| Deacon Fan 11.12.2007 17:49 |
link Hmm, now that this guy mentions it, I have heard Freddie do this on many occasions. This is from the Under Review/The Freddie Mercury Story DVD. |
| deleted user 11.12.2007 18:20 |
I so don't believe that guy. Just cause Freddie did that doesnt mean his voice was weakening or whatever. It was just his style. His voice was just so strong. |
| mr bad guy 5656 11.12.2007 18:57 |
oh well, freddie's voice was so strong. but indeed, he wasn't supernatural. it's not a shame freddie didn't always reach the very high notes (wembley for example), but sometimes he really did (milton keynes). but on the other hand, I prefer freddie realizing he wouldn't reach the high notes and solving that problem by using that 'hard voice', or just singing it a bit lower, but still very powerfull. he often tried to reach the high notes, but failed (japan '81 tour). what does it matter in the end? most rockstars never (!) reach the high notes in concert. most rockstars don't make a connection with their crowd like freddie did. most rockstars don't deliver a show like freddie did. and 'framför allt': most rockstars don't write beautiful songs like freddie did. oh yes, another little thing, using that 'hard voice' is rather a quality than a shame if you have to win over 100,000 people. |
| ok.computer 11.12.2007 19:25 |
I want to hear more about the prominent front teeth! I wanna I wanna I WANNA!!! |
| Dusta 11.12.2007 19:37 |
All in all, given the amount of touring they did, and, the difficulty he had with the nodules, I think Freddie sounded amazing live, in most cases. Of course, every singer who does that much live performing is going to have off moments...the odds are in favor of that. |
| Winter Land Man 11.12.2007 22:53 |
Something which Freddie did, and admitted to, was sing incorrectly. He would NOT sing from his stomach, he would sing from his throat. This irratated his nodules. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 12.12.2007 02:41 |
.*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote: Something which Freddie did, and admitted to, was sing incorrectly. He would NOT sing from his stomach, he would sing from his throat. This irratated his nodules.Plus the fact that singing under the heat produced from the lighting rig also causes you to lose notes from time to time.He used to compensate for that by having carbonated drinks lying around handy (although lager/beer is not necessarily a good one for that purpose as alchohol tends to dry your throat up) |
| Barbie Jupiter 12.12.2007 07:29 |
THe ability to CONTROL your voice is the most important thing for singer! It is the secret of success:> Freddie was perfect in that!!! |
| Barbie Jupiter 12.12.2007 07:33 |
and, wahh...XD He was doing it not only live!.. You can hear that in almost every song!! Very clear in "I was born to love you", for ex, you can hear. |
| olly1988 12.12.2007 08:11 |
This bloke is a wanker. I hate it when people try to analyse it in a negative way. Analyse him if you want to be as good as him, which there is very little chance of, but otherwise dont try and make yourlself look good by making other people look bad. |
| Fenderek 12.12.2007 08:29 |
olly1988 wrote: This bloke is a wanker. I hate it when people try to analyse it in a negative way. Analyse him if you want to be as good as him, which there is very little chance of, but otherwise dont try and make yourlself look good by making other people look bad.stepford alert... |
| john bodega 12.12.2007 09:16 |
A complete FUCKWIT wrote: This bloke is a wanker. I hate it when people try to analyse it in a negative way. Analyse him if you want to be as good as him, which there is very little chance of, but otherwise dont try and make yourlself look good by making other people look bad.He didn't say a single negative thing. He just pointed out a technique Freddie used to employ. |
| Sebastian 12.12.2007 10:17 |
Live, he was an entertainer. In the studio, he was a musician. |
| Darko 12.12.2007 12:35 |
Sebastian wrote: Live, he was an entertainer. In the studio, he was a musician.Concerts like Milton Keynes ’82, Montreal ’81 and Hammersmith ’79, Houston ’77 etc; where Freddie reaches the high notes are considered to be some of greatest performances (VOCALLY) of all time. That means that Freddie has already proven him self to be one of the greatest (live) singers of all time. He being an entertainer is totally true but if Freddie wanted to hit the high notes, he could do so during his concerts (Live aid ’85). Sometimes he just wasn’t enough interested and than he just concentrated on the showmanship. |
| Wiley 12.12.2007 13:00 |
