I hadn't really heard alot of Paul Rodger's stuff before RotC, and although I think he's a great singer, and incredibly brave to attempt to step in for Freddie, you have to question the man's sanity, because Fred was a legendary singer (not that Paul isn't)and he can NEVER be replaced! Paul is a wonderful singer, but his style is extremely different than that of Queen's.
FREDDIE LIVES!!!!
xoxoxoxo ;)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
btw it doesn't matter if kate winslet is prettier than angelina joli or not, - important is that she is a so much better actress than mrs tomb raider... :D
and you can't really compare freddie (a legend) with paul rodgers (just a middle-rated pop singer...)
and you can't really compare freddie (a legend) with paul rodgers (just a middle-rated pop singer...)
rosedewitt, I used to be obsessed w/ all thigs Titanic related. I still kinda am. SHHHH! I haven't seen alot of Jolie movies, so I ca't say if she's a good actress or not, but I'll just take your word for it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]paul rodgers (just a middle-rated pop singer...) [/QUOTE]
No more opinions from you, who clearly have not been paying much attention. Unless by "Paul Rodgers" you meant "George Michael."
No more opinions from you, who clearly have not been paying much attention. Unless by "Paul Rodgers" you meant "George Michael."
everybody who can differ a skilled voice from an untrained one, or at least can differ a voice with quality from "another" voice, will say that it is impossible to compare p.r's cant with freddies chant.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=Maroon>Singing Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]rosedewitt, I used to be obsessed w/ all thigs Titanic related. I still kinda am. SHHHH! I haven't seen alot of Jolie movies, so I ca't say if she's a good actress or not, but I'll just take your word for it.[/QUOTE]
i have seen some movies from angelina joli and she's really not bad, but kate winslet beats the pants of angelina. all i want to say is that kate is gorgeous and there are not much actors/actresses who perform better then her.
i have seen some movies from angelina joli and she's really not bad, but kate winslet beats the pants of angelina. all i want to say is that kate is gorgeous and there are not much actors/actresses who perform better then her.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]everybody who can differ a skilled voice from an untrained one, or at least can differ a voice with quality from "another" voice, will say that it is impossible to compare p.r's cant with freddies chant. [/QUOTE]
Well, the problem I see is RANGE. Which, you can indeed compare. I don't know Paul's vocal stats, but there's a decent chance he doesn't have the same range. Therefore, it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to sing the same songs.
This's got nothing to do with "Freddie's voice was better" this is "Freddie was capable of producing a larger range of tones".
For instance, say Paul has a two-octave range (which I think is normal), he would still need approximately another OCTAVE (or more, but from what I read, those really high notes were fairly rare and not really to be counted on) to catch up. That is quite a bit to be down.
Unless Paul has a larger range than I heard at Q+PR or, hell, even on his other stuff.
If anyone knows Paul's range, that would be neat to compare.
Well, the problem I see is RANGE. Which, you can indeed compare. I don't know Paul's vocal stats, but there's a decent chance he doesn't have the same range. Therefore, it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to sing the same songs.
This's got nothing to do with "Freddie's voice was better" this is "Freddie was capable of producing a larger range of tones".
For instance, say Paul has a two-octave range (which I think is normal), he would still need approximately another OCTAVE (or more, but from what I read, those really high notes were fairly rare and not really to be counted on) to catch up. That is quite a bit to be down.
Unless Paul has a larger range than I heard at Q+PR or, hell, even on his other stuff.
If anyone knows Paul's range, that would be neat to compare.
i think paul's just getting flak for being on freddie's territory...of COURSE freddie's voice is more suitable to his material, the songs are designed for him. if (for some totally inexplicable reason) there were a tour of freddie mercury+bad company, or freddie+free(freedie!), people would be saying that freddie's voice wasn't raw or bluesy enough, or something.
oh, if anyone DOES know of a site that gives vocal ranges of different artists, i'd love to see it(i was having a very lengthy discussion with someone about this exact subject, only about the beatles)
oh, if anyone DOES know of a site that gives vocal ranges of different artists, i'd love to see it(i was having a very lengthy discussion with someone about this exact subject, only about the beatles)
Freddie's is on here :
http://www.f-mercury.com.ar/frames_eng.htm
This was pretty neat. I found it when I was freaking out about being a Tenor (which, we have now confirmed, is not really true).
