http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXAYq5DkQcQ (Nails the whole song) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iBOCx9n5Ls (Nails the whole song) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5X7xsQznKM&feature=related (Hits countless Bb4s, and a C5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5Nw5qlZ9I (Goes for everything, even hits the bridge) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPl0leypC-M (Hits B4s all over the place) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqdErXwxOfA (Nails the song) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9caQ2lj4Ho (Aces the verses-better than the studio version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKAJ1lxsn4 (Hits everything just like the record) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSYddl74mak (Best version ever) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpLfBZGEdc&feature=related (Hits the C5, and all the chorus notes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ7520b0_O8 (Hits CLEAN B4s--probably the best version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNG-dKDt0n0 (Goes for everything)
jpf · Member since
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote:
Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes.
===================
Freddie was always consistently strong in the studio. Death On Two Legs, Dead On Time, Staying Power, and The Show Must Go On are all strong performances.
As for live, his peak was 80-82. Oakland 80, Milton Keynes 82.. he never sang like this in the 70s... bar late 79.
---
In the 1970s Freddie had a wider vocal range.
In the 1980s Freddie's vocal range wasn't as wide, but his vocal power and confidence in his voice was greater than in the '70s.
In the '70s Freddie experimented with his vocals. In the '80s the vocals were more standard, as was Queen's music at the time. Much, if not all, of the experimentations were gone. Every once in awhile you'd get the "Queen sound" on some of the '80s material.
jpf · Member since
Sir GH wrote: jpf wrote:
It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time.
KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined.
====================
Queen didn't make their decision to go to South Africa based on what was or wasn't cool. If being cool was a motivating factor in any of their decision making, they would have called it quits in 1974.
They went to South Africa because they thought it was the right thing to do, and the people they played to would probably agree. Playing a rock concert for mixed audiences during apartheid doesn't make them racist or uncool. They were musicians who wanted to play for a new audience, simple as that. Well, and make money, of course.. ----
It was a politically and morally wrong thing to play in South Africa at that time. Queen suffered the backlash for playing there at that time.
Never said they were racist. Playing in a country where everyone wasn't being treated equally due to race should have been a red flag to the band. They were all well educated. They knew the political ramifications.
I did not use the word "cool" the way you interpreted it.
jpf · Member since
rhyeking wrote: jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: Why do people keep complaining about Queen playing Sun City? I'll never understand. I'm proud that they did it! \m/
----
It wasn't a cool thing for Queen to do at that time.
KISS were asked to play Sun City and they declined. *********************************
There was a cultural boycott that Queen disagreed with. They knew the consequences would be a blacklisting by the Musicians Union and the UN, and general criticism, and they had the balls to do it anyway, because they believed it be a positive action towards change.
They stood on stage as a united foursome, in and against a country of tyrannical racism. Their lead singer and front-man was both gay and of East African descent. By performing, they committed an act of cultural subversion toward apartheid, rather than passively 'boycotting' South Africa. They showed sexual and cultural diversity in a positive way, in country where both were serious crimes. They risked themselves and their reputations, and were in very real danger if the government had caught on. It's galling that anyone could criticize them for both their bravery and the conviction of their beliefs.
----
They were playing to the well off white people. That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch.
Queen playing in South Africa had nothing to do with Freddie's sexuality.
jpf · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime.
----
Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too.
IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto).
BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? =======
1974-1979 for me. ----
Prime in popularity?
Prime in Paul's vocal performance?
Prime in song writing?
Prime in record/concert sales?
jpf · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc).
---
Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later.
========
He was in his vocal prime, then.
----
Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =============
His studio vocals were better as he aged. As for the live stuff, it's 1979-1982 (Crazy Tour-Milton Keynes). He GAINED range as he aged. He's hit C5s-D5s hundreds of times on the 80s albums. And his highest note in full voice is an F5.
I'll provide links, if you are interested. ----
Studio vocals can be manipulated. You sing until you get it right or, as in modern times, you auto-tune it. Live you either skip the note or you have someone else in the band cover it.
IMO Freddie had more range and was more experimental in the '70s. With the '80s came more power in his vocals and more confidence, but again, with less consistant range. "Live At Wembley" shows Freddie not being able to do everything the same as in the past. He still sounded great, but sometimes the occassional cringe worthy note reared its ugly head.
john bodega · Member since
"That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch"
I'm kind of glad. If there's one thing that annoyed me about the 46664 gigs, it was all the random kids wandering onstage with drums and bongos. Come on guys, what is this - open mic night? Only 4 people need to be on that stage. The rest of you can fuck off.
