QUEEN - vocalist
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24156
Printed Date: May 21 2024 at 07:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: QUEEN - vocalist
Posted By: Jim Garten
Subject: QUEEN - vocalist
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 08:30
|
As a tribute to the "DEEP PURPLE keyboard player" poll, I thought I'd institute another poll to split the prog rock community straight down the middle -------------  Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Replies:
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 08:32
 |
Posted By: dima_olkov
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 08:41
very funny poll..
GUESS MY CHOICE!!!! ------------- PF, Genesis, KC, Yes, VdGG, GG, Camel, Jethro Tull |
Posted By: Under
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 08:58
|
Who is Freddie Mercury??? |
Posted By: akiko
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 09:11
|
Jim, you forgot George Michael! |
Posted By: Zitro
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:04
| Freddie Mercury, the best rock vocalist there was. |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:06
| Freddie! |
Posted By: Heptade
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:16
|
Someone voted for Paul Rodgers? What the heck? How 'bout that Lisa Stansfield! ------------- The world keeps spinning, people keep sinning And all the rest is just bullsh*t -Steve Kilbey |
Posted By: ProgFan
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:26
| Freddie with no doubt!!! but I have to say Paul Rodgers is doing good too, though nobody can take the place of Freddie. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 10:27
| Paul Rodgers is up there with Plant and Daltrey as the best rock singer this country has produced. I haven't heard him sing with Queen but I can't really imagine it. He may be okay on the rockier numbers I guess. It's an impossible job for anyone to replace Freddie. |
Posted By: FragileDT
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:01
Agreed. ------------- One likes to believe In the freedom of music But glittering prizes And endless Compromises Shatter the illusion Of integrity |
chopper wrote:Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:03
| Rodgers has got a great classic rock voice, but he's not suitable for most of Queen's material. Would you have Peter Gabriel sing Yes's material? That's the same thing, IMHO. |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:06
|
I have a doubt...: FREDDY MERCURY is GOD? ------------- 
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:37
|
What about Brian May? He's no Freddie, but I've always loved his voice. ------------- 
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 16:47
 . This is rather less of a walkover than I expected though...
Although Freddie is totally unapproachable vocally, Paul Rodgers is still doing a fine job imo; the more knowingly camp and arch songs like 'Fat Bottomed Girls' and 'I Want To Break Free' (thank God he didn't do 'Bicycle Race'!!) he falls fairly flat on, but the rockers like 'A Kind Of Magic', 'I Want It All' and surprisingly even 'Bohemian Rhapsody' are dealt with extremely well indeed. I still vote Freddie though...
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 17:02
|
Please tell me you're kidding. Paul Rodgers has a great voice, but Freddie was in another league altogether. ------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: wolf0621
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 17:36
I think Queen should go instrumental...Or is George Michael available again???
|
Posted By: Dantallion
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 20:24
| Freddie was the real deal. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 23:34
|
Freddie is Queen, without him anything is a caricature.
Queen died with Freddie.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 03:37
 ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
Posted By: martinprog77
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 05:00
------------- Nothing can last there are no second chances. Never give a day away. Always live for today. |
Posted By: martinprog77
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 05:04
freddy was a real showman ,and fantastic singer and ans great composer .[if you dont belive me listen to ''bhoemian rhapsody''] ------------- Nothing can last there are no second chances. Never give a day away. Always live for today. |
Posted By: Royalist
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 11:44
Freddie is 25% of Queen. ------------- 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 12:17
|
I was gonna bash the thread starter for even having doubts... but when I saw it was in response to an other stupid poll...hhehehe, I think I will spare your life...this time
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 13:42
No, bands don't work like that, Freddie was the frontman, composer (Along with Bryan), vocalist and face of Queen.
If you had Freddie and maybe Bryan plus two other rmusicians it was Queen. I'm not saying the other two musicians (Taylor and Deacon) were bad, but honestly anybody could have replaced them without dramatically affecring the personality of the band.
