stateside fan 03.11.2006 22:30 |
I visit here often and i am constantly amazed how some of the folks seem to be critical of Freddie live.This was a man who gave it is all every night.I understand there were nights that he didnt have it but consider what he attempted to do each time out.Running around on stage keeping every soul in the hall involved .And the notion that PR is better is absurd.The technology today is to the point where its almost impossible to sound bad.Go and listen to him back in the 80's and then tell me who was better.Sure this is a rant but what the hell. |
Knute 03.11.2006 22:46 |
Freddie is a great singer, but his greatest work was done in the studio, even the most die-hard Stepford would agree with that. He just didn't have the same range live that he had in the studio. He had a ton of power, but not the range. Every live clip I have watched or bootleg I have heard is full of examples of that. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great live singer, it just means that he was just that much greater in the studio. Concerning PR, I don't think you'll find many Queen fans who thinks he's sings Queen music better than Freddie did, that's a bit absurd, but I can tell you this; PR is one of the few singers who sings better live then he did on record. You will never find a live performance of PR where he's less then perfect basically. In the last two years I have heard a bunch of bootlegs from all of his bands and eras and I keep looking out for that bum performance but I haven't come across it yet. Especially in his Free days, He was so amazing live with Free. Long before they had technology to make people sound better. *rolls eyes at ridiculous statement* |
mrjordy 03.11.2006 23:01 |
I don't think the question is "does Paul sing Queen songs better than Freddie?" Freddie originated Queen songs, so it'd be hard to argue that, in most cases. However, while listening to ROTC the other day in my car, it did occur to me that I far prefer Paul's "Tie Your Mother" and "Fat Bottomed Girls" live than just about any live version Freddie ever lended vocals to. Stepfords, back away - this is personal preference. I'm sure someone out there will agree. |
Knute 03.11.2006 23:17 |
One more obsevation that I've personally made that I want to point out. I have now heard a few singers come amazingly close to how Freddie sounded. One is Gary Mullins, and I saw a clip from a Queen cover band called 'Queen for a Day' doing Dead on Time and I was absolutely blown away by how good the singer was at mimicking Freddie. He had Freddie's sound and studio range on that tune nailed. He really almost out-Freddie'd Freddie IMHO. Check it out link I have also listened to several Free/BadCo tribute bands and in every case it's laughingly funny how far short the singers of those bands fell from capturing PR. Here's two examples: link link Now here's the real deal on those two tunes: link link Rodgers just has this very unique timbre about his voice that makes it incredibly hard or downright impossible to mimic. They don't call him 'the Voice' for nothing stateside, and I don't know why you are on this mission to constantly slag him off. |
Deacon Fan 03.11.2006 23:21 |
Definitely not always at his best live, but certainly a crowd pleaser. Granted, he was no Tina Turner when it came to audience participation, but he came close. |
mircal 03.11.2006 23:43 |
Freddie was a fantastic liver singer. Queen were a great band live. Not many bands can sound as good as queen when they are live. Look at the chili peppers, anthony has some shocking moments,,freddie,,, always 80 to 100% no errors. look at god know how many others artists dont hold up to there records, queen gave shows, i think this isnt even a worth while argument. |
Knute 03.11.2006 23:59 |
mircal wrote: Freddie was a fantastic liver singer. Queen were a great band live. Not many bands can sound as good as queen when they are live. Look at the chili peppers, anthony has some shocking moments,,freddie,,, always 80 to 100% no errors. look at god know how many others artists dont hold up to there records, queen gave shows, i think this isnt even a worth while argument.That's just it. No one's arguing that point. Who doesn't think Freddie was great live? It's just the threadstarter trying to stir stuff up. |
mircal 04.11.2006 00:30 |
Knute wrote:true thatmircal wrote: Freddie was a fantastic liver singer. Queen were a great band live. Not many bands can sound as good as queen when they are live. Look at the chili peppers, anthony has some shocking moments,,freddie,,, always 80 to 100% no errors. look at god know how many others artists dont hold up to there records, queen gave shows, i think this isnt even a worth while argument.That's just it. No one's arguing that point. Who doesn't think Freddie was great live? It's just the threadstarter trying to stir stuff up. |
jcomber 04.11.2006 04:02 |
