Queen& 10.07.2005 13:44 |
Robert Plant beats Freddie to no1 best singer According to bbc teletext alls i say to that is bollocks you just listen to Plant at freddies tribute he was shite |
englishyob 10.07.2005 14:14 |
The FM Tribute wasn’t Plants best performance but he's still one hell of a singer, but wouldn’t say he was better the Freddie |
Suigi 10.07.2005 14:20 |
Of course he wasn't! It's just that more people like Zepp than Queen, Stairway to Heaven than BoRhap. |
Sharon G. 10.07.2005 14:31 |
Robert Plant is very very good. Saw them a few times. BUT, Freddie was Great. Ride 'em cowboy! |
Vallentine's 10.07.2005 14:50 |
Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals! |
Bobby_brown 10.07.2005 15:07 |
BG.Innuendo wrote: Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals!No way Bono is better that Robert Plant, and you can't compare him to Freddie. I'm not saying he's worst, he's just different. Take care |
Gunpowder Gelatine 10.07.2005 15:51 |
I think both are great singers but Freddie would probably have been honored to be second to Robert Plant - wasn't he always a big Zeppelin fan? |
kerfuffle87 10.07.2005 15:57 |
I'm shocked, Plant said at the Tribute concert that people were having to change key to sing the songs Freddie did - that just shows Freddie's true diversity and ability to sing most of the notes out there! which further proves that no one can and will be able to sing as well as he did, that includes Robert Plant.Stupid polls, who'd have 'em?! |
Lord Blackadder 10.07.2005 17:47 |
MEATY wrote: Robert Plant beats Freddie to no1 best singer According to bbc teletext alls i say to that is bollocks you just listen to Plant at freddies tribute he was shiteOnly Innuendo was "shite". Crazy Little Thing was great. And if you think Plant is shit then you have no taste. |
Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 10.07.2005 18:10 |
Bono?? Cwazy Little Thing Called Love was great?? You guys have been in the sun too long. You gone loco! |
wstüssyb 10.07.2005 18:25 |
Few males like Plant can sing like a female ever wonder how many horny teenages shot one off thinking plant was some hot chick? lol |
mrjordy 10.07.2005 18:36 |
I just saw Robert Plant with his new band, The Strange Sensation, live in Portsmouth, VA at the Harbor Center Pavillion on July 4th. Granted, he sucked at the Freddie tribute, but if you could have heard him belt out "Whole Lotta Love" as an encore on the show of the 4th, you'd change your outlook. Robert's voice is in true top form. He sounds brilliant. Freddie is my favorite vocalist of all time, I grant that, yet Robert is right up there with him. I've always thought so. I equate Robert and Freddie with other great vocalists of the last century - Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Pavarotti and the like. Just because one poll lists Robert above Freddie, that doesn't mean anything. I think all of us would agree that Freddie is tops, any day. |
rockyracoon 10.07.2005 21:46 |
This is a bit like comparing Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan. Two individuals head and shoulders above the others. I was fortunate to see both Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury perform live, and both were excellent. I saw Led Zeppelin perform for the first time in the U.S. in late January 1969 at the Fillmore East in New York City. They were the warm-up group for Iron Butterfly and managed to steal the show. At the time, Led Zeppelin was a group nobody had heard of. But Robert Plant put on an incredibly powerful vocal performance, and Jimmy Page put on a dazzling display of guitar skills. That concert put Led Zeppelin on the map in the U.S. As an aside, Iron Butterfly were also very good that night and did a masterful job with My Mirage and Inagoddadavida, or whatever it is. I saw Queen perform live in Chicago in September 1980, and twice in August 1982. All three performances were spectacular. Freddie was superb, Brian was brilliant, John laid down incredibly solid bass lines, and Roger was energetic on the drums to the point of exhaustion. Unbelievable. But comparing Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury is futile. Both were incredibly powerful singers with great range. But I personally have a strong preference for Freddie. As a musician, I have always felt Queen's music to be far superior in complexity, depth, harmonics, variety, and mix/blending of the recorded music. And Freddie was a master performer and front man, always getting the crowd involved to the point that he had them in the palm of his hand. Unfortunately, I always found Zep's music to be too hard driving, musically lacking, and sounded too much the same. But I have to give credit to Robert Plant for having a great set of lungs. So give me Freddie and Queen any day of the week. On the other hand, my brother is a Led Zep and Robert Plant fan. Since vocalists and music fall into the category of art, perhaps beauty lies in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder. |
mrjordy 10.07.2005 21:56 |
Exceptionally well put, Rocky. |
INXS 10.07.2005 22:36 |
I think Robert Plant has a great voice, but if I were to compare him to Freddie....their voices are very different, I must say I enjoy them both but.... |
