MOZART IS GOD.
BACH IS JESUS.
(Just trying to start more nonsense blather from TM)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gmhmagic wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie God of music?
I don´t know why people still say this kind of rubbish... very close minded...!
Freddie was an awesome musician and artist... but come on... God of music????
Have you ever listened to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven???????????
Just to name a few of the well known ones...
speaking about music in general...!
[/QUOTE]
yeah ive listened to mozart etc i like them too but freddie is the god of music and thats a fact.
how is that closeminded? the man was the most talented there ever was or ever will be, his voice is the best of all time. His songwriting was amazing, he was the best musician of all time and will be forever without the slightest competition.[/QUOTE]
Okay, first...not a fact. There is this strange unearthly thing called an opinion. You enjoy Freddie's music, but you have admitted to having little to no technical understanding of music. Therefore any opinion you express concerning music is mere opinion, as it is solely based on your personal levels of enjoyment.
Second, it is closeminded precisely because you refuse to admit that any viewpoint save your own carries the least validity. This is the definition of closemindedness.
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Fourth, Freddie was not a viruoso musician. His skills on the guitar were intensely limited, and his piano playing was very, very good, but did not approach the level of virtuosic. His compositional skills were indeed revolutionary and exciting; however, his actual playing, while impressive, fails to approach the staggering heights of Glenn Gould.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
I don´t know why people still say this kind of rubbish... very close minded...!
Freddie was an awesome musician and artist... but come on... God of music????
Have you ever listened to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven???????????
Just to name a few of the well known ones...
speaking about music in general...!
[/QUOTE]
yeah ive listened to mozart etc i like them too but freddie is the god of music and thats a fact.
how is that closeminded? the man was the most talented there ever was or ever will be, his voice is the best of all time. His songwriting was amazing, he was the best musician of all time and will be forever without the slightest competition.[/QUOTE]
Okay, first...not a fact. There is this strange unearthly thing called an opinion. You enjoy Freddie's music, but you have admitted to having little to no technical understanding of music. Therefore any opinion you express concerning music is mere opinion, as it is solely based on your personal levels of enjoyment.
Second, it is closeminded precisely because you refuse to admit that any viewpoint save your own carries the least validity. This is the definition of closemindedness.
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Fourth, Freddie was not a viruoso musician. His skills on the guitar were intensely limited, and his piano playing was very, very good, but did not approach the level of virtuosic. His compositional skills were indeed revolutionary and exciting; however, his actual playing, while impressive, fails to approach the staggering heights of Glenn Gould.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fur wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This is quite nice; the religous and non-religous are uniting against a common foe.[/QUOTE]
XD
XD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gmhmagic wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie God of music?
I don´t know why people still say this kind of rubbish... very close minded...!
Freddie was an awesome musician and artist... but come on... God of music????
Have you ever listened to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven???????????
Just to name a few of the well known ones...
speaking about music in general...!
[/QUOTE]
yeah ive listened to mozart etc i like them too but freddie is the god of music and thats a fact.
how is that closeminded? the man was the most talented there ever was or ever will be, his voice is the best of all time. His songwriting was amazing, he was the best musician of all time and will be forever without the slightest competition.[/QUOTE]
Okay, first...not a fact. There is this strange unearthly thing called an opinion. You enjoy Freddie's music, but you have admitted to having little to no technical understanding of music. Therefore any opinion you express concerning music is mere opinion, as it is solely based on your personal levels of enjoyment.
Second, it is closeminded precisely because you refuse to admit that any viewpoint save your own carries the least validity. This is the definition of closemindedness.
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Fourth, Freddie was not a viruoso musician. His skills on the guitar were intensely limited, and his piano playing was very, very good, but did not approach the level of virtuosic. His compositional skills were indeed revolutionary and exciting; however, his actual playing, while impressive, fails to approach the staggering heights of Glenn Gould.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
[/QUOTE]
you compare a nobody like that rufus guy with the best voice AND singer of all time?? what a joke... that rufus guys voice is nothing special AT ALL, his voice is not special while freddies voice is the most beautiful voice ever, what a blasphemy to compare a mediocre voice like that with freddie, amazing...
yeah freddie wasnt virtuoso in playing like beethoven for example but he wrote amazing songs and many of them are in fact very complex. I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.
