How people see Queen in the U.S.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Gallows Pole, Tangerine, Dyer Maker and Kashmir are completely different genres of music. Their albums were as eclectic as Queen's were. And Queen were doing the androgyny thing that was popular in the mid 70s. Zeppelin had their complete own image and mysticism. It's a curious blip in everything we think we know about American popular culture. If all the stereotypes would ring true, then Zeppelin should've gone down like a lead balloon like Keith Moon said they would.[/QUOTE]
exactly. factor in the (often derided) In Through The Out Door...and you get Zep's diversity in one album
but yes, zep ventured into different styles 3 years before queen's first lp.

"stairway's a ballad"....ffs!!!!

[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]

So I gues it depends on thr territory you are when it comes to North American continent : LZ is the winner big time.

(Western) Europe Queen : smashes LZ to a pubband
[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Zeppelin toured the US 11 times - including 4x in 1969 alone. This cemented their popularity.

They toured Europe half as many times, and the tours weren't nearly as long. And there's a good reason for it.

Peter Grant was the brains of the operation. He knew Zeppelin would be big in the States. The timing was perfect for their heavy take on the blues (the roots of which were almost entirely American), and it allowed them to blossom into the eclectic artists they became by the fourth album.

Zeppelin schooled the public in their own musical roots without them even realizing it.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
i would say, that the order of greatness is probably
beatles
lez zep
michael jackson
and then (in no particular order)
stones, queen, who, floyd, elton, bowie
[/QUOTE]

And Elvis. Can't forget him.

Garth Brooks and Billy Joel have sold like hotcakes too.

brENsKi- 7800 posts
The Real Wizard- 17573 posts
this says to me that no amount or arguments will be enough for the likes of you, I was tempted to reply but it is a waste of my time in this case...

[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]

brENsKi- 7800 posts
The Real Wizard- 17573 posts
this says to me that no amount or arguments will be enough for the likes of you, I was tempted to reply but it is a waste of my time in this case...[/QUOTE]

The fact that I've posted here for a while doesn't make me immune to listening or growth.

Please, present some facts about why Queen is better than Zeppelin.

As if it's a contest. It isn't. Record sales and concert attendance are the only way to tangibly measure success or greatness. All else is relative to taste.

So you're not going to make any progress here because you're fighting an unwinnable battle. You just don't like Zeppelin, or don't know enough of their music. That isn't an argument for their lack of quality.

And your signature ("fuckers", as opposed to something meaningful or clever) reveals the level of depth you're likely to bring to any conversation here. But you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]

It depends a lot of where you live. Here in Western European coutries only a few know about LZ. Most of the people <25 wouldn't know who they are. If you would ask for great LZ songs at people know or like some wouldn't say Stairway... But most of them
Don't know any hit from LZ or cannot come up with a LZ song.

LZ has no radio play in my country. Except for the annual polls around Xmas with only one song perhaps WLOL as well.

On the other hand Queen have annualy about 25-35 entries in such list. Everyone older as 16 years can tell you who Queen is. And name a couple of their songs.

No matter which radio station I listen to every 2-3 hrs there is a Queen song being played. When BM farts in the UK it will the newspapers.


So I gues it depends on thr territory you are when it comes to North American continent : LZ is the winner big time.

(Western) Europe Queen : smashes LZ to a pubband

[/QUOTE]
none of that counts for f-all. sorry but it doesn't. 4 million MORE people worldwide own Lez Zep IV (their biggest biggest selling) than Queen's Greatest Hits. add to that that 25% of queen's GH were sold in the UK...that means that an original studio album by Zep outsells QGH by 1/6th - (29 m vs 25m)

but as I said to Bob, someone would eventually drag this thread away from the uSA - which is what it was really about...but let's humour you a little

let's take BOTH bands' biggest selling oriignal work and for good measure use Sgt Pepper as a comparator:
sales (in 000s)

