|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-03-2004, 01:58 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Bouncebackabiliter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: East London
Posts: 85
|
How the hell can you compare Meatloaf with Queen?! Meatloaf is just some big fat dude who sings 15 minute long songs with no real outcome other than the fact that people become even more annoyed with him. Queen have revolutionised music. Meatloaf has become a mere symbol for fatties.
|
04-17-2011, 11:46 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
I don't know if it was some kinda fad in the 70's but Meatloaf album BooH was written if it was a musical, maybe he got the idea from The Who, or maybe it was Andrew Lloyd Weber, who knows, but it was produce by Todd Rundgren who produce a quite few famous bands during the 70's & 80s.
Queen had an amazing sound with the vocal harmonies and the overdubbing, so even without synthesizers that were all rage during the 70's the vocals alone gave there songs an other-worldly sound, where most other bands relied on the synthesizer for their otherworldly sound, just think of Pink Floyd and their otherworldliness. Queen are even recognized by The Vocal Group Hall of Fame Foundation, a pretty impressive accolade imo. Besides their vocal capabilities their musicianships was top notch too. Brian May created his own unique sound, with the Red Special (he made himself with this father) Vox AC30s, an echo unit thingamajig and harmonic overdrive and another thing He didn't do the typical blues guitar solo as most blues-rock guitarist would do like EC of Jimmy Page (I mean at the the time everyone was doing it at the time and it was a little overdone or old hat) but Brian had his own unique style. They were a great band that had major hits that were anthems for their time, one of the more important bands from the 70's era. Meatloaf was a one tricky pony with the BooH sequels, and didn't explore different musical styles like Queen and didn't consistently release albums with hits on them like Queen. So with "Meatloaf vs Queen" I would have to pick Queen.
__________________
Quote:
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº? “I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac. “If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle. "If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon "I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards |
|
04-22-2011, 11:53 AM | #15 (permalink) |
Supernatural anaesthetist
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
|
^!
There's no comparison; Queen are among the supermen, Meatloaf is a buffoon. It's like choosing between the LOTR trilogy and an episode of McGyver.
__________________
- More is more -
|
04-22-2011, 04:16 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
\/ GOD
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
|
I'm not completely sure why this comparison is made. Maybe because it's because both bands have operatic vocals, and which is best at fusing opera with rock.
If that's the case, Magma >>>>>>>>>>>> Queen + Meatloaf * 5 billion Plus it predates both, so there! Anyway, I'll go with Meatloaf, though. I feel Queen is ridiculously overrated, and with the exception of maybe a handful of songs(Bohemian Rhapsody, Death on Legs, Don't stop me now, Mustafa) has one of the most terrible to irritating level discography in the history of music.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-22-2011, 05:53 PM | #17 (permalink) | |
Supernatural anaesthetist
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
|
Quote:
The worst thing about Queen is their fanbase. I know, I know, that shouldn't really matter at all for any serious music fan, but their case is sort of unique. They are the perfect bet for the average rocker aspiring on being 'artsy', pointing at them revolutionizing rock history by their 'opera-meets-metal'-thingie. That's ludacris, of course. They were certainly unique, if only for the contributions of Freddie and Brian, but formally speaking they sure as hell were derivative from the getgo. What they did, or rather, what they were to be renowned for, was basically to simplify and harden prog rock and make it more accessible, but even that was yesterday's news by 1973 (Uriah Heep comes to mind, even if their simplicity was rather a result of their lack of chops and imagination). And whenever I start to actually scroll through the contents of their records, even in the 70's, there is a considerable amount of filler on each and everyone of them. Actually, on a song-for-song-basis I think that "Queen II" is their best effort ever, marred only by Taylor's contribution. That said, I still think they get away with it by being so profilic and having a vast backpack of great songs after all. I wouldn't want to live without "Great king rat", "Liar", "Son and daughter", "March of the black queen", "White queen", "Ogre battle", "Brighton rock", "Killer queen", "Flick of the wrist", "Death on two legs", "The prophet's song", "Tie your mother down", "Somebody to love"... yeah, you get it. The populism of "News of the world" stinks though.
__________________
- More is more -
|
|
04-22-2011, 06:27 PM | #18 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,206
|
I'd say they're both seriously overrated
__________________
Click here to see my collection |
04-25-2011, 12:37 AM | #20 (permalink) |
Live by the Sword
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
|
haven't heard that much from both, really
Meatloaf I only heard all three BooHs and the 90s singles, Queen I only have Greatest Hits 1 and The Works based on those, I prefer Queen |
|