cmsdrums
The all night party after the gig the night before didn't help too I guess?!?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
emrabt
To answer your question about why Live at Wembley is the most well known, it’s because they keep re-releasing it.
From a technical editing viewpoint it’s the best concert, they have the full concert filmed on 16 cameras, have all the camera feeds, they have the audio multitracks, plus tonnes of back stage and rehearsal footage.
From a technical editing viewpoint it’s the best concert, they have the full concert filmed on 16 cameras, have all the camera feeds, they have the audio multitracks, plus tonnes of back stage and rehearsal footage.
noorie
The simplest thing I can say is that Freddie's voice is charismatic! Whether on his best day or his worst, you are drawn to the charisma. Listen to Freddie and any other singer sing the same song, and even though the other singer may be technically on better form that day, you are attracted to the Freddie version. It is just an emotional reaction everybody has to his voice.
My two bits!
My two bits!
Typhoon859
[QUOTE] [b]attaboy_jhb wrote:[/b]
not "his" work just everyones in general. As a rule I ONLY measure singers ability by their live performances. Thats just the way i feel about it...sorry if you don't like that.
I did like the live aid gig though as everyone mentioned here and he does sound great there... totally different. so you can all calm down now
[/QUOTE]
You should really change your outlook as far as the studio stuff goes however. What in my previous comment would there be that you disagree with?
It shouldn't just be about how you "feel" about something; it should be what represents the truth. It's not about me liking it or not liking it; it's about its true significance. As I also previously mentioned, you can't just generalize the way you do.
To cut straight to the chase, there are no gimmicks or tricks done in the studio with Freddie's singing. As I mentioned in my other comment, it's just a difference of approach and how it was decided by him to be handled. Nobody can do what he did in the studio and that reflects purely on his ability. If you haven't read it though, I highly suggest you look over what I wrote. It's important as to the nature of your perspective,
not "his" work just everyones in general. As a rule I ONLY measure singers ability by their live performances. Thats just the way i feel about it...sorry if you don't like that.
I did like the live aid gig though as everyone mentioned here and he does sound great there... totally different. so you can all calm down now
[/QUOTE]
You should really change your outlook as far as the studio stuff goes however. What in my previous comment would there be that you disagree with?
It shouldn't just be about how you "feel" about something; it should be what represents the truth. It's not about me liking it or not liking it; it's about its true significance. As I also previously mentioned, you can't just generalize the way you do.
To cut straight to the chase, there are no gimmicks or tricks done in the studio with Freddie's singing. As I mentioned in my other comment, it's just a difference of approach and how it was decided by him to be handled. Nobody can do what he did in the studio and that reflects purely on his ability. If you haven't read it though, I highly suggest you look over what I wrote. It's important as to the nature of your perspective,
Nitroboy
[QUOTE]
[b]Zamidoo wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
Wembley wasn't at the end of the tour, it was right in the middle of it.
The reason why Freddie sounds [i]odd[/i] at Wembley is because he was ill, nothing else, a week later he sounds [b]beastly[/b] in Vienna:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ[/url]
[/i][/QUOTE]
Yes, I see what you mean. That explains the Wembley concert in question as well, then. Singing with vocal nodules and a bad cold isn't pretty... I still think that the nodules were the main problem, though, exacerbated by the cold. That 'crackling' and hoarse sound, and voice breaks on certain notes, are all classic symptoms of vocal nodules. That must have been so painful to sing on...[/QUOTE]
Well, after he had gotten the nodules he always sang with them, they didn't disappear.
Him having a cold just really fucked up his voice
[b]Zamidoo wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
Wembley wasn't at the end of the tour, it was right in the middle of it.
The reason why Freddie sounds [i]odd[/i] at Wembley is because he was ill, nothing else, a week later he sounds [b]beastly[/b] in Vienna:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ[/url]
[/i][/QUOTE]
Yes, I see what you mean. That explains the Wembley concert in question as well, then. Singing with vocal nodules and a bad cold isn't pretty... I still think that the nodules were the main problem, though, exacerbated by the cold. That 'crackling' and hoarse sound, and voice breaks on certain notes, are all classic symptoms of vocal nodules. That must have been so painful to sing on...[/QUOTE]
Well, after he had gotten the nodules he always sang with them, they didn't disappear.
