4 x Vision 02.03.2009 16:57 |
Hi, I tend to listen to the same eras when listening to bootlegs.... mostly '82, '84, mainly due to the tone and power of Freddie's voice. Last night I couldn't sleep so started listening to random '80s gigs and then working back. I really under estimated the power in Freddie's voice during this period. It really did seem to hit a peak, with a mixture of power and confidence at trying the higher notes. I think i was always swayed to 82, due to mainly those opening lines of STL and the power he put behind them... wonderful stuff. But now I'm not sure. I'm no singer, but I love karaoke, and I find that at the age of 30, my voice is more powerful now than it was even a couple years back (but still ghastly mind you). Are there any singers out there that can explain if Freddie's voice just changed as he aged or was it much more technical? Which era do folk here prefer? |
Yara 02.03.2009 17:52 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Hi, I tend to listen to the same eras when listening to bootlegs.... mostly '82, '84, mainly due to the tone and power of Freddie's voice. Last night I couldn't sleep so started listening to random '80s gigs and then working back. I really under estimated the power in Freddie's voice during this period. It really did seem to hit a peak, with a mixture of power and confidence at trying the higher notes. I think i was always swayed to 82, due to mainly those opening lines of STL and the power he put behind them... wonderful stuff. But now I'm not sure. I'm no singer, but I love karaoke, and I find that at the age of 30, my voice is more powerful now than it was even a couple years back (but still ghastly mind you). Are there any singers out there that can explain if Freddie's voice just changed as he aged or was it much more technical? Which era do folk here prefer? I like it all, up until the magic tour and his solo works, regardless of the shape of his voice and the notes he managed to reach. I liked the sound of his voice, quite addictive, he had a gorgeous timber, and I always appreciated the musical cleverness behind his singing - he was able to create, innovate on spot, live, and it was very rare for him to go out of tune, very rare. Now, the shape of his voice never seemed that good to me live: he started off with a cracking, sometimes all too mannered and affected voice; then, his voice faded out for some time; about the end of 1979, his voice began to sound more powerful but at the expense of any delicacy and usually at the expense of the tempo of many songs. I think there's too much oversinging between 1980-1982. He reached an interesing balance in the gigs in the very end of 1979, but many songs sounded dull or too hasty. But he sounded overall very good in the News of The World Tour, perhaps his best live performances come from there, in my opinion. So the answer would be: News of The World Tour, especially the gigs in Kopenhagen, Holland or even at Earls Court, for that matter, or in Houston. Came the Works and Magic Tours, his voice started to decline again and fade away, and then he ended up sounding really terrible, very strident and unpleasant, but then he was already quite ill. I like it all, but not really because of the shape of his voice, but more because of his cleverness and his way of interpreting the songs live, sometimes re-creating them and adding in excitement what it lost in shape. I loved his choice of notes and his uncanny hability to stay in tune even during the most tortuous and difficult verses. There are five songs in which I think the shape of his voice really made the song happen: Action This Day, Staying Power, Another One Bites the Dust, Hammer to Fall and Dragon Attack. These songs were absolutely devoid of purpose or excitement if his voice was in bad shape, so, in this regard, yes, 1980-1982 would be a good period. At the same time, he could be absolutely wasted and sing Somebody to Love, We Are The Champions, BoRhap, Tie Your Mother Down, Spread Your Wings and even It's a Hard Life just wonderfully. |
4 x Vision 02.03.2009 18:21 |
Yara wrote: Yeah, I agree about gigs late '79... I think he sang really clear and well, but there was this razor sharpness about it that personally I did not prefer to other periods. I can still see why fans would say he had reached his peak, but again for me that came in the very early 80s. Came the Works and Magic Tours, his voice started to decline again and fade away, and then he ended up sounding really terrible, very strident and unpleasant, but then he was already quite ill. Do you mean live or in the studio? I wasn't aware that his illness had any direct impact on his voice in 86. Is this fact? Do you think he could have sang say a complete setlist from 79 or 80 in the Magic period live? I mean would he have sung these songs well? |
4 x Vision 02.03.2009 18:25 |
I agree 100% about how clever he was live... I could listen to Save Me from every gig I have from when he first started singing it til the last... and each version or change in note etc sounds stunning! |
Yara 02.03.2009 19:19 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote:Yara wrote:Yeah, I agree about gigs late '79... I think he sang really clear and well, but there was this razor sharpness about it that personally I did not prefer to other periods. I can still see why fans would say he had reached his peak, but again for me that came in the very early 80s. Came the Works and Magic Tours, his voice started to decline again and fade away, and then he ended up sounding really terrible, very strident and unpleasant, but then he was already quite ill. Do you mean live or in the studio? I wasn't aware that his illness had any direct impact on his voice in 86. Is this fact? Do you think he could have sang say a complete setlist from 79 or 80 in the Magic period live? I mean would he have sung these songs well? Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear there, you're right. I mean Innuendo, the late stuff really, when I talked about the illness - just my personal taste, I don't like the way he sounds. As for your question, yes, no problem at all - he could have done the whole 79-80 setlist in the Magic Period, I see no problem as far as the Game goes. And there were very early songs, such as Liar and In the Lap of The Gods, that he always handled very well live - Liar sounds great in some of the Works gigs and In the Lap is thrilling in the Magic Tour, so. I think he would have handled Save Me just as well as Love of My Life, same goes for Play The Game. I think except for some Hot Space songs, such as Action This Day and Staying Power, he would have handled the songs quite well. I think he puts some very impressive performances in the Magic Tour, and when it comes to the subject of hitting notes and so on, the Works and Magic Tours are the way to go: it's all very high-pitched compared to previous performances, and songs such as It's a Hard Life were at times performed, like in Birmingham, better, to my taste, than in the studio album. Same goes for Liar in the Works Tour, some very interesting performances. He was becoming a better musician too, so even if his voice suffered a lot, the beauty of the lines, the choice of notes, the cleverness behind the singing was very impressive. There are songs he just never managed to handle live: Killer Queen is the most obvious example. Despite being a hit, they omitted the last verse, which is the hardest to tackle for the singer, and played it ridiculously fast, elimitating all the tenderness of the song. Freddie's falsettos usually - though it got a bit better in the Works and Magic Tour, for instance - sounded horrible live, though, so that'd be probably a reason - he was poorly trained and I think quite insecure on stage, despite all the showmanship. Anyway, I liked his live singing, though not for the reasons people usually like it. I'd go for the News of The World Tour, but then I'm hugely biased because it's my favorite Queen album. :)) Regards! |
4 x Vision 02.03.2009 19:33 |
Yara wrote: There are songs he just never managed to handle live: Killer Queen is the most obvious example. Despite being a hit, they omitted the last verse, which is the hardest to tackle for the singer, and played it ridiculously fast, elimitating all the tenderness of the song. It's funny, I've never really thought about why KQs last verse was omitted... this makes perfect sense. It was never one of my favourites live either. I'm not a huge fan of Magic tour... possibly because I played LAW to death when I was younger. I think each song had too much of a planned feel. Each gig sounds very similar too... and i don't just mean set-lists. Each song recital sounds very similar in each concert during 86 (IMO). That said... I loved the way STL changed from 82 to 85... and would loved to have heard how he may have performed it in '86. i first thought it sounded a little lazy in the works tour... but having heard a couple of superb renditions of it during 85 Japanese gigs, I think it had a wonderful upbeat and joyful ring to it. When he sings "I'm Okay, I'm alright"... he sings it so playfully. Fantastic stuff! It's truly amazing how different the same song can be sung an how he gave it a fresh slant year in year out. (9th May 85 is one of my favourite gigs). |
Crisstti 02.03.2009 22:12 |
Yara wrote: Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear there, you're right. I mean Innuendo, the late stuff really, when I talked about the illness - just my personal taste, I don't like the way he sounds. As for your question, yes, no problem at all - he could have done the whole 79-80 setlist in the Magic Period, I see no problem as far as the Game goes. And there were very early songs, such as Liar and In the Lap of The Gods, that he always handled very well live - Liar sounds great in some of the Works gigs and In the Lap is thrilling in the Magic Tour, so. I think he would have handled Save Me just as well as Love of My Life, same goes for Play The Game. I think except for some Hot Space songs, such as Action This Day and Staying Power, he would have handled the songs quite well. I think he puts some very impressive performances in the Magic Tour, and when it comes to the subject of hitting notes and so on, the Works and Magic Tours are the way to go: it's all very high-pitched compared to previous performances, and songs such as It's a Hard Life were at times performed, like in Birmingham, better, to my taste, than in the studio album. Same goes for Liar in the Works Tour, some very interesting performances. He was becoming a better musician too, so even if his voice suffered a lot, the beauty of the lines, the choice of notes, the cleverness behind the singing was very impressive. There are songs he just never managed to handle live: Killer Queen is the most obvious example. Despite being a hit, they omitted the last verse, which is the hardest to tackle for the singer, and played it ridiculously fast, elimitating all the tenderness of the song. Freddie's falsettos usually - though it got a bit better in the Works and Magic Tour, for instance - sounded horrible live, though, so that'd be probably a reason - he was poorly trained and I think quite insecure on stage, despite all the showmanship. Anyway, I liked his live singing, though not for the reasons people usually like it. I'd go for the News of The World Tour, but then I'm hugely biased because it's my favorite Queen album. :)) Regards! I think it's my favourite abum as well. The few versions of Killer Queen I've heard doesn't dound that well... except when they played it in a medley (without the last verse, as you siad...). But I think it sounds great... makes you wish they had played the whole song... I think he hardly ever did falsettos live, actually... I don't know anything really about this, but shouldn't to sing with falsetto be easier...?. |
N0_Camping4U 02.03.2009 22:36 |
