MR

in my honest opinion, i think vocally Freddie Mercury is too over-rated. Why does he keep getting these best singer titles. Perry sings and still sings circles around Mercury. Freddie barely can hit the notes Perry hits live. Perry's range is far superior to Mercury's. Mercurys high notes really arent that impressive. They are just loud, because he had vocal nodules.HE often sang in high falsetto, which to be honest really isnt too hard once you understand how to do it. Perry had the soul to captivate the audience, singing loudly but in tune, or even soft like in winds of march. I dont mean to offend any Queen fans, but vocally i believe Perry is the one who should be getting all the recognition.

4everkop wrote:in my honest opinion, i think vocally Freddie Mercury is too over-rated. Why does he keep getting these best singer titles. Perry sings and still sings circles around Mercury. Freddie barely can hit the notes Perry hits live. Perry's range is far superior to Mercury's. Mercurys high notes really arent that impressive. They are just loud, because he had vocal nodules.HE often sang in high falsetto, which to be honest really isnt too hard once you understand how to do it. Perry had the soul to captivate the audience, singing loudly but in tune, or even soft like in winds of march. I dont mean to offend any Queen fans, but vocally i believe Perry is the one who should be getting all the recognition.

Agree for the most part, but you don't give Mercury enough credit.

NealIsGod wrote:

4everkop wrote:in my honest opinion, i think vocally Freddie Mercury is too over-rated. Why does he keep getting these best singer titles. Perry sings and still sings circles around Mercury. Freddie barely can hit the notes Perry hits live. Perry's range is far superior to Mercury's. Mercurys high notes really arent that impressive. They are just loud, because he had vocal nodules.HE often sang in high falsetto, which to be honest really isnt too hard once you understand how to do it. Perry had the soul to captivate the audience, singing loudly but in tune, or even soft like in winds of march. I dont mean to offend any Queen fans, but vocally i believe Perry is the one who should be getting all the recognition.

Agree for the most part, but you don't give Mercury enough credit.

Maybe I am being too harsh with mercury. He can indeed sing and is up there in vocal talent, but listening to them both I still think Perry has more vocal chops. I think its because they see Mercury as an incredible frontman. Which I deffinately agree with, amazing showman. But when it comes to singing in my honest opinion, i still think perry owns.

IMO, Perry's a better singer(emoter). Mercury was a better showman/frontman.

Deb wrote:IMO, Perry's a better singer(emoter). Mercury was a better showman/frontman.

Agreed!

Freddie had nodules? I think you're mistaken. I've NEVER heard that.
If Freddie had nodules, his falsetto and head voice wouldn't be working as well as they did. I think that's incorrect.
If anybody had nodules, I'd say it was Steve. His voice got SO rough from Frontiers on. A true sign of nodules.
Freddie never had that roughness to his voice.
They're different types of singers. Freddie was more operatic, Steve was more soul.
If I had to pick the vocal style and apparatus out of the two that I'd want, I'd take Perry's.

Freddie, while a great great singer, always had problems live with his pitch. Perry NEVER did. Perry's pitch and power was superb. Freddie's pitch live was monstrous at times. In the studio, it worked wonderfully for him. Live, it didn't always and so he'd either have to lower the falsetto note into his chest voice, or yell it which probably created some of his pitch problems. Freddie Mercury has done some of the most beautiful recordings in the studio to ever grace a piece of plastic ("Take my breath away" for one), so I don't sell him short at all. I just think that Steve's vocal approach was more what I prefer.

Of course with approach, it would've been interesting to see who would've lasted vocally out of the two. Perry appears to have shot his voice to hell with his approach and Journey's touring. Freddie, well, we'll never know. I will say that on the posthumous "Made in Heaven" album, Freddie hits some amazing notes, and this from a guy who was dying at the time of its recording. While the album isn't the best Queen album, it features some awesome singing by Freddie.

Also- Brian May is also underrated as a singer. His solo record "Back to the Light" is a great album and he sings really good on it.

brywool wrote:Freddie had nodules? I think you're mistaken. I've NEVER heard that.
If Freddie had nodules, his falsetto and head voice wouldn't be working as well as they did. I think that's incorrect.
They're different types of singers. Freddie was more operatic, Steve was more soul.
If I had to pick the vocal style and apparatus out of the two that I'd want, I'd take Perry's.

Freddie, while a great great singer, always had problems live with his pitch. Perry NEVER did. Perry's pitch and power was superb. Freddie's pitch live was monstrous at times. In the studio, it worked wonderfully for him. Live, it didn't always and so he'd either have to lower the falsetto note into his chest voice, or yell it which probably created some of his pitch problems. Freddie Mercury has done some of the most beautiful recordings in the studio to ever grace a piece of plastic ("Take my breath away" for one), so I don't sell him short at all. I just think that Steve's vocal approach was more what I prefer.

