Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Queen I vs Led Zep I

forum rss feed
Author

qrock user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 313 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 11:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen's debut has often been compared to Led Zep's debut. Most of the time, Led Zep I is seen as the surperior album (as it is far surperior in popularity and sales) however has Queen I been too underlooked for too long and is Queen I really up there with classic debuts of even better than Led Zep I. Personally, I prefer the depth and variety on Queen I than any of the Led Zep 1.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 11:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen I had way more variety.  The only thing that Led Zeppelin I had for it was that Plant was possibly a more honed singer at that point in time.  Remember that a couple of years before the first Queen album, Freddie was just a screeching lunatic that couldn't sing much of anything.  On the other hand, Plant was arguably at his best on the first LZ album, and then lost his voice through misuse.  (Read up on his continual singing-through-illness-and-colds, it's a bit sad actually).

Keeping in mind that when I say Plant lost his voice, I mean that he gradually lost the ability to sound the way he did on the first few albums.  He's had a few different 'voices' throughout his career, and I like most of them.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
jazzy mercurois user not visiting Queenzone.com
Holy shred!
jazzy mercurois
Royalty: 1716 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 12:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Led Zeppelin I has something that Queen I hasn't: lots of mistakes.

Queen I is a pretty good album with some really interesting ideas.

As for Led Zeppelin... well, you know. It's funny how something as poorly performed is considered among the best bands. It's like... making fun of people, actually. Like someone wanted to have fun and started saying that led zeppelin was a great band and then everyone said that too.

It's tragic, to me.


CONLACANTINACONLACANTORACONLATELEVISIONGASTADORA
rottenjohnny1963 user not visiting Queenzone.com


add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 13:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

led zep,queen,and rush are my fave bands of all time,so in my view,you can't go wrong with any of them.i think that freddy mercury is the greatest singer/performer/rock star/musician that ever lived by far! led zeppelin is the greatest band ever,slightly ahead of queen to me.i have been fans of both since their 1st ;lps came out,and i'm glad led zep broke up when bonham died.i wish queen would have done the same thing after the benefit concert in 1992 because queen with anybody other than freddy is a piss poor imitation at best!


"The bigger,the better!In Everything.

[freddy mercury]
spaceboy1972 user not visiting Queenzone.com
spaceboy1972
Champion: 73 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 14:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

They're both awesome albums in their respective categories. Led Zep were part of the Blues/Progressive movement some of which gave rise to NWOBHM. I guess they both set precedents in terms of "having a game plan" - both Jimmy Page and Freddie Mercury are/were shrewd operators in their respective fields.

Either way the 60's / 70's music scene would have been a lot poorer without both!

Over the Field user not visiting Queenzone.com
Over the Field
Bohemian: 170 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 14:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zep I is a great album as well as Queen I. But yes, Queen I has more diversity, but that doesn't make Zep I worse.

I don't get it that Zep I is poorly performed. By who? Plant sings technically a VERY difficult stuff. Blending between registers and those high notes. He is even a baritone and sang something that even rock tenors of his era couldn't even dream about.
If you say that Bonham performed poorly, listen Good Times Bad Times drumming and admit that he was ahead of his time.
Jones's melodic bass lines are wonderful and Page guitar works keep me amazed even today.

But I still prefer Queen I. A very underrated album indeed.

jazzy mercurois user not visiting Queenzone.com
Holy shred!
jazzy mercurois
Royalty: 1716 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 14:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Page's guitar work is what always was: very poor.

And Plant's FALSETTO (cause... it's just plain falsetto, it doesn't have anything to do with blending registers) was also quite weak in tuning and phrasing.

Bonham was also kinda sloppy in the early days but, unlike Page, he managed to improve lots, over the years.


CONLACANTINACONLACANTORACONLATELEVISIONGASTADORA
qrock user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 313 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 14:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You have a good taste in music however unlike Queen and Led Zeppelin, I find that Rush album improved as they went on you know what I mean. The songs on Queen I were plotted down first and then done again and again with many changes which made it an almost complete article. Although the Queen members during their first album already had an innovative and inspirational member in Freddie who improved the other members versitility, Rush started their career with an album that was patchy and they did not have the same depth and creativity they had since Neil Peart joined. Another favourite group of mine is also renowned for a classic debut album in Dire Straits who produced fantastic melodical, rythmical songs with great depth and context.

