| Mr.Jingles 06.07.2005 11:11 |
On IMDB.COM it states that Freddie's vocal range is 3.5 octaves, while Mariah Carey's is 5. Jeff Buckley's official site states that his range is 4 octaves. Does anyone know the vocal range of other famous rock/pop stars. |
| teleport8 06.07.2005 19:24 |
When he sang BoRhap live, the range used there is just 1 octave from some A3 to a Bb4 (according to my keyboard). There are few songs that go further down (live). And from what I heard in the officially released live recordings, he reached the C5 (as in WATC, "keep on fighting") only at rare occasions such as Live Aid or the Live Killers album. I think it's more the mix of harmonics in the voice that make it special (and make other singers' voices annoying). Maybe somebody with better knowledge in this field can explain it. The range itself is perhaps not so terribly impressive. |
| teleport8 06.07.2005 19:28 |
sorry, I think it should read A2 to Bb3... It's past midnight here, not a good time to try this on the piano. |
| ches 07.07.2005 14:04 |
I read somewhere that his range was 3.5 Octaves Just found this website It's all about Freddie's voice link |
| Bobby_brown 07.07.2005 15:49 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: Mariah Carey 5? Someone needs his/her HEAD examined!Mariah Carey is in the guiness book of records, beacuse this year she has performed the American National anthem at an event and has reached the highest note in falseto ever recorded. They say that only dolfins can hit such notes. Take care |
| Smitty 07.07.2005 16:24 |
Are you Holland! F***Terrorists? |
| vanush 08.07.2005 04:29 |
There is also something called the whistle register.. Check this out from Wikipedia (Mariah Carey's voice info) * Voice type:Dramatic Coloratura Soprano * Highest notes: G#7 (Emotions at the 1991 MTV VMAs) * Lowest notes: A2, B2 (My All) * Vocal range: 5 octaves (A2-G#7) * Longest note: 20 seconds (Lead The Way) * Highest note in chest voice: G5 (Anytime You Need A Friend) BUT THIS GUY (Adam Lopez) has a vocal range of seven, link but freddie mercury will always have the best voice, its not his range, its just the naturally likable voice. |
| Fenderek 08.07.2005 05:53 |
Can someone tell me James LaBrie vocal range? |
| Bohardy 08.07.2005 07:02 |
For excellent info on Fred's voice and range, go here: link link The lowest and highest notes so far discovered for Fred are an F1 and a D5, giving him an absolute range of just over 3.5 octaves. EDIT: I swear that earlier post that mentions Andres' site wasn't there when I posted this... |
| Wundzun 08.07.2005 08:02 |
Rob Halford (Judas Priest) might have something like 4.5 octaves, IF that story about him hitting super-high soprano G5 at some gig in 1975 is true - but this is hard to believe. Highest note _I_ heard from him was C5. His falsetto screams are usually something like A4 or G4 (a bit lower than Roger Taylor on BoRhap).
BUT... i found out one more thing. We call those Roger Taylor's, Halford's or Gillan's super high notes "falsetto screams", but it actually isn't falsetto! Halford claimed he NEVER used falsetto!!! Listen, for example, to Freddie's falsetto, it sounds completely different...
Fenderek wrote: Can someone tell me James LaBrie vocal range?I read somewhere that his highest headvoiced note is F#4, so I'd give him 3 or maybe 3.5 octaves WITHOUT falsetto, if he could hit the low stuff as well. I heard him doing part of Bohemian Rhapsody, and he reaches the high C nicely and easily. An awesome voice BTW :) This is crap, we (Fenderek and I) are both Polish, and now we're talking English :) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 08.07.2005 14:49 |
Just saw this on a website a few minutes ago for what it's worth. No idea if it's true on Roger's range or the difficulty of hitting that note: "The note hit by Roger Taylor at "for me__" is a high B flat (the B flat immediately above middle C). Sit in front of a (remotely tuned) piano and see how far out of a mere mortal's range that is. Has any other man, ever, been able to sing that high? BTW greatest song ever." |
| Wundzun 08.07.2005 18:14 |
This is true and Bb4 on BoRhap is probably highest Roger's note ever recorded. That's pretty amazing, but there are still some singers (like Halford) who can go a little bit higher. And I'm not talking about those whistle-freaks such as Adam Lopez :) |
| Wundzun 09.07.2005 04:20 |
Lowest note ever recorded is probably C#0 sung by Viktor Wichniakov, Russian bass. It means that there are about 7 octaves between the highest and the lowest note ever produced by human being. Check out this site - there's just about everything about super high and super low notes. link EDIT: In Wikipedia it says that this Lopez guy hit the B below Wichniakov's C#... this is creepy ;) And there's also recording of Barry White hitting A below that Lopez's B. |
| Sebastian 11.07.2005 10:59 |
Roger's Bb4 is the same note Fred sang in Let's Turn It On and Rock In Rio Blues. They both got higher than that: Roger in Seaside Rendezvous (C5) and Fred in some impromptus. |
| Rattus 13.07.2005 13:12 |
I would just like to correct the quote made by BHM 0271 of a post I made on another website (which I can now longer find). According to the website: link Roger Taylor hits the B flat almost 2 octaves above middle C (Bflat5 taking C1 as lowest C on piano) at "for me__" in Bohemian Rhapsody. After listening to the song and looking at the score more closely I would have to agree with this observation. The website also suggests that this was also the top note in Freddie's recorded range. The is a great audio clip of Freddie straining to get up to the A just below the above mentioned note at "frightning me__" in Bohemian Rhapsody on the website, and I don't think that his range could have extended much above that. Still, it's over an octave above the top of my range. |
| AndresGuazzelli 15.07.2005 02:55 |
Hey you guys. The lowets note ever achieved by a human being is an 8 hz blast from a basso profondo. The note is actually so low the human ear can't hear it, but can be measured. The larynx vibrated 8 times per second... almost like a transatlantic ship. I'll try to get you some clips from this guy, who likes to double octaves any song melody. And Freddie's highest note is a High F headvoiced and overhigh D on a Japan 1985' Impromptu. Both files would be uploaded to the website as soon as i udpated (i'm trying to get there as soon as possible) Best Regards AeG |
| george656 20.07.2005 13:28 |
Hey I am new here. I was just wondering what is the highest note that Freddie sang and what is the lowest note that he sang? |
| AC 20.07.2005 15:07 |
Just follow the link in the signature of the person who posted before you. |
| Stephan 10.08.2005 06:21 |
James LaBrie can easily hit the F#5!!! Check out Learning To Live or Under A Glass Moon. |
| ARMANDO MARTINEZ 10.08.2005 13:07 |
If I'm not mistaken, I think Labrie has a singing trainer with him, I read it somewhere! |
| dapp93 16.08.2005 00:46 |
That guy (Adam Lopez) Really freaked me out... The fact that someone may reach a whistle-like tone is extremely amazing to me... Anyway, I didn't remember Mariah Carey in Emotions, since I haven't listened that song long ago, last time may have been when I was 7 years old (don't worry, I'm 12 right now, it's not that much). Talking about freddie's falsetto recording in the middle operatic part of Bohemian Rhapsody... (in Freddie mercury: the voice, A4) Is that really Freddie? Doesn't seem to me to be him... It doesn't even seem to be from the song... By the way, if that is actually Freddie's... how can someone delete voices in a so precise way? Is there any software? Or is it no doubt that that was taken out of some multi-channel recording? If so, Is there in recording in the net which has bohemian rhapsody's vocals by themselves, or letting you have the ability to put the volume of each channel down? Regards from Chile, Diego :D |
| AndresGuazzelli 16.08.2005 23:47 |
Diego, los canales separados de la mezcla en 5:1 los podés encontrar en los DVD's. Un abrazo ;) |
| MissFreddie 03.09.2007 19:15 |
I don't know all the ranges of what is what. All I know is that Freddie has the most amazing voice that I have ever heard from a man. He was truely gifted. He could sing almost anything and make it sound good. Seems like when he got sick, his voice just got better. I know we all will miss such a wonderful man as Freddie. I love him!!! |
| Sebastian 04.09.2007 04:49 |
Mariahs a fat slut.Yes, but she's got a wonderful voice. |
| BradJarre 04.09.2007 05:26 |
that is true. i heard that mikas vocal range is about 4-5. who can confirm it? |
| john bodega 04.09.2007 08:07 |
You're not funny. |
| The Fairy King 04.09.2007 08:43 |
Matthew Bellamy Bellamy is known for his high vocal range. It reaches as high as an Ab6 in the studio recording of Micro Cuts and G#6 (same sounded pitch) in the studio recording of Showbiz. During live performances of Showbiz, he has been known to reach an A6 (for example at the Two Days a Week Festival in Wiesen, Austria). Whilst this is not out of the range of a male singer with due practice, Bellamy managed to reach these highs without the amount practice usually required, and before he developed his breathing technique. According to Howard speaking for an interview around Route du Rock 2001, a doctor once examined Bellamy's vocal chords and commented that they are unusually small, explaining how he managed to reach the high ranges that he does with relatively little practice or training. Bellamy also stated in said interview that he used to, sometime prior to that interview, attempt to sing lower due to being embarrassed about singing using high ranges. He doesn't anymore, however, as he has lost that inhibition. His vocal range does not extend very far down, however; it becomes less clear after a B3 and bottoms out at a G3 in the studio recording of Hoodoo. |
| BradJarre 04.09.2007 15:39 |
ok. thanks for the info. my vocal range is 3,5-4octaves. |