I was just looking for anything on John Lennon, but I'm not getting anything (but maybe I don't know where/how to look).
Also, I fid this creepy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Entertainers_who_died_in_their_40s
http://www.f-mercury.com.ar/frames_eng.htm
This was pretty neat. I found it when I was freaking out about being a Tenor (which, we have now confirmed, is not really true).
I was just looking for anything on John Lennon, but I'm not getting anything (but maybe I don't know where/how to look).
Also, I fid this creepy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Entertainers_who_died_in_their_40s
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]everybody who can differ a skilled voice from an untrained one, or at least can differ a voice with quality from "another" voice, will say that it is impossible to compare p.r's cant with freddies chant. [/QUOTE]
Well, the problem I see is RANGE. Which, you can indeed compare. I don't know Paul's vocal stats, but there's a decent chance he doesn't have the same range. Therefore, it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to sing the same songs.
This's got nothing to do with "Freddie's voice was better" this is "Freddie was capable of producing a larger range of tones".
For instance, say Paul has a two-octave range (which I think is normal), he would still need approximately another OCTAVE (or more, but from what I read, those really high notes were fairly rare and not really to be counted on) to catch up. That is quite a bit to be down.
Unless Paul has a larger range than I heard at Q+PR or, hell, even on his other stuff.
If anyone knows Paul's range, that would be neat to compare.[/QUOTE]
You have to consider that technically Freddie could not even sing the "same songs" in a live setting. Several of the sharper notes undertook a frequency reduction in Queen's live renditions as to not destroy his vocal cords. Anyone who's ever heard a Queen live has heard this.
Well, the problem I see is RANGE. Which, you can indeed compare. I don't know Paul's vocal stats, but there's a decent chance he doesn't have the same range. Therefore, it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to sing the same songs.
This's got nothing to do with "Freddie's voice was better" this is "Freddie was capable of producing a larger range of tones".
For instance, say Paul has a two-octave range (which I think is normal), he would still need approximately another OCTAVE (or more, but from what I read, those really high notes were fairly rare and not really to be counted on) to catch up. That is quite a bit to be down.
Unless Paul has a larger range than I heard at Q+PR or, hell, even on his other stuff.
If anyone knows Paul's range, that would be neat to compare.[/QUOTE]
You have to consider that technically Freddie could not even sing the "same songs" in a live setting. Several of the sharper notes undertook a frequency reduction in Queen's live renditions as to not destroy his vocal cords. Anyone who's ever heard a Queen live has heard this.
i didn't mean that the singer who reaches more octaves is the better singer. but when you are a singer yourself you have heard many voices and can differ from skilled voices with "talent" and voices, who just sing because they like it, even if they have no talent.
of course i recognized that freddies voice was worse on the live concerts compared to the studio versions, that's normal. the same with montserrat caballe: i first heard her on studio cd's singing meyerbeer and strauß, and that was perfect. when i saw her live i was really disappointed because her voice wasn't so perfect as on the cd's.
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. but of course there are differences then between with the persons with good voices and the ones with less good voices. that's no offence but only a fact.
of course i recognized that freddies voice was worse on the live concerts compared to the studio versions, that's normal. the same with montserrat caballe: i first heard her on studio cd's singing meyerbeer and strauß, and that was perfect. when i saw her live i was really disappointed because her voice wasn't so perfect as on the cd's.
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. but of course there are differences then between with the persons with good voices and the ones with less good voices. that's no offence but only a fact.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. [/QUOTE]
This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times.
He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato.
That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived.
You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. [/QUOTE]
This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times.
He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato.
That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived.
You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You have to consider that technically Freddie could not even sing the "same songs" in a live setting. Several of the sharper notes undertook a frequency reduction in Queen's live renditions as to not destroy his vocal cords. Anyone who's ever heard a Queen live has heard this.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I've heard that (and sometimes it throws me off if I happen to be singing along...), but I was thinking that if you've got a larger range - you've got a larger range and the "workable" part would be the same ratio.