NOTWMEDDLE user not visiting Queenzone.com
NOTWMEDDLE
Bohemian: 691 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 15:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rottenjohnny1963 wrote: led zep,queen,and rush are my fave bands of all time,so in my view,you can't go wrong with any of them.i think that freddy mercury is the greatest singer/performer/rock star/musician that ever lived by far! led zeppelin is the greatest band ever,slightly ahead of queen to me.i have been fans of both since their 1st ;lps came out,and i'm glad led zep broke up when bonham died.i wish queen would have done the same thing after the benefit concert in 1992 because queen with anybody other than freddy is a piss poor imitation at best!

-----------------------------------------------------------

In my case, it's Pink Floyd, Genesis, Queen and Rush as my favorites. Zeppelin are in my Top 10.

Zeppelin's first album was a great debut, one of the best debuts in history (only the first albums by Jimi Hendrix, The Doors and Pink Floyd rank much higher in the Greatest Debut Album of All Time List (I didn't forget Queen nor Rush nor Genesis)).


"Spread your wings and fly away, fly away, far away!", "No one makes me sing lullabies and no one makes me close my eyes"
NOTWMEDDLE user not visiting Queenzone.com
NOTWMEDDLE
Bohemian: 691 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 15:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I should add the first Pink Floyd in there to Greatest Debut Albums Ever. Syd Barrett and Rick Wright were the creative forces on that album, there was only one Roger Waters tune there but it was Syd's magnum opus. "Astronomy Domine", "Matilda Mother", "The Gnome", "Chapter 24" and "Bike" were excellent pieces that were child-like almost fairy tales in lyrics whereas Roger Waters (who became chief Floyd lyricist after Syd went insane) went more for reality based issues.  

Unfortunately Syd became mentally incapacitated after that wonderful debut. When David Gilmour came in (at first as a second guitarist/singer and made Pink Floyd a 5-piece briefly), he brought in something that Syd didn't have and that was excellent lead guitar skills (Syd didn't really solo whereas David (whom taught Syd how to play guitar and was a childhood friend of Syd's) was more accomplished as a guitarist). By 1970, the psychedelia that Syd had was gone and they went into progressive rock.

Genesis didn't start out prog as well. Their first album From Genesis to Revelation sounded like a cross between The Moody Blues, 1960s era Bee Gees and 1967 era Rolling Stones. Luckily they changed once drummer Chris Stewart left and fired Jonathan King and went elsewhere with Trespass. Then after Anthony Phillips quit and found permanent replacements in Phil Collins and Steve Hackett, Genesis found their feet with Nursery Cryme.


"Spread your wings and fly away, fly away, far away!", "No one makes me sing lullabies and no one makes me close my eyes"
iluvqueen46 user not visiting Queenzone.com
iluvqueen46
Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 14 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 16:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I love both groups alot, but I have to say Queen because of its variety and I just like the songs more. In my opinion I think Pink Floys's The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn was the best one. Like Rush's first album was like awesome but it wasn't as awesome until Neil joined the band.

jazzy mercurois user not visiting Queenzone.com
Holy shred!
jazzy mercurois
Royalty: 1716 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 16:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is undoubtedly the worst shit I've ever heard.
Far worse than anything else, even if it's played by the worst version of Jimmy Page.

Pink Floyd was born when Gilmour arrived. What it was before, is just a poor example of what NOT to do. EVER.
Long live Gilmour, one of the very best guitar players of the seventies and also a man with great musical vision. The true musical force behind Pink Floyd.


CONLACANTINACONLACANTORACONLATELEVISIONGASTADORA
*goodco* user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1117 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 18:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


"Discretionary posting is the better part of valor." Falstaff
Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 486 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 19:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE HAS IT WRONG.... QUEEN 1 IS UNDENIABLY BETTER THAN LED ZEP 1

It's obvious as to why wouldn't you agree Jazzy Mercurois (notice i didn't mispronounce your name this time)...

1) Jimmy Page is the most overrated guitarist of all time who can barely hold a chord, christ he may as well play with his fingers chopped off - how it's possible he got so rich off Led Zep royalties is beyond me - he didn't deserve a penny because obviously he is the worst guitarist of all time.

2) Led Zep used the blimp on the cover to go back in time to become influenced by Queen - not many know this story - however I do, as I have read the book - Led Zeppelin: The Untold Story.... it specifically states in the book, written by Bone Ham Henry John that Jimmy Page derived any and all of his musical knowledge from Brian May when first hearing a record he bought from the local store entitled "Queen". He then decided to learn guitar by picking up an old Danelectro, practiced on the street earning just enough adjusted for deflation 4 years back for no more than 30 hours fare of studio hours. He then found three guys that would join his band in the homeless shelter down the street. They all jumped on a magical blimp that took them back 4 years, went into the studio and recorded what is now known as Led Zeppelin.