Freddie was a brilliant singer live-studio. Have you fans not heard QOF early 80's??? his voice was EXTRAORDINARY during this period, On ROTC a lot of the songs like Hammer to fall have been changed because Rodger's voice could not possibly stand up to the full intensity of the normal arrangement i.e LAW '86 especially over 2hrs his TYMD is extremely poor!! although the recording sound of ROTC is a really good. Congrats to Brian/Roger's Musicianship great!!. if you could have recorded some of Queen's Pre-Paul Rodgers Concerts with the same sound technology of today no one would be talking about Mr Rodgers voice as being superior which it is not even standing up against the old recordings/bootlegs. I am thankful to Brian/Roger and guest vocalist Paul Rodgers and support musicians + SINGERS for bringing back the Queen Sound back to todays youth, and bringing back fond memories to the loyal fans. Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert need i say anymore - George Michael excepted every other performer could not compare with Freddie. I read Queen are in the studio hope you can find some more Freddie recordings on tape somewhere and please involve John Deacon to get the authentic Queen sound if you can. |
Sebastian 04.11.2006 06:51 |
Queen was a great live singer, but not even the shadow of what he was in the studio. |
on my way up 04.11.2006 07:09 |
I think Freddie was learning a lot about his voice in the period 71-early '77.He was very carefull during that period.He tried to sings as good as possible.I think he wasn't as energetic as in later years so he focussed more on his vocals(he had to becaue his voice wasn't yet as strong) For me , his first really great tour was the European 'A day at the races'tour. Shows like Bristol , Copenhagen, Glasgow, ...are really fantastic. I think The 'News of the world'tour was equally impressive.The north-american one aswell as the European tour from'78. At the end of 1978 , queen did the American jazz-tour and his voice wasn't in the great shape of previous tours(listen to montreal and chicago).By the time they came to Europe the next year , his voice was really tired and it only got worse(altough he still had acceptable shows).You have to listen to the japanese shows because they are great(the other members are on fire) but it were freddie's worst ever.His voice was just worn out!!! Then the band took a break. They recorded only a few songs(CLTCL and Save me) with their new producer and then they went on tour again. These shows would prove to be freddie's best in terms of range and guts. He did really go for the high notes during that tour.the existing bootlegs prove that. After this tour he had his golden era:'80-82.HE sang with power , guts , range! During that period he was really a GREAT LIVE VOCALIST!! But after that, his voice would never sound as strong again live:The period 84-86 was not good for freddie.His range was very often limited and his voice sounded raspy. That said, even during those years he had some outstanding moments. I'm totally in love with 5/9/1985.An incredible show by freddie. The first works tour show(brussels) is another example of freddie at his best! The magic tour was better than the Works tour altough he had some shows whee his voice sounded really tired.The very well-known Wembley show which was released officially is a very well-known example!!! But I will always defend the Leiden , Stockholm , Budapest and Vienna shows.These were a lot better. So, if you ask me :was freddie a great live-vocalist?yes , but not always.He had his flaws. |
Asterik 04.11.2006 08:04 |
I am one of a minority who actually likes Freddie's voice on the Magic tour. In a stadium environment you aren't looking for subtlety but raw power and Freddie's vocals in 1986 were terrifyingly powerful. True, the range had gone and he shouted but it sounded great, especially In The Lap Of The Gods (It's so funny etc.) and the falsetto scream on Under Pressure which became a roar at Wembley. His delivery of TYMD never sounded better, espeically at Knebworth where he also gives AOBTD it's definitive reading. |
Bohemian Rahpsody 04.11.2006 09:38 |
I also am someone that believes that Freddie was really good on the magic tour! I havent heard the entire tour, and as I do not have and cannot get Bittorent, I havent heard the other tours. However, at Wembley, Freddie gave a brilliant live performance at Wembley. He gave it emotion, and power, and raw strenght that came deep from within him, and this gets across on the record. I also think that this is a particularly important show for Queen, as it was almost Freddie's last. A very special show and probably the most listened to CD in my house! :) I am going to buy Queen, live at the bowl soon, I'm looking forward to seeing what he's like then. Take care, B.R |
Serry... 04.11.2006 09:48 |
IWTBF from all shows of Magic Tour isn't the best example of Freddie's live vocal abilities... IMHO. |
forever 04.11.2006 10:25 |
I think queen songs are hard to sing and when you think of the length of a live set, some singers have to pace themselves. Freddie had to do this because of the characteristics of his voice, whereas singers like Rodgers and Taylor can sing and scream all day without their voices changing, they will have very sore throats though. Also Freddie could sing various types of songs live, whereas Rodgers voice just doesn't suit alot of songs giving him less variation. I mean can you imagine Rodgers singing; save me, don't stop me now, white queen and love of my life and actualy sounding good to anyone? I think not! |
