This is a hell of a stupid thread, but I'll try and say something constructive.
Freddie's live voice did go a little downhill in the 80's, but I reckon it probably aged better than Robert Plant's did. Though both had vocally unreliable performances (there was a Birmingham performance in '84 by Freddie that just... blows, it's a monotone of G almost - and then you have Robert Plant at Live Aid; moments of good singing but mostly a broken voice).
Mick Jagger is an average singer. And a not-so-interesting performer. I still find it kind of funny that the Rolling Stones have always been seen in that same class as The Who or the Beatles, who frankly outmatch them. The Who especially. I would rather pay to see half of The Who than a whole Rolling Stones.
I think there's an unwillingness in some parties here to accept Freddie wasn't perfect. You know, in the studio - if there was a 'perfect', I think he'd be pretty much it. But live.. you know, its not like one is saying he sucks because he wasn't always reliable in the live situation. There's a lot of factors involved, ya know.
And this know-it-all attitude being thrown around concerning music (YEAH you know who you are) I put it to you that we might not know it all about music. It's a simple concept - for one, if one knew everything there was to know about music, they wouldn't be posting here. Second of all, I'd hardly be proud if I did know everything. It'd be staking a claim to an extraordinarily boring life - you'd never learn anything knew, there'd be nothing to enjoy.
I mean really.... nobody in this thread has ever shown anything to anyone else here that is proof of any virtuoso qualities. I can only say that I'm happy enough with my abilities that I don't have to 'prove' it to anyone; I can sit down with other people and play along with songs I haven't heard, and I can generally speaking pick up new instruments pretty quickly (I played an oud for the first time the other night).
To me - that's music. Having fun, doing the odd new thing. It shouldn't be an argument.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bgordon88 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]He was an untrained singer who wrote really challenging songs.
See the WWRY show at the Dominion - those trained singers really can hold the notes wherever they are on the scale.
[/QUOTE]
They can hold 100% of notes and 10% of song's substance. ;)
See the WWRY show at the Dominion - those trained singers really can hold the notes wherever they are on the scale.
[/QUOTE]
They can hold 100% of notes and 10% of song's substance. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]fatih wrote: [/QUOTENAME]freddie sang incredibly beautiful in the studio.but when singing live it is very normal to lower the notes to protect the voices.that is why some queen fans find freddie insufficient when singing live.[/QUOTE]
But if you train your voice properly, your voice can be in the same shape all the time. Do you think opera singers sing lower and raspier when they sing live?
The problem with most rock singers is that they don't train their voices, so they sound worse live.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Rompez wrote: [/QUOTENAME][/QUOTENAME]Freddie was a baritone.(not a tenor, as many thinks).[/QUOTE]
It's hard to classify him. His lower range is definitely baritone, but his highest range exceeds most baritones. There were concerts where he effortlessly hit the high notes. Listen to the South America 81 shows, and Newcastle 79. Baritones have trouble hitting a G above middle C, and in these concerts, he was hitting A and B without any trouble. In the studio, he hit high D and E many times. He sounds so natural on It's Late, for example. I'd classify him as a "baritenor".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I would rather pay to see half of The Who than a whole Rolling Stones.[/QUOTE]
Is it okay if I do both? ;)
But if you train your voice properly, your voice can be in the same shape all the time. Do you think opera singers sing lower and raspier when they sing live?
The problem with most rock singers is that they don't train their voices, so they sound worse live.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Rompez wrote: [/QUOTENAME][/QUOTENAME]Freddie was a baritone.(not a tenor, as many thinks).[/QUOTE]
It's hard to classify him. His lower range is definitely baritone, but his highest range exceeds most baritones. There were concerts where he effortlessly hit the high notes. Listen to the South America 81 shows, and Newcastle 79. Baritones have trouble hitting a G above middle C, and in these concerts, he was hitting A and B without any trouble. In the studio, he hit high D and E many times. He sounds so natural on It's Late, for example. I'd classify him as a "baritenor".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I would rather pay to see half of The Who than a whole Rolling Stones.[/QUOTE]
Is it okay if I do both? ;)
-double post-
"Is it okay if I do both? ;)"
Well hey if you can afford it :D
Well hey if you can afford it :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rockyracoon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
From my perspective, Bono was considerably better than Mick Jagger,
QUOTE]
see my post. Bono's voice sounds very strangled now; Jagger has lost little of his range by comparison.