......................USA........UK......Fr.....Germ...Cana...Hol.....Ausl
Sgt Pepper....11,000....5,000..88.....500.......800.....65.....280
Led Zep IV....23,000....1,800...970..750......2,000...100...560
ANATO...........3,000.......300...650...500........100.....75....n/a


looking at the above it kinda makes your "western europe" argument look very very weak
zep IV blitzes even the great Sgt Pepper (on a worldwide scale)...which in turn blitzes ANATO (in europe)

[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]

brENsKi- 7800 posts
The Real Wizard- 17573 posts
this says to me that no amount or arguments will be enough for the likes of you, I was tempted to reply but it is a waste of my time in this case...[/QUOTE]

surely the argument here is accepting reality? the fact that i can appreciate the greatness of a band i've never particularly loved must say that i'm open to discussion. as opposed to you who has crown-crest blinkers on

instead of dismissing stuff because "it ain't queen" try broadening your horizons a little.
if nothing else consider this fact:

if you spent every waking moment of your life reading a different great book, in your lifetime you'd hardly scratch the surface of ALL of the great books ever written...just think how sad that is. now, stop and think...this same rule applies to recorded music.


ffs fella, give 'em a chance...let some "other stuff" in...life is far too short

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]

It depends a lot of where you live. Here in Western European coutries only a few know about LZ. Most of the people <25 wouldn't know who they are. If you would ask for great LZ songs at people know or like some wouldn't say Stairway... But most of them
Don't know any hit from LZ or cannot come up with a LZ song.

LZ has no radio play in my country. Except for the annual polls around Xmas with only one song perhaps WLOL as well.

On the other hand Queen have annualy about 25-35 entries in such list. Everyone older as 16 years can tell you who Queen is. And name a couple of their songs.

No matter which radio station I listen to every 2-3 hrs there is a Queen song being played. When BM farts in the UK it will the newspapers.


So I gues it depends on thr territory you are when it comes to North American continent : LZ is the winner big time.

(Western) Europe Queen : smashes LZ to a pubband

[/QUOTE]
none of that counts for f-all. sorry but it doesn't. 4 million MORE people worldwide own Lez Zep IV (their biggest biggest selling) than Queen's Greatest Hits. add to that that 25% of queen's GH were sold in the UK...that means that an original studio album by Zep outsells QGH by 1/6th - (29 m vs 25m)

but as I said to Bob, someone would eventually drag this thread away from the uSA - which is what it was really about...but let's humour you a little

let's take BOTH bands' biggest selling oriignal work and for good measure use Sgt Pepper as a comparator:
sales (in 000s)

......................USA........UK......Fr.....Germ...Cana...Hol.....Ausl
Sgt Pepper....11,000....5,000..88.....500.......800.....65.....280
Led Zep IV....23,000....1,800...970..750......2,000...100...560
ANATO...........3,000.......300...650...500........100.....75....n/a


looking at the above it kinda makes your "western europe" argument look very very weak
zep IV blitzes even the great Sgt Pepper (on a worldwide scale)...which in turn blitzes ANATO (in europe)[/QUOTE]



Hi man ,

I like your approach but still disagree.
To compare sales sum up the catalogue combined sales.

You mention "biggest selling original work" for Queen this is "Made in Heaven"not ANATO and sold almost 250,000 units in my country.

My argument still stands , LZ sold a lot less compared to Q in western europe. It is easy to pick one kf their works but that only disects the argument.

figures i just found would kinda dispute your claim fella

total album sales in millions
..................worldwide sales....usa sales....rest of world
queen........103.9....................40.9............63.0
led zep.......138.8...................63.8............75.0

even allowing for led zep (maybe) selling more than queen in australasia and the far east - there's a 12.0million margin to play with
this would equate to led zep outselling queen throughout europe, surely.
even more impressive when you account that GH has sold almost 9million in europe

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

figures i just found would kinda dispute your claim fella

total album sales in millions
..................worldwide sales....usa sales....rest of world
queen........103.9....................40.9............63.0
led zep.......138.8...................63.8............75.0

even allowing for led zep (maybe) selling more than queen in australasia and the far east - there's a 12.0million margin to play with
this would equate to led zep outselling queen throughout europe, surely.
even more impressive when you account that GH has sold almost 9million in europe[/QUOTE]


Sorry still have to stand groud.

