> Brian May learnt how to sing high when he did his solo stuff
If he expanded it two semitones for each end, that'd be a lot. What he did was getting a stronger voice, but his range was large from the beginning (check his falsetto singing in '39 for instance).
> he's practically got Freddie's range now.
No. Even in the 90s when he used to sing every night, he couldn't get as high or as low as Freddie, although the difference wasn't giant. I haven't listened to Brian singing since Amsterdam (except at the ANATO documentary), and he still can do high notes but not nearly as high as Fred's or Rog's. Never could, and never will.
> Roger always had a higher voice.
He's brilliant in mid range as well as fairly good in low ones. Check his solo stuff for intance. He's not only flying falsettos.
> you sound really intelligent!...brian has freddie range now, that's a good one!
Considering Fred's dead, then, yes.
> brian and roger should put queen to sleep once and for all.
Yes. Although if they ever toured as what they really are (Brian May + Roger Taylor + ...), I'd be the first one attending their gigs. And if Roger plays guitar and shares vocal, even better!
> It would be fine 10 years ago... Maybe 6... But they are not getting younger and...
Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s.
> I can surely say to you, here, right now, that with the exception of Hitman or Was it All Worth It, Brian covered the range of just about any Queen song when he did stuff like Resurrection.
No way. Think about the early ones: My Fairy King, In The Lap Of The Gods (intro), Bo Rhap, Black Queen, '39 (bridge) ... all of them with Bbs, As, Gs and stuff far beyond Brian's reach. Resurrection is a special case, where he covered three octaves, but of course he couldn't reproduce that on stage (I'm not saying he cheated, just that he took advantage of takes and edits). He did sing some high Ds during BTTL and AW tours (Teo, Lovelife, Why Don't...), but that's not notably higher than what he did in the band; for instance, check their '79 Japanese gig in which Fred had the flu, Brian took over the chorus of Champions and he did hit the C.
> You have to be on *crack* to discount what I said, dude. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of how fast his vocal cords were smacking together and you cannot argue with this because it's *RECORDED EVIDENCE*.
Yes, but Freddie sang higher than the D many times, and he could definitely sing lower than Brian even if there aren't too many recordings proving it.
> Roger too, could equal Freddie's range, in his hey-day at least.
No. Fred could sing lower and they could probably get equally high (or the difference would be one or two semitones tops). Roger's highest recorded note was a C5, Freddies's highest is almost half an octave higher than that (F5). Not counting falsetto, Fred still recorded a higher note than Rog (F vs E). Yet I'm sure both Freddie and Roger could sing higher and lower than whatever was recorded. So Fred's range is still larger than Roger although the difference is even less than compared to Brian.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s.
Wrong-o.
Paul is singing BETTER than he ever did, live, in the 70's.....
You really should take a listen to TSMGO.
Wrong-o.
Paul is singing BETTER than he ever did, live, in the 70's.....
You really should take a listen to TSMGO.
"Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s."
In that case, you clearly don't know jack.
;^)
In that case, you clearly don't know jack.
;^)
I don't care about range and what brian pulled off in the past, I just know that brian may sings ballads nice but is pretty horrible at hard rockers. In my opinion brian and roger need a singer, they would be amazingly boring singing a whole show by themselves.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]> Brian May learnt how to sing high when he did his solo stuff
If he expanded it two semitones for each end, that'd be a lot. What he did was getting a stronger voice, but his range was large from the beginning (check his falsetto singing in '39 for instance).
> he's practically got Freddie's range now.
No. Even in the 90s when he used to sing every night, he couldn't get as high or as low as Freddie, although the difference wasn't giant. I haven't listened to Brian singing since Amsterdam (except at the ANATO documentary), and he still can do high notes but not nearly as high as Fred's or Rog's. Never could, and never will.
> Roger always had a higher voice.
He's brilliant in mid range as well as fairly good in low ones. Check his solo stuff for intance. He's not only flying falsettos.
> you sound really intelligent!...brian has freddie range now, that's a good one!
Considering Fred's dead, then, yes.
> brian and roger should put queen to sleep once and for all.
Yes. Although if they ever toured as what they really are (Brian May + Roger Taylor + ...), I'd be the first one attending their gigs. And if Roger plays guitar and shares vocal, even better!
> It would be fine 10 years ago... Maybe 6... But they are not getting younger and...
Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s.
> I can surely say to you, here, right now, that with the exception of Hitman or Was it All Worth It, Brian covered the range of just about any Queen song when he did stuff like Resurrection.
