Robert Plant beats Freddie to no1 best singer

Bono has a decent voice, but someone should tell this man that HE CAN'T SING FALSETTOS.
Just listen to U2 songs like 'Lemon', 'Numb' or 'The Sweetest Thing' and you'll find that Bono's falsettos sound nearly as horrible as screeching chalk.

Nice to see us Canay-juns being represented on the list. Rush has the 5th bassist and 2nd drummer.

And my other fave band, the Who, had a respectable showing.

Slash better than David Gilmour on guitar my ass! May and Gilmour are my two favorite guitarists and Page plus Alex Lifesone! Hendrix and Blackmore were good but the former's drug use and the latter's foray into minstrel music made them shells of their former selves. Roger Taylor is my fave drummer of all time after Bonham and Peart. John Paul Jones is a superb bass player as is Deaky but he didn't make it.

Flea from 'Red Hot Chili Peppers' is the best bass player I've seen.

another list, i need to say a few things on this, first, disregard the ignorant remarks from a certain person who says freddie wasn't a great live singer, obviously he never seen 'we will rock you' and 'live at the bowl' dvds or 'live aid' but on to this discussion,i should say this isn't a big deal, it means nothing, there's plenty of these lists where freddie is #1 and robert is 2, it's only one list out of hundreds. i'm not the biggest zepp fan, but i know a good singer when i hear him, and plant is great. i think freddie and robert are the 'elvis' and 'sinatra' of rock bands, these two guys are the cream of the crop, either are truly much better than the other, my fav is personally freddie, #2 is halford, but i realize the greatest are truly freddie and plant, there's other great singers out there, but there not as original as these two, orginality is everything. please, the singer from dream theater isn't half of what freddie, or plant, even halford, he's simply not original enough.

i need to say the same for the guitarist, page is great, but better than hendrix, i think not, slash is in no way better or as good than brian may, no where near hendrix or gilmore, that's why you can't take these lists to seriously, but roger at #8 is good, no complaints there.

Mike Preston wrote:

Did ANYONE else find it funny that SLASH was voted as a better Guitar player over Brian?

In keeping with the thread, I was never a Zep fan, but I do enjoy Plants singing.

and hey Rocky.. watch me pull a rabb..... ooops, I mean, That is great you saw Queen in Chicago in 1980, I have a bootleg of that show and it is incredible.. I saw them the NEXT night in Detroit Michigan and they just BLEW ME AWAY.. Freddie actually spoke to me... I kept yelling for Another One Bites The Dust after each song.. finally he looked at me and said, "We'll do that one later darling..." we were front row just slightly off center stage more to Brians side.

Freddie spoke to you and called you ''darling''. I bow and humble at your feet! LOL! :)

But really, Plant over Freddie..Mr. screw up BOTH Live Aid and the FM Tribute concert doing his own songs. I don't think so....

I also have never been much of a Plant fan. Limited range and screeches like a banshee when trying to do the blues, rock style.

But like alot of people said, you have MANY more Zep fans who all voted I'm sure.

you make a good point, i think roberts a great singer, but he does seem to screech a bit with his voice, a bit annoying at times.

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

I agree with a lot of your comments Bob but with that one I strongly disagree, and I think it's very wrong to say that Freddie wasn't a good live singer. One could argue that Pele wasn't the best footie player, but you can't just go and say that he wasn't really good. There are for sure many performances by Freddie that were better than others, but that's because while going through heavy touring a singer's voice is sensitive to loss of quality, and it'd be nearly impossible for Freddie or any other singer to keep his voice in perfect shape through a whole year of touring.
The only thing that I'd have to criticize about Freddie was the fact that his heavy smoking made his voice more fragile, although he claims he didn't give up smoking because he wanted his voice to become huskier and less smooth and mellow.

I appreciate your feedback, and I certainly agree with most of your observations, especially those about Freddie and his smoking. But note how I said "for the most part", Freddie wasn't that great of a live singer. As far as I'm concerned, the only tours where Freddie was consistent in his vocal range were NOTW 77, Crazy 79, US and Europe 80, and Europe 82. That's five tours out of 25 or so. That was the point I was making. I was speaking in comparison to his abilities in the studio. If you take that one comment of mine on its own, then yes, it appears like I'm saying Freddie wasn't a great live singer, period. But when one reads the rest of my post and tries to understand its points, then they will see where I'm coming from. I stand by my words. In the majority of Queen shows, Freddie's vocal range was limited. If he went beyond that range, even a bit, he would crack. Listen to almost any random show from Queen tours that I didn't mention above, and you'll hear a singer excercising about an octave of his range only (and sometimes less), because that's all that is available. On his best nights, it was one and a half octaves.

