever. And all of them in their own way, which makes it much more interesting. But no, Hendrix wasn't better than him. Page doesn't even come close. Seriously. If you pay just a little attention, you'll see that Page's always attempted to play fast licks and failed at it. Over and over again. For more than 50 years. |
| masterstroke_84 01.03.2011 17:35 |
Not only Page is an invalid (always behind of such excuses like drinking or drug abuse...) But also.. Plant ruined Innuendo at the tribute. DEATH to them!!!!! hahaha I'm joking.. I am..? |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 18:19 |
Yea, just like freddie and queen ruined the Immigrant song when they played it in 86...... |
| masterstroke_84 01.03.2011 18:31 |
..we all know if Queen wanted to play that song seriously they'll do it perfectly. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 01.03.2011 18:52 |
Brian vs. Page...sure there can be a debate. But...Roger vs. John Bonham...not a fair fight! Queen is my favorite band, Zeppelin is 2nd...but Bonham is the greatest rock drummer EVER! |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 19:35 |
Alas, not even close. Ian Paice was far more advanced technically than Bonham. FAR FAR FAR MORE. |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 19:47 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: Brian vs. Page...sure there can be a debate. But...Roger vs. John Bonham...not a fair fight! Queen is my favorite band, Zeppelin is 2nd...but Bonham is the greatest rock drummer EVER! john paul jones vs Deacon? |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 20:21 |
To me, as I said before, none of them were OMGGGGGGGG INCREDIBLEEEE. But John Paul Jones wasn't better. Not saying that Deacon is better than Jonesy but if there was any difference, it's not really a big one. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 01.03.2011 20:24 |
Funky Horsie...good response! Maybe I shouldn't have said Bonham was the "best". Ian Paice is, ideed, extraordinary! Cheers! |
| Thistle 01.03.2011 20:35 |
NATO is not my favourite from the Queen back catalogue, but it could quite easily hold its own against any of the aforementioned bands. That said, I do love Zep, and Zep4 is as much a milestone as NATO in rock history. I wouldn't say that either of those albums blows the other away, but they do piss all over the stones, who are the most over-rated heap of shit band I've ever had the misfortune to pollute my ears with. |
| Jimmy Dean 01.03.2011 21:00 |
I don't understand why everyone's comparing Queen to Zeppelin... They didn't even dominate during the same era. Zeppelin were washed up when Queen were beginning to make major waves... Physical Graffiti was their last hurrah - which came out in 1975.... Bohemian Rhapsody which was the first single to take the world by storm, came out in 1975... The Zepp were winding down when Queen were winding up to become the phenoms of the arena... not to mention their onslaught of hit singles between 1975 and 1980 Zeppelin **enhanced** the blues - and by enhanced I mean copied and improved on. They also dabbled in middle eastern sounds... but not much more than that. Queen dabbled *very* little in the blues and have almost no middle eastern influenced sounds, with the exception of Mustapha of course. But Queen did everything else - EVERYTHING else - even rap! (AOBTD) Who's better? Who cares? Why? Because they weren't competing bands - they weren't feeding of each other - like Beatles and the Stones or Zeppelin and say maybe the Who. (Zeppelin, in my opinion, were really in a league of their own, much like Queen) Queen were gods amongst their competition, they also lasted a lot longer. This is why Queen still matters in 2011. The only other band to tread upon the same path - was Genesis - and they only were competing against Queen in the 80s... since their 70s was prog rock verses Yes, ELP and the mighty Pink Floyd (who of course eclipsed each of those in terms of creative output in the 70s). In the 70s comparisons to Queen were the Eagles, Journey, Boston, Aerosmith (who could be compared more to Zeppelin since they were directly influenced by them), and Styx (from what comes to mind). None of these bands came close to achieving what Queen had... a case can be made for Elton John & David Bowie however... they were formidable forces in the 70s and did pen quite a few classics during that decade - only problem is Elton's 80s were horrible and Bowie's were even weirder than they were in the 70s... so the comparison ends. (And yes, you can argue that they were solo artists with a backing band). And the 80s were horrible for each of those other bands too, i think Journey did something in the late 70s early 80s but again, who gives a flying fuck about Steve Perry! lol No one had the longevity, style, cohesiveness, patience, greed, excess, talent, workmanship, extravagance that Queen oozed out of their pours. They're incomparable. Most of this forum ends up criticizing one of the worst guitarists of all time! Jimmy Page. Who in every other forum is ranked in the top 5 guitarists of all time. This isn't because everyone else is ignorant and doesn't appreciate the talents of Brian May. It's because Jimmy Page was THAT good. When Brian had to think of something to play - Jimmy's clumsy fingers played it. In other words, Jimmy was a fucking awesome guitar player. Brian May is/was a proficient & efficient musician. He played in 30 seconds what Page achieved in 30 minutes (literally) [I'M PRAISING BRIAN MAY IN THAT LAST COMMENT, in case you misinterpreted, which I'm sure Funkie Horseshit did]. Does that make Page a shitty guitarist? no. Jimmy Page had a different style, he explored the spectrum - he didn't know where it would go... only where it would begin and how it would end. Brian May calculated everything, timed it, perfected the positioning of his fingers and nailed it. Compare Dazed and Confused live to Brighton Rock solo live. What's the difference? Dazed and Confused! Brian May couldn't explore - he always played the exact same thing at every show - or a similar variation thereof. Jimmy Page ALWAYS mixed it up - and always *sounded* great - even if he screwed up - which he did - very often. Bottom line - they are both great guitarists - but in terms of an impromptu performance Jimmy Page is the ultimate winner - which makes him a better all around guitarist. Does this mean if you play worse for longer you are better? No, but if you play longer and different things and still hold the audience's interest - then yes you are a better guitar played. Brian May on the other hand has a lot more quality material released which is why Queen freaks don't understand the Jimmy Page side of the story. Now I'll wait to get flamed, about badmouthing Brian May (Which I didn't) even though I've been a Queen fan since the age of 6, for the last 20 years. (And by the way, I don't think either of these guitarists are the greatest of all time - although I'm not the biggest fan of their music as I can only listen to so much of them - Eric Clapton and Eddie Van Halen would be #1 and #2, with Jimi as #3 only because he only had 3 years to record and be heard.) |
