>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)
That's kind of unfair, as Zeppelin came much later. It'd be like blaming The Beatles for not having 16 track tape and then calling Quincy Jones a better producer than George Martin only for that reason. Ringo really wrote the book for most of the rock drummers who came after him. Most of the things that became commonplace in rock drumming by the late 60s simply did not exist before Ringo. Listen to Rain - nobody was doing that in 1966.
>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.
Listen to The Rain Song and you'll hear delicate. But for a solo, listen to the slide work in What Is And What Should Never Be. But overall, Page was at his most delicate on the acoustic guitar. Most would agree that Page was a far better acoustic player than electric.
>you name the era, Paul was always better.
1970-1972 ... Robert Plant was the man. Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer.
Otherwise, your post is bang on. Nobody in their right mind can deny that The Beatles are the biggest, best-selling, culturally paradigm shifting and influential artists of the last hundred years.
john bodega · Member since
"(kiss) have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz."
I bet they're sorry they bothered - I sure as shit would be. It's like hearing your skills as a hairdresser inspired someone to become a scalp-obsessed serial killer.
"They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin"
I'm not even sure what your point is. No one is telling you that Kiss is a commercial failure or failed to connect with a huge audience. They made a lot of money and have a lot of fans - those are the facts. I'm not sure why you listed 3 bands who made more interesting music to further your point, though. Kiss didn't do Millionaire Waltz or March of the Black Queen, they didn't do Quadrophenia, and they didn't do No Quarter. Quite frankly, I'd exchange a long career for a career where I'd written any of those songs...
"With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three"
That's nice. While you're listening to some crap like "Spies Like Us", the rest of the world is enjoying some seriously good music that you've missed out on. This doesn't bother me!
"Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer."
I think they sing in two different idioms, but personally I'm kind of glad that they get compared in this day and age, because people forget that while Paul McCartney wasn't a strutting 70's rock-god frontman, he was still a singer who was comparable to any of them. Perhaps my taste in singers isn't all there (I dig Ted Neeley, whom people regularly accuse of sounding like cats screeching) but Plant and Macca both sit in the same basket as far as I'm concerned - damn fine singers - at least some of the time, in Plant's case. But there again, I don't like his classic era as much as I like the sound he had around Knebworth - husky, fucked up, and desperate to get the high notes again. At least he sounds like he's trying! You can learn technique, but you can't imitate the sound of someone who's ruining their own voice for the sake of art. Crazy days.
Gregsynth · Member since
Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc).
Sebastian · Member since
Regarding Ringo writing the book on rock drumming, I completely disagree.
Russia's by far the largest country in the world. Compare it to any other and (with only three or four exceptions), it's twice as large. But compare it to the WHOLE world and it's only a small percentage.
Same case here: Ringo's by far the most influential drummer of his time. Compare it to any other (even Moon) and Ringo's at least twice as influential. Compare it to ALL of the drummers combined and it's only a small percentage. So: he didn't write the book on drumming. He did write more pages than the others, but his contribution was still just one of the many, many, many that had to be for such book to exist. Same for The Beatles as a whole.
john bodega · Member since
Book writing really isn't the analogy for this. For starters, you don't usually invent the language in which your book is written. Books also have things like references, acknowledgements ... all kinds of crap.
Sebastian · Member since
It fits then: nothing that Ringo did hadn't been done before. 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done'. Ringo did have a stroke of genius organising existing things in a way nobody had done, just like Shakespeare didn't invent the words 'to' 'be' 'or' and 'not', yet arranged a classic intro for a soliloquy using them.
mike hunt · Member since
jpf 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. ----
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]
That list changed since the last time i looked at it......But going by that list ABBA have sold more than Zep. does that make them better?....I'm not even debating Zep had a bigger Influence, but i'm Just saying record sales don't tell the whole story. kiss don't compare to Queen in any way. not even close. the Beatles are the biggest and most Influencial band ever. Yes, even more so than Zep.
PrimeJiveUSA · Member since
jpf...this thread's been my first interaction with you.
You've been totally rude and obnoxious...but what the hell, that's the way a lot of people are on the internet.
I just have one question...are you a Queen fan?
I mean this IS a Queen fan site...and it seems you want to talk about how every other band is better than Queen.
I mean...wtf?
