Was Freddie Mercury a fraud singer?

Marcos Napier wrote: He's such a fraud that he couldn't even duplicate that damn easy opera section live and had to use ANALOG TAPES - not even computers and ProTools! Fraud, fraud fraud. At least he died before Autotune was invented or else he would have used it all the time too.

(do I need to type the word "sarcasm"?)

Actually, for the likes of tarabotses, I think you probably do need to to type the word "sarcasm" a few times.

Zebonka12 wrote:
I actually don't agree with people who reckon digital technology is ruining music, in and of itself. It just happens to be the thing we're using at the moment. Blame the people who show extremely poor judgement in manipulating that technology ...

Very well said.

SimonFerocious wrote:
Freddie was struggling with his voice on The Magic Tour. I agree that his vocals weren't up to scratch there but that was probably his HIV condition asserting itself. If you look at Queen On Fire from Milton Keynes Bowl in 1982, Freddie's voice is fantastic. He goes for all the high notes and gets them. It depends what concert you are looking at.

Exactly. But it's a little more in depth than comparing one tour to another. Mercury often started strong on a tour and weakened as it wore on (like in 86), but Europe 82 was the other way around - he started slow and peaked at the end. So it all depends on which night you catch him on, really.

If you feel like doing a bit of digging on youtube, compare Stockholm 82 to Stockholm 86 - both of which were at the beginnings of tours. He sounds leaps and bounds better at the 86 show.

So I highly doubt that HIV had anything to do with Mercury's voice in 86. His voice was still excellent on the last few records.

To be fair even on some of the later gigs (Cologne is the best late concert) his voice was still decent, I mean he nails songs at Cologne and Budapest, Frejus has some unreal versions (Bo Rhap is superb) Barcelona is decent and Knebworth is also respectable concert, especially during the first half of the show.

It is true to say he was stronger to start, but I'd say he started strong, got a little weaker towards the end of June and was very inconsistant during the UK leg (great one night, poor the next) and then came back with a bang by Manchester gig and stayed good barring a couple of the Spanish gigs from then on.

Cologne really is good enough to go amongst the top 5 gigs of the tour, despite being decently into the 2nd half of the tour.

radiogugu wrote: Man, I listen to him sing on his albums and it is amazing.

Live however, he NEVER hits notes he did in the studio. A lot of songs make me go "wow" when I listen to them on cd. When I watch queen live, it is a letdown. Under Pressure, Who Wants To Live Forever, pretty much EVERY Queen song actually.....He avoids ALL the high notes and makes his drummer sing them.

I have a feeling he was a fraud singer. Can't hit the notes live so used studio tricks to make his voice higher. To seem better than it actually was.

have you seen anything else other than Live Aid or Wembley 86? didn't think so. now please go home and make an effort

Idiots and assholes cant believe I just read this thread?
nuff said,

Didn't he have an Autotune hidden inside his leotard?

Its nice to see that Op brought a nice topic to discuss. Obvious troll it's obvious, and as usual we also have the raging responses of the stepford fans.


I dont like much the style of Freddie's voice during the works tour and the magic tour. it sound like he is not taking any more risks... (except for live aid when he goes for all).

However, He was fabulous in those late seventeen concerts

How about the fact that maybe after rehearsing and singing the same song hundreds of times live, perhaps he wanted a little variety and change his style from time to time. Think about playing over and over again the same set list for months. Hell it has to get boring at some time. Playing live means that you take song and put some new energy and style into thius every time you hear it you hear differences all the time. If I want to hear perfect sudio versions then just play the friggin studio records. Live a little for heaven's sake.

I think people too often associate good performances with hitting high notes. I don't care whether Freddie hits high notes or not, as long as it sounds good.

Holly2003 wrote:
Yes he was a fraud. He also had a girlfriend called Mary Austin, so he wasn't even totally gay as he had everyone believe. Furthermore, his real name was Farrokh Bulsara, not Freddie Mercury. It was all a tissue of lies. It wouldn't surprise me if his moustache was fake too.

^ MOTHER OF UNICORNS! Everything all Queen fans know is a lie...

OR MAYBE... Freddie died in 1980 and was replaced by a look-alike!

But seriously, this made me laugh so hard.

radiogugu wrote:
Man, I listen to him sing on his albums and it is amazing.
Live however, he NEVER hits notes he did in the studio. A lot of songs make me go "wow" when I listen to them on cd. When I watch queen live, it is a letdown. Under Pressure, Who Wants To Live Forever, pretty much EVERY Queen song actually.....He avoids ALL the high notes and makes his drummer sing them.
I have a feeling he was a fraud singer. Can't hit the notes live so used studio tricks to make his voice higher. To seem better than it actually was.

You obviously have no idea how an album is made or how a tour is managed.

there are at least 3 points to consider wnhen comparing a studio recording with a live performance:

1 - in the studio a singer can record multiple takes of a song or just a specific verse and then select the best for the final mix, even back then in the era of analog multitrack tapes. If he can't get the note he wants one day he can go rest or rehearse and come back later to do it, always in a controled environment.

2 - on tour you have to deliver the same songs 30 to 40 times, or whatever the length of the tour is, over a period of 1 or two months, sometimes in consecutive nights. When doing this you realy have to take care of your voice, and not strain it too much. Freddie in particular, from very early on, had problems with nodes in his vocal cords that sometimes impacted the tours, one of the most known incidents was on Sun City, when he completely lost his voice one night after just a couple of songs. And in Live Aid he performed against the advice of his doctor. Guess he decided to do it because Queen had no more schedulled apearances for that year wich meant he could take it easy afterwords

3 - Queen actualy made it a point of not reproducing the record on stage. They felt it was disrespectful of the audience to do so. If people wanted to listen to the songs as played in the record they could stay home, instead they wanted every concert to be an experience for the audience. That is why Queen where also pioneers in incorporating elaborate light, sound and phyro schemes into the show, something for wich they where criticized at the time. Fact is, some years later, every major rock band was doing the same.

