NationStates Jolt Archive

Queen.

A no brainer for me.

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

None of them are my "favorite band." But, if I must choose a favorite among the three, Led Zeppelin wins easily.

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

Is there a compelling reason for you to decide? Do you only have room in your music collection for one? Are you trying to make the ever important decision of which band gets to be the poster on your bathroom door? Did you write the word "RULES!!!" too big on your notebook cover and now can only put one band name down?

Why can't you just like all three bands and leave it at that instead of 'arranging' them?

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

Of those three, Queen is best.

None of the above. The Who for me. ^_^

Zep>queen>rush

that being said, all are orgasmic.

Rush are some very talented musicians, but I can't say I ever got into them or their style. Just not my thing. I voted for Zeppelin.

The Zep. They're the only one of the three that actually features in my music collection, but the talents of all three are noted.

Zep, hands down. I don't really see how Rush fits into this trinity, to be honest.

Is there a compelling reason for you to decide? Do you only have room in your music collection for one? Are you trying to make the ever important decision of which band gets to be the poster on your bathroom door? Did you write the word "RULES!!!" too big on your notebook cover and now can only put one band name down?

Why can't you just like all three bands and leave it at that instead of 'arranging' them?

QFT(Quoted For Tacos)

.-. ..- ... ....

It's easy to ignore Rush, but Led Zeppelin and Queen both rock!

Now, how could you ignore The Eagles, the Grateful Dead, and Foreigner?

Led Zeppelin. Their songs were so damn awesome, from Rain Song to Stairway to Heaven to Kashmir. No drummer has ever been as talented as Bonham. If you don't believe me, listen to Achilles Last Stand.

QFT(Quoted For Tacos)
Yay! Tacos!
.-. ..- ... ....
Astromone Domine? Is this a vote for Pink Floyd?

Yay! Tacos!

Astromone Domine? Is this a vote for Pink Floyd?

Like the band, and I see why you would think that's who I voted for, but that is not what I said.

Rush, out of these opition.

FUCK all u faggets who didnt pick Queen
u r all gay

who the fuck is zeplin led? or rush?
huh?
stupid faggets
slap urselfs for not picking Freddie Mercury

FUCK all u faggets who didnt pick Queen
u r all gay

who the fuck is zeplin led? or rush?
huh?
stupid faggets
slap urselfs for not picking Freddie Mercury

can we all say irony?!

FUCK all u faggets who didnt pick Queen
u r all gay

who the fuck is zeplin led? or rush?
huh?
stupid faggets
slap urselfs for not picking Freddie Mercury

Was this bad sarcasm? You do know Freddie Mercury was gay, right?

Anyways, Led Zeppelin.

Oh my, Rush of course - and if this makes me gay, I'm a proud, gay member of the community. Mate, can anything compare to a Tom Sawyer rush? (get it? :P)

Cheerio!

[QUOTE=Trollgaard;13510275]Was this bad sarcasm? You do know Freddie Mercury was gay, right?
QUOTE]

Weren't they all gay? I'm splitting hairs, your point stands.

Like the band, and I see why you would think that's who I voted for, but that is not what I said.

No...really?

Queen>Led Zepplin>>Rush.
But if you're going to make me pick just one of the three, I'd pick Queen. But I would miss "Stairway to Heaven" ... why in God's name are you making me choose? :p

Led Zep for the win!

Queen. I grew up with Freddie and the lads. They were brilliant. Still head and shoulders above anyone making music today.

Anyone of you too young to remember Queen, or who never had the chance to see them perform live truly missed one of the great pleasures in life.

r.i.p. Freddie

Oh my, Rush of course - and if this makes me gay, I'm a proud, gay member of the community. Mate, can anything compare to a Tom Sawyer rush? (get it? :P)

Cheerio!

THE RIVER

Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Rush can't write a song for their lives though, and just seem to string lines together. Their songs would be good with a better writer, and they are even pleasing to listen to, but I can't help but laugh if I listen to what they are saying

Same as Bob Dylan, except missing the amazing imagery...

Oh yeah, and Queen Rox!

Haha! No worries, I love Queen, one of the only two members of LZ I loved died but I respect what they did for the Rock scene in general so I guess I should really voted "Crap! I can't decide..." Rush is the Manowar of a better age I guess, with regards to lyrics of course :)

Cheerio!

All of these bands have their merits. Which I'm in the mood for depends on how gay I'm feeling. If I'm feeling straight I'd go with the Zep. If I were feeling a bit gay, I would go with Rush. If I were feeling totally gay, I'd go with Queen.

I'm normally not big on the comparison game, but Queen really, really wins this one. Between the fact that every member of the band was a gifted songwriter, the fact that they made better use of vocals than almost any other band, and the fact that Freddie Mercury was quite simply the greatest rock front-man there has ever been, it's hard to see how the other bands are even in the same league.

(And, honestly, as a singer, I tend to like bands with lead singers who, y'know, SING, rather than whining nasally into the microphone. Don't get me wrong - Rush and Zeppelin are good at what they do, but singing isn't really it.)

Out of the three, Led Zeppelin, hands down.

Queen, then Led Zeppelin. Rush is a very distant not third with many other bands, like Queensryche and , yes, dare I say it, Gorky Park, coming before them.

As I haven't really listened to much of Zepp's stuff yet and since Freddie Mercury was possibly the greatest singer ever, I'll vote Queen.

Zeppelin = over-played and overrated.

wtf!
who gives a shit if queen was gay, everyone knows that
at least he admitted it
led zeplin, rush and all those other faggets didnt admit it
so once again
if u pick anyone other than queen
ffuck jurself!

Led Zeppelin was a great band, and they paved the way for a lot of good rockers. But for me, it's gotta be Queen.

While all are phenomenal, the truth is that, as my dad has always said, Led Zeppelin had honest to god hegemony over rock, and they didn't use it as they should. Queen is too quirky for my tastes, which, of course, would seem to be a joke given my preference for Rush, but, I daresay, it is Rush who gets my personal selection.

wtf!
who gives a shit if queen was gay, everyone knows that
at least he admitted it
led zeplin, rush and all those other faggets didnt admit it
so once again
if u pick anyone other than queen
ffuck jurself!

?

Zepplin

Honestly I'm not all that keen on Queen or Zeppelin. I know they're good but I'm just not keen, and I haven't heard any Rush (knowingly), so I can't say.:p

Led Rush Queen Zeppelin

Ac/dc

Led Zeppelin followed not too closely by Queen.

Rush doesn't even deserve to be in the conversation.

Zeppelin = over-played and overrated.

Over-played possibly, but not overrated.

The other two barely qualify as music compared to Zep. Rush is for Americans, and Queen is for middle-aged men driving Ford Scorpios from the late nineties who look at freaky porn on the internet just to break up the interminable boredom of their fruitless lives and preposterously narrow horizons. And live in Kent.

Led Zeppelin followed not too closely by Queen.