Dont think that you know anything better than me coz you dont and the fact that you mention that rufus guy and comparing him to the best singer of all time totally takes away any credibility you might have had.
I don´t know why people still say this kind of rubbish... very close minded...!
Freddie was an awesome musician and artist... but come on... God of music????
Have you ever listened to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven???????????
Just to name a few of the well known ones...
speaking about music in general...!
[/QUOTE]
yeah ive listened to mozart etc i like them too but freddie is the god of music and thats a fact.
how is that closeminded? the man was the most talented there ever was or ever will be, his voice is the best of all time. His songwriting was amazing, he was the best musician of all time and will be forever without the slightest competition.[/QUOTE]
Okay, first...not a fact. There is this strange unearthly thing called an opinion. You enjoy Freddie's music, but you have admitted to having little to no technical understanding of music. Therefore any opinion you express concerning music is mere opinion, as it is solely based on your personal levels of enjoyment.
Second, it is closeminded precisely because you refuse to admit that any viewpoint save your own carries the least validity. This is the definition of closemindedness.
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Fourth, Freddie was not a viruoso musician. His skills on the guitar were intensely limited, and his piano playing was very, very good, but did not approach the level of virtuosic. His compositional skills were indeed revolutionary and exciting; however, his actual playing, while impressive, fails to approach the staggering heights of Glenn Gould.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
[/QUOTE]
you compare a nobody like that rufus guy with the best voice AND singer of all time?? what a joke... that rufus guys voice is nothing special AT ALL, his voice is not special while freddies voice is the most beautiful voice ever, what a blasphemy to compare a mediocre voice like that with freddie, amazing...
yeah freddie wasnt virtuoso in playing like beethoven for example but he wrote amazing songs and many of them are in fact very complex. I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.
Dont think that you know anything better than me coz you dont and the fact that you mention that rufus guy and comparing him to the best singer of all time totally takes away any credibility you might have had.
Well, I will respond. While I admit that I don't see Freddie as a God, or, even feel he was the best musician ever(I really do love my Mozart), I don't think that, if you are going to comment on Freddie's vocal abilities, describing his range as narrow would be very accurate, relative to other singers of his genre. Perhaps if one compares him to, say...Mariah Carey, Freddie's range may come up short, however, his range is comparable to other male singers of rock and roll, and, in fact, exceeds most of them. I'd say he had a great deal to work with, regarding his voice.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote:
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
[/QUOTE]
Third, Freddie's voice was a fine voice, but technically it is not nearly the Most Amazing Ever! It was often thin and covered a (comparatively) narrow range; listen to Rufus Wainwright's voice for an example of a voice far more developed and dynamic. Freddie DID know how to work with what he had, and the results make him one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. However, from a completely objective perspective (which I cannot entirely claim to assume) it does lack on the whole.
Just my seven-and-a-half cents worth. I wonder if I'll be responded to this time?
[/QUOTE]
Well. Two responses! My lucky day.
My argument revolved around the fact that, compared to some singers, Freddie's voice could be considered narrow. This is not to insist that his range doesn't easily eclipse the majority of the human population; however, as our dear TM seems intent on declaring Freddie the God of all things Musical, I thought it might provide some mild entertainment to point out that his voice was, in contrast to Rufus Wainwright or, hell, Mariah, not quite as dynamic. In my opinion.
This is certainly not intended as an insult to Freddie. His voice resonates with me in an intensely personal fashion; indeed, if I wantonly barged about declaring my uninformed opinions to be facts, I would certainly insist on his vocal superiority to almost every singer I've encountered.
I'm assuming that Treasure Moment listened to some Rufus, either earlier or in response to this post. I find it telling that his first statement revolves around Rufus's relative lack of notoriety; sad. If public opinion shaped the greats of the artistic world, we wouldn't have hide nor hair of Van Gough.
Again TM's ignorance is showing. Rufus has one of the most technically advanced male voices in modern music. His security of intonation and excellent range are a testament to what a conditioned voice can accomplish. And his songwriting, coupled with that of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan, is about the best to be found. In my opinion.
An interesting aside: you mention being able to recognize 'coplexity' in music, which apparently equates 'goodness.' Personally I ascribe to the adage of the folk luminary Pete Seeger: "Any idiot can make something complex. It takes a genius to make something simple." In his opinion.
