Fredddie Mercury's vocal range

 



 



 



Dusta wrote:



 



Ah, Sebastian. I normally nod my head in silent agreement to your posts here, but in this case, we disagree. I do find Adam Lambert to have a lovely voice...still, he had little or no impact, for me, singing a Queen song. I will say he was better(in the We Will Rock You thingie with Brian and Roger, and, on his audition, where he sang a bit of Bo Rhap) singing Queen than any of the others I've heard to date. I don't know for certain what sort of artist he is....I tend to enjoy singer/songwriters, and, as far as I know, Mr Lambert has not written any songs. But, again, I do enjoy his voice. Just not singing Queen. Particularly.

I will also say that listening to all of this rubble come out of AI, I have more empathy for Brian and Roger, and how difficult it must be for them to satisfy their need to compose and perform without That Voice. They've moved on, now, I imagine, but it really must've been difficult shortly after the death of Freddie for them on a personal, as well as professional level.



 

not a fan of adam...he could sing, but no originality or songwriting ability so far say's it all.  Yea, brian and roger must have found it difficult for the first 5 or so years after freddie died.  Came to grips with it, but now after what happened with paul, the weak album then the fallout with brian and paul they probably miss freddie's input more than ever.  I could hear brian's inner voice say "boy if fred was around we would show all these young and old cats how it's done!"  They probably think about that often.

Fredy Mercury had an eight and a half octave range.

Freddie and Adam both have huge vocal ranges, and can hit high notes--but that's where the similarities end:
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]When Freddie hits high notes, they sound "full" and pleasant-sounding to the ears, when Adam goes for them, they always come out as "screechy." I dislike that sound.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Plus, I don't recall Freddie yelling or oversinging "We Are The Champions" (even during the mid-80s when he was forced to yell and shout to go high).[/QUOTE]

Dusta wrote:

I will also say that listening to all of this rubble come out of AI, I have more empathy for Brian and Roger, and how difficult it must be for them to satisfy their need to compose and perform without That Voice. They've moved on, now, I imagine, but it really must've been difficult shortly after the death of Freddie for them on a personal, as well as professional level.

Er... they haven't. Otherwise they wouldn't have used the Queen name or put words on a dead man's mouth. Had they actually moved on, they'd use a new name, be a new band and start all over, regardless of their age and past. As for your AL remarks: yes, this is not an exact science; some people may like him, others don't. I'm in the latter group. It's got nothing to do with his flamboyance (I'm not a fan of excessive make-up, neither on women nor men, but that doesn't affect the voice) and it's got nothing to do with him singing Queen material, I simply don't like him, and never did. I'm a bit disappointed that he seems to garner more news than the bloke who actually won.

I think the reason why Brian and Roger still use the "Queen" name is because so more people would know who they are (Imagine something like "The Maylor Band," "The Broger Band," Or "Brian May/Roger Taylor," etc)?

It's the same situation as "The Who": John and Keith are dead, but Pete and Roger are still alive and recording/touring under "The Who" name (though it can be argued that those two were the more "popular" members--like Freddie with Queen).

Gregsynth wrote:



I think the reason why Brian and Roger still use the "Queen" name is because so more people would know who they are (Imagine something like "The Maylor Band," "The Broger Band," Or "Brian May/Roger Taylor," etc)?

So... they haven't moved on. It's not 'bad' or 'good' per se, but it is what it is: they haven't moved on.

Who made this rule stating how changing a band's name is what is indicative of them moving on after a member passes away?

They toured the world and did a new record with a guy who couldn't be less similar to Freddie Mercury.  How have they not moved on?

And who says they are required to move on, as if it is exclusively better than not "moving on" ??  They are the nucleus of one of rock's greatest bands, each having written songs that have lived on for generations.  Maybe they're entitled to do whatever they want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans.  Just a thought..

> Who made this rule stating how changing a band's name is what is indicative of them moving on after a member passes away?

Who made this rule stating how having an opinion about people not changing a band's name is making a rule?

> They toured the world and did a new record with a guy who couldn't be less similar to Freddie Mercury.  How have they not moved on?

By using the same name that was invented by the guy who couldn't be less similar to Paul Rodgers. Had they really moved on, they'd consider their collaboration with him what it is: a new band. Not to mention how they put words in a dead man's mouth to validate the tour.

