| P-Staker 10.03.2009 08:54 |
It seems the only kind of thread to get attention here is a "vs" thread. Very well, this is a thread to compare Freddie to Paul. 1. Natural voice: Paul's voice is great for hard, meaty blues, but falls somewhat flat of Freddie's beautiful, rich tenor. I'd give this to Freddie. 2. Technique While Freddie's natural talent made many assume he was a schooled opera singer, the truth is he was better at letting go than controling his performance. He couldn't always hit his trademark falsetto, as heard on Who Wants To Live Forever from Live at Wembley. Paul's range is modest, but he's a master of control over pitch, shape and time. Just listen to his We Will Rock You from ROTC - he's in time like a metronome - or the beautifully hit falsetto on Voodoo. Points go to Paul. 3. Interpretation Freddie was, well, always Freddie. While this is fine with Queen fans, Paul's ability to find a deep meaning to every song and shape his delivery to best fit the meaning is uncanny. Sometimes I think of him as a "musical actor." This category is won by Paul, hands down. 4. Showmanship Paul is a fine charismatic singer, but frankly, when it's time to go wild, nobody compares to Freddie at full blast. Watching Freddie is watching pure energy unleashed, and he wins this category. 5. Songwriting Frankly, Paul's writing comes up to standard blues rock, while Freddie was pushing the limits of pop music more than anyone else, including Lennon. BUT, that was only with Queen - left to his own devices, Freddie slided into cheesy pop and disco. I think any real rocker would give points to Paul here, and I'm no different. 6. Solo Career Despite his massive popularity, Freddie never took off outside Queen, while Paul has had a successful solo career. This is a no-brainer; Paul clearly wins. 7. Influence Freddie, with Queen, broke more new ground than Paul. Great and diverse bands, some of which bear no resemblance to Queen (Dream Theater, Radiohead) cite Queen as their influence. I'm giving this one to Freddie. 8. Popularity Freddie was massive over the world, but never really conquered USA, which fell for Paul. I'm letting this one slip undecided. 9. Positive Message Freddie lost the battle - and his life - to his vices; Paul broke free from drugs, fixed himself, and returned triumphantly. I'm tempted to give this one to Paul. However, Freddie sent an important message. He was a homosexual and an Asian minority who was an equal member of a British rock band. He didn't preach equality - he LIVED it. For this, a point goes to him. 10. Rock n Roll Lifestyle This is a no-brainer. Paul has always been the rock n roll man, sweaty, macho, setting hotel rooms on fire, playing with the cream of the guitarists crop including Page, Townsend, Beck, Gilmour... Freddie was campy and loved pop. Paul wins hands down. Surprisingly, Freddie loses 4:6 to Paul! Of course, numbers alone don't tell the whole story. This little analysis showed us that Freddie had a beautiful voice, who, together with other members of Queen, broke new ground, became a star in the face of prejudice and had a profound influence on the music. Paul is a technically superior singer who stayed true to rock n roll, achieved success on his own, and left an unique imprint on classic rock tunes. |
| victor fleitas 10.03.2009 09:39 |
I agree with all excep the 3rd point... freddie is better when it comes to interpretate a song... paul exagerate on the feeling he gives to the song... and that is truly annoying... for example, on i want it all, if you extract the voice of paul, and hear it a capella, it will be like if he is singing a love song... he always put some things on his voice to give more feeling, that is nice, but he do it all the time,,, and ruin the song... Sorry for my english... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.03.2009 09:51 |
I have to whole heartedly disagree with "hands down to Paul" for interpretation. Freddie put emotion into every line, IMO. While passionate, it was rarely overdone. If you didn't know what a song meant, you could tell by Freddie's vocal interpretation what HE believed it to mean. Paul reminds me of Kevin Costner... while a good actor, he's seems the same in every part. As for popularity in the states - ask almost anyone and they'll know the names - Bad Company, Queen and Freddie Mercury. Ask again and only half will know "Paul Rodgers". Freddie wins this one hands down. So... looks like it's been reversed 6:4 - Freddie. lol. |
| thequeen 10.03.2009 09:57 |
Yes Freddie is the loser ....of course .... P Staker has "discovered" this and he's just telling us now Thank you so much ....we Queen-fans would've never discovered this on our own .... MY GREAT THANKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIN |
| peterkoz1 10.03.2009 11:02 |
