Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Freddie among vocalists... An interesting thought on it.

forum rss feed
Author

AmeriQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1072 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 06:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.



Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 10:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


You know, good times are now.
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 11:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'd love to take Kate Winslet out for tea or something.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Going Back user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 483 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 11:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 :)

Fireplace user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 889 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 12:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zebonka12 wrote:

I'd love to take Kate Winslet out for tea or something.


The "or something" part slightly bothers me.....

Have fun though!

Going Back user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 483 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 12:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote:

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.


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.

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 13:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


You know, good times are now.
Fireplace user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 889 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 14:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:

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.


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.

Jakobe user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 197 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 14:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Going Back wrote:

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 :)


Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?

i'm going slight mad... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 92 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 15:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

george michael...my oppinion is great voice, terrible frontman.

and i think its better to be a frontman than a singer.


i'm not wierd i'm gifted
NTL user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 243 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 15:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


I love you for your mind baby give me your body.
Going Back user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 483 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 15:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

borat wrote:

Going Back wrote:

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 :)


Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?


bellive me, i heard the name much earlyer than you :)

SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 15:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

borat wrote:

Going Back wrote:

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 :)


Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?


lol owned :p? no wait..he's in his 40s. Who owned who ;_;?

rosedewitt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 525 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 16:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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...)

user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 19:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rosedewitt wrote:

paul rodgers (just a middle-rated pop singer...)


No more opinions from you, who clearly have not been paying much attention. Unless by "Paul Rodgers" you meant "George Michael."


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
rosedewitt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 525 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 20:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

rosedewitt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 525 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 20:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=Maroon>Singing Forever wrote:

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.


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.

user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Sep 06, 00:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

rosedewitt wrote:

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.


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.


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.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
rosedewitt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 525 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Sep 06, 05:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

Fireplace user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 889 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Sep 06, 06:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rosedewitt wrote:



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.


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?