Besides, AC, I have forgotten what we debated about? Was it about Mercury's range? Cause it seems to have gotten over to my range.
Anyway, I don't doubt Freddie as a singer at all, I know he's among the best, and his register is very wide. However, there are several people that are just normal singers that can reach this, me included. It is in no way easy, I guess I overestimated the normal ability, but I am really capable of it. You still want me to prove it, or shall we just leave it at "a great range, but really nothing super"?
The whole point I wanted to argue was that you first said, when Gideon talked about Perry's falsetto, that "Freddie didn't need to use his", which came to me as "Freddie could take Perry's falsetto notes in his full voice", which is in no way true. This got over to octave range discussion, but it is really kinda pointless. I wanna ask, I just missunderstood your post didn't I? Or do you actually think he can reach Perry's falsetto voice in his full voice? (Cause he cannot)
Ok Alpha. Let's end this. I can make we will make that video now just for the heck of it. If you like Freddy Mercury more then Steve Perry I won't blame you. But you started throwing words like "retard" and "idiot" all over the place and that just made me loose all respect I had for you. I can admit a four octave range isn't the normal register. But almost everyone I know who sings can easily reach a fourth octave and sing notes in it.
This debate got rather messed up. But don't try to outsmart me, because it pissed me off and now I want you to apologize to the entire forum when the vid is posted and linked to.. 😛
Originally posted by kamikz
I'll post the video, and that's it, just wait for it mkay. And Vanice lives a bit apart so I'll talk to him and see when I can get it done. And of course I will prove it's me, I'll say "This is for Alpha Centaury", and say my account name and all, same will Vanice. We will have a piano, so it is nothing to argue if we hit the notes or not.
I'll have people with me, besides myself, who'll know. Don't you worry about that.
Originally posted by kamikz
And using a guitarr is nothing like singing, you actually just have to play that, most of the singing actually hurt your vocals more than strenghten them. But as I said, you won't believe me until the video, so I'll hold for this until then.
It's still principle of technique.
Originally posted kamikz
And I also think Freddie is one of the best singers I've ever heard, easily. He's amazing, but that is for his voice alone, and his carisma, this does not have nearly anything about range or technique to do. Freddie's technique sounds wonderful, but it kills your throat, that's why he cannot continue on and on like Steve Perry, who can go on for hours when using a constantly higher voice.
I'm not suggeting he's technically better than Steve Perry, I'm saying A) He might have been if not for his condition and B) This thread isn't about that. I'll wait for the vid.
Originally posted by kamikz
Besides, AC, I have forgotten what we debated about? Was it about Mercury's range? Cause it seems to have gotten over to my range.
You and Vanice made claims that were not only irrelevant and purposeless, but silly. Even if you did have a four octave range, it doesn't afford you any more power in this debate, nor does it need to, since we're not disagreeing about Perry Vs Mercury technically.
Originally posted by kamikz
Anyway, I don't doubt Freddie as a singer at all, I know he's among the best, and his register is very wide. However, there are several people that are just normal singers that can reach this, me included. It is in no way easy, I guess I overestimated the normal ability, but I am really capable of it. You still want me to prove it, or shall we just leave it at "a great range, but really nothing super"?
I'm asking you to prove you have a four octave range if you are going to keep saying it as if it helps you. If you're not going to keep saying it, I won't keep asking for proof.
You AND Vanice kept trying to act like I don't know about singing, but multiple times I've made you retract and change your statements, I've corrected you both.
Originally posted by kamikz
The whole point I wanted to argue was that you first said, when Gideon talked about Perry's falsetto, that "Freddie didn't need to use his", which came to me as "Freddie could take Perry's falsetto notes in his full voice", which is in no way true. This got over to octave range discussion, but it is really kinda pointless. I wanna ask, I just missunderstood your post didn't I? Or do you actually think he can reach Perry's falsetto voice in his full voice? (Cause he cannot)
Why didn't you ask what I meant? Why did you just interpret it in a way that was suitable to you?
Yes you misunderstood my post.
Originally posted by vanice
Ok Alpha. Let's end this. I can make we will make that video now just for the heck of it. If you like Freddy Mercury more then Steve Perry I won't blame you. But you started throwing words like "retard" and "idiot" all over the place and that just made me loose all respect I had for you. I can admit a four octave range isn't the normal register. But almost everyone I know who sings can easily reach a fourth octave and sing notes in it.