Interesting and well worth a discussion so here goes: I will be frankly honest and say i knew of the band Free for 1 song and Bad Company for again 1 song prior to Paul joining QPR however i had never heard of Paul Rodgers !! I do not believe the two are comparable as they are completely different in style but apart from possibly positive image !! Fred would win 9 - 1 in my humble opinion. Come on could Paul have pulled of Live Aid influence the rich to part with there cash , somehow i think not ! Queen stood against every new generation of band and style that came around and stayed on top , sadly Paul R was left behind in the 70's , his influence All right now , somehow i can not see Freddie's Bo Rhap advertising chewing gum. |
| dragon-fly 10.03.2009 11:39 |
1 Natural voice (Freddie- more versatile and rich voice, very talented) 2 Technique (Freddie, Paul seems a bit limited and the same) 3 Iterpretation (definitely Freddie!) 4 Showmanship (again Freddie) 5 Songwriting (undecidedly, I would split it) 6 Solo career (Paul- impresive collaborations) 7 Influence (Freddie affected more people I suppose) 8 Popularity (undecidedly, but as I noticed more peole know the name F.Mercury than P.Rogers) 9 Possitive massege (undecidedly) 10 Rock n Roll life style- who gives points for this? Has it really any relation or importance? I think 10 question should be "connection with audience", what seems for me much more important. And this one goes to Freddie as well |
| queenside 10.03.2009 12:07 |
i love PR but i think he only wins in solo career. rock and roll lifestyle? i'd say definitely freddie, that is what ultimately killed him. or does all that gay scene and partying isn't considered to be rnr lifestyle? |
| Crisstti 10.03.2009 12:10 |
P-Staker wrote: It seems the only kind of thread to get attention here is a "vs" thread. Very well, this is a thread to compare Freddie to Paul. 1. Natural voice: Paul's voice is great for hard, meaty blues, but falls somewhat flat of Freddie's beautiful, rich tenor. I'd give this to Freddie. 2. Technique While Freddie's natural talent made many assume he was a schooled opera singer, the truth is he was better at letting go than controling his performance. He couldn't always hit his trademark falsetto, as heard on Who Wants To Live Forever from Live at Wembley. Paul's range is modest, but he's a master of control over pitch, shape and time. Just listen to his We Will Rock You from ROTC - he's in time like a metronome - or the beautifully hit falsetto on Voodoo. Points go to Paul. 3. Interpretation Freddie was, well, always Freddie. While this is fine with Queen fans, Paul's ability to find a deep meaning to every song and shape his delivery to best fit the meaning is uncanny. Sometimes I think of him as a "musical actor." This category is won by Paul, hands down. 4. Showmanship Paul is a fine charismatic singer, but frankly, when it's time to go wild, nobody compares to Freddie at full blast. Watching Freddie is watching pure energy unleashed, and he wins this category. 5. Songwriting Frankly, Paul's writing comes up to standard blues rock, while Freddie was pushing the limits of pop music more than anyone else, including Lennon. BUT, that was only with Queen - left to his own devices, Freddie slided into cheesy pop and disco. I think any real rocker would give points to Paul here, and I'm no different. 6. Solo Career Despite his massive popularity, Freddie never took off outside Queen, while Paul has had a successful solo career. This is a no-brainer; Paul clearly wins. 7. Influence Freddie, with Queen, broke more new ground than Paul. Great and diverse bands, some of which bear no resemblance to Queen (Dream Theater, Radiohead) cite Queen as their influence. I'm giving this one to Freddie. 8. Popularity Freddie was massive over the world, but never really conquered USA, which fell for Paul. I'm letting this one slip undecided. 9. Positive Message Freddie lost the battle - and his life - to his vices; Paul broke free from drugs, fixed himself, and returned triumphantly. I'm tempted to give this one to Paul. However, Freddie sent an important message. He was a homosexual and an Asian minority who was an equal member of a British rock band. He didn't preach equality - he LIVED it. For this, a point goes to him. 10. Rock n Roll Lifestyle This is a no-brainer. Paul has always been the rock n roll man, sweaty, macho, setting hotel rooms on fire, playing with the cream of the guitarists crop including Page, Townsend, Beck, Gilmour... Freddie was campy and loved pop. Paul wins hands down. Surprisingly, Freddie loses 4:6 to Paul! Of course, numbers alone don't tell the whole story. This little analysis showed us that Freddie had a beautiful voice, who, together with other members of Queen, broke new ground, became a star in the face of prejudice and had a profound influence on the music. Paul is a technically superior singer who stayed true to rock n roll, achieved success on his own, and left an unique imprint on classic rock tunes. OK, I have a problem with points 5,6, 8 and 9. 