Gary Cherone would have been better

Now everyone likes Paul, funny ...

I just don´t see a purpose of smacking down Gary when hes been compared with Paul. But hey, you guys have donne a great job smacking down Paul when he was been compared to Fredie.

By the way, Paul fronted four world top class bands: Free, Bad Company, The Firm, Queen.

Take care

Dont get me wrong, I think Paul is great, he is doing a fabulous job and has a superb voice. Chris, for me, I might say has put a lot of work into Queen into the past, his versions of Queen songs with the SAS Band are superb, I was fortunate enought to be at the Ocean gig a few years back, when they did a full set of Queen stuff and he was brilliant. He sings with a lot of passion.

For crying out bloody loud!
If Jesus Christ had sung lead vocals someone would still have objected!
Face it - Brian and Roger had to pick someone they knew and could rely on.
It could have been soooooo much worse - they could have picked ANITA!!!!! or George Michael or Elton or Robbie......zzzzzzzzzz NEW TOPIC PLEASE

Paul Rogers must go he is piss poor and fronted bands no 1 has ever heard of.

Paul Rodgers is pi&# poor and blah blah blah blah blabby blubbery bub. BPP, insult rodgers somewhere else. or at least constructively criticize him. Just a thought


AND LEARN HOW TO SPELL RODGERS RIGHT!!!

Paul Fisher wrote:

It could have been soooooo much worse - they could have picked ANITA!!!!! or George Michael or Elton or Robbie......zzzzzzzzzz NEW TOPIC PLEASE

And how EXACTLY would George Michael be WORSE?

Gary Cherone would've been better.....................................................than...........

Gary Glitter
Gary Cooper
Gary lineker
Gary Sinise
Gary Barlow

George Michael would fall apart with many of the songs they played on tour. I can't imagine him doing HTF, IWIA, TYMD. He could probably do TSMGO pretty good.

Basically any of the rockers I think he would struggle with quite a bit.
And I can't imagine an encore of Wake Me Up Before you Go Go into WWRY WATC.

Dan Corson wrote:

Paul Fisher wrote:

It could have been soooooo much worse - they could have picked ANITA!!!!! or George Michael or Elton or Robbie......zzzzzzzzzz NEW TOPIC PLEASE

And how EXACTLY would George Michael be WORSE?

Can you imagine him singing Tie Your Mother Down or Fat Bottomed Girls...?
The tour wouldn't rock as it did. We would have got mre poppy stuff. I like it exactly the way it was- heavy, raw, GREAT!

Gary Mullen would be better than Gary Cherone.

Bryans Permed Poodle wrote:

Paul Rogers must go he is piss poor and fronted bands no 1 has ever heard of.

You've never heard of Free or Bad Company? Yes you have you twat.

Knute wrote:

Basically any of the rockers I think he would struggle with quite a bit.
And I can't imagine an encore of Wake Me Up Before you Go Go into WWRY WATC.

Well, I can guarantee you that he'd do them better than Paul Rodgers. He's a better singer. Just because he DOESN'T sing heavy rock songs doesn't mean he CAN'T.

Dan Corson wrote:

Well, I can guarantee you that he'd do them better than Paul Rodgers. He's a better singer.

No he's not. Prove me wrong... :)
It's justa matter of taste, isn't it? Paul is acclaimed as the best white blues oriented singer EVER. George isn't. And that is the fact. But can you measure it?

Paul may be one of the world's best blues singers, But what does that matter? Queen isn't a blues band. I (as in Me, myself and...) think that George's voice is MUCH better suited to Queen's songs. Not to mention the range and power! A lot of people seem to think that George is some thin voiced, run of the mill pop singer, And that is just NOT true. His music may be poppy for the most part but that's because that's the kind of music he wants to make. Now, Before anyone goes and gets upset, I am NOT saying that Paul is a bad singer! I'm just saying that, In my opinion, His voice and style of singing do not fit with Queen's music very well. CERTAINLY not as well as George's. And that's the last thing I'll say on this subject.

Dan Corson wrote:

Paul may be one of the world's best blues singers, But what does that matter? Queen isn't a blues band. I (as in Me, myself and...) think that George's voice is MUCH better suited to Queen's songs. Not to mention the range and power! A lot of people seem to think that George is some thin voiced, run of the mill pop singer, And that is just NOT true. His music may be poppy for the most part but that's because that's the kind of music he wants to make. Now, Before anyone goes and gets upset, I am NOT saying that Paul is a bad singer! I'm just saying that, In my opinion, His voice and style of singing do not fit with Queen's music very well. CERTAINLY not as well as George's. And that's the last thing I'll say on this subject.

i agree completely with this
it seems obvious that many people around here have never listened to FAITH or LISTEN WITHOUT PREDUJICE
GM's vocals better fit queen's harmonies - but on the other hand PR has taken queen back to the SMILE generation - perhaps thta's what RT and BM wanted when they recruited him?