I was just listenting yet again to a Queen + Paul Rodgers show, this one being the Japanese concert that was released(mine's still a bootleg). A thought which previously may have occurred to me, was tonight fully realized.
The thought straight up is, "Freddie is so legendary, that even Paul Rodgers has to go through endless controversy, suspician, and skepticism in fronting the band."
The "EVEN PAUL RODGERS HIMSELF!!!" portion is really hitting home. What I'm getting at is, this isn't some popular face, known singer that is replacing Freddie... This is a musical legend who is famed enough to carry on a solo career, but is known for being in two bands with legendary reputations, massive hits, and both being known first and foremost among their individual parts equally as bands with a superior voice leading the way. Paul Rodgers is known by name more than most band names themselves, yet this well repected, consensus-voted among the VERY best singer, is getting shit for following up Freddie Mercury.
All I am saying is that it really hit me just how great Freddie is considered for so many skeptics to be skeptical on account of Paul's inferiority to Freddie.
That's like saying Kate Winslet isn't pretty because she can't replace Angelina Jolie or something.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
When you look at it going only by technical singing ability (an actual measuarable thing), Paul can't physically measure up. Even if he were to push his voice to ruin, I don't think he could do it.
Freddie had an amazing voice, and it would be hard to find someone with a "household name" with that. Plus, after doing some non-Queen-related research for choir, I think Freddie did some pretty dangerous things to achieve those high notes (bad technique that can resulte in nodules - which he got, and even scarring) - which no vocalist should be asked to do.
Now, I'm sure there are people who prefer the sound of Paul's voice to Freddie - this's got nothing to do with skill and is just personal preference.
But it does sound (no matter if, in my opinion, Paul still sounds great) suspicious to have songs slightly changed so Paul can sing them (or have him struggle with it, which is no fun for him, I'm sure, or anyone listening).
Freddie had an amazing voice, and it would be hard to find someone with a "household name" with that. Plus, after doing some non-Queen-related research for choir, I think Freddie did some pretty dangerous things to achieve those high notes (bad technique that can resulte in nodules - which he got, and even scarring) - which no vocalist should be asked to do.
Now, I'm sure there are people who prefer the sound of Paul's voice to Freddie - this's got nothing to do with skill and is just personal preference.
But it does sound (no matter if, in my opinion, Paul still sounds great) suspicious to have songs slightly changed so Paul can sing them (or have him struggle with it, which is no fun for him, I'm sure, or anyone listening).
It's funny how Freddie's status has risen after his death. During his life, critics never paid him his just due. Now, according to the same critics, a legend like Paul Rodgers isn't fit to carry his microphone. Paul Rodgers has an amazingly strong voice, but he couldn't sing 30% of the Queen catalogue because strength of voice aside, I'd say Freddie had a wit and style unparalleled in rock music history and Paul is a straight ahead blues based vocalist.
I'd love to take Kate Winslet out for tea or something.
i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)
Oh for crying out loud Going Back, don't start the whole, 'Paul Rodgers is a nobody, George Micheal would have been a better choice' crap because frankly it is getting old, in fact it got old a long time ago >:(.
Now AmeriQueen is talking sense. Paul Rodgers is one of the best singers ever to come out of the 70's. (I believe so and just ask the 'Hall of Fame' guys) but then so was Freddie, in fact probably a bit better. As has been said, Rodgers has a voice that limit's his ability to sing very diverse songs so notes have to be lowered and what have you! However Freddie learned 'this minute control of his voice, it is a wonderful instrument'-a Brian quote. He had to cope with different styles to sing (John's pop, Brian's rock/ballads) and he wanted to be unique so created songs like My Fairy King and March of the Black Queen which need great voice manipulation and seemingly impossibly high notes to sing. So he had a unique style that wasn't hard, soft, suited for hard rock or balladry and pop, whereas Pauls voice is best suited for bluesy rock songs and although he can do so much with that style of song that is about it for him.
Anyway Paul and Freddie are different people, Freddie deeply admired Paul as Brian frequently shoves down our throats and I'm guessing that Paul holds great respect for Freddie, so I can't see why the critics get so het-up. It isn't an insult to Freddie's memory to keep playing his songs for crying out loud! They are just hypocrites who want to insult Queen at any chance they get. And if that means contradicting themselves then so be it.
Now AmeriQueen is talking sense. Paul Rodgers is one of the best singers ever to come out of the 70's. (I believe so and just ask the 'Hall of Fame' guys) but then so was Freddie, in fact probably a bit better. As has been said, Rodgers has a voice that limit's his ability to sing very diverse songs so notes have to be lowered and what have you! However Freddie learned 'this minute control of his voice, it is a wonderful instrument'-a Brian quote. He had to cope with different styles to sing (John's pop, Brian's rock/ballads) and he wanted to be unique so created songs like My Fairy King and March of the Black Queen which need great voice manipulation and seemingly impossibly high notes to sing. So he had a unique style that wasn't hard, soft, suited for hard rock or balladry and pop, whereas Pauls voice is best suited for bluesy rock songs and although he can do so much with that style of song that is about it for him.
Anyway Paul and Freddie are different people, Freddie deeply admired Paul as Brian frequently shoves down our throats and I'm guessing that Paul holds great respect for Freddie, so I can't see why the critics get so het-up. It isn't an insult to Freddie's memory to keep playing his songs for crying out loud! They are just hypocrites who want to insult Queen at any chance they get. And if that means contradicting themselves then so be it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd love to take Kate Winslet out for tea or something.[/QUOTE]
The "or something" part slightly bothers me.....