5. Songwriting Frankly, Paul's writing comes up to standard blues rock, while Freddie was pushing the limits of pop music more than anyone else, including Lennon. BUT, that was only with Queen - left to his own devices, Freddie slided into cheesy pop and disco. I think any real rocker would give points to Paul here, and I'm no different. How is it that you seem to consider only Freddie's solo career for this?. You have to consider their whole songwriting careers. Plus, it's only in one solo album that Freddie explored disco. The another one was Barcelona. 6. Solo Career Despite his massive popularity, Freddie never took off outside Queen, while Paul has had a successful solo career. This is a no-brainer; Paul clearly wins. I'm not sure if we should consider this, since Freddie didn't have much of a solo career, he nerver really pursued it, it was a side thing (so it's no surprise it never "took off", though many of his solo songs are actually quite well known...). I mean, Freddie loses because Queen never broke up?. 8. Popularity Freddie was massive over the world, but never really conquered USA, which fell for Paul. I'm letting this one slip undecided. I'm curious, why is it that "the world" and "the US" seem to have the same weight here...?. I mean, it's THE WORLD vs one country in it. I'm guessing you're from the US. Queen are far more popular. EVERYONE (including in the US) know who Queen and Freddie Mercury are. How many people know who Paul Rodgers is?. I have nothing against him, but before I became a Queen fan I had never heard of him. I had certainly heard of Queen and Freddie Mercury. And think about the popularity of songs, not just of names. Everyone knows Bohemian Rhapsody, We Will Rock You, We Are the Champions, and quite many other Queen songs (including in the US). 9. Positive Message Freddie lost the battle - and his life - to his vices; Paul broke free from drugs, fixed himself, and returned triumphantly. I'm tempted to give this one to Paul. However, Freddie sent an important message. He was a homosexual and an Asian minority who was an equal member of a British rock band. He didn't preach equality - he LIVED it. For this, a point goes to him. I just have a problem with saying that Freddie got HIV because of some "vice". About the rest, I agree. I agree with whoever said point 10 doesn't make much sense at all... |
| queenfanbg 10.03.2009 13:05 |
pointless...its like to compare Mercedes and Volkswagen |
| pittrek 10.03.2009 14:57 |
P-Staker wrote: It seems the only kind of thread to get attention here is a "vs" thread. Very well, this is a thread to compare Freddie to Paul. 1. Natural voice: Paul's voice is great for hard, meaty blues, but falls somewhat flat of Freddie's beautiful, rich tenor. I'd give this to Freddie.I don't quite understand how can you compare 2 different singers and get a "winner" . 2. Technique While Freddie's natural talent made many assume he was a schooled opera singer, the truth is he was better at letting go than controling his performance. He couldn't always hit his trademark falsetto, as heard on Who Wants To Live Forever from Live at Wembley. Paul's range is modest, but he's a master of control over pitch, shape and time. Just listen to his We Will Rock You from ROTC - he's in time like a metronome - or the beautifully hit falsetto on Voodoo. Points go to Paul.Well I agree that Paul is technically a better singer, but I still prefer Freddie. Simply because I get a feeling that Paul is actually a robot programmed to give the "standard performance" every day. Freddie was the main entertainer, the lead singer, the big showman ..., Paul is "only" a singer, 3. Interpretation Freddie was, well, always Freddie. While this is fine with Queen fans, Paul's ability to find a deep meaning to every song and shape his delivery to best fit the meaning is uncanny. Sometimes I think of him as a "musical actor." This category is won by Paul, hands down.Actually this "Paul's ability to find a deep meening to every song" is pretty annoying. He always re-works the Queen classics, so for me, Freddie is the winner. 4. Showmanship Paul is a fine charismatic singer, but frankly, when it's time to go wild, nobody compares to Freddie at full blast. Watching Freddie is watching pure energy unleashed, and he wins this category.Fully agree. 5. Songwriting Frankly, Paul's writing comes up to standard blues rock, while Freddie was pushing the limits of pop music more than anyone else, including Lennon. BUT, that was only with Queen - left to his own devices, Freddie slided into cheesy pop and disco. I think any real rocker would give points to Paul here, and I'm no different.So it means I'm a "real rocker" :) As I wrote before, I love Freddie's stuff from the seventies, but he wrote too "poppy" songs in the 80's, so probably Paul wins this one. At least his lyrics is better then Freddie's 80's stuff 6. Solo Career Despite his massive popularity, Freddie never took off outside Queen, while Paul has had a successful solo career. This is a no-brainer; Paul clearly wins.Unfortunately you're right. 