Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely my point, you know enough just to know that's what they're called NOWADAYS. Either way, that's not the point.What do you mean? I don't constantly listen to it, but I've heard it just from being into music. I love Sabbath, I hate his solo stuff and his modern stuff is just disgraceful.
Listening before I buy isn't a problem, I don't need to always. I don't even own his covers album, but I've heard songs from it and it's just horrifying.
If you think he sounds good to you, then that's up to you. I think he sounds awful and the only reason he gets credit is cos he's Ozzy. If it was anyone else, he'd not be getting praise. That said, there are people who have been around as long or longer and don't sound as bad.
Listen to Paranoid nowadays. The tone is off, he's singing fast to try to keep up because he can't catch his breath. When Sabbath headlined Download 05, the band were praised, Ozzy's vocals were not.
Regardless, he's not a good singer in terms of ability, he never was. He used to just have a good voice, now it's gone.
-AC
Then explain the point.
I actually go with the opposite in that his solo stuff is better than his older stuff, it is obivously not as "hard" as his older stuff, but I think it is better. When he was with Sabbath, it sounded more like he was screaming words into the microphone to me, when he went solo, it sounded more put together.
Metallica gets praised and they only use three chords (maybe not three but it sounds like it), are you saying they only get praised because they are Metallica? Pretty similar situation.
Paranoid live or on the covers album? Because I doubt he will be doing anymore live shows...
Quite funny, VVD. I must admit.
I wonder if he'll believe it.
Originally posted by General G
Then explain the point.
You have no idea what you're on about. As proven by me and you.
Originally posted by General G
I actually go with the opposite in that his solo stuff is better than his older stuff, it is obivously not as "hard" as his older stuff, but I think it is better. When he was with Sabbath, it sounded more like he was screaming words into the microphone to me, when he went solo, it sounded more put together.
Then that's up to you, it doesn't change the fact that nowadays the man is a shit singer. If you like him, fine, but you said nobody can compare. There are literally too many technically better singers to name.
Originally posted by General G
Metallica gets praised and they only use three chords (maybe not three but it sounds like it), are you saying they only get praised because they are Metallica? Pretty similar situation.
James Hetfield is one of the most technically gifted guitarists alive. He's certainly the best rhythm guitarist alive, technically speaking.
Three chords? Bs, he's known for having astounding technique. You don't actually know anything do you?
Originally posted by General G
Paranoid live or on the covers album? Because I doubt he will be doing anymore live shows...
Any recent live performance, he's shit live. What you hear on live "albums" and studio albums isn't his real voice. He has a tone of enhancement, because he's shit.
-AC
Originally posted by vanice
I'm being more and more amazed of Steve Perry now. He makes every tone sound so natural.
Steve Perry's voice is outstanding. His live work was especially amazing, and if you'd like to hear more of it, you should purchase the 1981 Escape tour DVD. They also have had a few live albums, the best of which is Captured, circa 1980.
The video of him singing "Mother, Father" is amazing, and at the end, he uses an impressive falsetto (which fluctuates), and several people have always thought that it was a synth.
Originally posted by Gideon
Steve Perry's voice is outstanding. His live work was especially amazing, and if you'd like to hear more of it, you should purchase the 1981 Escape tour DVD. They also have had a few live albums, the best of which is Captured, circa 1980.The video of him singing "Mother, Father" is amazing, and at the end, he uses an impressive falsetto (which fluctuates), and several people have always thought that it was a synth.
Yeah I love that video too, but the falsetto is nothing compared with this guys falsetto:
but the chorus on mother father is massive.
Oh, I'm not arguing that Perry's falsetto is in a league of its own - Rob Halford is, perhaps, the most potent user of falsetto in rock - and he has gained international noteriety from it. But Perry's ability to stay on pitch during a live concert and sing difficult material like Mother, Father is unparalleled. His vocal control is superior to his peers, such as Freddie Mercury.
He may use his falsetto more because Freddie just had the ABILITY to hit high notes, he had a near four octave range, he just never used it.
Perry hasn't got better vocal ability than Jeff Buckley etc. Musicologists have agreed that Buckley has the same range as Pavarotti.