Ok, quit talking and start recording. I asked for proof and you're going to give me "proof", for that I can at least put you above most people who talk the good game here. Whether or not the proof is just or proves anything, we'll wait and see. I'm an honest person, if you can prove that you have those ranges, I'll admit you do.
If you act like an idiot, I call you one, that's how I do things. You losing respect for me isn't something I'm bothered about.
Originally posted by vanice
This debate got rather messed up. But don't try to outsmart me, because it pissed me off and now I want you to apologize to the entire forum when the vid is posted and linked to.
That's funny, it pissed you off. I didn't TRY to outsmart you. You posted something thinking that you were all that, I CORRECTED you, and you got pissed off, that's how this debate started. Then, to lend yourself credibility, you claimed you had a four octave range or higher and I said I didn't believe you, so now you're going to "prove it".
There's no need to apologise to the whole forum just because you're insecure about me "outsmarting" you. I never did anything to warrant an apology. I don't believe you have a four octave range. If you are prepared to go to such lengths to prove it, and do so, the most you will get out of me is admission that you proved something, I won't deny it.
The fact is, it doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. This thread isn't about technique, I'm not even suggesting that Steve Perry isn't technically better, the reason we're having this debate is because I showed you up and you said, more or less, "YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT! I HAVE A FOUR OCTAVE RANGE!". So I will warn you now, if you think that you're going to achieve some debate winning talent because I ordered you to post proof and you followed my orders, you're mistaken. You'll have made me believe you were telling the truth, it doesn't have any bearing on Perry Vs Mercury.
Good luck.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll have people with me, besides myself, who'll know. Don't you worry about that.It's still principle of technique.
I'm not suggeting he's technically better than Steve Perry, I'm saying A) He might have been if not for his condition and B) This thread isn't about that. I'll wait for the vid.
You and Vanice made claims that were not only irrelevant and purposeless, but silly. Even if you did have a four octave range, it doesn't afford you any more power in this debate, nor does it need to, since we're not disagreeing about Perry Vs Mercury technically.
I'm asking you to prove you have a four octave range if you are going to keep saying it as if it helps you. If you're not going to keep saying it, I won't keep asking for proof.
You AND Vanice kept trying to act like I don't know about singing, but multiple times I've made you retract and change your statements, I've corrected you both.
Why didn't you ask what I meant? Why did you just interpret it in a way that was suitable to you?
Yes you misunderstood my post.
-AC
And you're acting like I'm stupid and don't know shit either. (Constantly calling me an idiot and a moron, while I have not sent out many personal attacks at all, mostly curses in words, which does not imply that you are stupid) You're not the only one taking your skills for granted.
And corrected us when? I might have been slightly angry and said that four octaves was not that bad, but that was the only thing I actually changed.
And really, Freddie being good for his condition is worthless AND irrelevant. It does not have any bearing for how he sang. It doesn't matter what resitrictions he had, cause that was all he could ever do, we don't know what he would've been without them, and it is so ridicilous to assume.
I did interprent it like that, because there was no other way of doing it.
"But Freddie's falsetto doesn't match Perry's."
"That's because he doesn't need it".
The only way I can see it is that you said he didn't actually need a falsetto, but he do, oh he do.
And why didn't you correct me then? I explained very well what I meant....
And why will you need people beside you? Can't you hear when someone sings to a piano at the right tune?
Originally posted by kamikz
And you're acting like I'm stupid and don't know shit either. (Constantly calling me an idiot and a moron, while I have not sent out many personal attacks at all, mostly curses in words, which does not imply that you are stupid) You're not the only one taking your skills for granted.
I'm not taking anything for granted because I don't talk out of my knowledge range. You've slipped on many things that any musician, serious music fan or SINGER should know.
Originally posted by kamikz
And corrected us when? I might have been slightly angry and said that four octaves was not that bad, but that was the only thing I actually changed.
Us? What are you, Venom? Do you speak for each other or something? You ask me when I corrected you then you give me an example, what's the point of asking if you know how I did it?
Vanice claimed Mercury couldn't sing tenor, I corrected him, he denied saying it, I posted the quote.
Originally posted by kamikz
And really, Freddie being good for his condition is worthless AND irrelevant. It does not have any bearing for how he sang. It doesn't matter what resitrictions he had, cause that was all he could ever do, we don't know what he would've been without them, and it is so ridicilous to assume.