| mike hunt 01.03.2011 21:12 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: I don't understand why everyone's comparing Queen to Zeppelin... They didn't even dominate during the same era. Zeppelin were washed up when Queen were beginning to make major waves... Physical Graffiti was their last hurrah - which came out in 1975.... Bohemian Rhapsody which was the first single to take the world by storm, came out in 1975... The Zepp were winding down when Queen were winding up to become the phenoms of the arena... not to mention their onslaught of hit singles between 1975 and 1980 Zeppelin **enhanced** the blues - and by enhanced I mean copied and improved on. They also dabbled in middle eastern sounds... but not much more than that. Queen dabbled *very* little in the blues and have almost no middle eastern influenced sounds, with the exception of Mustapha of course. But Queen did everything else - EVERYTHING else - even rap! (AOBTD) Who's better? Who cares? Why? Because they weren't competing bands - they weren't feeding of each other - like Beatles and the Stones or Zeppelin and say maybe the Who. (Zeppelin, in my opinion, were really in a league of their own, much like Queen) Queen were gods amongst their competition, they also lasted a lot longer. This is why Queen still matters in 2011. The only other band to tread upon the same path - was Genesis - and they only were competing against Queen in the 80s... since their 70s was prog rock verses Yes, ELP and the mighty Pink Floyd (who of course eclipsed each of those in terms of creative output in the 70s). In the 70s comparisons to Queen were the Eagles, Journey, Boston, Aerosmith (who could be compared more to Zeppelin since they were directly influenced by them), and Styx (from what comes to mind). None of these bands came close to achieving what Queen had... a case can be made for Elton John & David Bowie however... they were formidable forces in the 70s and did pen quite a few classics during that decade - only problem is Elton's 80s were horrible and Bowie's were even weirder than they were in the 70s... so the comparison ends. (And yes, you can argue that they were solo artists with a backing band). And the 80s were horrible for each of those other bands too, i think Journey did something in the late 70s early 80s but again, who gives a flying fuck about Steve Perry! lol No one had the longevity, style, cohesiveness, patience, greed, excess, talent, workmanship, extravagance that Queen oozed out of their pours. They're incomparable. Most of this forum ends up criticizing one of the worst guitarists of all time! Jimmy Page. Who in every other forum is ranked in the top 5 guitarists of all time. This isn't because everyone else is ignorant and doesn't appreciate the talents of Brian May. It's because Jimmy Page was THAT good. When Brian had to think of something to play - Jimmy's clumsy fingers played it. In other words, Jimmy was a fucking awesome guitar player. Brian May is/was a proficient & efficient musician. He played in 30 seconds what Page achieved in 30 minutes (literally) [I'M PRAISING BRIAN MAY IN THAT LAST COMMENT, in case you misinterpreted, which I'm sure Funkie Horseshit did]. Does that make Page a shitty guitarist? no. Jimmy Page had a different style, he explored the spectrum - he didn't know where it would go... only where it would begin and how it would end. Brian May calculated everything, timed it, perfected the positioning of his fingers and nailed it. Compare Dazed and Confused live to Brighton Rock solo live. What's the difference? Dazed and Confused! Brian May couldn't explore - he always played the exact same thing at every show - or a similar variation thereof. Jimmy Page ALWAYS mixed it up - and always *sounded* great - even if he screwed up - which he did - very often. Bottom line - they are both great guitarists - but in terms of an impromptu performance Jimmy Page is the ultimate winner - which makes him a better all around guitarist. Does this mean if you play worse for longer you are better? No, but if you play longer and different things and still hold the audience's interest - then yes you are a better guitar played. Brian May on the other hand has a lot more quality material released which is why Queen freaks don't understand the Jimmy Page side of the story. Now I'll wait to get flamed, about badmouthing Brian May (Which I didn't) even though I've been a Queen fan since the age of 6, for the last 20 years. (And by the way, I don't think either of these guitarists are the greatest of all time - although I'm not the biggest fan of their music as I can only listen to so much of them - Eric Clapton and Eddie Van Halen would be #1 and #2, with Jimi as #3 only because he only had 3 years to record and be heard.) Good post, but the reason why we're all comparing Queen with Zeppelin is because zep is considered the best Rock band of all time, aside from the Beatles. Why not compare Queen with the best?......you're right though, in the general music forums Jimmy Page is considered the better guitarist. Of course that doesn't make them right. |
| Jimmy Dean 01.03.2011 21:22 |
In that case, it's simpler, I prefer Queen hands down because I don't get sick of hearing Queen bootlegs or listening to Queen albums. You can only hear so much of Zeppelin before you get sick of the same grooves. Zeppelin didn't really progress much over their career - listen to Led Zeppelin I and In Through the Out Door - same bluesy elements but with keyboards. Now compare Queen I with Innuendo. exactly. or let's stay in the same decade - Queen I vs. Jazz or The Game vs. The Miracle. it's always different. Listen to Zeppelin concerts - Robert Plant did not know how to MC like Freddie. His usual banter was very embarrassing to listen to... (as were Freddie's in the early bootlegs circa 73-75) and his usual address to an encore was not very creative at all "Good evening... I said good eeeevening" lol... these are main reasons why it's hard to keep listening to Zeppelin bootlegs in my opinion. Not to mention, 30 minute versions of No Quarter tends to get very tedious at times. Not going to praise Queen - we all know how to do that ;-) |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 21:36 |