| cakebox.. 11497 04.09.2007 15:44 |
Like we fucking care |
| carboengine 09.09.2007 00:39 |
link |
| Dusta 09.09.2007 03:00 |
I've listened to those before, however, they never cease to amaze me--those high notes, when one considers how low Freddie could also sing. Just an amazing singer, really. |
| klassikrokkfann 24.10.2007 13:29 |
Yeah Freddie and Roger and even Rob Halford could CLEARLY hit ridiculously high notes which many other singers could hit except they sounded like crap |
| deleted user 30.10.2007 11:30 |
innuendo1990 wrote: ok. thanks for the info. my vocal range is 3,5-4octaves.Are you sure? That is quite impressive. |
| Micrówave 30.10.2007 17:15 |
dapp93 wrote: By the way, if that is actually Freddie's... how can someone delete voices in a so precise way? Is there any software? Or is it no doubt that that was taken out of some multi-channel recording? If so, Is there in recording in the net which has bohemian rhapsody's vocals by themselves, or letting you have the ability to put the volume of each channel down?Not in 1974 and not now either. You can "duck" the vocals out by eliminating frequencies, but you can't completely remove them unless you have the master tapes. And no one has those! |
| Poo, again 30.10.2007 18:41 |
I can go lower than Freddie. I win. |
| mick82 31.10.2007 06:59 |
There are wider vocal ranges than Freddie's, but the matter is: how are they used in the songs that are sang by those people? Bellamy is quite enjoyable in my opinion, as Muse are talented and often change style - and he's an amazing pianist and guitarist. Moreover, I often think they pay tribute to Queen here and there (listen to the Absolution album and tell me what you think about it). That Lopez guy seems to be more of a freak than anything else to me... Very good in a circus, but who needs to whistle with vocal chords? Do those sounds give any of you any emotions? |
| rekoonsghjkl 18.03.2010 06:20 |
I have looked at all the stuff you guys have written firstly Freddie's range is F2-E6 secondly highest note in head voice F5 thirdly Miss Carey if her range was A2-G#7 wouldn't be 5 octaves. She holds no record because Adam Lopez has the male record at C8 and there's a women with the world record G10. I'm not musically trained but even I know that 1 octaves is a full set of notes for example C3-C6 would be 3 octaves, F3-D6 would be 2 octaves and a few notes. Ok Freddie low notes F2 in Bohemain Rhapsody and Don't try suicide, G#2 in somebody to love, C3 in The march of the black Queen ect ... High note s C5 in Bohemain Rhapsody, we are the champions, somebody to love, you're my best friend, the prophet song, play the game, back chat, life is real, made in heaven ect.... C#5 Hamer to fall, it's late ect.. D5 the show must go on, who wants to like forever, comming soon, staying in power, dancer, it's a hard life, don't try so hard ect.. Eb5 made in heaven(falsetto) inuenndo, E5 hang in there, another one bites the dust, was it all worth it, silver salmon ect .. F5 All god's people. Killer queen(falsetto) ect.. Gb 5(falsetto) one year of love,cool cat(falsetto), G5 Bring back leroy brown(falsetto),Ab5 liar, great king rat, A5 the kiss, under pressure ect.. Bb5 See what a fool I've been E6 it's late(falsetto) Live highest full voice C#5 but did many C5's highest falsetto nots G5,Bb5,C6,C#6,D6 I've heard he had hit some A5's live too |
| lalaalalaa 18.03.2010 07:47 |
I've been waiting for someone to mention the E6 in It's Late and finally ONE person got around to it :) |
| Sebastian 18.03.2010 12:35 |
Freddie did not sing a low F in Bo Rhap. His lowest note there was a G. |
| BradJarre 18.03.2010 13:51 |
The lowest Freddie note was an A1(Heard in slightly mad) and the highest was a D6(Heard in the japan'85 Impromptu) Almost 4 octaves. He could sing 3 octaves in Full Voice!!! |
| Sebastian 18.03.2010 13:54 |
He got lower than the Slightly Mad thing (All Dead, STL, BRhap, DTS, YKoL...) and higher than the Impromptu (It's Late). Roger also sang an overhigh E (and a much better one than Fred's screech) on Fox's Survival. |
| Gregsynth 18.03.2010 14:06 |
Freddie's total range was F2-E6. F2-F5 (full voice) up to E6 in falsetto The man had nearly 4 octaves total (exactly 3 octaves and 11 semitones--or 3 octaves and a major 7th) |
| Sebastian 18.03.2010 14:21 |
Freddie's total recorded range, which doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't go lower or higher than that. By the way he also got lower than the F: Bring Back That Leroy Brown has a low C. Yes, it's slowed down, but it's slowed down from an Eb, which is still lower than the F. |
| Gregsynth 18.03.2010 14:43 |
Sebastian wrote: Freddie's total recorded range, which doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't go lower or higher than that. By the way he also got lower than the F: Bring Back That Leroy Brown has a low C. Yes, it's slowed down, but it's slowed down from an Eb, which is still lower than the F.Oh, are you talking about that "bassy" sounding "Bring Back That Leroy Brown" from 30-32 seconds into the song? I know there's pitch manipulation, but how do you know if the original note was Eb2? |
| mooghead 18.03.2010 18:09 |
You must remember that most of Sebastians website is based on opinion, not fact. Everyone knows that Freddies range spreads from < here to here > |
| Sebastian 18.03.2010 23:34 |
Gregsynth wrote:Sebastian wrote: Freddie's total recorded range, which doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't go lower or higher than that. By the way he also got lower than the F: Bring Back That Leroy Brown has a low C. Yes, it's slowed down, but it's slowed down from an Eb, which is still lower than the F.Oh, are you talking about that "bassy" sounding "Bring Back That Leroy Brown" from 30-32 seconds into the song? I know there's pitch manipulation, but how do you know if the original note was Eb2? The pitch of a slowed-down note would be way too altered if the changed interval is a major third or larger. It acquires a demonic quality (for instance, check out the One Vision intro) and some very odd distortion. In a different setting (e.g. having that voice joined by ten more plus a lot of instruments), it'd be nearly impossible to tell, but in this case, since it's a virtually cappella during the one or two seconds it lasts, it is clear that it was not slowed down from an E or higher pitch. So, it's either Eb, or D, or C# (all of which are lower than the F) or it was not slowed down at all and Roger's memory had a slip. In any of those cases, Fred sang lower than the F. > mooghead wrote: You must remember that most of Sebastians website is based on opinion, not fact Wrong: it's based on research, which is not the same as opinion. Research includes things that can be mathematically measured, and as such, are facts (e.g. the Eb below F is lower than said F, which means Fred did record lower and that's a FACT), and others are based on what can be gathered via primary, secondary or indirect sources, which can have an error margin (e.g. a person [me, in this case] mishearing a backing vocal and mistakingly believing it's all Fred rather than Fred + Rog, or a person [Dr May, for instance] claiming My Fairy King is on 'Queen II', even though he WAS there and therefore is SUPPOSED to know better than any of us). But research is not the same as opinion, or as having 'most of' it based on that. It's not a ridiculous idiotic 'hey, this song sounds heavy, so it must be written by the Iron Maiden bassist and then stolen by the band' speculation based on absolutely nothing. The 'lower than F' point, for instance, is well researched and valid. Sure, I wasn't there when they did it so I didn't witness the Eb (or D, or C#, or C) being sung (and even if I'd been there, I could easily misremember), but that's not the only way to make a research. Or do you think Saturn's density was established by having some giant scientist holding it with a giant glove and putting it in a giant bathub and claiming 'hey, it floats!'? >>> .Everyone knows that Freddies range spreads from < here to here > Actually, not 'everyone knows...' In fact, there's a strong chance NOBODY knows, unless Fred actually measured from where to where he could sing, and even in that case, it doesn't guarantee he wouldn't be able to go higher or lower under different cirumstances. |
| john bodega 19.03.2010 01:53 |
5 octaves! |
| Gregsynth 19.03.2010 17:04 |
Freddie's range is greater than a piano's! |
| lalaalalaa 19.03.2010 17:20 |
You can sing higher when you're drunk ;) |
| BradJarre 19.03.2010 18:54 |
Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's range is greater than a piano's! Yeah, And a horse is purple! |
| Gregsynth 19.03.2010 20:23 |
BradJarre wrote:I did own a purple horse named Prince...Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's range is greater than a piano's!Yeah, And a horse is purple! |
| Sebastian 20.03.2010 23:35 |
Gregsynth wrote:BradJarre wrote:I did own a purple horse named Prince...Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's range is greater than a piano's!Yeah, And a horse is purple! Did it do the batdance? |
| Winter Land Man 21.03.2010 02:33 |
BRIAN WILSON CAN SING HIGHER THAN FREDDIE EVER DID! .... stoned or not, haha. |
| Gregsynth 21.03.2010 02:50 |
Sebastian wrote:Prince did do the Batdance hundreds of times! Shame I only caught it on film once. It was the FUNNIEST thing I've ever seen in my life, I attempted to post it on Youtube, but Prince (The actual artist) pulled it off the site! It's a shame!Gregsynth wrote:Did it do the batdance?BradJarre wrote:I did own a purple horse named Prince...Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's range is greater than a piano's!Yeah, And a horse is purple! |
| Winter Land Man 21.03.2010 02:55 |
That's because Prince's little dink is charcoal black, and he ends up with herpes outbreaks at least twice a month. Ask Paris Hilton OR Mick Jagger about that... it's hard to prove who gave it to him! |