The Real Wizard 10.07.2005 23:52 |
Great, post Rocky. I have to add to this discussion: If you listen to 69-72 live Robert Plant, he puts Freddie Mercury as a live singer in his place. Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from the BBC Sessions and find ANY live performance of Freddie with equal emotion and range. Impossible. Plant sang with no fear in the early days, while Mercury was always careful, even on his best days. How The West Was Won... that album is vintage Plant. I have yet to hear any live album with a more powerful and effective singer, strictly from a vocal quality perspective. For the most part, Freddie Mercury was not a great live singer. I find that he rarely sang with emotion and creativity, because he was so concerned about being careful with his range, and entertaining the audience. Of course I can't put that against him, as he's among the all-time greatest entertainers in popular music. But I'm just making a point. In terms of studio work, I find Freddie was far superior than he was live, and far superior to Plant, and almost every other rock singer in that regard. I'm sure many people here will feel automatically compelled to disagree with me on some of these points, but after listening to 250 Queen bootlegs, and often hearing the songs sung the exact same way from night to night, that's the conclusion I can safely make. On the contrary, I have about 25 recordings of Zeppelin from 1973, and there are not two recordings of the a song where Plant sings it the same way. He was a far more original singer, but wasn't as much of an entertainer as Freddie. But Plant's drug use and lack of taking care of his voice soon took its toll, and after 1973, his range and overall voice were never the same. Sure, Freddie has many incredible moments on albums, but the best singers are the ones who can consistently get the job done night after night on a tour. In most cases, neither Freddie nor Plant belong in this category. A guy like James LaBrie from Dream Theater does. He has been consistently strong on the last few tours, singing better than ever. He is very open about how he has a new vocal trainer, and it has done wonders. Now he just seems to get better with age. So, clearly I like all three of these singers, and for different reasons. But certainly a singer like James LaBrie is in the same league as Plant and Mercury. He's just not in the mainstream, so he has not received the recognition he deserves. Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's. Anyone care to mention some others singers? How about some serious Paul McCartney and Bono enthusiasts? |
rockyracoon 11.07.2005 00:27 |
Sir GH, Great post. Robert Plant came on very strong in 1969, and because I didn't care too much for Zep's music and didn't listen that closely, I never noticed the deterioration in his voice in the mid 1970's. But I did notice that Freddie's voice got progressively better over the years. The vocals on the Innuendo and Made in Heaven albums were amazing. I suspect there are quite a few other singers out there who haven't been noticed because they haven't found a hit or following yet. Or maybe it's because so much of the music today is crap. But with some good songs, great singers will get noticed. |
rockyracoon 11.07.2005 00:41 |
"Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's. Anyone care to mention some others singers? How about some serious Paul McCartney and Bono enthusiasts?" I haven't had the opportunity to listen to Paul Rodgers with Queen except in some low-quality bootleg stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing them in LA in October. While I was a big fan of the Beatles, I never considered Paul McCartney to be a great singer. In fact, I preferred John Lennon's voice, which was more soulful and had the ability to cut through. McCartney was a great songwriter, and was unusually good on harmonies. I hope this isn't too irreverant for this board, but from my perspective McCartney and Brian May are in the same class as vocalists -- okay, and great back-up singers/harmonizers, but shouldn't be the lead singers in ANY band. As far as Bono -- a much better singer than McCartney, but not anywhere close to Robert Plant or Freddie Mercury. And I put Elton John at the same level as Bono. |
Suigi 11.07.2005 01:18 |
Gunpowder Gelatine wrote: I think both are great singers but Freddie would probably have been honored to be second to Robert Plant - wasn't he always a big Zeppelin fan?That's true. They've mentioned Zepp as an influence quite a few times, and it shows on "Innuendo" and "Son and Daughter." |
Matti 11.07.2005 03:22 |
I think they are both great singers. IMO they are different and can't be compared. |
willem-jan 8923 11.07.2005 03:57 |
Bob: Paul Rodgers came in 3th, so he IS also recognized as being an excellent singer. Full list is here: link |
kerfuffle87 11.07.2005 06:03 |
willem-jan wrote: Bob: Paul Rodgers came in 3th, so he IS also recognized as being an excellent singer. Full list is here: linkWoah?! Where's John? seems he truly is the invisible man =-( |
djaef 11.07.2005 06:31 |