Rush doesn't even deserve to be in the conversation.

Agreed

wtf!
who gives a shit if queen was gay, everyone knows that
at least he admitted it
led zeplin, rush and all those other faggets didnt admit it
so once again
if u pick anyone other than queen
ffuck jurself!

Way to totally misspell Led Zeppelin's name. And I believe that they were a product of their time, and as such shouldn't be called gay because of what they wore onstage, leather pants/long hair/mustaches were the style of the time.

Queen was a great band, but just because the lead singer admitted he was gay is no reason to get defensive about them. sheesh...

Over-played possibly, but not overrated.

I find 'getting the led out' is more about having a godly rocker image than being about the music.

Led Zeppelin. Just for the riff in Kashmir.

And @ Hoyteca: Danny Carey (Tool) is a better drummer than John Bonham was. Fact.

The Beatles.

Queen.

Led Zeppelin.

AC/DC.

In that order.

P.S. Who is Rush?

Is there a compelling reason for you to decide? Do you only have room in your music collection for one? Are you trying to make the ever important decision of which band gets to be the poster on your bathroom door? Did you write the word "RULES!!!" too big on your notebook cover and now can only put one band name down?

Why can't you just like all three bands and leave it at that instead of 'arranging' them?
YES! i totally agree. the ipod has 4-80 gigs for a reason! and what about Paul, John, George, and Ringo? The Beatles deserve some credit, too! :fluffle: :sniper:

I find 'getting the led out' is more about having a godly rocker image than being about the music.

Well, they did have that image for a reason, they were great. There was a reason why they reached the plateau they were on, and that was the quality and musicianship of their work. It wasn't pop-bullshit that got them their fanbase.

And they didn't milk their image like other groups ended up doing *cough, KISS*.

The Beatles.

Queen.

Led Zeppelin.

AC/DC.

In that order.

P.S. Who is Rush?

I think the Beatles and Led Zeppelin deserve to be at the top of their respective genres, but I don't know if I would put the Beatles ahead of Zeppelin in a discussion of their music. Both were revolutionary, and it's hard to quantify either's effect, but really to be honest Zeppelin had better players individually.

And placing Queen ahead of Zeppelin seems a bit hasty. They laid down some pretty terrible tracks in their day, alongside some greats.

A nearly 20 minute drum solo. How 'bout that for dedication!

How 'bout that for boring?

Led, then queen for some of their albums (some weren't just my thing, and then Rush comming up behind.

Rush for me though Zep and Queen are a close tie second. I once saw a Rush concert and drummer Neil Pert had luikemia at the time. He had to breath from an oxygen tank between every song. One of those was a nearly 20 minute drum solo. How 'bout that for dedication!

If the drummer was a musician who was familiar with their instruments there would be no reason why it would be boring. There are a lot of shitty drummers out there, but the drummer for Rush would have at least some skill.

Nah, come on. 20 minutes of just drums is boring unless, possibly, you're a drummer.

How 'bout that for boring?

If the drummer was a musician who was familiar with their instruments there would be no reason why it would be boring. There are a lot of shitty drummers out there, but the drummer for Rush would have at least some skill.

And placing Queen ahead of Zeppelin seems a bit hasty. They laid down some pretty terrible tracks in their day, alongside some greats.And Zeppelin didn't?

I would say that there are maybe one or two weak tracks on Led Zeppelin I-IV, and beyond that there is a higher number of so-so tracks, but I don't think that any of them are unlistenable. Three words: "Whole Lotta Love"

Nah, come on. 20 minutes of just drums is boring unless, possibly, you're a drummer.

Well, there aren't a lot of people who can pull it off, but dismissing a drum solo just because it's a drum solo doesn't show a lot of understanding about music. I would say that if one was going to say that all twenty minute drum solos were boring than that person would also have to say that all 20 minute guitar solos were boring, and I don't think that is the case either. It's a long time, but it is possible to remain interesting.

And Zeppelin didn't?

I would say that there are maybe one or two weak tracks on Led Zeppelin I-IV, and beyond that there is a higher number of so-so tracks, but I don't think that any of them are unlistenable.

I can't say the same thing for Queen (there are a few songs on the greatest-hits CDs that I can't listen to), or to be honest, the Beatles. They all have great songs, but I think that Zeppelin has a lot more good to great songs.

Zeppelin definitely takes the top of that list. Also up there are the rolling stones and the beatles.

Ok, so I'm not saying that Led Zeppelin is for everyone, but for fans of the genre, this is a great song. I happen to really like it, you do not.I am a fan of the genre. That song blows.

Three words: "Whole Lotta Love"

Ok, so I'm not saying that Led Zeppelin is for everyone, but for fans of the genre, this is a great song. I happen to really like it, you do not.

Way to totally misspell Led Zeppelin's name. And I believe that they were a product of their time, and as such shouldn't be called gay because of what they wore onstage, leather pants/long hair/mustaches were the style of the time.

Queen was a great band, but just because the lead singer admitted he was gay is no reason to get defensive about them. sheesh...

he also misspelled "faggot"

Well, there aren't a lot of people who can pull it off, but dismissing a drum solo just because it's a drum solo doesn't show a lot of understanding about music. I would say that if one was going to say that all twenty minute drum solos were boring than that person would also have to say that all 20 minute guitar solos were boring, and I don't think that is the case either. It's a long time, but it is possible to remain interesting.

Ah. I refute my own statement. John Bonham's Moby Dick on whichever Led Zep DVD his 20-minute version's on is pretty ok.

I am a fan of the genre. That song blows.

Ok, I guess that's one vote against Zeppelin. :rolleyes:

Rush, hands down.

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

None of them is my favorite, though I like all three...
If I had to choose one over the others it would probably be Queen.

Led Zeppelin for me

Every musician that I have ever known worships Led Zeppelin as rock gods. Rush gets props for Neal Peart, and Queen shouldn't even be on this list.

Queen and Rush would definitly make the top 20, or even top 15, but are still no where close to Zeppelin.

If I had to name a top five, it would be:

The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison and the Doors
Janis Joplin

I would put Kurt Cobain, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhodes, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth over Queen and Rush

Rush is the more prolific band, and have produced a far more diverse library. No two Queen or Led Zeppelin albums are as different from each other as Caress of Steel and Grace Under Pressure. Or Moving Pictures and Presto.

I would put Kurt Cobain, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhodes, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth over Queen and Rush
Dave Mustaine > Kirk Hammett

Led Zeppelin all the way! :headbang::gundge:

Every musician that I have ever known worships Led Zeppelin as rock gods. Rush gets props for Neal Peart, and Queen shouldn't even be on this list.

Queen and Rush would definitly make the top 20, or even top 15, but are still no where close to Zeppelin.

