Whoa... back on topic a moment...
Did smoking affect Roger's voice?
Yes, probably, considering how detrimental it is to the voice. However, considering his voice was already raspy, a difference would be harder to notice. It should affect his range, but I haven't made a study of the history of his range, so I can't answer that (but I think someone else already did). What I can say is that when he sang "I'm in Love With My Car" early this year in Q+PR, it sounded exactly like the original recording... which is either impressive or not, depending on how you look at it, but it at least means he still has about the same vocal timbre.
Now... back off topic...
Is Roger a good singer?
Well... yeah. Just because he has a raspy voice doesn't mean he is hard to listen to, or that his voice isn't good, or that he he has a narrow emotional range that he would sound good in (angry/heavy). Just because a raspy voice is a harsher sound shouldn't mean that it is hard to listen to, so I don't know where that comes from. I could probably listen to overdriven guitar all day and it would still rock. Additionally, anyone who's heard "November Rain" or "What a Wonderful World" knows that a raspy voice is capable of other things than hard rock. Also, once you get high enough (as Roger can/could), then timbre really becomes less of an issue. For example, the high Bb5 of Bohemian Rhapsody sounds great, and is done with vibrato, which I have found makes it harder (though I may be in the minority on this). I haven't listened to very many songs where Roger sings lead in, but from what I have heard, I believe he has the technical and emotional ability associated with good singing, even if a naturally raspy voice makes it harder to convey varied emotions.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Roger has fantastic voice :)
I dont Care if Roger Taylor Voice, I love his songs, not only for his voice, the lirycs of his songs are great... I love his solo work, dont matter about the tecnical standards.. Who cares about it if he can sing his songs..
The hell with the tecnical matters..
The hell with the tecnical matters..
[QUOTE]
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant![/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant![/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...
Hearing Roger sing Radio Ga Ga (even a long time ago) sounds horrible!!!
It may not have affected his singing but it sure did affect his songwriting[img=/images/smiley/msn/tounge_smile.gif][/img]
Not really...apart from aging, and natural voice changes (that all singers go through in one sense or another), I don't think it had much of an effect. Roger is probably the greatest rock backing vocalist. You can't compare anyone to him because he was a counter tenor (I don't know if he can still go that high anymore), and that was like unheard of in rock music. His raspiness & tone is somewhat comparable to Rod Stewart, but apart from how their voices sound, you really can't compare them.
[QUOTE]
[b]rosedewitt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/b]
Drummer from orchestra plays his easiest sounds, drummer from rock band plays hardest patterns. End of story.
[/QUOTE]
lol thanks for your amusing post!
but this one is wrong: just inform yourself, most of the patterns used in rock music are very easy to play for every drummer, besides if classical or rock education.
[/QUOTE]
I have to challenge this, because it's too ridiculous to remain unchallenged. :)
Handling the percussion instruments in an orchestra is of course not an easy task, especially if you look at music written since the end of the 19th century. You must have skill and technique aplenty, and you have to have an education that - in time - rivals that of a surgeon.
However, most classical percussionists can't play rock if their life depended on it. Sure, there are exceptions, but most of the time it sounds really bad. Does it mean they can't play the basic pattern a rock drummer does? No, of course not, since a standard rock pattern is quite straightforward. But - and this is a huge but - playing and singing music has to do with more than just getting the notes right, it has to do with stuff that is difficult to explain and analyze, it has to do with feel, a basic grip of style, etc. That's why I wouldn't want the timpanist from The Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra playing drums in Queen, because it would (in all probability) sound rather bad. The same is true the other way around, of course.
Now, you can argue that this is because drums and orchestral percussion are two different instruments, and of course it's true. But you could ask a great jazz drummer, and he/she probably wouldn't be able to play a Queen song aswell as Roger Taylor, no matter how much more technical skills he/she has. Believe me, I've seen it happen.
By the way, the same is true with vocals.
[b]rosedewitt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/b]
Drummer from orchestra plays his easiest sounds, drummer from rock band plays hardest patterns. End of story.
[/QUOTE]
lol thanks for your amusing post!
but this one is wrong: just inform yourself, most of the patterns used in rock music are very easy to play for every drummer, besides if classical or rock education.
[/QUOTE]
I have to challenge this, because it's too ridiculous to remain unchallenged. :)
Handling the percussion instruments in an orchestra is of course not an easy task, especially if you look at music written since the end of the 19th century. You must have skill and technique aplenty, and you have to have an education that - in time - rivals that of a surgeon.
However, most classical percussionists can't play rock if their life depended on it. Sure, there are exceptions, but most of the time it sounds really bad. Does it mean they can't play the basic pattern a rock drummer does? No, of course not, since a standard rock pattern is quite straightforward. But - and this is a huge but - playing and singing music has to do with more than just getting the notes right, it has to do with stuff that is difficult to explain and analyze, it has to do with feel, a basic grip of style, etc. That's why I wouldn't want the timpanist from The Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra playing drums in Queen, because it would (in all probability) sound rather bad. The same is true the other way around, of course.