How is it irrelevant? It's entirely relevant. It's a massive part of why he cannot use his technique fully. He didn't sing as well as he could live because of the nodules, it DID have bearing on how he sang.
I'm not assuming what he would have been without them, I'm saying not to assume.
Originally posted by kamikz
I did interprent it like that, because there was no other way of doing it.
"But Freddie's falsetto doesn't match Perry's."
"That's because he doesn't need it".
The only way I can see it is that you said he didn't actually need a falsetto, but he do, oh he do.
And why didn't you correct me then? I explained very well what I meant....
So, I'm somehow to blame because you can only see my comment one way? How does that work? I know what I meant, others know what I meant. If you didn't get it you should have asked.
Originally posted by kamikz
And why will you need people beside you? Can't you hear when someone sings to a piano at the right tune?
I can, but it's because people are curious. Let's see if you live up to these claims.
Or, you can stop bringing it up, stop saying it like it proves anything, and I'll spare you having to do the video.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not taking anything for granted because I don't talk out of my knowledge range. You've slipped on many things that any musician, serious music fan or SINGER should know.Us? What are you, Venom? Do you speak for each other or something? You ask me when I corrected you then you give me an example, what's the point of asking if you know how I did it?
Vanice claimed Mercury couldn't sing tenor, I corrected him, he denied saying it, I posted the quote.
How is it irrelevant? It's entirely relevant. It's a massive part of why he cannot use his technique fully. He didn't sing as well as he could live because of the nodules, it DID have bearing on how he sang.
I'm not assuming what he would have been without them, I'm saying not to assume.
So, I'm somehow to blame because you can only see my comment one way? How does that work? I know what I meant, others know what I meant. If you didn't get it you should have asked.
I can, but it's because people are curious. Let's see if you live up to these claims.
Or, you can stop bringing it up, stop saying it like it proves anything, and I'll spare you having to do the video.
-AC
Like what?
That was just a typo.
And I overreacted once, and I fail to see how that is correcting "multiple times".
No, it is not relevant. If Mercury couldn't sing like that because he had problems, then there is nothing more to it. He will always have those problems, and there was no "without" problems, no matter how he sang he always had that kind of difficult. If Freddie's problems limited him, then there is no way to say how Freddie would be without them, cause that is assuming. It DID have bearing on his singing, but there is no, "if Freddie didn't have those he would own", because that Freddie didn't exist.
And how do you think Freddie developped nodules? Klaus Meine and Steven Tyler both went through surgery on their vocal chords because of their singing. That IS bad technique, it is not something developped from normal singing with good technique. It is by forcing your voice to much, which Mercury did.
I told you, it only occured to me one way, I couldn't possibly see it another way, and you have not yet explained how you meant it. I'm sorry for getting it wrong, but you can just say "okay" instead of starting to ***** of "what I should've done". I can't re-do it now.
Gotta go to bed soon, school tomorrow.
Originally posted by kamikz
Like what?
Dude, you thought Steve Vai was a singer. That's a sin to claim you know about music and think that.
Originally posted by kamikz
That was just a typo.
What was? Be clearer.
Originally posted by kamikz
And I overreacted once, and I fail to see how that is correcting "multiple times".
You didn't overreact, you believed something, you were wrong and I called you on it. You insisted I was wrong, then when Vanice admitted I was right, you miraculously seemed to agree.
I've corrected you on musicians, my posts, and Freddie Mercury.
Originally posted by kamikz
No, it is not relevant. If Mercury couldn't sing like that because he had problems, then there is nothing more to it. He will always have those problems, and there was no "without" problems, no matter how he sang he always had that kind of difficult. If Freddie's problems limited him, then there is no way to say how Freddie would be without them, cause that is assuming. It DID have bearing on his singing, but there is no, "if Freddie didn't have those he would own", because that Freddie didn't exist.
I will say this to you ONE more time, ok? I am not saying Freddie Mercury WOULD have been better, I'm saying that considering the evidence, it's likely. I could be wrong, we'll never know, you'd know that I said this if you read my posts.
Originally posted by kamikz
And how do you think Freddie developped nodules? Klaus Meine and Steven Tyler both went through surgery on their vocal chords because of their singing. That IS bad technique, it is not something developped from normal singing with good technique. It is by forcing your voice to much, which Mercury did.