3) The # of mistakes which is noticeable to to any insipid amateur, ie. a die-hard Britney Spears fan, are so detrimenting to Led Zeppelin's first album that it should hardly be noticed among the ranks of the greatest debut albums of all time. In fact Queen I shouldn't be compared to Led Zeppelin I at all.

4) Jimmy Page is so bad at playing the guitar, any album he's on, is by far absolute rubbish - just because he's playing the guitar on it - I have evidence! I have proof! - you can just listen and see for yourself!

5) Jimmy Page sucks balls and testicles.

6) If Jimmy Page stood right next to me and he held a guitar and I held a guitar - my playing  would overpower him so much that he would just give me the millions and mllions of cash he unjustly earned and give it to me instead because he would realize that compared to an amateur he never should have earned that cash to begin with.

7) And of course - Brian May is actually God and for Him time is no concept - He created time itself and is responsible for all the great guitar playing in the world. In fact, He is so humble that he cites Jimmy Page as one of His influences. Queen I was just a disguise of what was to come - that's why it wasn't as good as all those albums that followed it. In fact, he even planted that blimp for Jimmy, because he felt that Jimmy should have a second chance given all the real-life mistakes he had since he was born up to 1973.

In case your wondering..... everything above is bullshit :-) Led Zeppelin was recorded in 30 hours, contains 2 cherished rock classics - Dazed and Confused and Communication Breakdown.... the album is basically flawless and was ahead of its time in terms of production and sound. It is clearly one of the greatest debut albums in the history of music (there are many rivals, such as Funeral by Arcade Fire, Are You Experienced by Jimi, The Doors by The Doors, and Appetite for Destruction by Guns N Roses just to a name a few)

Queen took 3 years to create, doesn't have a cherished rock classic (maybe a couple of fan favorites)... a sad attempt at controversy with songs like Jesus and band members named Deacon John... However, it is nonetheless a great album and should be compared along side other very good debut albums, such as Electric Light Orchestra's first album (also entitled No Answer in the US due to a naming error). Other great comparisons: Aerosmith, Elton John, Cheap Trick, Kill Em All, Bleach, etc... 2nd rank greatest debut albums, really.

Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 486 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

********************************************************************************************************
jazzy mercurois wrote: The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is undoubtedly the worst shit I've ever heard.
Far worse than anything else, even if it's played by the worst version of Jimmy Page.

Pink Floyd was born when Gilmour arrived. What it was before, is just a poor example of what NOT to do. EVER.
Long live Gilmour, one of the very best guitar players of the seventies and also a man with great musical vision. The true musical force behind Pink Floyd.
**********************************************************************************************************

I agree with you partially - I think the true musical force was both Waters and Gilmour together - the band was never the same with either apart - evidenced on the Final Cut (when Waters recorded his solo album with Pink Floyd) and Momentary Lapse of Reason and Division Bell (Floyd without Waters) (apart from High Hopes and Learning To Fly - those were great tracks).

Gilmour provided the melody to Waters lyrics - but Waters also provided design and drama to Gilmour's arrangements... Early Pink Floyd was exciting... and really Piper was the only album he wasn't on... he was with them for Saucerful - which was nowhere near as good Piper. He was also with them for Ummagumma and Obscured By Clouds... also worse than Piper. They got their act together when the wrote Atom Heart Mother... that's where they figured out how to stretch Careful With That Axe into a 25 minute piece. They perfected that art on Echoes - which is probably the greatest non-classical 20-minute-plus suite ever composed.

jazzy mercurois user not visiting Queenzone.com
Holy shred!
jazzy mercurois
Royalty: 1716 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

My God...


CONLACANTINACONLACANTORACONLATELEVISIONGASTADORA
masterstroke_84 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 542 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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


Queen rocks!
masterstroke_84 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 542 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

p.s:

Queen didn´t have the freedom to record their first album in the way they wanted to.

May sound like an excuse, but it isn´t. Just look at Queen II, there are months between the 2 albums.


Queen rocks!
Jimmy Dean user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 486 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

actually your dumb - I never said piper was better than momentary or division bell... i just implied they weren't as good as prime pink floyd.... Meddle, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and that little ditty entitled the Wall.... these were evidence of Gilmour + Waters = Great Pink Floyd.

Division Bell is, however, FAR BETTER than Final Cut and better than Piper as well.
Also, Piper is never considered a great debut album - it's really just the best of Syd Barrett.... you can't rank that album anywhere notable.

PrimeJiveUSA user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 267 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Mar 11, 20:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think Zeppelin was best from their 4th album on.

In many ways Zeppelin were the best band ever.  Queen were hugely influenced by them.

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.