Queen crest Queenzone.org

WHY PAUL RODGERS VOICE COULD BE BETTER THAN FREDDIE'S LIVE

27 posts Page 2 of 2
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum
I
I like Paul Rogders voice its nice talent, ofcourse no one is better then Freddie Mercury i dont think Paul is better live then Freddie, but he does have a great voice, yes i will buy "the return of the champions" i watched the preview in the cinema and it was wonderful i cant wait to get it out on dvd soon.
"I'm a greedy bitch" - Freddie Mercury REST IN PEACE FREDDIE MERCURY!!
M
I say Freddie better because I am profoundly deaf and when Freddie sing i could follow the words same time as he sing his voice is high and clear Paul has a good voice but of coz not the same as freddie

I say Well done to Paul because he did it in his own way

He didnt try to copy freddie voice
he didnt try to dance they way freddie did
he didnt dress like freddie

he is brillant and he is keeping Queen music alive
I will buy the Return of the Champions as it all part of Queen and their history
:)
I am just a Queen Fan and the show must go on
B
Sebastian wrote:
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


freddie's (live) vocal range up until 82
was excellent. Paul could never matcht that

as i said - paul is good - but his range is limited, whereas Freddie's vocal range live for 9 years was much better
go deo na hÉireann The best QZ epoch: BG17-00 (Before Gerry 1996-2013)
S
I've listened to Paul in the studio (Free and Bad Company) many years ago and as I remember, indeed he didn't have a huge range, but he kind of compensed it by the unique way he expressed his singing.

> Roger Taylor probably has 4.5 octave range, but Roger's voice's tone is very poor

Roger's voice is quite strong. Btw Fred's got larger range than Roger.

> Because of Freddie's natural vocal gifts, he could sing EVERY style possible.

Without telling the entire story it's just another overrating point. How many boleros has Freddie sung? zarzuelas? flamenco? zamba? Andean music? Vietnamese music?

> Paul Rodger's voice is technically inferior to Freddie's voice

Yes but that doesn't make Freddie a "better" singer. Virtually every person with 5+ years of vocal lessons already has better technique than Freddie, but it doesn't make them better.
John hated Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' 'Bohemian Rhapsody' hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs.
B
I now what you mean, and i think that Freddie with 58 years old couldn`t sing as much as Paul with 58 unless Freddie would start taking care of his voice!

You may say: compare Paul with the Live KIllers and so forth, but my opinion is that Paul has a better sence of controling his voice because he`s 58 and yoga might be helping too.

For Freddie to be able to perform live with 58 years he would have to find another lifestile!

Take care
H
HENCE - PAUL RODGERS IS A GREAT CHOICE IN JOINING THE BAND - AS YOU CAN SEE FROM EVERYONES COMMENTS, YOU CAN COMPARE ANYONE TO FREddies vOICE, BUT THERE VOICES ARE SO UNIQUELY DIFFERENT (and in some instances pauls voice is better)

WELCOME TO THE BAND PAUL
M
Yes a warm welcome to Paul :)
I am just a Queen Fan and the show must go on
M
For Freddie to be able to perform live with 58 years he would have to find another lifestile!

=> well, Freddie's lifestyle did kill him actually. IMO, it says enough


cheers anyway
http://users.telenet.be/greatballsoffire/ <= this site is really fabulous! check it out.
F
I am a big fan
and i listened all the lives shows of queen with freddie
you have to understand that freddies voice at wembley was very tired , and you cant compared his voice from that concert.
now . if you listened the song who wants lo live forever live in budapest 86 you will see a very good performance and the quality just exactly like the studio version.
and there are so many concerts in the 70s were
freddies voice was excelent
more of 700 performance of queen . are so much
and you have to understand.
now are two differents singer with paul . maybe hard songs like tie you mother down , pauls voice is better
but the sensibility and feeling always be mercury
.
i am a queen fan forever .
i think this.
A queen fan , really
T
Mr Mercury wrote:

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.


I would have been happy to hear 80 minutes of Paul Rodgers a few months ago, if that would have meant they'd cut out the guitar & drum solos, as well as all those songs by Bri & Rog... :P

Was Any Queen concert in the 80's over two hours long? As far as I remember, 110 minutes seems to be the maximum, and even that includes the 10 minute break (known as Brighton Rock) and the breaks before the encore(s).
R
hotspacerules wrote:
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........



Ever heard Freddie sing in the early seventies? His range was enormous.

And BTW, you can't compare Paul with Freddie. And remember: Freddie sang much more then Paul.
John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."
M
We do know that freddie sing better but he isnt here now and we have to move on
and we much thank paul for keeping Queen music alive :)
I am just a Queen Fan and the show must go on