*With that in mind*, when I did start to give Rolling Stones tunes a listen, I found I had the same experience as with Zeppelin. All of that catalogue, and I only came away with about a dozen songs that did anything for me. I wonder if people will go through the same thing once Muse has 20 albums. Haha.
mike hunt · Member since
I believe queen sold more records worldwide than the stones.....[img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]
Serry... · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
when I did start to give Rolling Stones tunes a listen, I found I had the same experience as with Zeppelin. All of that catalogue, and I only came away with about a dozen songs that did anything for me.
[/QUOTE]
Same here.
disco_mart · Member since
C'mon guys and girls stones are so over rated it ain't funny. They needed Paul and John to give them a reject Beatles song just to get off the ground.
As to Muse, I think they are getting better end better. They seem to be a new age Queen minus a recognisable front man ala Freddie or the like. And yes they are better then the Stones too.
Micrówave · Member since
[QUOTE]but vocals alone he leaves Jagger in the dust...Not even close. [/QUOTE]
So you're saying not only am I wrong, but so is Michael Jackson? He also thought Mick was a better singer. So I think I'm going to stick with my guns (and Michael Jackson's opinion) and say YES, MICK IS BETTER THAN FRED.
But Mike Hunt hit on a very important note, Mercury/May were very underrated... but so was Hall & Oates. In fact, where is Daryl Hall? He's got almost as nice a voice as Freddie. Almost.
I would put Freddie slightly below the Mick/Elvis/Ray/John/Aretha group. No, I'm not banishing him to the Feldman/Hues class. But Freddie never 'moved the Earth'. Maybe for 20 minutes at Live Aid, yes. Certainly not during the encore.
Mick has.
Elvis did.
Ray did.
John did.
Aretha still does... sometimes without even singing!!
mike hunt · Member since
When did michael jackson say Mick was a better singer than freddie?.....We all know the story behind why michael chose Jagger to sing that horrible solo song. Can't even remember the name of it.
john bodega · Member since
If Freddie wanted to be as good as Mick Jagger, he only had to chug 10 pints of beer.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ouch... truth, sweet truth. I can just feel the ignorance shrinking. Or is it common sense that's shrinking? It's often hard to tell here.
[/QUOTE]
Are we on queenzone ignorant? or are the people who say the stones in every way are better than queen?....if your talking "the whole package" singing, performing, songwriting, Influence....then i have no problem with freddie being at 18, but vocals alone he leaves Jagger in the dust...Not even close.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I was half kidding of course. This seems to be a place of satire at times.
Where did this "best singer" poll say they were rating only quality of vocals? Was the criteria even established at some point? Probably not. 99 out of 100 polls are a popularity contest. And that remaining 1 is unfortunately never widely seen, as they're the one person out of the bunch who truly knows what they're talking about... like the guy at digitaldreamdoor.com. Rarely have I seen someone with musical knowledge of such scholarly proportion.
The fact of the matter is, we're talking about Rolling Stone, a magazine that rates musicians in accordance to how they've influenced American popular culture. The fact that Freddie made the top 20 is pretty surprising. The fact that Kurt Cobain ranked higher (#12) than Brian May (#39) in their "best guitarists" poll is not surprising.
Dane · Member since
Most of these singers almost NEVER hit a wrong note live... Freddie did.
In his defence he did have a lot more challenging songs to sing, but still.
Freddie has the kind of voice you either love or hate.. not much in between.
Where is Ronnie Dio on the list!?!?!
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Dane wrote: [/b]
Most of these singers almost NEVER hit a wrong note live... Freddie did.
[/QUOTE] That's because it's basically impossible to screw up their songs, hahaha. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Seconded as far as Dio goes, what the fuck? Where the hell is he??
[/QUOTE]
Gregsynth · Member since
Mick Jagger's voice SUCKS compared to Freddies! Freddie should be TOP TEN at least. Robert Plant's higher on the list than Freddie? LMFAO! What a joke! Freddie can hit practically any note (low and high), while all Plant does is screech high notes. Also, when Freddie hits high notes, they sound "full" and quite pleasant to the ears. Plant's high note are always "screechy" sounding. [/QUOTE]BTW Rolling stone has ALWAYS bull-shitted Queen and Journey (they ranked Steve Perry in the 70s! WTF?!)[/QUOTE]
mike hunt · Member since
I think plant is so overated, no offense to him. I know he was a big influence but that high screechy voice puts me off.
[QUOTE]How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.[/QUOTE]
Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times.
Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do.
But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something...
Now, if Freddie & Co. could have gotten their act together earlier, like New Kids On The Block or The Musical Youth, perhaps they'd be higher on the list. The Beatles and The Stones were making records ten years before the idea of Queen. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I don't agree. I think that Freddie was vastly superior to Jagger, not just as a vocalist but also as a song-writer and performer. I also regard Freddie to be be better than Lennon; what millions of people think does not concern me. Nor does it concern me what Michael Jackson thought. You accused someone of telling you that you were wrong; this isn't a matter of being right or wrong, although if you insist that you are right, then you should be prepared to have people tell you that you are wrong. This is purely a matter of opinion and I do regard Freddie to be alot better than Mick, and Mercury/May to be better than Jagger/Richards, and I don't need to grab a hammer as this discussion is purely subjective.
You talked about putting Mick/Elvis/Ray/John/Aretha above Freddie because they 'moved the earth'. Well, I disagree. I would never put Jagger in the same category as Elvis, Ray, Lennon or Freddie, with the possible exception of influence. In terms of vocals, performance and song-writing, I think that Freddie was one of the two or three greatest of all time. IMO nobody 'moved the earth' like him, he was one of the very greatest song-writers of all time and as a vocalist he was unsurpassed.