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
Sebastian wrote: It fits then: nothing that Ringo did hadn't been done before. 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done'. Ringo did have a stroke of genius organising existing things in a way nobody had done, just like Shakespeare didn't invent the words 'to' 'be' 'or' and 'not', yet arranged a classic intro for a soliloquy using them. ----------- ------- ---- But that's part of the creation as well.
Sebastian · Member since
Exactly! And, as such, it should be neither under- nor over-rated.
jpf · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: 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. ----
You're a moron.
You're a moronic cunt.
Sums you up perfectly.
jpf · Member since
Sir GH wrote: 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.
----
LZ 1 blows away Queen 1.
LZ 1 influenced more bands than Queen 1.
LZ was a far more influential band than Queen.
LZ sold more worldwide than Queen.
BTW, I haven't listened to my LZ lps in more than 20 years, they aren't even in my top 10 favorite groups, and Queen is my 2nd favorite band. With that said LZ was the bigger band.
jpf · Member since
Sir GH wrote: 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.
----
KISS continues to last. Those other bands didn't for a variety of reasons.
When Ace left KISS he left because he was an alcoholic, drug addicted POS. Good riddance. Same goes for Peter Criss.
Ace wasn't the sound of KISS, Paul and Gene were and still are. They're the ones who wrote 85% of the material during '74 - '81. KISS was always their band. They're the two who started it and hired the other two. They were the two who weren't fucked up on alcohol and drugs, didn't lose their musical skills, didn't lose their record contract, and didn't end up declaring bankruptcy.
Ace was "the sound". LOL. He had a failed "solo career". So much for your logic. LOL.
KISS will start recording studio cd number 20 this coming Monday. Looking forward to another great cd.
Who cares about Bon Jovi? LOL Shit music for soccer moms. LOL
Some of KISS' best records didn't go platinum. No big deal.
jpf · Member since
jazzy mercurois wrote: 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.
You gotta admit you can't beat the Fab Four.
---
That's correct. The Beatles suck. Can't stand Lennon, Harrison, and Starr. Can't stand their music.
"Best human to ever exist". You mean the one who beat his wife, abandoned his son, and was a drug addict. Way to go. Lennon was a POS.
Never said The Beatles weren't influential. I said they sucked. I have no use for them. They didn't make me want to pick up a guitar and learn how to play it. Completely overrated band.
jpf · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "(kiss) have influenced artists ranging from Metallica to Garth Brooks to Lenny Kravitz."
I bet they're sorry they bothered - I sure as shit would be. It's like hearing your skills as a hairdresser inspired someone to become a scalp-obsessed serial killer.
"They lasted longer than Queen, The Who, and Led Zeppelin"
I'm not even sure what your point is. No one is telling you that Kiss is a commercial failure or failed to connect with a huge audience. They made a lot of money and have a lot of fans - those are the facts. I'm not sure why you listed 3 bands who made more interesting music to further your point, though. Kiss didn't do Millionaire Waltz or March of the Black Queen, they didn't do Quadrophenia, and they didn't do No Quarter. Quite frankly, I'd exchange a long career for a career where I'd written any of those songs...
"With the exception of Paul McCartney I have no use for the other three"
That's nice. While you're listening to some crap like "Spies Like Us", the rest of the world is enjoying some seriously good music that you've missed out on. This doesn't bother me!
"Comparing him to McCartney as a singer is kind of pointless, since they are two completely different singers. But Plant, when he was on his game, was a superb singer."
I think they sing in two different idioms, but personally I'm kind of glad that they get compared in this day and age, because people forget that while Paul McCartney wasn't a strutting 70's rock-god frontman, he was still a singer who was comparable to any of them. Perhaps my taste in singers isn't all there (I dig Ted Neeley, whom people regularly accuse of sounding like cats screeching) but Plant and Macca both sit in the same basket as far as I'm concerned - damn fine singers - at least some of the time, in Plant's case. But there again, I don't like his classic era as much as I like the sound he had around Knebworth - husky, fucked up, and desperate to get the high notes again. At least he sounds like he's trying! You can learn technique, but you can't imitate the sound of someone who's ruining their own voice for the sake of art. Crazy days.
-----
I thank KISS for not recording "Millionaire Waltz" and "Black Queen". Not exactly Queen's prime material.