This is very simple, I'm not saying Brian May was better than Jimmy Page. Brian May was a guitar genius. Jimmy Page... had very little talent to play the guitar. I absolutely despise his solos and arrangements, they are incredibly primitive in every way I could think of, but let's say they're good, or great. He still plays them like shit! It amazes me how you don't realize about it. But it's curious because the only arguments I hear are HE WAS IMPORTANT, HE INFLUENCED PEOPLE, HE IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE BEST, BLAH, BLAH. But never a musical argument. Jimmy Page not even once in his life played something as sophisticated in phrasing as Killer Queen. NEVER. So cut the bullshit about the big legends. Listen to the music and make your own conclusions, never mind what other people say about it. LEARN, don't repeat what others say! |
| Jimmy Dean 01.03.2011 23:28 |
****************************************************************************************************************************** Funky Horsie wrote: This is very simple, I'm not saying Brian May was better than Jimmy Page. Brian May was a guitar genius. Jimmy Page... had very little talent to play the guitar. I absolutely despise his solos and arrangements, they are incredibly primitive in every way I could think of, but let's say they're good, or great. He still plays them like shit! It amazes me how you don't realize about it. But it's curious because the only arguments I hear are HE WAS IMPORTANT, HE INFLUENCED PEOPLE, HE IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE BEST, BLAH, BLAH. But never a musical argument. Jimmy Page not even once in his life played something as sophisticated in phrasing as Killer Queen. NEVER. So cut the bullshit about the big legends. Listen to the music and make your own conclusions, never mind what other people say about it. LEARN, don't repeat what others say! *************************************************************************************************************************** First, your comments are just a ramble of nonsense - you clearly said you are "not saying Brian May was better than Jimmy Page." but then you added some weight to that comment but insisting that Brian May was a guitar genius and further enhancing your statement by saying that Jimmy page had very little talent to play the guitar (which is a ridiculous comment in itself). So let's see... you seemed to have supported your statement had it been phrased "I am saying Brian May was better than Jimmy Page." But that's not what you said.... No, you said the direct opposite. Given the way you state your opinions it seems like you don't know how to back them up. In addition, you try to preach... "Learn, don't repeat what others say!"... who is your audience? Because most people don't listen to people who support statements with incoherent support - which is what you did. Here's my take: I don't think you've heard enough Zepp to prove your points. And I think you've been listening to nothing but Queen and ELO for the longest time, that you ACTUALLY think ELO had enough talent to be compared to Queen. I'm referring to a point you made in your earlier posts confined to this topic. ELO, aka Jeff Lynne was to the 70s, what Noel and Liam were to the 90s. Besides Mr. Blue Sky, which is a wonderful Beatlesque tune that I find better than most Beatles songs, they don't have any business being compared to Queen - not for their musical talent, innovativeness, ability to stage a show, guitar playing, vocal abilities, drumming abilities, maybe their keyboard programming skills - they weren't bad at setting up synthesizers. I'm bringing this up to make light of your cloudied judgment and insipid arguments. You never weigh in on facts other than that you think your opinion merits the evidence of your own opinion (something like the blind leading the blind-in case you didn't understand that bit of creative writing). Anyways, you're doing such a great job repeating your comments that you failed to notice i slipped a couple of insults your way in my last post...this is in addition to the critique I wrote above, to which of course, you will kindly disprove of in your following post :-) |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.03.2011 23:35 |
How many Electric Light Orchestra albums have you actually listened to? And you like Led Zeppelin... you should be ashamed ot criticizing the ELO. PS: I wasn't saying Brian was better than Jimmy because... there really is no comparisson. Jimmy is worse... than anyone. |
| Jimmy Dean 01.03.2011 23:50 |
I can't get through any ELO albums - I fall asleep to Jeff's voice - literally, I actually fell asleep while trying to get through Eldorado. New World Record's ok though... I'll give you that - still a Beatles knock-off band like Oasis - and I'm a big fan of Oasis so I'm not criticizing ELO for being a knock-off of the Beatles. Just stating that they *were* knock-offs. At least Zeppelin resurrected old blues classics and got people interested in the blues again. And how someone can say Page is garbage is beyond me. It's nonsensical - purely from a musical standpoint you would notice that many of his solos alone are evidence that he is a great guitar player - Heartbreaker, In My Time of Dying, Since I've Been Loving You, Tea For One... just to name a few. Why would I be ashamed at criticizing ELO *because* I listen to Led Zeppelin? I'm having trouble registering the link. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 00:21 |
HEARTBREAKER?!?!?! SERIOUSLY!?!?!?! That's got to be the worst solo in history. Sloppiness, out of tune, rhythm and anything regarding music! |
| Jimmy Dean 02.03.2011 00:24 |
Yes, and Hey Jude is also one of the worst tracks recorded in history of music as well, lol. |
| mike hunt 02.03.2011 00:28 |
i was never a huge Zepp fan, though I do like some of their stuff.....and hear the talent now more than when I was younger, But how The hell can anyone Compare ELO And Zeppelin?.....or ELO and Queen?....I listened to ELO a bit back in the day, but let's be serious. Randy Newman wrote a song making fun of that band. He made fun of kiss on the same album. The reason why I never tired of Queen after all these years is like the above poster said......They changed their style over the years so much. If I get tired of one style (march of the black Queen) I move on to the next. (I want to break free). Their studio records were also completely differrent From the live performances. More so than almost every band I heard. Then I alway's have the brilliant Barcelona album to drool over. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 00:38 |
