| Bigbrotherbp 14.07.2007 06:12 |
Rely on my last post about first image of Queen, now I would like to ask what did you think about "who sings it, who plays it?". I thought Brian and Freddie were all lead singers. Brian was a Bariton - Bass. And Freddie was a Tenor. When I listened to WWRY, I thought that was Brian's singing :D |
| Sebastian 14.07.2007 07:35 |
The three of them were tenors. And as a matter of fact Freddie could go lower than Dr May (it was Fred who did the lowest bits in 'Bo Rhap', 'Somebody To Love', 'Flick Of The Wrist' and 'All Dead'). |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.07.2007 12:19 |
That might be to do with the fact that Freddie could actually sing, whilst Brian just hums in tune, basically. |
| little.queenie 37630 14.07.2007 12:26 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: That might be to do with the fact that Freddie could actually sing, whilst Brian just hums in tune, basically.Thats absolute and utter rubish, listen to the last verse of Mother Love. Brian can definately sing. |
| inmydefence 15.07.2007 18:38 |
Sebastian wrote: The three of them were tenors. And as a matter of fact Freddie could go lower than Dr May (it was Fred who did the lowest bits in 'Bo Rhap', 'Somebody To Love', 'Flick Of The Wrist' and 'All Dead').here we go again. "three of them were tenors" NOPE! just because thats your opinion, it doesn't make it true. do your research! But i cant be fucked to argue about this anymore! its pointless! i guess some people will believe what they WANT to believe... wrong or not. |
| Cedric6014 16.07.2007 04:45 |
Please humour us and explain. Otherwise you might as well not comment |
| Raf 16.07.2007 07:38 |
inmydefence wrote:That actually made me laugh here... "Do your research". Have you ever cared to read his website? I can't think of anyone who's done a better research on the subject than him. His website offers information about who wrote/co-wrote each song, who played each instrument in every song, etc, etc.Sebastian wrote: The three of them were tenors. And as a matter of fact Freddie could go lower than Dr May (it was Fred who did the lowest bits in 'Bo Rhap', 'Somebody To Love', 'Flick Of The Wrist' and 'All Dead').here we go again. "three of them were tenors" NOPE! just because thats your opinion, it doesn't make it true. do your research! But i cant be fucked to argue about this anymore! its pointless! i guess some people will believe what they WANT to believe... wrong or not. I think you should think twice before saying "do your research" to someone who's already e-mailed Brian to get information to make his research more complete. Why don't you share some of YOUR research with us? |
| FriedChicken 16.07.2007 07:57 |
Even though I don't agree on everything Sebastian thinks (mainly it's about Freddie coming up with the borhap solo, and that John sings backing vocals on studio albums) you can't say he doesn't know his stuff or that he didn't do his research. Thats just ignorant. Look at his website if you need proof |
| Sebastian 16.07.2007 08:40 |
Anyway, this thread isn't about my credibility (or lack of it), it's about the voices of Roger, Freddie and Brian, the three of which were obviously tenors. Listen to Brian's superb falsetto in 'Under Pressure' or 'Teo Torriatte' during the tour with Paul, or to Roger's effortless high E in 'More Of That Jazz' (done without falsetto), or Freddie's powerful bits in 'Show Must Go On' ... no bass or baritone can do those notes with such ease. Likewise, even though the three of them could sing quite low (and not only Brian and/or Freddie as many tend to believe), their high range was/is notably stronger. When Fred sang as a baritone (e.g. 'Ensueño') he was indeed "humming" or "whispering" in tune, rather than actually singing. PS: Some things can be classified as opinions, but not all of them: one person may think Michael Owen's a better player than David Beckham, and another person may think otherwise. Those are opinions. Otoh, Owen's height is 5' 8", while Beckham's is 6", so it's a fact that the Posh consort is taller. |
| inmydefence 16.07.2007 13:35 |