Knute 04.11.2006 11:38 |
forever wrote: I think queen songs are hard to sing and when you think of the length of a live set, some singers have to pace themselves. Freddie had to do this because of the characteristics of his voice, whereas singers like Rodgers and Taylor can sing and scream all day without their voices changing, they will have very sore throats though. Also Freddie could sing various types of songs live, whereas Rodgers voice just doesn't suit alot of songs giving him less variation. I mean can you imagine Rodgers singing; save me, don't stop me now, white queen and love of my life and actualy sounding good to anyone? I think not!Actually I could imagine Paul singing those tunes and sounding great on them. It may not trump Freddie's version, but it would still sound good to my ears. For example, Brian sounds great on LOML and if Bri could sing that then surely Paul could. It's not like that material is totally untouchable, and no one else could ever make it sound good. Oh and Don't Stop Me Now is one of those tunes where Freddie seemed to fall way short of the studio version. |
maxpower 04.11.2006 12:55 |
the point is Freddie didnt look after his voice |
jeffuk49 04.11.2006 13:34 |
One thing Paul can sing better now than Freddie |
on my way up 04.11.2006 14:35 |
Serry... wrote: IWTBF from all shows of Magic Tour isn't the best example of Freddie's live vocal abilities... IMHO.I agree!But I still like it because it's so agressive.Same with another one bites the dust. He sang these songs in a very unique way. When PR sings these songs they miss that rough edge that freddie gives them. Paul has a fantastic voice but I will always prefer frddie's versions , even if his voice wasn't always in great shape, he gave it the freddie-touch. A truly unique way of singing. |
Bobby_brown 04.11.2006 15:00 |
Freddie was great. Paul is great. The dificulties that Paul has when singing Queen songs are the same that Freddie would have if he tried to sing Paul´s songs. Two great artists. We don´t need to slag one of them to prove our point. They were both the best in their fields! Take care |
on my way up 04.11.2006 16:11 |
Bobby_brown wrote: Freddie was great. Paul is great. The dificulties that Paul has when singing Queen songs are the same that Freddie would have if he tried to sing Paul´s songs. Two great artists. We don´t need to slag one of them to prove our point. They were both the best in their fields! Take careMaybe you are the one that says it best!They are both unique and the best at what they do.It's just a matter of taste , really. De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum! |
mrjordy 04.11.2006 18:41 |
What an excellent point bobby_brown made. Cheers man! |
BernieW99 04.11.2006 18:44 |
I have seen both of these guys live with Queen and Freddie Mercury can out sing Paul not only that he took the crowd to the next level and paul cannot do that.As I am much older then most of you on this site I can tell how young some of you are with some of the things you write about it really dont matter who can do what it is the fact they both sang.Well one sang the other just got rich off a dead guy! |
stateside fan 04.11.2006 21:29 |
lol Bernie..well said |
The Real Wizard 04.11.2006 22:14 |
Knute wrote: I have now heard a few singers come amazingly close to how Freddie sounded. One is Gary Mullins, and I saw a clip from a Queen cover band called 'Queen for a Day' doing Dead on Time and I was absolutely blown away by how good the singer was at mimicking Freddie. He had Freddie's sound and studio range on that tune nailed. He really almost out-Freddie'd Freddie IMHO. Check it out linkWow, that was very impressive. But even though he's hitting a high C# effortlessly, I guess he's still a baritone, too. I loved the Free clips as well. I watched a few others on YouTube while I was there. Paul Rodgers has always been the master of his game. BernieW99 wrote: Well one sang the other just got rich off a dead guy!That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Paul was already very rich before he sang one note of Queen. Comparing Paul to Freddie is impossible. They are two completely different people with different styles of singing and delivery. You're probably just another one of those people who equates quality with commercial popularity. |
The Real Wizard 04.11.2006 22:30 |