Standin' in the Rain? Big Wheels? Believe Me Now? Ticket To The Moon? Poker? Night Rider? Eldorado? Poor Boy? Dreaming of 4000? Mission? Shangri-La? Above the Clouds? Really? Nobody listened to this? Incredible tunes. Worth every second. |
| Holly2003 02.03.2011 02:07 |
ELO are an excellent band who did play a variety of songs, prog rock, rock, ballads, disco, rockabilly etc. They even dabbled with (for want of a better term) new wave in the 1980s. Jeff Lynn isn't a great guitarist and his voice was an acquired taste (I love it, but I can see why others wouldn't) but he was a great song writer and as a performer he had to play guitar and sing lead, which is something neither Brian (in Queen) or Jimmy Page ever had to do. For around a decade, ELO were one of the world's top bands. They were heavily influenced by The Beatles -- so what? So were Queen. But to compare them with Oasis is laughable.I can just imagine Noel Gallagher writing The Diary of Horace Wimp, Telephone Line, Mr Blue Sky, or Rockaria lol! Get serious please. |
| maxpower 02.03.2011 04:56 |
What really narks me about Queen fans they are so dismissive & think that Bohemian Rhapsody is the greatest song ever blah blah, it isn't even Queen's best song. Four Symbols or Zep 4 is equally as good as A Night At The Opera, as is Who's Next, Rocks,Highway To Hell or any other top quality hard rock album that came out in the 70's |
| mike hunt 02.03.2011 07:01 |
maxpower wrote: What really narks me about Queen fans they are so dismissive & think that Bohemian Rhapsody is the greatest song ever blah blah, it isn't even Queen's best song. Four Symbols or Zep 4 is equally as good as A Night At The Opera, as is Who's Next, Rocks,Highway To Hell or any other top quality hard rock album that came out in the 70's No such thing as greatest song ever, but you could make the case it was the best single ever for a rock band?....of course we could......what narks me as a music fan is when people put bands like ACDC, who play the same riffs and never tried anything new in their entire career in the same league as Queen. How is that?....a true artist explores new sounds. ACDC=boring Not in the same league as The Who, Zeppelin, Queen. Even ELO were better, lol. At least they tried new sounds. |
| Sebastian 02.03.2011 07:58 |
I think Zep were a wonderful band with some great albums and marvellous songwriting (even if it was most of the time quite simple, which isn't a bad thing in itself). I think Page was/is a fine guitarist, but definitely not even sort of close to being as good as blinded fans think he was/is. Granted, most fans overrate their idols (Brian included, Malmsteen included, Van Halen included... there may even be people who think Katy Perry's a guitar goddess), but IMO it's magnified with Page. If A influenced B it doesn't mean A is better. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. There were and are better guitar players than Brian, but Pagey's not one of them IMO. Even if Page's about as famous as May or Hendrix (in certain circles at least), both May and Hendrix are way way way better guitarists than him. IMO. And regarding polls and ranks ... most of them are made by and for ignorants anyway. |
| br5946 02.03.2011 10:24 |
I heartily disagree with the whole 'Queen I is a Zeppelin one clone album' idea that's floating around. And when it comes to Jimmy Page's playing, I can just stand it. Whole Lotta Love is a good riff but if he really was as good as people say, he could have easily got all those trippy noises on guitar in the middle and not got the band to sell out there by using a synth. We all know Brian could have hit every chord played on the synthesized part. But then to be fair to Page, his solo after that part is reasonably melodic and rocking. Dazed and Confused is probably the most experimental thing he did. And that song really shows experimentation from all four members. And on the psychedelic side of things, I think Hendrix rules the roost. I don't think he's the best ever, but Purple Haze, Foxy Lady, Voodoo Child (Slight Return), All Along the Watchtower and 1983 ... (A Mermaid I Should Turn To Be) are prime pieces of psychedelic rock in my eyes. And a side note. If you think I should have put One Rainy Wish there, I honestly prefer Brian's cover on Another World. To put it mathematically: Brian = 400 x (Page + Hendrix + Clapton + Eddie Van Halen), easily! And if you want a list of best guitarists ever... #5 - Frank Infante #4 - Suzanne Vega #3 - Tony Peluso #2 - Prince #1 - Brian May |
| Amazon 02.03.2011 12:10 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: "C'mon, anyone can realize how bad he is..." Well, not anyone, as I think that Page was incredible. Funky Horsie wrote: "Jimmy is worse... than anyone." Ridiculous. I get that he's not popular with everyone, but to deny his talent? Even if you think that he was the most overrated guitarist of all time, to say that he was worse than anyone strikes me as incredibly unreasonable. Personally, I love Page, regardless of what any else says. Hearing his guitar on Dazed and Confused is IMO one of music's great joys. The solo to Stairway to Heaven still ranks IMO among the greatest solos of all time. Page was far from perfect, but at his best, he was IMO on a level attained by few other guitarists. mike hunt wrote: "Not one song from Queen1 sounds like a zep coversong, but you do hear the influence." IMO Doing All Right sounds exactly like a Zeppelin song. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 13:23 |
Really? Which one? Let's remember that Smile was formed in 1968, and in February 1969, Smile was already playing their songs in not so small venues. Led Zeppelin I was released on January 12th. Unless they wrote, arranged, learned and perfectly rehearsed their songs in less than one month, I don't see how Doing All Right was inspired by Led Zeppelin. |
| Holly2003 02.03.2011 16:30 |
IMO the songs which sound most heavily influenced by Led Zep are "Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll" and "Son and Daughter". The former is reminiscent of "Rock and Roll" and the latter the heavy bits of "Dazed and Confused" (and many other Page riffs). But of course a song-for-song comparison doesn't tell the whole story; it's more the overall sound and tempo (or in the case of "My Fairy King", the fantasy lyrics) that sounds Zeppelin-like. The only songs that don't sound anything like Zeppelin are KYA and Jesus. IMO of course. You're welcome to yours ... |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 17:29 |