" Please humour us and explain. Otherwise you might as well not comment" i wasn't aware it needed an explanation as its been discussed on queenzone so often. But ok..... Roger was a tenor. never disputed that. i simply said the statement "the three of them were tenors" is false. roger definately was (though I think he lacks alot of the vocal qualities that make most tenors so great to listen to). brian and freddie were NOT. Don't get me wrong, I like Seb's site. i think its great. but cataloging every queen concert does not consitute research into freddie's voice. I didn't mean to appear disrespectful but it irritates me that members of queenzone, especially ones as respected ad Seb, state things like that as FACT, when IF you research THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION is soon clear to see that Freddie and Brian were baritones. It doesn't mean they weren't great singers, or that they couldn't force they voices into the tenor range if needed. it simply means tenor is not their natural range. and there's no shame in that! THIS is research into freddie's voice. link it also states that freddie and brian were both baritones. Montserrat Caballé also said freddie is a baritone, and if she isn't experience enough to know about vocal classification then nobody is. What more research do you need? |
| Sebastian 16.07.2007 14:18 |
> Don't get me wrong, I like Seb's site. i think its great. but cataloging every queen concert does not consitute research into freddie's voice. QueenConcerts isn't my website. And yes, you're right that I haven't done a deep research on Freddie's voice, but enough to be sure he was a tenor. > it irritates me that members of queenzone, especially ones as respected ad Seb, state things like that as FACT Yes and no ... it's not a matter of "I said so, thus it's a fact"; it's a matter of "20 years of recordings with Freddie's voice (live and in the studio) prove that Fred being a tenor is a fact". > It doesn't mean they weren't great singers, or that they couldn't force they voices into the tenor range if needed. It's quite the opposite: Freddie and Brian (and Roger for that matter) were tenors who could cover baritone (or even bass) range for some extent. > it simply means tenor is not their natural range. and there's no shame in that! Of course not, but it's not a matter of "shame". Freddie and Brian were tenors, not baritones. And it's not me who's saying that, but loads of recordings. > link >it also states that freddie and brian were both baritones. Yes, but otoh it mentions (link a tenor's normal extension as being between the C below middle and the C above. If you listen to Brian's range (on his solo tours or when he sings lead on the Brian + Roger + Paul gigs) it corresponds more to that, than baritone (even though he could cover baritone notes as well). Freddie, in contrast, did sing live on a more baritone range, but it was more related with his nodules and his (imperfect) technique than with his (allegedly baritone) range. > Montserrat Caballé also said freddie is a baritone Yes, and I *had* supported such affirmation based on that comment, but I'm glad to have been corrected and now I've "joined" the "Fred was a tenor" group, because it's clear that he was. Otoh we must keep in mind that it's not that Montserrat said that. It's more something along the lines of "Peter Freestone (or was it David Richards?) said that Montsy had told Freddie to 'sing in his natural baritone for the first time on a recording'". It's not that I'm discrediting Phoebe or Montserrat (or anybody whose opinion doesn't match mine), but I really think that we should take these kind of quotes with care. I'm not calling Phoebe a liar, but couldn't he have unintentionally misremembered the exact wording after seventeen years? > and if she isn't experience enough to know about vocal classification then nobody is. Actually, I disagree here: the fact she's an extraordinary singer doesn't mean she's necessarily a voice classifier. Besides, as we've confirmed here, it's not *that* easy to label (at least in this case), so perhaps she thought he was a baritone (assuming that Phoebe's comment is accurate and that he didn't misremember or that there weren't any "Chinese whispers" involved). It's, again, not a matter of "the superb bel-canto diva" vs "a narrow-minded QZ poster", it's a matter of "a (possibly misquoted) deduction from a (possibly misquoted) comment that a (possibly misquoted) person did after listening to Freddie's (possibly misleading) large range" vs "over fifteen albums as part of Queen + one solo album + one duet album + several collaborations, proving that Fred's voice was indeed that of a tenor". |
| inmydefence 16.07.2007 15:40 |