It can be developed through constant projection of voice in loud environments, it can happen to ANYONE. It doesn't mean he had bad technique. Plus, he was a heavy smoker.
Originally posted by kamikz
I told you, it only occured to me one way, I couldn't possibly see it another way, and you have not yet explained how you meant it. I'm sorry for getting it wrong, but you can just say "okay" instead of starting to ***** of "what I should've done". I can't re-do it now.
You assumed what I meant instead of asking. My whole debate regarding Mercury's TECHNICAL skill was theoretical when it comes down to Vs Perry. I know that as it stands, he isn't technically better, but this thread isn't even about that.
Originally posted by kamikz
Gotta go to bed soon, school tomorrow.
Yeah, 16 year olds with "four" or more octave ranges probably do need their sleep.
I didn't even know you were 16, now I believe you even less.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dude, you thought Steve Vai was a singer. That's a sin to claim you know about music and think that.What was? Be clearer.
You didn't overreact, you believed something, you were wrong and I called you on it. You insisted I was wrong, then when Vanice admitted I was right, you miraculously seemed to agree.
I've corrected you on musicians, my posts, and Freddie Mercury.
I will say this to you ONE more time, ok? I am not saying Freddie Mercury WOULD have been better, I'm saying that considering the evidence, it's likely. I could be wrong, we'll never know, you'd know that I said this if you read my posts.
It can be developed through constant projection of voice in loud environments, it can happen to ANYONE. It doesn't mean he had bad technique. Plus, he was a heavy smoker.
You assumed what I meant instead of asking. My whole debate regarding Mercury's TECHNICAL skill was theoretical when it comes down to Vs Perry. I know that as it stands, he isn't technically better, but this thread isn't even about that.
Yeah, 16 year olds with "four" or more octave ranges probably do need their sleep.
I didn't even know you were 16, now I believe you even less.
-AC
First off, get the **** off insulting my private life. Ok, stfu! You are really pathetic.
I don't know who the **** Steven Vai is? I haven't mentioned him. I was never talking about him in my previous posts, I was talking about the guy in the video taking the A4 in full voice, I haven't mentioned Steven Vai. Who's assuming without asking really?
THAT IS ASSUMING! If you say, "I don't know how he would be, but it is likely he would be better" then you ARE assuming. You don't have a ****ing clue, because it seems so doesn't make it so.
And Freddie Mercury ****ing up his voice by singing which tears on your throat and smoking isn't anyone elses problem, that doesn't speak for how good Mercury still was, even with those disadvantages, cause that doesn't matter when it comes to who is the best singer. Freddie made that choice, he ****ed up his voice, it affected his singing, there is no excuse to this.
I know I assumed before asking, because I couldn't see it any other way, just like you assumed I was talking about Steven Vai instead of asking who "him" was.
I said I was sorry for assuming, stop talking what I did wrong.
And if you didn't know, there are 11 year olds with incredible ranges, and super techniques. Don't judge by age, you'll see the video tomorrow of me proving my 4 octave range, stop saying it's bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzczjsqAJ14
Now bye.
Originally posted by kamikz
First off, get the **** off insulting my private life. Ok, stfu! You are really pathetic.
Who insulted your private life? Well, I should ask how I did, because I didn't.
Originally posted by kamikz
I don't know who the **** Steven Vai is? I haven't mentioned him. I was never talking about him in my previous posts, I was talking about the guy in the video taking the A4 in full voice, I haven't mentioned Steven Vai. Who's assuming without asking really?
Steve Vai. STEVE Vai.
You used YouTube comments, I said "Don't use them as back up, I've seen people comment on Steve Vai vids saying that they have better technique.". You said "Maybe they've heard higher.".
Originally posted by kamikz
THAT IS ASSUMING! If you say, "I don't know how he would be, but it is likely he would be better" then you ARE assuming. You don't have a ****ing clue, because it seems so doesn't make it so.
Haha, getting well stressed aren't you? Relax.
I'm not assuming, you told me I was wrong and that four octaves was very common. I wasn't wrong, you were. You believed it, now you're acting like you just overreacted.
Originally posted by kamikz
And Freddie Mercury ****ing up his voice by singing which tears on your throat and smoking isn't anyone elses problem, that doesn't speak for how good Mercury still was, even with those disadvantages, cause that doesn't matter when it comes to who is the best singer. Freddie made that choice, he ****ed up his voice, it affected his singing, there is no excuse to this.
