Queen vs Led Zeppelin as live bands

[email protected] wrote:

Freddie vs Robert. As much as I love Plant I’ll take Freddie any day as I believe that Freddie is more of a complete artist.

Also, Freddie took better care of his vocals where he would choose alternate notes and still sound musical.

Welcome to the forum. Great first post !

I'll just contest these two points. I consider Plant no less of an artist than Mercury. The diversity of the ground Plant has covered puts him on par with worldly guys like Ry Cooder and Peter Gabriel. He is one of the great artists of our time, but most people just don't see it because they just want to see him sing Whole Lotta Love again.

And while you're right about Plant's voice going downhill by 75, there are plenty of Queen tours where Mercury didn't take care of himself, either (Japan 79 and Europe 84 are the two most cited ones). Mercury's voice fluctuated all throughout his touring life. He was at his vocal best live from late 79 through mid 82, but he was always well rested and strong in the studio.

Plant may have lost much of his range, but his voice now has a special character that has come with maturity. I'd way rather listen to him now than how he sounds on Presence.

But of course this is ultimately splitting hairs. Listen to Mercury's 1987-91 output, and vocally speaking, little of what Plant has done since 1972 can even remotely compete, if any at all.

No Mike I meant that Queen would have been on top as a rock band.

Just not in America. That's where I'm from. Zep
I are bigger here.

Generally speaking, North america would say Led Zeppelin. The rest of the world would say Queen.

but at least Queen didn't copy other musicians' songs, like LZ did.. I like Led Zeppelin, but when it comes to writing their own songs, Queen wins.. it's one thing to sound a bit like your music idols, emulate their sound or style, but it is completely different when you rip others' music:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-20160622
The press may have accused Queen of many things, but stealing from others was never the case

I'm no Huge Zep fan, but the whole stealing songs is a bit overblown. They wrote timeless songs with a sound that rock bands copy to this day. In all honesty, if we're talking Influence, It's not even close. Zeppelin wins. Even Brian said in his day every band tried to sound like Zeppelin.

"just want to see him sing Whole Lotta Love again"

nutshell.gif

the guy's voice may have been kinda gone by the mid 70's but I still think he gets sold short. The guy threw everything he had at the Knebworth shows, and you just don't hear a lot of 'better' singers putting in that kind of effort.

He also really didn't benefit from a couple of his most visible efforts post-Zeppelin (Live Aid and the Freddie Tribute) being shambolic. He more than redeemed himself during some 90's appearances.

Plant doesn't get sold short....every debate I see from rock fans for best singer his name always pops up at #1 or 2. It's usually The Freddie Vs Plant debate. Of course others get mentioned as well, but those two are considered among the best. They were good at different things..I think plant was stronger singing High like on those first records, while Mercury was a bit stronger mid to lower range. Both had the most Important thing that's more Important than range, and that's originality and character, Something Lambert doesn't have.

"Plant doesn't get sold short"

Sure he does! He comes highly on those polls for a very limited time in his career when he sounded a certain way. I'm just saying that there was more to the guy and it wasn't all bad.