Range =/= power. He was prevented from using his full range, but he could still sing with the same power.
He had the ability, but not the capability, if that makes any sense. The vocal nodules prevented him from doing so, but so did the fact that he was a baritone singing tenor. Thus, it is logical to assume that in a concert/live situation, he would lack the control and the power to sing something that pushes him completely to his limit. Mercury's use of tenor and falsetto in a studio doesn't even compare to Perry's use of tenor and falsetto live.
I don't disagree, but the point is that Mercury was forced to sacrifice technical live perfection due to the fact that he simply couldn't do it. You make it seem as if he had a choice and simply didn't want to; Freddie couldn't pull his studio performances off live because he didn't have the endurance to do it. So, yes, that is when he sacrificed technical perfection for live greatness - which includes his natural tone and his awesome stage presence in general.
Singing something out of your natural range would be extremely taxing.
Oh, and, believe it or not, Perry is regarded as an extremely talented and capable singer.
Depends. I base my favorite singers on talent, which is why Mercury and Perry rank so highly for me. I enjoy seeing skilled people do their work, as opposed to someone like Brittney Spears or Guns N Roses.
Half of that is what I said, and as for the rest: Exactly.
Who knows what kind of control or whatever he'd have possessed if he didn't have problems with his voice? We'll never know, but considering it's Mercury, I'd not put it past him to be able to fully use his voice.
He couldn't do it because his medical condition wouldn't allow him. He refused surgery on his vocal nodules in case he lost what voice he DID have. If he didn't have the condition, he would have.
More so for having a distinctive and powerful voice than for technicality (Which I'm NOT saying he doesn't have.). He's never as revered as Mercury as a live singer, overall I mean.
I don't do that, I don't see the point. If you don't put your voice to good use, then you're of no use to me.
Axl might not have a singing voice that appeals to just anybody, but he had fairly good singing skills. Decent variations, reach and endurance, and he put emotion in it, despite the awkward sound.
When I say good use, I mean if I like it or not. I don't let it detract from talent, but I've never enjoyed Perry or Journey, so his talent is inconsequential to me.
I think that's what's amazing about Mercury. A chain smoking, vocally damaged singer who still did it better than most, ever.
-Gideon-
Understandable in a way, considering his odd sound. But that doesn't means he's untalented. Even live he has a wide range and could perform fast-paced 12 minute long songs while keeping tune. Like his style or not, but he sure has a great set of lungs and vocal cords.
Alpha you just pwned yourself by saying Freddy had nodules so he couldn't give all. Did it ever come to your mind that you don't get those nodules if you sing correctly and have a good technique. If he had those, it was because he sang in a bad way for his own voice, and if you do that you certainly aren't the best voice in the world.
And you're focusing way too much on range. A good range doesn't mean you're a good singer. Even if it is an advantage because you can sing more songs.
And if you like Mercury more then Perry and you can base it only on opinion, then it's just taste and nothing more.
And please don't try to sound like you know something and I don't. I'm a schooled singer and can easily reach four octaves if that means anything to you. It only natural if you're a singer..
You can also get them by using your voice constantly in a loud environment. I don't know if you've ever been to a concert, but they're a bit loud.
You lose credibility points for saying "Pwned", and you are in no position to say anything considering you claimed Mercury wasn't capable of singing in tenor.
You're focusing too much on technique. This is "best voice ever" not most technically skilled vocalist. You got Mercury's ability wrong, so you obviously don't know what you're on about.
Which is what the thread's about.
I knew Mercury was capable of singing in tenor, you claimed he wasn't, so evidently I do know things you do not. Accept this, move on. You had to be educated.
You saying you can reach four octaves, Kate Bush and Jeff Buckley territory, is not only going to be considered utter bs, but unless you can prove it I don't see why you'd even make such a claim, it has no bearing on anything in this debate. A schooled singer who claimed a famous vocalist wasn't capable of singing tenor when he quite clear is, if you listen to most of his songs, nah, sorry. I don't buy that.
Four octaves is not the average, I'm not sure where you got that idea. There are many schooled singers who can't hit notes like Kate Bush or Jeff Buckley.
Yes, it was to prove that anybody can say it. The fact that this man is claiming it's normal for a person to be able to sing like Kate Bush is a bit silly.
Timbre doesn't matter in this thread, it's about favourites.
He almost always approaches with what sounds like a scream. Perry simply hits the right pitch head on, with a very natural sound.
I never said that. I said hes usual voice is a baritone. I know he can sing tenor. But you're arguing like if you're a tenor you can't sing base... blah
of course you can. You even said that Mercurys natural voice was a baritone. See that's what I'm saying. He is a baritone who also can reach a tenor register. Big deal.
so you think Mercury is better because you like him better? good point there.
listen I don't hate mercury or anything, I think he's a great singer, but I still think Perry is better.
The best voice ever? best, hello read again will ye. the best voice, not alpha centauris favourite singer...