RockyRacoon and Sir GH: great posts!! I like your analysis. I too have followed Queen and Lez Zeppelin since the early 70s and they are my two all time favourite bands. Robbie was an incredible singer in his younger days, particularly live. I would definately agree that if we take the best of their live careers, Robbie was a much better live singer than Freddie, and conversely, no-one on the planet was a better rock singer in the studio than Freddie. They each had their areas of strength. The ad libbing, blues jam driven nature of Zep's live shows gave Percy a fantastic arena in which to flex his vocal prowess. Queen were a great live band, but they were even better on record. Led Zeppelin were great on record, but even better live (on a good night). I saw Plant a half dozen years back in Copenhagen, and he was even then in very good form. From what I've heard with the new album, he's finding material that suits his voice and really hitting his pensioner straps :) The only rock singer who comes close to these guys for me was Jeff Buckley. Live he was not so crash hot from what I've heard, but in the studio he had an incredible mix of range and emotion that is sorely lacking in contemporary rock. It all depends on what you want to judge. Showmanship, emotion, range... I like Paul Rodgers a lot, and while I think he has taken a long time to feel relaxed singing these songs, he's starting to get there, and if they do some new material watch out. The man is real class. |
willem-jan 8923 11.07.2005 06:58 |
kerfuffle87 wrote:willem-jan wrote: Woah?! Where's John? seems he truly is the invisible man =-(John isn't THAT good. |
Megamike The GREAT 11.07.2005 08:21 |
Did ANYONE else find it funny that SLASH was voted as a better Guitar player over Brian? In keeping with the thread, I was never a Zep fan, but I do enjoy Plants singing. and hey Rocky.. watch me pull a rabb..... ooops, I mean, That is great you saw Queen in Chicago in 1980, I have a bootleg of that show and it is incredible.. I saw them the NEXT night in Detroit Michigan and they just BLEW ME AWAY.. Freddie actually spoke to me... I kept yelling for Another One Bites The Dust after each song.. finally he looked at me and said, "We'll do that one later darling..." we were front row just slightly off center stage more to Brians side. |
Queen& 11.07.2005 08:48 |
Cozy Powell better than roger aswell wot u think of that |
Megamike The GREAT 11.07.2005 08:48 |
willem-jan wrote:kerfuffle87 wrote:I agree, at least the bass player from Dream Theater should have been mentioned, I can't think of his name right off hand but I know he is GOOD... same with their guitar player, which I MUST say I think is a WHOLE lot better than Slash.willem-jan wrote: Woah?! Where's John? seems he truly is the invisible man =-(John isn't THAT good. I'm surprised that no members of Dream Theater are mentioned in this list. Apparently Rush is better known then Dream Theater. But those guys really deserve a spot on the list. |
moonie 11.07.2005 09:20 |
Along with Queen, Led Zepplin are one of my all time favourite bands I dont think it's fair to make comparisons between Percy and Freddie as they were 2 unique singers, both of whom were incomparable in what they did In short 2 of the greatest rock vocalists ever, but in different ways. Bono? C'mon, get a grip!! |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 09:40 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: For the most part, Freddie Mercury was not a great live singer. I find that he rarely sang with emotion and creativity, because he was so concerned about being careful with his range, and entertaining the audience. Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's.I agree with a lot of your comments Bob but with that one I strongly disagree, and I think it's very wrong to say that Freddie wasn't a good live singer. One could argue that Pele wasn't the best footie player, but you can't just go and say that he wasn't really good. There are for sure many performances by Freddie that were better than others, but that's because while going through heavy touring a singer's voice is sensitive to loss of quality, and it'd be nearly impossible for Freddie or any other singer to keep his voice in perfect shape through a whole year of touring. The only thing that I'd have to criticize about Freddie was the fact that his heavy smoking made his voice more fragile, although he claims he didn't give up smoking because he wanted his voice to become huskier and less smooth and mellow. |
Jean Luc 2000 11.07.2005 12:27 |
BG.Innuendo wrote: Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals!You need to check in at the funny farm mate. Bono represents everything that is wrong with Rock music these days. |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 13:21 |
Bono has a decent voice, but someone should tell this man that HE CAN'T SING FALSETTOS. Just listen to U2 songs like 'Lemon', 'Numb' or 'The Sweetest Thing' and you'll find that Bono's falsettos sound nearly as horrible as screeching chalk. |
Suigi 11.07.2005 14:00 |
Nice to see us Canay-juns being represented on the list. Rush has the 5th bassist and 2nd drummer. And my other fave band, the Who, had a respectable showing. |
