| OhioMustapha 13.05.2018 01:34 |
|
| MemeOverlord69 13.05.2018 03:09 |
Freddie could bounce back from his low points (Jazz tour to Crazy Tour, The Works to Live Aid, etc), whereas Robert Plant never bounced back from 1972 (although he did quite well at the LA Forum in 1977, the whole tour was sort of a mixed bag). Brian wasn't as creative as Jimmy, but he was more consistent and didn't have any noticeable low points, whereas Jimmy really sucked from 1975-1980. Roger wasn't as good as Bonham but I don't ever recall Roger passing out on stage. John wasn't as versatile as JPJ but he was better at the bass. Freddie > Robert Brian > Jimmy Roger < Bonham John = JPJ |
| dysan 13.05.2018 09:32 |
Led Zep = Sludge Queen = Bumblebee |
| Vocal harmony 13.05.2018 11:23 |
At the level both those bands achieved why is there a need to compare. Why not Floyd and Queen, or Genesis and Queen who made the best use of lighting Why not the Greatfull Dead and Queen, who had the best live sound. . Comparisons are sometimes unnecessary. |
| mooghead 13.05.2018 14:39 |
"Freddie > Robert Brian > Jimmy Roger < Bonham John = JPJ " That is what I call ANALysis. Well done Sherlock x |
| The Real Wizard 13.05.2018 14:55 |
MemeOverlord69 wrote: John wasn't as versatile as JPJ but he was better at the bass. John = JPJI couldn't disagree more. Listen to Jonesy and Bonham lay it down in any 1973 version of Whole Lotta Love. There is your evidence for why LZ are considered to be the best ever rhythm section in rock. Deacon was great and solid, but he played it safe and stuck to the song (or a slightly lesser version of it, especially by the 80s). Deacon was at his best in the studio, and crafted beautiful lyrical lines that were almost like songs within the songs. But his ability to replicate them live varied, and he never eclipsed whatever he did on the albums on stage. Jonesy is far more musically literate. Listen to any version of The Song Remains The Same from 1975 and you'll see his progression as a player. And there's a reason why he has a long list of credits as a session player while Deacon has just about zero. I love what Deacon brought to Queen, but let's not lose our sight of reality here. |
| mike hunt 14.05.2018 03:48 |
Freddie vs Robert = could go either way. I prefer Mercury. Some others Prefer plant. It's close. The rest Zeppelin usually wins. Page gets more votes Than Brian. Page is considered a top 5 or 10 guitar god. Brian is usually mentioned in the top 20 or 25 range....I still prefer Brian. Drums and Bass are easier, even for me as a Queen nut...Zepp has Queen in Drums and Bass. It is what it is. Songwriting? This is where Queen could finally catch up a bit. Bottom line Zep is top 3 band, Queen are slightly behind at 7th to 10th give or take.. A better comparison would be Queen vs The Doors....in America It's close. |
| Katby 14.05.2018 06:42 |
On the bass, I think JD and JPJ were equals. But, it's just a matter of personal preference really. I think the fact that Deacon's bass is virtually inaudible on some live releases, makes people forget how versatile he was. Regarding Deacon "playing it safe", I think it's fairer to say that the whole band played it safe, in comparison to Led Zeppelin. Queen were generally a very well rehearsed band, while Led Zeppelin were considerably more improvisational on stage. Sometimes, that would work to Led Zeppelin's benefit, but at other times (such as Live Aid), it wouldn't. On the occasions when Queen did improvise, I really don't think Deacon could be singled out as playing it safe. If we use this medley from 1977 as an example, it's hard to be critical of his performance at all: link By the mid-eighties, Queen's live performances lacked some energy, in my opinion. But I rate 70's Queen as highly as 70's Led Zeppelin. Different, but both excellent. |
| Sam99 14.05.2018 07:32 |
It's a difficult, but interesting question and I think only a musician like Bob would have an educated opinion regarding musicality. Led Zeppelin and Queen were like apples and pears, whilst undoubtedly early Queen tried in some ways to emulate their heroes, like Zeppelin, The Who etc. In the end I think rather than who is better than who, it's all subjective, we all have our own opinion. However, whilst I can't offer a musical opinion, JPJ and JP were the most sought after session players in the 1960s, playing on so many records, there has to be a reason for that? PS Bob, I finally get a few Rush tracks especially Marathon, it's only taken me 35 years! |