I think Freddie's voice was starting to strain in The Works tour. Sure he sang songs wonderfully, and he used a bit of trickery to get everything sounding great - but at some performances it's obvious to see he was either very tired, worn out...or just suffering from something, AIDS, nodules, smoking, whatever the case. Liar, It's a Hard Life, I Want to Break Free, among some of the songs that seemed to really be affected, even though sparingly throughout the tour, as some performances were fine. I wouldn't go so far to say it was horrible, as it was [ in my opinion ] possibly due to the fact that they toured relentlessly for Hot Space, and the songs on Hot Space seemed to give Freddie some trouble. And interesting enough almost all songs were dropped after the HS tour [ save for Under Pressure, and Staying power - the latter almost always gave him some trouble ] but when it came around time to sing older stuff, Somebody to love, and The Game songs during HS tours sounded fantastic. |
john bodega 03.03.2009 00:02 |
N0_Camping4U wrote: but at some performances it's obvious to see he was either very tired, worn out...or just suffering from something, AIDS, nodules, smoking, whatever the case. At that stage AIDS didn't come into it. That was something that only started to manifest from '87 onwards. It was definitely the cigarrettes doing it. |
john bodega 03.03.2009 00:04 |
Crisstti wrote: I think he hardly ever did falsettos live, actually... I don't know anything really about this, but shouldn't to sing with falsetto be easier...?. Surprisingly, no it isn't. Well, there are some folks who can pull it off but it depends on the kind of voice you have. It's a difficult sound to produce on a loud stage when you have trouble hearing yourself. Making it sound good is another kettle of fish altogether. I'll always appreciate his Wembley performance of "In The Lap of the Gods" all the more, for the fact that he did bother doing some of the falsetto at the start. Heh. |
on my way up 03.03.2009 03:17 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote:Yara wrote: There are songs he just never managed to handle live: Killer Queen is the most obvious example. Despite being a hit, they omitted the last verse, which is the hardest to tackle for the singer, and played it ridiculously fast, elimitating all the tenderness of the song.It's funny, I've never really thought about why KQs last verse was omitted... this makes perfect sense. It was never one of my favourites live either. I'm not a huge fan of Magic tour... possibly because I played LAW to death when I was younger. I think each song had too much of a planned feel. Each gig sounds very similar too... and i don't just mean set-lists. Each song recital sounds very similar in each concert during 86 (IMO). That said... I loved the way STL changed from 82 to 85... and would loved to have heard how he may have performed it in '86. i first thought it sounded a little lazy in the works tour... but having heard a couple of superb renditions of it during 85 Japanese gigs, I think it had a wonderful upbeat and joyful ring to it. When he sings "I'm Okay, I'm alright"... he sings it so playfully. Fantastic stuff! It's truly amazing how different the same song can be sung an how he gave it a fresh slant year in year out. (9th May 85 is one of my favourite gigs). Somebody to love was indeed a song whch Freddie sang with many variations. And he sang many amazingly beautiful intros. You mention Tokyo 9/5/85 and that show is just stunning. It's one of those shows I can listen to over and over again. The shape of his voice was fantastic and what he did with that was very creative and wonderful. The intro to Somebody to love, impromptu,... so many outstanding moments. And the thing with Freddie is: he was such a great musician. A nice melody came so easily to him. At times his voice was shot but even then he could sing a certain line... and I would absolutely love it! For example: I was listening to Tokyo 24/4/79, more specifically It's late and suddenly he sang some lines so wonderfully that it made me jump around in excitement:-) |
on my way up 03.03.2009 04:05 |
What I really like about Queen is that studio and live Queen are 2 different animals. And the band members themselves were very clear about that. The live show was not them trying to play the songs as close as possible to the studioversions but it was a total show. There are several things that I find very clever that almost seldom get mentioned. For example the way they built their show: Freddie's big entrance, then 2 fast, energetic songs, Freddie greeting the audience and getting them all excited, a slower song, a medley, building to the next climax, some accoustic songs, then the next climax, etc. They absolutely knew what they were doing, how they could make maximum impact. Freddie doing sing alongs with the audience, he always gave them just not enough time to sing the line he just sang and he went crescendo. And the result was the audience singing louder and louder:-) I'm absolutely sure Freddie could have sung better live but I think we would have lost more than we gained! Now, he combined being a great singer with being an incredible entertainer and showman. And as I said in my other post, even if his voice wasn't in the greatest shape, he could at times still do wonders with it. I would recommend everyone to listen to many shows without thinking about the albums and to just enjoy the version from that specific gig. Of course there are many versions of songs not noteworthy but there are plenty of wonderful moments too. I agree that Killer Queen wasn't always great, but sometimes Freddie sang that one wonderfully too( London 10/12/80 or Oakland'80). One of the things I regret is that we do not have more good recordings of some tours where Freddie's voice was in good or great shape(NOTW'77, Crazy tour, US'80). I really hope new things from those tours will surface. |
Rick 03.03.2009 05:23 |
I agree. An EX recording of 4/12/1979 Newcastle would be a dream. I think that must be Freddie's best vocal performance caught on tape. |
Sunshine 03.03.2009 05:31 |
Interesting to read:) I disagree with Yara regarding his voice during Innuendo and later. I think it is a different voice but it grabs me. You hear his pain and still, he is performing to give everything he has. The Show Must Go On is a nice example but also Dont Try So Hard and Mother Love. Besides that, the whole Barcelona album is breathtaking! Guide me Home is so amazing beautiful. |
4 x Vision 03.03.2009 06:03 |
Zebonka12 wrote: It was definitely the cigarrettes doing it. Would he have had that same rawness and power in mid 80s if it hadn't been for cigarettes? |
on my way up 03.03.2009 07:01 |
Rick wrote: I agree. An EX recording of 4/12/1979 Newcastle would be a dream. I think that must be Freddie's best vocal performance caught on tape.Oh yes, that would indeed be a dream! When reading Greg's Queen live book the most interesting part for me was that they have recordings of several Crazy tour gigs(2 Manchester nights, Liverpool 2nd night, Brighton, maybe also Alexandra palace). I don't understand why they can't release Hammy'79 on DVD coupled with another Crazy tour gig. It would not only make Queen fans happy, it would show the world how amazing Queen in concert could be. |
on my way up 03.03.2009 07:06 |
Sunshine wrote: Interesting to read:) I disagree with Yara regarding his voice during Innuendo and later. I think it is a different voice but it grabs me. You hear his pain and still, he is performing to give everything he has. The Show Must Go On is a nice example but also Dont Try So Hard and Mother Love. Besides that, the whole Barcelona album is breathtaking! Guide me Home is so amazing beautiful. The show must go on is for me the ultimate Freddie moment. The power, the range, the expression in his voice. It's all there! And Barcelona, do you have the big set with the rarities discs? for some time I was addicted to those discs:-) Hearing Freddie creating his works is just awesome. The Barcelona disc shows how motivated Freddie was to create something magical with Montsy, and in my view he did. |
Sunshine 03.03.2009 07:37 |
on my way up wrote:Sunshine wrote: Interesting to read:) I disagree with Yara regarding his voice during Innuendo and later. I think it is a different voice but it grabs me. You hear his pain and still, he is performing to give everything he has. The Show Must Go On is a nice example but also Dont Try So Hard and Mother Love. Besides that, the whole Barcelona album is breathtaking! Guide me Home is so amazing beautiful.The show must go on is for me the ultimate Freddie moment. The power, the range, the expression in his voice. It's all there! And Barcelona, do you have the big set with the rarities discs? for some time I was addicted to those discs:-) Hearing Freddie creating his works is just awesome. The Barcelona disc shows how motivated Freddie was to create something magical with Montsy, and in my view he did. No unfortunately, i play Barcelona to death as well....what a great way to wake up with:) I'd love to hear those tapes but i cant find them anywhere:( TSMGO brings tears in my eyes... |
john bodega 03.03.2009 08:05 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Would he have had that same rawness and power in mid 80s if it hadn't been for cigarettes? Power, he always had. It was really the tone, the colour if you will, that was changing in his voice. Cigarettes had a huge impact on that of course but then if you look at his voice once he'd stopped smoking (I'm thinking of The Miracle here) he really had the best of both worlds - that big, mid 80's sound, and the potential to do very fiddly, lyrical lines. The Innuendo and Made In Heaven tracks are another thing altogether because he'd gotten quite ill by then. |
koldweather123 03.03.2009 10:12 |
I'm not sure about the power thing to be honest, his earlier concerts don't seem to be powerful if you compare them to most of the 80s concerts. His voice did get stronger in that respect but as others have said he loses his delicate tone to his voice. I really enjoy the Kopenhagen 1978 show (best Spread your wings till the crazy tour) The Crazy tour is probably Freddie's best overall and its amazing to watch Freddie getting ever more daring with those high notes during the Newcastle 4th show to the point where by Now I'm here he was going pretty much hitting every single high note. Most of the 1980 shows are amazing, the first leg of the South America tour is IMO the most under rated tour, he has some stunning shows there, the highlighting being the C5 Freddie hits in WATC. The 82 European tour is divided into 2 really, the first half wasn't too stunning but from about Frankfurt onwards his voice became stunning again. The 84 tour saw his voice become powerful but he suffered, possibly because of a rather tight tour list. The highlight of 1985 has to be the first two shows from the Japan leg where his voice seems to be very open, its like the high notes aren't any real effort and there is no strain, almost completely in contrast to the magic tour. Saying that the first 7 dates or so of the Magic tour are great, and indeed Stockholm and Leiden are up there with some of his best 80s shows. |
on my way up 03.03.2009 11:02 |