| Dusta 23.03.2010 22:40 |
Prince's Little Dink? Baldance? Herpes Outbreaks? OutSTANDing! Having recently been reminded of Freddie's true greatness(even during his badness moments) by watching bits and pieces of American Idol hopefuls doing Queen(my newest thing is to run to youtube and listen to a Queen live version immediately afterward...a cleansing, if you will)....I have to say that the thing about Freddie, for me, isn't his range, but his tone and pitch. Even moments where he'd no voice left, he still had nice tone, and managed to give a song life. Many of these well meaning folks seem to have pretty good vocal ranges....but, singing Queen songs, they all sound flat(I think the term for this is, "pitchy,") and lifeless. Perhaps Adam Lambert wasn't so bad.... Tonight I heard a version of CLTCL. The singer was good...a tenor, I think. But, he sounded utterly horrid, singing that song. No expression...no slipping to baritone and back again...no nothing. Just mildness. I needed to talk about it. Freddie Mercury had a richness to his voice, and an expressive quality which helped to make so many Queen songs unforgettable. Hearing another singer sing CLTCL(along with STL and various other Queen songs which have appeared on Idol--I've heard them all), the songs just sounded...ordinary. Not so special. Not memorable. I have been noticing this a great deal, lately, and felt the need to give Freddie his props... I always had the feeling that Freddie never really knew how gifted he was, and that he always imagined he had everybody fooled. Longass post by an ancient Queen fan...sorry, but, thanks for reading. |
| Gregsynth 24.03.2010 01:14 |
Dusta wrote: Prince's Little Dink? Baldance? Herpes Outbreaks? OutSTANDing! Having recently been reminded of Freddie's true greatness(even during his badness moments) by watching bits and pieces of American Idol hopefuls doing Queen(my newest thing is to run to youtube and listen to a Queen live version immediately afterward...a cleansing, if you will)....I have to say that the thing about Freddie, for me, isn't his range, but his tone and pitch. Even moments where he'd no voice left, he still had nice tone, and managed to give a song life. Many of these well meaning folks seem to have pretty good vocal ranges....but, singing Queen songs, they all sound flat(I think the term for this is, "pitchy,") and lifeless. Perhaps Adam Lambert wasn't so bad.... Tonight I heard a version of CLTCL. The singer was good...a tenor, I think. But, he sounded utterly horrid, singing that song. No expression...no slipping to baritone and back again...no nothing. Just mildness. I needed to talk about it. Freddie Mercury had a richness to his voice, and an expressive quality which helped to make so many Queen songs unforgettable. Hearing another singer sing CLTCL(along with STL and various other Queen songs which have appeared on Idol--I've heard them all), the songs just sounded...ordinary. Not so special. Not memorable. I have been noticing this a great deal, lately, and felt the need to give Freddie his props... I always had the feeling that Freddie never really knew how gifted he was, and that he always imagined he had everybody fooled. Longass post by an ancient Queen fan...sorry, but, thanks for reading.Completely agree: Freddie on his WORST day can sing better than ANY American Idol contestant. |
| Sebastian 24.03.2010 03:04 |
I think, in spite of all the marketing and shite involved, American Idol (and other programmes like that) may occasionally spawn some truly great artists. But IMO Adam Lambert's not one of them. |
| Dusta 24.03.2010 07:13 |
Ah, Sebastian. I normally nod my head in silent agreement to your posts here, but in this case, we disagree. I do find Adam Lambert to have a lovely voice...still, he had little or no impact, for me, singing a Queen song. I will say he was better(in the We Will Rock You thingie with Brian and Roger, and, on his audition, where he sang a bit of Bo Rhap) singing Queen than any of the others I've heard to date. I don't know for certain what sort of artist he is....I tend to enjoy singer/songwriters, and, as far as I know, Mr Lambert has not written any songs. But, again, I do enjoy his voice. Just not singing Queen. Particularly. I will also say that listening to all of this rubble come out of AI, I have more empathy for Brian and Roger, and how difficult it must be for them to satisfy their need to compose and perform without That Voice. They've moved on, now, I imagine, but it really must've been difficult shortly after the death of Freddie for them on a personal, as well as professional level. |
| Dusta 24.03.2010 07:18 |
Gregsynth wrote:Dusta wrote: Prince's Little Dink? Baldance? Herpes Outbreaks? OutSTANDing! Having recently been reminded of Freddie's true greatness(even during his badness moments) by watching bits and pieces of American Idol hopefuls doing Queen(my newest thing is to run to youtube and listen to a Queen live version immediately afterward...a cleansing, if you will)....I have to say that the thing about Freddie, for me, isn't his range, but his tone and pitch. Even moments where he'd no voice left, he still had nice tone, and managed to give a song life. Many of these well meaning folks seem to have pretty good vocal ranges....but, singing Queen songs, they all sound flat(I think the term for this is, "pitchy,") and lifeless. Perhaps Adam Lambert wasn't so bad.... Tonight I heard a version of CLTCL. The singer was good...a tenor, I think. But, he sounded utterly horrid, singing that song. No expression...no slipping to baritone and back again...no nothing. Just mildness. I needed to talk about it. Freddie Mercury had a richness to his voice, and an expressive quality which helped to make so many Queen songs unforgettable. Hearing another singer sing CLTCL(along with STL and various other Queen songs which have appeared on Idol--I've heard them all), the songs just sounded...ordinary. Not so special. Not memorable. I have been noticing this a great deal, lately, and felt the need to give Freddie his props... I always had the feeling that Freddie never really knew how gifted he was, and that he always imagined he had everybody fooled. Longass post by an ancient Queen fan...sorry, but, thanks for reading.Completely agree: Freddie on his WORST day can sing better than ANY American Idol contestant. And I find that surprising, really, since they really work hard(seemingly) to find the best of the best to compete on the show. And there are so MANY of them. Everywhere. I don't recall, back in ancient times, having the volume of new different, "artists," playing on the radio as there seems to be today. So many new names. So many new ways of marketing an individual. And, despite all of this, Freddie still stands out. Remarkable, really. |
| mike hunt 24.03.2010 08:01 |
Dusta wrote: Ah, Sebastian. I normally nod my head in silent agreement to your posts here, but in this case, we disagree. I do find Adam Lambert to have a lovely voice...still, he had little or no impact, for me, singing a Queen song. I will say he was better(in the We Will Rock You thingie with Brian and Roger, and, on his audition, where he sang a bit of Bo Rhap) singing Queen than any of the others I've heard to date. I don't know for certain what sort of artist he is....I tend to enjoy singer/songwriters, and, as far as I know, Mr Lambert has not written any songs. But, again, I do enjoy his voice. Just not singing Queen. Particularly. I will also say that listening to all of this rubble come out of AI, I have more empathy for Brian and Roger, and how difficult it must be for them to satisfy their need to compose and perform without That Voice. They've moved on, now, I imagine, but it really must've been difficult shortly after the death of Freddie for them on a personal, as well as professional level. not a fan of adam...he could sing, but no originality or songwriting ability so far say's it all. Yea, brian and roger must have found it difficult for the first 5 or so years after freddie died. Came to grips with it, but now after what happened with paul, the weak album then the fallout with brian and paul they probably miss freddie's input more than ever. I could hear brian's inner voice say "boy if fred was around we would show all these young and old cats how it's done!" They probably think about that often. |
| Dan C. 24.03.2010 08:27 |
Fredy Mercury had an eight and a half octave range. |
| Gregsynth 24.03.2010 10:46 |
Freddie and Adam both have huge vocal ranges, and can hit high notes--but that's where the similarities end: When Freddie hits high notes, they sound "full" and pleasant-sounding to the ears, when Adam goes for them, they always come out as "screechy." I dislike that sound. Plus, I don't recall Freddie yelling or oversinging "We Are The Champions" (even during the mid-80s when he was forced to yell and shout to go high). |
| Sebastian 24.03.2010 11:15 |
Dusta wrote: I will also say that listening to all of this rubble come out of AI, I have more empathy for Brian and Roger, and how difficult it must be for them to satisfy their need to compose and perform without That Voice. They've moved on, now, I imagine, but it really must've been difficult shortly after the death of Freddie for them on a personal, as well as professional level. Er... they haven't. Otherwise they wouldn't have used the Queen name or put words on a dead man's mouth. Had they actually moved on, they'd use a new name, be a new band and start all over, regardless of their age and past. As for your AL remarks: yes, this is not an exact science; some people may like him, others don't. I'm in the latter group. It's got nothing to do with his flamboyance (I'm not a fan of excessive make-up, neither on women nor men, but that doesn't affect the voice) and it's got nothing to do with him singing Queen material, I simply don't like him, and never did. I'm a bit disappointed that he seems to garner more news than the bloke who actually won. |