I have listened to the first 4 led zeppelin albums, lots of times. I liked them when I was like 13 or so, but I swear I can't hear the slightlest influence on My Fairy King. To me, it's 100% Queen. Lots of bands wrote fantasy lyrics and shit, not just Led Zeppelin. If we're gonna create bridges between the two bands, let's be coherent. On Son & Daughter, the influence is pretty obvious but that's as far as it goes. Queen I is very far from being a Led Zeppelin clone. TOO far, I'd say. |
| Holly2003 02.03.2011 17:41 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: I have listened to the first 4 led zeppelin albums, lots of times. I liked them when I was like 13 or so, but I swear I can't hear the slightlest influence on My Fairy King. To me, it's 100% Queen. Lots of bands wrote fantasy lyrics and shit, not just Led Zeppelin. If we're gonna create bridges between the two bands, let's be coherent. On Son & Daughter, the influence is pretty obvious but that's as far as it goes. Queen I is very far from being a Led Zeppelin clone. TOO far, I'd say. Yes, lots of bands had fantasy lyrics -- I knew you'd bring up that one -- but lots of those bands were not cited by Queen as a direct influence. Queen did not copy Zeppelin in the same way as Zeppelin ripped off old blues songs , but they were influenced by them, as I stated previously and as Brian, Fred and Roger have stated themselves. Is that coherent enough? You're right: clone is the wrong word -- a bit of hyperbole on my part -- then again, you're not exactly immune from that yourself. Anyway, as I said, it's a matter of opinion and there's no right or wrong answer. No, fuck that, I'm right and you're wrong. Excelsior! |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 18:02 |
OH BUT I suppose then... Queen didn't know fantasy existed before led zeppelin! BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE AN INFLUENCE! SO IT'S OBVIOUS THAT EVERYTHING THEY DID, THEY TOOK FROM ZEPPELIN! |
| Jimmy Dean 02.03.2011 18:09 |
I think Funky Horseshit / Jizzy Cuminmypants (whatever his name is) is trying to get everyone to succumb to siding with his opinion... I don't think it matters what this 15 year old thinks... at least that's the age I've deduced he must be from reading his one-sided ramblings... And to Holly2003... yes, you ARE right, lol, very much so. |
| *goodco* 02.03.2011 18:47 |
70's Dark Side of the Moon, Animals, Wish You Were Here, Aqualung, Minstrel in the Gallery, Toys In The Attic, The Cars, Foreigner, A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, News of the World, Band On The Run, Hotel California, Fleetwood Mac, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, Seconds Out, Dreamboat Annie, Destroyer, Billion Dollar Babies, Killer, Welcome To My Nightmare, LZ II, Zoso, Houses of the Holy, 2112, A Farewell To Kings, Permanent Waves, You Can Tune A Piano ....but You Can't Tunafish, Darkness at the Edge of Town, Born To Run, Equinox, Grand Illusion, Pieces of Eight, Van Halen I, Fragile, Close To The Edge, ........Frampton Comes Alive, Live Bullet, KISS Alive, Live Killers, ........etc etc etc etc Most everyone had these, even the 'non fans'. They are classics. Hell, so is Saturday Night Fever (which I kinda like parts of thanks to the missus). |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.03.2011 19:15 |
YES, LED ZEPPELIN INVENTED MUSIC. IT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE PAGE WROTE HIS FIRST SONG. LED ZEPPELIN WITH THEIR INFINITE REPETITIONS OF 3-CHORD PROGRESSIONS, INVENTED MUSIC. Nobody else did. They did. Queen? Nah, who cares about brilliant songwriting and sophisticated playing, flawless harmonies, vocal performances? In Led Zeppelin you can find all you need! Rhythm mistakes, which are NOT mistakes... just very very very very complex metrics. They never go out of tune either, it's all about microtones. And of course it's not that jimmy page can't play his own stuff, it's just that he is SO INCREDIBLE that he can always play something new! He never plays the same thing twice! Which is not because he can't... noooooo, it's because he's the world's greatest hero! And harmony! AH YES, YOU CAN FIND SO MUCH OF THAT! Best band ever. |
| masterstroke_84 02.03.2011 19:37 |
Mate.. don't forget that Page gave his soul to Satan.. That's also why he's so incredible. Brian can't do that! he is scared of darkness! |
| GratefulFan 02.03.2011 20:05 |
*goodco* wrote: You Can Tune A Piano ....but You Can't Tunafish ==================== If anybody ever tells you about any teenaged acid trips of mine, they're lying. Didn't happen. But if they had happened, and if they had YouTube back then, I would have had this video on 6 hour loop. WHO is that man and WHY is he *doing that*? P.S. You forgot Breakfast in America P.P.S. Alice Cooper is coming to my city, and I'm not going. I feel like I should feel bad, but I don't. |
| Holly2003 03.03.2011 06:20 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: OH BUT I suppose then... Queen didn't know fantasy existed before led zeppelin! BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE AN INFLUENCE! SO IT'S OBVIOUS THAT EVERYTHING THEY DID, THEY TOOK FROM ZEPPELIN! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What was that you were saying about coherence and hyperbole? lol |
| GratefulFan 03.03.2011 09:07 |
mike hunt wrote: ......what narks me as a music fan is when people put bands like ACDC, who play the same riffs and never tried anything new in their entire career in the same league as Queen. How is that?....a true artist explores new sounds. ACDC=boring Not in the same league as The Who, Zeppelin, Queen. Even ELO were better, lol. At least they tried new sounds. ========================= Funnily enough, I recently watched/heard/read (can't remember) an interview with Brian in which he was asked the question "If you weren't in Queen, which band would you have wanted to be in?". His reply was 'AC/DC or something like that', precisely because they were just one thing and the direction was always clear. It seemed to be another acknowledgement of difficult and painful creative differences behind the scenes that we've heard a fair bit about in recent interviews. In trying to find the above quote, I rewatched a 2010 interview in which BM cited The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix as their 'bible' and main influences. But I certainly think a good deal of the early work recalls Led Zeppelin, if only by osmosis. Queen and Queen II are for the most part very much albums of their time in a way that the other albums of the 1970's are not, and Zeppelin were among the dominant artists of the period. They're wonderful albums, but as a whole they are not timeless in the way that so much of the later music would be. With a couple of notable exceptions, the 'Queen sound' that was firmly established over the next two albums was still over the horizon at that point. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 03.03.2011 10:20 |