Darko wrote: Sometimes he just wasn’t enough interested and than he just concentrated on the showmanship.He wasn't interested? Hahaha :). Freddie was, after all HUMAN! (Sorry if this upsets some of you, guys). There is no way a singer who wasn't properly trained can give 3 to 5 two hour shows a week for 8 to 10 weeks and reach all the hight notes every time, particularly in songs as demanding as Queen's. Freddie did it when he knew he could. If not, he would just avoid it. Add years of singing, touring and smoking, and it gets worse. Compare Stockholm 86 to Wembley. There is a difference... and that wasn't a particularly long tour. Consider Freddie in what I consider his prime voice-wise: 1980-81. Imagine his voice after singing Play the Game, Killer Queen, Get down make love and then Love of My life in its original studio pitch, in a row. I imagine it would sound like... late The Works gigs :(. |
| Legy 12.12.2007 14:41 |
Some people don't take into consideration that Freddie was actually a baritone. That's why he wasn't able to hit those high notes in concert and that's why he often cracked when trying to reach them. |
| on my way up 12.12.2007 17:55 |
Freddie was a great live singer. When he was at his best he was really impressive. Here's a list of my favourite shows -Newcastle 4/12/79 -Hammy'79 -Milton keynes official release -Queen rock montreal -Tokyo 9/5/85 -Brussels 24/8/84 -Buenos Aires 8/3/81 -Puebla 17/10/81 -many others:-) BUT he couldn't sing the songs like he did in the studio. He always pushed his voice to the limit and it was obviously too much to take for his voice in a live concert.He sang really careful, always making sure his voice would not crack. Even the most fanatic Freddie addicts will agree with me that freddie had some really weak shows(japan'79,ouch!, japan'82watch the video.) and sometimes entire periods(live killers tour is actually not too good) in which his voice was not there. He could compensate it with passion at times but not always. He was always a great entertainer but not always a great singer live. I'm a great Zeppelin fan too and people here should listen to plant in the years 68-72. He sings with much more variation,power and range than freddie. Altough I prefer freddie as overall singer(he's my favourite singer of all!), as live vocalist Plant is better. But since I'm such a big fan of freddie, this is something I only say to other Queen fans:-)So do'nt stone me;-) |
| Dusta 12.12.2007 19:30 |
I will not stone you, however, I WILL disagree with this portion of your post. I am also a Zep fan, however, I cannot agree that Plant sang with more power, range variation than Freddie.on my way up wrote: I'm a great Zeppelin fan too and people here should listen to plant in the years 68-72. He sings with much more variation,power and range than freddie. Altough I prefer freddie as overall singer(he's my favourite singer of all!), as live vocalist Plant is better. But since I'm such a big fan of freddie, this is something I only say to other Queen fans:-)So do'nt stone me;-) |
| Sebastian 13.12.2007 04:47 |
The thing is, Robert Plant is a good singer. But he's not even 10% of what he was in his golden years. |
| on my way up 13.12.2007 05:41 |
Sebastian wrote: The thing is, Robert Plant is a good singer. But he's not even 10% of what he was in his golden years.I agree completely. I was referring to his golden days:-) |
| Dusta 13.12.2007 13:19 |
No question he is/was a good singer. It is just that I would not say he has more power and range than Freddie. I would say that he has more power and range than...Roger Daltrey, or, Steven Tyler, but, definitely not Freddie. Sebastian wrote: The thing is, Robert Plant is a good singer. But he's not even 10% of what he was in his golden years. |
| john bodega 14.12.2007 01:12 |
Dusta wrote: No question he is/was a good singer. It is just that I would not say he has more power and range than Freddie. I would say that he has more power and range than...Roger Daltrey, or, Steven Tyler, but, definitely not Freddie.If we're comparing '70s Freddie to '69 Robert Plant, then Robert Plant wins, if you want to talk about power & range.Sebastian wrote: The thing is, Robert Plant is a good singer. But he's not even 10% of what he was in his golden years. However, my feeling is that if 86-89 Freddie had more than caught up by then. "Was It All Worth It" and "Gimme the Prize" come to mind. However, notice that Freddie never could do high shrieking falsetto like Roger Taylor, Robert Plant, Ian Gillan (or Ted Neeley, for that matter!). Even Freddie had his weak areas! But of course, don't tell that to the 'RIP QUEEN 1991' crowd.... |
| john bodega 14.12.2007 01:14 |
PS. If we're talking purely about power, I don't think many white guys can hold a candle to Roger Daltrey, least of all Freddie. |
| Mercuryking 14.12.2007 06:55 |
Zebonka12 wrote: PS. If we're talking purely about power, I don't think many white guys can hold a candle to Roger Daltrey, least of all Freddie.Duuuuude your talkin out of ur ass.... |
| Fenderek 14.12.2007 07:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote: PS. If we're talking purely about power, I don't think many white guys can hold a candle to Roger Daltrey, least of all Freddie.I think Gillan in the begining of 70s was close |