This does not necessarily efface the brilliance of successfully complex music; rather it is a commentary on the tendency of untried musicians to compose something so achingly complex that it will blow their audiences away. And often this works: people are easily blinded by complex but pointless music. It is truly more difficult to compose something both simple and compelling; in the instance of simplicity, the sole aspect of artistic wonder is brought on by the unity of theme, form and performance. Thus Rufus Wainwright's cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Halleluja' on the 'Shrek' soundtrack remains a gorgeous and compelling track, despite its being insanely simple. In my opinion.
But if you are looking for complexity, preferring Queen over any of Bach's compositions is artistic madness. Bach's music is so intricately constructed that reverberations of his sensibility have been found at the heart of Chaos Theory. I figure if your music firmly echoes the essence of complex mathematical concepts not discovered until two-hundred years after your death, you had something special going on. In my opinion.
Hopefully this clarifies a few salient points. TM, you are a silly, silly man.
In my opinion.
My argument revolved around the fact that, compared to some singers, Freddie's voice could be considered narrow. This is not to insist that his range doesn't easily eclipse the majority of the human population; however, as our dear TM seems intent on declaring Freddie the God of all things Musical, I thought it might provide some mild entertainment to point out that his voice was, in contrast to Rufus Wainwright or, hell, Mariah, not quite as dynamic. In my opinion.
This is certainly not intended as an insult to Freddie. His voice resonates with me in an intensely personal fashion; indeed, if I wantonly barged about declaring my uninformed opinions to be facts, I would certainly insist on his vocal superiority to almost every singer I've encountered.
I'm assuming that Treasure Moment listened to some Rufus, either earlier or in response to this post. I find it telling that his first statement revolves around Rufus's relative lack of notoriety; sad. If public opinion shaped the greats of the artistic world, we wouldn't have hide nor hair of Van Gough.
Again TM's ignorance is showing. Rufus has one of the most technically advanced male voices in modern music. His security of intonation and excellent range are a testament to what a conditioned voice can accomplish. And his songwriting, coupled with that of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan, is about the best to be found. In my opinion.
An interesting aside: you mention being able to recognize 'coplexity' in music, which apparently equates 'goodness.' Personally I ascribe to the adage of the folk luminary Pete Seeger: "Any idiot can make something complex. It takes a genius to make something simple." In his opinion.
This does not necessarily efface the brilliance of successfully complex music; rather it is a commentary on the tendency of untried musicians to compose something so achingly complex that it will blow their audiences away. And often this works: people are easily blinded by complex but pointless music. It is truly more difficult to compose something both simple and compelling; in the instance of simplicity, the sole aspect of artistic wonder is brought on by the unity of theme, form and performance. Thus Rufus Wainwright's cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Halleluja' on the 'Shrek' soundtrack remains a gorgeous and compelling track, despite its being insanely simple. In my opinion.
But if you are looking for complexity, preferring Queen over any of Bach's compositions is artistic madness. Bach's music is so intricately constructed that reverberations of his sensibility have been found at the heart of Chaos Theory. I figure if your music firmly echoes the essence of complex mathematical concepts not discovered until two-hundred years after your death, you had something special going on. In my opinion.
Hopefully this clarifies a few salient points. TM, you are a silly, silly man.
In my opinion.
I do agree that Rufus Wainwright has a lovely, lovely voice(though, I still prefer Freddie's voice). His, "Hallelujah," actually choked me up. It is difficult to imagine, him, however, managing Queen's earlier, harder rocking songs, which Freddie did handily, and, dynamically.
We know that Freddie's vocal range was 3.5 octaves, not including falsetto. What is the range of Mr Wainwright? Just curious.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well. Two responses! My lucky day.
My argument revolved around the fact that, compared to some singers, Freddie's voice could be considered narrow. This is not to insist that his range doesn't easily eclipse the majority of the human population; however, as our dear TM seems intent on declaring Freddie the God of all things Musical, I thought it might provide some mild entertainment to point out that his voice was, in contrast to Rufus Wainwright or, hell, Mariah, not quite as dynamic. In my opinion.
This is certainly not intended as an insult to Freddie. His voice resonates with me in an intensely personal fashion; indeed, if I wantonly barged about declaring my uninformed opinions to be facts, I would certainly insist on his vocal superiority to almost every singer I've encountered.