No way. Think about the early ones: My Fairy King, In The Lap Of The Gods (intro), Bo Rhap, Black Queen, '39 (bridge) ... all of them with Bbs, As, Gs and stuff far beyond Brian's reach. Resurrection is a special case, where he covered three octaves, but of course he couldn't reproduce that on stage (I'm not saying he cheated, just that he took advantage of takes and edits). He did sing some high Ds during BTTL and AW tours (Teo, Lovelife, Why Don't...), but that's not notably higher than what he did in the band; for instance, check their '79 Japanese gig in which Fred had the flu, Brian took over the chorus of Champions and he did hit the C.
> You have to be on *crack* to discount what I said, dude. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of how fast his vocal cords were smacking together and you cannot argue with this because it's *RECORDED EVIDENCE*.
Yes, but Freddie sang higher than the D many times, and he could definitely sing lower than Brian even if there aren't too many recordings proving it.
> Roger too, could equal Freddie's range, in his hey-day at least.
No. Fred could sing lower and they could probably get equally high (or the difference would be one or two semitones tops). Roger's highest recorded note was a C5, Freddies's highest is almost half an octave higher than that (F5). Not counting falsetto, Fred still recorded a higher note than Rog (F vs E). Yet I'm sure both Freddie and Roger could sing higher and lower than whatever was recorded. So Fred's range is still larger than Roger although the difference is even less than compared to Brian.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about falsetto though, or - what's it called, head voice, or whatever. And, ashamedly, I really was concentrating on the 80's numbers when it was all chest voicey.
Ok look, when I said 'he's practically got Freddie's range now', it's pretty much what I meant. I'm talking about the ability to sing their staple songs that you expect to see at a Queen show, most of which don't really hover out of that range.
Indeed, so what if he only went up to what, D in Resurrection. There aren't many reasons for him to go higher than that, it's small chips - what I'm saying is that at the very least
If he expanded it two semitones for each end, that'd be a lot. What he did was getting a stronger voice, but his range was large from the beginning (check his falsetto singing in '39 for instance).
> he's practically got Freddie's range now.
No. Even in the 90s when he used to sing every night, he couldn't get as high or as low as Freddie, although the difference wasn't giant. I haven't listened to Brian singing since Amsterdam (except at the ANATO documentary), and he still can do high notes but not nearly as high as Fred's or Rog's. Never could, and never will.
> Roger always had a higher voice.
He's brilliant in mid range as well as fairly good in low ones. Check his solo stuff for intance. He's not only flying falsettos.
> you sound really intelligent!...brian has freddie range now, that's a good one!
Considering Fred's dead, then, yes.
> brian and roger should put queen to sleep once and for all.
Yes. Although if they ever toured as what they really are (Brian May + Roger Taylor + ...), I'd be the first one attending their gigs. And if Roger plays guitar and shares vocal, even better!
> It would be fine 10 years ago... Maybe 6... But they are not getting younger and...
Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s.
> I can surely say to you, here, right now, that with the exception of Hitman or Was it All Worth It, Brian covered the range of just about any Queen song when he did stuff like Resurrection.
No way. Think about the early ones: My Fairy King, In The Lap Of The Gods (intro), Bo Rhap, Black Queen, '39 (bridge) ... all of them with Bbs, As, Gs and stuff far beyond Brian's reach. Resurrection is a special case, where he covered three octaves, but of course he couldn't reproduce that on stage (I'm not saying he cheated, just that he took advantage of takes and edits). He did sing some high Ds during BTTL and AW tours (Teo, Lovelife, Why Don't...), but that's not notably higher than what he did in the band; for instance, check their '79 Japanese gig in which Fred had the flu, Brian took over the chorus of Champions and he did hit the C.
> You have to be on *crack* to discount what I said, dude. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of how fast his vocal cords were smacking together and you cannot argue with this because it's *RECORDED EVIDENCE*.
Yes, but Freddie sang higher than the D many times, and he could definitely sing lower than Brian even if there aren't too many recordings proving it.
> Roger too, could equal Freddie's range, in his hey-day at least.
No. Fred could sing lower and they could probably get equally high (or the difference would be one or two semitones tops). Roger's highest recorded note was a C5, Freddies's highest is almost half an octave higher than that (F5). Not counting falsetto, Fred still recorded a higher note than Rog (F vs E). Yet I'm sure both Freddie and Roger could sing higher and lower than whatever was recorded. So Fred's range is still larger than Roger although the difference is even less than compared to Brian.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about falsetto though, or - what's it called, head voice, or whatever. And, ashamedly, I really was concentrating on the 80's numbers when it was all chest voicey.