Halford's is overrated. It's mostly just one tone and there for the hype factor, it's not a tone he can sustain a song in.
-AC
there is no way Freddie could ever take the notes that Steve takes in falsetto in his full voice. Freddie doesn't use falsetto as often, because he is not halfway as high as when Perry hit the high notes. When Perry does use falsetto, it is high above F4, while most of Freddie's songs does never even reach C4. And Vitas easily reaches the fifth octave in his falsetto.
Many, near all of Steve Perry's songs go many times higher than the highest notes in Freddie's. Freddie sings very differently, it may feel as if he hits higher once, but he does not, Steve just takes it so naturally that you wouldn't even notice if they were higher or not.
Besides, Freddie Mercury was a baritone, not a tenor (where Steve actually was a first tenor, possibly counter tenor).
Originally posted by vanice
there is no way Freddie could ever take the notes that Steve takes in falsetto in his full voice. Freddie doesn't use falsetto as often, because he is not halfway as high as when Perry hit the high notes. When Perry does use falsetto, it is high above F4, while most of Freddie's songs does never even reach C4. And Vitas easily reaches the fifth octave in his falsetto.
Many, near all of Steve Perry's songs go many times higher than the highest notes in Freddie's. Freddie sings very differently, it may feel as if he hits higher once, but he does not, Steve just takes it so naturally that you wouldn't even notice if they were higher or not.
Besides, Freddie Mercury was a baritone, not a tenor (where Steve actually was a first tenor, possibly counter tenor).
Research wouldn't go amiss:
"As a singer:
Widely considered as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music, Freddie Mercury possessed a very distinctive, almost four octave voice. Although his speaking voice naturally fell in the baritone range, he delivered most songs in the tenor range. Another characteristic of his voice involved his powerful delivery of technically difficult material. On the other hand, because he suffered from vocal nodules (refusing surgery for the condition), he would often lower the highest notes during live performances. Mercury also claimed never to have had any formal training.".
Freddie not only had problems with his vocal nodules, but he still manage to perform in tenor and as I said before, whilst he didn't CONSTANTLY hit massively high notes, he had the ability to, hence his near four octave voice.
That said, technique means nothing if you don't use it well. Mariah Carey has a five octave voice, but she'll never be as riviting and brilliant as Freddie Mercury when it comes to using the voice creatively, and neither will Perry. Neither will most singers.
Steve Perry has a five octave range? So you're suggesting he can hit the whistle register like Mariah Carey?
Should probably know what you're on about before you talk.
-AC
Mercury's range is nearly peerless in the popular music profession, and much of his acclaim comes from the fact that he was a natural baritone who forced himself to hit tenor notes. Alpha is correct, Vanice, Perry's octave count isn't equal to or superior to Mercury's own - Mercury can go much lower than Perry and still sing in a tenor tone himself.
However, Alpha, Perry's head voice and falsetto are much stronger than Mercury's own when it comes to singing tenor, as Perry is a natural tenor (and as Vanice alluded to is a possible countertenor), who also never received formal training. Mercury's constant struggles with vocal nodules (and the simple fact that he was out of his comfort zone) was what prevented him from hitting those high notes live. Meaning, in a regular situation, he didn't have Perry's three-hour-a-night endurance, nor did he have the control.
I'm not going to take anything away from Mercury, in the studio, he's nearly peerless. But in a live setting, he is not as skilled as Perry is, and very, very few are.
Mercury still had the ability to perform technically difficult material live, with power. His vocal nodules are what held him back from using his voice with the power he could have.
That said, Perry being more able to pull off things live is all well and good, but if I watch live videos of Perry or Mercury, Mercury has sacrifices technical live perfection for live greatness in general. Not everybody are into music enough to know about notes and scales, so Perry's high falsetto would be lost on many, Freddie Mercury's overall voice could grab anyone's attention.
Mariah Carey's live high notes piss all over Perry, but she's not someone I'd go and see live over someone like Billy Corgan, who isn't even that great a singer in the technical sense.
Also, Perry took tenor in some college in California. Freddie didn't have that, he went to art and acting schools.
-AC