on my way up wrote: I think Freddie was learning a lot about his voice in the period 71-early '77.He was very carefull during that period.He tried to sings as good as possible.I think he wasn't as energetic as in later years so he focussed more on his vocals(he had to becaue his voice wasn't yet as strong) For me , his first really great tour was the European 'A day at the races'tour. Shows like Bristol , Copenhagen, Glasgow, ...are really fantastic. I think The 'News of the world'tour was equally impressive.The north-american one aswell as the European tour from'78. At the end of 1978 , queen did the American jazz-tour and his voice wasn't in the great shape of previous tours(listen to montreal and chicago).By the time they came to Europe the next year , his voice was really tired and it only got worse(altough he still had acceptable shows).You have to listen to the japanese shows because they are great(the other members are on fire) but it were freddie's worst ever.His voice was just worn out!!! Then the band took a break. They recorded only a few songs(CLTCL and Save me) with their new producer and then they went on tour again. These shows would prove to be freddie's best in terms of range and guts. He did really go for the high notes during that tour.the existing bootlegs prove that. After this tour he had his golden era:'80-82.HE sang with power , guts , range! During that period he was really a GREAT LIVE VOCALIST!! But after that, his voice would never sound as strong again live:The period 84-86 was not good for freddie.His range was very often limited and his voice sounded raspy. That said, even during those years he had some outstanding moments. I'm totally in love with 5/9/1985.An incredible show by freddie. The first works tour show(brussels) is another example of freddie at his best! The magic tour was better than the Works tour altough he had some shows whee his voice sounded really tired.The very well-known Wembley show which was released officially is a very well-known example!!! But I will always defend the Leiden , Stockholm , Budapest and Vienna shows.These were a lot better. So, if you ask me :was freddie a great live-vocalist?yes , but not always.He had his flaws.Great post. Right on the money. Bohemian Rahpsody wrote: Freddie gave a brilliant live performance at Wembley. He gave it emotion, and power, and raw strenght that came deep from within him, and this gets across on the record.Nine out of ten "brilliant moments during the Wembley show" from Freddie are studio overdubs. I have the uncut recording that came from the radio broadcast. His voice was awful for most of the show. |
Dan C. 04.11.2006 22:50 |
I would love to hear that! |
mike hunt 05.11.2006 02:59 |
Wembly was a great show for me. the two disapointing songs are IWTBF and ABTD, his voice sounds forced to me and he loses control of his voice. The rest are amazing in my opinion, Powerful is the right word. |
john bodega 05.11.2006 06:18 |
The first night of Wembley is better. If the non-overdubbed ones from the 2nd night are any indication, it wasn't the best show, I don't think. But I've only heard a couple of non-altered tracks, so I wouldn't be the one to ask now, would I? Hehe. |
Asterik 05.11.2006 07:33 |
Serry... wrote: IWTBF from all shows of Magic Tour isn't the best example of Freddie's live vocal abilities... IMHO.Well it was a bit ropey at Wembley perhaps but it got a good reception, I too wish he had sung it a bit more smoothly- it should have been dropped really. |
mike hunt 06.11.2006 02:13 |
freddie was a great live singer in my opinion, In some cases I like his live performances better than his studio. some examples are play the game and sheer heart attack, radio ga ga, also the hot space songs. overall he was clearly a better studio singer, but he was still a fantastic live volalist who in fact was not perfect. |
RETROLOVE 06.11.2006 04:11 |
I always thought that Freddie sounded great live! |
MDNA 06.11.2006 06:10 |
a bunny named Bubbles! wrote: Definitely not always at his best live, but certainly a crowd pleaser. Granted, he was no Tina Turner when it came to audience participation, but he came close.Have you watched Live Aid? |
mircal 06.11.2006 19:26 |
MDNA wrote:He was no tina turner!!!!!!!! Get out!!! Dam straight! Have you seen Live aid!!!! Freddie was far better than Tina Tunrna in getting the auidneces to participate. I dont know how you can say TT was better than FM. Just watch this and you will change your mind.. linka bunny named Bubbles! wrote: Definitely not always at his best live, but certainly a crowd pleaser. Granted, he was no Tina Turner when it came to audience participation, but he came close.Have you watched Live Aid? |
bgordon88 08.11.2006 07:21 |
He had a lot of power but sometimes his voice just didn't sound so good live. He had a sweetness and style in the studio that was unique. |
Scott_Mercury 08.11.2006 09:05 |
This is not a Paul slam....because I love PR voice, and I am a huge Bad Company fan.... but if Freddie would have ever got the amount of breaks during each show that PR gets, the overall sound of some of the vocals would have been less strained...especially on some of Freddie's tours where he may have played 4 nights a week, for 5 straight months....2+ hours a night, only break for 5 minutes during Brighton Rock. On ROTC, it seems like Paul's "on break" as much as he's on stage. |
Boy Thomas Raker 08.11.2006 11:10 |
And let's not forget, Freddie was exponentially more involved in making a show from a physical POV than Paul Rodgers ever has been. He'd be running around, setting off flashpots, working the stage, doing pushups and pushing over speakers. That requires energy. KISS is a horrible live band because they are so into putting on a spectacle that their playing suffers. It's a trade off. |