| Gregsynth 24.03.2010 11:31 |
I think the reason why Brian and Roger still use the "Queen" name is because so more people would know who they are (Imagine something like "The Maylor Band," "The Broger Band," Or "Brian May/Roger Taylor," etc)? |
| Gregsynth 24.03.2010 11:32 |
It's the same situation as "The Who": John and Keith are dead, but Pete and Roger are still alive and recording/touring under "The Who" name (though it can be argued that those two were the more "popular" members--like Freddie with Queen). |
| Sebastian 24.03.2010 11:59 |
Gregsynth wrote: I think the reason why Brian and Roger still use the "Queen" name is because so more people would know who they are (Imagine something like "The Maylor Band," "The Broger Band," Or "Brian May/Roger Taylor," etc)? So... they haven't moved on. It's not 'bad' or 'good' per se, but it is what it is: they haven't moved on. |
| The Real Wizard 24.03.2010 14:37 |
Who made this rule stating how changing a band's name is what is indicative of them moving on after a member passes away? They toured the world and did a new record with a guy who couldn't be less similar to Freddie Mercury. How have they not moved on? And who says they are required to move on, as if it is exclusively better than not "moving on" ?? They are the nucleus of one of rock's greatest bands, each having written songs that have lived on for generations. Maybe they're entitled to do whatever they want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans. Just a thought.. |
| Sebastian 24.03.2010 15:31 |
> Who made this rule stating how changing a band's name is what is indicative of them moving on after a member passes away? Who made this rule stating how having an opinion about people not changing a band's name is making a rule? > They toured the world and did a new record with a guy who couldn't be less similar to Freddie Mercury. How have they not moved on? By using the same name that was invented by the guy who couldn't be less similar to Paul Rodgers. Had they really moved on, they'd consider their collaboration with him what it is: a new band. Not to mention how they put words in a dead man's mouth to validate the tour. > And who says they are required to move on, as if it is exclusively better than not "moving on" ?? Actually, nobody said that (here, that is). And indeed moving on isn't 'exclusively better than "not moving on"'. As I wrote earlier, not moving on is not good or bad per se. But it is what it is: they haven't. Likewise, not being Italian's not good or bad, but the fact is Brian's not Italian. Does it make him a bad person? No. Roger's not Dutch either, and it doesn't make him less of a drummer, singer, guitarist and composer. Same here: they haven't moved on, and that's not a flaw. For that reason, saying they didn't move on is not an attack or 'subjecting them to rules determined only by disgruntled fans.' > They are the nucleus of one of rock's greatest bands No: the nucleus were the four of them. > each having written songs that have lived on for generations. Which is great. But it doesn't change the fact that they haven't moved on (well, maybe now Roger finally has since he's going to do a solo tour). Being an excellent songwriter doesn't make one unable not to move on. Some people (including Maylor) can be excellent musicians without moving on. Those two features coexist. > Maybe they're entitled to do whatever they want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans. Maybe we're entitled to write whatever we want without being subjected to rules as determined only by disgruntled fans. > Just a thought.. And not a good one, as nobody's attacking them or thinking less of them. It's a simple thing: they haven't moved on. Just to be clear: Am I saying it's bad that they haven't moved on? No Am I saying they should get death penalty for not moving on? No Am I saying people who move on are better than they are? No Am I saying we should pour HF on their testicles because they haven't moved on? No Am I saying it's a universal truth that they haven't moved on because I say so? No Does saying 'they didn't move on' transform it in a rule? No Are Brian and Roger going to die of desperation because I said they didn't move on? No Am I saying they haven't moved on? Yes Was Bobby Charlton born in January? No, he wasn't. Does it make him a less extraordinary footballer? No, it doesn't. Can he be a brilliant former player and at the same time not having been born in January? Absolutely. So: is claiming he wasn't born in January an insult? No, it isn't. Have Brian and Roger moved on? No, they haven't. Does it make them less excellent musicians? No, it doesn't. Can they not have moved on and still be excellent musicians? Absolutely. So: is claiming they haven't moved on an insult? No, it isn't. |
| Amazon 24.03.2010 17:18 |
Regarding whether they moved on, I don't think that's entirely accurate.Yes, they still use the name, and they may have put words in Freddie's mouth, but it was undoubtfully due to commercial reasons. The reality is that the Queen name sells, and if Freddie is seen to have 'approved' his replacement, sales would probably increase. The truth is, alot of artists; from The Who to Guns 'N Roses to The Doors to Deep Purple to Pink Floyd etc..., could be said to have not moved on since they continued after key members died/left the group, but they have done so for numerous reasons, not least the fact that they are more likely to achieve success on the back of their group than as solo artists or in a new group. |
| Dusta 24.03.2010 18:00 |
I'm not certain they've moved on...just suspicious that they might have. And, I only meant that they'd moved on from Freddie's death, not that they'd moved on professionally. I only meant that it must have been very difficult for them on a number of levels when Freddie passed, but that they're likely not sitting around sobbing into each others'....hair over Freddie dying, these days. But, perhaps they are....I don't know either of them even a small small bit, so am only speculating. And certainly, I'm not being critical of them moving on or not moving on. Clearly, since I still frequent the Queen forum, still purchase books and Queen music from Amazon, still listen to Queen like a maniac while editing photos...I haven't moved on, either. And I didn't care for the gentleman who beat Adam Lambert, either. Okay as a singer...perhaps he is an excellent songwriter? Not certain. I only watch AI when I am home for it, so have only watched ten or so episodes since the show's first season. In fact, I probably have no business whining about the Idol performers, since I am not a regular fan of the show. But, damn. Why did they have to sing Queen songs? So many others to choose from. |
| mike hunt 25.03.2010 07:57 |
people complain when no one mentions Queen, then they complain when they get recognized. I'm no fan of the show, and had to suffer watching that crap with the ex. I suffered quite a bit. but we can't deny AI was very good for the boys. they wern't that popular in the states for a long time. I think their record sales went up as well. |
| Holly2003 25.03.2010 11:03 |
Fred's range was angelic to demonic. There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light. |
| Gregsynth 25.03.2010 12:56 |
Holly2003 wrote: Fred's range was angelic to demonic. There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light.Great Post! |
| mike hunt 25.03.2010 13:34 |
Gregsynth wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Fred's range was angelic to demonic. There, we can put this argument to bed now, and turn off the light.Great Post! Agreed!...rob halford pretty much said the same thing. |
| Sebastian 26.03.2010 02:00 |
So: to sum up - Fred's recorded notes go from 77.82-Hz Eb to 1,318.51-Hz E (i.e. 4 octaves and a minor second). Which is indeed huge. The bad news is that Guiness Records' standards wouldn't accept those records as evidence that Fred actually could sing those notes (especially since the lowest one's varisped to a C) and he wouldn't be included for that reason.Of course, there are many people on the net (mostly YT) claiming they can sing five or six octaves but most of them don't even try to demonstrate it. While some people have indeed covered larger ranges, Fred's one of the very, very few to actually use those notes in the context of songs, not merely to show he could hit them. |
| njaustin1982 26.03.2010 12:53 |
Freddie had at least 5 octaves - I am a singer and squeak and painfully produce whistle register, which I'm sure Freddie could have done. His voice was sharp and I'm sure you could have put him to most genres of music and he would have been successful. He couldn't have given a monkey about how many octaves he had because he didn't have to prove anything. He was a subtle mixture of male and female or homo-erectus. The difference is he could put his voice to music and it would be good quality and sell. Many singers who have great fabulous ranges cannot do this. |
| mike hunt 26.03.2010 14:27 |
his ability to sing so many different styles is really what sets him apart from most rock singers. I can't even think of one other singer in rock that could cover so many styles. |
| john bodega 28.03.2010 06:57 |
His range increased during penetration. |
| BradJarre 28.03.2010 11:16 |
Yes, During the bathroom sessions with Jim his voice got up to 6 octaves[img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] |
| Gregsynth 28.03.2010 18:07 |
BradJarre wrote: Yes, During the bathroom sessions with Jim his voice got up to 6 octaves[img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]Hahahahahahahahaha |
| Winter Land Man 28.03.2010 19:42 |
LoL! I love people with a sense of humour. I despise people who can't take a joke. There will probably be cunts posting soon about that comment about Freddie and Jim, but they can fuck off, right? |
| Dusta 29.03.2010 22:55 |
Good stuff, this.
Sebastian wrote: So: to sum up - Fred's recorded notes go from 77.82-Hz Eb to 1,318.51-Hz E (i.e. 4 octaves and a minor second). Which is indeed huge. The bad news is that Guiness Records' standards wouldn't accept those records as evidence that Fred actually could sing those notes (especially since the lowest one's varisped to a C) and he wouldn't be included for that reason.Of course, there are many people on the net (mostly YT) claiming they can sing five or six octaves but most of them don't even try to demonstrate it. While some people have indeed covered larger ranges, Fred's one of the very, very few to actually use those notes in the context of songs, not merely to show he could hit them. |
| Sebastian 30.03.2010 03:04 |
Next: Roger's |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.04.2010 09:19 |
For the record: Adam co-wrote some songs on his album. Strut, Broken Open, Pick U Up and Aftermath. And he had also written songs before, like CRAWL THRU FIRE and others that I can't remember right now. One AMAZING singer. Unbelievable. |
| Sebastian 01.04.2010 15:11 |
D'you mean Lopez or Lambert? |
| GratefulFan 01.04.2010 15:57 |
Funky Horsie wrote: One AMAZING singer. Unbelievable. Cringe |
| Matias Merçeauroix 01.04.2010 23:28 |
LAMBERT FTW RODGERS = AIDS |
| Holly2003 02.04.2010 09:08 |
Funky Horsie wrote: For the record: Adam co-wrote some songs on his album. Strut, Broken Open, Pick U Up and Aftermath. And he had also written songs before, like CRAWL THRU FIRE and others that I can't remember right now. One AMAZING singer. Unbelievable. Sloppy, very very sloppy. And he can't shred. |
| GratefulFan 02.04.2010 11:32 |
Thank God he can't shred 'cause that'd be one big motherf*ing pile of cheese. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.04.2010 18:15 |
Holly2003 wrote:Funky Horsie wrote: For the record: Adam co-wrote some songs on his album. Strut, Broken Open, Pick U Up and Aftermath. And he had also written songs before, like CRAWL THRU FIRE and others that I can't remember right now. One AMAZING singer. Unbelievable.Sloppy, very very sloppy. And he can't shred. Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSO |
| Sebastian 02.04.2010 18:32 |
Funky Horsie wrote: Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSO While I disagree (I don't like his voice), I wonder: what's his range? You probably know that one. It'd be interesting to know how high and low he could get. |
| Holly2003 02.04.2010 18:37 |
Funky Horsie wrote:Holly2003 wrote:Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSOFunky Horsie wrote: For the record: Adam co-wrote some songs on his album. Strut, Broken Open, Pick U Up and Aftermath. And he had also written songs before, like CRAWL THRU FIRE and others that I can't remember right now. One AMAZING singer. Unbelievable.Sloppy, very very sloppy. And he can't shred. He's sloppy man, just sloppy. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 02.04.2010 23:29 |
Sebastian wrote:Funky Horsie wrote: Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSOWhile I disagree (I don't like his voice), I wonder: what's his range? You probably know that one. It'd be interesting to know how high and low he could get. Too bad you choose to be wrong. There's one video on YouTube that shows his notes from a Bb2 (Bb1) to a Bb5 (Bb4). Bb4 is the highest I've heard but I recall a video where he hits lower notes. Not much lower but a tone would make a significant difference. |
| Dusta 04.04.2010 16:06 |
Another thing about Freddie: Though his voice was distinctive(can you really compare him to anyone?) he sometimes sounded very different from himself, even. I recall the first time I heard CLTCL on the radio. It took me a moment to even realize it was Queen. The voice sounded familiar...but not that familiar. The rest of the song sounded very different from the Queen I knew. And Freddie's voice sounded just different enough that it took a moment for it to grab on to that familiar memory in my brain--this was Queen, because that was Freddie singing, and those were Queen harmonies. |
| Sebastian 04.04.2010 16:21 |
'Crazy Little Thing' was probably very shocking for longtime listeners because it was a complete change: different studio, different producer, different engineer, Freddie had began to smoke, Brian was using a different guitar, a different amp, different tape-recorder and console were being used... it all adds up. Freddie indeed had the enviable skill of adapting his voice to the style of the song, as professional actors do when changing accents, mannerisms or even dropping or gaining weight depending on the part they're playing. Listen to 'White Queen' and you've got a person in love; listen to 'Death on Two Legs' and you've got a person who hates; listen to 'Brighton Rock' and you've got a camp countertenor and then, mid-sentence, switch to a powerful rock tenor. Phenomenal. |
| Gregsynth 04.04.2010 16:49 |
Sebastian wrote: 'Crazy Little Thing' was probably very shocking for longtime listeners because it was a complete change: different studio, different producer, different engineer, Freddie had began to smoke, Brian was using a different guitar, a different amp, different tape-recorder and console were being used... it all adds up. Freddie indeed had the enviable skill of adapting his voice to the style of the song, as professional actors do when changing accents, mannerisms or even dropping or gaining weight depending on the part they're playing. Listen to 'White Queen' and you've got a person in love; listen to 'Death on Two Legs' and you've got a person who hates; listen to 'Brighton Rock' and you've got a camp countertenor and then, mid-sentence, switch to a powerful rock tenor. Phenomenal.Freddie didn't smoke then! 100% right on the other stuff! |
| Sebastian 04.04.2010 16:55 |
I seem to remember Peter Hince telling Deaky.com that John began smoking during the Works sessions in LA while Fred began during The Game. Now, of course that could be the 1980 sessions, in which case I stand corrected. Have you got more info on the subject? (BTW it's not a challenge, I'm really interested to know as it makes it easier to study his voice and the way it changed). |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.04.2010 17:16 |
Funky Horsie wrote:Sebastian wrote:Too bad you choose to be wrong. There's one video on YouTube that shows his notes from a Bb2 (Bb1) to a Bb5 (Bb4). Bb4 is the highest I've heard but I recall a video where he hits lower notes. Not much lower but a tone would make a significant difference.Funky Horsie wrote: Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSOWhile I disagree (I don't like his voice), I wonder: what's his range? You probably know that one. It'd be interesting to know how high and low he could get. Ah, so your "taste" is infallible? Tsss... |
| Gregsynth 06.04.2010 11:23 |
Sebastian wrote: I seem to remember Peter Hince telling Deaky.com that John began smoking during the Works sessions in LA while Fred began during The Game. Now, of course that could be the 1980 sessions, in which case I stand corrected. Have you got more info on the subject? (BTW it's not a challenge, I'm really interested to know as it makes it easier to study his voice and the way it changed). I can't find any official sites, or interviews: But what I do see ALOT are these sentences: "Freddie began smoking around The Game." "Freddie's metamorphisis from long-haired 70s, to short-haired 80s involved growing a mustache, and smoking." [listu] [li]Plus I've never seen him smoke in the 70s (video or pictures). [/listu] Bob (Sir GH) also wrote this on his site: [listu]"He has, however, entered a golden period for his voice. From 1980 to 1982 he would be at the top of his game in concert, using his voice to great extents on most nights, singing creatively and passionately. Songs like Now I'm Here and Somebody To Love would become building blocks for his stage persona, something which he would master by 1986. He began smoking during this period though, and its effects would take its toll on his voice by 1984. In the meantime, this is Freddie Mercury in his prime." [listu][/listu] [/listu] So signs point to 1980 being the year he starting smoking. |
| The Real Wizard 06.04.2010 11:59 |
I once read that he started smoking in late 1979, but it's really pulling hairs at this point. It can be safely said that he started smoking somewhere within that general time frame, and within a few years it had taken its toll on his voice. |