From my perspective, Bono was considerably better than Mick Jagger,
QUOTE]
see my post. Bono's voice sounds very strangled now; Jagger has lost little of his range by comparison.
Freddies studio work was quite exceptional and I honestly cant think of anyone better, but no one could sing like that on a tour when they are singing night after night doing 50+ shows. Freddie always sang way out of his natural range hence the reason his voice was often in bad shape, thats why opera singers are given a certain job to do, i.e. a baratone sings baratione. How long do you think a baratones voice will last if he is asked to sing the part of the tenor night after night ?
Trying to sing out of your range for an hour and a half is hard enough, take both MK and Budapest, Freddie starts both shows quite well but halfway through his voice gets tired and he starts to struggle.
And just incase anyone wasnt aware Freddie had nodes on his Vocal chords from as early as 1975 (which I belive were treated immediatly after the Works tour), so what the bloody hell do you expect.
If you want to hear an incredable singer who can match Freddie for both power and range, and do it live look no further than the voice of metal, Ronnie James Dio. For about a fiver you can pick-up 'DIO The Collection' which contains half a dozen live tracks with some quite incredable vocal performances, or buy the 'We Rock' DVD, you also get Vivian Campell on guitar !
Trying to sing out of your range for an hour and a half is hard enough, take both MK and Budapest, Freddie starts both shows quite well but halfway through his voice gets tired and he starts to struggle.
And just incase anyone wasnt aware Freddie had nodes on his Vocal chords from as early as 1975 (which I belive were treated immediatly after the Works tour), so what the bloody hell do you expect.
If you want to hear an incredable singer who can match Freddie for both power and range, and do it live look no further than the voice of metal, Ronnie James Dio. For about a fiver you can pick-up 'DIO The Collection' which contains half a dozen live tracks with some quite incredable vocal performances, or buy the 'We Rock' DVD, you also get Vivian Campell on guitar !
)Mick Jagger sings like a girl.....wait he is a girl anyway.
)Plant was good, for a couple of years..
)Bono=shit
)But nobody even comes near to the Great Mercury
)Plant was good, for a couple of years..
)Bono=shit
)But nobody even comes near to the Great Mercury
Freddie will always be da greatast mo fo singer on this huge planet. Guy had da energy, da voice, da balls, da charm and da charisma.
I personally do not like Bono cos he writes poor songs. No sing alongs. I mean what U2 song can you sing along too? I also think he is a poor entertainer. Jagger is a bit better, but he's been around for so long that he could just die and I would not care.
I personally do not like Bono cos he writes poor songs. No sing alongs. I mean what U2 song can you sing along too? I also think he is a poor entertainer. Jagger is a bit better, but he's been around for so long that he could just die and I would not care.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]luthorn wrote: [/QUOTENAME].
I personally do not like Bono cos he writes poor songs. No sing alongs. I mean what U2 song can you sing along too? QUOTE]
well he was a good entertainer in the Zoo TV era but now he's returned to being a whiney, hypocritical preacher again. I like U2s music and I think there are singalong songs e.g. Mysterious Ways, Pride In The Name Of Love and Staring At The Sun but I agree, he pales when compared to Freddie.
I personally do not like Bono cos he writes poor songs. No sing alongs. I mean what U2 song can you sing along too? QUOTE]
well he was a good entertainer in the Zoo TV era but now he's returned to being a whiney, hypocritical preacher again. I like U2s music and I think there are singalong songs e.g. Mysterious Ways, Pride In The Name Of Love and Staring At The Sun but I agree, he pales when compared to Freddie.
well he was a good entertainer in the Zoo TV era but now he's returned to being a whiney, hypocritical preacher again. [QUOTE]
Well said
Well said
Freddie Mercury was the greatest male rock vocalist, live or not!
