Black Sabbath vs Queen

they have a number of things in common - weird guitar sounds, strong lead vocals, tight rhythm section, a certain fantasy element to the lyrics, along with a bit of pretentiousness

Also, Sabbath + Queen = Priest.

Now THIS one is easy. Sabbath's rhythm section comprehensively demolishes Queen's. And Ozzy was a brilliant vocalist; Mercury just pretended he was.

For me, early Queen (first two albums) has the edge, because it's more grounded in reality. But after that they very quickly become petulant stars in limousines, so then it's Sabbath.

And Iommi is a better guitarist than May, none of this raincoat over an amplifier nonsense.

Pop always wins over heavy metal, and Queen had some great pop tunes.

Queen

Black Sabbath.

Now THIS one is easy. Sabbath's rhythm section comprehensively demolishes Queen's. And Ozzy was a brilliant vocalist; Mercury just pretended he was.

― Sara Sara Sara, Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:07 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what?

going Sabbath, but this wasn't as easy as i initially thought

queen were so brilliant. i hope they never get lost in the shuffle. almost everything they did up to and including the game was amazing. sometimes i think they are overlooked by people when it comes to talking about the godfathers of metal. SO MANY bands owe them big time.

will not choose...don't rly know that much Queen...but gut tells me Sabbath.

But only after it tells me to stay away from poll threads (bye).

Queen of course.

Anyway, why aren't you putting Sabbath up against Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple instead? That would be more relevant. :)

Rock Against Relevance

Sabbath automatically lose in any poll except if they were pitted against Metallica or the Eagles.

what?

Mercury sings like a guy who has deluded himself into thinking he's a great vocalist. Ozzy had no such delusions and simply went about his business being a great vocalist.

"Sabbath automatically lose in any poll except if they were pitted against Metallica or the Eagles."

Holy shit.

Hmm, we will see here.

they're both A+++++++++, hall of fame, all time classic, godhead vocalists but yeah I'd give the edge to Ozzy.

xxp

Also, Sabbath + Queen = Priest.

haha otm

^not really sure if that's true though...priest formed in 1970, just after sabbath and the same year as queen...they didn't get really popular til way later but their style is pretty well formed even in the early albums....

Not the bands...

The queen, going to church on the Sabbath, look there's a Priest.

I dunno matt

queen II + master of reality = sad wings of destiny

and rocka rolla (74) != sad wings of destinty (76)

maybe...i'm just saying it's easy to say that looking back...but you never know what priest was really thinking...like they might have been huge on like atomic rooster or some weird bands you don't think of cuz they are not as popular...

or they could've been listening to bands that were making it and thinking man, how can we make it too

also, it's not a dig on priest or anything, I love sad wings of destiny more than queen II or master of reality

you never know what priest was really thinking

The interviews in Martin Popoff's bio Heavy Metal Painkillers are quite clear on this, actually. Halford was a big Freddie fan and the Sabbath influence on the early stuff is pretty obvious, aye.

^^ah cool, i've not read that...

because it's more grounded in reality.

?? I have no idea what this means. Sabbath all the way. Queen are fun as overblown Sparks imitators but barring the odd classic hits (which ARE great) they don't come anywhere close to the monolithic vision of Sabbath.

I findvarious ILM posters propensity for dismissing metal out of hand to be really weird and inexplicable.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ugh! brutal!!

Blimey! They dun it!

quite right too.

Pop always wins over heavy metal

really? clearly I missed a meeting.

hahah--i voted for the Sab but the discrepancy here is far too great.