koldweather123 wrote: I'm not sure about the power thing to be honest, his earlier concerts don't seem to be powerful if you compare them to most of the 80s concerts. His voice did get stronger in that respect but as others have said he loses his delicate tone to his voice. I really enjoy the Kopenhagen 1978 show (best Spread your wings till the crazy tour) The Crazy tour is probably Freddie's best overall and its amazing to watch Freddie getting ever more daring with those high notes during the Newcastle 4th show to the point where by Now I'm here he was going pretty much hitting every single high note. Most of the 1980 shows are amazing, the first leg of the South America tour is IMO the most under rated tour, he has some stunning shows there, the highlighting being the C5 Freddie hits in WATC. The 82 European tour is divided into 2 really, the first half wasn't too stunning but from about Frankfurt onwards his voice became stunning again. The 84 tour saw his voice become powerful but he suffered, possibly because of a rather tight tour list. The highlight of 1985 has to be the first two shows from the Japan leg where his voice seems to be very open, its like the high notes aren't any real effort and there is no strain, almost completely in contrast to the magic tour. Saying that the first 7 dates or so of the Magic tour are great, and indeed Stockholm and Leiden are up there with some of his best 80s shows. I agree with your comments about the power of his voice.Copenhagen'78 is a stunning, stunning show. The entire band is in brilliant shape. Their vocal harmonies are great that night too. I'm sure that is Queen at their best musically. Newcastle 4/12/79 is a famous one(among fans) and rightfully so. He does some astounding stuff throughout that show. I'd like to point out that all Crazy tour gigs have him in brilliant voice, if only those recordings would be a bit better! In 1980 he was indeed in fantastic shape too. And SA 1981 is indeed very very good. My favourite show is Buenos Aires 8/3/81. Unique atmosphere too. Puebla 17/10/81 is another very unique Queen show. Freddie's comments to the crazy atmosphere are wonderful ;-) And his voice was in top shape(check out somebody to love). I understand your comment about the 1982 European tour being divided in 2 but I do not entirely agree. Drammen or Stockholm were not as good as later shows but still very good and the Leiden shows were great too. More dutch recordings should surface(with better quality!) Wasn't he great in Zurich too? Long time since I listened to those! The first 2 Japanese shows are indeed one of a kind(I already talked about Tokyo 9/5/85 but it's realy THAT good!). And you're very right about the Magic tour. I like the Magic tour very much. Freddie had some really great nights. The first 7 or so shows indeed but also shows later in the tour. Think about Cologne, Budapest or Knebworth:-). I should check out the Spanish shows again but I believe he was quite good during those too. Shows like Newcastle, also the officially released Wembley unfortunately and especially Zurich 2/7/86 were a lot less good(in Zurich he was really quite weak). That being said, I'd still like to check out the complete Zurich 2/7/86 tape. It's listed on queenconcerts but strictly not for trade unfortunately:-( |
Legy 03.03.2009 13:08 |
Freddie had awesome power and range for being a baritone. Some say his power rivaled the greatest tenors of the time. What's amazing to me is even when he was really ill he was still able to hit some pretty high notes. Notes baritones don't normally reach. Either way, I love his voice period. It was very powerful. |
Yara 03.03.2009 13:52 |
Do you think that? I don't know, there's been this baritone theory over there for some time, it does make sense if you listen to him talking in some interviews, but his more natural singing fell already within the low tenor range and he was very comfortable with open G notes in the higher tenor register. Anything drifting apart from it was kind of hard for him to do - the countertenor-like - it's important to distinguish the tune and the color and impression added to it - C5 in the beginning of "Let Me Entertain You" is a good example ("Isles...") - he never matched that note live, even when he did try it - he usually fell to the more traditional, comfortable and natural B4 when did want to get to the higher note. But that's only a very unaccurate notation because, in fact, he doesn't reach a countertenor C5 in the studio either - he simulates the sound of it, which is something very different when it comes to singing. Some musical theorists use the expression "false-baritone", "false-tenor", to distinguish the sound produced by people who comfortably sing in those ranges. The concept of "comfortable" is not restricted to effort. It encompasses, too, the "openness", the clearness of a tune - if the tune of a singer, when he's going for higher notes, begin to sound too "close", even if high-pitched, it's very likely that he'll end up going out of tune. I'd say that he did a good, sustainable singing keeping himself to two octaves, or maybe two and a half, that's it - the rest is either simulation, which is not bad per se but redefines the vocal range of a singer, or very sporadical moments in which the singer gets both the note, the color and the texture: there's dispute over the final, official studio version of We Are The Champions, but regardless of how the vocals have been layered and pulled together, his "FiGH-intg..." was not within his vocal habilities - it was a sound produced with much effort, after many tries, the volume of which was then leveled up to pull the song together - it's as much an industrial - commercial, conceptual, so on - and engineering product as a music one: he wouldn't sing that live even in his wildest dreams. This is a song he usually had a lot of trouble with because many times he broke the barrier between singing and shouting - and that's something people notice. So if someone tells me: "I don't find this Mercury all that good", I fully understand, it's not as if he were a miracle in terms of live performance. He was interesting singer for those who appreciate many other aspects of singing other than vocal range - the fun, the humor, the hability to play around with his timber, which helped him simulate many notes convincingly, his wonderful musical intelligence, the way he made things happen on spot, having great ideas; not keeping to strict traditional harmonic structures in live concerts and allowing himself to improvise on the melody: that took talent, and then some!!! I like many My Melancholy Blues live versions than the studio one. Because it's so clever. In some performances, because he didn't want to hold the falsetto "soooooon", quite risky, he used some fantastic ideas: he'd beginning trying to get a very low note - "my guess is I'm in for a cloudy overcast" - but doing variations on the timber, and then he went to really sing very high notes taking into account his range: he went up, hit notes higher than in the recording - because the closing darker sound of parts of his falsetto actually dropped and mascaraded the range - and instead of closing or darkening the sound with falsettos or other techniques, he sang it very openly "Stormy Weather...": in some gigs, it was done very high-pitched and, what's great, tenderly, with delicacy and well, clear-sounding. So he builds all this tension because he's going very high, and then he just speaks the following note, dropping the tune: "soon". Hahahaha. It's wonderful. It creates a contrast that it's emotionally very moving and touching, and there's a bit of cleverness there: "Why should I stretch "soon"? "Soon" has to end...soon", isn't it? Haha. It's, really, these things are hugely entertaining. It takes musicianship more than physical prowess or acrobatics with vocal muscles. That made him so different and so addictive - once you listen to a song performed by him, especially live, it's very hard to take it off your head because he builds it all in such a beautiful, inteligent way. Now, I think the guy was a genius. Really. A musician, a great musician. If he's reduced to vocal range, even if his singing is reduced to it, I think we lose the best part of it all - I mean, there's a huge amount of sophistication in his live singing, and that's something I can't deny - I listen to it and notice it. I was not bound to be a Queen fan - it were these kinds of things which attracted me to the band. Freddie was musical. He had this way of transforming even swearing rants into sweet melodies, he had it all: a precise control over tempo, which was hard because the band was naturally very uneven in this regard, the talent to manipulate color and timber, which is very important and takes a huge amount of creativity, and a good knowledge of some very important composers - it may sound nonsense at first, but the fact the guy listened to Chopin is actually very important, because it's not only an essential part of the piano repertoire, but also very musically appealling - mutatis mutandis, of course, just like Freddie. Chopin was no Liszt in terms of virtuosity, as Freddie was no Christina Aguilera (!), but both, Chopin and Freddie, were musically more accomplished than respectivelly Liszt and Christina Aguilera. Of course, Christina Aguilera is a virtuose and so on, but the Liszt comparation is just that - a lousy comparation. Liszt was himself a wonderful musician, but again, he had not only someone he came to hate afterwards (lol), but a mentor in Chopin, when it came to composition and musicianship. GEEZ! I just kept writting and look the SHEER SIZE of this POST. Damn. I go on writting and forget that people don't have all the time in the world to read such extensive posts, especially in internet forums. Well, hope it's been helpful someway. Hahaha. Damn, this is huge, I don't think it's even going to show up. |
Winter Land Man 03.03.2009 15:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Would he have had that same rawness and power in mid 80s if it hadn't been for cigarettes?Power, he always had. It was really the tone, the colour if you will, that was changing in his voice. Cigarettes had a huge impact on that of course but then if you look at his voice once he'd stopped smoking (I'm thinking of The Miracle here) he really had the best of both worlds - that big, mid 80's sound, and the potential to do very fiddly, lyrical lines. The Innuendo and Made In Heaven tracks are another thing altogether because he'd gotten quite ill by then. Wasn't that Freddie having a smoke on the behind the scenes of the video to Breakthru'??? Isn't there a photo from 1990, of Freddie having a smoke, while in his Garden? |
Legy 03.03.2009 18:18 |
Yara wrote: Do you think that? I don't know, there's been this baritone theory over there for some time, it does make sense if you listen to him talking in some interviews, but his more natural singing fell already within the low tenor range and he was very comfortable with open G notes in the higher tenor register. Anything drifting apart from it was kind of hard for him to do - the countertenor-like - it's important to distinguish the tune and the color and impression added to it - C5 in the beginning of "Let Me Entertain You" is a good example ("Isles...") - he never matched that note live, even when he did try it - he usually fell to the more traditional, comfortable and natural B4 when did want to get to the higher note. But that's only a very unaccurate notation because, in fact, he doesn't reach a countertenor C5 in the studio either - he simulates the sound of it, which is something very different when it comes to singing. Some musical theorists use the expression "false-baritone", "false-tenor", to distinguish the sound produced by people who comfortably sing in those ranges. The concept of "comfortable" is not restricted to effort. It encompasses, too, the "openness", the clearness of a tune - if the tune of a singer, when he's going for higher notes, begin to sound too "close", even if high-pitched, it's very likely that he'll end up going out of tune. I'd say that he did a good, sustainable singing keeping himself to two octaves, or maybe two and a half, that's it - the rest is either simulation, which is not bad per se but redefines the vocal range of a singer, or very sporadical moments in which the singer gets both the note, the color and the texture: there's dispute over the final, official studio version of We Are The Champions, but regardless of how the vocals have been layered and pulled together, his "FiGH-intg..." was not within his vocal habilities - it was a sound produced with much effort, after many tries, the volume of which was then leveled up to pull the song together - it's as much an industrial - commercial, conceptual, so on - and engineering product as a music one: he wouldn't sing that live even in his wildest dreams. This is a song he usually had a lot of trouble with because many times he broke the barrier between singing and shouting - and that's something people notice. So if someone tells me: "I don't find this Mercury all that good", I fully understand, it's not as if he were a miracle in terms of live performance. He was interesting singer for those who appreciate many other aspects of singing other than vocal range - the fun, the humor, the hability to play around with his timber, which helped him