Yes, but the vocal nodules were not his fault and weren't DEFINITELY caused by bad technique, you are assuming they are. He didn't help himself by any means, but THAT aspect of the damage, you can't prove it was down to bad technique.
This thread is about BEST singer you fool, it's not about technique.
Originally posted by kamikz
I know I assumed before asking, because I couldn't see it any other way, just like you assumed I was talking about Steven Vai instead of asking who "him" was.
You didn't say "him". You said: "Obviously they have heard higher." in reply to my Steve Vai comment. I then asked you who you were on about and told you Steve Vai wasn't a singer, he was a guitarist, and you chickened out.
This isn't even relevant to the thread, we're debating cos you can't handle being wrong.
Originally posted by kamikz
I said I was sorry for assuming, stop talking what I did wrong.
I'll do as I wish, but well done for admitting.
Originally posted by kamikz
And if you didn't know, there are 11 year olds with incredible ranges, and super techniques. Don't judge by age, you'll see the video tomorrow of me proving my 4 octave range, stop saying it's bullshit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzczjsqAJ14
Now bye.
Yeah, because their voices haven't broke. It hardly counts.
If you can prove beyond all deniability that it's not bullshit, I'll admit it's not bullshit, but what do you honestly believe it'll achieve. Let's say you do prove it, for a laugh let's say you do, then what? "Oh yeah, you were right, you do have a four octave range.". That doesn't make you right about Mercury, or Perry. It doesn't erase the fact that I've proven you both wrong multiple times.
I just find it odd that out of nowhere you and Vanice have aligned yourself.
So, until you post the video, don't bother replying to me, because we're way off topic.
-AC
Originally posted by Gideon
Actually, were it not for the first post specifying "favorites", Alpha, I would have defined the best as "the most skilled", which is the same thing has technical ability, where Perry and Mercury would pretty much assrape 99.8% of the musical community. 😛
But it did, and I beg to differ.
Saying they're technically better than almost 100% of singers? Just ask Perry out on a date, just ask him.
He's not THAT good.
-AC
But it did, and I beg to differ.
"Best" isn't synonymous with "favorite", Alpha. The only reason that this thread is in regards to "favorites" is because the thread-starter named his favorite singer, and asked for others' opinions. Best = most skilled.
Saying they're technically better than almost 100% of singers? Just ask Perry out on a date, just ask him.
What the hell? First, I said 99.8% (which is only 100% if you round it). Second, it was an exaggeration.
He's not THAT good.
Mercury and Perry are among the most talented singers in pop and rock history. Live, Perry is in a league of his own, a league that doesn't include Mercury. And, yes, he is that good.
Originally posted by Gideon
"Best" isn't synonymous with "favorite", Alpha. The only reason that this thread is in regards to "favorites" is because the thread-starter named his favorite singer, and asked for others' opinions. Best = most skilled.
BUT...that is what it's about, favourites. You came in here debating most skilled for some odd reason.
Originally posted by Gideon
What the hell? First, I said 99.8% (which is only 100% if you round it). Second, it was an exaggeration.
No...really? Because I thought they were better than 99.8% of people in the musical community...
Originally posted by Gideon
Mercury and Perry are among the most talented singers in pop and rock history. Live, Perry is in a league of his own, a league that doesn't include Mercury. And, yes, he is that good.
He's not "99.8% better than anyone in the music community." good. He's just not.
Far from focusing purely on skill, you go overboard because he's your favourite, or one of.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who insulted your private life? Well, I should ask how I did, because I didn't.Steve Vai. STEVE Vai.
You used YouTube comments, I said "Don't use them as back up, I've seen people comment on Steve Vai vids saying that they have better technique.". You said "Maybe they've heard higher.".
Haha, getting well stressed aren't you? Relax.
I'm not assuming, you told me I was wrong and that four octaves was very common. I wasn't wrong, you were. You believed it, now you're acting like you just overreacted.
Yes, but the vocal nodules were not his fault and weren't DEFINITELY caused by bad technique, you are assuming they are. He didn't help himself by any means, but THAT aspect of the damage, you can't prove it was down to bad technique.
This thread is about BEST singer you fool, it's not about technique.
You didn't say "him". You said: "Obviously they have heard higher." in reply to my Steve Vai comment. I then asked you who you were on about and told you Steve Vai wasn't a singer, he was a guitarist, and you chickened out.
