Good topic but we can only guess. Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers know why, and I doubt they'll ever tell the full story. If I had to guess, I would put it down to Brian's rather depressing conservative nature with regard to set lists and live shows. They messed up Time to Shine in Antwerp and it was never played again. My guess is that was Brian's doing. As he said himself, he'd rather bang out another tired version of TYMD than try anything interesting on stage. I think Rodgers just got bored with the whole thing and left.
Pim Derks · Member since
How I wish they'd played tracks like Voodoo, Warboys and Time To Shine at every gig. Too bad they only got played a couple of times each. I still can't believe they didn't do Small and Still Burning. Would be great to have Still Burnin' merge into We Will Rock You at the end of the show. Maybe if we kill all badgers and foxes Brian will once again focus on music? :D
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira · Member since
Pim Derks wrote: How I wish they'd played tracks like Voodoo, Warboys and Time To Shine at every gig. Too bad they only got played a couple of times each. I still can't believe they didn't do Small and Still Burning. Would be great to have Still Burnin' merge into We Will Rock You at the end of the show. Maybe if we kill all badgers and foxes Brian will once again focus on music? :D
LOL that's a good idea!!!
mike hunt · Member since
Sir GH wrote: Band Forever wrote:
"PR just does enough not his band or music, probably protecting his voice and no range."
No range? Tell me, exactly how many times did Freddie Mercury sing We Are The Champions properly in concert? I count about 5 times out of about 300 we've heard so far.
Paul Rodgers, on the other hand, consistently nailed it just about every night. Tastes aside and stage presence aside, the fact of the matter is Paul Rodgers in his 50s takes much better care of his voice than Freddie did in his prime. Freddie had three golden years for his voice in the early 80s, but Paul has been consistently strong for decades.
Freddie Mercury is my all-time favourite singer, but the reality is, on a night to night basis, overall he was not a consistent singer.
I agree with Band forever on this one........i don't know about range or whatever, but paul's missing something......can't explain it. like he just goes through the motions. no feeling in his singing. I'm talking about how he sings the queen songs, not his own. Every song is sung the same way with him....freddie was able to sing different styles even live. somebody to love then he could sing a song like sheer heart attack.......love of my life then he sings tie your mother down. some of these songs he sings better live IMO.. I know sheer heart attack i prefer his live voice over the studio. before you go into a paul rodger's hissy fit I do agree fred was inconsistent from night to night. he's still a better singer than paul hands down. not even close. there's more to singing than hitting notes.
mike hunt · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: Good topic but we can only guess. Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers know why, and I doubt they'll ever tell the full story. If I had to guess, I would put it down to Brian's rather depressing conservative nature with regard to set lists and live shows. They messed up Time to Shine in Antwerp and it was never played again. My guess is that was Brian's doing. As he said himself, he'd rather bang out another tired version of TYMD than try anything interesting on stage. I think Rodgers just got bored with the whole thing and left.
Going by record sales i think everyone got tired of the whole thing.......they were missing something.
The Real Wizard · Member since
mike hunt wrote:
"there's more to singing than hitting notes."
I agree. Overall Freddie was the far superior singer - nobody's debating that. In fact, Freddie is my all-time favourite rock singer. But someone claimed that Paul Rodgers has no vocal range which just plain isn't true. Thousands of singers have better consistency with their vocal range than Freddie did, and Paul is one of them - even at age 60. Nobody's arguing that this automatically makes them a better singer. It's just one of many technical aspects of the human voice.
If you like oranges more than bananas, that is a matter of preference. But you can't argue the superiority of oranges in every conceivable way simply because you like them more.
And for the record it was Paul who messed up the first chorus of Time To Shine in Antwerp.
Gretsch6120 · Member since
With the new 'Queen' charity gig coming up and no sign of Paul being on board, does that serve as a strong indicator that he will never perform with Queen again?
jeffuk49 · Member since
which is a huge shame
Micrówave · Member since
It's funny to still see people slamming ol' Paul, I'm sure they are far better musicians.
Why doesn't Queen just hire one of you Queenzoners who can clearly see Paul has no business singing? They'd be back on top of the Rock world in no time!!
Double-U · Member since
richjohnson26 wrote: With the new 'Queen' charity gig coming up and no sign of Paul being on board, does that serve as a strong indicator that he will never perform with Queen again?
Dear Richjohnson,
can you give an explanation about the charity gig you mentioned, please? I think I slept to long.