Also, this is not directed to you, necessarily, but I'm not trying to pick on Paul. I'm not complaining about him, I heard him live and I think he did just fine.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. but of course there are differences then between with the persons with good voices and the ones with less good voices. that's no offence but only a fact. [/QUOTE]
But what about Freddie's BAD technique ? I think he pushed it too far. He himself, aknowledged a loss of range in the 80's. I've heard people jump on him for smoking and drinking, but what about bad technique ? Just one "bad technique", called "flat-tongued" can also cause loss of range, as well as nodules on the vocal cords - by, from what I understand, squashing the tongue into the pharnyx. This may not have been his exact case, but it makes sense to me.
Yeah, I've heard that (and sometimes it throws me off if I happen to be singing along...), but I was thinking that if you've got a larger range - you've got a larger range and the "workable" part would be the same ratio.
Also, this is not directed to you, necessarily, but I'm not trying to pick on Paul. I'm not complaining about him, I heard him live and I think he did just fine.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rosedewitt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. but of course there are differences then between with the persons with good voices and the ones with less good voices. that's no offence but only a fact. [/QUOTE]
But what about Freddie's BAD technique ? I think he pushed it too far. He himself, aknowledged a loss of range in the 80's. I've heard people jump on him for smoking and drinking, but what about bad technique ? Just one "bad technique", called "flat-tongued" can also cause loss of range, as well as nodules on the vocal cords - by, from what I understand, squashing the tongue into the pharnyx. This may not have been his exact case, but it makes sense to me.
Please be open-minded and check out this video.
It's Dream Theater's James LaBrie (Freddie is his biggest idol btw!) performing the majestic and Queen influenced masterpiece "Losing Time" from "Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence". It's a growing operatic anthem in the style of.....check it out!
There's an amazingly high note at min. 02:30! Paul Rodgers is like a member of the Muppet show compared to this incredible performance by James. Freddie, who was a very talented singer, could have performed like James if he had practiced from the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTcOynhaek
In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.
It's Dream Theater's James LaBrie (Freddie is his biggest idol btw!) performing the majestic and Queen influenced masterpiece "Losing Time" from "Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence". It's a growing operatic anthem in the style of.....check it out!
There's an amazingly high note at min. 02:30! Paul Rodgers is like a member of the Muppet show compared to this incredible performance by James. Freddie, who was a very talented singer, could have performed like James if he had practiced from the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTcOynhaek
In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Stephan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTcOynhaek
In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.[/QUOTE]
well i'm really sorry but it's quite interesting what some people call a "singer". the guy is a sympathic boy with charisma, but where do you hear a "voice"?
"perfect vocal performance of a male singer", - have you ever heard the voice of d.f.dieskau, p.domingo, j.carreras? THESE are nearly perfect male voices.
nevertheless @all if you try to convince me i'll say it's a waste of time. i heard freddie, and i heard paul r., and i have formed my opinion about their voices.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times.
He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato.
That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived.
You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?
[/QUOTE]
there are some things you don't know about singing. a vibrato is not necessary for a pop-/rock-singer. you don't absolutely need singing lessons for a quite good technique (as long as you don't want to sing at the opera). many opera singers have problems with her voice (although they have a good technique, but the voice is an organ which can't be overstressed, no matter what kind of good technique). freddies voice was talented, whereas p.r.'s voice is just on average, that is the important difference.
of course freddies voice was not perfet (but where do you find a perfect voice... not even maria callas had a perfect voice) and he didn't take good care about his voice, that's why it got worse by the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTcOynhaek
In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.[/QUOTE]
well i'm really sorry but it's quite interesting what some people call a "singer". the guy is a sympathic boy with charisma, but where do you hear a "voice"?
"perfect vocal performance of a male singer", - have you ever heard the voice of d.f.dieskau, p.domingo, j.carreras? THESE are nearly perfect male voices.
nevertheless @all if you try to convince me i'll say it's a waste of time. i heard freddie, and i heard paul r., and i have formed my opinion about their voices.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times.
He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato.
That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived.
You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?
[/QUOTE]
there are some things you don't know about singing. a vibrato is not necessary for a pop-/rock-singer. you don't absolutely need singing lessons for a quite good technique (as long as you don't want to sing at the opera). many opera singers have problems with her voice (although they have a good technique, but the voice is an organ which can't be overstressed, no matter what kind of good technique). freddies voice was talented, whereas p.r.'s voice is just on average, that is the important difference.
of course freddies voice was not perfet (but where do you find a perfect voice... not even maria callas had a perfect voice) and he didn't take good care about his voice, that's why it got worse by the time.