Just imagine Freddie died 15 years ago and only about after a decade and a half they dared to try to make it work, but believe me, they will never see the top again.
Some similar examples:
A band is much more than the simple sumatory of it's members. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Barla
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 14:16
| I won't say the name, just: THE BEST SINGER EVER .... and you know who I'm talking about. (there's no point of comparision...) |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 17:18
Deacon yes, Taylor no - he was responsible for the really stupidly high harmonies. Without him, Queen would have lost 1/3 of their fantastic vocal sound. His drumming wasn't genius - but it wasn't exactly second rate either. I wanted to vote "Is this a Joke"? in the Poll - but then I saw that Garten had started it - so I didn't even need to ask... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 17:31
I'm sure that Freddie and Bryan would have managed to survive without him.
Probably Freddie with a bit of effort would have had to overdub a couple more voices on studio and their stage shows would have been harder, but Queen would have existed anyway.
Put it like this May, Deacon and Taylor together with another singer would have made a good band, but would never managed to reach the iconic status of Queen.
Freddie and Bryan May alone would have managed to reach the top anyway.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 17:35
That's not what you originally said in that context - you were talking about "dramatically affecting the personality of the band". Remove Taylor, and the "personality" of the sound would be changed - there are very few with the vocal range of Taylor - even Matt Bellamy would struggle. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 17:37
|
I break it up like this: Freddie: 40% Brian: 30% Roger: 20% John: 10% (really the only expendable member in my mind. His bass playing was ok, not great and his songwriting is my least favorite of the four. Also, he never sang a note in 20 years.) -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 17:39
Please Cert my point is that Queen would never existed without Freddie, probably not without Bryan May, but Deacon and even Taylor could be replaced IMO.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Fede
Date Posted: June 03 2006 at 23:11
|
Are you kidding me????, there is no comparision
Can anyone please close this STUPID thread?????????????
|
Posted By: Royalist
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 05:58
The power of Queen is: 1.Instead of 1 excellent singer 3 excellent singers 2.Instead of an ordinary guitarist a 1-man orchestra. Notice that although without Hackett G became crap, they were still great without Gabriel. Queen without Freddie could be a decent rock trio just like Cream, Rush, Motorhead, Nirvana or whatever but Mercury alone would be nothing. Mercury's compositions also would be nothing without the guitar. Being a frontman means nothing, you can have a good voice and make great show and suck as a composer. Bohemian Rhapsody, March of the black queen, Bicycle race and Killer queen are Freddie's compositions, but are sung by 3 people and include masterful guitar parts, aggresive drums etc. which make it what it is. Brian arranged guitar parts and sometimes suggested Freddie how to compose to make place for his ideas, not otherwise. That's why I appreciate him to the greatest extand- he not only wrote music but made his input in other 3 guys' work too. John and Roger were also unique as well as their songs but it's true that the band was led by two M's. Despite of that no-one can be considered more than 40% of the band in contrary to say Iron Maiden where Harris makes it work or Nirvana being in 98% Cobain. PS. Maybe Deacon could be replaced but without Taylor's high pitched screams there would be no real Queen. -------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 14:09
Freddie Mercury, without a doubt. One of the best ever. Such a shame he died. 