NOTWMEDDLE 11.07.2005 14:58 |
Slash better than David Gilmour on guitar my ass! May and Gilmour are my two favorite guitarists and Page plus Alex Lifesone! Hendrix and Blackmore were good but the former's drug use and the latter's foray into minstrel music made them shells of their former selves. Roger Taylor is my fave drummer of all time after Bonham and Peart. John Paul Jones is a superb bass player as is Deaky but he didn't make it. |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 15:03 |
Flea from 'Red Hot Chili Peppers' is the best bass player I've seen. |
mike hunt 11.07.2005 19:34 |
another list, i need to say a few things on this, first, disregard the ignorant remarks from a certain person who says freddie wasn't a great live singer, obviously he never seen 'we will rock you' and 'live at the bowl' dvds or 'live aid' but on to this discussion,i should say this isn't a big deal, it means nothing, there's plenty of these lists where freddie is #1 and robert is 2, it's only one list out of hundreds. i'm not the biggest zepp fan, but i know a good singer when i hear him, and plant is great. i think freddie and robert are the 'elvis' and 'sinatra' of rock bands, these two guys are the cream of the crop, either are truly much better than the other, my fav is personally freddie, #2 is halford, but i realize the greatest are truly freddie and plant, there's other great singers out there, but there not as original as these two, orginality is everything. please, the singer from dream theater isn't half of what freddie, or plant, even halford, he's simply not original enough. |
mike hunt 11.07.2005 19:39 |
i need to say the same for the guitarist, page is great, but better than hendrix, i think not, slash is in no way better or as good than brian may, no where near hendrix or gilmore, that's why you can't take these lists to seriously, but roger at #8 is good, no complaints there. |
doremi 11.07.2005 20:31 |
Mike Preston wrote: Did ANYONE else find it funny that SLASH was voted as a better Guitar player over Brian? In keeping with the thread, I was never a Zep fan, but I do enjoy Plants singing. and hey Rocky.. watch me pull a rabb..... ooops, I mean, That is great you saw Queen in Chicago in 1980, I have a bootleg of that show and it is incredible.. I saw them the NEXT night in Detroit Michigan and they just BLEW ME AWAY.. Freddie actually spoke to me... I kept yelling for Another One Bites The Dust after each song.. finally he looked at me and said, "We'll do that one later darling..." we were front row just slightly off center stage more to Brians side.Freddie spoke to you and called you ''darling''. I bow and humble at your feet! LOL! :) But really, Plant over Freddie..Mr. screw up BOTH Live Aid and the FM Tribute concert doing his own songs. I don't think so.... I also have never been much of a Plant fan. Limited range and screeches like a banshee when trying to do the blues, rock style. But like alot of people said, you have MANY more Zep fans who all voted I'm sure. |
mike hunt 11.07.2005 20:58 |
you make a good point, i think roberts a great singer, but he does seem to screech a bit with his voice, a bit annoying at times. |
The Real Wizard 11.07.2005 21:42 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I agree with a lot of your comments Bob but with that one I strongly disagree, and I think it's very wrong to say that Freddie wasn't a good live singer. One could argue that Pele wasn't the best footie player, but you can't just go and say that he wasn't really good. There are for sure many performances by Freddie that were better than others, but that's because while going through heavy touring a singer's voice is sensitive to loss of quality, and it'd be nearly impossible for Freddie or any other singer to keep his voice in perfect shape through a whole year of touring. The only thing that I'd have to criticize about Freddie was the fact that his heavy smoking made his voice more fragile, although he claims he didn't give up smoking because he wanted his voice to become huskier and less smooth and mellow.I appreciate your feedback, and I certainly agree with most of your observations, especially those about Freddie and his smoking. But note how I said "for the most part", Freddie wasn't that great of a live singer. As far as I'm concerned, the only tours where Freddie was consistent in his vocal range were NOTW 77, Crazy 79, US and Europe 80, and Europe 82. That's five tours out of 25 or so. That was the point I was making. I was speaking in comparison to his abilities in the studio. If you take that one comment of mine on its own, then yes, it appears like I'm saying Freddie wasn't a great live singer, period. But when one reads the rest of my post and tries to understand its points, then they will see where I'm coming from. I stand by my words. In the majority of Queen shows, Freddie's vocal range was limited. If he went beyond that range, even a bit, he would crack. Listen to almost any random show from Queen tours that I didn't mention above, and you'll hear a singer excercising about an octave of his range only (and sometimes less), because