simulate many notes convincingly, his wonderful musical intelligence, the way he made things happen on spot, having great ideas; not keeping to strict traditional harmonic structures in live concerts and allowing himself to improvise on the melody: that took talent, and then some!!! I like many My Melancholy Blues live versions than the studio one. Because it's so clever. In some performances, because he didn't want to hold the falsetto "soooooon", quite risky, he used some fantastic ideas: he'd beginning trying to get a very low note - "my guess is I'm in for a cloudy overcast" - but doing variations on the timber, and then he went to really sing very high notes taking into account his range: he went up, hit notes higher than in the recording - because the closing darker sound of parts of his falsetto actually dropped and mascaraded the range - and instead of closing or darkening the sound with falsettos or other techniques, he sang it very openly "Stormy Weather...": in some gigs, it was done very high-pitched and, what's great, tenderly, with delicacy and well, clear-sounding. So he builds all this tension because he's going very high, and then he just speaks the following note, dropping the tune: "soon". Hahahaha. It's wonderful. It creates a contrast that it's emotionally very moving and touching, and there's a bit of cleverness there: "Why should I stretch "soon"? "Soon" has to end...soon", isn't it? Haha. It's, really, these things are hugely entertaining. It takes musicianship more than physical prowess or acrobatics with vocal muscles. That made him so different and so addictive - once you listen to a song performed by him, especially live, it's very hard to take it off your head because he builds it all in such a beautiful, inteligent way. Now, I think the guy was a genius. Really. A musician, a great musician. If he's reduced to vocal range, even if his singing is reduced to it, I think we lose the best part of it all - I mean, there's a huge amount of sophistication in his live singing, and that's something I can't deny - I listen to it and notice it. I was not bound to be a Queen fan - it were these kinds of things which attracted me to the band. Freddie was musical. He had this way of transforming even swearing rants into sweet melodies, he had it all: a precise control over tempo, which was hard because the band was naturally very uneven in this regard, the talent to manipulate color and timber, which is very important and takes a huge amount of creativity, and a good knowledge of some very important composers - it may sound nonsense at first, but the fact the guy listened to Chopin is actually very important, because it's not only an essential part of the piano repertoire, but also very musically appealling - mutatis mutandis, of course, just like Freddie. Chopin was no Liszt in terms of virtuosity, as Freddie was no Christina Aguilera (!), but both, Chopin and Freddie, were musically more accomplished than respectivelly Liszt and Christina Aguilera. Of course, Christina Aguilera is a virtuose and so on, but the Liszt comparation is just that - a lousy comparation. Liszt was himself a wonderful musician, but again, he had not only someone he came to hate afterwards (lol), but a mentor in Chopin, when it came to composition and musicianship. GEEZ! I just kept writting and look the SHEER SIZE of this POST. Damn. I go on writting and forget that people don't have all the time in the world to read such extensive posts, especially in internet forums. Well, hope it's been helpful someway. Hahaha. Damn, this is huge, I don't think it's even going to show up. Fred had this wonderful ability to switch to his falsetto without out being detected by the untrained ear. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do that. And you have to remember, what you hear on record is completely different than what you hear live. There are various recording tricks you can use to "sing higher". Not to mention you can do the take over and over until you get it right. Listen to some of his live performances, you'll hear he plays it safe and when he didn't he cracked a lot. I'm not saying he's not a great singer because he is my favorite singer of all time. But, he wasn't a real tenor. Montserrat Caballé has even mentioned Fred was a baritone. Not to many baritones have the range Fred had. He was unique and will always be missed. |
4 x Vision 04.03.2009 02:49 |
Doesn't Fred sound so much better with the higher notes on the Barcelona Rarities than he did on say, BR multi track stuff (which in parts sounded like someone straining a cat... but still great to hear!)? So even with the heavy cigarette use he still had great control with higher note material. Do you think he could have handled the Barcelona songs live? |
john bodega 04.03.2009 03:48 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Do you think he could have handled the Barcelona songs live? Ooooh... yes and no? During the short appearance he did with Cliff Richard, it's quite obvious that he had a pretty good live range, having not performed in a while. It's just a pity we don't get to hear more of him as opposed to Cliff.... I don't know if he could've done it over a tour (health notwithstanding of course). But I think his voice would've held up for a splendid one off show. It's too bad that the Barcelona songs only got a mimed appearance. |
4 x Vision 04.03.2009 07:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Do you think he could have handled the Barcelona songs live?Ooooh... yes and no? During the short appearance he did with Cliff Richard, it's quite obvious that he had a pretty good live range, having not performed in a while. It's just a pity we don't get to hear more of him as opposed to Cliff.... I don't know if he could've done it over a tour (health notwithstanding of course). But I think his voice would've held up for a splendid one off show. It's too bad that the Barcelona songs only got a mimed appearance. So if he hadn't been ill, do you think his voice would have sustained a full tour with Monst? I have a tribute CD I got from amazon where the album is sung live in it's entirety and although the guy is no Freddie, they do make a decent stab at it. link /ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1236169486&sr=1-3 It only made me more sad that Freddie didn't at least attempt one or two of them live! Would I be able to share this album in the Announce section? |
ITSM 04.03.2009 07:41 |
I think he sounded great all along! From My Fairy King to I'm going slightly mad and Delilah. Great songs and a great voice! At least that's my opinion... No-one could have done it any better than Freddie! |
Yara 04.03.2009 08:44 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Doesn't Fred sound so much better with the higher notes on the Barcelona Rarities than he did on say, BR multi track stuff (which in parts sounded like someone straining a cat... but still great to hear!)? So even with the heavy cigarette use he still had great control with higher note material. Do you think he could have handled the Barcelona songs live? But I'm afraid those were the very best slices of a bulk of material - they got tracks that could have already made it into the album, a good amount of work was done on studio, and so on. It's different. I think is very unlikely he'd ever be able to perform the Barcelona songs live. Because he just couldn't do it in a single shot, one take, and make it sound even close to the recording. He couldn't do it, even when he wanted to, with Let Me Entertain You. He liked to give himself a challenge there - in the 1980s, which is probably where we find him in best shape, he fails to finish the song the way he starts it. I have listened to the Phoenix, 1980, performance, which Dafty_the_Duck kindly uploaded for me. He starts the songs trying to go to the fake-countertenor note of the studio recording, and of course he falls, as always, on Bb4, just like pretty much most male singers would have done - it's the natural way of resolving many ascending lines. Then, he tries to do exactly the same in the end, as in the recording - "Chicago..." and then ascending - he stops the ascention. You can listen to it on the recording - he starts the verse very high-pitched - "Chicago..." - but then notices that he's, first, not sounding very good and, second, that he's not going to be able to make it in the end, so he drops the towel and does a standard, unispiring unison-based coda. In Hammy '79, he tries it too - he goes up in the beginning, reaches a G#4 in the beginning (Isles...) and tries to go for the high notes in the last verses: "Chicago...", and he ends up dropping the tune, yes, but not like in Phoenix: he does let the tune drop, but he keeps the color of the note, which was one of his main and most important techniques to put on a great show. Let Me Entertain You first and final verses are a lithmus test, so to speak. But let's take Killer Queen. Could he have performed Barcelona live? No, just like he never managed to perform Killer Queen live - the song was played hasty, sometimes with a lot of erros in tempo, just like Roger notices in the Montreal DVD, the last part was missing - mistery, because it was a huge hit and...a tiny song, very short already - and his renditions are the opposite of the studio album - that is, full of air in his voice, devoided of delicacy, in short: boring. Take a look at my post above and the example I gave with "My Melancholy Blues" - he deliberately avoided the long, falsetto line - sooooon - and went for something else. He avoided because...he couldn't do it, and then he had to find another way to deliver it - and that's where his musical intelligence comes in. If one loses this aspect of his musicianship, there's not much to Freddie, really. He was a great musician, and a fantastic frontman, and as Elton John very aptly put in an interview, a very "inventive singer", that is, someone who manages to make his way through the song sounding beautifully without trying to do things he just couldn't do. The studio is the realm of magic, fantasy, where all seems to happen perfectly at the same time, it's the selling of a dream, a dream-like sound that we, as Queen fans, are all addicted to. But one has to distinguish this magic from the stage magic, which was based on other premises - and not because they just wanted to do different, but because, given the fact they couldn't perform the songs just like in the recording, they had to be inventive and put on shows that were much MORE than the studio recordings at the same time - they were fun, exciting, full of lights and stuff, Freddie was a fantastic frontman... If they could have the best of both worlds, of course they'd have gone for it, but they couldn't, and that's not a shame. It's just the way it is in music. In classical music, in popular music, anything: studio recordings allow for failures, and many failures, and for sound engineering wonders. They do it with live albums too, of course, but not at such an extent: I mean, usually. Sometimes the band plays the whole concert again to be overdubbed in the recording, but that's not usual, I think. So Freddie was a good singer? The question doesn't even come to my mind. But the reason why I think he was a genius is his musical cleverness, the beauty and versatility of his tune, his creativity. In terms of reaching notes and range, I mean, in my humble opinion, one can establish his about two, two and a half octaves, which is already too much. He had a spetacular range, but not as great and flawless as some people present it. Sopranos in Orchestras usually call people who can sing well, clearly and powerfully in the low-tenor register as "baritones" - it's just a way of distinguishing two different kinds of tenors, with different range and skills. I see it everyday. It's so because the tenor register is the most common among males, so one has to make distinctions among them, see what they're able to do, and do a rough classification just for organizing the performance, for the sake of arranging the performance and organizing the sound structure. We, and I saw that in other countries as well, have a lot of problem in finding real bass voices - they are rare and the impressions is that it's getting more and more difficult and hard to find a bass voice with musical skill, able to sing, because there are many people who just can't sing although they study their whole lives - if one has a problem with tuning, volume and/or tempo, that's it, it's finished. It's cruel. That's why so many people get "thrown away" at audictions. People you'd think could make it... Rock bands don't have to audiction in this sense. They have to give people a good time and create exciting music. When they do, just as Queen did, they have success; when they fail to, well, it's cruel too...!!! Hope it helps. |
john bodega 04.03.2009 10:50 |
Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: So if he hadn't been ill, do you think his voice would have sustained a full tour with Monst? Personally I don't think it would have. I might be lynched for saying this but in the context of a long tour, Freddie was never the most consistent of rock singers, vocal stamina wise. When he was good, he was brilliant, but just about anyone can get worn out doing that kind of music. I think if he'd kept at the opera thing for a while (and again I'm being hypothetical, not factoring in his illness) and fined up his technique (as a rock singer he was great, but he was absolutely not in the same league as any serious opera singer) then I think he would've gotten ever greater things out of his voice - and along with that, he also would've learned how to save it over a tour. So who knows, maybe if things had been different he could've toured with the opera stuff. Would've been sensational, I think... |
4 x Vision 04.03.2009 11:38 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: So if he hadn't been ill, do you think his voice would have sustained a full tour with Monst?Personally I don't think it would have. I might be lynched for saying this but in the context of a long tour, Freddie was never the most consistent of rock singers, vocal stamina wise. When he was good, he was brilliant, but just about anyone can get worn out doing that kind of music. I think if he'd kept at the opera thing for a while (and again I'm being hypothetical, not factoring in his illness) and fined up his technique (as a rock singer he was great, but he was absolutely not in the same league as any serious opera singer) then I think he would've gotten ever greater things out of his voice - and along with that, he also would've learned how to save it over a tour. So who knows, maybe if things had been different he could've toured with the opera stuff. Would've been sensational, I think... Yep, I agree... you'll probably get lynched lol. Na, I think all fans have at some point boasted that Freddie could have been an opera singer, but fact is he was just a very clever rock singer... who, as Yara pointed out, was able to use his genius and showmanship to make up for any weaknesses he may have had singing live (although I suggest reading Yara's last excellent post to get a better insight into her opinions). I don't think he would ever have put himself through even one full "gig" with M Caballe, as he must have known that they were in different leagues vocally... and he would have put himself under too much pressure for him to bare to perform to a level that would be satisfactory (to his high standards) while playing with such a legend in opera singing (IMO). It would have been so sweet though! I think he may have underrated himself a little and could have at least tried singing one number live with her, instead of miming... after all, he would have had the backing singers help (which Brian used plenty of times to help boost the vocals at his solo gigs). Again, the CD I have is actually quite good to listen too and if this guy could do it, then Freddie def could have too. (Have I contradicted myself... possibly!). I just had a thought... could you imagine Brian attempt to sing this song with MC live lol... sorry, poor Bri... lucky he was such a great guitarist tho! |
john bodega 04.03.2009 12:35 |
Ha! I had a similar train of thought the other day when watching Brian do a duet with Pavarotti. Regardless of what one thinks of Brian's voice, he put in as good a version of the song as he ever did, but I mean... no one measures up against ol' Luciano, really! It was pretty brave of Brian to get up and do that. I think most folks would be too chicken! I wonder if Freddie had any such feelings about performing with Montserrat? Hmmm. |
4 x Vision 04.03.2009 14:16 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I wonder if Freddie had any such feelings about performing with Montserrat? Hmmm. He must have had. I think it would have probably been one of the most nerve wracking sets of his career. As good a showman as he was, he would have been worried sick his voice would have gave out on him... I think he would have tried to sing a la Live Aid and attempt all the big notes, knowing that he would be judged by the classical musical society more on his vocals than his performance. But he would have probably been worried for nothing I'd like to think and we would have had another lovely YouTube video to watch. |
turini 04.03.2009 14:30 |
My favorite is probably around the time of Milton Keynes in 82, He really used the power of his voice alot more and kind of dodged the soft soothing voice that ive noticed from earlier tours. |
Winter Land Man 05.03.2009 20:52 |
artemismoon wrote:Yara wrote: Do you think that? I don't know, there's been this baritone theory over there for some time, it does make sense if you listen to him talking in some interviews, but his more natural singing fell already within the low tenor range and he was very comfortable with open G notes in the higher tenor register. Anything drifting apart from it was kind of hard for him to do - the countertenor-like - it's important to distinguish the tune and the color and impression added to it - C5 in the beginning of "Let Me Entertain You" is a good example ("Isles...") - he never matched that note live, even when he did try it - he usually fell to the more traditional, comfortable and natural B4 when did want to get to the higher note. But that's only a very unaccurate notation because, in fact, he doesn't reach a countertenor C5 in the studio either - he simulates the sound of it, which is something very different when it comes to singing. Some musical theorists use the expression "false-baritone", "false-tenor", to distinguish the sound produced by people who comfortably sing in those ranges. The concept of "comfortable" is not restricted to effort. It encompasses, too, the "openness", the clearness of a tune - if the tune of a singer, when he's going for higher notes, begin to sound too "close", even if high-pitched, it's very likely that he'll end up going out of tune. I'd say that he did a good, sustainable singing keeping himself to two octaves, or maybe two and a half, that's it - the rest is either simulation, which is not bad per se but redefines the vocal range of a singer, or very sporadical moments in which the singer gets both the note, the color and the texture: there's dispute over the final, official studio version of We Are The Champions, but regardless of how the vocals have been layered and pulled together, his "FiGH-intg..." was not within his vocal habilities - it was a sound produced with much effort, after many tries, the volume of which was then leveled up to pull the song together - it's as much an industrial - commercial, conceptual, so on - and engineering product as a music one: he wouldn't sing that live even in his wildest dreams. This is a song he usually had a lot of trouble with because many times he broke the barrier between singing and shouting - and that's something people notice. So if someone tells me: "I don't find this Mercury all that good", I fully understand, it's not as if he were a miracle in terms of live performance. He was interesting singer for those who appreciate many other aspects of singing other than vocal range - the fun, the humor, the hability to play around with his timber, which helped him simulate many notes convincingly, his wonderful musical intelligence, the way he made things happen on spot, having great ideas; not keeping to strict traditional harmonic structures in live concerts and allowing himself to improvise on the melody: that took talent, and then some!!! I like many My Melancholy Blues live versions than the studio one. Because it's so clever. In some performances, because he didn't want to hold the falsetto "soooooon", quite risky, he used some fantastic ideas: he'd beginning trying to get a very low note - "my guess is I'm in for a cloudy overcast" - but doing variations on the timber, and then he went to really sing very high notes taking into account his range: he went up, hit notes higher than in the recording - because the closing darker sound of parts of his falsetto actually dropped and mascaraded the range - and instead of closing or darkening the sound with falsettos or other techniques, he sang it very openly "Stormy Weather...": in some gigs, it was done very high-pitched and, what's great, tenderly, with delicacy and well, clear-sounding. So he builds all this tension because he's going very high, and then he just speaks the following note, dropping the tune: "soon". Hahahaha. It's wonderful. It creates a contrast that it's emotionally very moving and touching, and there's a bit of cleverness there: "Why should I stretch "soon"? "Soon" has to end...soon", isn't it? Haha. It's, really, these things are hugely entertaining. It takes musicianship more than physical prowess or acrobatics with vocal muscles. That made him so different and so addictive - once you listen to a song performed by him, especially live, it's very hard to take it off your head because he builds it all in such a beautiful, inteligent way. Now, I think the guy was a genius. Really. A musician, a great musician. If he's reduced to vocal range, even if his singing is reduced to it, I think we lose the best part of it all - I mean, there's a huge amount of sophistication in his live singing, and that's something I can't deny - I listen to it and notice it. I was not bound to be a Queen fan - it were these kinds of things which attracted me to the band. Freddie was musical. He had this way of transforming even swearing rants into sweet melodies, he had it all: a precise control over tempo, which was hard because the band was naturally very uneven in this regard, the talent to manipulate color and timber, which is very important and takes a huge amount of creativity, and a good knowledge of some very important composers - it may sound nonsense at first, but the fact the guy listened to Chopin is actually very important, because it's not only an essential part of the piano repertoire, but also very musically appealling - mutatis mutandis, of course, just like Freddie. Chopin was no Liszt in terms of virtuosity, as Freddie was no Christina Aguilera (!), but both, Chopin and Freddie, were musically more accomplished than respectivelly Liszt and Christina Aguilera. Of course, Christina Aguilera is a virtuose and so on, but the Liszt comparation is just that - a lousy comparation. Liszt was himself a wonderful musician, but again, he had not only someone he came to hate afterwards (lol), but a mentor in Chopin, when it came to composition and musicianship. GEEZ! I just kept writting and look the SHEER SIZE of this POST. Damn. I go on writting and forget that people don't have all the time in the world to read such extensive posts, especially in internet forums. Well, hope it's been helpful someway. Hahaha. Damn, this is huge, I don't think it's even going to show up.Fred had this wonderful ability to switch to his falsetto without out being detected by the untrained ear. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do that. And you have to remember, what you hear on record is completely different than what you hear live. There are various recording tricks you can use to "sing higher". Not to mention you can do the take over and over until you get it right. Listen to some of his live performances, you'll hear he plays it safe and when he didn't he cracked a lot. I'm not saying he's not a great singer because he is my favorite singer of all time. But, he wasn't a real tenor. Montserrat Caballé has even mentioned Fred was a baritone. Not to many baritones have the range Fred had. He was unique and will always be missed. Freddie is my favorite singer too. Great falsetto he can do... but, Brian Wilson sing in falsetto a lot better. |