7. Influence Freddie, with Queen, broke more new ground than Paul. Great and diverse bands, some of which bear no resemblance to Queen (Dream Theater, Radiohead) cite Queen as their influence. I'm giving this one to Freddie.Agree/ 8. Popularity Freddie was massive over the world, but never really conquered USA, which fell for Paul. I'm letting this one slip undecided.Isn't it illogical to compare "the world" with the USA ? 9. Positive Message Freddie lost the battle - and his life - to his vices; Paul broke free from drugs, fixed himself, and returned triumphantly. I'm tempted to give this one to Paul. However, Freddie sent an important message. He was a homosexual and an Asian minority who was an equal member of a British rock band. He didn't preach equality - he LIVED it. For this, a point goes to him.Well I agree but wasn't he technically bisexual ? 10. Rock n Roll Lifestyle This is a no-brainer. Paul has always been the rock n roll man, sweaty, macho, setting hotel rooms on fire, playing with the cream of the guitarists crop including Page, Townsend, Beck, Gilmour... Freddie was campy and loved pop. Paul wins hands down.Again agree Surprisingly, Freddie loses 4:6 to Paul! Of course, numbers alone don't tell the whole story. This little analysis showed us that Freddie had a beautiful voice, who, together with other members of Queen, broke new ground, became a star in the face of prejudice and had a profound influence on the music. Paul is a technically superior singer who stayed true to rock n roll, achieved success on his own, and left an unique imprint on classic rock tunes. |
| pittrek 10.03.2009 14:58 |
queenfanbg wrote: pointless...its like to compare Mercedes and Volkswagen definitely. They're 2 completely different singers. Both are great, but different |
| redspecialusa 10.03.2009 16:24 |
They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit! |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 10.03.2009 17:24 |
redspecialusa wrote: They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit! Queen fans from the older generation probably won't ever give him a break. That's when Queen was Queen IMO. Maybe bullshit to you but I"ll stay on Freddie's side of the fence....thank you! |
| redspecialusa 10.03.2009 18:51 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:redspecialusa wrote: They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit!Queen fans from the older generation probably won't ever give him a break. That's when Queen was Queen IMO. Maybe bullshit to you but I"ll stay on Freddie's side of the fence....thank you! Speak for yourself, I've talked to Queen fans from your generation that love what Paul is doing in the new group w/ Brian & Roger, reinterpreting Queen's back catalog in the process. The difference (IMO) between you and them? They've accepted Freddie's death, & gotten over it; and want Brian & Roger to MOVE ON. |
| paulosham 10.03.2009 19:07 |
Daddy or Chips? |
| Sebastian 10.03.2009 22:10 |
Songwriting doesn't count when you're comparing two singers. It does, though, when you're comparing to musicians. As a musician, I think Fred was better; as a lead singer, I think Paul's one of the few who can top him. |
| jadedlady 10.03.2009 23:05 |
Very interesting to read what the posters are saying in this thread, some of which I had not thought about before. [img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] |
| Band Forever 11.03.2009 03:48 |
As the remaining members of the group stated so many times past present and in the future no one can replace Freddie. As for your remark about technique I think you do Freddie a big disservice, commentators report he had a 5 octave range, although I am not a fan of falsetto not just Freddie's but everybody elses too. I sometimes think the gay thing is still quite a hang up for some of the public, if he had been straight we would only talking about their wonderful music and his brilliant singing, as for Paul Rodgers, Queen and their music has brought him and his music into the public eye, I for one think he is okish as a rock singer that huskiness grates me though, but could he do ballads, opera, rock funk, and all the other genres Queen examined? I think not ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls Freddie like the rest of the band and their talent only visits us once in a lifetime, so to spend time on these debates is pointless, Queen the 4 pc combo, peops remain incomparable within Rock 'n' Roll. |
| YourValentine 11.03.2009 04:39 |
P-Staker wrote:
9. Positive Message
Freddie lost the battle - and his life - to his vices; Paul broke free from drugs, fixed himself, and returned triumphantly. I'm tempted to give this one to Paul.