that's all that is available. On his best nights, it was one and a half octaves. So, Mike Hunt, perhaps you could actually read the rest of my posts before calling me ignorant. I am far from ignorant. I am an honest fan who critiques singers and musicians as he pleases. Receiving equally honest feedback from others helps build my knowledge of music and musicians. If you can't accept that James LaBrie's vocal range is better than Freddie Mercury's, that's not my fault. LaBrie is the most consistent singer I've ever heard. Never once has his voice cracked on stage over the past few tours... of the bootlegs I've heard and performances I've witnessed, anyway. And that's quite a few. LaBrie's range is outstanding. Yes, he's not the most original singer ever, but I wasn't focusing on that aspect of him. If anyone can claim that Freddie Mercury's live range is better than James LaBrie's, then that's simply a case of being completely misinformed. LaBrie's range on his worst day is better than most of Freddie's best days. Now don't come back and talk about originality and stage presence. This part of the discussion is purely about vocal range. If we'd like to extend the discussion to include falsetto range, then of course Freddie would destroy LaBrie, and practically anyone else. Freddie's operatic abilities continue to amaze me. Jingles... I recommend you listen to Dream Theater's Live At The Budokan, released last year. Not only will you hear an amazing night of music from the four instrumentalists, but you'll hear someone in complete control of their voice. Not one slight error, crack, or missed note in sight. This is how he sounds every night nowadays. I'm not even going to elaborate on the rest of the list. Taste is relative, and the criteria one rates musicians varies from one music fan to another. I'll just say that there's no way Jimmy Page, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones are better at their respective instruments than John Petrucci, Terry Bozzio, and Geddy Lee. Arti |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 22:36 |
I like James LaBrie quite a lot, and although I think his range is great, I don't think he can top Freddie Mercury or Robert Plant. I mean, if you listen to 'Bohemian Rhapsody' on 'A Change Of Seasons' I don't think he can quite reach Freddie's vocal range, but gives a quite decent performance. Also, I'd like to see James LaBrie try something outisde the rock genre, and see how his voice fits other music styles. What I like about Freddie so much is that he was so versatile. He could try so many music genres and still sound great. Btw, I listened 'Live At The Budokan' and it's sounds awesome. I might go an pick it this weekend. |
mike hunt 11.07.2005 22:45 |
to be honest 'sir' i always felt 'dream theater' were posers, i'm friends with alot of music fans and not one takes dream theater seriously. other singers mention freddie, rob halford, robert plant, chris cornell, among others as a huge influence on singers, in turn, i never hear about (what's his name) among these mentioned, that's what i go by, if you want a great non mainstream band try 'clutch' they will rock you, and kick your ass, and they would kick dream theaters ass to. |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 22:53 |
I think the reason why some people don't like Dream Theater is because they put all their musical input into showing their very own virtuosity. A Dream Theater show is basically about over the top performance skills along with a lot of musical complexity. Some people like it, others don't. I remember I was recently discussing this with one of my co-workers whose husband is a huge Dream Theater fan. She said she likes Dream Theater, but gets bored of listening to a 10 minute long guitar or drum solo. Her husband, on the other hand seems like he could listen to it forever. I like Dream Theater quite a lot, but the reason why I don't like them more than the average Dream Theater fan is because I'm the kind of person who likes a lot of musical variety on artists based on exploring other genres, and Dream Theater basically hasn't gone anywhere outisde of genres like Heavy Metal or Progressive Rock, although they're without a doubt great on those two. |
The Real Wizard 11.07.2005 23:02 |
mike hunt wrote: to be honest 'sir' i always felt 'dream theater' were posers, i'm friends with alot of music fans and not one takes dream theater seriously. other singers mention freddie, rob halford, robert plant, chris cornell, among others as a huge influence on singers, in turn, i never hear about (what's his name) among these mentioned, that's what i go by, if you want a great non mainstream band try 'clutch' they will rock you, and kick your ass, and they would kick dream theaters ass to.Just because your friends are "music fans" doesn't make their opinions any greater than the opinions of others. Taste is relative. Deal with it. The reason why Dream Theater isn't successful in the mainstream is because their brand of music is over the heads of 90% of the listening audience, most of whom are used to listening to simplistic pop-oriented music. But I do not look down on them for being satisfied with what they are accustomed to. If they want to look for something more intellectually satisfying to fill their cd player, then they will find it. It may be DT, and it may not. |