inu-liger 06.03.2009 18:33 |
Jacob Britt wrote:artemismoon wrote:Freddie is my favorite singer too. Great falsetto he can do... but, Brian Wilson sing in falsetto a lot better.Yara wrote: Do you think that? I don't know, there's been this baritone theory over there for some time, it does make sense if you listen to him talking in some interviews, but his more natural singing fell already within the low tenor range and he was very comfortable with open G notes in the higher tenor register. Anything drifting apart from it was kind of hard for him to do - the countertenor-like - it's important to distinguish the tune and the color and impression added to it - C5 in the beginning of "Let Me Entertain You" is a good example ("Isles...") - he never matched that note live, even when he did try it - he usually fell to the more traditional, comfortable and natural B4 when did want to get to the higher note. But that's only a very unaccurate notation because, in fact, he doesn't reach a countertenor C5 in the studio either - he simulates the sound of it, which is something very different when it comes to singing. Some musical theorists use the expression "false-baritone", "false-tenor", to distinguish the sound produced by people who comfortably sing in those ranges. The concept of "comfortable" is not restricted to effort. It encompasses, too, the "openness", the clearness of a tune - if the tune of a singer, when he's going for higher notes, begin to sound too "close", even if high-pitched, it's very likely that he'll end up going out of tune. I'd say that he did a good, sustainable singing keeping himself to two octaves, or maybe two and a half, that's it - the rest is either simulation, which is not bad per se but redefines the vocal range of a singer, or very sporadical moments in which the singer gets both the note, the color and the texture: there's dispute over the final, official studio version of We Are The Champions, but regardless of how the vocals have been layered and pulled together, his "FiGH-intg..." was not within his vocal habilities - it was a sound produced with much effort, after many tries, the volume of which was then leveled up to pull the song together - it's as much an industrial - commercial, conceptual, so on - and engineering product as a music one: he wouldn't sing that live even in his wildest dreams. This is a song he usually had a lot of trouble with because many times he broke the barrier between singing and shouting - and that's something people notice. So if someone tells me: "I don't find this Mercury all that good", I fully understand, it's not as if he were a miracle in terms of live performance. He was interesting singer for those who appreciate many other aspects of singing other than vocal range - the fun, the humor, the hability to play around with his timber, which helped him simulate many notes convincingly, his wonderful musical intelligence, the way he made things happen on spot, having great ideas; not keeping to strict traditional harmonic structures in live concerts and allowing himself to improvise on the melody: that took talent, and then some!!! I like many My Melancholy Blues live versions than the studio one. Because it's so clever. In some performances, because he didn't want to hold the falsetto "soooooon", quite risky, he used some fantastic ideas: he'd beginning trying to get a very low note - "my guess is I'm in for a cloudy overcast" - but doing variations on the timber, and then he went to really sing very high notes taking into account his range: he went up, hit notes higher than in the recording - because the closing darker sound of parts of his falsetto actually dropped and mascaraded the range - and instead of closing or darkening the sound with falsettos or other techniques, he sang it very openly "Stormy Weather...": in some gigs, it was done very high-pitched and, what's great, tenderly, with delicacy and well, clear-sounding. So he builds all this tension because he's going very high, and then he just speaks the following note, dropping the tune: "soon". Hahahaha. It's wonderful. It creates a contrast that it's emotionally very moving and touching, and there's a bit of cleverness there: "Why should I stretch "soon"? "Soon" has to end...soon", isn't it? Haha. It's, really, these things are hugely entertaining. It takes musicianship more than physical prowess or acrobatics with vocal muscles. That made him so different and so addictive - once you listen to a song performed by him, especially live, it's very hard to take it off your head because he builds it all in such a beautiful, inteligent way. Now, I think the guy was a genius. Really. A musician, a great musician. If he's reduced to vocal range, even if his singing is reduced to it, I think we lose the best part of it all - I mean, there's a huge amount of sophistication in his live singing, and that's something I can't deny - I listen to it and notice it. I was not bound to be a Queen fan - it were these kinds of things which attracted me to the band. Freddie was musical. He had this way of transforming even swearing rants into sweet melodies, he had it all: a precise control over tempo, which was hard because the band was naturally very uneven in this regard, the talent to manipulate color and timber, which is very important and takes a huge amount of creativity, and a good knowledge of some very important composers - it may sound nonsense at first, but the fact the guy listened to Chopin is actually very important, because it's not only an essential part of the piano repertoire, but also very musically appealling - mutatis mutandis, of course, just like Freddie. Chopin was no Liszt in terms of virtuosity, as Freddie was no Christina Aguilera (!), but both, Chopin and Freddie, were musically more accomplished than respectivelly Liszt and Christina Aguilera. Of course, Christina Aguilera is a virtuose and so on, but the Liszt comparation is just that - a lousy comparation. Liszt was himself a wonderful musician, but again, he had not only someone he came to hate afterwards (lol), but a mentor in Chopin, when it came to composition and musicianship. GEEZ! I just kept writting and look the SHEER SIZE of this POST. Damn. I go on writting and forget that people don't have all the time in the world to read such extensive posts, especially in internet forums. Well, hope it's been helpful someway. Hahaha. Damn, this is huge, I don't think it's even going to show up.Fred had this wonderful ability to switch to his falsetto without out being detected by the untrained ear. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do that. And you have to remember, what you hear on record is completely different than what you hear live. There are various recording tricks you can use to "sing higher". Not to mention you can do the take over and over until you get it right. Listen to some of his live performances, you'll hear he plays it safe and when he didn't he cracked a lot. I'm not saying he's not a great singer because he is my favorite singer of all time. But, he wasn't a real tenor. Montserrat Caballé has even mentioned Fred was a baritone. Not to many baritones have the range Fred had. He was unique and will always be missed. Did Freddie spend a year in bed singing in falsetto? |
Winter Land Man 06.03.2009 20:37 |
inu-liger wrote:Jacob Britt wrote:Did Freddie spend a year in bed singing in falsetto?artemismoon wrote:Freddie is my favorite singer too. Great falsetto he can do... but, Brian Wilson sing in falsetto a lot better.Yara wrote: Do you think that? I don't know, there's been this baritone theory over there for some time, it does make sense if you listen to him talking in some interviews, but his more natural singing fell already within the low tenor range and he was very comfortable with open G notes in the higher tenor register. Anything drifting apart from it was kind of hard for him to do - the countertenor-like - it's important to distinguish the tune and the color and impression added to it - C5 in the beginning of "Let Me Entertain You" is a good example ("Isles...") - he never matched that note live, even when he did try it - he usually fell to the more traditional, comfortable and natural B4 when did want to get to the higher note. But that's only a very unaccurate notation because, in fact, he doesn't reach a countertenor C5 in the studio either - he simulates the sound of it, which is something very different when it comes to singing. Some musical theorists use the expression "false-baritone", "false-tenor", to distinguish the sound produced by people who comfortably sing in those ranges. The concept of "comfortable" is not restricted to effort. It encompasses, too, the "openness", the clearness of a tune - if the tune of a singer, when he's going for higher notes, begin to sound too "close", even if high-pitched, it's very likely that he'll end up going out of tune. I'd say that he did a good, sustainable singing keeping himself to two octaves, or maybe two and a half, that's it - the rest is either simulation, which is not bad per se but redefines the vocal range of a singer, or very sporadical moments in which the singer gets both the note, the color and the texture: there's dispute over the final, official studio version of We Are The Champions, but regardless of how the vocals have been layered and pulled together, his "FiGH-intg..." was not within his vocal habilities - it was a sound produced with much effort, after many tries, the volume of which was then leveled up to pull the song together - it's as much an industrial - commercial, conceptual, so on - and engineering product as a music one: he wouldn't sing that live even in his wildest dreams. This is a song he usually had a lot of trouble with because many times he broke the barrier between singing and shouting - and that's something people notice. So if someone tells me: "I don't find this Mercury all that good", I fully understand, it's not as if he were a miracle in terms of live performance. He was interesting singer for those who appreciate many other aspects of singing other than vocal range - the fun, the humor, the hability to play around with his timber, which helped him simulate many notes convincingly, his wonderful musical intelligence, the way he made things happen on spot, having great ideas; not keeping to strict traditional harmonic structures in live concerts and allowing himself to improvise on the melody: that took talent, and then some!!! I like many My Melancholy Blues live versions than the studio one. Because it's so clever. In some performances, because he didn't want to hold the falsetto "soooooon", quite risky, he used some fantastic ideas: he'd beginning trying to get a very low note - "my guess is I'm in for a cloudy overcast" - but doing variations on the timber, and then he went to really sing very high notes taking into account his range: he went up, hit notes higher than in the recording - because the closing darker sound of parts of his falsetto actually dropped and mascaraded the range - and instead of closing or darkening the sound with falsettos or other techniques, he sang it very openly "Stormy Weather...": in some gigs, it was done very high-pitched and, what's great, tenderly, with delicacy and well, clear-sounding. So he builds all this tension because he's going very high, and then he just speaks the following note, dropping the tune: "soon". Hahahaha. It's wonderful. It creates a contrast that it's emotionally very moving and touching, and there's a bit of cleverness there: "Why should I stretch "soon"? "Soon" has to end...soon", isn't it? Haha. It's, really, these things are hugely entertaining. It takes musicianship more than physical prowess or acrobatics with vocal muscles. That made him so different and so addictive - once you listen to a song performed by him, especially