Holly2003 · Member since
jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: jpf wrote: Holly2003 wrote: It must be frustarting for jpf knowing that everyone he meets or talks to is smarter than him, even his neighbours in the trailer park.
It would be a strange world indeed if a minor typo makes me stupid and the homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, moronic shite that makes up about 99% of jpf's comments somehow makes him "smart". A world of trailer parks and inbreeding probably. Welcome to jpf's world. ----
You're a moron.
You're a moronic cunt.
Sums you up perfectly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just what I'd expect an inbred trailer park Kiss fan to say. You never disappoint. ----
You always disappoint. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you. You're a waste of cyberspace. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you reply to everything I say. I'm leading you around like a puppy on a leash.
ps Kiss didn’t have a prime. They sucked in the past, they are currently sucking, and they will continue to suck in the future. They are, though, the world's best known bunch of trannies, which is kinda sweet when you think about it.
GratefulFan · Member since
jpf wrote: GratefulFan wrote: brENsKi wrote:
it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff =====================================
Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic.
----
Let me buy you one of those drinks. ======================
I was ever in any kind of horrifying situation where you'd be buying me a drink, that's exactly the one I'd want.
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range.
He lost the range or not, it's very simple.
Truth is he didn't lose range. At all.
Gregsynth · Member since
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime.
----
Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too.
IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto).
BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? =======
1974-1979 for me. ----
Prime in popularity?
Prime in Paul's vocal performance?
Prime in song writing?
Prime in record/concert sales?
=============
Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave."
For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s.
I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US.
Gregsynth · Member since
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Plant started losing his voice (well his "high voice") as early as 1973 (improper technique, smoking, drugs, back-to-back shows, etc).
---
Basically the same path Freddie followed a few years later.
========
He was in his vocal prime, then.
----
Freddie was in his vocal prime in the '70s. He lost range due to smoking, drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and vocal chord nodes. =============
His studio vocals were better as he aged. As for the live stuff, it's 1979-1982 (Crazy Tour-Milton Keynes). He GAINED range as he aged. He's hit C5s-D5s hundreds of times on the 80s albums. And his highest note in full voice is an F5.
I'll provide links, if you are interested. ----
Studio vocals can be manipulated. You sing until you get it right or, as in modern times, you auto-tune it. Live you either skip the note or you have someone else in the band cover it.
IMO Freddie had more range and was more experimental in the '70s. With the '80s came more power in his vocals and more confidence, but again, with less consistant range. "Live At Wembley" shows Freddie not being able to do everything the same as in the past. He still sounded great, but sometimes the occassional cringe worthy note reared its ugly head.
==================
I completely agree that Freddie was more experimental during the 70s, but he didn't start fine-tuning his singing until around the later 70s. He hit countless B4s and higher notes during the 80s (even at Wembley). Check out the early Magic Tour dates (Stockholm, Leiden, Brussels, etc), MUCH better than Wembley, and some of his vocals during those dates surpass his 70s and his "prime live" era material.
it's called having an objective opinion. it's refreshing that people can find fault in their favourite stuff =====================================
Uh huh. jpf is refreshing like a tall glass of chipped ice, a bottle of 7-Up, and arsenic.
----
Let me buy you one of those drinks. ======================
I was ever in any kind of horrifying situation where you'd be buying me a drink, that's exactly the one I'd want. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol! Brilliant! But probably lost on him ;)
The Real Wizard · Member since
jpf wrote:
It was a politically and morally wrong thing to play in South Africa at that time. Queen suffered the backlash for playing there at that time.
Never said they were racist. Playing in a country where everyone wasn't being treated equally due to race should have been a red flag to the band. They were all well educated. They knew the political ramifications.
I did not use the word "cool" the way you interpreted it.
=================
Ok, fair play. But I still think Rhyeking's post is a bang-on interpretation.
The Real Wizard · Member since
jpf wrote:
They were playing to the well off white people. That wasn't a Nelson Mandela concert by any stretch.
==========
No, the audiences were mixed, at least at some of the shows. Free tickets were given away so that the more economically disadvantaged (i.e. blacks) were able to come as well.
ticket for 27 Rands - http://www.queenconcerts.com/inc/tickets/1984-10-14.jpg free ticket - http://www.queenconcerts.com/inc/tickets/1984-10-07.jpg