Ok look, when I said 'he's practically got Freddie's range now', it's pretty much what I meant. I'm talking about the ability to sing their staple songs that you expect to see at a Queen show, most of which don't really hover out of that range.
Indeed, so what if he only went up to what, D in Resurrection. There aren't many reasons for him to go higher than that, it's small chips - what I'm saying is that at the very least
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Neither is Paul. I haven't heard him singing since Rock Aid Armenia (and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know, he's not even close to what he was in the 70s.[/QUOTE]
There is nothing to be proud of IF you want to have an opinion on his voice. Listen- and than we will be able to discuss. He sounds better tahn EVER- and it's not because he sings Queen tunes. Even if he was singing Happy Birthday it would sound exceptional...
He's far better than in Rock Aid days...
Brian on the other hand- and if you didn't listen to the 2005-06 AT ALL you don't know...- sounds worse and worse... His voice is thinner, he still can hit occassional VEERY high note, but... he can hardly carry few of them...
Basically- how can we discuss it if you haven't heard anything from this or last year yet have an opinion? ;)
There is nothing to be proud of IF you want to have an opinion on his voice. Listen- and than we will be able to discuss. He sounds better tahn EVER- and it's not because he sings Queen tunes. Even if he was singing Happy Birthday it would sound exceptional...
He's far better than in Rock Aid days...
Brian on the other hand- and if you didn't listen to the 2005-06 AT ALL you don't know...- sounds worse and worse... His voice is thinner, he still can hit occassional VEERY high note, but... he can hardly carry few of them...
Basically- how can we discuss it if you haven't heard anything from this or last year yet have an opinion? ;)
"and I'm proud to say I haven't listened to any of the 2005 or 2006 tours), but as far as I know"
Look. I respect your enviable grasp of music theory. I liked your website. But did you have a straight face when you typed this? It roughly equates to:
"Even though I haven't heard it, as far as I know he's worse now".
How can you *possibly* know if he's better or worse these days if you haven't listened to it? And be 'proud' about it??? Come now, you're far beyond this crap.
"Brian on the other hand- and if you didn't listen to the 2005-06 AT ALL you don't know...- sounds worse and worse... His voice is thinner, he still can hit occassional VEERY high note, but... he can hardly carry few of them..."
It's an unfortunate mix - he's a very good singer, but with a voice that frankly isn't build for what he tries to do with it.
To be honest, I actually liked his version of I Want It All at Brixton. Not sure why, his voice is much thinner than say Roger Datlrey's.
All in all, it'd be much better if he'd get into a studio where he can do lots of takes and give us his best, rather than succumb to the stresses and extremes of a stage where he can't get it right *every time*, like a lot of us! :D
Look. I respect your enviable grasp of music theory. I liked your website. But did you have a straight face when you typed this? It roughly equates to:
"Even though I haven't heard it, as far as I know he's worse now".
How can you *possibly* know if he's better or worse these days if you haven't listened to it? And be 'proud' about it??? Come now, you're far beyond this crap.
"Brian on the other hand- and if you didn't listen to the 2005-06 AT ALL you don't know...- sounds worse and worse... His voice is thinner, he still can hit occassional VEERY high note, but... he can hardly carry few of them..."
It's an unfortunate mix - he's a very good singer, but with a voice that frankly isn't build for what he tries to do with it.
To be honest, I actually liked his version of I Want It All at Brixton. Not sure why, his voice is much thinner than say Roger Datlrey's.
All in all, it'd be much better if he'd get into a studio where he can do lots of takes and give us his best, rather than succumb to the stresses and extremes of a stage where he can't get it right *every time*, like a lot of us! :D
By as far as I know I meant of course that it's an opinion merely based speculation, I accept that. My reasons: his performance in RAA was (for me) notably inferior to what he did in the 70s. Based on that, I'd say that he probably wouldn't sing better now (based on the fact that most singers of his era are just the shadow of what they were in the past, Gary Cherone for instance). But of course it's not an affirmation, it's just an educated guess (hence "as far as Í know").
About Brian I can give little opinion since I heard him singing '39, Love Of My Life and Good Company in the documentary. Of course that's still not enough (therefore "little opinion") since three unplugged tracks sung on a studio (with the possibility of repeating if he made a hash) are much easier than a concert.
