ive been listening to return of the champions, and here is my theory:
I've noticed that Freddie's voice cracks alot on past live albums - a comparison ive made is listen to A kind of magic on Wembley, and then kind of magic of return of the champions - paul's voice is always smooth and silky........
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well he should be well rested... he takes about half of the evening off.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
you serious? Paul's a very good singer...but Freddie's vocal range he ain't!!!!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
you serious? Paul's a very good singer...but Freddie's vocal range he ain't!!!!
Read what I put in the How Can I Go On thread, I think Fred wasn't "that" great live. I've never heard Paul so I can't judge
To be totally honest I think that Paul Rodgers has one of the best voices that Britain has ever made. He doesn't have Fred's range no but I would still say Paul is better.
ive been listening to return of the champions, and here is my theory:
I've noticed that Freddie's voice cracks alot on past live albums - a comparison ive made is listen to A kind of magic on Wembley, and then kind of magic of return of the champions - paul's voice is always smooth and silky........
i find it rather humorous that your using the one live album they released where freddies voice was lacking to compare to return of the champions
try comparing anything on return of the champions to live killers or live at the bowl
Paul better singer than Freddie? NEVER!
your taking the piss,,,,,,,,,,,although not a how can i put it,,,,,,,,,,,freddie i want to have your kids,,,,i must say the voice range of mr mercury was estonishing and very few singers reach those hights,,,,,paul is good but not in the classic voice range of fred,,,,,,,,,,,good singer but not freddie
Well he should be well rested... he takes about half of the evening off.
When I went to see him (Paul Rodgers that is) on his own show, he was only on stage for just under 80 minutes. That included the encore - singular, not plural. Freddie, on the other hand usually did about 2 hours plus. So its no wonder that his voice cracked every now and then.
Also, if you want comparisons, how about Pauls version of AOBTD at Wembley this year. Despite being put down 2 keys he doesnt even attempt to try for the "high" notes that Freddie would have hit on any of his versions.
That said, I like both Freddie and Paul in equal measure. And I also like the fact that Brian and Roger have chosen someone who is nothing like Freddie to front this version of Queen.
This shit is dumb to talk about.
You are comparing 2 completely different singing styles.
Paul is a blues based, macho, vintage rock singer.
Freddie is a opera/vaudville/broadway/showtunes inspired, flameboyant, influenced rock singer.
Freddie wouldn't have sounded in place on a Bad Company album.... however, his talent would have pulled it off.
But the idea of Paul Rodgers on the Barcelona album trying to sing opera.... thats a joke.
Paul Rodgers would tell you, himself, to any of our faces that he couldn't/wouldn't attempt a song with Monseratt.... he knows he doesn't have the range.
The title of this topic is also dumb... "Paul Could Be Better"
Alot of things "could be"
My piss hitting toilet water "could be" considered better music then the Beatles entire catalog.
George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.
Alot of thing "could be".
If you think Paul's voice is better,,, then to you, it is.
To me... its most certainly not... and even if his voice was (which its not) .... he still doesn't have Freddie's stage presence.
You are comparing 2 completely different singing styles.
Paul is a blues based, macho, vintage rock singer.
Freddie is a opera/vaudville/broadway/showtunes inspired, flameboyant, influenced rock singer.
Freddie wouldn't have sounded in place on a Bad Company album.... however, his talent would have pulled it off.
But the idea of Paul Rodgers on the Barcelona album trying to sing opera.... thats a joke.
Paul Rodgers would tell you, himself, to any of our faces that he couldn't/wouldn't attempt a song with Monseratt.... he knows he doesn't have the range.
The title of this topic is also dumb... "Paul Could Be Better"
Alot of things "could be"
My piss hitting toilet water "could be" considered better music then the Beatles entire catalog.
George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.
Alot of thing "could be".
If you think Paul's voice is better,,, then to you, it is.
To me... its most certainly not... and even if his voice was (which its not) .... he still doesn't have Freddie's stage presence.
George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.
Him intelligent - Nah. That could never be the case. Anyone who says shit like this has limited intelligence
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.
Him intelligent - Nah. That could never be the case. Anyone who says shit like this has limited intelligence
No shit Jeeves, notice why I put """" around hillbilly Bush's middle initial... he's a inbred hilljack.
ive been listening to return of the champions, and here is my theory:
I've noticed that Freddie's voice cracks alot on past live albums - a comparison ive made is listen to A kind of magic on Wembley, and then kind of magic of return of the champions - paul's voice is always smooth and silky........
well, lets see here...not to be disrespectful, but recording technology is different. thats one of the reasons Paul may sound better compared to Mr. Mercury...
No, Freddie's voice does not easily crack. His highest recorded note is the "C" 2 octaves above middle "C", while his lowest recorded notes are an octave and a half below middle C. I have tested this myself. For instance, in "Under Pressure" there is a note that, I think, is the "A" 2 octaves above middle C and yet the tone of Freddie's voice there is still excellent! You can hardly even tell from listening from it that the note is really that high. Maybe his voice tired on long tours, but his recorded vocal range and tone were superior to what you hear from Paul Rodgers.
hotspace, all you have proven in this thread is that you're a dumbass and/or tone deaf.
Freddie had everything a singer could want.
1. He had a beautiful pure tone which is more important than range. Even if he didn't have his 3.5 octave range, his voice had a sweet, angelic tone. Roger Taylor probably has 4.5 octave range, but Roger's voice's tone is very poor.
2. Freddie has an impressive 3.5 octave range. Why is range important? Because high range creates power, and the ability to evoke passion.
3. Because of Freddie's natural vocal gifts, he could sing EVERY style possible. Rock, Pop, Opera, Slow, Fast. Everything. That is what made Queen so great. Each album covered so many styles and Freddie pulled it off.
Paul Rodger's voice is technically inferior to Freddie's voice, lacking in both range, and tone. There is simply no comparison.
Freddie had everything a singer could want.
1. He had a beautiful pure tone which is more important than range. Even if he didn't have his 3.5 octave range, his voice had a sweet, angelic tone. Roger Taylor probably has 4.5 octave range, but Roger's voice's tone is very poor.
2. Freddie has an impressive 3.5 octave range. Why is range important? Because high range creates power, and the ability to evoke passion.
3. Because of Freddie's natural vocal gifts, he could sing EVERY style possible. Rock, Pop, Opera, Slow, Fast. Everything. That is what made Queen so great. Each album covered so many styles and Freddie pulled it off.
Paul Rodger's voice is technically inferior to Freddie's voice, lacking in both range, and tone. There is simply no comparison.