Freddie did not die from cocaine, he died from a retro virus. It's really judgamental to say he lost his life to his "vices" - what is that supposed to be? Is being gay a "vice" or is having multiple sex partners a "vice"? AIDS is a tragedy for all people, it does not dicriminate between gays and heterosexuals and one contact to an infected partner can be enough to catch HIV - gay or hetero. Would Freddie have been a role model if he had been heterosexual because he stopped cocaine and quit smoking? Maybe promiscuity would have been a "Rock'n Roll Lifestyle" in your book. It's laughable to judge the lives of two people in such two superficial statements. And no pittrek , Freddie was not "technically" bisexual, he was gay. I know you don't mean it but denying the fact that he was gay is not respecting his sexual preference. Only very few people are actually bisexual, most of us prefer one gender and come to terms with our sexual preference at some point in our lives. Elton John was even married to a woman but he is gay, not bisexual. It was the intolerance in the 20th century society that made it so hard for gay people to come out early and be open about being gay. |
| mrbadguy86 11.03.2009 05:59 |
Freddie had a much more successfull solo-career than Rodger... havent even heard of him in Norway before he played with May and Taylor! Name some of Rodgers solohits please? Mercurys solohits include; Living On my Own(huge hit), Barcelona and The Great Pretender.. and all of them was at top 5 on the lists.. so I dont understand you people? Just because it wasnt rock? come on! As Mercury said it; People who only stay in one genre is ridiculous.. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 11.03.2009 08:44 |
redspecialusa wrote:«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:Speak for yourself, I've talked to Queen fans from your generation that love what Paul is doing in the new group w/ Brian & Roger, reinterpreting Queen's back catalog in the process. The difference (IMO) between you and them? They've accepted Freddie's death, & gotten over it; and want Brian & Roger to MOVE ON.redspecialusa wrote: They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit!Queen fans from the older generation probably won't ever give him a break. That's when Queen was Queen IMO. Maybe bullshit to you but I"ll stay on Freddie's side of the fence....thank you! (rolls eyes) Like I said "MY OPINION" Just like fans like you who can't accept the fact that fans like myself feel this way. I've accepted Freddie's death. Paul Rodgers Sucks!! That's why their comeback has been a world-wide phenomenon and all the new songs have topped the charts....ummm ya right! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.03.2009 09:46 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:redspecialusa wrote:(rolls eyes) Like I said "MY OPINION" Just like fans like you who can't accept the fact that fans like myself feel this way. I've accepted Freddie's death. Paul Rodgers Sucks!! That's why their comeback has been a world-wide phenomenon and all the new songs have topped the charts....ummm ya right!«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:Speak for yourself, I've talked to Queen fans from your generation that love what Paul is doing in the new group w/ Brian & Roger, reinterpreting Queen's back catalog in the process. The difference (IMO) between you and them? They've accepted Freddie's death, & gotten over it; and want Brian & Roger to MOVE ON.redspecialusa wrote: They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit!Queen fans from the older generation probably won't ever give him a break. That's when Queen was Queen IMO. Maybe bullshit to you but I"ll stay on Freddie's side of the fence....thank you! I'm from that same 'older generation', dang it. Personally, I don't think Paul Rodgers sucks, I just don't like him as part of Queen. I have every Queen album - LPs, cassettes and CD's - and only one Bad Company 45. I was never a Paul Rodgers fan but I never hated him. I'm a Queen fan, a Freddie Mercury fan. Still enjoying Freddie's sound does not make me non-accepting of his death. It makes his music timeless. But this topic isn't about bashing Paul. It's about stating the pros and cons of Freddie and Paul the way we see them. These are opinions, nothing more. They won't change anything. And getting hot about them is pointless and defeating. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 11.03.2009 12:45 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:I'm from that same 'older generation', dang it. Personally, I don't think Paul Rodgers sucks, I just don't like him as part of Queen. I have every Queen album - LPs, cassettes and CD's - and only one Bad Company 45. I was never a Paul Rodgers fan but I never hated him. I'm a Queen fan, a Freddie Mercury fan. Still enjoying Freddie's sound does not make me non-accepting of his death. It makes his music timeless. But this topic isn't about bashing Paul. It's about stating the pros and cons of Freddie and Paul the way we see them. These are opinions, nothing more. They won't change anything. And getting hot about them is pointless and defeating.redspecialusa wrote:(rolls eyes) Like I said "MY OPINION" Just like fans like you who can't accept the fact that fans like myself feel this way. I've accepted Freddie's death. Paul Rodgers Sucks!! That's why their comeback has been a world-wide phenomenon and all the new songs have topped the charts....ummm ya right!«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote:Speak for yourself, I've talked to Queen fans from your generation that love what Paul is doing in the new group w/ Brian & Roger, reinterpreting Queen's back catalog in the process. The difference (IMO) between you and them? They've accepted Freddie's death, & gotten over it; and want Brian & Roger to MOVE ON.redspecialusa wrote: They're both amongst the greatest Rock singers EVER. They are too different to be compared. It's not fair to either of them. Especially Paul, a lot of Queen fans that have a 'Fred-fetish' don't seem to give Paul a fucking break, & frankly it's bullshit!Queen fans from the older generation probably won't ever give him a break. That's when Queen was Queen IMO. Maybe bullshit to you but I"ll stay on Freddie's side of the fence....thank you! Hate him?? I never said I hate him. I agree with you...he should of never been part of Queen. That's why I said what I said, because he "sucks" at it! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.03.2009 13:00 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: Hate him?? I never said I hate him. I agree with you...he should of never been part of Queen. That's why I said what I said, because he "sucks" at it! Sorry... didn't mean to imply that you did. I was speaking for myself, just saying that it isn't all black and white for me. I'm not what I'd call a Paul Rodgers fan so to have him in the 'queen' lineup is bizarre to me. I don't resent anyone for it - not Brian, Roger, or Queen fans who like it. I simply don't enjoy it. Or buy it. 'tis all. |
| lalaalalaa 11.03.2009 18:15 |
I fail to see how writing disco songs is considered bad songwriting. If it was bad disco songs then maybe but they were pretty darn good disco songs. ;) Freddie did get some popularity in the U.S, just not as much when you compare to South America. He was and still is underrated in North America. Not too sure about Canada though :) |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 11.03.2009 21:49 |
lalaalalaa wrote: I fail to see how writing disco songs is considered bad songwriting. If it was bad disco songs then maybe but they were pretty darn good disco songs. ;) Freddie did get some popularity in the U.S, just not as much when you compare to South America. He was and still is underrated in North America. Not too sure about Canada though :) Are you kidding....Canada loves Queen!! I drove three hours to get to Toronto to see this play!!! It was well worth it!!! Winner of the 2007 Dora Award-winner for Best Musical, the Toronto production of We Will Rock You has been an audience favourite, receiving standing ovations at each and every performance.Originally scheduled to play seven weeks, the show was quickly extended again and again.We Will Rock You played 61 weeks at the Canon Theatre, was seen by more than 700,000 people, generated an estimated economic spin-off to the city of $180 million and provided employment to more than 300 Canadian artists, technicians and theatre support staff. Rock on!! |
| demonwolf 11.03.2009 22:09 |
Paul is a more consistent and reliable live singer. He's not the frontman Freddie was, and he has a different voice, but in terms of pure singing in a live situation... Paul is the better of the two. He goes for notes Freddie never even attempted live... at 59 years old! But Freddie wasn't about the perfect vocal performance, it was a show so... A bit pointless to compare them, really, both extremely gifted and talented singers. |
