Is A Night At The Opera In the shadow of other great bands albums Of the 7

Alas, not even close. Ian Paice was far more advanced technically than Bonham. FAR FAR FAR MORE.

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?

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.

Funky Horsie...good response!

Maybe I shouldn't have said Bonham was the "best".

Ian Paice is, ideed, extraordinary!

Cheers!

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.

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.)

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.

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 ;-)

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!

******************************************************************************************************************************
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 :-)

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.

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.

HEARTBREAKER?!?!?!
SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!

That's got to be the worst solo in history.
Sloppiness, out of tune, rhythm and anything regarding music!

Yes, and Hey Jude is also one of the worst tracks recorded in history of music as well, lol.

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.