possibly possibly possibly. well You're entitled to believe what you like. the Webmaster of that site is a professor of music. so im pretty sure he knows his stuff. the quote is from an interview with Montserrat Caballé which i believe is in the FM 10 disc box set. its here also on this website link anyway, we could argue about this all we like, I'll take my information from what hard evidence is available. Andres' site and the NUMEROUS other that quote it as a highly reliable source, and you believe the opposite because of what you hear on all these numerous albums. I'm not convinced you are correctly interpreting what you're hearing as you said you haven't studied vocal technique. in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference. i only considered it necessary to respond to correct your erroneous "fact". |
| Sebastian 16.07.2007 21:51 |
I didn't say I haven't made a research on vocal technique, I said I haven't made a thorough research on Freddie's vocal technique. Anyway, I do concede that this discussion hasn't got an *obvious* consequence. It's like... a person who's 6 1/2 ft is obviously tall, but a person who's 5' 8" may be "tall" according to some parameters, "average" according to others. I still consider Freddie to be a tenor in spite of Andres' research (which IMO has been admirable in most departments, but not in this one), and in spite of Montserrat's quote (which I didn't know could be found on the Boxset, so I apologise for that). |
| john bodega 17.07.2007 02:45 |
"Listen to Brian's superb falsetto in 'Under Pressure' or 'Teo Torriatte' during the tour with Paul" Woah, what the?!? I thought you hadn't listened to any of that stuff!! :P "That might be to do with the fact that Freddie could actually sing, whilst Brian just hums in tune, basically." Ey?? I've always thought that Brian was a really great singer with a poor instrument (poor for the things he occasionally tries to do with it, at least). |
| Sebastian 17.07.2007 08:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Woah, what the?!? I thought you hadn't listened to any of that stuff!! :PI hadn't until last week. Then I watched some videos in YouTube and loved them. 'I Want It All' sounds fantastic, so do 'Pressure', 'Teo' and 'Imagine', and 'Champions' is much better than when the true Queen did it. So I'm even stronger in my point than I was before: Roger + Brian + Paul is an extraordinary combination, so they should really write a new chapter in music. And of course, new chapter means a new name instead of pathetically living off the past. |
| FriedChicken 17.07.2007 10:14 |
Sebastian, how do you feel about The Beatles? Afterall Ringo wasn't their first drummer. Pete Best drummed on the Love Me Do record. Also, what about Pink Floyd? After Syd left they started to make horrible music? After Peter Gabriel Phil Collins took the Lead Vocals in Genesis After Axl left, came back, left came back, kicked out the band he still plays under the name of Guns 'n Roses, but with completely different members. I never heard a Pink Floyd fan say 'hmm.. no it's not really Pink Floyd anymore, it's just David and that other guy' Or a Genesisfan say 'no, I don't think they should use the Genesis name anymore' Why would a band stop using a name, which is a trademark, they used for over 30 years. Should a Multinational Company change it name when one of the presidents dies or leaves? Mozart CDs are sold, without anyone whining that it's not really Mozart playing |
| Lester Burnham 17.07.2007 11:07 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Afterall Ringo wasn't their first drummer. Pete Best drummed on the Love Me Do record.Minor correction -- session drummer Andy White drummed on their first single, 'Love Me Do' and 'P.S. I Love You'. Pete Best recorded a few songs with The Beatles at Abbey Road Studios, but they were only released on the first Anthology set in 1995. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.07.2007 12:03 |
Fried Chicken, my Almighty one, I know that you asked your question to Sebastian about the Beatles and Floyd et al going on without a group member, but here's my thoughts as I've posted before about Queen without Freddie. On other elite bands going froward without an original member: "Of the elite bands, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses and The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men and basically hitting their musical primes when they brought in new members. They were musicians with careers and bills to pay and needed to make the changes to keep their careers going. For example, both Pink Floyd and Genesis were hardly superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands." Why is Queen different than these