Instead of hiring Paul Rogers, they should've hired an unknown but hugely talented singer, someone who could at least do the Queen name justice. Perhaps even a female singer.
They should've hired this new singer, and write a new album. And go on tour supporting this album, and also do a few favorites.
That is what they should've done.
The problem with Paul Rogers is that while he was talented, he wasn't the right singer to try to even replace Freddie Mercury.
The next singer for Queen should be someone who sang as much as possible like Freddie Mercury.
Ex: Although this apparently wasn't possible, George Michael or someone who sings like him, would've made a good replacement for Freddie. No, I am not saying Freddie is replaceable. He's not. But..if you are going to hire a new singer, it has to be someone who sings similarly to Freddie.
Paul Rogers may be talented, but his style is totally different, and not right for Queen's catalog of songs.
I thought the woman who sang I want to break free in the FM tribute concert would've made a good candidate. She sang that song better than Freddie IMHO.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Do you mean Lisa Stansfield?
If Brian and Roger hired a new singer he would have been classed as a Freddie replacement, Paul Rogers was hired as a singer for Queen that’s why its billed as Queen + Paul Rogers. George Michael wouldn’t have been able to handle Queens more rocky stuff like tie your mother down or hammer to fall etc... He would have been good singing the ballades like somebody to love and days of our live. Paul Rogers was the best chose as a stand in singer. We all know Freddie cant be replaced.
A female singer? Britney Spears?
Brian's daughter (Freddie was a fan of her!) ;)
Liza Minelli? Barbra Streisand? Cher? Madonna?
Liza Minelli? Barbra Streisand? Cher? Madonna?
Aretha Franklin... of course!
Britney Spears isn't a singer.
If I were to go back in time and get a female singer, I'd probably grab Bonny Tyler. Amazing rough voice, it wouldn't last long because she's probably ripped her vocal cords to shreds, but yeah, probably the only other human being who could sing Gimme the Prize I reckon.
The coulda-shoulda-woulda game is fun, but in the end what can be done? If sales had an impact, and if this was about money, they might've reconsidered what they're doing. But no, they do it because it's fun so I guess we can all either enjoy it or ignore it.
If I were to go back in time and get a female singer, I'd probably grab Bonny Tyler. Amazing rough voice, it wouldn't last long because she's probably ripped her vocal cords to shreds, but yeah, probably the only other human being who could sing Gimme the Prize I reckon.
The coulda-shoulda-woulda game is fun, but in the end what can be done? If sales had an impact, and if this was about money, they might've reconsidered what they're doing. But no, they do it because it's fun so I guess we can all either enjoy it or ignore it.
Genesis with Ray Wilson = shit
Black Sab with Dio = shit
Van Hallen with Hagar = shit
Doors with Ian Astbury = shit
So may the Queen rest in peace, for God sake!
Black Sab with Dio = shit
Van Hallen with Hagar = shit
Doors with Ian Astbury = shit
So may the Queen rest in peace, for God sake!
I said, UNKNOWN.
If an unknown but fantastic singer who sang like Freddie was hired, AND BM & RT wrote a new album, I bet most of you would approve and be excited about the new record.
I know I'd be excited. I'd buy the record, especially if the new singer was great.
There ARE great singers out there who can sound remarkably like Freddie.
Freddie is irreplaceable not just because of his voice. He had many intangible and tangible qualities that make him hard to replace.
However, his voice alone is not irreplaceable. There ARE great singers out there who are unknown.
If an unknown but fantastic singer who sang like Freddie was hired, AND BM & RT wrote a new album, I bet most of you would approve and be excited about the new record.
I know I'd be excited. I'd buy the record, especially if the new singer was great.
There ARE great singers out there who can sound remarkably like Freddie.
Freddie is irreplaceable not just because of his voice. He had many intangible and tangible qualities that make him hard to replace.
However, his voice alone is not irreplaceable. There ARE great singers out there who are unknown.
What BM + RT should've done is to place an ADVERTISEMENT globally for finding the next Singer of Queen.
I'm 100% sure that somewhere in this vast world of Six BIllion people, there is at least ONE singer who can come close to Freddie Mercury.
The thing about Queen that made it great is that it had a great lead singer.
Most of Queen songs are not truly great. At least I don't think so. What made them great was a great singer. Great singers can make an average song great.
Paul Rogers is a good singer, not great.
Queen (BM +RT) should've hired a great singer.
I'm 100% sure that somewhere in this vast world of Six BIllion people, there is at least ONE singer who can come close to Freddie Mercury.
The thing about Queen that made it great is that it had a great lead singer.
Most of Queen songs are not truly great. At least I don't think so. What made them great was a great singer. Great singers can make an average song great.
Paul Rogers is a good singer, not great.
Queen (BM +RT) should've hired a great singer.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So what..at least he's not trying to be Freddie.
[/QUOTE]
IMO, that is precisely the point.
They felt PR was the right choice because he's(way) different from Freddie. They didn't want a replacement, they wanted only to play live again and enjoy it. We can't fault them for that. They happened to get on well with this singer and went with it.
Advertising, auditioning... I don't know. That would seem more like an effort to replace Freddie than simply playing a gig and realizing your music and a certain singer's voice created a sound you like.
[/QUOTE]
IMO, that is precisely the point.
They felt PR was the right choice because he's(way) different from Freddie. They didn't want a replacement, they wanted only to play live again and enjoy it. We can't fault them for that. They happened to get on well with this singer and went with it.
Advertising, auditioning... I don't know. That would seem more like an effort to replace Freddie than simply playing a gig and realizing your music and a certain singer's voice created a sound you like.
I would hate a female singer!! Unless it were me ...Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]englishyob wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If Brian and Roger hired a new singer he would have been classed as a Freddie replacement, Paul Rogers was hired as a singer for Queen that’s why its billed as Queen + Paul Rogers. George Michael wouldn’t have been able to handle Queens more rocky stuff like tie your mother down or hammer to fall etc... He would have been good singing the ballades like somebody to love and days of our live. Paul Rogers was the best chose as a stand in singer. We all know Freddie cant be replaced. [/QUOTE]
Could not possibily agree more.
Could not possibily agree more.
Roger en Brain sings the songs..Great!!!
Scott Soto