The voice of Mr. Mercury compared to . . .

I can't help but feel like Freddie's voice was one of major assets of Queen (The others being the song writing and May's magical playing). Did you ever notice that songs sung by freddie are better than those sung by Roger or Brian. Look at "Fun It" for example. Roger sings for the majority of his song but the song doesn't come alive until Fred's voice is added. What does everyone else think?

Well, Freddie was probably one of the best popular music singers of all time. As far as I am concerned, he is by far the most talented in the group. Brian is good as well, but Freddie is a better singer than Brian is a guitar player.

I agree that a great singer can make a crappy song into a good song. As I was listening to Paul Rodgers and the girl on "American Idol" sing "The Show Must Go On", I remember thinking that the song was not really all that great. No, the thing that makes it great is Freddie's extraordinary singing.

Freddie is the best singer in rock history, and roger is the best backing vocalist. Freddie had a combination of power, emotion, and grace in his voice that very few in rock ever had. Roger has one of the highest backing vocals ever. Roger and rob halford from judas priest could hit serious high notes, but they don't have the emotion and grace of a freddie.

Freddie is god, but Brian and Roger are both great singers.

THAT'S IT


Bwahahaha

I think that Paul McCartney in the beatles period by far beats Roger as a backgroundsinger. I would rather choose him instead of Roger, maybe I would take in Roger if I needed two Backgroundsingers. :)
Else said about Freddie I totally agree with.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Fred wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think that Paul McCartney in the beatles period by far beats Roger as a backgroundsinger. [/QUOTE]

While Paul McCartney did sing background vocals on most Beatle tracks (usually with John, George, or all 3 together) you do realize that McCartney sang lead vocals on 74 Beatles songs (John on 81) (George on 13) (Ringo on 5)....

And of the Beatles 20 highest charting songs, 15 were sang/written mainly by McCartney.

So... I can't really say I think of McCartney as a background singer.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Fred wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think that Paul McCartney in the beatles period by far beats Roger as a backgroundsinger. [/QUOTE]

While Paul McCartney did sing background vocals on most Beatle tracks (usually with John, George, or all 3 together) you do realize that McCartney sang lead vocals on 74 Beatles songs (John on 81) (George on 13) (Ringo on 5)....

And of the Beatles 20 highest charting songs, 15 were sang/written mainly by McCartney.

So... I can't really say I think of McCartney as a background singer.[/QUOTE]
I'm agree with this

Freddie was a gifted singer, roger doing harmonizing with freddie, well it was magic.

Bohemian Rhapsody, In my oppinion, would not have been as good without Brian and Roger singing backup, particularaly (SP) Roger hitting the high fallseto notes. Freddie obviously was the better singer, but Roger and Brian could do things Freddie couldn't do.

Well, although Roger could hit some high notes sometimes, there was absolutely nothing that Brian could do as a singer that Freddie could not do 1,000 times better. The problem with Roger's voice is that his tone is not that good and he voice is not very powerful. Freddie, who had the kind of power that you might expect from an opera singer in his voice, could easily sing right over Roger in concerts.

I sorta agree in a way...I LOVE Sail Away Sweet Sister and Brian's vocals and all but when Freddie starts singing everything lights up and thats becuase he's absolutly AMAZING beyond anything.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fat Queen Pig wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The problem with Roger's voice is that his tone is not that good and he voice is not very powerful. Freddie, who had the kind of power that you might expect from an opera singer in his voice, could easily sing right over Roger in concerts.[/QUOTE]

In Roger's defense, I just want to point out that he DOES have a powerful voice, perhaps just different from the way Freddie's voice was. Freddie's voice was sort of... blatantly powerful because it was so smooth and beautiful. Roger's raspy qualities sometimes make it seem more like shouting than singing powerfully. It's almost distracting from his finner singing qualities. As sighted in the first post, 'Fun It' is a good example of where a song gets a new dynamic by adding Freddie's voice into the mix, yet you still hear that Roger has some really power-house vocals at about 2:21 where their voices just sort of... split. >w< That's a moment when they really hold their own with each other.

As far as live pieces go, I think it depends on who's voice you're listening for, because when I listen, I can always pick out Rog's singing from Freddie's. :)

But at the end of the day... they both rock, really.

Freddie couldn´t sing "i´m in love with my car" as good as Roger, or if you prefer, this song is simply one of those songs that can´t be covered without looking silly. The same with Boh Rap.

Take care

I shall only do my state clear. If Paul McCartney sang lead, it doesn't matter. And the fact that he sang background isn't the fact either. The thing was that I think that Paul as a backgroundsinger, on those songs where he sings proves that he also is a great backgroundsinger. In the meaning of doing harmonies. Better than Roger, but not said that Roger is bad. He has a great singer to.

I know my beatles very well. Those are my biggest Idols besides Queen....

i think u can't really compare them 2 bcoz they got different type of voice...yeah freddie definitely got powerful voice but he can't do the high notes like roger did in bho rap or some other song...