Now, you can argue that this is because drums and orchestral percussion are two different instruments, and of course it's true. But you could ask a great jazz drummer, and he/she probably wouldn't be able to play a Queen song aswell as Roger Taylor, no matter how much more technical skills he/she has. Believe me, I've seen it happen.
By the way, the same is true with vocals.
[QUOTE]
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant!
[/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...[/QUOTE]
Yes , tired of Paul Rodgers .....and the awful TCR-album they somehow had to "promote" ...sad , sad !
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant!
[/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...[/QUOTE]
Yes , tired of Paul Rodgers .....and the awful TCR-album they somehow had to "promote" ...sad , sad !
[QUOTE]
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant!
[/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...[/QUOTE]
Yes , tired of Paul Rodgers .....and the awful TCR-album they somehow had to "promote" ...sad , sad !
[/QUOTE]
Fancy a swim in my new pool filled with anthrax?
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]wrote: [/b]
^Interesting, if you listen to Roger's singing on the album Queen at the BBC you'll find that Roger's voice isn't nearly as raspy as it is now. However, his voice has always been that way (raspy), which is what makes his singing so unique compared to Freddie's or Brian's. I think its safe to say Roger's singing voice hasn't worsened at all throughout Queen's career. Today, his voice is stronger than ever. He did a beautiful job on the previous two tours. Absolutely brilliant!
[/QUOTE]
At least when they played in Chile, Roger's voice didn't sound too well. It was noticeable. It sounded very tired or something...[/QUOTE]
Yes , tired of Paul Rodgers .....and the awful TCR-album they somehow had to "promote" ...sad , sad !
[/QUOTE]
Fancy a swim in my new pool filled with anthrax?
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
Rock music is not professional music, Freddie is not professional vocalist (he was a professional designer) as well as Roger is not professional drummer. Rock music is amateur music, this is why all your so-called professional words and arguements doesn't work here. Try to deal with that fact.
[/QUOTE]
The fact is, that anything that is done as paid work, and is your main income source, and is listed on your passport and insurance applications etc.. as your occupation, is professional. Therefore whether it be Freddie, Roger, Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey, Ian Gillan, Lemmy. Dave Grohl etc..etc..., all of these and more can be classed as professional musicians, and their chosen music to write/perform is rock, so I see no reason as to why they cannot be classed as professional rock musicians. Was Freddie ever a paid designer?? I spent years learning biology at school but I'm not and never have been a professional doctor!
I suppose by your arguments I'm a better driver than Lewis Hamilton because I've had fewer car crashes?!!!
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
Rock music is not professional music, Freddie is not professional vocalist (he was a professional designer) as well as Roger is not professional drummer. Rock music is amateur music, this is why all your so-called professional words and arguements doesn't work here. Try to deal with that fact.
[/QUOTE]
The fact is, that anything that is done as paid work, and is your main income source, and is listed on your passport and insurance applications etc.. as your occupation, is professional. Therefore whether it be Freddie, Roger, Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey, Ian Gillan, Lemmy. Dave Grohl etc..etc..., all of these and more can be classed as professional musicians, and their chosen music to write/perform is rock, so I see no reason as to why they cannot be classed as professional rock musicians. Was Freddie ever a paid designer?? I spent years learning biology at school but I'm not and never have been a professional doctor!
I suppose by your arguments I'm a better driver than Lewis Hamilton because I've had fewer car crashes?!!!
Roger sucks live, but he was great in the damn studio. His solo albums rock my cock! I Cry For You is probably his best song. Everything by The Cross, is WONDERFUL. I've actually been influenced by Roger's solo music and The Cross's music, the way it's performed, the lyrics, music, etc.
Roger can't sing?
What the hell is wrong with people? Sure you may not like his voice but saying he can't sing or that he "sucks" is ignorant and blatantly false.
Fantastic range and power, and the best backing vocalist a band could have. Go check out some of his solo work if you doubt his voice. And he sucks live?! His strong backing vocals keep it all together. What would Hammer To Fall, We Are The Champions, Another One Bites The Dust etc etc etc be without his raspy, powerful voice? It gives the songs a whole other intensity.
Roger on A Kind Of Magic was the highlight of the Wembley concert last year (along with Cosmos Rockin')
Found a good audio of the performance at 02 Arena the night before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv_Y5MHokcE
What the hell is wrong with people? Sure you may not like his voice but saying he can't sing or that he "sucks" is ignorant and blatantly false.
Fantastic range and power, and the best backing vocalist a band could have. Go check out some of his solo work if you doubt his voice. And he sucks live?! His strong backing vocals keep it all together. What would Hammer To Fall, We Are The Champions, Another One Bites The Dust etc etc etc be without his raspy, powerful voice? It gives the songs a whole other intensity.
Roger on A Kind Of Magic was the highlight of the Wembley concert last year (along with Cosmos Rockin')
Found a good audio of the performance at 02 Arena the night before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv_Y5MHokcE
Resurrecting a thread from almost 3 years ago...and continuing the argument.
I love it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img] [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
I love it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img] [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
Smoking always affects one`s voice. Look how it affected the Beatles, Lennon and Harrison...And Roger as well.