bands? "Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the greatest front man of all time, and he 'arguably' delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. Remember also, Freddie named Queen. there is a connotation with the name Queen. Regal, majestic, pomp and circumstance. I don't see the same connotation with the names Genesis, The Beatles, or Pink Floyd. In THAT sense of bringing the style to Queen, Freddie was Queen." Just my opinions, as I've said before, some people will accept it, others won't and it's not for any of us to choose. I believe that Freddie embodied what Queen was all about more than any other ex/dead member, and the only guy who I think brings close to the same is Slash as the danger side of Guns n Roses. Irreplaceable, and Axl can call it what he wants but it's turned into a joke. |
| Mr.Jingles 17.07.2007 12:12 |
VERY WRONG THING: Those synth sounds that sound like a spaceship on 'Play The Game'. It ruined the song for me. Makes me wish they never asked Mack to produce their albums. |
| inmydefence 17.07.2007 12:35 |
the clearest sign as to whether or not someone is a tenor is how comfortable their voice is in their high range and their ability to sing with colour and feeling in this range, WITHOUT resorting to fasetto. having good falsetto doesn't mean anything, because baritones can often sing falsetto a lot better than a tenor as tenors tend not to need falsetto. link this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio. which is why I, and many other people believe the contrary to you. |
| Sebastian 17.07.2007 14:11 |
Niek, I do admit that the way I feel about the Queen name is controversial, because I do consider Dave + Nicky + Rick to be Pink Floyd, even though their two former songwriting leaders were absent. I do consider GnR to be a football team, changing line-up, and I speak about "my favourite Guns N' Roses" as opposed to "the only true Guns N' Roses". There are some cases where that simply can't happen IMO. Yes, Ringo wasn't part of The Beatles, but for what? Some months, maybe one year or so ... but The Beatles as we know them, releasing records, doing concerts, were the four of them. George Harrison wrote 'All Those Years Ago' and had Paul and Ringo participating, but still it was a solo song that happened to have three (with Linda) very famous guests, instead of a "Beatles" tune. Jimmy, Robert and Jonesy got together in Live Aid, but Phil Collins introduced them as "Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones" (I'm not sure about the order, but that's irrelevant). When Elton John, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton played 'While My Guitar' with Ringo and George (and I think Phil Collins was there too), it wasn't "Beatles + ..."; same for Page & Plant touring, George and Paul collaborating on Ringo's solo songs, etc. Even when Brian and Freddie performed together at Live Aid (and they were the two main songwriters of the band, and the two more famous members) they were introduced as "Freddie Mercury and Brian May", not as "Queen". So, it depends from one act to another (IMO). Queen expressed during all of their run (and I'm not counting the four or five gigs they played with Mike, Barry and Doug) that Queen were the four of them. Of course, songs like 'Rendezvous', 'Leaving Home' or 'Sheer Heart Attack' haven't got all four of them, but those aren't an entire tour or album. > I never heard a Pink Floyd fan say 'hmm.. no it's not really Pink Floyd anymore, it's just David and that other guy' Actually David Bowie said that for him Pink Floyd were Syd. Or something like that... > Why would a band stop using a name, which is a trademark, they used for over 30 years. Because they're (allegedly) opening a new chapter in their lives, and I'm glad of that. I can imagine Brian, Roger and Paul writing new music (which doesn't necessarily have to be on the same vein as Queen or Free or whatever), laying down astonishing harmonies (the three of them sing marvellously), doing some guitar trio (the three of them are great players), writing a new wonderful chapter in the history of music ... but the fact that they're pathetically using the "Queen" name ruins what otherwise would be an extraordinary event. IMO! > Should a Multinational Company change it name when one of the presidents dies or leaves? If it's announced that it'd end if anyone of its presidents left, yes. And I'm not talking here about the legal department, but about ethics. > Mozart CDs are sold, without anyone whining that it's not really Mozart playing Who's Mozart? ;) > Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era My complaint isn't only about Freddie. It's about John Deacon too. Freddie + John WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Brian (e.g. Live Aid, Eddie Howell's single) WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Brian WOULDN'T be Queen. And of course, Brian + Roger AREN'T Queen. IMO! > he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era I disagree. Diverse ... there were some others on the same level as he was, Brian May included. Successfully diverse ... McCartney, Lennon and the Bee Gees are some counterexamples. > and he 'arguably' delivered the great |