I don't think he's bad in hard songs, I've always found his singing on Now I'm Here or Hammer To Fall (fast) quite nice, even if he's not as good as Roger or Freddie. Fat Bots is another one I like his own singing more than Freddie's.
About Brian I can give little opinion since I heard him singing '39, Love Of My Life and Good Company in the documentary. Of course that's still not enough (therefore "little opinion") since three unplugged tracks sung on a studio (with the possibility of repeating if he made a hash) are much easier than a concert.
I don't think he's bad in hard songs, I've always found his singing on Now I'm Here or Hammer To Fall (fast) quite nice, even if he's not as good as Roger or Freddie. Fat Bots is another one I like his own singing more than Freddie's.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My reasons: his performance in RAA was (for me) notably inferior to what he did in the 70s. Based on that, I'd say that he probably wouldn't sing better now (based on the fact that most singers of his era are just the shadow of what they were in the past,[/QUOTE]
Fair enough and usually true. He is better now though than he was back than. He not only looks better (he does!) but he also sings better. I think he just basically took care of himself- singing included. And it's one of those rare ocassions when a singer is like wine... It will stop at some point, of course- he also ism't getting younger but...
Don't know man- he'll play some solo gigs, try to listen to taht maybe (download or something). He IS on a high, man, seriously! :)
Fair enough and usually true. He is better now though than he was back than. He not only looks better (he does!) but he also sings better. I think he just basically took care of himself- singing included. And it's one of those rare ocassions when a singer is like wine... It will stop at some point, of course- he also ism't getting younger but...
Don't know man- he'll play some solo gigs, try to listen to taht maybe (download or something). He IS on a high, man, seriously! :)
I think that what matters when judging a singer is much more than his range. It is what is coming out of his personality. That is how a singer can get better with age.
"By as far as I know I meant of course that it's an opinion merely based speculation, I accept that."
Fair enough. I only take issue with this because you could be possibly cheating yourself out of something decent. True, if you don't like Paul Rodgers, or don't like the way his voice has been developing over time, there's every chance you'd not like the 05/06 stuff. But I wouldn't write it off till I heard it.
"About Brian I can give little opinion since I heard him singing '39, Love Of My Life and Good Company in the documentary. Of course that's still not enough (therefore "little opinion") since three unplugged tracks sung on a studio (with the possibility of repeating if he made a hash) are much easier than a concert."
Very true. If I may summarise - he's got every bit of the range he's always had, but the same old problem of having a thin voice at times. There's good moments. What I like the most about his recent singing is that he hasn't wrecked his voice like he did back in the early 90's. His throat sounded like he'd had steel wool put in it back then.
Fair enough. I only take issue with this because you could be possibly cheating yourself out of something decent. True, if you don't like Paul Rodgers, or don't like the way his voice has been developing over time, there's every chance you'd not like the 05/06 stuff. But I wouldn't write it off till I heard it.
"About Brian I can give little opinion since I heard him singing '39, Love Of My Life and Good Company in the documentary. Of course that's still not enough (therefore "little opinion") since three unplugged tracks sung on a studio (with the possibility of repeating if he made a hash) are much easier than a concert."
Very true. If I may summarise - he's got every bit of the range he's always had, but the same old problem of having a thin voice at times. There's good moments. What I like the most about his recent singing is that he hasn't wrecked his voice like he did back in the early 90's. His throat sounded like he'd had steel wool put in it back then.
Wait, isn't it true that your vocal range is fixed at birth?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wait, isn't it true that your vocal range is fixed at birth? [/QUOTE]
For some I think it was broken at birth :D
For some I think it was broken at birth :D
> Wait, isn't it true that your vocal range is fixed at birth?
Of course not. What is for some extent fixed is whether you're gonna be bass, baritone or tenor, and even that can slightly change depending on some factors (eg smoking or some surgery).
Of course not. What is for some extent fixed is whether you're gonna be bass, baritone or tenor, and even that can slightly change depending on some factors (eg smoking or some surgery).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wait, isn't it true that your vocal range is fixed at birth? [/QUOTE]
Not at all. Vocal extension is a common thing. What's also common is people who try too hard to extend their voice and they go and stretch their vocal cords out, making 'em more useless than before. Then there's things like nodes and whatnot. Well, that's what happens if you don't take care of yer voice box!
Not at all. Vocal extension is a common thing. What's also common is people who try too hard to extend their voice and they go and stretch their vocal cords out, making 'em more useless than before. Then there's things like nodes and whatnot. Well, that's what happens if you don't take care of yer voice box!