• Announcements

    • downzy

      Forum Service Update   08/22/2017

      Currently in the process of updating the forum.   Please note that some features are disabled until the process is complete.  This includes liking posts.   We appreciate your cooperation and patience during this process. Thanks! Downzy


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SoulMonster last won the day on December 1 2015

SoulMonster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,588 Excellent

About SoulMonster

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Sex

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

5,909 profile views
  1. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    "Altogether"? Really, so you would say Ditrich Discher.Dieskau is better than, say, Axl Rose at singing rock songs? Or will you now claim you are talking about vocal ranges and other quantifiable metrics, to which I would respond that many opera singers don't necesarrily have very wide ranges (what they are trained at is singing each note with a perticular resonating booming sound), and then back down to claim you simply prefer their tonal qualities more? Fine, you can prefer opera to rock and pop. I don't care. Just stop with all the bollocks. Okay.
  2. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    He probably did suck a lot. Freddie had a good voice. People tend to exaggerate how good it was, though, because they really, reeally really like some of his songs, and because everybody else says how great of a singer he was. Personally, I think a lot of it was teatrical shite. But other things were really good, like that Bohemiam Raspberry, or whatever. Especially the extremely high note no wait, that was the drummer singing.
  3. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    Now you are moving the goalposts. You first claimed Freddie was a better singer than Axl when looking at all quantifiable things like vocal range. I then pointed out you are wrong. Now you turn to the quality of the notes he sings (like his heavily compressed voice, aka the "rasp"). That is entirely subjective. You may prefer Freddie's more conventional, classical singing voice to Axl's more distorted, noisy voice (most people do). Fine. It just proves my point that we are discussing things that are subjective by nature. Besides, for us that is fascinated by Axl's voice, it is the fact that he can sing with so many different voices that is the most amazing, from the gravely voice he used live in 1991, to his smooth crooning voice in songs like Patience, to his deep, punky voice in songs like I Don't Care About You, to his cleaner aggressive voice in songs like Welcome to the Jungle, etc. I personally don't like all of his voices but I certainly respect his awesome vocal talent and versatility. If he had released more musuic, and thus further showcased his talents, I think he would have been more widely admired as a singer and not just admired for his range and ability, screams, and powerful belting.
  4. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    I didn't say Freddie wasn't better than Axl at vocal range, control, etc -- but maybe I should have because he wasn't, at least not for all of these* -- I pointed out the flaw in claiming he was better than Axl "in every which way". You simply ruined what could have been a decent argument by being sloppy in how you presented it. * Actually, Freddie wasn't better than Axl in all of these common ways of characterizing the singing voice, if you care to actually look into it. According to the fine people at That Range Place, Axl has demonstrated lower recorded singing notes than Freddie ever did (F1 in 'There Was A Time' vs F2 in 'All Dead All Dead'). So in this particular quantifiable way, Axl was a better singer than Freddie. He ws also able to hit higher notes (Bb6 in 'Ain't It Fun' compared to Freddie's D6 in 'Save Me'). Also in vocal range, which usually means more to people than absolute highest or lowest singing tones, Axl is better than Freddie, coming in at 5th place vs Freddie's 35th of legendary singers' vocal ranges (source: http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html ) Not that most people would care about such esoteric things as range and lowest and highest registers, since most people don't care about the quantifiable bits of s singing voice, they care about whether the like the voice which is entirely subjective.
  5. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    In "every which way"? Heh, you ruined the argument you started before you had even ended the sentence. Let's look at the way of "sounding like Axl Rose"...who is the best at that, objectivelly, of Freddie Mercury and Axl Rose? Right, Axl. Axl is bestt at sounding like Axl. So I guess we have already found at least one way where Axl is, objectivelly, better than Freddie. And there are numerous ways you can quantify their voices (like looking at the ways they sung various notes with different techniques), discover differences between them, and then say Axl is better than Freddie at that because that's the success critera you apply. Because their voices are different. And some like something and others like another. The obly thing youo can do that has some meaning is to look at quantifiable things like vocal range, ability to use different singing styles, where everybody would agree that more is better, and so on. But in "every which way", Freddie can't be determined to be better than Axl.
  6. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    Musical preferences is entirely subjective. If he thinks Freddie's opera voice was dreadful and feels like vomiting when he hears Queen, then that is a completely valid, subjective opinion. No point in going, "No, you are wrong! His voice was an angel's!"
  7. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    Why? It's fun to blow someone's mind by having a different subjective opinion on a trivial thing.
  8. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    He knows Freddie Mercury has a terrible opera voice, isnt that enough?
  9. Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

    Freddie Mercury is so 1980s. The real question is 'who is the greatest of Axl Rose and Morten Harket?'