| mike hunt 12.03.2009 11:59 |
It's simple retards, freddie was a better vocalist for queen. Paul was a better vocalist for free and bad company, but IMO, Freddie was way more creative with his voice, and sang way more styles than paul. also more Original and praised. Paul did have more control over his live voice, but sings every song the same, while freddie sang a mixture of different styles, an example is "love of my life" then singing "sheer heart attack" Don't get insulted paul fans, it's just an opinion, or you could go back to the paul rodgers fan club where you belong. |
| thequeen 12.03.2009 12:07 |
Paul Rodgers and the word "same" or "boring" go together very well! This was NEVER the case with Freddie .....Paul Rodgers should've known better . Not to mention Brian & Roger [img=/images/smiley/msn/angry_smile.gif][/img] |
| mike hunt 12.03.2009 12:18 |
very boring is paul |
| April 12.03.2009 17:36 |
Paul is very good, wonderful singer. But...Freddie is incomparable, the best of the best. Who can beat him? Noone!!! Can you name one? Well? |
| A_WintersTale 13.03.2009 08:52 |
Freddie's voice is a baritone one, darling! |
| A_WintersTale 13.03.2009 08:53 |
Oh, plus that Freddie does not definitely need YOU to "give him" whatsoever! |
| Yara 13.03.2009 23:03 |
My humble opinion (there are personal musical reasons why I listed these ones) 1. Natural Voice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnpWZ5b8ls 2. Technique http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I2LQakuDDo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynFqwwrVOUA By the way: Freddie Mercury was voted 18 in Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Singers of All Time List. Paul Rodgers was voted 55. If you take a look at who voted there, it's quite impressive, some very good or even exceptionally talented musicians, really. From all styles, from Geddy Lee to Alicia Keys. 3. Interpretation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiiLN4Xunik (think about it...) 4. Showmanship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADGMkeU8WUw (I mean...) 5. Songwriting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FmN08deu4 6. Solo Career http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJo6YoAMeF0 (just to take an example) 7. Influence Those who have expressed it openly and unashamedly: Axl Rose, Seal, Celine Dion...Franz Ferdinand and...Kate Perry. I don't know if that goes for or against Freddie, but the people up there are from different generations and have sold quite a lot of recordings, so... :)) 8. Popularity I have no idea. Goes without saying that Freddie is much more popular in Latin America, but I admit that making it in the U.S should be one of the main criteria, for various reasons. I'd go for Paul Rodgers here, he's still much more appreciated in the U.S, I guess. 9. Positive Message Paul Rodgers, hands down. He's alive. :-) And Freddie's positive message is his music only, because as for the other aspects...he was politically alienated, hedonistic, promiscuous, very tied to material things up until the end of his life, egomaniac even according to friends, he proverbially defined himself as a "musical prostitute", I guess this one has to go to Paul Rodgers. It's hard to be more politically incorrect than Freddie, if you know what I mean... 10. Rock n Roll Lifestyle Paul Rodgers. --- Cheers! |
| catqueen 17.03.2009 12:48 |
It could be seen as a good thing about Paul is that he is different from Freddie. Hearing someone try to 'be' Freddie would have been much worse (in my v humble opinion). I'm not a blues fan, and was a bit dissapointed with the album, although some of the songs are great, but live I think I'd rather hear Paul being himself and performing in his way with all his heart then hear someone trying and failing to imitate Freddie. The fact that Paul is openly different and not trying to copy Freddie exactly gives him the freedom to perform Queen songs well and put meaning into them, allowing him to interpret them his own way. Someone just solely trying to reproduce a sound would compromise the music and could (in my even more humble opinion!) almost take the meaning out of them. Yikes, I'd better finish, i'm beginning to sound deranged, even to myself! Hope you know what I'm trying to say though! |
| Crisstti 17.03.2009 14:42 |
