Led Zeppelin beats Journey's ass. Perhaps oddly, Journey had equally good musicians (in some cases, better ones), but that didn't help them in the composition department. Journey is a lightweight band. Zeppelin, for all their imperfections, were a heavyweight band. End of story.
Zeppelin for me. Not even a close contest. I don’t dislike Journey but this is like bringing a stick to a gun fight.
Two great bands. People sometimes think of Styx as 80s arena rock, but go back through their early catalog and you'll find something quite different.
Yeah. Those doo-wop days of this crack me up. Except for Rainbow in the Dark, Holy Diver may be my least favorite song on that album. I mean, I like it (unlike Rainbow in the Dark) but...
I was kidding that it was his best, of cours , but I truly do actually like that song. Anyways, I believe his best is Gates of Babylon or Neon Knights, though, metal heads hate me for it, but I'm not a huge Dio fan. I much prefer the Metal God. Every time I hear the wicked "the SENTINEL!" and those dueling guitars start, I get shivers down my spine.
That's a great song and vocalist as well, of course. I like RJD a lot, but I don't try to compare him or Dickinson or Halford. Those are the three I see brought up the most, and they each have quite different styles. I think RJD had the broadest range--doo-wop, blues, rock, metal, whatever--the guy could sing it. Probably Halford next, if you check out Sad Wings of Destiny for example, and compare to their later stuff. I love Dickinson, but my favorite Maiden album is Killers and that's Di'Anno singing. It's all good.
Honestly, I like a couple Iron Maiden albums, but not really in love with any of them. There are great songs, and some pretty bad songs, on every album they've put out. Now, Priest is different. I think almost every song from Rocka Rolla all the way up to Priest . . . Live! is great. And then it completely drops off, with only a handful of good songs after that (mostly due to not a drop in vocal talent, rather Halford has started to do that terrible death/black metal growl). Honestly, not metal, but the only person whose entire discography I like is Bon Scott. I have never heard a single studio recording of his that I didn't think was absolutely solid. Anyways, back to metal, I do think there are quite a few underappreciated guys. As implied above, I don't really like the newer death/black metal stuff, as I'm more into opera-style vocals with high-pitched screaming, so I'll stay in that realm. Guys like Harry Conklin, Juan Gallardo, and Ripper Owens (especially his cover of "Abigail,"even though his actual discography sucks) don't get enough credit. Now, I will say that I recently discovered the New Wave Of Traditional Heavy Metal was a thing, and I'm elated. Few and far between are the ones that can truly belt like the Metal God, but they're out there, waiting to be discovered by my ears.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Maiden. I think the vast majority of their albums are solid all the way through Bon Scott was great--he was in a blues band prior to AC/DC and did a great job on vocals. If you like opera-style vocals you'd probably like Messiah Marcolin era Candlemass, do he doesn't do the high-pitched screaming. The first couple 3 Inches of Blood have some nice high vocals by Cam. I do like Ripper--I thought he did a great job with Iced Earth, for example. I agree that his solo discography is weak. Lot's of good stuff out there. I like the death metal / black metal vocals as well, if they're combined with great composition and (usually) with some clean vocals. Early Opeth, for example. Or Agalloch's great folk/prog metal with just a bit of the black metal vocals. Also quite like Ahab if you don't mind some very slow death/doom meta with clean vocals mixed in.
No, but I should have quit her such a long time ago. ETA: oh, and Humpty Dance was our other wedding song... it was a fun wedding. Not that I remember much about it.
My mom would kill me if I said Zeppelin was better than Journey. You should have seen the incident where her friend tried to say that Duran Duran was better than Journey. Oh boy... (Up the Irons) (But I also like Joy Division. Am I weird?)
It's totally fine if you prefer a band for personal reasons, like they have a hit you love to sing to in the car or you lost your virginity listening to them, but please try not to confuse the subjective with the objective. Led Zeppelin and Journey are not even in the same league. See the link below showing the best selling artists by quarter from the 1970s up till now. Note that one of the above bands has a continual presence for a decade, whereas the other is nowhere to be found. That the majority of posters on this thread chose that band supports this. What's particularly amazing to me though is that we even had to go to the numbers. I love listening to don't stop believing in the car as much as the next person, but Led Zeppeling's songs run circles around Journey's in terms of quality, depth, and originality. This should not be a debate.
As much as I love Zeppelin (and trust me, I absolutely love Zeppelin) I cannot argue their originality. A large portion of their songs were, to put it pleasantly, "creative reinterpretations" of existing material. Dazed and Confused was strongly based off of a song written by Jake Holmes of the same name, and a good portion of their bluesier stuff was directly lifted from North American Blues Legends. You know, the dead guys that almost everyone's heard of but very few have actually listened to directly. So while I love how they arranged and performed it, it would be a stretch to call a large portion of their catalog "original."
Also, you realize that sales are not necessarily a indication of quality. I mean, how long was Brittney Spears, Lil Wayne, and (God forbid) Ed Sheeran on that list? If people chose their listening material based solely on the quality, originality, and talent, sales would be a great indicator, but people don't. They choose to buy things based on things like emotions, social acceptance, and industry pressures. Sometimes even things like personal preferences, which are pretty much the definition of subjective. Like, if, for example, The Beatles are the best band to ever have and ever will (as some people claim), then sales should indicate this by still having them at the top of the charts. But they're not, so we'll have to admit that maybe The Beatles really are kind of over rated.
I'd say sales are even more inaccurate the further back in time you go. Bad rock album sales in the 70's, for example, were usually due to bad/greedy managers. Hell, one of the finest rock bands to ever come out of Australia, Buffalo, are completely unknown because they never released outside of AUS.