How can you people even put Freddie into the same group as Mick Jagger, Bono, Frank Sinatra, or anyone else you want to put up there.
Freddie stood alone. Let's compare, shall we?
Freddie vs Frank Sinatra. True, Frank Sinatra was smooth vocally. He could sing almost exactly as he sounded in his records. Freddie wasn't as consistent. However, this comparison is invalid. Frank Sinatra rarely sang above a middle F. For Frank Sinatra, hitting a middle F was like Freddie hitting a high C. Frank's range was much lower than Freddies. This is why Frank Sinatra sounded more smooth because the level of difficulty of his songs was MUCH lower. Let me put it this way: Frank or any of the singers of that genre could NEVER sing even a moderate Queen song. They simply did not have the range.
Freddie vs Operatic voice. True, opera singers have trained voices that can sing at high ranges with power and consistency. However, this same training also limits them vocally. Therefore, this comparison is invalid. Freddie's singing style was more natural, and emotional. He could combine musical notes with SUCH overpowering emotion that moved people. An Operatic singer CANNOT shape emotions, and sounds as freely and as naturally as Freddie Mercury can. No Operatic singer can because Operatic voice has a rigid style that has limited emotional expressiveness.
Freddie vs All the other "ROCK" singers (Bono, Mick Jagger, etc). This comparison may be the most valid comparion of the three. Rock singers sing freely, and some sing at high ranges. But what makes Freddie the best of the best VOCALLY is his tone, versatility, and sheer emotional power. His angelic tone combined with his power made Freddie Mercury special.
Mick Jagger does not have Freddies tone, range, or power. In fact, Mick Jagger is a very poor singer.
Bono comes closer to Freddie's range, but he did not have the angelic tone, or power.
All the other rock singers have pluses and minuses except one. Freddie Mercury. He had no minus vocally. He was all positives. He really did have the perfect voice.
And I am only talking about vocal ability. If you factor in showmanship, and charm, Freddie had those in spades as well.
To Review singing LIVE:
1> Frank Sinatra. As consistent as operatic singers but more fluid. However, song difficulty was very low ie low range.
2> Operatic singers. Consistent and powerful due to technique. But the same technique produces a rigid style that is unnatural and less versatile emotionally.
3> Rock singers. Natural singers who can sometimes sing high range. But due to the high level of difficulty of their songs, was the least consistent in quality in live singing. However, Freddie Mercury shone brighter than his peers because he had a perfect tone, abundant range, and power.
How can you people even put Freddie into the same group as Mick Jagger, Bono, Frank Sinatra, or anyone else you want to put up there.
Freddie stood alone. Let's compare, shall we?
Freddie vs Frank Sinatra. True, Frank Sinatra was smooth vocally. He could sing almost exactly as he sounded in his records. Freddie wasn't as consistent. However, this comparison is invalid. Frank Sinatra rarely sang above a middle F. For Frank Sinatra, hitting a middle F was like Freddie hitting a high C. Frank's range was much lower than Freddies. This is why Frank Sinatra sounded more smooth because the level of difficulty of his songs was MUCH lower. Let me put it this way: Frank or any of the singers of that genre could NEVER sing even a moderate Queen song. They simply did not have the range.
Freddie vs Operatic voice. True, opera singers have trained voices that can sing at high ranges with power and consistency. However, this same training also limits them vocally. Therefore, this comparison is invalid. Freddie's singing style was more natural, and emotional. He could combine musical notes with SUCH overpowering emotion that moved people. An Operatic singer CANNOT shape emotions, and sounds as freely and as naturally as Freddie Mercury can. No Operatic singer can because Operatic voice has a rigid style that has limited emotional expressiveness.