Katastrophe Mercury 08.11.2006 15:26 |
well, i like him live AND in studio... anyone here have Queen Greatist Video hits 1? on disk 2, they have that Now I'm Here live video, and i love that version better than the studio one. but the Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy on Top Of The Pops video i think sucked. and on the Wembely dvd, Freddie was pretty iffy in the beginning, but as the concert went on, he got progressively better about singing. i've heard lots of bands live and compared them to their studio stuff, and i happened to like Queen the best when it came to live performances. Queen was a great live band. and i think Freddie was a great live performer. |
Bambi 12.11.2006 20:48 |
I thought he was great live, and in the studio. |
Drowse1 13.11.2006 03:19 |
If anyone wnats to hear how great a singer Freddie was "live" tell them to listen to "Live in Budapest". Easilly the best live Queen video there is as all the band were spot on for almost every song and Freddie's voice was in superb form. Failing that listen to the fast version of We Will Rock You from Live Killers. |
The Real Wizard 13.11.2006 12:21 |
Scott_Mercury wrote: but if Freddie would have ever got the amount of breaks during each show that PR gets, the overall sound of some of the vocals would have been less strained...especially on some of Freddie's tours where he may have played 4 nights a week, for 5 straight months....2+ hours a night, only break for 5 minutes during Brighton Rock. On ROTC, it seems like Paul's "on break" as much as he's on stage.Very interesting observation to keep in mind. Thanks for that. |
Fenderek 13.11.2006 16:56 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It is a good point, but there is another.Scott_Mercury wrote: but if Freddie would have ever got the amount of breaks during each show that PR gets, the overall sound of some of the vocals would have been less strained...especially on some of Freddie's tours where he may have played 4 nights a week, for 5 straight months....2+ hours a night, only break for 5 minutes during Brighton Rock. On ROTC, it seems like Paul's "on break" as much as he's on stage.Very interesting observation to keep in mind. Thanks for that. How old was Freddie when touring, even in 1986? How old is Paul now? |
Bobby_brown 13.11.2006 18:05 |
Fenderek wrote: [/QUOTENAME How old was Freddie when touring, even in 1986? How old is Paul now?People just don´t want to understand. They want to prove at all means that Freddie was best than Paul Rodgers. They just don´t understand they are different, and were both damn good! Now, for the Wembley show. I still don´t understand why all the bitching at his performance at second night at Wembley. See the DVD, the first night and you´ll have your answer. Do you see Freddie saving his voice for the second night? When i first saw the first night at Wembley i respected Freddie even more. Why? Because you see him doing his Day-os with the audience, forcing his voice to the full when he knew that the next day he was going to be filmed for a future video release, TV and radio broadcast. But he didn´t care, because he was entertaining the people IN Wembley that night, and in Freddie´s mind there´s only one way: To Guive it all! Queen knew that the first Wembley night was sold to radio stations around the world. This was respect! Did this afect the second night? Of course, but hey...that´s that way it should be. Freddie gave it all the second night too, but his throat was tired, even so he did one of the best Day-os with the audience, and until WATC he did a very good job. Take care |
deleted user 13.11.2006 21:01 |
Freddie was a great live singer, one of the best. I noticed he got a little hoarser quicker and his range wasn't as good at the end of the 80s, but he still gave it his all all the time. I don't think people realize how hard it is to sing live, it's so difficult and Freddie always sand on pitch at least. In my opinion he was one of the best live singers ever. |
Cherubino 14.11.2006 09:21 |
What a good topic! I'm a rock-pop singer myself, and I find it interesting that there are many approaches to rock singing. I am basically inclined to prefer Freddie's idea of delivery over other aspects. However, we musn't overlook Freddie's unique tone quality and the fact that he was always quite solidly in tune. I prefer FM over PR in any situation. Yes, I'm a diehard fan of FM! But to be fair on Paul, and any other singer who covers well-known songs, it must be pointed out that they -unlike Freddie- are "not allowed" to modify the melodies (down) too much, because everyone will compare them to the original tune. You can fuck around with your own songs more freely. I also prefer FM in studio than live. But rock live singing is primarily for the crowd that went to see you. They're not out to analyse the vocals as one would at home placidly listening to a studio recording. Live rock is above all young energy. And visuals, of course. On top of all that, Queen sounded great, regardless of Freddie's mistakes, and to a HUGE extent, thanks to Freddie. I think On My Way's post sums up FM's vocal development quite well. Cheers. |