| bucsateflon 14.05.2018 09:30 |
Queen is no.1 ..... Coldplay no.16 LZ is no.17 |
| Graeme Arnott 14.05.2018 17:35 |
If Queen had have stuck to being a rock band instead of becoming poppy there would be no comparisons. |
| mike hunt 14.05.2018 18:20 |
No comparisons? So you think Zep is clearly better than Queen as a rock band? Most see it the other way around. I definitely don't see how Queen are clearly better. |
| dysan 14.05.2018 19:23 |
They did different things. Queen provide me with more of what I like. Led Zep usually gets a bit, you know. |
| micallefgilly@yahoo.co.uk 14.05.2018 20:33 |
It’s 2018 and we’re still debating this. I mean really this is no sporting contest, but hey let’s give it a shot. Before delving into the topic whilst my Queen is my favorite band I also really love Led Zeppelin and there are certain aspects of Led Zeppelin that I prefer over Queen. Freddie vs Robert. As much as I love Plant I’ll take Freddie any day as I believe that Freddie is more of a complete artist. That is apart from the vocal prowess, his songwriting and arranging skills which sound so natural although beautifully intricate musically and cannot be matched by Plant. Also, Freddie took better care of his vocals where he would choose alternate notes and still sound musical. Unfortunately, Plant shot his voice quite early on in his career, and he screamed his way to those high notes as if there was no tomorrow and by 75 he had lost most of his top end and even worse the beautiful resonance of his early days. Obviously, comparisons have to stop at ’91. On the plus side for Plant, as an old musician he has really matured beautifully and his taste is impeccable. He is head above shoulders over his contemporaries nowadays; forget about hitting the high notes, over they past decade or so he has produced a string of wonderful albums rather than relying on old glories. May vs Page. I really find it impossible to compare these two their style and approach is so different. Generally, I prefer Page as a guitarist due to his tone, he’s more rhythmic and I love his groove, his dynamics. From a technical point of view, I find May a better guitarist but less exciting. Really this is matter of taste. As for non-guitar oriented songs there I prefer May, the way he weaves himself in between what the rest of the band is playing in for example Killer Queen is implacable. P.S. I find those best guitarist polls, especially the Rolling Stone Magazine ones, utterly absurd. Deacon vs Jonesy. I know, hands down John Paul Jones is in a league of his own musically; he is the best musician in Led Zeppelin by far and has written some great riffs which unfortunately are attributed to Page (see Black dog). The guy is classically trained, he can arrange for orchestras and he still kicks ass (listen to Them Crooked Vultures). But hey, I love Deacon and the guy is a natural, his playing is intricate and never steps on any other musician's foot within the band context. Oh yeah and Deacy has written some great hits which the milkman can still whistle and have stood the test of time and are as popular as ever. Roger vs Bonham. Ah here I do not have a preference, I love both. I believe Bonham as a drummer had a greater influence on Led Zeppelin’s sound than Roger had on Queen, BUT Roger is more than a drummer, he is quite an all rounder and a good one at that and it is there that his influence shows in Queen. I love the excitement of Bonham playing, the constant shifting and surprises and the changes in musical meters without them ever sounding strained or being technical for techniques sake. On the other hand, Roger could adapt to various styles and play beautifully and tastefully, one here needs to consider the variety stylistically in Queen’s music. Overall from a sales point of view, during the 70’s heyday due to the total dominance of the American market Led Zeppelin was the bigger band, the figures speak for themselves. If one takes America out of the equation then that is a totally different story. But the world has now changed and streaming services has really shone a light on what people really enjoy listening to and it is there that decades after both bands' demise Queen has won the long-term war over most other rock bands that outsold them in the US, including Led Zeppelin. The general public loves Queen’s catalogue. Look at the stats on Spotify, the craftsmanship in the songwriting is second to none and the public cannot get enough. I’m off to listen to…ahhh…Queen or Zep…I’ll toss a coin |
