While your post is appropriate to the discussion, it's going to go right over jpf's head, because in musical discussions he operates upon two assumptions :
A). The Beatles didn't exist
B). America is the only country on Earth worth talking about.
It makes it a lot easier for him to put Kiss at the top of the food chain when they're realistically a 2nd tier band at best. BEARING IN MIND that I don't have a problem with Kiss and I don't see why people hate them so much ... it's not a question of how good or bad they are. If you know what you are in for, then you know what to expect and thus shouldn't have any great disappointments. It's like going to Remembrance Day celebrations and complaining about the minute's silence.
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: Of course everything wasn't top notch
BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE!
"LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. ----
LZ was far more influential than Queen.
Much bigger band in the U.S.
Much bigger band worldwide.
Much bigger influence on other bands, guitarists, drummers, and singers.
Had far more radio airplay.
You like Queen and hate LZ. No big deal. Doesn't change the fact that LZ will always dominate over Queen.
Just something you have to deal with. ---- ------- ----------- Yes, dude. That's music to you. Sales and airplay. That's what music is about.
In fact, Led Zeppelin is better than Chopin because they sold more albums!
Yayyyy, you win! Congratz!
mike hunt · Member since
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote:
Much bigger band worldwide.
Had far more radio airplay.
============================
That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable.
Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you.
In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played.
That is so true man!......everyone thinks if a band is bigger in America than that means they're bigger everywhere. The fact is if we're going by record sales than Queen blow away Zeppelin. it's not even close. Queen are the biggest selling band aside from the Beatles worldwide. Zeppelin isn't even on the radar. So all these Zep, The stones fans need to deal with the fact that queen out sold them all.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Right on. And let's take it a step further - ask the average American if they know who Nana Mouskouri and Cliff Richard are. Each of them have sold about as many records as Queen have. Nana has sold more records than all the female singers who are purported to be the best-selling female artists ever ... Whitney, Mariah, etc.
jpf · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park.
-----
"frustarting"
LOL
You're a fucking moron.
Dumbass.
jpf · Member since
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: LOL...no many times you tell him what the OP is asking for, even though the OP says to disregard "influence" and "sales" and give us YOUR personal opinion, he can only revert back to "influence" and "sales" to back up his claim that "LZ 1 blows awayQueen 1".
Holly, I'm not wasting anymore time on this caveman. ----
I already gave my personal opinion, dumbass.
LZ 1 blows away Queen 1.
Here's a tissue so you can dry your eyes.
jpf · Member since
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: qrok...Thanks for starting a great, interesting thread. It was fun until that uncommunicative neanderthal walked into it with knuckles dragging on the ground.
----
Yeah, Hollycunt does fuck up a lot of threads.
jpf · Member since
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote:
Much bigger band worldwide.
Had far more radio airplay.
============================
That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable.
Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you.
In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played. ----
From wiki:
Led Zep
More than 30 years after disbanding following Bonham's death in 1980, Led Zeppelin continue to be held in high regard for their artistic achievements, commercial success, and broad influence. The band sold over 200 million albums worldwide according to some sources,[7] while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records,[8] including 111.5 million certified units in the United States,[9] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists of all time, as well as the fourth best selling group of all time in the United States.[9] They have had all of their original studio albums reach the top 10 of the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching the number one spot.[10] Rolling Stone magazine has described Led Zeppelin as "the heaviest band of all time",[11] "the biggest band of the '70s"[12] and "unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in rock history".[1] Similarly, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame described the band in the 1970s as being "as influential in that decade as The Beatles were in the prior one".[13]
Queen
The band has released a total of 18 number one albums, 18 number one singles and 10 number one DVDs, and have sold over 150 million albums, with some estimates in excess of 300 million albums,[8][9][10][11][12] making them one of the world's best-selling music artists. They have been honoured with seven Ivor Novello awards and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.[13]
Zebonka12 wrote: While your post is appropriate to the discussion, it's going to go right over jpf's head, because in musical discussions he operates upon two assumptions :
A). The Beatles didn't exist
B). America is the only country on Earth worth talking about.
It makes it a lot easier for him to put Kiss at the top of the food chain when they're realistically a 2nd tier band at best. BEARING IN MIND that I don't have a problem with Kiss and I don't see why people hate them so much ... it's not a question of how good or bad they are. If you know what you are in for, then you know what to expect and thus shouldn't have any great disappointments. It's like going to Remembrance Day celebrations and complaining about the minute's silence. ---
You'd be wrong on both accounts.
The Beatles existed. The Beatles sucked. With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three.
2nd tier bands don't last nearly 40 years, sell 100 million units, just come off one of their most successful worldwide tours, will be going into the studio to record their 20th studio cd next week, and have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz.