Also, hardly any performer can reproduce a song live as it was recorded every single time they perform. If you listen to enough shows you will inevitably recognise this to be true.

[EDITED BECAUSE I WISH TO STAY A MEMBER OF THIS FORUM: DESPITE THE COMPLETE IDIOCY SHOWN BY THE TOPIC CREATOR]
Wow. I saw this post months ago but didn't want to respond to such supreme idiocy fan adulation.

You lambert d*****bag twig headed f***; YOU have insured that I stumble upon THIS post and ANOTHER (verbatim) on another website when searching for the technical high note that Freddie sings on WWTLF...


IF you are to be so crass and unappreciative of the efforts and the life a man lives and judge him by a live performance that encompassed his tours; you really are musically/historically ignorant.

Save for Stevie Wonder....and Christina Aguilera Virtually NO ONE sings their songs on a 100+ date tour with a mindset NOT TO PREVENT VOCAL DAMAGE while on tour.


You f***ing imbecile.


Now its out there for people who even want to search a relevant topic.


Get the lambert dil** out of your a$$ and mouth and shut the f*** up.

Find someone else who has lived their life with their art, inspired millions (*with TALENT) and graced the world's stage with accolades like he has.

Its disgusting that a simpleton peon braggart scumbag schill ass-kissing young dumb f**k took it upon himself to make the suggestion that

A) a rock vocalist
B) having toured a total prior 15 years of his life ON THE ROAD (while earning his keep/fighting labels, giving his all to the point of destroying himself)
C) a significant ARTIST
Would and COULD be demeaned in such an ignorant way


You sound like the @$$holes that try to diminish Michael Jackson...


I DEFY you to find someone else to sing as sweetly as a butterfly, but with all the rasp, pang and gripe/strife/hostility/anger as Michael did as well


Ought to do you well to study singing....

Armchair f***head expert.

I sing, I know singers (pro + semi pro) [its a matter of $$$$ unless you're talking ability]

You sound wholly ignorant saying such stupid idiocies and spouting them as "I believe he was a fraud"


Would you dare call an artist a Fraud if he did not reproduce the piece exactly as it was upon request?

Absurd!

Are you EIGHT YEARS OLD or something???!!!

Go out and LIVE A LIFE!!!


Until then.... SHUT THE F*CK UP, YOU IGNORANT TWAT!

MDNA wrote:

radiogugu wrote:
Man, I listen to him sing on his albums and it is amazing.
Live however, he NEVER hits notes he did in the studio. A lot of songs make me go "wow" when I listen to them on cd. When I watch queen live, it is a letdown. Under Pressure, Who Wants To Live Forever, pretty much EVERY Queen song actually.....He avoids ALL the high notes and makes his drummer sing them.
I have a feeling he was a fraud singer. Can't hit the notes live so used studio tricks to make his voice higher. To seem better than it actually was.

You obviously have no idea how an album is made or how a tour is managed.

there are at least 3 points to consider wnhen comparing a studio recording with a live performance:

1 - in the studio a singer can record multiple takes of a song or just a specific verse and then select the best for the final mix, even back then in the era of analog multitrack tapes. If he can't get the note he wants one day he can go rest or rehearse and come back later to do it, always in a controled environment.

2 - on tour you have to deliver the same songs 30 to 40 times, or whatever the length of the tour is, over a period of 1 or two months, sometimes in consecutive nights. When doing this you realy have to take care of your voice, and not strain it too much. Freddie in particular, from very early on, had problems with nodes in his vocal cords that sometimes impacted the tours, one of the most known incidents was on Sun City, when he completely lost his voice one night after just a couple of songs. And in Live Aid he performed against the advice of his doctor. Guess he decided to do it because Queen had no more schedulled apearances for that year wich meant he could take it easy afterwords

3 - Queen actualy made it a point of not reproducing the record on stage. They felt it was disrespectful of the audience to do so. If people wanted to listen to the songs as played in the record they could stay home, instead they wanted every concert to be an experience for the audience. That is why Queen where also pioneers in incorporating elaborate light, sound and phyro schemes into the show, something for wich they where criticized at the time. Fact is, some years later, every major rock band was doing the same.

Also, hardly any performer can reproduce a song live as it was recorded every single time they perform. If you listen to enough shows you will inevitably recognise this to be true.

MDNA, I love u man.... I thought all this stuff was common sense..until I had seen crowds in hollywood stand motionless during excellet performances. Some artists even call it out "they think this is tv or something"

Its a complete generational severance of empathy.... Beat your kids, lock em out of doors... Maybe they'll start playing in the street again, dreeaming, living and loving..


;)

This might be a tad impopular (though, judging from the responses, not nearly as impopular as some of the above posts), but I seriously suspect that the quality of Freddie's performances were also affected by the amount of alcohol and tobacco he took shortly before the show.

Why do I believe this to be the case? As a tour drags on, alcohol and drug consumption tends to increase. During the 1970s, when Freddie wasn't (heavily) smoking and drinking, the difference between early-tour-Freddie and late-tour-Freddie seemed far less than it was in the '80s.