Forums > Queen - General Discussion > WHY PAUL RODGERS VOICE COULD BE BETTER THAN FREDDIE'S LIVE

forum rss feed
Author

hotspacerules user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 41 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 15:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ive been listening to return of the champions, and here is my theory:

I've noticed that Freddie's voice cracks alot on past live albums - a comparison ive made is listen to A kind of magic on Wembley, and then kind of magic of return of the champions - paul's voice is always smooth and silky........



boy of destiny user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 214 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 16:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well he should be well rested... he takes about half of the evening off.

brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 17:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahah

you serious? Paul's a very good singer...but Freddie's vocal range he ain't!!!!




go deo na hÉireann
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 18:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Read what I put in the How Can I Go On thread, I think Fred wasn't "that" great live. I've never heard Paul so I can't judge


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
GiantSpider user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 345 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 18:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To be totally honest I think that Paul Rodgers has one of the best voices that Britain has ever made. He doesn't have Fred's range no but I would still say Paul is better.


James

Sharon G. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 18:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Paul better singer than Freddie? NEVER!

david (galashiels) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2020 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 18:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

your taking the piss,,,,,,,,,,,although not a how can i put it,,,,,,,,,,,freddie i want to have your kids,,,,i must say the voice range of mr mercury was estonishing and very few singers reach those hights,,,,,paul is good but not in the classic voice range of fred,,,,,,,,,,,good singer but not freddie

mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4631 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 19:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

boy of destiny wrote:

Well he should be well rested... he takes about half of the evening off.


When I went to see him (Paul Rodgers that is) on his own show, he was only on stage for just under 80 minutes. That included the encore - singular, not plural. Freddie, on the other hand usually did about 2 hours plus. So its no wonder that his voice cracked every now and then.

Also, if you want comparisons, how about Pauls version of AOBTD at Wembley this year. Despite being put down 2 keys he doesnt even attempt to try for the "high" notes that Freddie would have hit on any of his versions.

That said, I like both Freddie and Paul in equal measure. And I also like the fact that Brian and Roger have chosen someone who is nothing like Freddie to front this version of Queen.


"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
Sharron .G user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 219 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 20:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This shit is dumb to talk about.
You are comparing 2 completely different singing styles.
Paul is a blues based, macho, vintage rock singer.
Freddie is a opera/vaudville/broadway/showtunes inspired, flameboyant, influenced rock singer.

Freddie wouldn't have sounded in place on a Bad Company album.... however, his talent would have pulled it off.

But the idea of Paul Rodgers on the Barcelona album trying to sing opera.... thats a joke.

Paul Rodgers would tell you, himself, to any of our faces that he couldn't/wouldn't attempt a song with Monseratt.... he knows he doesn't have the range.

The title of this topic is also dumb... "Paul Could Be Better"

Alot of things "could be"

My piss hitting toilet water "could be" considered better music then the Beatles entire catalog.
George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.

Alot of thing "could be".

If you think Paul's voice is better,,, then to you, it is.

To me... its most certainly not... and even if his voice was (which its not) .... he still doesn't have Freddie's stage presence.

mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4631 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 21:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sharron .G wrote:


George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.



Him intelligent - Nah. That could never be the case. Anyone who says shit like this has limited intelligence

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
Sharron .G user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 219 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 22:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr Mercury wrote:

Sharron .G wrote:


George "Dub ya" Bush "could be" intelligent.



Him intelligent - Nah. That could never be the case. Anyone who says shit like this has limited intelligence



No shit Jeeves, notice why I put """" around hillbilly Bush's middle initial... he's a inbred hilljack.



thePresence user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 362 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 22:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hotspacerules wrote:

ive been listening to return of the champions, and here is my theory:

I've noticed that Freddie's voice cracks alot on past live albums - a comparison ive made is listen to A kind of magic on Wembley, and then kind of magic of return of the champions - paul's voice is always smooth and silky........



well, lets see here...not to be disrespectful, but recording technology is different. thats one of the reasons Paul may sound better compared to Mr. Mercury...


-"BETTER TO BURP AND TASTE IT THAN TO FART AND WASTE IT!"

- FOUR WORDS:"MMM, DAT PEEL GOOD!"

-"GOT FRUIT?"

-QUEEN RULES! ANY QUESTIONS?