Him having a cold just really fucked up his voice
tomchristie22
Friends Will Be Friends just isn't the song to look to if you want to hear Freddie at his best. Sorry some people are being less than civil here, but your opening remarks WERE pretty presumptuous.
It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.
It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.
Nitroboy
[QUOTE]
[b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b] It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.[/QUOTE]
That's because people like the OP only listen to the studio work, and then for live stuff only listen to Wembley '86, which has subpar vocals. Then people go on to say Freddie couldn't sing live and was only popular because of his charisma.
[b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b] It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.[/QUOTE]
That's because people like the OP only listen to the studio work, and then for live stuff only listen to Wembley '86, which has subpar vocals. Then people go on to say Freddie couldn't sing live and was only popular because of his charisma.
12yrslouetta
Thing is, you can chit and chat all day about how high he could sing, his vocal range, his breath control, but when it came to it he was admired by his peers. Maybe a way to go is to read what other singers say about him.
Zamidoo
[QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zamidoo wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
Wembley wasn't at the end of the tour, it was right in the middle of it.
The reason why Freddie sounds [i]odd[/i] at Wembley is because he was ill, nothing else, a week later he sounds [b]beastly[/b] in Vienna:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ[/url]
[/i][/QUOTE]
Yes, I see what you mean. That explains the Wembley concert in question as well, then. Singing with vocal nodules and a bad cold isn't pretty... I still think that the nodules were the main problem, though, exacerbated by the cold. That 'crackling' and hoarse sound, and voice breaks on certain notes, are all classic symptoms of vocal nodules. That must have been so painful to sing on...[/QUOTE]
Well, after he had gotten the nodules he always sang with them, they didn't disappear.
Him having a cold just really fucked up his voice[/QUOTE]
Sorry - perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant that the nodules were the underlying problem, but with the added symptoms of a cold, which was the immediate problem at Wembley and just after, so I agree with you. I doubt many other singers would have been able to do what he did (probably why he's admired by so many other singers...)
[QUOTE]
[b]Zamidoo wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
Wembley wasn't at the end of the tour, it was right in the middle of it.
The reason why Freddie sounds [i]odd[/i] at Wembley is because he was ill, nothing else, a week later he sounds [b]beastly[/b] in Vienna:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglu4mAhvOQ[/url]
[/i][/QUOTE]
Yes, I see what you mean. That explains the Wembley concert in question as well, then. Singing with vocal nodules and a bad cold isn't pretty... I still think that the nodules were the main problem, though, exacerbated by the cold. That 'crackling' and hoarse sound, and voice breaks on certain notes, are all classic symptoms of vocal nodules. That must have been so painful to sing on...[/QUOTE]
Well, after he had gotten the nodules he always sang with them, they didn't disappear.
Him having a cold just really fucked up his voice[/QUOTE]
Sorry - perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant that the nodules were the underlying problem, but with the added symptoms of a cold, which was the immediate problem at Wembley and just after, so I agree with you. I doubt many other singers would have been able to do what he did (probably why he's admired by so many other singers...)
Nitroboy
[QUOTE]
[b]12yrslouetta wrote: [/b] Thing is, you can chit and chat all day about how high he could sing, his vocal range, his breath control, but when it came to it he was admired by his peers. Maybe a way to go is to read what other singers say about him.[/QUOTE]
Back in the day he was admired not just for his charisma and stagecraft, but also his voice and musicianship.
These days, the first thing people say is "oh he was a great showman", which is true, but he had other qualities too. Even Roger has commented on this point in some interviews.
[b]12yrslouetta wrote: [/b] Thing is, you can chit and chat all day about how high he could sing, his vocal range, his breath control, but when it came to it he was admired by his peers. Maybe a way to go is to read what other singers say about him.[/QUOTE]
Back in the day he was admired not just for his charisma and stagecraft, but also his voice and musicianship.
These days, the first thing people say is "oh he was a great showman", which is true, but he had other qualities too. Even Roger has commented on this point in some interviews.