| FriedChicken 17.07.2007 14:18 |
"Who's Mozart? ;)' The guy with the mood swings :P |
| Sebastian 17.07.2007 14:22 |
Was he a midfielder or a striker? |
| john bodega 17.07.2007 14:32 |
Sebastian wrote:It's nice to see someone appreciate the new performances - someone with something valuable to say, any road!!Zebonka12 wrote: Woah, what the?!? I thought you hadn't listened to any of that stuff!! :PI hadn't until last week. Then I watched some videos in YouTube and loved them. 'I Want It All' sounds fantastic, so do 'Pressure', 'Teo' and 'Imagine', and 'Champions' is much better than when the true Queen did it. So I'm even stronger in my point than I was before: Roger + Brian + Paul is an extraordinary combination, so they should really write a new chapter in music. And of course, new chapter means a new name instead of pathetically living off the past. I guess the lines around what we consider to be 'reliving the past' are kinda blurry for some folk. I don't actually mind Q+PR doing what they did. For me, having Freddie on the big screen singing and playing piano was a bit... hmm.... I personally wouldn't do it. But the Love of My Life (with the empty stool waiting for Freddie) was a very nice touch. If this new album (and new tour) comes along with all new music, I really do not see the need for Queen in the name. I won't shut my eyes and ears to the new stuff on the basis of what the name is, of course.... that'd be stupid. But it would lower my esteem for them a tiny bit. I think they're old enough and rich enough to try something new!! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.07.2007 14:34 |
I agree wholeheartedly about John's exclusion making it "not Queen", but I came at it from the POV of the man-in-the-street who probably wouldn't know John Deacon from John Entwistle. By 'successfully' diverse, I meant singles like WATC with a waltz pattern, obviously Bo Rhap, STL and CLTCL. Four enormously popular songs, all totally unlike one another. |
| inmydefence 17.07.2007 14:40 |
Sebastian wrote: > this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio. Actually Freddie barely had that either.Haha! i actually meant to write brian and freddie. wrote it in a rush... didnt have time to proof read! I have heard Pink Floyd fans say that pink floyd stopped being floyd when Roger Waters left. but it think this is utter nonesense personally! David Gilmore is an awesome guitarist and musician with or without roger waters. his first self titled solo album in 78' proved this. link awesome stuff! Although roger is also really talented, i think david contributed enough to warrent him carrying on with PF without RW's input. The Devision Bell is one of my all time favourite albums. HAHA! just found this! Incredible! two legends doin what they do best! link |
| john bodega 17.07.2007 15:28 |
I actually really like David Gilmour (was blown away by "On an Island") but I think the stuff without Roger Waters was less than what I wanted from Pink Floyd. Gilmour thought Roger Waters was far too bleak in his lyrical output, but at the end of the day it was their ability to put forward bleak things and make it something uplifting that made them awesome!! (Re : the whole of Dark Side of the Moon...) It didn't make the post-Waters Floyd shitty just because one guy left.... but I do felt they were less Pink Floyd-y. They were good, but not they used to be. I mean... lyrically also, they needed Waters to trim some things. I really like the song "High Hopes", but there's parts where it could've used a lyricist like him to neaten some lines up. Having said that, while I like "The Wall" and "Final Cut", they're too Waters-y for me; the balance was out of it by then. I'm far more fond of their output from 68-75. I like stuff from their whole career, through all the line-ups, but it's those 7 years that really make it special for me. |