v2kv
Member
Funny fact. His son went to my school...biggest failure ever.
fail.
Controversial non-metal opinions
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
fail.
False Joe
Who cares.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
False Joe
Who cares.
challenge_everything
Active Member
What the fuck are you people smoking. Plant is the greatest frontman ever, and Mercury, whilst undeniably talented (and yes probably did have a technically better voice), played for a poncy 'lowest common denominator' arena rock band. No comparison.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
v2kv
Member
We weren't talking about his ability as a frontman, but as a vocalist. I love Zeppelin and Plant, but Mercury was simply better imo.
And yeah, Queen may not be in the league of Zeppelin, but they were still fucking awesome.
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Back when Led Zeppelin was my most favoritest band ever I used to try to ignore the fact that Zep is sloppy as bloody hell and Plant's singing voice live was basically the sound of crap in a blender as far back as the early 70s.
But 7 odd years later I actually love those facts about Zep. Even on studio recordings Zep is sloppy as hell... and I think that makes them even better. Such a raw, honest sound. It makes me think they're another one of those bands that really didn't fit in with the mainstream style but still managed to dominate the scene just out of pure artistic ability. And Plant's vocals (strictly in live performance) are as effed up as Bob Dylan's. That just makes him unique. Bob Dylan's probably my favorite vocalist ever, strictly from the standpoint of how it sounds.
As for studio recodings, though, Plant does kick excruciating ass and I wouldn't have a problem saying he's better than Mercury in the studio. Just because Mercury does a lot of harmonies with himself doesn't make him great. I'm a fan of both of them and they were both masters. I don't frankly care who's better anymore.
But 7 odd years later I actually love those facts about Zep. Even on studio recordings Zep is sloppy as hell... and I think that makes them even better. Such a raw, honest sound. It makes me think they're another one of those bands that really didn't fit in with the mainstream style but still managed to dominate the scene just out of pure artistic ability. And Plant's vocals (strictly in live performance) are as effed up as Bob Dylan's. That just makes him unique. Bob Dylan's probably my favorite vocalist ever, strictly from the standpoint of how it sounds.
As for studio recodings, though, Plant does kick excruciating ass and I wouldn't have a problem saying he's better than Mercury in the studio. Just because Mercury does a lot of harmonies with himself doesn't make him great. I'm a fan of both of them and they were both masters. I don't frankly care who's better anymore.
Belligerent
Greekus Urungus
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
Why? What's so great about him? I'd rate several vocalists above him tbh.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Frontman, not vocalist. Also re Trendkill's comment, I don't know why you would regard him as sloppy live. Have you seen the DVD boxset? I've never seen such a magnetic performance on stage.
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
I'm talking about his vocals. Is magnetism not an attribute of his stage performance, not the sound of his voice? Robert Plant live is all kinds of effed up crazy pitch modifications and strained sounds. Don't get me wrong, I love it. But it's pretty effed up.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
I dont see it.
Zep was my first big fan band. From 70 to 75 I listened to very little other than Zep. I felt Page, Plant, Jones and Bonham were music Gods. Then my musical taste started changing, I still hold Zep very dear.... but then I saw The Song Remains the Same. Plant sucked, what 75% of the time? , there was also nothing out of the ordinary to his physical stage performance either and the limp wristed action was horrible. Then in the 80's he got into that "nervous" singing thing, he always had it some but he decided to ride on it.
Mercury was a dynamic stage performer... if you could stand to look at him, a bit odd looking Im afraid. None the less he was an astonishing vocalist and performer. I havent a clue what the "Queen was a poncy 'lowest common denominator' arena rock band" comment is all about, they nearly walked in Zeps footprints and were everything Zep was in their own right, their own way. Christ what a silly statement.
This coming from someone that owns every LZ recording and only one Queen... their first.
There was far more dynamic stage performers in those times, Steve Marriot & Rod Stewart for starters and they are close to Plants vocal style and were also influences on Plant.
Then there was Alice Cooper & David Bowie, both totally different, both totally all about fronting a stage show.
Theres no denying Plants raw power on Zeps first 4 studio albums... but that was the end of it. After that all the high parts were weak falsetto, well he blew his cords out so he has a reason but none the less, it is what it is. He did manage to give us a dynamic vocal performance on The Rain Song and No Quarter from Houses of the Holy, thats the last of his origional power house sound I can think of.
Heres some primitive footage of Steve Marriot in 1971, this is how a frontman for a hardrock band works a stage in 1971
Zep was my first big fan band. From 70 to 75 I listened to very little other than Zep. I felt Page, Plant, Jones and Bonham were music Gods. Then my musical taste started changing, I still hold Zep very dear.... but then I saw The Song Remains the Same. Plant sucked, what 75% of the time? , there was also nothing out of the ordinary to his physical stage performance either and the limp wristed action was horrible. Then in the 80's he got into that "nervous" singing thing, he always had it some but he decided to ride on it.
Mercury was a dynamic stage performer... if you could stand to look at him, a bit odd looking Im afraid. None the less he was an astonishing vocalist and performer. I havent a clue what the "Queen was a poncy 'lowest common denominator' arena rock band" comment is all about, they nearly walked in Zeps footprints and were everything Zep was in their own right, their own way. Christ what a silly statement.
This coming from someone that owns every LZ recording and only one Queen... their first.
There was far more dynamic stage performers in those times, Steve Marriot & Rod Stewart for starters and they are close to Plants vocal style and were also influences on Plant.
Then there was Alice Cooper & David Bowie, both totally different, both totally all about fronting a stage show.
Theres no denying Plants raw power on Zeps first 4 studio albums... but that was the end of it. After that all the high parts were weak falsetto, well he blew his cords out so he has a reason but none the less, it is what it is. He did manage to give us a dynamic vocal performance on The Rain Song and No Quarter from Houses of the Holy, thats the last of his origional power house sound I can think of.
Heres some primitive footage of Steve Marriot in 1971, this is how a frontman for a hardrock band works a stage in 1971
Last edited by a moderator:
Einherjar86
Active Member
v2kv
Member
Similar threads