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 05, 23:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No, Freddie's voice does not easily crack. His highest recorded note is the "C" 2 octaves above middle "C", while his lowest recorded notes are an octave and a half below middle C. I have tested this myself. For instance, in "Under Pressure" there is a note that, I think, is the "A" 2 octaves above middle C and yet the tone of Freddie's voice there is still excellent! You can hardly even tell from listening from it that the note is really that high. Maybe his voice tired on long tours, but his recorded vocal range and tone were superior to what you hear from Paul Rodgers.

SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 01:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hotspace, all you have proven in this thread is that you're a dumbass and/or tone deaf.

Freddie had everything a singer could want.

1. He had a beautiful pure tone which is more important than range. Even if he didn't have his 3.5 octave range, his voice had a sweet, angelic tone. Roger Taylor probably has 4.5 octave range, but Roger's voice's tone is very poor.

2. Freddie has an impressive 3.5 octave range. Why is range important? Because high range creates power, and the ability to evoke passion.

3. Because of Freddie's natural vocal gifts, he could sing EVERY style possible. Rock, Pop, Opera, Slow, Fast. Everything. That is what made Queen so great. Each album covered so many styles and Freddie pulled it off.



Paul Rodger's voice is technically inferior to Freddie's voice, lacking in both range, and tone. There is simply no comparison.




its_a_hard_life user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 949 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 06:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I like Paul Rogders voice its nice talent, ofcourse no one is better then Freddie Mercury i dont think Paul is better live then Freddie, but he does have a great voice, yes i will buy "the return of the champions" i watched the preview in the cinema and it was wonderful i cant wait to get it out on dvd soon.


"I'm a greedy bitch" - Freddie Mercury

REST IN PEACE FREDDIE MERCURY!!
Mr_Bad_Guy_91 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 172 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 06:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I say Freddie better because I am profoundly deaf and when Freddie sing i could follow the words same time as he sing his voice is high and clear Paul has a good voice but of coz not the same as freddie

I say Well done to Paul because he did it in his own way

He didnt try to copy freddie voice
he didnt try to dance they way freddie did
he didnt dress like freddie

he is brillant and he is keeping Queen music alive
I will buy the Return of the Champions as it all part of Queen and their history
:)


I am just a Queen Fan and the show must go on
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 07:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote:

Read what I put in the How Can I Go On thread, I think Fred wasn't "that" great live. I've never heard Paul so I can't judge


freddie's (live) vocal range up until 82
was excellent. Paul could never matcht that

as i said - paul is good - but his range is limited, whereas Freddie's vocal range live for 9 years was much better


go deo na hÉireann
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 07:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've listened to Paul in the studio (Free and Bad Company) many years ago and as I remember, indeed he didn't have a huge range, but he kind of compensed it by the unique way he expressed his singing.

> Roger Taylor probably has 4.5 octave range, but Roger's voice's tone is very poor

Roger's voice is quite strong. Btw Fred's got larger range than Roger.

> Because of Freddie's natural vocal gifts, he could sing EVERY style possible.

Without telling the entire story it's just another overrating point. How many boleros has Freddie sung? zarzuelas? flamenco? zamba? Andean music? Vietnamese music?

> Paul Rodger's voice is technically inferior to Freddie's voice

Yes but that doesn't make Freddie a "better" singer. Virtually every person with 5+ years of vocal lessons already has better technique than Freddie, but it doesn't make them better.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Bobby_brown user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2300 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 08:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I now what you mean, and i think that Freddie with 58 years old couldn`t sing as much as Paul with 58 unless Freddie would start taking care of his voice!

You may say: compare Paul with the Live KIllers and so forth, but my opinion is that Paul has a better sence of controling his voice because he`s 58 and yoga might be helping too.

For Freddie to be able to perform live with 58 years he would have to find another lifestile!

Take care

hotspacerules user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 41 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 05, 09:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

HENCE - PAUL RODGERS IS A GREAT CHOICE IN JOINING THE BAND - AS YOU CAN SEE FROM EVERYONES COMMENTS, YOU CAN COMPARE ANYONE TO FREddies vOICE, BUT THERE VOICES ARE SO UNIQUELY DIFFERENT (and in some instances pauls voice is better)

WELCOME TO THE BAND PAUL