Sir GH...
The best reply on this thread - it sums everything up.
No question.
A.
Reid_Special_98
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brENsKi
PrimeJiveUSA wrote:
Having said that...Queen 1 is superior.
Remember, Queen released their debut after Zeppelin had 5 albums already under their belt. I LOVE Queen's debut, and only *like* Zeppelin's debut.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you're going have to explain how that's relevant to the argument.
Because unless ledzep travelled back in time and released their "debut" AFTER releasing II, III & four symbols...i can't understand what possible advantage you think they gained...
the argument is ledzep 1 vs queen 1....nohing else
Having said that...Queen 1 is superior.
Remember, Queen released their debut after Zeppelin had 5 albums already under their belt. I LOVE Queen's debut, and only *like* Zeppelin's debut.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you're going have to explain how that's relevant to the argument.
Because unless ledzep travelled back in time and released their "debut" AFTER releasing II, III & four symbols...i can't understand what possible advantage you think they gained...
the argument is ledzep 1 vs queen 1....nohing else
john bodega
"but not a single track on that album is more innovative and influential than Dazed And Confused or How Many More Times."
Zeppelin's tracks are indisputably more influential. But more innovative?? There's not much innovation in playing covers/adaptions, half of them in E. Again, the album is so much bigger in the public consciousness than Queen's debut, which can't be argued against - but the innovation or originality is clearly down to how you look at it.
For me it still comes down to Zeppelin's first album having a more practiced singer. It's the same with early Elf stuff - some of it is very much like early Queen, but the real difference is that Dio was miles beyond Freddie *at the time* because he'd been doing it longer. I love Freddie's singing but I don't think he got the full use of his voice until a couple of albums later.
Zeppelin's tracks are indisputably more influential. But more innovative?? There's not much innovation in playing covers/adaptions, half of them in E. Again, the album is so much bigger in the public consciousness than Queen's debut, which can't be argued against - but the innovation or originality is clearly down to how you look at it.
For me it still comes down to Zeppelin's first album having a more practiced singer. It's the same with early Elf stuff - some of it is very much like early Queen, but the real difference is that Dio was miles beyond Freddie *at the time* because he'd been doing it longer. I love Freddie's singing but I don't think he got the full use of his voice until a couple of albums later.
iluvqueen46
masterstroke_84 wrote: Piper better than Obscured??
hahah..
And Division Bell is a great album with amazing songs on it: Coming back to life, Keep talking, Poles apart, What do you want from me (only take the middle eight and is better than anything on Piper), A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM.-
You´re deaf.
xD
I love Syd Barrett and I think he's an absolute genius. Yes all those Pink Floyd albums are awesome, but it's all a matter of opinion. So shut the hell up/
hahah..
And Division Bell is a great album with amazing songs on it: Coming back to life, Keep talking, Poles apart, What do you want from me (only take the middle eight and is better than anything on Piper), A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM.-
You´re deaf.
xD
I love Syd Barrett and I think he's an absolute genius. Yes all those Pink Floyd albums are awesome, but it's all a matter of opinion. So shut the hell up/
Sebastian
I agree with Zeb: I love LZ(I), and I think it deserves all the success it had, but innovative?
Matias Merçeauroix
It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better.
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"?
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"?
PrimeJiveUSA
To each their own.
Take away all of this "influence" bull****, or what's considered a "classic" and on and on and on. I like Queen 1 better and I think it's the better album.
Let Led Zeppelin 1 "blow" whatever you want it to...Queen 1 tops it.
Take away all of this "influence" bull****, or what's considered a "classic" and on and on and on. I like Queen 1 better and I think it's the better album.
Let Led Zeppelin 1 "blow" whatever you want it to...Queen 1 tops it.
jpf
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...could you explain how "Led Zeppelin 1 blows away Queen1", please.
In terms of popularity, indeed it does. But as far as performance and songwriting...I don't think so.
-----
"Good Times Bad Times", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" , "Dazed and Confused", "Your Time Is Gonna Come", and "Communication Breakdown"
beat
"Keep Yourself Alive", "Doing All Right" , "Liar", and "Son and Daughter"
by a wide margin.
"Queen 1" is a rather weak lp whether you compare it to the Queen catalog or to other rock bands' debut lps.
In terms of popularity, indeed it does. But as far as performance and songwriting...I don't think so.
-----
"Good Times Bad Times", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" , "Dazed and Confused", "Your Time Is Gonna Come", and "Communication Breakdown"
beat
"Keep Yourself Alive", "Doing All Right" , "Liar", and "Son and Daughter"
by a wide margin.
"Queen 1" is a rather weak lp whether you compare it to the Queen catalog or to other rock bands' debut lps.
jpf
*goodco* wrote: Queen is my favorite band, but to compare the two is laughable IMHO. Their initial offering pales to Zep's. ...but at least there were no covers.
---
"Doin' Alright" was a cover song.
---
"Doin' Alright" was a cover song.
john bodega
"What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?"
In a discussion purely about influence? Absolutely! It's unfortunate, but people will usually resort to talking about how influential or well-loved an album is, as opposed to getting bogged down in the details of what was actually on the thing. This is why Sgt. Pepper is still 'the' Beatles album, even though there are 3 better albums out there by the same guys.
In a discussion purely about influence? Absolutely! It's unfortunate, but people will usually resort to talking about how influential or well-loved an album is, as opposed to getting bogged down in the details of what was actually on the thing. This is why Sgt. Pepper is still 'the' Beatles album, even though there are 3 better albums out there by the same guys.