This isn't even relevant to the thread, we're debating cos you can't handle being wrong.
I'll do as I wish, but well done for admitting.
Yeah, because their voices haven't broke. It hardly counts.
If you can prove beyond all deniability that it's not bullshit, I'll admit it's not bullshit, but what do you honestly believe it'll achieve. Let's say you do prove it, for a laugh let's say you do, then what? "Oh yeah, you were right, you do have a four octave range.". That doesn't make you right about Mercury, or Perry. It doesn't erase the fact that I've proven you both wrong multiple times.
I just find it odd that out of nowhere you and Vanice have aligned yourself.
So, until you post the video, don't bother replying to me, because we're way off topic.
-AC
Yeah, you did. Why don't you think for a sec.
See, proves even more I don't know who he is. When I said "They've probably heard higher" I was not talking about any Steve Vai, I was talking about the man I sent in the video, you said "comments doesn't mean anything" and I said that they've probably heard higher. That's that...
Among good singers, four octave range is a pretty common thing. Not half assed singers though.
Vocal nodules CAN be caused by bad techniques. One of my friends got it the last year in high school and couldn't speak for 4 days, she went through alot of traning to get her voice straight, and changed her singing techniques.
And even if it wasn't Freddie's fault, how does that affect anything about how he sang? Maybe he COULD have sang better, but that IS assuming, and it is not at all importent, because that has nothing to do with the Freddie Mercury we know and love.
Listen up, I got a history test tomorrow, after that we have a one week break from school and I'm going away then, so I won't be able to reply any more after this. Let's just end this...
I have not said Perry is a better singer at all, I have not said Freddie couldn't sing tenor.
Perry and Freddie I would put as about equal singers when it comes to the beauty in their voice.
As a tenor, Perry is better. He could reach higher notes, he could do it more easily, and he could do it for hours straight without ever losing his voice. This DOES make him better than Freddie in the tenor area, not as a singer.
Perry also had a better technique which you have agreed on. I don't get where I have been "wrong", because I have never said Freddie couldn't sing tenor, nor have I said Perry is a better singer.
And it doesn't mean anything, so I prolly won't post the video. However, if you would PM me and ask for it I could give it to your youtube account so you can watch it privatley. Though this doesn't matter.
Anyway, gotta go. I won't reply anymore, so you can reply (you prolly will) but I will be unable to answere. But most of what is left of this debate is useless, we both agree they are good singers (I've never stated someone is better), that Perry's technique is better and that he is naturally better as a tenor (not as a singer). I don't see what is left to debate except how incredible a four octave range is. But that is not what this thread is about.
Cya!
Originally posted by kamikz
See, proves even more I don't know who he is. When I said "They've probably heard higher" I was not talking about any Steve Vai, I was talking about the man I sent in the video, you said "comments doesn't mean anything" and I said that they've probably heard higher. That's that...
Yes, I know you don't know who Steve Vai is, that was the whole point that I was proving, and you've just admitted it, so who you were talking about is irrelevant, even though it was Vai.
Originally posted by kamikz
Among good singers, four octave range is a pretty common thing. Not half assed singers though.
It's not common. If it was, it wouldn't be seen as noteworthy.
Originally posted by kamikz
Vocal nodules CAN be caused by bad techniques. One of my friends got it the last year in high school and couldn't speak for 4 days, she went through alot of traning to get her voice straight, and changed her singing techniques.
CAN be, not necessarily ARE. Your "friend" getting them for bad technique does not mean Mercury did.
This is all irrelevant.
Originally posted by kamikz
I have not said Perry is a better singer at all, I have not said Freddie couldn't sing tenor.
Who said you did? I never said you said that.
Originally posted by kamikz
Perry and Freddie I would put as about equal singers when it comes to the beauty in their voice.
Splendid, I wouldn't, but that's the beauty of subjectivity.
Originally posted by kamikz
As a tenor, Perry is better. He could reach higher notes, he could do it more easily, and he could do it for hours straight without ever losing his voice. This DOES make him better than Freddie in the tenor area, not as a singer.
He had training, Freddie had none, Freddie had a medical condition and was still pretty up there.
With regards to everything else in your post; I knew you were lying and I knew you'd eventually chicken out. All of this was for nothing since it culminated in you backing down, as we both knew you would.
-AC
I'il just make my last post here now. Alpha, call it chicken out or what ever you want, because I honestly don't care what the **** you think. We, that is I and Kamikz, found it unnecessary to post a video on youtube only to prove to some random bloke on the Internet that we can sing in four octaves.