Doga
Is more easy than that. TC do you want to hear Freddie at his best? Easy, listen to Rock Montreal and Live in Budapest. Wait till September and listen to Rainbow too.
Rainbow is an early gig in Queen career, their first big gig.
Rock Montreal is in the middle of Queen career, the band at its finest.
Budapest is in their last tour, same year as Wembley, but is much better gig.
Also, look for the studio albums Queen II and A Night at the Opera.
And then, tell us what do you think.
Rainbow is an early gig in Queen career, their first big gig.
Rock Montreal is in the middle of Queen career, the band at its finest.
Budapest is in their last tour, same year as Wembley, but is much better gig.
Also, look for the studio albums Queen II and A Night at the Opera.
And then, tell us what do you think.
tomchristie22
[QUOTE] [b]Nitroboy wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b] It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.[/QUOTE]
That's because people like the OP only listen to the studio work, and then for live stuff only listen to Wembley '86, which has subpar vocals. Then people go on to say Freddie couldn't sing live and was only popular because of his charisma.[/QUOTE]
True. It sucks that they've pushed Wembley so much, it even overshadows the far superior Live Aid show nowadays.
[QUOTE]
[b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b] It's a shame Freddie's reputation as a charismatic frontman seems to overshadow his musical ability - he really was an incredibly diverse vocalist and songwriter.[/QUOTE]
That's because people like the OP only listen to the studio work, and then for live stuff only listen to Wembley '86, which has subpar vocals. Then people go on to say Freddie couldn't sing live and was only popular because of his charisma.[/QUOTE]
True. It sucks that they've pushed Wembley so much, it even overshadows the far superior Live Aid show nowadays.
thomasquinn 32989
Judging an artist on the basis of a single performance, choosing said performance on the basis of what comes up first on YouTube, conducting poor/no research on the context of said performance, no comparing/contrasting, dismissing studio recordings offhand and having the gall to say that everyone else should too...
I do hope when he says "vocal student" he means he does so in his spare time after school. Because if this constitutes his "research", he'd be chucked out from the conservatory I attended within the first semester.
I do hope when he says "vocal student" he means he does so in his spare time after school. Because if this constitutes his "research", he'd be chucked out from the conservatory I attended within the first semester.
Typhoon859
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Judging an artist on the basis of a single performance, choosing said performance on the basis of what comes up first on YouTube, conducting poor/no research on the context of said performance, no comparing/contrasting, dismissing studio recordings offhand and having the gall to say that everyone else should too...
I do hope when he says "vocal student" he means he does so in his spare time after school. Because if this constitutes his "research", he'd be chucked out from the conservatory I attended within the first semester.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, he never said he did or was particularly doing research himself, hence why he probably came here to ask. He simply said he "studied" the songs/performances he mentioned. I don't see how the appropriate reaction is condescension rather than trying to educate with what you know (or at least think you know). Sorry, but someone had to come in his defense, as you're not the first one to dish out this kind of remark. It's kind of unpleasant to see or read just sitting on the sidelines.
Judging an artist on the basis of a single performance, choosing said performance on the basis of what comes up first on YouTube, conducting poor/no research on the context of said performance, no comparing/contrasting, dismissing studio recordings offhand and having the gall to say that everyone else should too...
I do hope when he says "vocal student" he means he does so in his spare time after school. Because if this constitutes his "research", he'd be chucked out from the conservatory I attended within the first semester.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, he never said he did or was particularly doing research himself, hence why he probably came here to ask. He simply said he "studied" the songs/performances he mentioned. I don't see how the appropriate reaction is condescension rather than trying to educate with what you know (or at least think you know). Sorry, but someone had to come in his defense, as you're not the first one to dish out this kind of remark. It's kind of unpleasant to see or read just sitting on the sidelines.
Pingfah
[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]
Queen fans, how does it feel to have to defend your idol?[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding? Queen & Freddie are one of the most critically maligned successful acts in the history of British rock. Queen fans have been defending them for decades.
You seem foolish to me.
Queen fans, how does it feel to have to defend your idol?[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding? Queen & Freddie are one of the most critically maligned successful acts in the history of British rock. Queen fans have been defending them for decades.
You seem foolish to me.