No i didn't, and shut up ok. maybe I'm not as interested in freddy mercury as you are but I know perfectly well that he can sing tenor.
stop getting o hooked up on some kind of lie I never said. I said his natural voice is a baritone, not that he can't sing tenor. and that's what you said to, so spot acting lite a threeyearold will you? Four octaves really isn't that big of a deal. I know at least three in my school class who can sing in four octaves. and as I said good range doesn't meat the best singer ever. And I don't see why I
need to prove it. Do you really find this debate so interesting?
Uh... How would you know that Vanice is an "average" singer? I easily have a four octave range also. All the proof I need is that I take private lesson, go to a school for music, sing everyday, and through all of high school went through as a music class, which sang everyday in the week, that is 5 lessons per week, which consist of hours per lesson, and performances. And that's only in school, not to talk private. And guess what, Vanice does exactly the same.
Now Freddie did not have any professional traning as you said, and actually hurt his voice through his performance, by getting a sore throat. (This does not strenghten your vocal chords and boost your register, it does the EXACT OPPOSITE)
So how is it all of a sudden impossible for someone on KMC to be "above average", when the fact is that Freddie didn't have half the traning that we do, but more of live performances and forced his way up the high tunes? That is not a good traning at all.
You can go ahead and prove that Freddie had a four octave range without just having to use Wikipedia as a source. And don't tell me to listen to his songs, we ****ing sang "Find me somebody to love" in school (where I sang the original as a solo), that song was not nearly the highest one I've sang, yet it is considered to be one of the highest of Queen's songs.
Seriously, I've never heard any Queen song reach over C4 in full voice, and that is what I sing above everyday.
And no... C4 is not the explosives....
__________________
Necessity is the mother of inventions.
(Don't be a pig, get an Icejaw sig.)
Last edited by kamikz on Apr 1st, 2007 at 09:07 PM
So? You're just assuming he got vocal nodules that way.
I'm not arguing anything of the sort. His SPEAKING voice is baritone, his common singing voice is tenor, which was not only unknown to you, but you claimed otherwise.
What are you on about? The THREAD is about FAVOURITE singers. I like Billy Corgan more than Steve Perry, I'm not here saying Corgan is a better singer. It's not about ability, it's about preference.
Stop being a retard. That said, I give Mercury the edge because not only did he have zero training, as opposed to Perry, but he was also held back by his medical condition.
Think what you want, this is about preference, not technique.
Read the first post, the one where the thread starter states his favourite singer and then asks for our opinions. He didn't ask us who we think has the most ability you moron.
You: "Besides, Freddie Mercury was a baritone, not a tenor ". Shh.
Quit whining because you got shown up.
You said "Freddie Mercury was a baritone, not a tenor.". It's all right there in your quote. Go read your original post if you forgot what you said, stop being a weasel.
Four octaves is way above average, Mariah Carey is five, Kate Bush and Jeff Buckley are four, and Jeff has the same range as Pavarotti. You are essentially claiming you are the same, so prove it or shut up. You're a liar, and it's pathetic.
You are the one who came in here discussing technique, the thread isn't about that, it's about favourites. Technique and ability doesn't necessarily make a great singer.
I said four octaves is not average or easy as he claims it is, I think he a liar and he cannot prove otherwise, so his claims are empty. Don't talk it if you can't walk it.
That's NOT all the proof you need when you are using that claim in a debate with others. You make a claim, you prove it, that's how debates work.
Where did I say any of that, you mug? I said I don't believe Vanice has a four octave range just because he says so, if he can prove to me beyond all deniability that he does, I'll accept it, but he can't, he won't and therefore I don't believe him. That "I don't have to prove it." doesn't fly, because if he's making claims, he is obligated to back them up.
He dropped the high notes live BECAUSE of his vocal nodules, the fact is, he COULD reach them and that's why he has been recorded as doing so, he just didn't use it as often because he had medical issues that you ASSUME are his own fault. You're an idiot.
"Freddie Mercury possessed a remarkably light voice, capable of producing not only very high sounds but low sounds as well. If we were to classify him according to the classic standards he would be a light tenor or a lyric tenor. He had a most enviable vocal extension, with an outstanding range of three octaves and a major sixth, including his falsetto singing (F1 - D5).
Since falsetto is not a part of a singer's real range, his real full-voiced range was three octaves (F1 - F4).
But Freddie was actually a baritone. His lowest range, (below C2), it's not a tenor tessitura. He was a light baritone, who was actually singing in tenor's range. His passagio zone was, in fact, more similar to tenor's than a baritone's.