KISS continues to last. They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. They performed more concerts and they released more studio cds than those bands and many other bands.
jpf · Member since
jazzy mercurois wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: Of course everything wasn't top notch
BUT STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN LED ZEPPELIN, THAT'S FOR SURE!
"LED ZEPPELIN I IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S MORE INFLUENTIAL" That's as far as your musical knowledge goes: checking record sales. ----
LZ was far more influential than Queen.
Much bigger band in the U.S.
Much bigger band worldwide.
Much bigger influence on other bands, guitarists, drummers, and singers.
Had far more radio airplay.
You like Queen and hate LZ. No big deal. Doesn't change the fact that LZ will always dominate over Queen.
Just something you have to deal with. ---- ------- ----------- Yes, dude. That's music to you. Sales and airplay. That's what music is about.
In fact, Led Zeppelin is better than Chopin because they sold more albums!
Yayyyy, you win! Congratz! ----
Of course I win. Led Zeppelin influenced far more musicians than Queen.
jpf · Member since
mike hunt wrote: Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote:
Much bigger band worldwide.
Had far more radio airplay.
============================
That is definitely not true. Zeppelin were bigger than Queen in the US (with only 1980 as an exception, as The Game was massively successful), but Queen are second to the Beatles in the UK and most of Europe. Queen have been on the album charts longer than The Beatles in the UK, so that one is pretty undebatable.
Zeppelin are not heard on the radio in Europe nearly as much as Queen are. Ask the Europeans here and they will tell you.
In South America and Japan, Queen were the second coming after The Beatles... Zeppelin only did two tours of Japan, and were really not that big. Even Cheap Trick were bigger than Zeppelin in Japan. Although, out of interest, the Japanese 71 shows are highly revered by Zeppelin fans as some of the best shows they ever played.
That is so true man!......everyone thinks if a band is bigger in America than that means they're bigger everywhere. The fact is if we're going by record sales than Queen blow away Zeppelin. it's not even close. Queen are the biggest selling band aside from the Beatles worldwide. Zeppelin isn't even on the radar. So all these Zep, The stones fans need to deal with the fact that queen out sold them all.
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park.
It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world.
The Real Wizard · Member since
jpf wrote:
From wiki:
================
Um, the post you replied to was about radio airplay and popularity in specific areas of the world, not record sales as sourced by Wikipedia. Being a troll is one thing, but please, learn to read and contribute to the discussion in a valid, helpful way.
The Real Wizard · Member since
jpf wrote:
KISS continues to last. They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin. They performed more concerts and they released more studio cds than those bands and many other bands.
==================
Longevity does not make a good band. If that's the case, then the Stones are better than everyone including the Beatles... and Kiss.
When Zeppelin and Queen lost key members, they called it a day. When Ace left Kiss, they should've done the same. Kiss is a corporation that makes a lot of money. They have not been musically or culturally relevant for 30 years. Without Ace and Peter, Kiss are a tribute band. Ace was the sound.
If you to make music a competition, Bon Jovi are more relevant than Kiss today. And they have sold more records than Kiss... not that such statistics matter, but you used record sales to try to prove that Zeppelin are bigger than Queen worldwide... so there you go. Bon Jovi's last few albums have sold millions of copies each. The last Kiss album didn't even go gold.
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
The Beatles suck? Arguably the best band to ever exist, but some dude says they suck.
A band formed by God, a genius, a great musician and the best human to ever exist.
The sense of melody they had has yet to be matched. Great ideas, wonderfully crafted. Clever arrangements, always there to improve the music.
The perfect pop band.
Whereas Led Zeppelin had a very good drummer, obviously better than Ringo (who is VERY underrated among drummers, even tho he is way above the level of guys like Nick Mason, for example) and a great bass player, better than Paul McCartney... Jimmy Page and Robert Plant don't have much to offer next to Harrison and McCartney as guitar player and singer, respectively.
You may say that Jimmy Page bla bla bla but the truth is that Jimmy never got to play something as delicate and gentle as the solo from Something. He tried, of course... but never succeeded the way George did. And that's without mentioning that George later became a much better guitar player than he already was on The Beatles. And Paul... well, let's just say that falsetto screams only doesn't do the whole trick. Paul was an amazing singer with lots of variations and great sense of phrasing. Much better than Robert Plant's early days, later days, new born days, dying old man days... you name the era, Paul was always better.
And OF COURSE, they sold more albums than Led Zeppelin. And influenced much more people. MUUUUUUUUUUUCH more people.
So according to jpf's POOR musical view, The Beatles are the best band to ever exist.
Which is even better because they have too many musical reasons why they indeed could (or should) be considered the best. And now we can add that even when an idiot (who doesn't really know shit about music itself and only deals in sales numbers and other non-important/non-musical things) brings up other reasons why a band should be considered the best, The Beatles still are #1 according to those things too.