live, it's very hard to take it off your head because he builds it all in such a beautiful, inteligent way. Now, I think the guy was a genius. Really. A musician, a great musician. If he's reduced to vocal range, even if his singing is reduced to it, I think we lose the best part of it all - I mean, there's a huge amount of sophistication in his live singing, and that's something I can't deny - I listen to it and notice it. I was not bound to be a Queen fan - it were these kinds of things which attracted me to the band. Freddie was musical. He had this way of transforming even swearing rants into sweet melodies, he had it all: a precise control over tempo, which was hard because the band was naturally very uneven in this regard, the talent to manipulate color and timber, which is very important and takes a huge amount of creativity, and a good knowledge of some very important composers - it may sound nonsense at first, but the fact the guy listened to Chopin is actually very important, because it's not only an essential part of the piano repertoire, but also very musically appealling - mutatis mutandis, of course, just like Freddie. Chopin was no Liszt in terms of virtuosity, as Freddie was no Christina Aguilera (!), but both, Chopin and Freddie, were musically more accomplished than respectivelly Liszt and Christina Aguilera. Of course, Christina Aguilera is a virtuose and so on, but the Liszt comparation is just that - a lousy comparation. Liszt was himself a wonderful musician, but again, he had not only someone he came to hate afterwards (lol), but a mentor in Chopin, when it came to composition and musicianship. GEEZ! I just kept writting and look the SHEER SIZE of this POST. Damn. I go on writting and forget that people don't have all the time in the world to read such extensive posts, especially in internet forums. Well, hope it's been helpful someway. Hahaha. Damn, this is huge, I don't think it's even going to show up.Fred had this wonderful ability to switch to his falsetto without out being detected by the untrained ear. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do that. And you have to remember, what you hear on record is completely different than what you hear live. There are various recording tricks you can use to "sing higher". Not to mention you can do the take over and over until you get it right. Listen to some of his live performances, you'll hear he plays it safe and when he didn't he cracked a lot. I'm not saying he's not a great singer because he is my favorite singer of all time. But, he wasn't a real tenor. Montserrat Caballé has even mentioned Fred was a baritone. Not to many baritones have the range Fred had. He was unique and will always be missed. I don't understand your post. I don't believe either of them did that. |
inu-liger 07.03.2009 02:22 |
Jacob Britt wrote: I don't understand your post. I don't believe either of them did that. It was a bad attempt at joking about when Brian Wilson apparently spent a year or so laying in bed, doing cocaine or something.......read it somewhere a while ago. |
Winter Land Man 07.03.2009 15:21 |
inu-liger wrote:Jacob Britt wrote: I don't understand your post. I don't believe either of them did that.It was a bad attempt at joking about when Brian Wilson apparently spent a year or so laying in bed, doing cocaine or something.......read it somewhere a while ago. He spent three years in bed... but he didn't record any music or sing. He listened to the Ronette's 'Be My Baby' over and over again, at times he did leave his bed and went to Danny Huttons to get drugs, but for most of the time he'd stay in his room and he'd watch Johnny Carson or Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, eat plenty of food, smoke 6 or 7 packs of cigarettes a day, etc. He'd drink a lot too. The lifestyle ruined his falsetto for years afterwards. |
Legy 10.03.2009 12:13 |
LOL! I gots the joke. Brian Wilson and Mercury were one of a kind. We're very fortunate Fred left us while still on top of his game vocally, although his demise was quite tragic. Wilson on the other hand is not even half the artist he once was. His previous drug abuse has really taken a toll on a once wonderful musician. |
dewantari deaky 26.07.2009 02:35 |
love his range in 70's era, it sounds soft, gently, lovable but strong enough to kill all the songs haha. and i always take it as a reason why many girls could be adored by Freddie. for live, i like Freddie's voice in Rock Montreal, really powerful and lovable haha. in Wembley '86 he still got the power but sadly the range is really different. |
liam 27.07.2009 09:10 |
My favourite era is ANATO and ADATR. I love his soft, delicate and almost feminine singing in these albums and he has i think he has an emotional ability with his voice that he lost after these albums. I know his power wasnt as great as the late 70's and 80's but i think it was his most beautiful work. |
john bodega 27.07.2009 10:01 |
artemismoon wrote: Wilson on the other hand is not even half the artist he once was. His previous drug abuse has really taken a toll on a once wonderful musician .He'd make a splendid comedy act. |
PauloPanucci 27.07.2009 18:34 |
I like so much the Freddie's voice in "The Show must go on"... and on "return of the champions" when shows Freddie singing BoRhap, his voice is very cool! |
Dusta 27.07.2009 23:18 |
Was Freddie a baritone? I"ve heard more than Montseratt suggest this, and, I certainly agree that he does sound so very rich and melodic in the lower tones, such as in Ensueno and Ride The Wild Wind...a live example of this which comes to mind is the joyful Tutti Frutti/You're So Square/Marylou set at Wembley. My mother, who isn't a Queen fan(Elvis, all the way), heard the Wembley set and was enchanted by Freddie's voice. She'd always thought him a tenor, or, a," hard," rocker... In any case, interesting observations, all around. I do agree with Zebonka in that it seems as if Freddie's time with The Opera Singer served him well, and, it would have been interesting to see how much use he'd have gotten from this education, over time.. |
mike hunt 28.07.2009 03:44 |
I'm no perfessional, but freddie was a natural bariton who sang tenor to fit the song he was singing in the studio. If you listen to his live voice it becomes obvious. Wembly in 86 or his early shows in 74 to 76 his voice is obviously bariton. |
john bodega 28.07.2009 05:15 |
Goodness, please don't get the tenor/baritone argument started again. Classifying his voice in those terms is largely fruitless anyway because he wasn't classically trained to work within the disciplines that go with the definitions. He just did what he wanted! |
Legy 29.07.2009 17:22 |
What you do in the studio and what you do live are totally different things. Merc sounded like a tenor in the studio. For various reason. But live wise, he was what he was, a baritone with awesome power. But I completely agree with Zebonka. He did what he wanted, and my is it beautiful magic. |
Angeline 29.07.2009 19:26 |
So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio... |
Raf 29.07.2009 22:07 |
Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) |
lalaalalaa 30.07.2009 00:38 |
Raf wrote:Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) Rock in Rio might have been his worst performance but it still surpasses other artists' performances. |
John Oswald 30.07.2009 10:48 |
I think Freddie's voice was great over the years though of course sometimes he would've been a bit off key like everyone else but that's natural |
Raf 30.07.2009 10:55 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Hey, we're talking about Queen... Their worst isn't necessarily bad! :)Raf wrote:Rock in Rio might have been his worst performance but it still surpasses other artists' performances.Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) |
beautifulsoup 30.07.2009 13:34 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Goodness, please don't get the tenor/baritone argument started again. Classifying his voice in those terms is largely fruitless anyway because he wasn't classically trained to work within the disciplines that go with the definitions. He just did what he wanted! Coming from a classically trained singer (and teacher) who has her own definite opinion on the baritone/tenor issue but will not voice it, I have to say that Zebonka's answer is the best I've ever read on the subject. [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] |
Wiley 05.08.2009 10:32 |
Zebonka12 wrote:artemismoon wrote: Wilson on the other hand is not even half the artist he once was. His previous drug abuse has really taken a toll on a once wonderful musician .He'd make a splendid comedy act. I always thought he looked like a Muppet at the Queen's Jubilee in London 2002: Only his upper body visible, singing and waving his hands in the air to the tune of "Good Vibrations". |
lalaalalaa 07.08.2009 20:22 |
Raf wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:Hey, we're talking about Queen... Their worst isn't necessarily bad! :)Raf wrote:Rock in Rio might have been his worst performance but it still surpasses other artists' performances.Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) Did you not read my whole comment? I said it still surpasses other artists' performances ;) I never actually said it was bad. |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 07.08.2009 21:03 |
I don't think anyone's voice stays the same over the years, whether you're a performance artist or not. Try and find anyone who can come close to him even today. Freddie's voice was very unique. |
bhm0129ad 07.08.2009 21:28 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: I don't think anyone's voice stays the same over the years, whether you're a performance artist or not. Try and find anyone who can come close to him even today. Freddie's voice was very unique. On the whole you are right, but I think there are a few examples of some people who managed to maintain the essence of their voice, like David Bowie and Tom Jones for instance, but the best example (the greatest voice ever) was Roy Orbison, who sounded just the same in his final major concert (Black and White Night in '87) as he did when he wrote/performed the songs in the late fifties/early sixties. That man's voice was pure silk. |
Raf 08.08.2009 00:38 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Yes, I did. I was only confirming that I actually thought the same, and wasn't actually saying Queen were a subpar act on that festival! ;DRaf wrote:Did you not read my whole comment? I said it still surpasses other artists' performances ;) I never actually said it was bad.lalaalalaa wrote:Hey, we're talking about Queen... Their worst isn't necessarily bad! :)Raf wrote:Rock in Rio might have been his worst performance but it still surpasses other artists' performances.Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) |
lalaalalaa 08.08.2009 10:27 |
Raf wrote:Oh ok.lalaalalaa wrote:Yes, I did. I was only confirming that I actually thought the same, and wasn't actually saying Queen were a subpar act on that festival! ;DRaf wrote:Did you not read my whole comment? I said it still surpasses other artists' performances ;) I never actually said it was bad.lalaalalaa wrote:Hey, we're talking about Queen... Their worst isn't necessarily bad! :)Raf wrote:Rock in Rio might have been his worst performance but it still surpasses other artists' performances.Angeline wrote: So I'm new here and I imagine this has been discussed umpteen times before - but is not Live At The Bowl one of the best live vocal performances? Can someone tell me is it over-dubbed or anything? It blows me away especially when compared to Rock In Rio...If I'm not mistaken, his voice cracked once during Fat Bottomed Girls and only that particular line was "fixed" in the studio, and the rest was done live. Despite all people say about the great audience participation, Freddie being flattered and all that blah blah blah, Freddie's performance on Rock In Rio was one of his worst performances ever, so don't let it deceive you. ;) |
PauloPanucci 08.08.2009 18:07 |
i liked his performance in Rio... what can i say,, i'm brazilian ;D |
Yara 27.08.2009 16:22 |