If I had to name a top five, it would be:

The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison and the Doors
Janis Joplin

I would put Kurt Cobain, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhodes, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth over Queen and Rush

Well, here's a musician who views bands with objectivity (though I must admit I'm a huge fan of Rush, Husker Du, and the Sex Pistols)... And the simple fact of the matter is that Led Zeppelin, while they had some great stuff, are vastly overrated... Mostly thanks to Jimmy Page and his Townsend-level sloppiness.

And how the hell could you honestly, from a performance-wise standpoint, put any of those groups over Rush? Kurt Cobain was barebones as far as technique goes, and Kirk Hammett uses brain-dead progressions and covers up his shortcomings by turning the distortion way up and scooping the midrange to nothing. If you want a Metal guitarist who isn't a farce, look at Dave Mustaine, or the late Dimebag Darrell.

Now, Randy Rhodes was a fantastic guitarist... But Alex Lifeson had him beat as far as precision and technique are concerned (far more accurate, less sloppy). But, since their songwriting was so drastically different, it's really apples to oranges...

...And the same can be said about Eddie Van Halen. Eddie's Eddie, and that's about all you can say.

Steve Vai is his own monster. He's like nobody and nobody is like him. He's very accurate, smooth, and articulate, and he's unbelievably creative. Then again, so is Alex, but their styles are so different that it's really stupid trying to say who's better.


If we're talking about this from a performance standpoint, Rush stand head and shoulders above all of those bands mentioned. The sheer quality of their live performances, and their virtuosity with their instruments attest to that. And the fact that they can do so much at one time and only having three band members is saying plenty, especially the fact that Geddy actually sings and uses pedals while playing those ridiculous basslines. And then there's the complex, progressive arrangements (going outside the "boundaries" of classical composition), which believe you me are a pain in the ass to get right from the get go. Listen to Red Barchetta, and you'll see what I mean. That song is a very good example of abstract songwriting.

But, if we're talking about this from a personal preference standpoint, then there's really no argument to be had. In that case, it's completely subjective... I mean, a lot of people like bands that aren't complex in the least, because that's what gets them going. And I won't argue.

I just think it's fairly quaint that so many of you are so quick to call this band or that band "GODS" without ever really stating why...

No comparison.















No really, that's it -- no comparison. Comparing music for superlatives is like comparing any art for a "best": pointless and entirely subjective. It belies a feeble and narrow intellect.

Rush is the more prolific band, and have produced a far more diverse library. No two Queen or Led Zeppelin albums are as different from each other as Caress of Steel and Grace Under Pressure. Or Moving Pictures and Presto.

Actually, it should be more like...

Caress of Steel, A Farewell To Kings, Permanent Waves, Grace Under Pressure, Hold Your Fire (a hugely underrated and misinterpreted album), Presto, Test for Echo, Vapor Trails, and Snakes & Arrows (this one stands out as their most removed piece of work, sounding virtually nothing like anything they've ever done).

You can mix and match these any way you like, as no album sounds very much like the previous one mentioned... Though I'd say the biggest difference would have to be A Farewell To Kings / Hold Your Fire. Listen to those albums back-to-back, and you'll think you're tripping.

Pretty much what I said above, though simpler. :p

Yeah, I know, and well said, too. I've just said it so many times, I've boiled it down. Why is it so hard to just take the superlative out and ask people what they like instead of what's "best"?

Every musician that I have ever known worships Led Zeppelin as rock gods. Rush gets props for Neal Peart, and Queen shouldn't even be on this list.

Queen and Rush would definitly make the top 20, or even top 15, but are still no where close to Zeppelin.

If I had to name a top five, it would be:

The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison and the Doors
Janis Joplin

I would put Kurt Cobain, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhodes, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth over Queen and Rush

You need help.

No comparison.















No really, that's it -- no comparison. Comparing music for superlatives is like comparing any art for a "best": pointless and entirely subjective. It belies a feeble and narrow intellect.

Pretty much what I said above, though simpler. :p

Yeah, I know, and well said, too. I've just said it so many times, I've boiled it down. Why is it so hard to just take the superlative out and ask people what they like instead of what's "best"?

I feel yas there... It takes a special kind of bullshit to get me to post anything close to being that long, and obviously this was that kind of bullshit.

And yeah, I think Randia might need some help in the logic department there. Seriously, Joplin over... Oh, I won't even bother.

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

They're very different bands. As a bass player, it is mandatory that I list Rush first among them. Followed by Zeppelin.

However, they're all good. Not my favorites, but good.

As a bass player, it is mandatory that I list Rush first among them.Geddy Lee is an abomination.

So, you're one of those keynote-only guys, then?
No, I'm just trolling. But his rhythm isn't very good and I don't like his tone.

Geddy Lee is an abomination.

So, you're one of those keynote-only guys, then?

My dad's the same way, and he loathes Geddy Lee, as well as John Paul Jones.

No, I'm just trolling. But his rhythm isn't very good and I don't like his tone.

His rhythm is... Exceptional, and even that's an understatement. Are you on LSD?

And his tone, well, which one would that be? He's had so many over the years. There's his Rick, his old Fender Jazz Bass, his Steinberger, and several others I can't quite recall at the moment.

His rhythm is... Exceptional, and even that's an understatement. Are you on LSD?He was pretty loose on the stuff I've heard/watched.

And his tone, well, which one would that be? He's had so many over the years. There's his Rick, his old Fender Jazz Bass, his Steinberger, and several others I can't quite recall at the moment.All of the ones I've heard of him (probably not all his tones) have the real abrasive high nasally overdriven/distorted tone. I understand it's in the Chris Squire tradition, but I think Yes is a slightly better context for it (and a better tone from what little I've heard), and you have to be careful what you play when you're that in front and on top of the mix.

He was pretty loose on the stuff I've heard/watched.

All of the ones I've heard of him (probably not all his tones) have the real abrasive high nasally overdriven/distorted tone. I understand it's in the Chris Squire tradition, but I think Yes is a slightly better context for it (and a better tone from what little I've heard), and you have to be careful what you play when you're that in front and on top of the mix.

His tone with his Rickenbacker was awesome. He's an incredible bass player. If you think a bassist should just stick to the root note of the chord that's fine, but... wait, no, that's not fine. That's insulting.

I don't think his tone sounds high or nasally or abrasive. It has some bite to it, but that's good. I hate muddy bass tone that gets buried in the mix.

His tone with his Rickenbacker was awesome. He's an incredible bass player. If you think a bassist should just stick to the root note of the chord that's fine, but... wait, no, that's not fine. That's insulting. And not what I'm suggesting. Goodness knows that I've gone minutes on end without playing a root, or at least not the planned one. The trick is to do it without anybody consciously noticing until it's resolved.

I don't think his tone sounds high or nasally or abrasive. It has some bite to it, but that's good. I hate muddy bass tone that gets buried in the mix.Unfortunately, that's sometimes beyond our control when the soundperson thinks that your bass is just a prop and you didn't bring a rig big enough to compete with the sound system. :(

Queen for me.