Freddie vs All the other "ROCK" singers (Bono, Mick Jagger, etc). This comparison may be the most valid comparion of the three. Rock singers sing freely, and some sing at high ranges. But what makes Freddie the best of the best VOCALLY is his tone, versatility, and sheer emotional power. His angelic tone combined with his power made Freddie Mercury special.
Mick Jagger does not have Freddies tone, range, or power. In fact, Mick Jagger is a very poor singer.
Bono comes closer to Freddie's range, but he did not have the angelic tone, or power.
All the other rock singers have pluses and minuses except one. Freddie Mercury. He had no minus vocally. He was all positives. He really did have the perfect voice.
And I am only talking about vocal ability. If you factor in showmanship, and charm, Freddie had those in spades as well.
To Review singing LIVE:
1> Frank Sinatra. As consistent as operatic singers but more fluid. However, song difficulty was very low ie low range.
2> Operatic singers. Consistent and powerful due to technique. But the same technique produces a rigid style that is unnatural and less versatile emotionally.
3> Rock singers. Natural singers who can sometimes sing high range. But due to the high level of difficulty of their songs, was the least consistent in quality in live singing. However, Freddie Mercury shone brighter than his peers because he had a perfect tone, abundant range, and power.
OH and the guy who said that Freddie was a Baritone, and not a tenor.
Are you nuts??
Freddie in the 70s was a light lyrical tenor. He could easily sing G#, sometimes even A# without much effort.
Freddie's voice in the 80s turned heavier. You can see the change from light to heavy from 1980-1983, after 1983, his voice was heavy tenor, but it was still a tenor.
The reason you think it's a baritone is because of the heaviness. But let me tell you, no baritone could reach Freddie's range in the 80s. He hit a high D#. That is definitely tenor!
And in the 1990s, his voice became a light tenor again.
He was definitely a tenor!
Are you nuts??
Freddie in the 70s was a light lyrical tenor. He could easily sing G#, sometimes even A# without much effort.
Freddie's voice in the 80s turned heavier. You can see the change from light to heavy from 1980-1983, after 1983, his voice was heavy tenor, but it was still a tenor.
The reason you think it's a baritone is because of the heaviness. But let me tell you, no baritone could reach Freddie's range in the 80s. He hit a high D#. That is definitely tenor!
And in the 1990s, his voice became a light tenor again.
He was definitely a tenor!
"This is why Frank Sinatra sounded more smooth because the level of difficulty of his songs was MUCH lower."
I find this apocryphal at best. How is it, then, that fugger all people have ever sung Sinatra very well; almost to the same ratio as people who can't sing Queen for shite?
Different as the two styles are, one is most certainly not noticeably more challenging than the other. I've seen adequate numbers of people screw both up, to convince me that both are pretty tricky.
"Freddie Mercury. He had no minus vocally"
Wouldn't you consider straining to be a bad thing, vocally? I happen to think Freddie usually sounded brilliant when he pushed it too far, but there were times when it really was a little too much (How Can I Go On, gets on my nerves a bit). You're telling us he's perfect, when he turned in a considerable number of less-than-perfect live shows?
You're not talking to people who don't like Freddie, or people who think he sucks. But you must be realistic - he wasn't 'perfect'. Not Live, anyway.
I find this apocryphal at best. How is it, then, that fugger all people have ever sung Sinatra very well; almost to the same ratio as people who can't sing Queen for shite?
Different as the two styles are, one is most certainly not noticeably more challenging than the other. I've seen adequate numbers of people screw both up, to convince me that both are pretty tricky.
"Freddie Mercury. He had no minus vocally"
Wouldn't you consider straining to be a bad thing, vocally? I happen to think Freddie usually sounded brilliant when he pushed it too far, but there were times when it really was a little too much (How Can I Go On, gets on my nerves a bit). You're telling us he's perfect, when he turned in a considerable number of less-than-perfect live shows?
You're not talking to people who don't like Freddie, or people who think he sucks. But you must be realistic - he wasn't 'perfect'. Not Live, anyway.
Zebonka, just because you say that plenty of people screw up singing Frank Sinatra songs, therefore Frank and Freddie must be equal is plain illogical.
The reason you see people screwing up Frank's songs is because they suck! If one cannot sing Frank Sinatra's songs well, then they suck. And they definitely cannot sing Queen songs! They are amateurs!
However, how many PROFESSIONAL singers have you heard that SCREW up Queen songs? Many. Even very talented ones. why? Because any real singer will tell you that queen songs rank very high on difficulty.
Where you fail to understand is, Frank's style and songs were on a much lower difficulty level than Queen songs were. Therefore, you cannot compare Frank Sinatra's live performance, as velvety smooth as his voice was, to Freddie's because the two sang at very different levels.
As for your second statement that singing with strain is a negative, well, let me tell you this. It is not possible for any male Rock singer to sing rock songs that often hit high C notes night after night without ruining your voice. It's simply not humanly possible.
Just like you cannot expect an athelete to play every single day. Because the body breaks down. We're fragile. This is NOT a negative. It is simply human limitation.
Can Frank Sinatra sing night after night almost perfectly? No, but he probably could sing very well 80% of the time. Because his songs are not as taxing as Queen songs are.
Can Operatic singers sing night after night? Yes. Because the operatic technique allows this. This same technique however restricts emotional versatility. Compare Montserrat's singing with Freddie's singing in their Rock-Opera duet. The Golden Boy. Can you compare Montserrat with Freddie in that song? No way. Freddie sang with great emotion while Montserrate singing was much more rigid. Technique wise, Montserrate and any Operatic singer can sing songs night after night, but that is because of their technique. I find the Operatic style to be limited. After a while, every Operatic song sounds the same to me.
But Freddie and Rock singers are much more expressive, and free. They can sing in many different styles, and emotional colors.
Which one is superior?
Operatic voices are superior for consistency especially high power songs.
But the ROCK voice is superior for versatility, and reaching the full emotional range and color.
The reason you see people screwing up Frank's songs is because they suck! If one cannot sing Frank Sinatra's songs well, then they suck. And they definitely cannot sing Queen songs! They are amateurs!
However, how many PROFESSIONAL singers have you heard that SCREW up Queen songs? Many. Even very talented ones. why? Because any real singer will tell you that queen songs rank very high on difficulty.
Where you fail to understand is, Frank's style and songs were on a much lower difficulty level than Queen songs were. Therefore, you cannot compare Frank Sinatra's live performance, as velvety smooth as his voice was, to Freddie's because the two sang at very different levels.
As for your second statement that singing with strain is a negative, well, let me tell you this. It is not possible for any male Rock singer to sing rock songs that often hit high C notes night after night without ruining your voice. It's simply not humanly possible.
Just like you cannot expect an athelete to play every single day. Because the body breaks down. We're fragile. This is NOT a negative. It is simply human limitation.
Can Frank Sinatra sing night after night almost perfectly? No, but he probably could sing very well 80% of the time. Because his songs are not as taxing as Queen songs are.
Can Operatic singers sing night after night? Yes. Because the operatic technique allows this. This same technique however restricts emotional versatility. Compare Montserrat's singing with Freddie's singing in their Rock-Opera duet. The Golden Boy. Can you compare Montserrat with Freddie in that song? No way. Freddie sang with great emotion while Montserrate singing was much more rigid. Technique wise, Montserrate and any Operatic singer can sing songs night after night, but that is because of their technique. I find the Operatic style to be limited. After a while, every Operatic song sounds the same to me.
But Freddie and Rock singers are much more expressive, and free. They can sing in many different styles, and emotional colors.
Which one is superior?
Operatic voices are superior for consistency especially high power songs.
But the ROCK voice is superior for versatility, and reaching the full emotional range and color.