QueenZone discussion #881196

Zebonka12 wrote: I'd love to take Kate Winslet out for tea or something.

<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote: Oh for crying out loud Going Back, don't start the whole, 'Paul Rodgers is a nobody, George Micheal would have been a better choice' crap because frankly it is getting old, in fact it got old a long time ago >:(. Now AmeriQueen is talking sense. Paul Rodgers is one of the best singers ever to come out of the 70's. (I believe so and just ask the 'Hall of Fame' guys) but then so was Freddie, in fact probably a bit better. As has been said, Rodgers has a voice that limit's his ability to sing very diverse songs so notes have to be lowered and what have you! However Freddie learned 'this minute control of his voice, it is a wonderful instrument'-a Brian quote. He had to cope with different styles to sing (John's pop, Brian's rock/ballads) and he wanted to be unique so created songs like My Fairy King and March of the Black Queen which need great voice manipulation and seemingly impossibly high notes to sing. So he had a unique style that wasn't hard, soft, suited for hard rock or balladry and pop, whereas Pauls voice is best suited for bluesy rock songs and although he can do so much with that style of song that is about it for him. Anyway Paul and Freddie are different people, Freddie deeply admired Paul as Brian frequently shoves down our throats and I'm guessing that Paul holds great respect for Freddie, so I can't see why the critics get so het-up. It isn't an insult to Freddie's memory to keep playing his songs for crying out loud! They are just hypocrites who want to insult Queen at any chance they get. And if that means contradicting themselves then so be it.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: This board permits for differing opinions and different levels of knowledge, but Going Back, if you hadn't heard of Paul Rodgers before two years ago, and you think George Michael would be great for Queen, you have to enrol in Music 101. That'd be akin to having Brian out of Queen and saying you've never heard of Jeff Beck, but the guy from the Darkness would be better than Beck for Queen. Statements like that won't give you much credibility.

Going Back wrote: i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)

borat wrote:

Going Back wrote: i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)

Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?

borat wrote:

Going Back wrote: i am really sorry, but before year 2004 i even didn't know name called paul rodgers... i knew bad company. bellive me, some other singers could have done the job better, george michael started touring again, he would have been a 100% great choice, but nope, not for them :)

Question: Did you know a name called Freddie Mercury before 1996?

rosedewitt wrote: paul rodgers (just a middle-rated pop singer...)

<font color=Maroon>Singing Forever wrote: rosedewitt, I used to be obsessed w/ all thigs Titanic related. I still kinda am. SHHHH! I haven't seen alot of Jolie movies, so I ca't say if she's a good actress or not, but I'll just take your word for it.

rosedewitt wrote: everybody who can differ a skilled voice from an untrained one, or at least can differ a voice with quality from "another" voice, will say that it is impossible to compare p.r's cant with freddies chant.

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

rosedewitt wrote: everybody who can differ a skilled voice from an untrained one, or at least can differ a voice with quality from "another" voice, will say that it is impossible to compare p.r's cant with freddies chant.

Well, the problem I see is RANGE. Which, you can indeed compare. I don't know Paul's vocal stats, but there's a decent chance he doesn't have the same range. Therefore, it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to sing the same songs. This's got nothing to do with "Freddie's voice was better" this is "Freddie was capable of producing a larger range of tones". For instance, say Paul has a two-octave range (which I think is normal), he would still need approximately another OCTAVE (or more, but from what I read, those really high notes were fairly rare and not really to be counted on) to catch up. That is quite a bit to be down. Unless Paul has a larger range than I heard at Q+PR or, hell, even on his other stuff. If anyone knows Paul's range, that would be neat to compare.

rosedewitt wrote: freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You have to consider that technically Freddie could not even sing the "same songs" in a live setting. Several of the sharper notes undertook a frequency reduction in Queen's live renditions as to not destroy his vocal cords. Anyone who's ever heard a Queen live has heard this.

rosedewitt wrote: freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing. but of course there are differences then between with the persons with good voices and the ones with less good voices. that's no offence but only a fact.

Stephan wrote: link In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.

Fireplace wrote:

This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times. He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato. That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived. You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?

there are some things you don't know about singing. a vibrato is not necessary for a pop-/rock-singer. you don't absolutely need singing lessons for a quite good technique (as long as you don't want to sing at the opera). many opera singers have problems with her voice (although they have a good technique, but the voice is an organ which can't be overstressed, no matter what kind of good technique). freddies voice was talented, whereas p.r.'s voice is just on average, that is the important difference.
of course freddies voice was not perfet (but where do you find a perfect voice... not even maria callas had a perfect voice) and he didn't take good care about his voice, that's why it got worse by the time.

Fireplace wrote:

rosedewitt wrote: freddie had a trained voice and could have done much more with it, he had the talent, his voice was movable and had volume and the technique was not bad and he was musical. at least he had a singing technique, compared to p.r. who just sings without any technique, just because he likes singing. that's ok, everybody who likes to sing, should sing.

This is absolute bull. It's common knowlegde that Freddie never took a singing lesson in his life, had to simplify many of the song on stage for fear of losing his voice and was treated for throat problems during tours many times. He couldn't even pull off a decent vibrato. That said, he was also the greatest darn rock singer that ever lived. You dismiss Paul Rodgers like he's some amateur living next door and you're Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (look it up). Sure, Paul Rodgers has been singing for nearly 40 years without a scrap of technique, and Brian and Roger wanted to tour with him 'cause he's such a lousy amateur. Can you say Stepford?

rosedewitt wrote: well, when you call that "singing" what p.r. is doing... yes he is doing that for 40 years without problems, but just listen to his voice: nobody can tell me that this is a beautiful, nice or talented and good voice...!!

rosedewitt wrote:

there are some things you don't know about singing.

Stephan wrote: Please be open-minded and check out this video. It's Dream Theater's James LaBrie (Freddie is his biggest idol btw!) performing the majestic and Queen influenced masterpiece "Losing Time" from "Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence". It's a growing operatic anthem in the style of.....check it out! There's an amazingly high note at min. 02:30! Paul Rodgers is like a member of the Muppet show compared to this incredible performance by James. Freddie, who was a very talented singer, could have performed like James if he had practiced from the beginning. link In my opinion, this is the perfect vocal performance of a male singer.

rosedewitt wrote: @fireplace: it's a pity that you can't discuss factual and that you take my posts for an offence (but it's not meant like that) :( this could have been an interesting discussion because it's not often that people have such a different taste and opinion.