Of course with approach, it would've been interesting to see who would've lasted vocally out of the two. Perry appears to have shot his voice to hell with his approach and Journey's touring. Freddie, well, we'll never know. I will say that on the posthumous "Made in Heaven" album, Freddie hits some amazing notes, and this from a guy who was dying at the time of its recording. While the album isn't the best Queen album, it features some awesome singing by Freddie.

Also- Brian May is also underrated as a singer. His solo record "Back to the Light" is a great album and he sings really good on it.

Agree with a lot of that. Mind you SP could be very operatic at times too, the Budakon Still They Ride comes to mind. 2 stunning performers that the likes of these newer generations will never see.

Well its defiantely true perry had nodules, it'd be impossible for him to not have them. Im pretty sure Mercury had them, indeed head voice wouldn't work in essence, but thats the softer headvoice, hence them both shouting in head voice live. Falsetto is always a last resort if headvoice isnt usable. And plus you really dont lose the falsetto as much as you can head voice, but with rest it can come back.

Deb wrote:

brywool wrote:Freddie had nodules? I think you're mistaken. I've NEVER heard that.
If Freddie had nodules, his falsetto and head voice wouldn't be working as well as they did. I think that's incorrect.
They're different types of singers. Freddie was more operatic, Steve was more soul.
If I had to pick the vocal style and apparatus out of the two that I'd want, I'd take Perry's.

Freddie, while a great great singer, always had problems live with his pitch. Perry NEVER did. Perry's pitch and power was superb. Freddie's pitch live was monstrous at times. In the studio, it worked wonderfully for him. Live, it didn't always and so he'd either have to lower the falsetto note into his chest voice, or yell it which probably created some of his pitch problems. Freddie Mercury has done some of the most beautiful recordings in the studio to ever grace a piece of plastic ("Take my breath away" for one), so I don't sell him short at all. I just think that Steve's vocal approach was more what I prefer.

Of course with approach, it would've been interesting to see who would've lasted vocally out of the two. Perry appears to have shot his voice to hell with his approach and Journey's touring. Freddie, well, we'll never know. I will say that on the posthumous "Made in Heaven" album, Freddie hits some amazing notes, and this from a guy who was dying at the time of its recording. While the album isn't the best Queen album, it features some awesome singing by Freddie.

Also- Brian May is also underrated as a singer. His solo record "Back to the Light" is a great album and he sings really good on it.

Agree with a lot of that. Mind you SP could be very operatic at times too, the Budakon Still They Ride comes to mind. 2 stunning performers that the likes of these newer generations will never see.

I wouldn't call that operatic at all. He just didn't use that kind of approach in his singing. Still, that's one of the most brilliant vocal performances I've ever seen.

4everkop wrote:in my honest opinion, i think vocally Freddie Mercury is too over-rated. Why does he keep getting these best singer titles. Perry sings and still sings circles around Mercury. Freddie barely can hit the notes Perry hits live. Perry's range is far superior to Mercury's. Mercurys high notes really arent that impressive. They are just loud, because he had vocal nodules.HE often sang in high falsetto, which to be honest really isnt too hard once you understand how to do it. Perry had the soul to captivate the audience, singing loudly but in tune, or even soft like in winds of march. I dont mean to offend any Queen fans, but vocally i believe Perry is the one who should be getting all the recognition.

I think it depends on what you define as great singing. If it's just the notes someone can hit, then Geddy Lee should be nominated. Sure, he can sing, but he's not a great singer IMO. There's something off putting about his voice. It works for Rush, but I couldn't see him on any other material.

I say there's more to a singer than just the notes he can hit. Vocalists like Perry stand out not just because of the notes he can hit, but because of the unique character heard in his singing. It's not a quantifiable thing. Lionel Richie described Perry by saying: "he would open his mouth and this 'sound' came out".

I think Mercury is a great singer in that same context. The overall character of his voice is great. It's unique. It rocks when necessary, it's sensitive when necessary.

I vote for Perry in every contest because I prefer his voice to others, but I wouldn't be upset if Mercury beat Perry. It's deserved.

4everkop wrote:Well its defiantely true perry had nodules, it'd be impossible for him to not have them. Im pretty sure Mercury had them, indeed head voice wouldn't work in essence, but thats the softer headvoice, hence them both shouting in head voice live. Falsetto is always a last resort if headvoice isnt usable. And plus you really dont lose the falsetto as much as you can head voice, but with rest it can come back.