I got quite surprised by reading in the Wiki entry for Freddie that his voice, just like I have always argued against pretty much anyone here in the past, is classified as "lyric tenor" - the source they give is Jeffrey Allen, who's a voice-teacher and musician himself. The first two natural questions: 1) Who cares about these distinctions? 2) Is it just to say that you were right? A-1) Some people. A few. But some. :op A-2) No. I'd have brought the issue back even if I had argued the other way around because the guy is not the last word on the subject, of course. Final question: 3) "So why are you bringing it up again"? I just thought it would make for a good update to the thread and pave the way for new discussions about it for those who enjoy it. I know some people are interested in it and I thought it'd be helpful to point it out and bring it here for discussion. Just that. Now you can curse me and throw me in the Styx and provide Cerberus with the most powerful weapons. :op |
jamster1111 28.08.2009 12:24 |
In my opinion Freddie's voice was in its best condition in the first few years of the band (1973-1978). Around the period of the game or right after he began to not sing falsetto as much and rather than singing began to yell and strain his vocal chords. For example at wembley '86 whenever he wants to hit a high note he basically screams or yells to get to that note. He is still right on key but it sounds rather harsh. Around the innuendo sessions Freddie's voice began to get much better and recover. In my opinion innuendo is one of his best vocal albums. For concerts caught on video I would say live at the rainbow '74 his voice sounded the best. He never strained it at that concert and he even sang the falsetto on in the lap of the gods revisited but still managed to hit the high notes without yelling |
jamster1111 28.08.2009 12:28 |
In my opinion Freddie's voice was in its best condition in the first few years of the band (1973-1978). Around the period of the game or right after he began to not sing falsetto as much and rather than singing began to yell and strain his vocal chords. For example at wembley '86 whenever he wants to hit a high note he basically screams or yells to get to that note. He is still right on key but it sounds rather harsh. Around the innuendo sessions Freddie's voice began to get much better and recover. In my opinion innuendo is one of his best vocal albums. For concerts caught on video I would say live at the rainbow '74 his voice sounded the best. He never strained it at that concert and he even sang the falsetto on in the lap of the gods revisited but still managed to hit the high notes without yelling |
Gregsynth 29.10.2009 17:07 |
I'd say from the Crazy Tour to the European Leg of the Hot Space tour was Freddie's vocal peak: He had great control, power, and he hit a large chunk of the high notes. |
Gregsynth 29.10.2009 17:09 |
koldweather123 wrote: I'm not sure about the power thing to be honest, his earlier concerts don't seem to be powerful if you compare them to most of the 80s concerts. His voice did get stronger in that respect but as others have said he loses his delicate tone to his voice. I really enjoy the Kopenhagen 1978 show (best Spread your wings till the crazy tour) The Crazy tour is probably Freddie's best overall and its amazing to watch Freddie getting ever more daring with those high notes during the Newcastle 4th show to the point where by Now I'm here he was going pretty much hitting every single high note. Most of the 1980 shows are amazing, the first leg of the South America tour is IMO the most under rated tour, he has some stunning shows there, the highlighting being the C5 Freddie hits in WATC. The 82 European tour is divided into 2 really, the first half wasn't too stunning but from about Frankfurt onwards his voice became stunning again. The 84 tour saw his voice become powerful but he suffered, possibly because of a rather tight tour list. The highlight of 1985 has to be the first two shows from the Japan leg where his voice seems to be very open, its like the high notes aren't any real effort and there is no strain, almost completely in contrast to the magic tour. Saying that the first 7 dates or so of the Magic tour are great, and indeed Stockholm and Leiden are up there with some of his best 80s shows. You explained it perfectly, I think I know you from Youtube. lol |
Gregsynth 29.10.2009 17:22 |
Yara wrote:Zebonka's Tiny Ding-a-ling wrote: Hi, I tend to listen to the same eras when listening to bootlegs.... mostly '82, '84, mainly due to the tone and power of Freddie's voice. Last night I couldn't sleep so started listening to random '80s gigs and then working back. I really under estimated the power in Freddie's voice during this period. It really did seem to hit a peak, with a mixture of power and confidence at trying the higher notes. I think i was always swayed to 82, due to mainly those opening lines of STL and the power he put behind them... wonderful stuff. But now I'm not sure. I'm no singer, but I love karaoke, and I find that at the age of 30, my voice is more powerful now than it was even a couple years back (but still ghastly mind you). Are there any singers out there that can explain if Freddie's voice just changed as he aged or was it much more technical? Which era do folk here prefer?I like it all, up until the magic tour and his solo works, regardless of the shape of his voice and the notes he managed to reach. I liked the sound of his voice, quite addictive, he had a gorgeous timber, and I always appreciated the musical cleverness behind his singing - he was able to create, innovate on spot, live, and it was very rare for him to go out of tune, very rare. Now, the shape of his voice never seemed that good to me live: he started off with a cracking, sometimes all too mannered and affected voice; then, his voice faded out for some time; about the end of 1979, his voice began to sound more powerful but at the expense of any delicacy and usually at the expense of the tempo of many songs. I think there's too much oversinging between 1980-1982. He reached an interesing balance in the gigs in the very end of 1979, but many songs sounded dull or too hasty. But he sounded overall very good in the News of The World Tour, perhaps his best live performances come from there, in my opinion. So the answer would be: News of The World Tour, especially the gigs in Kopenhagen, Holland or even at Earls Court, for that matter, or in Houston. Came the Works and Magic Tours, his voice started to decline again and fade away, and then he ended up sounding really terrible, very strident and unpleasant, but then he was already quite ill. I like it all, but not really because of the shape of his voice, but more because of his cleverness and his way of interpreting the songs live, sometimes re-creating them and adding in excitement what it lost in shape. I loved his choice of notes and his uncanny hability to stay in tune even during the most tortuous and difficult verses. There are five songs in which I think the shape of his voice really made the song happen: Action This Day, Staying Power, Another One Bites the Dust, Hammer to Fall and Dragon Attack. These songs were absolutely devoid of purpose or excitement if his voice was in bad shape, so, in this regard, yes, 1980-1982 would be a good period. At the same time, he could be absolutely wasted and sing Somebody to Love, We Are The Champions, BoRhap, Tie Your Mother Down, Spread Your Wings and even It's a Hard Life just wonderfully. Freddie OVERSINGING?! LMFAO! You got him confused with Mariah Carey! |
Dusta 01.11.2009 21:57 |
I think Freddie definitely had some bad years, vocally, due to extensive touring and smoking. Being a former smoker myself, I can tell you that it is difficult to sing any sort of high note without a cracking voice...even a single line can push me into a coughing fit.[img=/images/smiley/msn/angry_smile.gif][/img] And as far as the touring: I was fortunate enough to see many of the Great Bands of that era live, and, I can tell you that touring took its toll on all of the singers of each band. With every band I saw, I found myself disappointed with the singing. That is why I always marvel at hearing, "Well, Freddie's voice cracked during...." from someone. I wonder if the folks being so critical of Freddie's every note have ever listened to an entire Who concert, live, or, seen Journey live, or Led Zep...touring took its toll on all of those singers to one degree or another. I recall seeing Heart live, and, being absolutel astounded at how poor the vocal performance was. Roger Daltrey could hardly be heard over his own band, and I could hardly believe the Led Zeppelin I heard live was the same band whose albums played on my turn tables. There are many more. I listed only a few examples to illustrate how hard it seems folks are on Freddie's vocals. Truthfully, listening to many of Queen's live shows, now(something I was unable to do until recently, due to the arrival of Youtube!), I am really amazed Freddie made it through so many of his live performances without....well...failing to deliver, given his smoking and the touring.. I recently heard a live performance of In My Defence which was very intrigueing. It was on youtube, and, the audio is very poor, howevever, one can clearly hear Freddie sounding relaxed, vocally, and, very very strong. I wish the audio was better, because his performance sounded absolutely wonderful. I've no idea what sort of occasion it was that he performed that song live(in 1988?), but, clearly, his lack of touring went a long way toward restoring his beautiful voice. Holy Smokes. I only brought this up because it seems there are very few live recordings of Freddie during that time(that I am aware of) and I'd no idea that version of In My Defence even existed. Out of the loop? That's me. |
maxpower 02.11.2009 07:54 |
It was the live Time show with Cliff Richard sadly no decent evidence is in the public domain I believe Cliff's record people have it or maybe its Dave Clark, it was 14th April 1988 Dominican Theatre (if my memory still serves me correctly) where he did Born To Rock & Roll, In My Defence, It's In Every One Of Us, (with Cliff) & Time ... it's a shame its not out officially as Freddie never recorded Born To Rock & Roll on the soundtrack Cliff did it |
4 x Vision 02.11.2009 08:31 |
maxpower wrote: It was the live Time show with Cliff Richard sadly no decent evidence is in the public domain I believe Cliff's record people have it or maybe its Dave Clark, it was 14th April 1988 Dominican Theatre (if my memory still serves me correctly) where he did Born To Rock & Roll, In My Defence, It's In Every One Of Us, (with Cliff) & Time ... it's a shame its not out officially as Freddie never recorded Born To Rock & Roll on the soundtrack Cliff did itOff Topic : Isn't there a fake In My Defence from this concert kicking around? And in contrast, is there a REAL version (and possible link)? I have it on a bootleg I got many moons agao... Absolute Rarities (I think???... a lot of pish on it tbh). |
john bodega 02.11.2009 08:49 |
There is a proper In My Defence floating around somewhere, it's dropped in key somewhat but for the end of the song Freddie goes with some high melodies anyway. He really was in splendid voice for that gig. Off topic - judging by your old username, you must've had an axe to grind back when the thread got started. Hahaha! |
4 x Vision 02.11.2009 12:49 |
Ha Ha... as the song says... "those days are all gone now" |
Dusta 02.11.2009 23:24 |
What a shame(for me) that there isn't a better quality recording. What I heard was on youtube, and, whomever was taping was seated in the audience, so, there was a great deal of audience din to contend with.
maxpower wrote: It was the live Time show with Cliff Richard sadly no decent evidence is in the public domain I believe Cliff's record people have it or maybe its Dave Clark, it was 14th April 1988 Dominican Theatre (if my memory still serves me correctly) where he did Born To Rock & Roll, In My Defence, It's In Every One Of Us, (with Cliff) & Time ... it's a shame its not out officially as Freddie never recorded Born To Rock & Roll on the soundtrack Cliff did it |