Holly2003 wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: OH BUT I suppose then... Queen didn't know fantasy existed before led zeppelin! BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE AN INFLUENCE! SO IT'S OBVIOUS THAT EVERYTHING THEY DID, THEY TOOK FROM ZEPPELIN! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What was that you were saying about coherence and hyperbole? lol ------------------------------ ------------- link |
| Amazon 03.03.2011 12:13 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: "Really? Which one? Let's remember that Smile was formed in 1968, and in February 1969, Smile was already playing their songs in not so small venues. Led Zeppelin I was released on January 12th. Unless they wrote, arranged, learned and perfectly rehearsed their songs in less than one month, I don't see how Doing All Right was inspired by Led Zeppelin." Good point. Yeh, Doing All Right obviously wasn't inspired by Zeppelin, however IMO it sounds exactly like a Zeppelin song. Perhaps Zeppelin were inspired by Smile? :D When I listen to Doing All Right, the first thing that comes to mind is Zeppelin. It's like You Don't Fool Me; that makes me think of Billie Jean. |
| GratefulFan 03.03.2011 12:32 |
Amazon wrote: Good point. Yeh, Doing All Right obviously wasn't inspired by Zeppelin, however IMO it sounds exactly like a Zeppelin song. Perhaps Zeppelin were inspired by Smile? :D When I listen to Doing All Right, the first thing that comes to mind is Zeppelin. It's like You Don't Fool Me; that makes me think of Billie Jean. ======================== The early similarities can likely at least in part be chalked up to the shared influence of the musical Zeitgeist. A lot of the early Queen stuff sounded Zeppelin-y and Uriah Heep-y etc. |
| Holly2003 03.03.2011 13:00 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: link Ha! Queen, Simpsons, ELO ... Holy Shred! I think I'm starting to like you. |
| mike hunt 03.03.2011 14:57 |
GratefulFan wrote: mike hunt wrote: ......what narks me as a music fan is when people put bands like ACDC, who play the same riffs and never tried anything new in their entire career in the same league as Queen. How is that?....a true artist explores new sounds. ACDC=boring Not in the same league as The Who, Zeppelin, Queen. Even ELO were better, lol. At least they tried new sounds. ========================= Funnily enough, I recently watched/heard/read (can't remember) an interview with Brian in which he was asked the question "If you weren't in Queen, which band would you have wanted to be in?". His reply was 'AC/DC or something like that', precisely because they were just one thing and the direction was always clear. It seemed to be another acknowledgement of difficult and painful creative differences behind the scenes that we've heard a fair bit about in recent interviews. In trying to find the above quote, I rewatched a 2010 interview in which BM cited The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix as their 'bible' and main influences. But I certainly think a good deal of the early work recalls Led Zeppelin, if only by osmosis. Queen and Queen II are for the most part very much albums of their time in a way that the other albums of the 1970's are not, and Zeppelin were among the dominant artists of the period. They're wonderful albums, but as a whole they are not timeless in the way that so much of the later music would be. With a couple of notable exceptions, the 'Queen sound' that was firmly established over the next two albums was still over the horizon at that point. Trust me on this...If brian was in ACDC he would have gone mad. Freddie was the most experimental of the band by far (that's a fact) but brian also liked to try different sounds. Tie Your Mother Down vs Good Company. Most of his favorite queen songs were freddie's stuff. Love of my life, ECT. Of course they disagreed a lot, and i'm also sure he hated some of freddie's musical directions (body language) but overall one style of music wasn't enough for him. His own songs tell us that. The only thing he could have done in ACDC was show off is licks more, but after 2 or 3 albums he leaves that band. |
| Sebastian 03.03.2011 15:44 |
> The early similarities can likely at least in part be chalked up to the shared influence of the musical Zeitgeist. A lot of the early Queen stuff sounded Zeppelin-y and Uriah Heep-y etc. Very true. My brother looks very similar to me (almost identical, only taller and brunet), but it doesn't mean I created him. It simply means we had the same parents. Same case: if DAR sounds Zeppelin-esque, it doesn't necessarily mean it was inspired by them. Maybe DAR and some Zeppelin tunes shared the same influental background. |
| The Real Wizard 03.03.2011 15:57 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: If you pay just a little attention, you'll see that Page's always attempted to play fast licks and failed at it. Over and over again. For more than 50 years. ======================= I still think you're a bit too hard on Page. Listen to the soundboard recording of Zeppelin in Vienna 73 and tell me Page wasn't a great player in his prime. Europe 73 completely changed my perception of Zeppelin... for about 10 concerts in March/April 73 they were at the absolute peak of their powers. Plant's voice was a bit weak, but the instrumental machine was a force to be reckoned with. Listen from 5 minutes onward, particularly the interplay with Bonham link link I agree, the Heartbreaker solo on LZ II is sloppy in places, but there's so much more than the cleanliness of his playing that counts. Zeppelin were expressing blues in a way they hadn't been expressed before. LZ II is basically what launched them into being the biggest band of the 1970s. But there are plenty of live versions of Heartbreaker where he nails it... 70-73 is Page's peak. |
| The Real Wizard 03.03.2011 16:13 |
jazzy mercurois wrote: Standin' in the Rain? Big Wheels? Believe Me Now? Ticket To The Moon? Poker? Night Rider? Eldorado? Poor Boy? Dreaming of 4000? Mission? Shangri-La? Above the Clouds? Really? Nobody listened to this? Incredible tunes. Worth every second. ============================ I haven't heard of most of these. Can you elaborate on them? At least list the artists so I can look them up? |