The Real Wizard 11.07.2005 23:06 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I think the reason why some people don't like Dream Theater is because they put all their musical input into showing their very own virtuosity. A Dream Theater show is basically all about over the top peformance skills.I disagree. Certainly you are partially right, but much of their music is melodic and not technically demanding at all. Listen to disc 2 of Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence. Very little of it is highly technical. |
Mr.Jingles 11.07.2005 23:11 |
I have to say that I have a lot of respect for Dream Theater for not having the smallest desire to be accepted by the mainstream. They're the complete opossite of the fabricated shit you see on TRL and that's great, so KUDOS for them. Dream Theater certainly enjoys having their cult status, and strongly appreciates the loyalty of their fans. |
mike hunt 12.07.2005 00:06 |
for a good non mainstream band try 'clutch' unlike dream theater, most of their songs are under 20 minutes and they rock. 'sir' your not chatting with a kid who knows nothing about music, i have every 'rush' album from their first album to 'vapor trails', also 'yes' and all the rest, i will admit there's some talent in dream theater, but, like i said, they lack in originality, and that's the real reason why they never made big like rush and yes, and pink floyd. originality is the key to what i'm trying to say. 'theater' sound like a copy of iron maiden and rush and many many and many other bands. i saw this band open up for iron maiden, i walked away unimpressed, almost fell asleep. |
The Real Wizard 12.07.2005 00:55 |
mike hunt wrote: for a good non mainstream band try 'clutch' unlike dream theater, most of their songs are under 20 minutes and they rock. 'sir' your not chatting with a kid who knows nothing about music, i have every 'rush' album from their first album to 'vapor trails', also 'yes' and all the rest, i will admit there's some talent in dream theater, but, like i said, they lack in originality, and that's the real reason why they never made big like rush and yes, and pink floyd. originality is the key to what i'm trying to say. 'theater' sound like a copy of iron maiden and rush and many many and many other bands. i saw this band open up for iron maiden, i walked away unimpressed, almost fell asleep.And again, you're entitled to your opinion. You're right, DT very often site their influences openly, but you can't tell me that the concept of the Scenes From A Memory album isn't original, for example. That album is one of the most original things I've ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that Yes was hugely commercially successful? Dream Theater may not be big here, but they're very big in Europe and Japan. They are just so over the heads of the commercial audience here, and they never will be big here. As Jingles pointed out, they're clearly happy with what they have become. They do not need to sell out, and I hope they never will. |
quicksilver mercury 12.07.2005 01:02 |
james labrie is garbage and he comes from a parasite cowerd country of loosers |
The Real Wizard 12.07.2005 01:41 |
scott__mercury wrote: james labrie is garbage and he comes from a parasite cowerd country of loosersScott, I welcome you and your intellectual, well-informed contributions to this discussion. |
willem-jan 8923 12.07.2005 02:57 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I thought MP once mentioned that he wanted to get his big breakthrough with Octavarium? Could be only some gossip, but I can immagine them being pleased with some respect from press/TV/big audience. Anyway, I hope they will never be a big mainstream band, just because they will play football stadiums then, instead of smaller venues like they do now (although 10.000 is big enough to me as well).mike hunt wrote: for a good non mainstream band try 'clutch' unlike dream theater, most of their songs are under 20 minutes and they rock. 'sir' your not chatting with a kid who knows nothing about music, i have every 'rush' album from their first album to 'vapor trails', also 'yes' and all the rest, i will admit there's some talent in dream theater, but, like i said, they lack in originality, and that's the real reason why they never made big like rush and yes, and pink floyd. originality is the key to what i'm trying to say. 'theater' sound like a copy of iron maiden and rush and many many and many other bands. i saw this band open up for iron maiden, i walked away unimpressed, almost fell asleep.And again, you're entitled to your opinion. You're right, DT very often site their influences openly, but you can't tell me that the concept of the Scenes From A Memory album isn't original, for example. That album is one of the most original things I've ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that Yes was hugely commercially successful? Dream Theater may not be big here, but they're very big in Europe and Japan. They are just so over the heads of the commercial audience here, and they never will be big here. As Jingles pointed out, they're clearly happy with what they have become. They do not need to sell out, and I hope they never will. |