Quick google led me to various figures. You can google anything you want and find the answers you want.

My point : in general Q outsold LZ in western europe.

That means in figures if you like or by their legacy.

Here check the western euro countries and make a sum up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists


Holland isn't included but should be the same % as Germany.


Belgium never kept lists and is divided by the flamish chart and the walonian charts.


These sales are specific for western europe not Us and non Us.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]queenUSA wrote:[/b]

I can tell you this though, they're not playing Led Zep at sports arenas over here.[/QUOTE]

They didn't play Queen songs at high school dances, but Stairway closed nearly every high school dance for a decade - a painful 8 minutes if you didn't like who you were dancing with !

^ neither of these things are an indication of quality of music nor how many people consume/consumed them.

Zeppelin was and is bigger than Queen in the US. Always was, always will be.

Queen filled arenas. Zeppelin filled stadiums.

This really is undebatable.

It's Queen's music that's played in stadiums and arenas to this day at sporting events - not Led Zep and that is not debatable. That was my point.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, you don't hear Zep at sporting events as much as Queen.....but how many guitar shops have you seen with a "No Bohemian Rhapsody" sign???


Hehe.....I saw that part in Wayne's World ("No Stairway! Denied!") and thought it was a joke until I started playing guitar a few years later...

And hell, if who gets songs played more often at sporting events is what we're going by, then you would say Europe, Gary Glitter, Survivor, Blur, the White Stripes, and Journey are all bigger than Led Zeppelin....

Sod it, I'm still at it on that forum (I got notifications on there). It's the outright dismissal of Queen that gets me (I know it shouldn't), which is not what brENsKi or The Real Wizard is doing. 

And I'm not a stepford either - That should've been apparent from my Beatles post on here.

[b]Person X[/b]: [i]I can't forget The Worst Rock 'n' Roll Records of All Time referring to Freddie Mercury as "looking like Mick Jagger impersonating Robert Plant."[/i]

[b]Me[/b]:[i] And yet neither of them made any impact compared to Mercury at Live Aid.[/i]

[b]Person Y[/b]:[i] Lol who cares? Freddie was still in his prime in 85 and Queen were still a contemporary band. The Stones by 85 were past their prime by about a decade and Zep hadn't been together in 5 years. Freakin George Michael made an impact at the 92 Freddie tribute concert doing Somebody to Love. What does that mean? U2 hadn't reached their prime in 85 and they were great as well at Live Aid.[/i]

[b]Me[/b]: [i]Well obviously you care. It makes no odds, Plant and Jagger were vastly overshadowed by Mercury at Live Aid (and arguably as a front man / singer in general)... and Mercury was only three years younger than Jagger, and two years younger than Plant, not to mention that Mercury's doctor advised him not to perform that day. It could also be argued that Queen were also past their prime by 85 too.[/i]

@Day dop:

i think you picked the wrong approach fella.
LiveAid was 20 minutes.....and really not that significant in the scheme of things. they may have stolen the show...but an awful lot of bands didn't turn up to prove anything, they gave their time primarily for the good cause.

the facts speak for themselves:
while Zep's line-up was unbroken, they never released a bad album - yeah sure a couple were below their usual standard, but they were still good. and - as Bob said - the intense touring of America early on cemented their reputation.

queen on the other hand - regardless of what the apologists might say - DID make some dodgy albums - HS, works, magic, and even the miracle

zep were much bigger in america because - quite simply - they worked their tits off to break the US.

it's said that "if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold"...well that pretty much applies to music...the beatles worked this out and so did zep.