Not particularly keen on any of them. Led Zeppelin plagiarised a lot of their music from old blues musicians. Queen were at least original but not to my taste. Haven't heard much Rush, but what I have I found slightly irritating, never keen on falsetto singing.

Does anyone outside America know who Rush is - I've really never heard of them and wonder if they're a bit like the Dave Matthews Band, popular in America but mostly unheard of elsewhere.

I Youtube'd some of their songs but they're all a bit middle-of-the-road rock to me, if anyone can point me to an actual song that's any good then I'd appreciate.

Otherwise, Queen and Led Zeppelin are completely different moods for me but if there's a gun at my head forcing me to choose, I would say Led Zeppelin - in my list of favourite songs ever, they're higher up the list.

Does anyone outside America know who Rush is - I've really never heard of them and wonder if they're a bit like the Dave Matthews Band, popular in America but mostly unheard of elsewhere.Does Canada count as part of America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_15G_tIl38

Queen, wtf!

Does Canada count as part of America?

As Canada is the largest country in both Americas, I suppose so.

As a non-american, anyway, I must add that I know Rush, too.

Put me in the group that holds that, if we're restricted to these three bands, then it's Zeppelin first, Queen a distant second, and Rush (a minority acquired taste at best) don't belong in the same company.


I accept that all three members of Rush are talented musicians, but musical talent alone doesn't make you listenable. That was the mistake that most fiddly prog bands have made over the years. Take Close to the Edge or Fragile-era Yes... There's only so many twiddly Wakeman and Howe solos over Bruford/White off-kilter drumming behind Anderson's yogic mantras that any sane person can take. Similarly, Joyce's Ulysses may well be the greatest feat of English writing in the 20th century, but how many people here have actually finished it?


Another example... Years ago, I went to see a joint tour by Jeff Beck and Stevie Ray Vaughan. They did half of the show each, joining each other for 'Superstition' at the end. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Beck was by far the more technically accomplished guitarist, but for all that technique, it was Vaughan who grabbed me by the balls (if you'll forgive the expression), and Vaughan that I wanted to hear more of on the night.


All the technique in the world can't save you if you can't make music that people want to listen to.

Does Canada count as part of America?

There I was about, about to reply that yes, American bands can be famous in Canada as well when an inkling of a suspicion arose in my head, so I tootled off to Wikipedia only to find that they are Canadian - I've been too long here :)

Anyway, even if they weren't my answer would still be yes, Canada counts as America in terms of music and stuff.

Not particularly keen on any of them. Led Zeppelin plagiarised a lot of their music from old blues musicians. As well as other hard rock bands.

Put me in the group that holds that, if we're restricted to these three bands, then it's Zeppelin first, Queen a distant second, and Rush (a minority acquired taste at best) don't belong in the same company.


I accept that all three members of Rush are talented musicians, but musical talent alone doesn't make you listenable. ......All the technique in the world can't save you if you can't make music that people want to listen to.

I heart you now.

Ive long thought exactly the same thing about Rush and Yes for years.
All of them, are VERY accomplished musicians, and this is coming from a musician.
Those guys are very talented and no one can take that away from them, BUT...

I just dont like the music they have written.
The overly-technical approach has a limited space of time before it becomes tedious, and if Rush cross the line, then Yes stomps on it, and kicks it in the nuts.

As well as other hard rock bands.

As well as every hard rock band.

Same chords...same scales.
Same riffs.

The overly-technical approach has a limited space of time before it becomes tedious, and if Rush cross the line, then Yes stomps on it, and kicks it in the nuts...

...before coating those nuts in seasoned flour, frying them gently, and serving them to you on a platter trying to convince you that you're eating delicious gourmet food, when you know full well that it's all just swallowing balls.

Pretty much a tie between Queen and Zepplin. Rush really only had one song that I liked.

Snakes & Arrows (this one stands out as their most removed piece of work, sounding virtually nothing like anything they've ever done).
The same could have been said of Signals when it was first released.

Which of these is you're favorite band? I really can't decide, and I was wondering what my fellow NSGers thought. Poll Coming!

Each of those has great songs, and I really don't think either of them tops each other.

And not what I'm suggesting. Goodness knows that I've gone minutes on end without playing a root, or at least not the planned one. The trick is to do it without anybody consciously noticing until it's resolved.

Unfortunately, that's sometimes beyond our control when the soundperson thinks that your bass is just a prop and you didn't bring a rig big enough to compete with the sound system. :(

I have heard horror stories about how low a soundperson will mix the bass. That's why I like a lot of bite to tone, and I play through a loud rig. I refuse to have my tone buried.

There I was about, about to reply that yes, American bands can be famous in Canada as well when an inkling of a suspicion arose in my head, so I tootled off to Wikipedia only to find that they are Canadian - I've been too long here :)

Anyway, even if they weren't my answer would still be yes, Canada counts as America in terms of music and stuff.
I'm not sure about that. The Canadian music scene has a lot less pop in it (proportionally), plus we're really not fans of urban music (Hip Hop). Plus, there are some weird folky acts (The Tragically Hip) that never did well in the US, but were huge in Canada.

Couldn't decide between Led Zeppelin or Queen...But I could name probably 100 more bands before Rush

Put me in the group that holds that, if we're restricted to these three bands, then it's Zeppelin first, Queen a distant second, and Rush (a minority acquired taste at best) don't belong in the same company...All the technique in the world can't save you if you can't make music that people want to listen to.



So you put Zeppelin first?


Bah Zeppelin goes third out of these three for me, hands down.

Dave Mustaine > Kirk Hammett


Annnnd Andy LaRocque kills them both. So does Andrian Smith. And Tony Iommi.

As well as every hard rock band.

Same chords...same scales.
Same riffs.It's not quite the same thing. Even if you borrow a riff from someone, it's still only a few seconds long. Arguably plagiarism, but not to the extent I'm talking about.

Is there a compelling reason for you to decide? Do you only have room in your music collection for one? Are you trying to make the ever important decision of which band gets to be the poster on your bathroom door? Did you write the word "RULES!!!" too big on your notebook cover and now can only put one band name down?

Why can't you just like all three bands and leave it at that instead of 'arranging' them?

Bah, there doesn't need to be a reason!

Sizing up three popular bands can be fun. I pulled my Clan of Xymox and dusted off one of my Zeppelin CDs based on this thread. I liked the friendly poke.

Put me in the group that holds that, if we're restricted to these three bands, then it's Zeppelin first, Queen a distant second, and Rush (a minority acquired taste at best) don't belong in the same company.


I accept that all three members of Rush are talented musicians, but musical talent alone doesn't make you listenable. That was the mistake that most fiddly prog bands have made over the years. Take Close to the Edge or Fragile-era Yes... There's only so many twiddly Wakeman and Howe solos over Bruford/White off-kilter drumming behind Anderson's yogic mantras that any sane person can take. Similarly, Joyce's Ulysses may well be the greatest feat of English writing in the 20th century, but how many people here have actually finished it?


