| Bradley 28.10.2008 18:17 |
So, We al know he's not freddie with his vocal range, But... He can hit some pretty high notes with his headvoice, And some falsetto notes(Radio gaga from ROTC), But this is teasing me for days, I realy want to know what his vocal range is, His voice is in a pretty good shape for a man thats almost 60. I think that its probably arond 2,5-3 octaves. What do you think?. |
| Knute 28.10.2008 22:17 |
He has quite a nice range for a male vocalist, but he doesn't like to hang out as much in the higher parts of his head voice like he did when he was a younger man.In fact he always kinda preferred to hang a little lower. On the end of this clip from he hits an headvoice D5 which is wicked really. link But even now he gets up there pretty good. I just watched this clip of some dude covering We Believe and watching him struggle to hit some notes highlights just how high some of those parts are for a male vocalist. link |
| Legy 28.10.2008 23:39 |
He has a great baritone range. Not as great a Freddie's, but he can hold his own. |
| Bradley 29.10.2008 02:09 |
a D5 with his headvoice?, Thats pretty impresive for a male vocalist. Its rather logical that he doesnt hang out in he higher parts, He is getting older. |
| AmeriQueen 31.10.2008 03:52 |
His Free days showed more range than anywhere else. I think he's nowhere near as versatile as Freddie. I do think that he has a more defined style that encompasses more work into how he sings than Freddie's effortless blast of raw vocal talent and that Rodgers puts more detail into how he sings a song in it's total progression. I also think that Paul typically replaces Brian's vocal use by superior comparison while Freddie had room for Brian AND Roger both to offer their more appropriat use at different times. Roger can fit places where Paul can't, but Paul can pretty much always offer a better choice in Brian vocal territory. As for Freddie vs. Paul, I see Paul's voice occasionally a worthy alternative of equal or close to equal difference in a working sing-style to Freddie, but at the same time there are Free/Bad Company songs that my mind's ear can conjure a Freddie cover as being vastly superior, knowing just how Freddie would likely approach and take on the song if the scenario was a possiblity. An example would be something like Fire and Water which Freddie would steal with authority a singing of, and only the slow Hammer To Fall would give me the instinct to pick Paul over Freddie for. |
| Holly2003 31.10.2008 06:24 |
He can go from 'love' to 'lurrrve' pretty easily. |
| Kind of Magician 31.10.2008 20:57 |
Well, I prefer Paul's voice from 2000's to his voice with Free... Although his range may be a little smaller, the pure sound of his voice is much more beautiful now... First verse of We Believe...what a beautiful voice.. He's not good like Freddie's, but he is "worse" just a bit... |
| The Real Wizard 01.11.2008 00:41 |
artemismoon wrote: He has a great baritone range. Not as great a Freddie's, but he can hold his own. All other issues, technicalities, and tastes aside... Paul, a guy pushing 60, has proven that his voice is much more consistent than Freddie was in his prime in his 30s. To cite a particular example, he's still hitting the highest notes in Champions every night, something which Freddie did only a small handful of times. |
| Vali 01.11.2008 05:22 |
Sir GH wrote: All other issues, technicalities, and tastes aside... Paul, a guy pushing 60, has proven that his voice is much more consistent than Freddie was in his prime in his 30s. To cite a particular example, he's still hitting the highest notes in Champions every night, something which Freddie did only a small handful of times. At last someone says it !!! This is the first example (WATC) I've always thought of when somebody dares to say Paul's a ... bad singer !! It's hilarious !!! we all love Freddie; Freddie will be my GOD forever and ever, but as said by Sir GH, Paul's voice is much more consistent ! AND STATING THIS IS NOT A DISRESPECT TO FREDDIE. It's a fact. They have different styles, they have different whatever you want to say, but I've seen Paul reaching notes, when singing Queen songs, that Freddie never did. I really laughed a lot (really!) reading some threads when TCR came out and some guys where saying that Paul was out of tune in some songs (Through The Night, Voodoo, Time To Shine); yet again: Hilarious !!! I'm sure Paul's a perfeccionist in the studio .... but Roger and BRIAAAAAN are really true perfeccionists in the studio, in terms of sound quality, ect etc etc. How couldn't they be able to detect Paul's singing out of tune being they (Rog and Brian) active part of most of the vocal harmonies of ALL QUEEN'S DISCOGRAPHY ? If they didn't care these details we've had had the Queen Anthologies 15 years ago. But as they do care, we haven't got the set, yet; and if they were in control of Freddie's solo music, we've never had the chance to listen closely to Freddie's cold in "God Is Heavy". |
| Mr. Scully 02.11.2008 12:47 |
SIR GH - that is absolutely correct. But a lot of fans will hate you for this statement :-) |
| on my way up 02.11.2008 15:04 |