But let's just get this straight. I NEVER said that Freddy can't sing tenor. I just said he is a baritone normally. If he can reach a tenors register, good for him then. But somehow interpreting my post the he can't sing tenor at all, that's just you being stupid and assuming things. Then you start accusing us for assuming things.
Ok I overreacted when i said that it's easy for pretty much any singer to sing four octaves, but I still doesn't see it as a uber impossible thing. Maybe that's because I can do it. And you don't see why I should make such a claim if I can't prove it. But I don't see how I can prove it without showing my face to the entire world, witch is unnecessary. And I don't see why you think that everything we say are lies. Because I would lie like that. I don't see why anybody would. That's why I don't call all your posts bullshit. Because I expect people in this forum not to lie just to be right. So why are you so interested in if I can sing it or not? I'm not on this forum to brag about skills or anything. I just used it as a counter to your post about Mercurys massive four octave range, to say that it's not that unusual, believe me or not. I frankly don't care what you think anymore. If you think I'm a retard because YOU MISINTERPRETED my post to mean "I'm better then Freddy Mercury" which I never said, then I don't see why I should listen to you at all.
This is my last post on this thread. I don't care what you think about it alpha.
Originally posted by vanice
I'il just make my last post here now. Alpha, call it chicken out or what ever you want, because I honestly don't care what the **** you think. We, that is I and Kamikz, found it unnecessary to post a video on youtube only to prove to some random bloke on the Internet that we can sing in four octaves.
That is fine by me, but then stop whining that this random bloke doesn't believe a word of what you say. You made claims, I asked you to back it up. I knew you wouldn't, you knew you wouldn't, but you let it carry on in hopes I'd drop it and believe you, now you've come unstuck and have to back out.
The moral of the story is; Don't make claims to random internet users that you can't back up, because one of them may call you on it.
Originally posted by vanice
But let's just get this straight. I NEVER said that Freddy can't sing tenor. I just said he is a baritone normally. If he can reach a tenors register, good for him then. But somehow interpreting my post the he can't sing tenor at all, that's just you being stupid and assuming things. Then you start accusing us for assuming things.
Here's your quote:
Originally posted by vanice
Freddie Mercury was a baritone, not a tenor (where Steve actually was a first tenor, possibly counter tenor).
He was a tenor, so you were wrong, weren't you? The answer is yes.
Originally posted by vanice
Ok I overreacted when i said that it's easy for pretty much any singer to sing four octaves, but I still doesn't see it as a uber impossible thing.
Neither do I. It's not impossible because people can do that AND better, but my point was that it's not some common thing. Chill out and stop misinterpreting.
Originally posted by vanice
Maybe that's because I can do it. And you don't see why I should make such a claim if I can't prove it. But I don't see how I can prove it without showing my face to the entire world, witch is unnecessary. And I don't see why you think that everything we say are lies. Because I would lie like that. I don't see why anybody would. That's why I don't call all your posts bullshit. Because I expect people in this forum not to lie just to be right. So why are you so interested in if I can sing it or not? I'm not on this forum to brag about skills or anything. I just used it as a counter to your post about Mercurys massive four octave range, to say that it's not that unusual, believe me or not. I frankly don't care what you think anymore.
You used your alleged vocal skill claims as attempted weight in this debate to scare me off, I didn't back down and I called you on it. From that point onward we were destined for this conclusion. You were never going to prove it and it only serves as greater evidence to my claims that you are lying.
If it's unnecessary to prove your claims, it's unnecessary to make them. Don't make them unless you can prove them.
Four octave range isn't a common thing, it ISN'T impossible, I never said anything of the sort, I just said it's unusual. 3 and a half is highly commendable in the eyes of critics, so four gets a lot of praise. Funny how you don't care now you've been faced with the request to prove it. You cared enough to debate until it was crunch time.
Originally posted by vanice
If you think I'm a retard because YOU MISINTERPRETED my post to mean "I'm better then Freddy Mercury" which I never said, then I don't see why I should listen to you at all.
No, I interpreted your posts as you saying you have an equal or better technical ability, which you did say by claiming you have a four octave range.
Originally posted by vanice
This is my last post on this thread. I don't care what you think about it alpha.
Good. Let this be a lesson to you (They always come back.).
-AC