I'm assuming that Treasure Moment listened to some Rufus, either earlier or in response to this post. I find it telling that his first statement revolves around Rufus's relative lack of notoriety; sad. If public opinion shaped the greats of the artistic world, we wouldn't have hide nor hair of Van Gough.
Again TM's ignorance is showing. Rufus has one of the most technically advanced male voices in modern music. His security of intonation and excellent range are a testament to what a conditioned voice can accomplish. And his songwriting, coupled with that of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan, is about the best to be found. In my opinion.
An interesting aside: you mention being able to recognize 'coplexity' in music, which apparently equates 'goodness.' Personally I ascribe to the adage of the folk luminary Pete Seeger: "Any idiot can make something complex. It takes a genius to make something simple." In his opinion.
This does not necessarily efface the brilliance of successfully complex music; rather it is a commentary on the tendency of untried musicians to compose something so achingly complex that it will blow their audiences away. And often this works: people are easily blinded by complex but pointless music. It is truly more difficult to compose something both simple and compelling; in the instance of simplicity, the sole aspect of artistic wonder is brought on by the unity of theme, form and performance. Thus Rufus Wainwright's cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Halleluja' on the 'Shrek' soundtrack remains a gorgeous and compelling track, despite its being insanely simple. In my opinion.
But if you are looking for complexity, preferring Queen over any of Bach's compositions is artistic madness. Bach's music is so intricately constructed that reverberations of his sensibility have been found at the heart of Chaos Theory. I figure if your music firmly echoes the essence of complex mathematical concepts not discovered until two-hundred years after your death, you had something special going on. In my opinion.
Hopefully this clarifies a few salient points. TM, you are a silly, silly man.
In my opinion.[/QUOTE]
We know that Freddie's vocal range was 3.5 octaves, not including falsetto. What is the range of Mr Wainwright? Just curious.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well. Two responses! My lucky day.
My argument revolved around the fact that, compared to some singers, Freddie's voice could be considered narrow. This is not to insist that his range doesn't easily eclipse the majority of the human population; however, as our dear TM seems intent on declaring Freddie the God of all things Musical, I thought it might provide some mild entertainment to point out that his voice was, in contrast to Rufus Wainwright or, hell, Mariah, not quite as dynamic. In my opinion.
This is certainly not intended as an insult to Freddie. His voice resonates with me in an intensely personal fashion; indeed, if I wantonly barged about declaring my uninformed opinions to be facts, I would certainly insist on his vocal superiority to almost every singer I've encountered.
I'm assuming that Treasure Moment listened to some Rufus, either earlier or in response to this post. I find it telling that his first statement revolves around Rufus's relative lack of notoriety; sad. If public opinion shaped the greats of the artistic world, we wouldn't have hide nor hair of Van Gough.
Again TM's ignorance is showing. Rufus has one of the most technically advanced male voices in modern music. His security of intonation and excellent range are a testament to what a conditioned voice can accomplish. And his songwriting, coupled with that of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan, is about the best to be found. In my opinion.
An interesting aside: you mention being able to recognize 'coplexity' in music, which apparently equates 'goodness.' Personally I ascribe to the adage of the folk luminary Pete Seeger: "Any idiot can make something complex. It takes a genius to make something simple." In his opinion.
This does not necessarily efface the brilliance of successfully complex music; rather it is a commentary on the tendency of untried musicians to compose something so achingly complex that it will blow their audiences away. And often this works: people are easily blinded by complex but pointless music. It is truly more difficult to compose something both simple and compelling; in the instance of simplicity, the sole aspect of artistic wonder is brought on by the unity of theme, form and performance. Thus Rufus Wainwright's cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Halleluja' on the 'Shrek' soundtrack remains a gorgeous and compelling track, despite its being insanely simple. In my opinion.
But if you are looking for complexity, preferring Queen over any of Bach's compositions is artistic madness. Bach's music is so intricately constructed that reverberations of his sensibility have been found at the heart of Chaos Theory. I figure if your music firmly echoes the essence of complex mathematical concepts not discovered until two-hundred years after your death, you had something special going on. In my opinion.
Hopefully this clarifies a few salient points. TM, you are a silly, silly man.
In my opinion.[/QUOTE]
An interesting question. I did a little research, a didn't come up with a specific range; however, one listen to the title track from 'Release the Stars' proves he has the chops to soar and growl with the best of them.