Another example... Years ago, I went to see a joint tour by Jeff Beck and Stevie Ray Vaughan. They did half of the show each, joining each other for 'Superstition' at the end. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Beck was by far the more technically accomplished guitarist, but for all that technique, it was Vaughan who grabbed me by the balls (if you'll forgive the expression), and Vaughan that I wanted to hear more of on the night.


All the technique in the world can't save you if you can't make music that people want to listen to.

...Have you even listened to much of Rush, or looked at their sheet music? They have a lot of simple songs mixed in with more complex ones. Through all of my reviewing of their tablature, there's not one song they've written for the sake of being complex. Even La Villa Strangiato was just a jam session that they streamlined into a song. Actually, pretty much all of their songs came out of jamming, as per their own words.

Though you're spot-on about Yes. My god, some of that later stuff is just abysmal. There's no flow whatsoever.

Does anyone outside America know who Rush is - I've really never heard of them and wonder if they're a bit like the Dave Matthews Band, popular in America but mostly unheard of elsewhere.

I Youtube'd some of their songs but they're all a bit middle-of-the-road rock to me, if anyone can point me to an actual song that's any good then I'd appreciate.

If they're mostly uneard of outside Canada and the States, then how come all of their overseas shows are always sold out? Multiple nights in a row?

Wait wait wait. Middle of the road? And you turn back and praise Zeppelin as something of Olympian proportions? No, that's unacceptable. Rush's creativity was, and still is, head and shoulders above Zeppelin's, and that's very evident with the smash lineup that is 2112, A Farewell To Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, and Signals. Six albums in a row without a bit of tarnish (I personally don't think any of their albums have weak spots, but many critics seem to think otherwise, so I'm going with public opinion here just to be safe).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78D00dYOBrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnRy4ks87Xg

Middle of the road, you say?

Who the hell is Rush?

Queen vs Led Zeppelin is tough and depends on the mood I am in, but between the two I pick Queen by a nose!

Queen, obviously.

toss up between zep and queen for me, but certainly not rush

Who the hell is Rush?

Get educated comrade;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMT-2p8NBU

God I cant understand why so many of you are wanking it to Zeppelin. Talk about an overrated band.

Queen I can kind of understand.

It's easy to ignore Rush, but Led Zeppelin and Queen both rock!

Now, how could you ignore The Eagles, the Grateful Dead, and Foreigner?

Easily? :p

And @ Hoyteca: Danny Carey (Tool) is a better drummer than John Bonham was. Fact.

QFT

Dave Mustaine > Kirk Hammett

As much as I think Mustaine is a world-class asshat, I fully agree with your assessment.

...as for myself, Led Zep, followed by Queen. Rush watches the race from the stands.

If they're mostly uneard of outside Canada and the States, then how come all of their overseas shows are always sold out? Multiple nights in a row?

I dunno, lots of Canadian expatriates?

Wait wait wait. Middle of the road? And you turn back and praise Zeppelin as something of Olympian proportions?

Moi? I said if I had a gun to my head I'd choose Led Zeppelin - perhaps you confuse me with someone else.

No, that's unacceptable. Rush's creativity was, and still is, head and shoulders above Zeppelin's, and that's very evident with the smash lineup that is 2112, A Farewell To Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, and Signals. Six albums in a row without a bit of tarnish (I personally don't think any of their albums have weak spots, but many critics seem to think otherwise, so I'm going with public opinion here just to be safe).

I don't care, they're simply not a household name, I'm just saying they're not well-known globally, certainly not in comparison to Led Zeppelin or Queen. You can ask me to prove this and I'll simply point to the poll up top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78D00dYOBrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnRy4ks87Xg

Thanks

Middle of the road, you say?

I personally don't find them distinctive, they're certainly not bad and I'm sure better than nearly all else, but then I haven't listened to enough of them so my opinion here at least is worthless

I dunno, lots of Canadian expatriates?



Moi? I said if I had a gun to my head I'd choose Led Zeppelin - perhaps you confuse me with someone else.



I don't care, they're simply not a household name, I'm just saying they're not well-known globally, certainly not in comparison to Led Zeppelin or Queen. You can ask me to prove this and I'll simply point to the poll up top.



Thanks



I personally don't find them distinctive, they're certainly not bad and I'm sure better than nearly all else, but then I haven't listened to enough of them so my opinion here at least is worthless



They actually ARE a household name. Just because a bunch of NSGers like Queen and Zeppelin better (which still baffles me that Zeppelin is winning...bloody awful band) doesnt mean they arent a household name.

not sure cant decide between Led Zep or Queen think it might be Queen just because of the Catchier tunes

<snip>(which still baffles me that Zeppelin is winning...bloody awful band)<snip>So say we all...

They actually ARE a household name. Just because a bunch of NSGers like Queen and Zeppelin better (which still baffles me that Zeppelin is winning...bloody awful band) doesnt mean they arent a household name.

I wouldn't call them awful, though their foray into Prog was... Pretty lousy, to say the least.

I wouldn't call them awful, though their foray into Prog was... Pretty lousy, to say the least.

I would. Boring, overrated band.

Jimmy Page was medicore and the only reasons anyone remembers his name is because he played around with the Occult.

And...
John Bonham is NOT THAT GOOD!

Honestly, show me a Rush song that has the instant recognition of this song:

Kashmir (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73dvrir5kig&feature=related)

The instant likability of this:

Over the Hills and Far Away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swFHp-0_sY)

The prettiness of this:

Going to California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGLjWPZ9wM)

Now they may not be technically as proficient as Rush but if you add their stage presence, their iconic status and that they epitomized the genre of 'on the road' rock band of their time - they're in their own league.

You may have your personal opinions, and generally that's what this is, but to deny that Led Zeppelin were more than Rush, will be remembered longer, it's simply blind and, to be honest, to say they were awful sounds like Chris Crocker defense of Rush.

I'm not really denigrating Rush, I'm simply saying that I don't think they transcend their genre, they're not a household name and they don't really compare to either Queen or Led Zeppelin in that.

Honestly, show me a Rush song that had the instant recognition of this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ZzxkxqlKo&feature=related

The instant likability of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swFHp-0_sY

The prettiness of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGLjWPZ9wM

Now they may not be technically as proficient as Rush but if you add their stage presence, their iconic status and that they epitomized the genre of 'on the road' rock band of their time - they're in their own league.

You may have your personal opinions, and generally that's what this is, but to deny that Led Zeppelin were more than Rush, will be remembered longer, it's simply blind and, to be honest, to say they were awful sounds like Chris Crocker defense of Rush.

I'm not really denigrating Rush, I'm simply saying that I don't think they transcend their genre, they're not a household name and they don't really compare to either Queen or Led Zeppelin in that.