Sir GH wrote:artemismoon wrote: He has a great baritone range. Not as great a Freddie's, but he can hold his own.All other issues, technicalities, and tastes aside... Paul, a guy pushing 60, has proven that his voice is much more consistent than Freddie was in his prime in his 30s. To cite a particular example, he's still hitting the highest notes in Champions every night, something which Freddie did only a small handful of times. You are absolutely right. It's really impressive to hear Paul do these songs night after night, always with his voice in great shape. So, I know what you mean, also with the first line of your post. This is all what I wanted to say in reaction to your post, the rest is more my own feelings in general when I 'compare' both of them. But that doesn't make him a better live vocalist than Freddie for me. Range and consistency is only one thing, there are many oyther elements that make many people prefer Freddie(of course also many elements on the level of showmanship, which is extremely important at the gig itself). For me, Paul is much more limited in terms of different genres he's capable of singing. While he is great in songs like Fat bottomed girls, I want it all, Tie your mother down, We are the champions,...he singing Crazy little thing called love, A kind of magic, I want to break free, Another one bites the dust is much less convincing. Freddie did them all totally his way and you'd believe him in any of those songs(it were his songs, I know!:-). When Paul is breaking free, he doesn't give that impression:-) So I find they should sing some other songs.Like Fenderek said in another topic, I'd love to hear Paul doing 'White man' or 'It's late'. With Queen's catalogue being so huge, they could make better choices. I'm very glad i discovered Paul via this project, he's incredible. But not on Freddie's level despite him being better than Freddie in terms of consistency. |
| Holly2003 02.11.2008 15:20 |
I'd like to hear him sing Keep Yourself Alive, Innuendo and It's Late. having said that, I'd like to hear Roger Taylor singing them as well. In fact, no harm to PR, but I think I'd prefer that. |
| teleman 02.11.2008 15:20 |
on my way up wrote:Sir GH wrote:You are absolutely right. It's really impressive to hear Paul do these songs night after night, always with his voice in great shape. So, I know what you mean, also with the first line of your post. This is all what I wanted to say in reaction to your post, the rest is more my own feelings in general when I 'compare' both of them. But that doesn't make him a better live vocalist than Freddie for me. Range and consistency is only one thing, there are many other elements that make many people prefer Freddie(of course also many elements on the level of showmanship, which is extremely important at the gig itself). For me, Paul is much more limited in terms of different genres he's capable of singing. While he is great in songs like Fat bottomed girls, I want it all, Tie your mother down, We are the champions,...he singing Crazy little thing called love, A kind of magic, I want to break free, Another one bites the dust is much less convincing. Freddie did them all totally his way and you'd believe him in any of those songs(it were his songs, I know!:-). When Paul is breaking free, he doesn't give that impression:-) So I find they should sing some other songs.Like Fenderek said in another topic, I'd love to hear Paul doing 'White man' or 'It's late'. With Queen's catalogue being so huge, they could make better choices. I'm very glad i discovered Paul via this project, he's incredible. But not on Freddie's level despite him being better than Freddie in terms of consistency.artemismoon wrote: He has a great baritone range. Not as great a Freddie's, but he can hold his own.All other issues, technicalities, and tastes aside... Paul, a guy pushing 60, has proven that his voice is much more consistent than Freddie was in his prime in his 30s. To cite a particular example, he's still hitting the highest notes in Champions every night, something which Freddie did only a small handful of times. Good points made above. I find on some songs I really enjoy his interpretation on some Queen material and his voice is fantastic when it works with the song.(not unlike enjoying Ella Fitzgerald, Sara Vaughan and Billie Holliday singing a standard differently albeit the same song) Freddie had a great voice but his abuse of his voice through lack of training and various excesses in life limited what he could deliver live. With a catalogue as large and varied as Queen's you'd think they would try to find some songs more appropriate to Paul's style and personality. |
| April 03.11.2008 14:37 |
Sir GH is right. And I am sure Queen fans won't hate him for that because he is stating the truth and underlining the idea that Freddie is the best of the best. But Freddie's voice did get weak at times. I've been to Q+PR and was impressed by Paul's voice and, guys, mind he sang for two and a half hours. That's great! And he is 60, as you say. How old is he exactly, by the way? I've been to Deep Purple concert recently and Jan Gillan is great, but he did get tired, one could notice. He sang for one and a half hours, and that's it. He avoided singing melodical songs. It's hard to stay the same when you are 60. |
| IReallyLoveQueen 23.08.2010 16:30 |
I LOVE QUEEN |