| Jimmy Dean 03.03.2011 18:12 |
*************************************************************************** Sir GH wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: Standin' in the Rain? Big Wheels? Believe Me Now? Ticket To The Moon? Poker? Night Rider? Eldorado? Poor Boy? Dreaming of 4000? Mission? Shangri-La? Above the Clouds? Really? Nobody listened to this? Incredible tunes. Worth every second. ============================ I haven't heard of most of these. Can you elaborate on them? At least list the artists so I can look them up? ***************************************************************************** From what I gather from Jizzy Cuminmypants - these are all songs by the SECOND GREATEST ROCK BAND OF ALL TIME... ELO - for the many who may never of heard of the acronym of the SECOND GREATEST ROCK BAND OF ALL TIME - it stood for "Electric Light Orchestra". |
| The Real Wizard 03.03.2011 18:25 |
I do know ELO, but mainly the hits... haven't dug deep into the records. Methinks I should change that.. |
| mike hunt 03.03.2011 20:50 |
In all honesty ELO were a good band, but they're not the second greatest band ever. you could like them the best. My second favorite band is Judas Priest, but i don't claim their better than The beatles or Zeppelin. I know their place in history. |
| Jimmy Dean 03.03.2011 20:56 |
agreed, mine's second place is The Manic Street Preachers followed by the Beatles followed by Green Day followed by Led Zeppelin... I'm all over the place. I have many tastes - Mahler is my favorite composer :-) |
| The Real Wizard 03.03.2011 21:21 |
br5946 wrote: And if you want a list of best guitarists ever... #5 - Frank Infante #4 - Suzanne Vega #3 - Tony Peluso ====================== I know Prince is the man, but these other three are very interesting selections. Can you provide some musical examples? |
| Dan C. 04.03.2011 01:45 |
Sir GH wrote: I do know ELO, but mainly the hits... haven't dug deep into the records. Methinks I should change that.. ======================== You really should! They're a hell of a great band. |
| mike hunt 04.03.2011 08:33 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: agreed, mine's second place is The Manic Street Preachers followed by the Beatles followed by Green Day followed by Led Zeppelin... I'm all over the place. I have many tastes - Mahler is my favorite composer :-) Manic strret preacher's?....interesting name. what type of music do they play?.....sounds like gospel. I'm also all over the place aside from classic rock, I like all types of Metal. Heavy/thrash/hardore. I like a little opera, love the piano style blues like Dr. John and Professor longhair, howlin holf. Singer songwrit'er's Carole king/jame talyor, sarah mclachlan. The list goes on. |
| JPSNR 04.03.2011 18:45 |
Basically this is a cover version I did :) - link |
| Matias Merçeauroix 04.03.2011 23:36 |
Sir GH wrote: I do know ELO, but mainly the hits... haven't dug deep into the records. Methinks I should change that.. ---------- ----------------- You know how it is... if it wasn't for Bo Rhap, which kinda sums up what Queen "was"... the rest of the hits, doesn't say much about the band. You know: "another one bites the dust", "crazy little thing called love", "under pressure", "i want to break free". I like them songs, I'm guessing we all do... but I'm also guessing that they're very far from being our favourites. And they're clearly not their best songs. And with ELO, it's the same thing. I don't know which hits you may know, as here in Argentina they had incredibly successful hits that didn't chart anywhere else. But you know, I'm guessing it's Evil Woman, Showdown, Can't Get It Out of My Head. Perhaps there's also Rockaria!, Telephone Line and Strange Magic... but I'm only guessing. Funny thing is what usually happens... many of them songs are nice, sure. I wouldn't say any of those is a bad song but their best? not even close! Specially from ELDORADO, which is their most "orchestral" album. There are songs with lots of things going on like Poor Boy, Nobody's Child, Eldorado... and pretty much all the album YET the hit single was "Can't Get It Out of my Head" which is kinda weak compared to almost every other song. What I like about the band is that they have a clearly different approach. There's always something going on, they have LOTS of vocals (which I may say, all of them are perfectly crafted and so accurate, always 100% in tune), and the whole string ensemble. They also include a brass section but it's not always there and there are many interesting keyboard lines. Many things going on at the same time and if anyone ever tried to write or play in a band with lots of instruments, they sure know it's not easy to write or play with so many things doing different stuff. Of course it's not the typical rock band but that's exactly what I like about them. And there is so much more to the songs than you may hear. I specially like their 74-77 period. The later days (81-86)... don't do much for me, actually. I don't even listen to those albums, they are indeed pretty lame, and the early days has lots of good stuff and original ideas. |
| Jimmy Dean 04.03.2011 23:41 |
**************************************************** mike hunt wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: agreed, mine's second place is The Manic Street Preachers followed by the Beatles followed by Green Day followed by Led Zeppelin... I'm all over the place. I have many tastes - Mahler is my favorite composer :-) Manic strret preacher's?....interesting name. what type of music do they play?.....sounds like gospel. I'm also all over the place aside from classic rock, I like all types of Metal. Heavy/thrash/hardore. I like a little opera, love the piano style blues like Dr. John and Professor longhair, howlin holf. Singer songwrit'er's Carole king/jame talyor, sarah mclachlan. The list goes on. ******************************************************* Funny you should mention Gospel... lol... it's ironic they have an album called "The Holy Bible" which is their classic album - usually rated on top 100 lists - it's a very angst-fused record which most people have a hard time digesting - mainly written by their former lyricist Richey Edwards who is presumed dead after going missing (lead a life of self abuse and was severely anorexic) - includes topics such as self-mutilation, anorexia, genocide, drug culture, prostitution, american propaganda, etc... basically an album of truths - hence the name "holy bible". They were Clash inspired in their early days, but in their latter days they've become more melodic and actually very Queen-inspired. Besides melody, their forte are their lyrics. If you're from the UK, which I'd find hard to believe if you are and have never heard of them, you'd know some of their classic singles - Motorcycle Emptiness, A Design For Life, and If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next. Their latest album is very 80s Queen a-la Radio Ga Ga or A Kind Of Magic. But in general they're a very moody band - lots of minor keys and gloomy lyrics - not very hidden by the titles of their hits either! |
| Amazon 05.03.2011 12:39 |
