Post by oftrollorigins on May 8, 2019 22:19:55 GMT
Here's how I see it.
Queen was definitely more eclectic in their songwriting and could write a hit song in just about any rock genre from early speed metal ("Stone Cold Crazy") to opera ("Bohemian Rhapsody") to anthem rock ("We Will Rock You") to synth pop ("Radio Ga Ga") to sentimental ballads ("These are the Days of Our Lives") to hard rock ("I Want It All"), to gospel ("Somebody to Love"), to glam ("Don't Stop Me Now"), and to rockabilly ("Crazy Little Thing Called Love"). Their range was simply incredible and they had one of the greatest singers (and arguably greatest live performers) in Freddie Mercury.
They also had a lot of individual talent in that each member could write superb, hit songs. Mercury wrote Bohemian Rhapsody, Brian May wrote We Will Rock You, Roger Taylor wrote Radio Ga Ga, and John Deacon wrote Another One Bites the Dust.
However, Queen put out several very weak albums like Hot Space and Made in Heaven.
Led Zeppelin may not have been very eclectic but what they did they did better than anyone else when it comes to bluesy rock, hard rock, and heavy metal. No one was better than them at that time and perhaps since. Robert Plant may not have had the range of Freddie Mercury but he had a dynamic voice that he used much like an instrument and his live performances weren't too shabby either. And let's not forget that John Bonham and Jimmy Page are arguably the greatest drummer and guitarist, respectively, in rock history. John Paul Jones is no slouch either. Yet Zeppelin's music was mostly written by Page and Plant.
Led Zeppelin arguably never wrote a weak album (well maybe their last one) and their albums overall are more cohesive than Queen's. This one is really hard for me to say but...
Kind of an apples vs oranges argument for me as each band has a different wheelhouse. I much prefer Zeppelin, but Queen does have a few songs that I like, and myself being a guitar player I do like Brian May's guitar sound.
Zeppelin was more talented, but not my that much. I think John Deacon was a better bass player than JP Jones. John Bonham was a considerably better drummer than Roger Taylor (not to take anything away from Taylor). Page and Brian May are on a par as far as guitar work, Yeah, yeah, Page this and Page that, but May was more solid. And Fred was a better singer than Plant. Like someone pointed out, Zep's body of work was more quality, but they had a smaller sample size. Queen had 14 albums and LZ had only eight. It would be like saying the Beatles were better than the Stones because the Beatles never had clunky albums like Dirty Work or A Bigger Bang. Who's to say Zepplin's body of work would have suffered if they had had another 10 years (it probably would have). The one area that Queen blew LZ away was lyrically. Zeppelin's lyrics SUCKED. Not that important to some, is to me. They went from over pretentious bilge (Stairway) to juvenile porn (Black Dog).
Both have one thing in common, they are sooooooooooooo overplayed.
Arise, essence of myrrh, milk of magnesia, quarter of ten...
I'm not really a fan of either of them but i do appreciate how skilled they are. I rate Queen slightly higher than Led Zep due to the fact i have three queen tracks in my favourites playlist and only two for Led Zep