|
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 14:17
|
Yes, without a doubt Mr. Nice Guy ------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: Euqnof
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 15:57
Brian May on "'39" 
------------- good morning starshine how are you? |
Posted By: horza
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 16:06
George Michael did a good job on Somebody to Love  ------------- Originally posted by darkshade: Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot. |
Posted By: zFrogs
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 16:26
|
No way. Freddie was one of the best of Rock. Of course that exist too many others excellent vocalists. But it's not a Kind of Magic. ------------- https://www.instagram.com/erifrog/ |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 21 2006 at 03:38
He most certainly did - that was a sterling performance.  I also thought that James Hetfield had a fair stab at "Stone Cold Crazy": It suits the Metallica sound and shows just how diverse Queen were. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 21 2006 at 04:17
George Michael is not a bad singer at all - the problem is his choice of material. If he chose to sing straight-ahead rock, he would probably do quite a good job of it. Being a pop artist doesn't automatically mean being c**p (and no, I'm no G.M. fan!  ) |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: June 21 2006 at 09:29
------------- sig |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 21 2006 at 12:50
Ehhr, define middle? ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Time-Machinist
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 20:29
| FREDDIE... |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 21:16
|
I was actually surprised to see that Paul Rogers was doing as well as he was with it. Paul has a great rock voice, but he is no Freddie. Freddie was one of a kind, and had an incredible range. He could scream out a heavy rocker, and delicately croon a ballad. Brian May is a great composer. It might be interesting to hear a more direct collaboration with Rogers. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: June 26 2006 at 10:31
I'm agree with you!!! George Michael is more suitable for sobstitute Freddy. But freddy is Freddy!!! -------------
|
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: August 04 2006 at 13:05
| Sorry, no choice here because Paul Rodgers (one of my favourite vocalists by the way) was not brought as a replacement for Freddie Mercury (no one can replace him). The tour was just a celebration of Freddie's music and genius, and most of the money went for charities. That's all. |
Posted By: Kleynan
Date Posted: August 04 2006 at 14:40
Can't believe somebody voted for Paul Rodgers.  -------------  You've just had a heavy session of electroshock therapy, and you're more relaxed than you've been in weeks. |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: August 04 2006 at 19:00
|
Of course, I had to vote for Freddie. He was the definitive Queen front man.
However, I do honestly believe that, going purely for the singer with the closest sounding voice to Freddie, I would have to say George Michael would be my second choice. (Yes, I know people will be shaking their heads and gasping at my temerity!)
Nevertheless, George Michael can sound uncannily like Freddie at times. Not his type of music, admittedly, but I reckon he could have done a good job, especially on record.
 |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: August 04 2006 at 19:49
|
As regards the comments about Freddie and Brian making it on their own. I can't agree at all with that view. Whilst Freddie was the icing on the cake, Queen was always Brian and Roger's band. They had a real chemistry between them, and still do have. Having worked in Smile together, they knew each other inside out.
Also, Roger is a fine songwriter in his own right. His vocals were unique, his drumming on a quite high level, and he could also play guitar, the instrument he played on all The Cross albums. (His side project band). And his solo albums were enjoyable too. He and Brian were the real masterminds behind the Queen sound and image.
Like I said, Freddie was the icing on the cake.
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: March 25 2007 at 01:42
|
What kind of question is it? Freddie Mercury is not better than Rodgers only, he's THE BEST rock singers of all time. And if you wanna compare this artist with others singers, compare him with Robert Plant or Jon Anderson... but not with Rodgers!! It's almost useless
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 25 2007 at 01:47
|
I thought George Michael was a perfect Freddie substitute and did an amazing job. |
Posted By: Draconean
Date Posted: March 25 2007 at 15:22
|
Freddie. Especially on the earlier stuff, such as Liar and Black Queen! Brilliant! Although I do like Paul Rodgers to. But his vocal range is more limited than Freddie's. ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: March 25 2007 at 15:24
| Oh, Freddy Mercury by a long mile. He had an amazing voice. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: March 26 2007 at 08:21
Hint - look up "irony" Just for the record, I don't think Mercury was the definitive Queen frontman; I think he was the definitive rock frontman... when he was on form, nobody could hold a huge crowd in the palm of his hand so well as Mercury could. Also - I can't believe I actually missed out W Axl Rose  ; his rendition of Bohemian Rhapsody at the Freddie Mercury tribute gig brought tears to the eyes...  ------------- Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: March 26 2007 at 08:38
Odd comment, when Paul Rodgers was said of by his peers and many others as the voice of rock through the 70's. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: March 26 2007 at 08:45
|
for Queen.. Freddie.. overall.. Freddie...  by the by,Rodgers never was and never will be the singer of Queen.. or, to put it otherwise... Freddie is irreplacable... ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |