Meatloaf vs Queen
 

hey guys....who do u think is better?
meatloaf....the dude with the most amazing voice in the world....or Queen.....the one band to rule them all?
plz give ur opinoins.

Queen, I grew up listening to alot of queen from my cousin so yea they're definately just killer for me.

meatloaf is alright but it just cant top queen

have come to the conclusion that Quee is the best band and meatloaf is the best solo singer! but still unsure who i prefer most.

I have to go with Queen, Brian May plays a mean guitar.

Meatloaf definately
 

I think meatloaf is the better of the two, whilst i like Queen, I am a huge fan of Meatloaf.

Thanx


Helen xxx

Queen is way better, but meatloaf is pretty funny

if only Freddie Mercury was still with us!

i like both queen and meatloaf.. i dont think i could choose just one lol...

!Shaylah*

*one good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain.*

I would have to go with Queen, didnt really like meatloaf much

Meatloaf is a great singer....his voice just bribgs tears to your eyes. its sooooo amazing!
Queen you cant help but love. their music is my soul.
damn these hard choices in life.

i prefer meatloaf his voice is well wicked and the style he sings in is amazing too!

Cant believe ur even comparing the two. Queen are the second greatest band of all time (behind led zeppelin) while meat loaf's songs are quite terrible. great voice though.

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.

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.

^!

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.

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.

^as well.

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.

I'd say they're both seriously overrated

Meatloaf is a nobody without Jim Steinman

Queen have been nobodies since Freddie Mercury died.

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

Well, to be fair, they had a good run until 1991. Queen-with-Paul-Rodgers is a different band altogether, as far as I'm concerned.

just got Sheer Heart Attack

terif so far - that Brian May is an insane fella

No contest IMO. Most of the albums from both bands are over-produced though Bat Out Off Hell is just over the top, pompous, a ridiculous rock opera. Though I'm a big fan of Todd Rundgren this album is unbearable to listen to for me. Queen lost me with Jazz. A Night At The Opera is a classic though being over-produced it's a landmark album. Sometimes over production works and sometimes it doesn't. Two prime examples.

Just got A Night at the Opera.

Fab, the pomposity really works for me.

Personally, I was brought up on Queen, so a lot of their songs resonate with me to an extent that they would be a band that I comeback to again and again. Ashamedly, I've only really listened to the Greatest Hits Compilations that were released, but it is on my list of things to do to get around to their actual albums!

Well I like both Queen and Meatloaf but to be honest there wasn't a lot of variation in the sound of Meatloaf's sound. The majority of his material is melodramatic hard rock, with the occasional heavy ballad. It sounds alright but really he never strays off this formula.

Queen on the other had that melodramatic hard rock style as well, but they also incorporated elements of glam, prog, disco, synthpop to their music. Whilst it didn't always work, especially with their 80's material, it at least showed a bit more diversity.

Neither one are all that special really... but I would go with Queen.

Nice 2004 thread bump. haha

Meatloaf vs Queen
 

The first thing that comes to my mind is, Meatloaf vs Pat Benatar, and Queen vs Styx. (It's far from perfect choices?), but it seems to be a more fair and equal level of talent when comparing bands.
Meatloaf has acquired a few classic's of his own to claim through the years
But the band QUEEN are Icons. What can you say about a band that has a front man like Eddie Mercury. With an innovative band, like the band members of Queen? You have to have a band that equals Queens (frontman) aspect 1st. And the band chosen needs to equal band members at the same level of talent as well. Popularity would hold merit, (I guess). But not necessarily.

I would vote for none of the above there.

Queen I liked when I was 16 when I had a more limited knowledge of music and it was all I knew. But now I find little interest in Queen. Freddy Mercury was a good frontman and he knew how to work an audience into a frenzy.. and for that I commend him. But beyond that I found him to be a lackluster performer, his music fails to engage me and I find any emotion he has is overshadowed by his over dramatic approach to his vocals and is sucked out in the process of trying to be a performer over an artist. Queen to me work better as a theatrical performance group than a group of musicians... They are entertainers more than musicians. Not on the level of say KISS who were no more than a marketing ploy and a case of substance over art, an image more than anything, or say Prince who is the epitome of over indulgance and wankery in every aspect.. but not that different either. Queen to me is a band that gets way to much attention and acclaim for what they did.

Meat Loaf fits into the same mold to me, good performer, lackluster artist, his music may of been something good in it's time, but it has not aged well.

Prince?:yikes: I don't mean to pry in your personal & private business, but can I ask how old you are?

29.

Are you challenging my thoughts on Prince or are you saying he does not fit in?

Cause yeah, Prince to me is just... pathetic. The ultimate in wankery crap. Everything he does embodies this.

Oh! Please No, I'm not in any way challenging your thoughts concerning Prince. I never thought that he had a stitch of talent myself. He hardly ever plays any musical instruments that shows any sort of musical talent that he possesses as an artist or in the studio. I agee, I dont think that Prince is anything more than a "Wanker" myself. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Never got the appeal or why people kiss his ass. The people who say he is a great guitarist bother me most, he wasn't. All he did was take wanker techincal licks piece them together and show his hendrixisms.. but his riffs were no better than those guys who work at the local guitar shop and play riffs on their lunch break.

I mean watch him in this and say he is not a wanker:



just show off bulls*it. First off, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" doesn't need a two and a half minute solo... and the way he keeps going even in Tom Petty's vocal section is just embarassing. This to me is all Prince does... takes techincal riffs, peices them together and wanks away.

F*ck Prince.

What do you think about his work in the studio? Do you think his dancing choreography ranks?

I do not know about choreography, that doesn't matter to me. The music to me is what counts, not the dancing surrounding it, so I really cannot comment on what I think of that aspect.

As for his studio work... I would say the same as his live work. Not to say he is not a good musician in some rights, but he is also a mediocre songwriter and everything he does comes across to me as pompous and superficial. I just cannot take him seriously, in anything he does. I cannot be bothered to listen to his music be it on CD or on stage. I think with the right producer though, anything can sound good, but it doesn't mean the material itself is good.

What would you say if I suggested that Prince is a music prodigy and masters at least thirteen different musical instruments?

Just means he has 13 instruments to wank on.

Jeff Martin in The Tea Party played over 20 on "Edges of Twilight".

And Steely Dan spent two years in the studio and used 34 different studio musicians, in the making of their album Gaucho. Which only included seven songs, period.

unless you are an orchestra, who needs that many musicians? Another reason why I have never been able to get into the whole Prog thing I suppose.