| john bodega 14.12.2007 12:28 |
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote:I was going to engage in a discussion with you, but then I saw your signature.Zebonka12 wrote: PS. If we're talking purely about power, I don't think many white guys can hold a candle to Roger Daltrey, least of all Freddie.Duuuuude your talkin out of ur ass.... |
| Mercuryking 14.12.2007 14:34 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I was too , then i saw how stupid you sounded...Mercury SingerOfLife wrote:I was going to engage in a discussion with you, but then I saw your signature.Zebonka12 wrote: PS. If we're talking purely about power, I don't think many white guys can hold a candle to Roger Daltrey, least of all Freddie.Duuuuude your talkin out of ur ass.... Saying freddie aint close in power to anyone is plain stupidity. |
| Danne 14.12.2007 15:08 |
Sebastian wrote: The thing is, Robert Plant is a good singer. But he's not even 10% of what he was in his golden years.That depends on what you want. I actually kind of like the deeper, more mature voice that Plant has nowadays. A reviewer here in Sweden claimed that Plant has never sounded as good as on his latest album with Alison Krauss. I don't really agree with that, but there's no question he's still a fantastic singer. |
| john bodega 15.12.2007 07:36 |
"Saying freddie aint close in power to anyone is plain stupidity." I didn't say 'anyone'. I said Roger Daltrey. Freddie had a voice that was capable of delicate things and rough things. As I said earlier (you were probably too busy drooling to notice) Freddie's voice gained a huge amount of power in the 80's. In the 70's, his voice was simply not as powerful as someone like Roger Daltrey. You don't seem to have much of an understanding about the idea of checks and balances, here... not many singers can do 'everything'. Both Roger Daltrey and Freddie Mercury were basically incapable of that high shrieking I was talking about earlier in the thread. And when you come down to it, Roger Daltrey really wasn't that great a 'singer'... he was INCREDIBLY powerful, and an amazing interpreter of Townshend's lyrics, but if you talk about the 'fiddly' bits of singing, he was not that great at all. As opposed to Freddie Mercury, who had oodles of control over his instrument. Checks and balances, man... Freddie could not 'do it all'. He was just very, very, very, very, very, very.... very good. Probably my favourite singer, for the range of things he COULD do. That still doesn't mean he can do everything. *Immigrant Song '86*. In spite of myself I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with a member of Treasure Moment. I've got $50 going on what kind of response I'm likely to get. |
| Poo, again 16.12.2007 16:23 |
artemismoon wrote: Some people don't take into consideration that Freddie was actually a baritone. That's why he wasn't able to hit those high notes in concert and that's why he often cracked when trying to reach them.Ah fuck it, Freddie was no baritone. There's no fucking way a baritone can reach those notes. Freddie was obviously an exception. He was either a tenor with an ability to go very low (IGSM), or a baritone who could go really fucking high. |
| saltnvinegar 16.12.2007 20:09 |
<font color=pink>Poo wrote:Ah, that's a battle that will outlive us all!artemismoon wrote: Some people don't take into consideration that Freddie was actually a baritone. That's why he wasn't able to hit those high notes in concert and that's why he often cracked when trying to reach them.Ah fuck it, Freddie was no baritone. There's no fucking way a baritone can reach those notes. Freddie was obviously an exception. He was either a tenor with an ability to go very low (IGSM), or a baritone who could go really fucking high. link link |
| Legy 18.12.2007 16:18 |
INDEED! It's amazing people don't want to believe professionals like Montserrat Caballé. What's done in the studio is completely different than what you hear live. In a controlled environment (studio), Freddie was great at being able to switch from falsetto to his normal singing voice. You can't do that live. Freddie would often crack on notes above G5. But, if you want to believe Fred was a tenor, than by all means, suit yourself. |
| Dusta 27.12.2007 20:40 |
It always amazes me to read these threads about Freddie's voice troubles, live, particularly when he is compared with other singers who I KNOW also had issues with their voices, live. I have seen most of the folks mentioned in this thread in concert, and, I can tell you that they also had cracking voices, deliberately, and, sometimes not deliberately, dropped high notes. Many sounded MUCH differently than I expected, based on albums, and, had far worse voice issues than Freddie. Even crooners, such as Steve Perry and Lou(Foreigner) dropped high notes(which were not nearly as high as those Freddie did NOT drop) and had the occasional cracking voice.