I don't agree. If you sing correctly and take care of your voice, you can have it forever. If your chords swell (not nodules) it will give that rough feel too. But swelling goes down with a few days of rest. However, if you don't get to rest because of constant touring, you're compounding that swelling and then you get nodules. On top of that, I'm almost certain that Perry took cortisone regularly to keep up with that schedule and to keep his voice in shape. With cortisone, it will fix you, but if you use it too much, it will leave you with a ruined voice and also, possibly, joint and HIP problems. This is my supposition based on what happened to him, it's not a fact, but it's something I've paid attention to. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Deb wrote:IMO, Perry's a better singer(emoter). Mercury was a better showman/frontman.

That about sums it up.
They're both awesome in their own right.

Apples and oranges for me. I think both Perry and Mercury were world class vocalists, but the comparisons I think are valid is Freddie was more daring and did more vocally than Steve did. Freddie was amazing in the studio and really did things no one had ever done. Steve is also great, but a little safer vocally.

I don't like to compare singers, especially the great ones because no matter what, people have their favorites and insulting their favorite will only get you ridiculed. I love good singers, who have the emotional side but the power and drive to back it up. Freddie and Steve had those things, and so much more.

Exactly..there is a difference in singers that just sing the song and those that feel the song and that expression of soul comes out in their voice...that sets them apart..I also agree that comparison's are apples to oranges...it's how each hears it and what each listener enjoys more...personal preference's doesn't make one right over another.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:

Deb wrote:IMO, Perry's a better singer(emoter). Mercury was a better showman/frontman.

That about sums it up.
They're both awesome in their own right.

1000% right including your sig......G.

There is something in the back of my mind that a Queen tour had to be cut short so Freddie could have nodes on his vocal folds removed. It was very early on.
It's along time ago - but they had a series of bad luck. Brian got some kind of Hepatitis and gigs were cancelled, then Freddie had nodes removed.

Can anyone else remember? I'm sure I'm not dreaming this?

And I agree, although Freddie's range was approx four octaves and he was a superb showman, Steve Perry has the much better voice IMO.

Mercury 'exhibited' and you were compelled to watch. Perry 'felt' the song and you were compelled to close your eyes and feel it too.

SusieP wrote:There is something in the back of my mind that a Queen tour had to be cut short so Freddie could have nodes on his vocal folds removed. It was very early on.
It's along time ago - but they had a series of bad luck. Brian got some kind of Hepatitis and gigs were cancelled, then Freddie had nodes removed.

Can anyone else remember? I'm sure I'm not dreaming this?

And I agree, although Freddie's range was approx four octaves and he was a superb showman, Steve Perry has the much better voice IMO.

Mercury 'exhibited' and you were compelled to watch. Perry 'felt' the song and you were compelled to close your eyes and feel it too.

I remember that about Brian, but don't remember Freddie.

While I agree that Freddie was a SUPERB showman, it didn't take away from what I thought was a SUPERB singer. I was never a die hard Queen fan, the way I've always been with Journey, but it was hard not to be drawn in by Freddie's voice. Freddie was a "showman" who could sing. I've always decribed David Lee Roth as a showman and Sammy Hagar as a singer. Roth simply didn't have anything remotely remarkable about his voice. I thought Freddie definitely did. Having said all of that...I just don't think ANYONE is on Perry's level, when Perry was in his prime. Thirty years later, I'm still baffled at the notes this guy hit and the power of his voice. I've never heard anything quite like it!


John from Boston

BobbyinTN wrote:Apples and oranges for me. I think both Perry and Mercury were world class vocalists, but the comparisons I think are valid is Freddie was more daring and did more vocally than Steve did. Freddie was amazing in the studio and really did things no one had ever done. Steve is also great, but a little safer vocally.

I don't like to compare singers, especially the great ones because no matter what, people have their favorites and insulting their favorite will only get you ridiculed. I love good singers, who have the emotional side but the power and drive to back it up. Freddie and Steve had those things, and so much more.

Very true indeed!

Both are incomparable vocalist. Yet, vastly different.

I've seen both live numerous times and was blown away by each. I never heard pitch issues with Freddie live...never. His strength was not the high notes, it was everything else.

It's not about range...it's about soul and delivery! I have the utmost respect for both Freddie and Steve. Too hard to compare...so, I simply enjoy both.

Chad

FREDDIE WAS AMAZING... and died young... Perry has so much on going potential and does not use it... Freddie wins hands down,
not even close.

Rick

I love both too, could never compare.

Having said that!!!!...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5NpdkH5Dw

Still by far and wide the greatest live performance i've ever seen/heard by ANYBODY, ANYWHERE!