He usually kept his voice between G2 and G3, but his head voice could go up to Bb3 easily, like in 'Somebody to Love', where the fact that he does not make a great effort to get to that tone is highly noticeable. In various songs you can hear him reaching C4 with his head voice, but there it is evident, both by the timbre and the vibrato of his voice, that he is shouting, in a way, forcing his voice. You can download an audio segment aprox. 10 secs long, where Freddie sings in his usual range. This segment belongs to the song 'Sail Away Sweet Sister' which we have chosen because in it Freddie´s voice flows most naturally, with a very sweet and comfortable tone. The link is range.mp3
Further ahead in his career, Freddie used to keep his voice between E2 and F#3 as a comfortable range (a major third below his previous range), even though it was getting a bit harder for him to reach that note comfortably. We can notice that a certain tone is not comfortable enough for a singer when his/her voice becomes harsh, acquires much more volume and has much vibrato, these being the typical characteristics of a chest or head register taken too high. Smoking habits could have probably affected his voice, causing it to be a little deeper. (As we know, age has considerable influence on the tone of voice).
Freddie used to perform his passaggio to head voice around D3 / F#3, and to falsetto aprox. between F3 / G3, even though those notes are included in the normal and comfortable range of his head voice. In 'Exercises in Free Love' he goes down with his falsetto up to C3, which note I have found out to be his lowest in falsetto. In a descending scale he goes down from A3 to C3, but when he gets to D3 he makes a sudden change to his chest voice ( although I say "sudden", it is not so noticeable; untrained ears cannot detect it) and he ends up the phrase going down to C3, and resorting back to the falsetto, but in this zone the sound is very weak. Next, I provide you with the audio file so that you can notice the passage mentioned above: C3_exercisesinfreelove.mp3. This file needs 78 Kb, rated in 44.100 hz and in 128 kbps. It is aprox. 5 seconds long.
When Freddie spoke, he kept his voice between B1 and G2, baring in mind the particular inflections of each accent (in his case, the British accent), and the timbre and phonetic variations of each vowel. The note he kept his speaking voice in most of the time was E2.".
If you can't prove that, don't claim it. Until you can, you're a liar. You can't just sit there saying "I'm better than Freddie Mercury." and expect to be taken seriously. You're implying you're a more skilled vocalist than Kate Bush, Freddie Mercury, Jeff Buckley, Thom Yorke etc. You probably aren't even a singer.
You cannot prove, or at least HAVE not proven, anything you've claimed, so unless you plan to, stop making those claims. "I know I can." isn't enough when you're using them in a debate.
Alpha, unless I am mistaken, the article you cited confirms that - as a singer - Freddie is a natural baritone who forces himself to sing some tenor notes.
Next, on average, most singers who hit unbelievably high notes do not do so live. The reason is obvious: they are singing in an open environment with a live audience for hours on end. The human voice cannot undergo such stress without losing power or damaging vocal cords, especially with age, which is why Perry has noticeably declined in his latter years.
Both Perry's live and studio performances yield better results in terms of maintaining high notes and hitting them in a manner that Mercury simply wasn't capable of in either environment. I give Mercury props for being a man who was a natural baritone, but sang tenor through sheer force of will and natural skill - but as a live singer, he does not measure up to Perry. Next, I think Perry deserves praise for not only hitting notes that Mercury struggled with and simply couldn't hit, but doing it for his entire career.
You give Mercury praise for being capable of hitting notes, and rightly so, but Perry deserves just as much for actually doing it in a manner that has several musicologists (especially if you've seen "Behind the Music" on Journey) raving how Perry is one of the most gifted live singers in history. DigitalDreamDoor currently ranks him as the undisputed best.
Lastly, I know singers who are baritones who - on occasion - can hit tenor notes, which is what Mercury essentially did. He didn't often hit tenor notes in a live environment, so what he did - really - isn't unique to him and him alone.
This is why, technically speaking, Perry is a much more capable singer in a live environment than most people (including Mercury), because he hit them night after night for his entire career, which has (coupled with the decade of inactivity as well as age) led to his decline.
Right, what's your point there? I'm aware of that.
He doesn't measure up in terms of TECHNICAL skill, but that's not what this thread is about, nor does technical skill matter at the end of the day. I'm a fan of musicians who can play/perform and perform well, like Rush or whatever, but that should never come before the music. Dream Theater do that and their albums are shit.
My point is that it all comes down to Mercury's medical issue. I am not going to assume that Mercury couldn't equal or better Perry if he didn't have vocal nodules, I'm not doing to assume he could, but it's not something to dismiss.
First, Digital isn't factual, it's just very reliable. It's still opinion.
Secondly:
1. Freddie Mercury (Queen, Solo)
2. Jackie Wilson
3. Jeff Buckley
4. Sam Cooke
5. Robert Plant (Led Zeppelin, Solo)
6. Ian Gillan (Deep Purple, Solo)
7. Steve Perry (Journey, Solo)
8. Roy Orbison
9. Chris Cornell (Soundgarden, Temple Of The Dog, Solo)
10. Clyde McPhatter (Drifters, Dominoes, Solo)
That's from Digital, under the Greatest Rock Vocalists list.
Because of his medical condition, I'm aware of what he substituted live, but you seem to be saying other stuff for no real reason.
You're arguing a point I'm not necessarily disputing.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 31st, 2007 02:15 AM