GratefulFan wrote: "The early similarities can likely at least in part be chalked up to the shared influence of the musical Zeitgeist. A lot of the early Queen stuff sounded Zeppelin-y and Uriah Heep-y etc." Indeed. Plus I also think the fact that I listened to a lot of Zeppelin before I ever heard Doing All Right also plays a role. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 05.03.2011 20:50 |
Not sure where or how you would rank ANATO compared to other great albums, but I would say that It is one of the most successfully executed creatively ambitious albums of all time. All the other albums which are classics are classic in a framework. There are so many musically diverse things happening on ANATO, and they are pulled off by four guys, no orchestras, no backing musicians. Hard to top this release from a creative POV. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 05.03.2011 20:50 |
Not sure where or how you would rank ANATO compared to other great albums, but I would say that It is one of the most successfully executed creatively ambitious albums of all time. All the other albums which are classics are classic in a framework. There are so many musically diverse things happening on ANATO, and they are pulled off by four guys, no orchestras, no backing musicians. Hard to top this release from a creative POV. |
| brENsKi 06.03.2011 04:50 |
Sir GH wrote: I do know ELO, but mainly the hits... haven't dug deep into the records. Methinks I should change that.. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ you should, i think. upto and including discovery (1979) they (ELO) were a force in music. their 70s concept album Out o the Blue is an amazing work. then, face the music, on the third day, eldorado and A New World Record are all very good albums of a band on form |
| Leonardo Venegas 06.03.2011 12:31 |
Well then I think it's fair to say that Queen is the greatest band of all time, period!!! Goodnight everybody!!! |
| br5946 17.03.2011 15:04 |
Sir GH - I reasonably surprised you don't know the guitarists' names, but I guess you wouldn't if you don't know their bands, so I will give examples. Suzanne Vega did guitar on her own records since she's a solo artist. Her most awesome songs in my honest opinion include Luka (which reached #23 in the UK and #3 on the US Hot 100), Marlene on the Wall (failed to chart in the States - surprise, really - but reached #85 with a UK release in 1985, and a reissue the next year reached #21). And of course, her most famous hit Tom's Diner. As for Frank Infante, he did some moderate guitar work for Blondie. He and Chris Stein shared axe duties, but I think Infante's contributions did more for the Blondie sound. I can't name any Infante-led work off the top of my head, though... just look through the instrument personnel through Blondie's hits and listen. And last, but definitely not least in any regard, Tony Peluso. The man behind the masterpiece solo on the Carpenters' Goodbye to Love and all the guitar parts on their records from 1972 to 1983. I could ramble, but I'm not going to that much. Let me just say on Goodbye to Love I can feel the power of that guitar on my veins!!!! Of course its part in the song's coda is a contributing factor - the way Peluso makes it sweep under Karen Carpenter's harmonies... MY GOD!!!! Before you lash out at my drama there, as I explained in a post on another thread (the 'do you get tired of Queen' thread, I think...), I am a self-confessed Carpenters fan, and have proudly been all my life. R.I.P both Karen Carpenter and Tony Peluso. I can guess Tony is jamming with Jimi Hendrix at this moment, and Karen of course, as the finest female vocalist in the history of the universe, is duetting with Freddie. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 17.03.2011 18:37 |
Ouch! If you don't explore 1981's "Time" from ELO, then you are missing their greatest album, imo! |
| brENsKi 23.03.2011 17:09 |
please say you didnt mean that? how is Time better than OUt of the Blue? |
| Bigfish 24.03.2011 04:23 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: Great question...between Opera, Who's Next and IV I'm going to use a point system. Epic songs means that it's widely acclaimed and well-liked by the general public. Note that Rock And Roll is not included as such even though it fits that description - it's a fairly basic rock number that loses its appeal with every listen unlike every other epic song classified below. For that reason, I bumped it to "very good". Very good songs are those that are considered among the better songs of the band's cannon and help the album's cause. Ok songs are those that are good but don't add to the album. Filler means the album would have been better if the song wasn't on it! Out of the three bands, the Who is my least favorite - I own all of Queen's and Zeppelin's albums but only a handful of Who albums (My Generation, Sell's Out, Tommy, Who's Next & Quadrophenia) - and regardless of that fact, I would still argue that Who's Next is better than A Night At The Opera. Opera: Epic songs - Bohemian Rhapsody, You're My Best Friend, Love of My Life (3) Very good songs - Death on Two Legs, I'm In Love With My Car, '39, Sweet Lady, Prophet's Song (5) Ok songs - Lazing, Seaside Rendezvous, God Save The Queen (3) Filler: Good Company (1) Points: [ (3 x 5) + (5 x 3) + (3 x 1) + (1 x -1) ]= 32 / 12 x 10 = 27pts Who's Next: Epic songs: Baba O'Riley, Behind Blue Eyes, Won't Get Fooled Again (3) Very Good Songs: Bargain, My Wfe, Getting In Tune (3) Ok songs: Love Ain't For Keeping, The Song Is Over (2) Filler: Going Mobile (1) Points: [ (3 x 5) + (3 x 3) + (2 x 1) + (1 x -1)] = 25/9 x 10 = 28pts Untitled (IV): Epic Songs: Black Dog, Stairway to Heaven (2) Very Good Songs: Rock And Roll, Misty Mountain Hop, When The Levee Breaks (3) Ok Songs: Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks (2) Filler: Going To California (1) Points: [ (2 x 5) + (3 x 3) + (2 x 1) + (1 x -1)] = 20/8 x 10 = 25pts Utter nonsense. |