I just don't get why folks are so critical of Freddie's live performances. Is it because there are more out there to watch? Is it because folks just haven't seen these other performers live?artemismoon wrote: INDEED! It's amazing people don't want to believe professionals like Montserrat Caballé. What's done in the studio is completely different than what you hear live. In a controlled environment (studio), Freddie was great at being able to switch from falsetto to his normal singing voice. You can't do that live. Freddie would often crack on notes above G5. But, if you want to believe Fred was a tenor, than by all means, suit yourself. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 27.12.2007 23:00 |
If I could have a strong voice like Freddie, I would die of sheer happiness. It doesn't matter whether he hit the high notes or not. What matters is that he gave it his best and entertained the audiences with fantastic music! I personally loved his voice live and I loved how he hit those low notes.. |
| luthorn 28.12.2007 00:09 |
<font color=pink>Poo wrote:Fred, the tenor, would get really 'fucking' high on cocaine, hence the high notes ;-)artemismoon wrote: Some people don't take into consideration that Freddie was actually a baritone. That's why he wasn't able to hit those high notes in concert and that's why he often cracked when trying to reach them.Ah fuck it, Freddie was no baritone. There's no fucking way a baritone can reach those notes. Freddie was obviously an exception. He was either a tenor with an ability to go very low (IGSM), or a baritone who could go really fucking high. |
| Dusta 28.12.2007 07:20 |
And, either case is evidence of an amazing voice.
One can clearly hear how comfortable he is in the lower tones(such as Ride The Wild Wind), or, in the higher registers(Las Palabras, Killer Queen)...I, for one, am going to have to give the nod to the professionals on this issue.
<font color=pink>Poo wrote:artemismoon wrote: Some people don't take into consideration that Freddie was actually a baritone. That's why he wasn't able to hit those high notes in concert and that's why he often cracked when trying to reach them.Ah fuck it, Freddie was no baritone. There's no fucking way a baritone can reach those notes. Freddie was obviously an exception. He was either a tenor with an ability to go very low (IGSM), or a baritone who could go really fucking high. |
| Legy 28.12.2007 15:26 |
Las Palabras and Killer Queen are songs where Freddie switches from his normal voice to his falsetto. If you listen closely, you can hear him switch. Fred's voice was something unique. The man had so much power, you really can't compare him to any other singer. And even when he had his off nights, he still was able to connect with every single person in that venue, it really didn't matter if his voice wasn't in prime condition. His voice classification will always be up for debate. Some will say he was a tenor, some (myself included) say he was a baritone, but that means nothing when you really think about it. In the end, he was one of the best vocalist/performers that ever lived. |
| Poo, again 28.12.2007 15:52 |
Freddie must have had an amazingly strong falsetto voice then. |
| Legy 28.12.2007 17:09 |
Yes, he had a strong falsetto range. The best IMHO. His ability to switch from his normal voice to falsetto was second to none. |
| Asterik 29.12.2007 17:27 |
His vocal on Cool Cat is probably the best complete falsetto I've heard. The strength is so impressive given he was a baritone. |