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
Well, not going to argue that he doesn't have an amazing voice(and, well, he's got the loveliest eyes), and, having heard him sing, I've no doubt that he can manage some of of Judy's material(I am also a great fan of Judy Garland). I just wanted to point out that part of what made Freddie such a good singer(aside from his lovely pitch and range) was the way he could sing an achingly beautiful ballad, and, also sing those really hard rocking songs that made up the bulk of early Queen's material. Not just manage them, but, sing them powerfully, melodically, and, rytmically.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]An interesting question. I did a little research, a didn't come up with a specific range; however, one listen to the title track from 'Release the Stars' proves he has the chops to soar and growl with the best of them.
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]An interesting question. I did a little research, a didn't come up with a specific range; however, one listen to the title track from 'Release the Stars' proves he has the chops to soar and growl with the best of them.
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you compare a nobody like that rufus guy with the best voice AND singer of all time?? what a joke... that rufus guys voice is nothing special AT ALL, his voice is not special while freddies voice is the most beautiful voice ever, what a blasphemy to compare a mediocre voice like that with freddie, amazing...[/QUOTE]
It's funny... you cut overly-religious people to shreds for blindly believing in things they can't prove to be true, but you're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that your "God" is Freddie. And the only person who doesn't see it is YOU!
[QUOTE]I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha... now that's funny! On that note, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I know everything about airplanes. Anyone else who disagrees with me is committing blasphemy.
It's funny... you cut overly-religious people to shreds for blindly believing in things they can't prove to be true, but you're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that your "God" is Freddie. And the only person who doesn't see it is YOU!
[QUOTE]I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha... now that's funny! On that note, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I know everything about airplanes. Anyone else who disagrees with me is committing blasphemy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you compare a nobody like that rufus guy with the best voice AND singer of all time?? what a joke... that rufus guys voice is nothing special AT ALL, his voice is not special while freddies voice is the most beautiful voice ever, what a blasphemy to compare a mediocre voice like that with freddie, amazing...[/QUOTE]
It's funny... you cut overly-religious people to shreds for blindly believing in things they can't prove to be true, but you're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that your "God" is Freddie. And the only person who doesn't see it is YOU!
[QUOTE]I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha... now that's funny! On that note, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I know everything about airplanes. Anyone else who disagrees with me is committing blasphemy.
[/QUOTE]
flying an airplane and listening to music are not the same thing, what a stupid comparision.
in music the judge is the ears and the intellect of the listener.
It's funny... you cut overly-religious people to shreds for blindly believing in things they can't prove to be true, but you're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that your "God" is Freddie. And the only person who doesn't see it is YOU!
[QUOTE]I may not know musical theory but i can hear whats complex or not, whats mediocre and whats not.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha... now that's funny! On that note, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I know everything about airplanes. Anyone else who disagrees with me is committing blasphemy.
[/QUOTE]
flying an airplane and listening to music are not the same thing, what a stupid comparision.
in music the judge is the ears and the intellect of the listener.
Freddie WAS the God of Cock, facial hair and overdubbing. <3
x
x
"in music the judge is the ears and the intellect of the listener."
That explains that then....
That explains that then....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"in music the judge is the ears and the intellect of the listener."
That explains that then....[/QUOTE]
yes it does and i know music better than these dumb people
That explains that then....[/QUOTE]
yes it does and i know music better than these dumb people
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]An interesting question. I did a little research, a didn't come up with a specific range; however, one listen to the title track from 'Release the Stars' proves he has the chops to soar and growl with the best of them.
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
[/QUOTE]
its obvious you dont know ANYTHING about music and all your credibility is lost now. You compared a GARBAGE nobody like that rufus with freddie, what a joke........
I do know that he has the vocal virtuosity to reproduce the entirety of Judy Garland's Carnegie Hall appearances. As Judy's voice was quite phenomenal, I'll tip my hat to any lady or gent willing to tackle her setlist. I saw him perform several of her tracks at a recent concert in Michigan; stunning. And the stilettos didn't hurt the performance either.
As for rocking out, check out his performances of 'Origin of Love,' 'The One You Love,' and 'Between My Legs,' amongst others. He can rock damn well when he chooses to do so, though I agree that Freddie's voice was better suited to hard rock material.
[/QUOTE]
its obvious you dont know ANYTHING about music and all your credibility is lost now. You compared a GARBAGE nobody like that rufus with freddie, what a joke........