And thats all your opinion. I think Zeppelin is only big again because theyre a fad. And besides, popular recognition is not inhernatly idicitive of talent. Metallica become a household name with the release of The Black Album, but anyone with a knowledge of music and experiance will their older stuff will scoff at the idea that it was musically superior. And then we have household names like Greenday and other bubblegum rock crap....like I said, popular recognition does not make one talented.

I could show you songs by Rush that are superior to the songs above in all the above catagories, but it would just be opinion, and so doing it would be a waste because we would disagree, am I right?


To me, Zeppelin has three good songs: Kashmir, The Immagrant Song, and Ramble On.

And thats all your opinion. I think Zeppelin is only big again because theyre a fad.

Some truth here, what I think though is that they've become iconic - I do agree that people just go 'Led Zeppelin, best band evah' and this does gloss over some of their faults, such as they were - but I think that some of their songs are just going to be timeless.

Stairway to Heaven, tedious as it is to me now, is simply a rite of passage not just for learning the guitar but for many 13-14 year olds, it's like discovering The Doors, there's some bands that many, not all, people just connect with at a certain age in their lives.

I could show you songs by Rush that are superior to the songs above in all the above catagories, but it would just be opinion, and so doing it would be a waste because we would disagree, am I right?

You are, but I'm not talking about subjective so much as the simple fact that people know these songs, more so than any Rush song.

To me, Zeppelin has three good songs: Kashmir, The Immagrant Song, and Ramble On.

Ramble On is also my favourite though I do just love the opening of Over the Hills and Far Away - I much prefer Houses of the Holy to any other album, in fact it's the only album I'll listen to now, the others I'm easy with.

Some truth here, what I think though is that they've become iconic - I do agree that people just go 'Led Zeppelin, best band evah' and this does gloss over some of their faults, such as they were - but I think that some of their songs are just going to be timeless.

Stairway to Heaven, tedious as it is to me now, is simply a rite of passage not just for learning the guitar but for many 13-14 year olds, it's like discovering The Doors, there's some bands that many, not all, people just connect with at a certain age in their lives.


SLAAAYER!!!!!!!!!!!;)



You are, but I'm not talking about subjective so much as the simple fact that people know these songs, more so than any Rush song.

I think you would be suprised at the instant recognition all over the world of many Rush songs, specifically 2112.



Ramble On is also my favourite though I do just love the opening of Over the Hills and Far Away - I much prefer Houses of the Holy to any other album, in fact it's the only album I'll listen to now, the others I'm easy with.

IMO, its tough to beat the opening riff to Kashmir. Its too bad all their songs werent that interesting.

Honestly, show me a Rush song that has the instant recognition of this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73dvrir5kig&feature=related

The instant likability of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swFHp-0_sY

The prettiness of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGLjWPZ9wM

Now they may not be technically as proficient as Rush but if you add their stage presence, their iconic status and that they epitomized the genre of 'on the road' rock band of their time - they're in their own league.

You may have your personal opinions, and generally that's what this is, but to deny that Led Zeppelin were more than Rush, will be remembered longer, it's simply blind and, to be honest, to say they were awful sounds like Chris Crocker defense of Rush.

I'm not really denigrating Rush, I'm simply saying that I don't think they transcend their genre, they're not a household name and they don't really compare to either Queen or Led Zeppelin in that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuwkTtowshA
Instant recognition, double check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEgXe-gQxX4
Instant likeability, triple check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhWqdieLRSE
Prettiness, quintuple check...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONLKn5VHY4
Stage presence... Are you kidding me? Don't even go there. Not to mention how many stories there are of Zeppelin shows being really bad. Sex Pistols in 1978 bad.


Don't get me wrong, Rush toured far more than Zep ever did, and they are still touring all over the world. They've sold almost as many albums, so... How could they not be a household name, aside from the simple fact that you say so (and therefore, must be so)? And Rush have transcended the genres. They mix so many genres and make them their own thing that you really can't put them in a single genre. Zeppelin aren't nearly as diverse.

I never said Zeppelin sucked... In fact, I like them very much ('tis a shame that their albums on vinyl cost so much). But the fact is, they were often terrible live (at least, judging by first-hand accounts), and their foray intro Prog was disastrous (you could simply say it was poor songwriting... I'd say it was that and lack of instrumental finesse). Then again, that's a subjective bit there.

*snip*

Aye fair enough - I dispute the recognition factor of the first but I do like all three so it comes down to personal preference and I have neither for none really.

I'd imagine a Led Zeppelin concert on fire is better but I really couldn't say to be honest, I just feel they had more charisma but I'm basing this on absolutely nothing.

All I'm saying, and I'm sorry that it's true, that Led Zeppelin are simply way better known, as are their songs, than Rush - I'd also say there's a reason for that, that they captured the spirit of their times, that they were contentious and, ultimately, they deserve to be where they are in the annals of rock.

They've become an icon for what they are, as attested to by the film references they have, the samples made of their music and the general well-known-ness of them - I still cannot agree that Rush compare.

Rush are simply not that well-known.

Just to prove my point:

Top 500 Albums (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time)

Led Zeppelin with 4 in the top 100...enjoy trying to find Rush, not a comment on their ability but on their recognition.

Here (http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html):

Led Zeppelin at number 8, Rush at 97.

Here's a list of Top 100 solos (http://guitar.about.com/library/bl100greatest.htm) as voted by Guitar Magazine readers.

Now, some of these choices are simply atrocious and clearly reflect popular opinion over actual weighing up of what's best but...

Where's Rush?

They come in at No. 94.

The point is not that they're not as good as LZ, it's that they just don't have the name recognition whatsoever.

Rolling Stone best guitarists ever? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time/)

Crickets chirp...

I could go on but the fact is that Rush are not a household name.

-snip-

...And the fact that Zep are so famous is largely because of a rather well-known New York promoter of Turkish origin. Rush did everything on their own, and being as popular as they are (extremely, though not quite to the extent of Zep), that's something else.

And seriously, you're using Rolling Stone Magazine as some kind of definitive, set-in-stone monolith on all that is Rock 'n Roll? Egads. You seem to be obsessed and enamoured with the whole popularity bit, whereas I'm simply (successfully, regardless of your opinion on the matter) refuting your inaccurate claims that Rush aren't well-known. Really, using "Top #" lists as a means of furthering your argument against Rush being a household name is ridiculous. They've sold around 40,000,000 albums worldwide, and almost all of their albums are Platinum. Household Name. Though it seems that you're trying to say that Zep are better mainly because they're more famous, and have sold more albums... Where should I begin when I explain just how many ways that's wrong?

And look, if you really want a band that captured the spirit of their time like no other, the Sex Pistols are where it's at. Ignore the bullshit that's written about them, and just listen to the music (as well as the band's own words), and then view the archival footage and photographs. Astounding.

Rolling Stone best guitarists ever? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time/)

Crickets chirp...
As much as I like Alex Lifeson, he's easily the least talented guy in Rush. I'm confident a list of the greatest drummers and bassists would show Neil Peart and Geddy Lee near the top.