kerfuffle87 12.07.2005 10:28 |
Mike Preston wrote:willem-jan wrote:will you forgive me if i say I haven't heard of Dream Theater? I just think the simplicity of John's bass playing allows him to blend well with the songs, some people let complexity take over... I'm off to buy some dream theater records now... :Dkerfuffle87 wrote:I agree, at least the bass player from Dream Theater should have been mentioned, I can't think of his name right off hand but I know he is GOOD... same with their guitar player, which I MUST say I think is a WHOLE lot better than Slash.willem-jan wrote: Woah?! Where's John? seems he truly is the invisible man =-(John isn't THAT good. I'm surprised that no members of Dream Theater are mentioned in this list. Apparently Rush is better known then Dream Theater. But those guys really deserve a spot on the list. |
mike hunt 12.07.2005 20:52 |
the problem with 'sir's' theory is, i personally never heard a rock singer sing like freddie sings on the 'we will rock you' dvd. let me see james labrie sing 'somebody to love,' then sing 'sheer heart attack,' which was not just impressive, but was in fact sheer brilliance. also check out 'play the game,' i'm not just ranking on dream theater, i don't think i'v seen any other rock singer sing such a wide range of music, from labrie to dickinson, halford and yes even plant. it's only one opinion, but to me, freddie reigns supreme. to contridict myself a bit, even if 'labrie' isn't the most original singer, he's still better than most singers out there today. |
The Real Wizard 12.07.2005 21:14 |
I hear ya Mike, but in Queen concerts, Freddie usually could not sing Somebody To Love like the recorded version. His vocal performance was often very disappointing. It's not really a LaBrie song, so I couldn't see him excelling with this one. Conversely, could you picture Freddie singing Caught In A Web? There are many fantastic versions from 81-82, but most versions from the 70s are lacking. They surely wouldn't have performed the song as often as they did had they not released it as a single. |
mike hunt 12.07.2005 22:38 |
this has become the mercury and labrie show, i thought this topic was about mercury and plant, i'll check out some more live "plant", i'm familiar with dickinson and halford, both are good but limited live singers, maybe i'll even check out some live dream theater and judge for myself. |
djaef 12.07.2005 22:56 |
mike hunt wrote: this has become the mercury and labrie show, i thought this topic was about mercury and plant, i'll check out some more live "plant", i'm familiar with dickinson and halford, both are good but limited live singers, maybe i'll even check out some live dream theater and judge for myself.When you check out Plant, make sure to put the focus on 1969 - 1973. They were his prime years vocally I would think. (not having a great Zep boot collection myself, I'm only going on what I've read). The recent live cd How The West Was Won is a great place to start. Zeppelin at their 1972 best. |
mike hunt 12.07.2005 23:53 |
that's the one i was going to check out, i was never a huge zep fan, but still like them, i heard alot of good things about that release, so i will check it out, also, the who has some great live releases, as far as queen go, i think their best is still in the vaults, i think early to mid 70's they were tighter than ever, even though early 80's were great. from what i heard freddie's vocals were bloody strong on songs like 'liar' and son and 'daughter,' he had that operatic excellence from the mid 70's bootlegs i heard. |
Grantcdn 13.07.2005 00:34 |
I really think we should question how the survey results came out....it seems to be that it was just the Led Zeppelin fan club that either voted or got their votes counted....obviously there weren't many true musicians voting...Plant was good and all but Mercury blows him away....so does Rodgers by the way...., and JP Jones ahead of Geddy Lee, no way ever....Slash that high??? yes the list goes on... |
deleted user 13.07.2005 06:38 |
Robert Plant is the negative side of Led Zeppelin. |
mike hunt 13.07.2005 15:34 |
i agree, the more i think about this list, the more bullshit i think it is. don't get me wrong, it would be ignorant to say 'plant' wasn't great, but from what i heard from 'mercury' he is in fact a better vocalist. to me 'plant' has a high pitch voice, but very thin compared to mercury, freddie has a much wider range, and plant has an annoying screeche a bit, i listened to zeps 'how the west was won' which is considered plants prime and that's the impression i get, a high pitch but thin voice, still good, but if you listen to freddie in 74 to 76 or early eighties, it's no comparison, imo. forget about "slash", that's even a bigger joke, he's a solid guitar player, but 2nd best of all time? are they joking. |
bex 13.07.2005 18:46 |