So, Mike Hunt, perhaps you could actually read the rest of my posts before calling me ignorant. I am far from ignorant. I am an honest fan who critiques singers and musicians as he pleases. Receiving equally honest feedback from others helps build my knowledge of music and musicians. If you can't accept that James LaBrie's vocal range is better than Freddie Mercury's, that's not my fault.

LaBrie is the most consistent singer I've ever heard. Never once has his voice cracked on stage over the past few tours... of the bootlegs I've heard and performances I've witnessed, anyway. And that's quite a few. LaBrie's range is outstanding. Yes, he's not the most original singer ever, but I wasn't focusing on that aspect of him. If anyone can claim that Freddie Mercury's live range is better than James LaBrie's, then that's simply a case of being completely misinformed. LaBrie's range on his worst day is better than most of Freddie's best days. Now don't come back and talk about originality and stage presence. This part of the discussion is purely about vocal range. If we'd like to extend the discussion to include falsetto range, then of course Freddie would destroy LaBrie, and practically anyone else. Freddie's operatic abilities continue to amaze me.

Jingles... I recommend you listen to Dream Theater's Live At The Budokan, released last year. Not only will you hear an amazing night of music from the four instrumentalists, but you'll hear someone in complete control of their voice. Not one slight error, crack, or missed note in sight. This is how he sounds every night nowadays.

I'm not even going to elaborate on the rest of the list. Taste is relative, and the criteria one rates musicians varies from one music fan to another. I'll just say that there's no way Jimmy Page, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones are better at their respective instruments than John Petrucci, Terry Bozzio, and Geddy Lee. Arti

I like James LaBrie quite a lot, and although I think his range is great, I don't think he can top Freddie Mercury or Robert Plant. I mean, if you listen to 'Bohemian Rhapsody' on 'A Change Of Seasons' I don't think he can quite reach Freddie's vocal range, but gives a quite decent performance. Also, I'd like to see James LaBrie try something outisde the rock genre, and see how his voice fits other music styles. What I like about Freddie so much is that he was so versatile. He could try so many music genres and still sound great.

Btw, I listened 'Live At The Budokan' and it's sounds awesome. I might go an pick it this weekend.

to be honest 'sir' i always felt 'dream theater' were posers, i'm friends with alot of music fans and not one takes dream theater seriously. other singers mention freddie, rob halford, robert plant, chris cornell, among others as a huge influence on singers, in turn, i never hear about (what's his name) among these mentioned, that's what i go by, if you want a great non mainstream band try 'clutch' they will rock you, and kick your ass, and they would kick dream theaters ass to.

I think the reason why some people don't like Dream Theater is because they put all their musical input into showing their very own virtuosity. A Dream Theater show is basically about over the top performance skills along with a lot of musical complexity.

Some people like it, others don't.

I remember I was recently discussing this with one of my co-workers whose husband is a huge Dream Theater fan. She said she likes Dream Theater, but gets bored of listening to a 10 minute long guitar or drum solo. Her husband, on the other hand seems like he could listen to it forever. I like Dream Theater quite a lot, but the reason why I don't like them more than the average Dream Theater fan is because I'm the kind of person who likes a lot of musical variety on artists based on exploring other genres, and Dream Theater basically hasn't gone anywhere outisde of genres like Heavy Metal or Progressive Rock, although they're without a doubt great on those two.

mike hunt wrote:

to be honest 'sir' i always felt 'dream theater' were posers, i'm friends with alot of music fans and not one takes dream theater seriously. other singers mention freddie, rob halford, robert plant, chris cornell, among others as a huge influence on singers, in turn, i never hear about (what's his name) among these mentioned, that's what i go by, if you want a great non mainstream band try 'clutch' they will rock you, and kick your ass, and they would kick dream theaters ass to.

Just because your friends are "music fans" doesn't make their opinions any greater than the opinions of others. Taste is relative. Deal with it. The reason why Dream Theater isn't successful in the mainstream is because their brand of music is over the heads of 90% of the listening audience, most of whom are used to listening to simplistic pop-oriented music. But I do not look down on them for being satisfied with what they are accustomed to. If they want to look for something more intellectually satisfying to fill their cd player, then they will find it. It may be DT, and it may not.

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

I think the reason why some people don't like Dream Theater is because they put all their musical input into showing their very own virtuosity. A Dream Theater show is basically all about over the top peformance skills.

I disagree. Certainly you are partially right, but much of their music is melodic and not technically demanding at all. Listen to disc 2 of Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence. Very little of it is highly technical.

I have to say that I have a lot of respect for Dream Theater for not having the smallest desire to be accepted by the mainstream. They're the complete opossite of the fabricated shit you see on TRL and that's great, so KUDOS for them. Dream Theater certainly enjoys having their cult status, and strongly appreciates the loyalty of their fans.