| Gregsynth 06.04.2010 15:02 |
Sir GH wrote: I once read that he started smoking in late 1979, but it's really pulling hairs at this point. It can be safely said that he started smoking somewhere within that general time frame, and within a few years it had taken its toll on his voice. Where did you hear late 1979?! I'm curious now! Hey, regardless of the year, we do know that the smoking started harshing up his timbre by 1983/1984. |
| Sebastian 06.04.2010 15:33 |
Gregsynth wrote: I can't find any official sites, or interviews: But what I do see ALOT are these sentences: "Freddie began smoking around The Game." "Freddie's metamorphisis from long-haired 70s, to short-haired 80s involved growing a mustache, and smoking." Plus I've never seen him smoke in the 70s (video or pictures). So signs point to 1980 being the year he starting smoking. As for Fred beginning to smoke during The Game: The Game includes the June/July 1979 sessions. As for you never seeing him smoke in the 70's: If he started in June (maybe he did, maybe he didn't), that means chances are slim of that getting caught on tape or pix. For 99.42% of the decade, he didn't smoke, but maybe he did for the remaining 0.58%. After all, there are very few photos of those months except for concerts (and he, AFAIK, didn't smoke during the concerts, only before or after). There are no photos of Freddie playing the piano in the studio before 1975, but it doesn't mean it never happened. Same for John playing acoustic, for instance. |
| GratefulFan 06.04.2010 16:31 |
Uh oh! Decimal place police are gonna get you Seb. |
| Sebastian 06.04.2010 16:49 |
Not quite: if Freddie started smoking in June, it means he smoked for seven months in the whole decade: June, July, August, September, October, November and December. A decade's got 1200 months (12x10). 700/1200 = 0.5833333333...% 0.583333% can be safely rounded to 0.58%. Likewise, 99.41777777777% can be rounded to 99.42%. Moreover, in 98.5688888% of cases (which can be rounded up to 98.57%), the decimal police doesn't get involved in smoking-related matters as 67.542222...% (which can be rounded to 67.54%) of the personnel invested in Marlboro, and it generates a conflict of interests. |
| GratefulFan 06.04.2010 16:53 |
Common sense should tell you that 7 months of 10 years can't be less than 1%. The calculation is 7/120 * 100 = roughly 5.8%. So there! :) |
| Sebastian 06.04.2010 16:56 |
Oh yes... I added up a zero that didn't belong. Sorry: it's 5.83% (or less) that he did smoke and 94.17% (or more) that he didn't. Fortunately for me, the decimal place police doesn't get involved for the reasons mentioned 10.5444444% (rounded to 10.54) minutes earlier. |
| The Real Wizard 07.04.2010 00:26 |
Gregsynth wrote:Sir GH wrote: I once read that he started smoking in late 1979, but it's really pulling hairs at this point. It can be safely said that he started smoking somewhere within that general time frame, and within a few years it had taken its toll on his voice.Where did you hear late 1979?! I'm curious now! Just in some book... I forget which one. But most books on Queen have been known to have errors. That's probably the case with pretty much any biographical music book, as publishers are rarely experts on what they're publishing. |
| Sebastian 07.04.2010 05:46 |
Maybe somebody who's got Freestone as Facebook friend could ask him. |
| john bodega 08.04.2010 02:27 |
The most amazing thing is that he managed such sensational performances without any kind of vocal aids. |
| Sebastian 08.04.2010 02:52 |
Indeed. There are many people who can Autotune the shite out of their tracks and still don't sound like that. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 08.04.2010 15:13 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Funky Horsie wrote:Ah, so your "taste" is infallible? Tsss...Sebastian wrote:Too bad you choose to be wrong. There's one video on YouTube that shows his notes from a Bb2 (Bb1) to a Bb5 (Bb4). Bb4 is the highest I've heard but I recall a video where he hits lower notes. Not much lower but a tone would make a significant difference.Funky Horsie wrote: Actually, if vocal shred even existed He'd be like Shawn Lane. Adam Lambert = INCREDIBLE SINGER, OUTSTANDING. ABSOLUTE VOCAL VIRTUOSOWhile I disagree (I don't like his voice), I wonder: what's his range? You probably know that one. It'd be interesting to know how high and low he could get. As infallible as being unable to dislike a great performer like Adam is. |
| GratefulFan 08.04.2010 17:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The most amazing thing is that he managed such sensational performances without any kind of vocal aids. That's dumb Zebonka. It affects you all over. Jeez. |
| mike hunt 08.04.2010 19:47 |
GratefulFan wrote:Zebonka12 wrote: The most amazing thing is that he managed such sensational performances without any kind of vocal aids.That's dumb Zebonka. It affects you all over. Jeez. He's only a kid!...He'll grow up eventually. |
| skip 09.04.2010 02:41 |
Freddie Mercury no longer has a vocal range. |
| Bad Seed 09.04.2010 11:07 |
Sir GH wrote:Gregsynth wrote:Just in some book... I forget which one. But most books on Queen have been known to have errors. That's probably the case with pretty much any biographical music book, as publishers are rarely experts on what they're publishing.Sir GH wrote: I once read that he started smoking in late 1979, but it's really pulling hairs at this point. It can be safely said that he started smoking somewhere within that general time frame, and within a few years it had taken its toll on his voice.Where did you hear late 1979?! I'm curious now! Think its mentioned in the xmas '79 fan club mag? |
| Amazon 09.04.2010 12:04 |
GratefulFan wrote:Zebonka12 wrote: The most amazing thing is that he managed such sensational performances without any kind of vocal aids.That's dumb Zebonka. It affects you all over. Jeez. Perhaps I'm missing something, but Zebonka was referring only to Freddie's vocal talents. What exactly is dumb about what he said? |
| Dusta 12.04.2010 21:18 |
I've commented on this many times before, but I do find it truly amazing that Freddie was able to do what he did, both in the studio, and live, while being such a heavy smoker(no matter when he started). I base that largely on my own experience as a smoker, however, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a (good)singer. I think what I find the most surprising, based on the smoking, and on his naturally deep voice, is his ability to get those high notes and to sing falsetto. Amazing. Have I mentioned lately that I love Queen? Been listening to alot of...rubbish...lately, and got to come home and pop in some Queen. AAAAAAaaaaaaah. Such rich, distinct melodies and lush sound...those harmonies, and that VOICE! Glad I can come here(most of the time) and enjoy conversing about one of my favorite bands, and their dead singer. Didn't get to talk about them much while Fred was alive. I hadn't any internet, and no real fellow Queen fans. Nebraska isn't really a hotbed of Queen fandom. |
| BradJarre 13.04.2010 17:04 |
I dont believe that he realy inhaled much of the cigarettes! |
| Sebastian 13.04.2010 18:33 |
> I dont believe that he realy inhaled much of the cigarettes! I agree: it seemed to be more to satisfy his need to keep his hand occupied (the sole elbow movement may be as unstressing as the inhalation - it's all in your mind at the end of the day). However, he must have breathed loads and loads of nocive substances if he frequently went to clubs and pubs. Plus, most of his close friends and/or co-workers smoked as well. Roger's an interesting case as well: even though he smoked a lot in the 70's, he was able to reach those ridiculously wonderful high notes. Had he taken care of his voice, who knows how high he'd been able to go. |
| The Real Wizard 13.04.2010 22:01 |
I agree.. it's all about how one takes care of their voice. I saw Jon Anderson of Yes a couple weeks back, and his voice is still its angelic high self at age 65. Just him and no band.. incredible show. James Labrie from Dream Theater is still at the top of his game as well, and he's pushing 50. Ronnie James Dio sounded incredible on the Heaven And Hell tour a few years back. There are plenty of examples. |
| Gregsynth 13.04.2010 23:09 |