As much as I like Alex Lifeson, he's easily the least talented guy in Rush. I'm confident a list of the greatest drummers and bassists would show Neil Peart and Geddy Lee near the top.

He's equally as talented as Geddy is. Alex was the one who was so anal about the performance quality in all of the albums before Vapor Trails (he basically kept Geddy in line). He's a fantastic Classical/Flamenco guitarist as well as having a style that is uniquely his as far as Rock guitar goes. Add that to the fact that he uses pedals and sings backing vocals while he plays, and he uses keys (though rarely).

And I can tell you this, based on pure experience. Alex's style is much more difficult to play than Eddie Van Halen's (and EVH's style is definitely not an easy one to learn) is. The arpeggiated chords, the complex arrangements, and the odd voicings all make for finger twisting nights of frustration... And don't get me started on those solos.

People who don't play the guitar don't know just how good Alex really is. And people who don't know much about Rush don't realise just how big his part in the band really is.

-snip-

Unless you Rush folk can come up with a better way to objectively measure a bands popularity, then I'm actually going to have to go with the top 100 lists.

otherwise we wouls just be saying:

"Zeps the best"

"Nuh-uh Queen is the best".

Though I will agree that they are a household name...atleast in the states that is.

Rolling Stone best guitarists ever? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time/)

Crickets chirp...


That list is a fail of epic proportions. Ignoring all the awesome guitar players who didnt make it, the fact that Tony Iommi is beaten by the hack from TOOL as well as the guys from Radiohead and KURT FUCKING COBAIN shows that the guys at Rolling Stones dont know what the fuck theyre talking about.

That list is a fail of epic proportions. Ignoring all the awesome guitar players who didnt make it, the fact that Tony Iommi is beaten by the hack from TOOL as well as the guys from Radiohead and KURT FUCKING COBAIN shows that the guys at Rolling Stones dont know what the fuck theyre talking about.Amen!

People usually think "if he's famous enough and playing guitar / singing, he must be a good guitarist/singer*."

I'm baffled each and every time a musician (no less) goes and tells me "they [insert overrated mega buck band here] are the indisputable best [because they did it first]" - anyways, I digress...

Cheerio!

*I don't know about Cobain but I'm sure while the supposedly old-school posers go on and on about how great a singer Jim Morrison was, he'd be the first to admit that he's not a singer, he's a poet :)

That list is a fail of epic proportions. Ignoring all the awesome guitar players who didnt make it, the fact that Tony Iommi is beaten by the hack from TOOL as well as the guys from Radiohead and KURT FUCKING COBAIN shows that the guys at Rolling Stones dont know what the fuck theyre talking about.
Most Rolling Stones readers seem to agree with you, as the average user rating is 1.5 out of 5.
Of course, all of these lists are doomed from the start: everyone has their favorite band, and if it isn't in the top they're going to hate the list. If we assume each band has an equal number of devout followers, that means that out of a list of n bands, (n-1)/n of the readers will call it evil.

*snip a bit*

And seriously, you're using Rolling Stone Magazine as some kind of definitive, set-in-stone monolith on all that is Rock 'n Roll? Egads. You seem to be obsessed and enamoured with the whole popularity bit, whereas I'm simply (successfully, regardless of your opinion on the matter) refuting your inaccurate claims that Rush aren't well-known.

Look, Rolling Stone, for all its faults, is a well-known publication dealing with the music industry, I'm simply using it as an indication of the fact that Rush aren't up there. For your guitarist to not even be in the Top 100, despite the obvious fact that he's one of the very best, is indicative of the fact that....they're not well-known.

Secondly, they may very well be known in the USA and Canada, they're just not a well-known band overseas. I'm sorry that it's true but it is.

Really, using "Top #" lists as a means of furthering your argument against Rush being a household name is ridiculous. They've sold around 40,000,000 albums worldwide, and almost all of their albums are Platinum. Household Name. Though it seems that you're trying to say that Zep are better mainly because they're more famous, and have sold more albums... Where should I begin when I explain just how many ways that's wrong?

I've repeatedly said this is not about better, it's simply about the fact that they're not that well-known at all. As for record sales, they've done like 20 albums over 30 years, they could be selling to the same bunch of people in the US every time since they've also sold about 25 million albums in the US - add another 5 million for Canada, and I bet that's a small figure, and you're down to 20 albums selling 10 million around the world over 30 years. Do the math.

And look, if you really want a band that captured the spirit of their time like no other, the Sex Pistols are where it's at. Ignore the bullshit that's written about them, and just listen to the music (as well as the band's own words), and then view the archival footage and photographs. Astounding.

Don't disagree with this at all but not sure as to its relevancy. Just because the Sex Pistols set off an entire movement, doesn't bring Rush up at all and it doesn't detract from what Led Zeppelin did.

Led Zeppelin all the way. They could do it all.

Zeppelin, followed oh so closely by Queen. Rush is good, but not even close to the others.

And Rush have transcended the genres.

I just want to address this - when I say Led Zeppelin transcend genres, I don't mean in terms of their music, I mean in terms of their fan base. My guess is that if you're into rock, you may know Rush but it doesn't really matter what music you're into, you're likely to know, if not like, at least have an opinion on Led Zeppelin.

I just want to address this - when I say Led Zeppelin transcend genres, I don't mean in terms of their music, I mean in terms of their fan base. My guess is that if you're into rock, you may know Rush but it doesn't really matter what music you're into, you're likely to know, if not like, at least have an opinion on Led Zeppelin.

Yeah, that's true.

Though I kind of like the fact that Rush aren't super popular.

Yeah, that's true.

Though I kind of like the fact that Rush aren't super popular.

If nothing else, you've put me onto them, I've been listening to them on Youtube over the past couple of days now though I will admit sneaking in a LZ song here and there :)

I haven't really listened to good old rock for a while now, s'good to be back.

If nothing else, you've put me onto them, I've been listening to them on Youtube over the past couple of days now though I will admit sneaking in a LZ song here and there :)

I haven't really listened to good old rock for a while now, s'good to be back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDFQdnGr7Ik

It's their cover of "The Seeker" by The Who. Without Moon looking like a fucking orangutan.

Seriously, watching footage of The Who often gets on my nerves --- I love them, but Keith Moon, I have a lot of gripes about that guy, and him looking like a fucking idiot behind the drums is but one of them. Him actually being a fucking idiot is another.

To all the people who are saying that Rush is this great, super popular band, look at the poll. Queen and Led Zeppelin are blowing you out of the water.

I'm not trying to say that Rush hasn't done anything important musically or that they don't have fans, they obviously do, but really they don't and can't compare to the other bands in the poll.

One other thing, Led Zeppelin wasn't stealing anything, they were influenced by blues, and to a lot of people all blues sounds the same (the main difference is in the solos, which is what most blues artists are known for). And as for saying that Zep stole riffs from other hard rock groups, first of all, who, and second, why? I'm sorry that you don't like them, but seriously, just accept that they had talent and get on with your lives.