For me, as a young listener, Plant, while clearly influential definitely doesn't possess the tone that Freddie always seemed able to put into his singing. Plant had and from what I've heard still has an astonishing voice but Freddie's voice was always so rich and smooth that no one compares. Also, in defence of the critiscism levelled at Bono, I saw U2 a couple of weeks ago in Cardiff and he never sang a wrong note, his showmanship was very impressie even by Freddie standards and on one song in particular, 'Running to stand still', he lifted the key by nearly an octave for the chorus and still managed to carry it with a great deal of power. For me, it was the highlight of the night. I am not saying by any stretch of the imagination that Bono can sing better than Freddie - he doesn't have the range or the tonal ability - but that was a damn good rock show and his voice was incredible. |
doremi 13.07.2005 20:26 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Watch it!BG.Innuendo wrote: Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals!BONO? Look, I like U2, but the guy's vocals are as bad as Bob Dylan's (whom I also like, but still, his vocals suck). Freddie is 1st for me. But Bono is 2nd for me and I adore him. I always have too. Been a U2 fan since the late 1970's when they were still considered a college Indie underground band and only my college radio station would play them. At Live Aid in 1985, only 1 singer and 1 band came in a damn close 2nd for me after Freddie and Queen. Bono and U2. Bono has a gorgeous tenor voice and great range. He can rock out on Vertigo, Sunday Bloody Sunday,, New Years Day..the STUNNING Bad, and sing beautiful melodies like Beautiful Day or brooding songs like With Or Without You. Love him. |
willem-jan 8923 14.07.2005 06:47 |
Take a look at this site: link If you like "best of" lists, they have quite a few interesting links. Also the criteria where the artists are judged by are mentioned. In this case Freddie beats Robert. They also have interesting links (on the bottom) to other categories. And Bono only makes it to nr. 44 and Cobain is NOT mentioned. Therefore, this is a GOOD list :D |
Mr.Jingles 14.07.2005 07:27 |
C'mon Caspar, I know Bono is not the greatest singer, but he's DEFINITELY not as bad as Bob Dylan. I've seen U2 live and the guy really has a good voice. However, and I mentioned this before, BONO CAN'T SING FALSETTOS FOR SHIT! He sounds absolutely horrendous everytime he attempts to do so. Bono's range is quite limited, but he still insists on singing with a high pitch voice. Then again, who could convince a man with a giant super-sized ego that his voice range can't go very high? I'd say that Bono singing falsettos is as bad as Bob Dylan, but Bono within his vocal range is quite great. Just listen to how horrible he sounds on 'The Sweetest Thing'. Bono singing high... not quite the sweetest thing. |
The Real Wizard 15.07.2005 00:59 |
willem-jan wrote: Take a look at this site: linkThis website is the only place where I've seen such good quality, subjective lists. Normally I hate "best musician" and "best album" lists, but this person knows what he's talking about. Of course opinions may differ between people, but this guy has his criteria for each list, and is right on the money 99% of the time. If anyone is a serious musician and is looking for the right influences, these lists will show you the best players and pieces of music to look for, and within tonnes of categories. |
willem-jan 8923 15.07.2005 02:15 |
Bob: I agree! I'm not too fond of those "best of" lists as well. Although these lists are quite balanced and lack the latest fashion, it's still not too easy to tell why somebody is at position 60 and not at 70. Would have been nice to see some kind of list with scores on different matters (like skill, performance, originality etc.). But for as fas as I know it's one of the best lists around. Got the link from the DT forum, where people are complaining that Mike Portnoy is placed too high!!! Imagine such a thing on QZ. People over here only start moaning that Roger isn't on top of the list :D |
Gunpowder Gelatine 15.07.2005 02:47 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote: Watch it! Freddie is 1st for me. But Bono is 2nd for me and I adore him. I always have too. Been a U2 fan since the late 1970's when they were still considered a college Indie underground band and only my college radio station would play them. At Live Aid in 1985, only 1 singer and 1 band came in a damn close 2nd for me after Freddie and Queen. Bono and U2. Bono has a gorgeous tenor voice and great range. He can rock out on Vertigo, Sunday Bloody Sunday,, New Years Day..the STUNNING Bad, and sing beautiful melodies like Beautiful Day or brooding songs like With Or Without You. Love him.I agree completely! And I actually do like his falsetto, especially on Lemon (and yes, The Sweetest Thing!). Call me crazy and maybe I do have a U2-bias, but even casual fans of the band have said the same! |
deleted user 15.07.2005 04:35 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Your right.BG.Innuendo wrote: Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals!BONO? Look, I like U2, but the guy's vocals are as bad as Bob Dylan's (whom I also like, but still, his vocals suck). |