Sir GH wrote: I agree.. it's all about how one takes care of their voice. I saw Jon Anderson of Yes a couple weeks back, and his voice is still its angelic high self at age 65. Just him and no band.. incredible show. James Labrie from Dream Theater is still at the top of his game as well, and he's pushing 50. Ronnie James Dio sounded incredible on the Heaven And Hell tour a few years back. There are plenty of examples. Dennis Deyoung (Styx) is a great example: He sounds almost the same as 30 years back! He can still nail Roboto in its original key! |
| Sebastian 13.04.2010 23:28 |
Paul Rodgers is another case. He was good in the 70's, but he's better now. Also Dr May for some extent. I think he played guitar better in the past (especially in the 1986-1995 era), but his voice is just incredible now. |
| john bodega 14.04.2010 06:52 |
Sebastian wrote: Also Dr May for some extent. I think he played guitar better in the past (especially in the 1986-1995 era), but his voice is just incredible now. Not to mention UNDERUSED! I'd trade a hundred collaborations with average WWRY singers for one more Brian album. |
| john bodega 14.04.2010 06:54 |
GratefulFan wrote: That's dumb Zebonka. It affects you all over. Jeez. It amazes me that someone took that long to spot that .... |
| mike hunt 14.04.2010 07:12 |
Sebastian wrote: Paul Rodgers is another case. He was good in the 70's, but he's better now. Also Dr May for some extent. I think he played guitar better in the past (especially in the 1986-1995 era), but his voice is just incredible now. lol...Brians voice incredible now?....that's pretty funny. |
| Gregsynth 14.04.2010 08:48 |
mike hunt wrote: Sebastian wrote: Paul Rodgers is another case. He was good in the 70's, but he's better now. Also Dr May for some extent. I think he played guitar better in the past (especially in the 1986-1995 era), but his voice is just incredible now. lol...Brians voice incredible now?....that's pretty funny. LMFAO!! Brian's and Roger's cords have held up well over the years, though! |
| mike hunt 14.04.2010 17:16 |
Gregsynth wrote: mike hunt wrote: Sebastian wrote: Paul Rodgers is another case. He was good in the 70's, but he's better now. Also Dr May for some extent. I think he played guitar better in the past (especially in the 1986-1995 era), but his voice is just incredible now. lol...Brians voice incredible now?....that's pretty funny. LMFAO!! Brian's and Roger's cords have held up well over the years, though! held up well and incredible are 2 seperate things...I'll take rogers voice anyday over brians, but i wouldn't say he has an incredible voice. Why does this guy Sebastian continue to call brian Dr. May. kind of sounds like a stepford to me. Don't get me started with this zombaka, lol. clown. He's not even worth talking about. |
| Gregsynth 14.04.2010 19:23 |
Well, I wouldn't say Brian and Roger have "incredible" voices, but they have good voices and make excellent backing vocalists. Freddie is the one with the "incredible" voice. |
| Sebastian 14.04.2010 20:10 |
Well, that's why this is a forum, people can (and do) disagree, there's nothing wrong about it. I think from 1969 to 1999, Roger sang better than Brian. Nowadays, IMO, they're pretty much on the same level. And yes, IMO, both Roger and Dr May (there's nothing stepford about calling someone with a PhD, 'Dr...', just like there's nothing stepford about 'Sir Elton' or 'Dame Dench') have incredible voices now. At the same level as Freddie's? No. But yes... incredible. Though IMO Roger sang better in the early days. |
| Holly2003 16.04.2010 11:53 |
Horses for courses. Choose the right voice for the right song and almost anyone can sound good. Within the Queen repetoire, I'd have liked Roger to sing Put Out the Fire instead of Fred, as I think his voice would suit it best. But imo the live veriosn of Modern Times Rock & Roll with Fred singing sounds better than the album version with Rog. On the other hand it's hard to imagine anyone in the band except Fred singing BoRap, Champions etc. |
| mike hunt 16.04.2010 13:02 |
Interesting...I don't think I ever heard freddie sing modern times rock n roll...Have to check that one out on youtube if it's there. I think roger was hit or miss for me, but he nails that one. His voice is good for the hard rock stuff like tenament funster and modern times rock n roll. Now I'm curious how this sounds with freddie. |
| mike hunt 16.04.2010 13:11 |
WoW, that kicked ass....Reminded of stoned cold crazy live...I don't think Queen get enough credit for helping to create thrash metal....They were so heavy live. |
| Gregsynth 16.04.2010 13:40 |
mike hunt wrote: Interesting...I don't think I ever heard freddie sing modern times rock n roll...Have to check that one out on youtube if it's there. I think roger was hit or miss for me, but he nails that one. His voice is good for the hard rock stuff like tenament funster and modern times rock n roll. Now I'm curious how this sounds with freddie. It's on the 3/31/1974 Rainbow performance! |
| mike hunt 16.04.2010 14:58 |
yea, it was awsome. Now i love freddie's voice at wembley and the magic tour, but listen to him in the early to mid 70's. so much better IMO. |
| Gregsynth 16.04.2010 15:27 |
mike hunt wrote: yea, it was awsome. Now i love freddie's voice at wembley and the magic tour, but listen to him in the early to mid 70's. so much better IMO. His voice from late 1979-mid 1982 was the best: Before that, he lacked power and didn't sing too many high notes live overall. After the european leg of the Hot Space tour, he damaged his voice from partying, and the constant "going-all-out" on notes. Then by the Works Tour, his voice was extremely powerful, but harsh and his range was messed up for a good 2/3rd's of the tour. He was better on the Magic Tour (especially the first few concerts), but oversang ALOT. |
| john bodega 17.04.2010 06:53 |
mike hunt wrote: Don't get me started with this zombaka, lol. clown. He's not even worth talking about. You're a well documented knob-end; if you want to take potshots at people for being more articulate or having broader tastes than you, then at least sneak something insightful in while you're at it. PS. Even a clown has a purpose! |
| mike hunt 17.04.2010 11:00 |
yea, I love taking potshots at assholes like you. |
| TheBelgianKillerQueen 26.01.2011 19:16 |
Hey ! Sorry but there was this amazing website called link with all info about Mercury's voice but it doesn't exist anymore and there's no equivalent website so I can't find those info anymore !!!!! Can anybody help me please ? |
| Gregsynth 26.01.2011 19:25 |
That site's been gone for awhile. I haven't found anything yet. |
| Gregsynth 26.01.2011 19:26 |
Freddie's complete vocal range is this: (-A0) C2-F5 (F6) His full voice range is C2-F5, he's gone down to A0 in fry, and got to an F6 in falsetto! |
| Dan C. 26.01.2011 20:08 |
Freddie Mercury had a 17 octave range and could sing notes that made the sun bleed. FACT. |
| Gregsynth 26.01.2011 20:36 |
According to one site, he has 32 octaves! |
| Sebastian 26.01.2011 20:51 |
Freddie's complete HITHERTO DOCUMENTED range is as you wrote it. But, we don't know if he could sing higher or lower than that, or if he did on some obscure unreleased recording or concert we haven't heard yet. |
| Sebastian 26.01.2011 23:20 |
BTW, Greg, since you certainly know your stuff here, could you please check/correct this list? These are, AFAIK, Fred's highest and lowest notes per year (recordings only): 1971 - ??? 1972 - e (Great King Rat) to a" (Great King Rat) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1973 - A (Black Queen) to b" (Ogre Battle - the screaming bit) - 3 Octaves + Major 2nd 1974 - C (Leroy Brown) to bb" (See What a Fool I've Been) - 3 Octaves + Minor 7th 1975 - G (Bo Rhap) to a" (Bo Rhap - outtakes) - Three Octaves + Major 2nd 1976 - F (Somebody to Love) to a" (You Take My Breat Away, or was it ab"?) - 3 Octaves + Major 3rd 1977 - F (All Dead) to e"' (It's Late) - 3 Octaves + Major 7th That's all I've got so far. As for Roger: 1971 - ?? 1972 - e (Keep Yourself Alive - 'day') to a" (My Fairy King) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1973 - e (Loser in the End) to bb" (Son & Daughter at the Beeb) - 2 Octaves + Tritone 1974 - e (Tenement Funster) to a" (Lap of the Gods) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1975 - G (Rendezvous - tuba) to e"' (Survival) - 3 Octaves + Major 6th So far I'm there... And last but not least, Dr May: 1971 - ??? 1972 - a (Liar) to c" (Great King Rat) - 1 Octave + Minor 3rd 1973 - d (Some Day One Day) to c" (Father to Son) - 1 Octave + Minor 7th 1974 - d (Dear Friends) to d" (She Makes Me) - 2 Octaves 1975 - c (Good Company) to c#" ('39) - 2 Octaves + Minor 2nd Again, I'm there so far. |