| mike hunt 14.05.2018 21:32 |
People love comparing great bands....but you're right, It's not a contest. Just enjoy the Music. |
| The Real Wizard 15.05.2018 01:49 |
<2>micallefgilly@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Freddie vs Robert. As much as I love Plant I’ll take Freddie any day as I believe that Freddie is more of a complete artist. Also, Freddie took better care of his vocals where he would choose alternate notes and still sound musical.Welcome to the forum. Great first post ! I'll just contest these two points. I consider Plant no less of an artist than Mercury. The diversity of the ground Plant has covered puts him on par with worldly guys like Ry Cooder and Peter Gabriel. He is one of the great artists of our time, but most people just don't see it because they just want to see him sing Whole Lotta Love again. And while you're right about Plant's voice going downhill by 75, there are plenty of Queen tours where Mercury didn't take care of himself, either (Japan 79 and Europe 84 are the two most cited ones). Mercury's voice fluctuated all throughout his touring life. He was at his vocal best live from late 79 through mid 82, but he was always well rested and strong in the studio. Plant may have lost much of his range, but his voice now has a special character that has come with maturity. I'd way rather listen to him now than how he sounds on Presence. But of course this is ultimately splitting hairs. Listen to Mercury's 1987-91 output, and vocally speaking, little of what Plant has done since 1972 can even remotely compete, if any at all. |
| Graeme Arnott 15.05.2018 03:52 |
No Mike I meant that Queen would have been on top as a rock band. |
| mike hunt 15.05.2018 04:48 |
Just not in America. That's where I'm from. Zep I are bigger here. |
| Day dop 15.05.2018 16:23 |
Generally speaking, North america would say Led Zeppelin. The rest of the world would say Queen. |
| space cow 22.05.2018 22:22 |
but at least Queen didn't copy other musicians' songs, like LZ did.. I like Led Zeppelin, but when it comes to writing their own songs, Queen wins.. it's one thing to sound a bit like your music idols, emulate their sound or style, but it is completely different when you rip others' music: link The press may have accused Queen of many things, but stealing from others was never the case |
| mike hunt 23.05.2018 01:30 |
I'm no Huge Zep fan, but the whole stealing songs is a bit overblown. They wrote timeless songs with a sound that rock bands copy to this day. In all honesty, if we're talking Influence, It's not even close. Zeppelin wins. Even Brian said in his day every band tried to sound like Zeppelin. |
| john bodega 23.05.2018 06:36 |
"just want to see him sing Whole Lotta Love again" nutshell.gif the guy's voice may have been kinda gone by the mid 70's but I still think he gets sold short. The guy threw everything he had at the Knebworth shows, and you just don't hear a lot of 'better' singers putting in that kind of effort. He also really didn't benefit from a couple of his most visible efforts post-Zeppelin (Live Aid and the Freddie Tribute) being shambolic. He more than redeemed himself during some 90's appearances. |
| mike hunt 23.05.2018 12:58 |
Plant doesn't get sold short....every debate I see from rock fans for best singer his name always pops up at #1 or 2. It's usually The Freddie Vs Plant debate. Of course others get mentioned as well, but those two are considered among the best. They were good at different things..I think plant was stronger singing High like on those first records, while Mercury was a bit stronger mid to lower range. Both had the most Important thing that's more Important than range, and that's originality and character, Something Lambert doesn't have. |
| john bodega 23.05.2018 14:51 |
"Plant doesn't get sold short" Sure he does! He comes highly on those polls for a very limited time in his career when he sounded a certain way. I'm just saying that there was more to the guy and it wasn't all bad. |