Jimmy Dean
********************************************************************************************
jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better.
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ******************************************************************************************
I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status.
Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better.
Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live!
Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol....
Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers.
Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status.
Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play.
As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh.
jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better.
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ******************************************************************************************
I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status.
Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better.
Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live!
Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol....
Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers.
Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status.
Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play.
As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh.
Holly2003
Jimmy Dean wrote: ********************************************************************************************
jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better.
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ******************************************************************************************
I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status.
Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better.
Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live!
Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol....
Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers.
Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status.
Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play.
As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh. ===============================================================
I don't disagree with everything you say -- at least the bits I can understand :) -- but I would say Queen I wasn't very successful not because it is overcomplicated but because it didn't get enough promotion. There was a market for Queen music (as Queen II demonstrated) but hardly anyone knew they existed. And the audience who might've bought Queen I were turned off because of unsympathetic press coverage: remember, some journalists portrayed Queen as a manufactured band which hadn't done the spade work of live shows and touring.
jazzy mercurois wrote: It's SAD to see people arguing about which one of these albums is better.
What about the music? I mean, where do we leave it? Does music in music matter less than influence? Impact?
To you, it clearly does.
Can you all play the songs on Queen I? On guitar? Bass? Drums? Even piano? Note by note?
I completely assure that's far harder than anything on Led Zeppelin I and it has the wonderful touch of being performed PROPERLY, like it should. Unlike Led Zeppelin, of course (which you don't seem to realize).
The Sex Pistols were also hugely influential, should we say that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS "blows Queen I away"? ******************************************************************************************
I couldn't agree with you more... music is more important thatn influence... that's why we aren't bringing up The Velvet Underground or Tom Waits or as you say the Sex Pistols.... these guys had influence... Because the music wasn't important, they could only achieve cult status.
Let's look at Led Zeppelin vs. Queen... the *music* sounds better in Zeppelin... just because a song is more complicated to play doesn't make it a better song... For fuck sake's, just by that comment you seem to think the Beatles Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The White Album PALES IN CONTRAST to Queen in terms of which album is better.
Each of those Beatles albums are absolute classics... you can listen to each of those (And I don't mean think of each of those) and the music will speak for itself. Easy fucking songs to play! Christ, Green Day would have no trouble playing any of them live!
Just because songs are more complex doesn't mean it sounds better. Hey Jude vs. Great King Rat. To Jazzy Mercurois, Great King Rat should be hailed as the greatest song of all time because anyone can play Hey Jude.... but can you play Great King Rat? Can you play My Fairy King? no. lol....
Let's go back to Led Zeppelin.... Queen might be more complex... but Led Zeppelin has better songs... not in my opinion... but to the opinion of millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals. Queen's goal was to satisfy the same millions and millions of poor-tasted individuals... they wanted hit records... they didn't want to record Queen II throughout their careers. So it's not like they recorded Queen with the intention of putting out a complex album... it turned out that way because they were good arrangers.
Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had. Zeppelin went into a studio and recorded EXACTLY what they wanted to. No pussyfooting there... 29 recording hours and they walk off with what you here in Led Zeppelin... efficient, exciting, great-sounding, not so though-provoking, not overly complex, not many overdubs or layers, but just enough grit to catapult the album to landmark status.
Led Zeppelin, easy album to play. Revolver, easy album to play. The White Album, easy album to play. Sgt Pepper, easy album to play. OK Computer, easy album to play. Nevermind, easy easy album to play. Queen, hard to play. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, hard to play.
As Al Pacino would say... Whoo-Ahh. ===============================================================
I don't disagree with everything you say -- at least the bits I can understand :) -- but I would say Queen I wasn't very successful not because it is overcomplicated but because it didn't get enough promotion. There was a market for Queen music (as Queen II demonstrated) but hardly anyone knew they existed. And the audience who might've bought Queen I were turned off because of unsympathetic press coverage: remember, some journalists portrayed Queen as a manufactured band which hadn't done the spade work of live shows and touring.
Sith
I was wondering when you were going to comment on this thread Bob.
I couldn't agree with you more, but at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion and
as long as we are free to express our opinions, this thread can go on and on.
I personally love both debut albums and try not to compare them. They are both great in their own respect.
Hope all is well .
I couldn't agree with you more, but at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion and
as long as we are free to express our opinions, this thread can go on and on.
I personally love both debut albums and try not to compare them. They are both great in their own respect.
Hope all is well .
brENsKi
Jimmy Dean wrote: Queen's first album barely turned heads because the music was overly complex, not immediately appealing, and didn't have the same heart and soul that Zeppelin had.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
....i agreed with all you said except for this bit ^^^^
i think there was a lot more to why Queen I bombed....queen hyped themselves...they "arranged" (if i remember rightly)...for press people to be at "specially arranged" gigs...they refused point-blank to so the small venue circut that all the other bands did...they considered the college/uni/pub circut an "unnecessary" grind...and this "pretentiousness and self-importance" backfired a little....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
....i agreed with all you said except for this bit ^^^^
i think there was a lot more to why Queen I bombed....queen hyped themselves...they "arranged" (if i remember rightly)...for press people to be at "specially arranged" gigs...they refused point-blank to so the small venue circut that all the other bands did...they considered the college/uni/pub circut an "unnecessary" grind...and this "pretentiousness and self-importance" backfired a little....
rottenjohnny1963
anybody ever heard queen do immigrant song?they did it in some countries on the magic tour,only did about a minute of it!