Yara wrote: 8. Popularity I have no idea. Goes without saying that Freddie is much more popular in Latin America, but I admit that making it in the U.S should be one of the main criteria, for various reasons. I'd go for Paul Rodgers here, he's still much more appreciated in the U.S, I guess. 9. Positive Message Paul Rodgers, hands down. He's alive. :-) And Freddie's positive message is his music only, because as for the other aspects...he was politically alienated, hedonistic, promiscuous, very tied to material things up until the end of his life, egomaniac even according to friends, he proverbially defined himself as a "musical prostitute", I guess this one has to go to Paul Rodgers. It's hard to be more politically incorrect than Freddie, if you know what I mean... 10. Rock n Roll Lifestyle Paul Rodgers. --- Cheers! 8. I think you'd have to list those reasons... I don't see how the US would be more relevant than the UK, and it's arguable that it should be more relevant than all of Latin Amercia... all Europe, Asia... Queen (and Freddie MErcury) are clearly more famous in the world... so I don't see how could Freddie not "win" in this one. 9. ¿Politically "alienated"?, what do you mean?. And I have to say I have a problem with the assumption that his promiscuity is somehow a character flaw or something... plus, the comment about Paul Rodgers being alive... seems like you're saying that having died of AIDS is something to be hold against him. That "musical prostitute" thing is suppossed to be a joke, I guess... |
| AP-Racing 17.03.2009 17:33 |
Maybe compare Mercury and Plant? And watching how Robert win? :) |
| emma246000 21.03.2009 13:59 |
pittrek wrote:queenfanbg wrote: pointless...its like to compare Mercedes and Volkswagendefinitely. They're 2 completely different singers. Both are great, but different It depends on who is the Mercedes and who is the Volkswagen! LOL! |
| beautifulsoup 21.03.2009 16:10 |
AP-Racing wrote: Maybe compare Mercury and Plant? And watching how Robert win? :) Different topic. |
| Amazon 23.03.2009 06:27 |
I'm going to have a go at this myself. 1)Natural voice- Freddie without a doubt. His voice IMO is simply gorgeous. 2)Technique- I'm not an expert on the technical side of singing, so I'll leave this one open. 3)Iterpretation- This is purely subjective, however I'll go for Freddie. I don't agree that he was always the same. I loved the way he seemed to truly BELIEVE everything he sang. His emotions were beautiful and often heartwrenching. I don't think that Paul comes close. 4)Showmanship- Freddie, although I've never seen him live. 5) Songwriting- Freddie's solo stuff versus Paul? Paul. Freddie's Queen work versus Paul? Freddie. I'm going for Freddie as IMO he was, in regards to his Queen stuff, a songwriting genius who was as good as Dylan, Cohen, Lennon,McCartney etc... and I think it's cheating not to include his Queen work 6) Solo career- Paul, of course, although I'm not a fan of Paul's solo work. 7) Influence- Freddie. Queen was alot more influential than Free or Bad Company, while Freddie was personally alot more influential than Paul. Numerous musicians have been influenced by Freddie, including Axl Rose and George Michael to name just two, while Paul just isn't as influential. 8) Popularity- Could go either way. Queen were enormously successful in the US as well, and were alot bigger worldwide, so I will say Queen, and therefore Freddie. 9) Possitive massege- Why is this relevant? Also, how do you define this? I will go for Freddie as I reject the idea that being gay or dying of AIDS sends a negative message. 10) Rock n Roll life style- Paul, although Queen did throw some great parties. 7 to 2 in favour of Freddie! |
| thequeen 23.03.2009 09:13 |
AP-Racing wrote: Maybe compare Mercury and Plant? And watching how Robert win? :) exactly ... where the fuck do some people even get the nerve from to compare 4 years of Paul Rodgers with the real Queen legacy ??? to make matters worse ....they decide to put THE crown on mr.Rodgers head wich itself I wouldn't have a problem with if it we're not Freddies crown but a fake "Toys R us"-one Freddie's legacy ...no, Queen and Freddie's legacy is tarnished,raped,abused,laughed at and pissed on ......And i am very very VERY Pissed off ........Thank you "Queen(+PR)fans" Bravo for walking over the dead body that is Freddie Mercury , well done ....must've been a pleasure and took a lot of your energy ...be proud , be.... YOU who/what you are ............ [img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_down.gif][/img] PEACE AND LOVE ....PEACE AND LOVE ! |