> And who says they are required to move on, as if it is exclusively better than not "moving on" ??

Actually, nobody said that (here, that is). And indeed moving on isn't 'exclusively better than "not moving on"'. As I wrote earlier, not moving on is not good or bad per se. But it is what it is: they haven't. Likewise, not being Italian's not good or bad, but the fact is Brian's not Italian. Does it make him a bad person? No. Roger's not Dutch either, and it doesn't make him less of a drummer, singer, guitarist and composer.

Same here: they haven't moved on, and that's not a flaw. For that reason, saying they didn't move on is not an attack or 'subjecting them to rules determined only by disgruntled fans.'

> They are the nucleus of one of rock's greatest bands

No: the nucleus were the four of them.

> each having written songs that have lived on for generations.

Which is great. But it doesn't change the fact that they haven't moved on (well, maybe now Roger finally has since he's going to do a solo tour). Being an excellent songwriter doesn't make one unable not to move on. Some people (including Maylor) can be excellent musicians without moving on. Those two features coexist.

> Maybe they're entitled to do whatever they want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans.

Maybe we're entitled to write whatever we want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans.

> Just a thought..

And not a good one, as nobody's attacking them or thinking less of them. It's a simple thing: they haven't moved on.

Just to be clear:

Am I saying it's bad that they haven't moved on? No
Am I saying they should get death penalty for not moving on? No
Am I saying people who move on are better than they are? No
Am I saying we should pour HF on their testicles because they haven't moved on? No
Am I saying it's a universal truth that they haven't moved on because I say so? No
Does saying 'they didn't move on' transform it in a rule? No
Are Brian and Roger going to die of desperation because I said they didn't move on? No

Am I saying they haven't moved on? Yes

Was Bobby Charlton born in January? No, he wasn't.
Does it make him a less extraordinary footballer? No, it doesn't.
Can he be a brilliant former player and at the same time not having been born in January? Absolutely.
So: is claiming he wasn't born in January an insult? No, it isn't.

Have Brian and Roger moved on? No, they haven't.
Does it make them less excellent musicians? No, it doesn't.
Can they not have moved on and still be excellent musicians? Absolutely.
So: is claiming they haven't moved on an insult? No, it isn't.

Regarding whether they moved on, I don't think that's entirely accurate.Yes, they still use the name, and they may have put words in Freddie's mouth, but it was undoubtfully due to commercial reasons. The reality is that the Queen name sells, and if Freddie is seen to have 'approved' his replacement, sales would probably increase.

The truth is, alot of artists; from The Who to Guns 'N Roses to The Doors to Deep Purple to Pink Floyd etc..., could be said to have not moved on since they continued after key members died/left the group, but they have done so for numerous reasons, not least the fact that they are more likely to achieve success on the back of their group than as solo artists or in a new group.

I'm not certain they've moved on...just suspicious that they might have. And, I only meant that they'd moved on from Freddie's death, not that they'd moved on professionally. I only meant that it must have been very difficult for them on a number of levels when Freddie passed, but that they're likely not sitting around sobbing into each others'....hair over Freddie dying, these days. But, perhaps they are....I don't know either of them even a small small bit, so am only speculating. And certainly, I'm not being critical of them moving on or not moving on. Clearly, since I still frequent the Queen forum, still purchase books and Queen music from Amazon, still listen to Queen like a maniac while editing photos...I haven't moved on, either.

And I didn't care for the gentleman who beat Adam Lambert, either. Okay as a singer...perhaps he is an excellent songwriter? Not certain. I only watch AI when I am home for it, so have only watched ten or so episodes since the show's first season. In fact, I probably have no business whining about the Idol performers, since I am not a regular fan of the show. But, damn. Why did they have to sing Queen songs? So many others to choose from.

people complain when no one mentions Queen, then they complain when they get recognized.  I'm no fan of the show, and had to suffer watching that crap with the ex.  I suffered quite a bit.  but we can't deny AI was very good for the boys. they wern't that popular in the states for a long time.  I think their record sales went up as well.

Fred's range was angelic to demonic.

There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light.

Holly2003 wrote:

Fred's range was angelic to demonic.

There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light.

Great Post!

Gregsynth wrote:

 



Holly2003 wrote:



Fred's range was angelic to demonic.



There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light.

Great Post!

 



 



 



 

Agreed!...rob halford pretty much said the same thing.