Paul_UK wrote:I love both too, could never compare.

Having said that!!!!...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5NpdkH5Dw

Still by far and wide the greatest live performance i've ever seen/heard by ANYBODY, ANYWHERE!

Paul, that is by far one of my favorite pieces on Queen. I remember seeing this live and couldn't believe my eyes and ears. What a powertful performance that day.

Cheers, Chad

I was actually there on the day, a mere 16 year old kid and i knew even then i was witnessing something special. The whole atmosphere went up 10 fold from the opening bars of Bohemian Rhapsody, all 80,000 people were singing, punching the air, and this was a NEUTRAL audience, not a Queen gig!!

Truly awesome, and very rare indeed.

you definitely did witness something special.

to this day, that performance sends shivers up my spine

Paul_UK wrote:I love both too, could never compare.

Having said that!!!!...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5NpdkH5Dw

Still by far and wide the greatest live performance i've ever seen/heard by ANYBODY, ANYWHERE!

That was great, I've never seen that before! They just don't make frontmen like that anymore.

Oh wait.........yes they do! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J83wdhVmkVI

The reason I'll always consider Mercury better is hearing Brian May tell the story about Freddie who was riddled with AIDS a few weeks from death, get up to belt out a couple of beautiful lines. Then have to rest to do it all over again. He struggled to record whatever he could up until the last. What's Perry doing? Perry was great. Now he's petting his cat. Both in their prime were great. But this story ranks Mercury higher, always will.

RedWingFan wrote:The reason I'll always consider Mercury better is hearing Brian May tell the story about Freddie who was riddled with AIDS a few weeks from death, get up to belt out a couple of beautiful lines. Then have to rest to do it all over again. He struggled to record whatever he could up until the last. What's Perry doing? Perry was great. Now he's petting his cat. Both in their prime were great. But this story ranks Mercury higher, always will.

Yeah, Freddie had more passion for singing than Perry, no doubt. Being sick and dying probably gave Freddie an appreciation for his gift that healthy people don't have.

brywool wrote:

SusieP wrote:There is something in the back of my mind that a Queen tour had to be cut short so Freddie could have nodes on his vocal folds removed. It was very early on.
It's along time ago - but they had a series of bad luck. Brian got some kind of Hepatitis and gigs were cancelled, then Freddie had nodes removed.

Can anyone else remember? I'm sure I'm not dreaming this?

And I agree, although Freddie's range was approx four octaves and he was a superb showman, Steve Perry has the much better voice IMO.

Mercury 'exhibited' and you were compelled to watch. Perry 'felt' the song and you were compelled to close your eyes and feel it too.

I remember that about Brian, but don't remember Freddie.

I just had a look around, here's a link to an interview where Freddie says he has nodes. Its quite a way down but I thought people may like to read all the Q & A's anyway.
I only half remembered, though - he declined surgery to remove them.

http://queen.musichall.cz/en/interviews ... en-81.html

NealIsGod wrote:Being sick and dying probably gave Freddie an appreciation for his gift that healthy people don't have.

I agree.His vocal performance on that last album is unmatched,he was perfect.


Can't rank these guys...Like someone said -- apples and oranges.I'm not a diehard Mercury fan but I've always admired his stage precence and his operatic voice.
However,he wasn't able to touch me the way Perry's voice did.
It's hard to explain.Probably has to do with that it factor in Perry's voice.

NealIsGod wrote:Yeah, Freddie had more passion for singing than Perry, no doubt. Being sick and dying probably gave Freddie an appreciation for his gift that healthy people don't have.

I'll NEVER agree that ANYONE had more "passion" than Perry had for singing. I've also NEVER believed that Perry stopped singing, just because he felt like it! I have to tell you...I picked up some internet boots of Perry from back in the late 90's (after he had officially left Journey), and he sounded AWFUL! I couldn't even believe it was Perry! I certainly understand that an internet boot isn't always the best barometer to judge the quality of someone's voice. That said, the guy's voice sounded like it was fried!

The reality is that some guys have a whole lot of pride, and don't want to be remembered for being a shell of themselves, or making a mockery out of their body of work. I think Perry's body of work, as the frontman of Journey, is unmatched. I also think that Perry has FAR more respect for the name Journey than ANY other member of that band has ever had! I believe that Perry simply knew he just didn't have it any longer, and made a VERY intelligent decision to walk away. Just because a guy can't sing any longer (and by sing...I mean singing at the level that he was known for) doesn't mean that somehow he is lacking passion and heart. I realize that any premise advanced by ANYONE is pure speculation. I just believe that his vocal ability going south on him makes more sense than anything else I've heard!


John from Boston