First off, Queen and LZ are blowing Rush out of the water as expected - for a band to be overrated (LZ) there has to be some people who rate them over and above what they really (again, in my humble opinion) deserve. So, this does not prove or disprove anything.
In my humble opinion Queen is much better a band than Rush is but I like Rush much, much more (I am a rock musician after all) but that's another issue.

Also, do you really believe a total of 144 votes really prove anything at all? If you do, any meaningful statistical approach will say otherwise :)

By the way, I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that LZ is more widely known (and loved) than Rush - personally I only dispute the assertion that ANY of the LZ members is in any way within the same realm with ANY of the Rush members in musical aptitude but this has nothing to do with popularity, as we all know :)

Cheerio!

First off, Queen and LZ are blowing Rush out of the water as expected - for a band to be overrated (LZ) there has to be some people who rate them over and above what they really (again, in my humble opinion) deserve. So, this does not prove or disprove anything.
In my humble opinion Queen is much better a band than Rush is but I like Rush much, much more (I am a rock musician after all) but that's another issue.

Also, do you really believe a total of 144 votes really prove anything at all? If you do, any meaningful statistical approach will say otherwise :)

By the way, I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that LZ is more widely known (and loved) than Rush - personally I only dispute the assertion that ANY of the LZ members is in any way within the same realm with ANY of the Rush members in musical aptitude but this has nothing to do with popularity, as we all know :)

Cheerio!

Yeah well these guys blow them all out the water:

Take the Long Way Home (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nvT3_iSaHU&feature=related) - the video's quite cool here, it's a 3D project where the song was picked at random, I like the comment that next time he'll randomly pick a shorter song thank you very much.

Crime of the Century - Live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVPhVV1dYd0) - should really be used in a film montage
Hide in your Shell - Live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s0SuYgxqIg) - often people's favourite after the most known songs

Actually, my guilty secret is that when I was around 13/14 I had every single Supertramp album up until their split. They actually went to the school I went to though quite a whiles before, The Logical Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SehgRTBaA) is about that school.

I don't have any of their albums now but I used to think they were the bees knees and, in a tiny corner locked away deep in my heart somewhere, I'm still upset they're a joke now on a par with '...when hell freezes over' - '...yeah, and Supertramp will make a comeback'.

I admit it here because I am anonymous, and defiant but yeah.

I can give you my address and still proudly say that I love Supertramp :) They are good! But that's just personal taste :)

Cheerio!

PS: Please write the names of the youtube links - my ISP has DNS problems and I cannot access the site :D and I'm too tired to set up treewalk right now...

I can give you my address and still proudly say that I love Supertramp :) They are good! But that's just personal taste :)

Cheerio!

PS: Please write the names of the youtube links - my ISP has DNS problems and I cannot access the site :D and I'm too tired to set up treewalk right now...

Done, only cos you're a fan :)

Done, only cos you're a fan :)Thanks! Now I feel guilty you went through all that trouble - I just realized that my request could be taken retrospectively and become a drag, sorry, mostly on stand by right now - been working for about 35 hours :)

Cheerio!

Seriously, watching footage of The Who often gets on my nerves --- I love them, but Keith Moon, I have a lot of gripes about that guy, and him looking like a fucking idiot behind the drums is but one of them. Him actually being a fucking idiot is another.I like Keith Moon. He at least had the decency to die before the Who's legacy was destroyed by Pete Townshend.

And as for saying that Zep stole riffs from other hard rock groups, first of all, who,Look up "Taurus" by the band Spirit. (This wasn't just a riff, they sampled the whole song.)

and second, why? Because Spirit's a better band.

One other thing, Led Zeppelin wasn't stealing anything, they were influenced by blues, and to a lot of people all blues sounds the same (the main difference is in the solos, which is what most blues artists are known for). And as for saying that Zep stole riffs from other hard rock groups, first of all, who, and second, why? I'm sorry that you don't like them, but seriously, just accept that they had talent and get on with your lives.

Well the courts disagreed and awarded damages against Led Zeppelin because of the plagiarised lyrics in Whole lotta love taken from a Willie Dixon song. There are other examples where they used parts of others peoples work without credit. I am not talking about covering traditional songs here.

I clicked wrong, and apparently voted for LG and the NSGers, which I have no idea what is.

Led Zeppelin, Rush and at last Queen as I regard it.

I clicked wrong, and apparently voted for LG and the NSGers, which I have no idea what is.

Led Zeppelin, Rush and at last Queen as I regard it.

LG and the NSGers are a fantastic banjo-based death metal group - you should really give them a listen - Tacos for all is probably their best known song.

Well let's be clear here - it's more than obvious that the intro to Stairway was very heavily influenced from Taurus but, if you play the song, the note sequence down the D string is fairly natural as are the accompanying B and E strings.

What I'm saying is that it's 'stolen' in apostrophes because the G and Am are different at the end and, once the intro section is out the way, you've an entirely new section.

So yeah, it's 'stolen' but essentially it's a complete song.

The thing is, when you play guitar, you fiddle around with other songs, you experiment and screw around with sequences, rhythm and more and sometimes you find a new song as such, or an extension of an existing sequence.

It's not as if they went 'hey, let's just totally rip that intro and make a song', it's more they're playing around with what is a very nice instrumental and making something new of it.

Still, not entirely defensible.

I like Keith Moon. He at least had the decency to die before the Who's legacy was destroyed by Pete Townshend.

Yeah, but Keith didn't have the decency to not set off a rather large firecracker right behind Pete, which caused his (severe) tinnitis.

Well let's be clear here - it's more than obvious that the intro to Stairway was very heavily influenced from Taurus but, if you play the song, the note sequence down the D string is fairly natural as are the accompanying B and E strings.

What I'm saying is that it's 'stolen' in apostrophes because the G and Am are different at the end and, once the intro section is out the way, you've an entirely new section.

So yeah, it's 'stolen' but essentially it's a complete song.

The thing is, when you play guitar, you fiddle around with other songs, you experiment and screw around with sequences, rhythm and more and sometimes you find a new song as such, or an extension of an existing sequence.

It's not as if they went 'hey, let's just totally rip that intro and make a song', it's more they're playing around with what is a very nice instrumental and making something new of it.

Still, not entirely defensible.I was charitable and used the word "sampled". :p
Besides, Spirit gave them permission.
Nonetheless, statements that Led Zeppelin weren't particularly original (even less so than most other bands) are valid.

Yeah, but Keith didn't have the decency to not set off a rather large firecracker right behind Pete, which caused his (severe) tinnitis.True. Perhaps it was the tinnitus that made Pete defecate on the Who's legacy?

If nothing else, you've put me onto them, I've been listening to them on Youtube over the past couple of days now though I will admit sneaking in a LZ song here and there :)

I haven't really listened to good old rock for a while now, s'good to be back.
I have tickets for a Rush show in May.