| Dan C. 27.01.2011 01:26 |
Gregsynth wrote: According to one site, he has 32 octaves! ===================== Seventeen I could see, but 32 is just preposterous! ;) |
| Hubb 27.01.2011 02:11 |
TheBelgianKillerQueen wrote: Hey ! Sorry but there was this amazing website called link with all info about Mercury's voice but it doesn't exist anymore and there's no equivalent website so I can't find those info anymore !!!!! Can anybody help me please ? ========================= Found it in webarchives link |
| Gregsynth 27.01.2011 02:22 |
Sebastian wrote: BTW, Greg, since you certainly know your stuff here, could you please check/correct this list? These are, AFAIK, Fred's highest and lowest notes per year (recordings only): 1971 - ??? 1972 - e (Great King Rat) to a" (Great King Rat) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1973 - A (Black Queen) to b" (Ogre Battle - the screaming bit) - 3 Octaves + Major 2nd 1974 - C (Leroy Brown) to bb" (See What a Fool I've Been) - 3 Octaves + Minor 7th 1975 - G (Bo Rhap) to a" (Bo Rhap - outtakes) - Three Octaves + Major 2nd 1976 - F (Somebody to Love) to a" (You Take My Breat Away, or was it ab"?) - 3 Octaves + Major 3rd 1977 - F (All Dead) to e"' (It's Late) - 3 Octaves + Major 7th That's all I've got so far. As for Roger: 1971 - ?? 1972 - e (Keep Yourself Alive - 'day') to a" (My Fairy King) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1973 - e (Loser in the End) to bb" (Son & Daughter at the Beeb) - 2 Octaves + Tritone 1974 - e (Tenement Funster) to a" (Lap of the Gods) - 2 Octaves + Perfect 4th 1975 - G (Rendezvous - tuba) to e"' (Survival) - 3 Octaves + Major 6th So far I'm there... And last but not least, Dr May: 1971 - ??? 1972 - a (Liar) to c" (Great King Rat) - 1 Octave + Minor 3rd 1973 - d (Some Day One Day) to c" (Father to Son) - 1 Octave + Minor 7th 1974 - d (Dear Friends) to d" (She Makes Me) - 2 Octaves 1975 - c (Good Company) to c#" ('39) - 2 Octaves + Minor 2nd Again, I'm there so far. ====== That appears to be 100% accurate! |
| Gregsynth 27.01.2011 02:25 |
Hubb wrote: TheBelgianKillerQueen wrote: Hey ! Sorry but there was this amazing website called link with all info about Mercury's voice but it doesn't exist anymore and there's no equivalent website so I can't find those info anymore !!!!! Can anybody help me please ? ========================= Found it in webarchives link ========== That site's gotta get either updated/fixed, etc. It misses Freddie's highest falsetto notes (E6 and F6), flip-flops between baritone and tenor (his official vocal type is a low tenor), misses his vocal fry, and lowest full voice note (C2). |
| Sebastian 27.01.2011 04:12 |
Most websites from early 2000's (mine included) need A LOT of copy-editing and verifying, in the light of a lot new info that's become available, especially on-line. |
| beautifulsoup 27.01.2011 18:27 |
|
| marslander 20.10.2012 09:14 |
I seem to remember that when Freddie began smoking it was mentioned in the Queen Fan Club magazine ! I would also, seriously like to know when this was ! |
| Sebastian 11.08.2013 18:15 |
Bmpd. |
| Nitroboy 12.08.2013 11:41 |
Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's complete vocal range is this: (-A0) C2-F5 (F6) His full voice range is C2-F5, he's gone down to A0 in fry, and got to an F6 in falsetto!You keep telling yourself that Mr. Synth ;P |
| Gregsynth 12.08.2013 12:50 |
Nitroboy wrote:Guess I should update it!Gregsynth wrote: Freddie's complete vocal range is this: (-A0) C2-F5 (F6) His full voice range is C2-F5, he's gone down to A0 in fry, and got to an F6 in falsetto!You keep telling yourself that Mr. Synth ;P |
| Sebastian 12.08.2013 15:14 |
That's a great idea. |
| Gregsynth 12.08.2013 16:03 |
Sebastian wrote: That's a great idea.Alright.. here goes: The lowest note I heard Freddie hit was a G#1 (growl/fry during Ride The Wild Wind), the lowest "sung" note I've heard is an F2 (although he's spoken lower notes in interviews), the highest sung note without falsetto is the F5 on "All God's People," the highest falsetto note is a D6 and the highest note he's ever hit is an A6 whistle note (on the "Get Down Make Love" from the BBC 1977 recording). |
| Nitroboy 13.08.2013 08:17 |
You forgot to mention the E6 in the end of 'It's Late' |
| Gregsynth 13.08.2013 13:59 |
Nitroboy wrote: You forgot to mention the E6 in the end of 'It's Late'That's a whistle note Simon! He's hit higher whistle notes than that (the F6 at London 1984, and the Get Down Make Love whistle notes at the BBC 1977 version)! |
| Sebastian 14.08.2013 18:18 |
Speaking of ... near the end of Dragon Attack there's a high-pitched note which sounds just like Freddie's whistle register, but I'm not 100% sure. 4.06 - 4.07 on front right channel from the DTS mixes. If it's really Freddie's voice, then it's a D6, which is lower than It's Late, but worth mentioning in the album-by-album breakdown. |
| BradMay 27.03.2014 10:48 |
Freddie was indeed a Tenor, however, on songs like The Golden Boy, he sounded like a blatant baritone. The weird part about Freddie's voice was the fact that, he had the tessitura of a typical tenor (Reaching notes above A4 without any problems) HOWEVER when he was touring, he couldn't get past G4 alot of the time, and whenever he did get past them he strained (I'm talking about the 84-86 tours) Around the time of The Works and A Kind Of Magic, he had mastered his belting technique, he was really aiming for those C/C#/D5s and was hitting them with immense power! Around the time of Innuendo he was very ill, but he did master his Mixed voice technique, just listen to the Innuendo Eb5, and the Show Must Go On D5 for example, they're much "smoother" and "Cleaner" Than the Gimme The Prize D5, for example. It's also funny how everybody keeps mentioning his fried and whistled notes, because they dont really count as "Sung" or "Useable" since they're not really musical. For me, Freddie's Vocal Range spans: F2 > F5 in Full Voice, and it could go up to E6 with USEABLE and GOOD SOUNDING falsetto/whistle. So, that makes his range one note short of a full deck, ehh... 4 octave range :D The great part is, Freddie sounded great on all the notes. The ODD part however, like i already said is that on the one album he could hit insanely easy and light C5s (Songs like Scandal and Bohemian Rhapsody for example) And on the other album he strained with stuff like G#4s (I want to break free for example, however... i give him credit for that one anyways, since that song is very hard to sing) From 1973 - 1979 he sounded great, and very relaxed, from '80 - '82 he started to loose a bit of smoothness, but he gained some power in the mid 4th octave . From '84 - '86 he started to become a very powerfull singer, but he did lose the sweet highs) in '88 he took singing lessons (I'm quite sure he did) and he got very rich lows and easy clean / smooth highs again. From '89-'91 AIDS started to get a real toll on his voice, you could hear the loss of chest power, and he eased on the vibrato, however, he did sound like his mid '70s self again, but now with a great technique. The weird thing is, i remember listening to Innuendo for the first time and i was completely shocked, i knew Freddie from songs like Radio Gaga and One Vision, so when i heard Innuendo i was blown away by how thin his voice sounded, it still sounded very impressive and quite powerfull To this day i wonder how Freddie would've sounded if he was still alive.. |
| Bruno P. 27.03.2014 11:57 |
How about those sweet impromptus? link link |
| YAFF 27.03.2014 13:18 |
Bruno P. wrote: How about those sweet impromptus? link linkWho cares. He's no Adam Lambert |
| SweetCaroline 27.03.2014 15:22 |
Bruno P. wrote: How about those sweet impromptus? link linkIf you would change the "https" to just "http" we would be able to click on your links! Thanks! |
| Bruno P. 03.04.2014 12:10 |
OK, changed it :) thank you. He's no Adam Lambert, sure, but he could still reach insanely high notes albeit not with his chest/head voice, I suppose? Like, he didn't even try to reach Who Wants To Live Forever's high notes live but went for a stronger (higher?) vocal approach on Love of my Life and Bohemian Rhapsody (the verses, not the ending). |