Have fun though!
The "or something" part slightly bothers me.....
Have fun though!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Oh for crying out loud Going Back, don't start the whole, 'Paul Rodgers is a nobody, George Micheal would have been a better choice' crap because frankly it is getting old, in fact it got old a long time ago >:(.
Now AmeriQueen is talking sense. Paul Rodgers is one of the best singers ever to come out of the 70's. (I believe so and just ask the 'Hall of Fame' guys) but then so was Freddie, in fact probably a bit better. As has been said, Rodgers has a voice that limit's his ability to sing very diverse songs so notes have to be lowered and what have you! However Freddie learned 'this minute control of his voice, it is a wonderful instrument'-a Brian quote. He had to cope with different styles to sing (John's pop, Brian's rock/ballads) and he wanted to be unique so created songs like My Fairy King and March of the Black Queen which need great voice manipulation and seemingly impossibly high notes to sing. So he had a unique style that wasn't hard, soft, suited for hard rock or balladry and pop, whereas Pauls voice is best suited for bluesy rock songs and although he can do so much with that style of song that is about it for him.
Anyway Paul and Freddie are different people, Freddie deeply admired Paul as Brian frequently shoves down our throats and I'm guessing that Paul holds great respect for Freddie, so I can't see why the critics get so het-up. It isn't an insult to Freddie's memory to keep playing his songs for crying out loud! They are just hypocrites who want to insult Queen at any chance they get. And if that means contradicting themselves then so be it.[/QUOTE]
you din't read my post, i do not insult paul, just i did not know him and i remember two years ago on the same site here many fans were thinking like who the hell is he? george michael is geting old but his voice is still great.
Now AmeriQueen is talking sense. Paul Rodgers is one of the best singers ever to come out of the 70's. (I believe so and just ask the 'Hall of Fame' guys) but then so was Freddie, in fact probably a bit better. As has been said, Rodgers has a voice that limit's his ability to sing very diverse songs so notes have to be lowered and what have you! However Freddie learned 'this minute control of his voice, it is a wonderful instrument'-a Brian quote. He had to cope with different styles to sing (John's pop, Brian's rock/ballads) and he wanted to be unique so created songs like My Fairy King and March of the Black Queen which need great voice manipulation and seemingly impossibly high notes to sing. So he had a unique style that wasn't hard, soft, suited for hard rock or balladry and pop, whereas Pauls voice is best suited for bluesy rock songs and although he can do so much with that style of song that is about it for him.
Anyway Paul and Freddie are different people, Freddie deeply admired Paul as Brian frequently shoves down our throats and I'm guessing that Paul holds great respect for Freddie, so I can't see why the critics get so het-up. It isn't an insult to Freddie's memory to keep playing his songs for crying out loud! They are just hypocrites who want to insult Queen at any chance they get. And if that means contradicting themselves then so be it.[/QUOTE]
you din't read my post, i do not insult paul, just i did not know him and i remember two years ago on the same site here many fans were thinking like who the hell is he? george michael is geting old but his voice is still great.
This board permits for differing opinions and different levels of knowledge, but Going Back, if you hadn't heard of Paul Rodgers before two years ago, and you think George Michael would be great for Queen, you have to enrol in Music 101. That'd be akin to having Brian out of Queen and saying you've never heard of Jeff Beck, but the guy from the Darkness would be better than Beck for Queen. Statements like that won't give you much credibility.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This board permits for differing opinions and different levels of knowledge, but Going Back, if you hadn't heard of Paul Rodgers before two years ago, and you think George Michael would be great for Queen, you have to enrol in Music 101. That'd be akin to having Brian out of Queen and saying you've never heard of Jeff Beck, but the guy from the Darkness would be better than Beck for Queen. Statements like that won't give you much credibility.[/QUOTE]
Just your opinion. There is no scientific proof for Paul Rodgers being more suitable for Queen than George Michael. If you think your taste is more valid than someone else's, you have it coming.
The comparison between Brian and Paul Rodgers isn't valid either, I wasn't aware that Paul Rodgers is a founding member of Queen. Although of course Brian and Roger would have us believe so.
Just your opinion. There is no scientific proof for Paul Rodgers being more suitable for Queen than George Michael. If you think your taste is more valid than someone else's, you have it coming.
The comparison between Brian and Paul Rodgers isn't valid either, I wasn't aware that Paul Rodgers is a founding member of Queen. Although of course Brian and Roger would have us believe so.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Going Back wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)[/QUOTE]
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?
george michael...my oppinion is great voice, terrible frontman.
and i think its better to be a frontman than a singer.
and i think its better to be a frontman than a singer.
I dont get this George Michael thing, we have heard him do a half decent job on one and a half Queen songs. Somebody to Love was was played half a step down and he did not even attemped any of the high notes, and for some reason 90% of people think he would be a great replacement for Freddie, belive me he would not.
As a vocalist GM is not fit to clean PRs shoes let alone Freddies.
As a vocalist GM is not fit to clean PRs shoes let alone Freddies.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]borat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Going Back wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)[/QUOTE]
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?[/QUOTE]
bellive me, i heard the name much earlyer than you :)
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?[/QUOTE]
bellive me, i heard the name much earlyer than you :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]borat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Going Back wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)[/QUOTE]
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?[/QUOTE]
lol owned :p? no wait..he's in his 40s. Who owned who ;_;?
Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?[/QUOTE]
lol owned :p? no wait..he's in his 40s. Who owned who ;_;?