Axl vs. Freddie Mercury

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I didn't say Freddie wasn't better than Axl at vocal range, control, etc -- he might well have been* -- 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. Also in vocal range, which usually means more to people, Axl is better than Freddie, coming in at 4th place vs Freddie's 35th of legendary singer's vocal ranges (source: https://consequenceofsound.net/2014/05/turns-out-mike-patton-and-not-axl-rose-is-the-greatest-singer-of-all-time/ ) Not that most people would care about such esoteric things as range and lowest register, 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.

Rose's voice is craggy. He isn't a technical singer. His raison d'être is to sing unclean (i.e. the rasp). This is what people like in him. When he sings clean people hate it as he sounds like Mickey Mouse with his bollocks trapped in a vice.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Rose's voice is craggy. He isn't a technical singer. His raison d'être is to sing unclean (i.e. the rasp). This is what people like in him. When he sings clean people hate it as he sounds like Mickey Mouse with his bollocks trapped in a vice.

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.

[Pishy]

@DieselDaisy Subjective is based on opinion or feeling, not fabricating to get a rise out of others. You need information to form even the shallowest of opinions. Does my subjective opinion that liverwurst tastes like shit mean anything if I've never sampled neither liverwurst nor shit? 

 

All the nonsense about Freddie is disingenuous, bloviating bullshit

Edited August 22, 2017 by Pishy

[Pishy]

1 hour ago, AslatIE said:

Well fine it's not a fucking opera voice then!  Are you happy now?  

He did sing true opera with Caballe but he also sang rock. You've never listened to his rock songs.  

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Pishy said:

@DieselDaisy Subjective is based on opinion or feeling, not fabricating to get a rise out of others. You need information to form even the shallowest of opinions. Does my subjective opinion that liver worst tastes like shit mean anything if I've never sampled either liver worst nor shit? 

 

All the nonsense about Freddie is disingenuous, bloviating bullshit

That is why I said 'objective', not subjective, and even admitted the existence of the latter interpretation,

Quote

Objectively Freddie is a superior singer in every which way to Rose. Subjectively you can prefer whoever you like, George Formby if you so prefer.

Pay attention in future.

[Pishy]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is why I said 'objective', not subjective, and even admitted the existence of the latter interpretation,

Pay attention in future.

You pay attention , you were correcting me that the bloviating fellow was simply giving a subjective opinion as you proceeded to give me a vocabulary lesson as if I confused what subjective meant with objective . I'm still saying it's not subjective if it is completely uninformed , it doesn't matter what conclusion he comes to subjectively as long as it has some basis , some information , to form a damn subjective opinion which he did not have . 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Pishy

[Len Cnut]

Len-jective, BAG O' SHITE 

[Pishy]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Objectively Freddie is a superior singer in every which way to Rose. Subjectively you can prefer whoever you like, George Formby if you so prefer.

This isn't you? You are saying he can prefer whoever he wants subjectively when he says "Freddie sucks" and I say he has no fucking opinion of any integrity if he never god damn tried , it's completely uninformed ! It's just petty provocation. 

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Len-jective, BAG O' SHITE 

Screw you, lol 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Both great singers and entertainers in their own right.

Can't compare these two legends.

[Blackstar]

For a little while I thought I was reading a Queen fans forum...

I think it's inevitable that bands are judged mostly from their hits by the majority of people. Like it or not, the hits or most played/known songs are the "face" of a band/artist. When people have heard 3-4 songs and liked them, they may want to hear more; if they didn't like them, they won't bother. Then there's the case when they hear many other people say that a band is great. In the pre-internet era, the first step would usually be to buy a compilation of said band; now it's a search on youtube. If they don't like a single song on the compilation or on the first 5-10 results youtube, it's expected that they won't look deeper in the band's discography; I think it's how it works for most of us.

I have reacted in the same way as Queen fans here when people told me they didn't like Bowie knowing only some of the hit songs he did after the 70s. But even in the case of someone with Bowie's catalogue and versatility, compilations are kinda representative, having Space Oddity, Ziggy Stardust, The Jean Genie, Rebel Rebel, Heroes, Fame etc; if one doesn't like a single one of these songs, there's a fair chance that they don't like Bowie and there's nothing I can do about it (the case of them finding 4-5 other songs in his discography that they like doesn't make a difference).

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Pishy said:

This isn't you? You are saying he can prefer whoever he wants subjectively when he says "Freddie sucks" and I say he has no fucking opinion of any integrity if he never god damn tried , it's completely uninformed ! It's just petty provocation. 

Screw you, lol 

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.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Pishy said:

This isn't you? You are saying he can prefer whoever he wants subjectively when he says "Freddie sucks" and I say he has no fucking opinion of any integrity if he never god damn tried , it's completely uninformed ! It's just petty provocation. 

What I am saying is it is possible to judge a singer objectively by technical merits. Subjectivity is a separate area altogether.

They are all shite at the end of the day compared to opera singers. Someone like Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is superior altogether to any singers of popular music.

[Pishy]

31 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

I don't give a fuck why some people may have got on board, there are plenty of phony GnR fans . I had some lady next to me in Vegas whose eyes glazed over on every song other than sweet child and November rain. There are many on this board that call UYI songs "bloated", wtf do they know? They like 5 songs or 1 album, let them enjoy it.  

You think people can't spend time with Queen's music and understand? It's not exactly popular to like Queen , it's "old" and "late". Especially today where people want to be in on the latest thing of the moment . There are a lot of people who appreciate queen on a much more profound level , including accomplished musicians. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Pishy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 Someone like Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is superior altogether to any singers of popular music.

"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.

Just now, Pishy said:

You think people can't spend time with Queen's music and not understand anything? It's not exactly popular to like Queen , it's "old" and "late". Especially today where people want to be in on the latest thing of the moment . There are a lot of people who appreciate queen on a much more profound level , including accomplished musicians. 

Okay.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

"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.

Of course not which is why you have bass, baritone, soprano etc.

An uncharacteristically unscientific outburst from you to end haha? I thought you were the master of glacial dispassion?

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

If your greatest hits are a load of shite it dont bode well.  I freely admit to not having listened to every last bastard song they ever made but do i have to do that to not like em?  Why dont you listen to Snoop Doggy Doggs entire discography?

Ballet to the masses man! Ballet to the masses!

[Dazey]

Freddie was absolutely amazing. Queen were and are awful.

[Pishy]

5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Ballet to the masses man! Ballet to the masses!

What's your point? The fact is, Queen expanded the horizons of many listeners, many who would outright reject many genres unless a trusted teacher of sorts, introduced them to it. Not everyone has the privledge of being exposed to various art forms.  

The reason Freddie was so magnificent is he had the unique experience of eastern and western influences and delved into both spheres, he explored everything from rock, to rap, opera, athaan, folk, classical etc.  Even his band mates, who were brilliant talents, said some of the things Freddie came up with they didn't understand but it was so personal to Freddie.  They were some seriously cool people to not restrain that but get involved and experience something new. That's a real group of musicians .

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Pishy said:

What's your point? The fact is, Queen expanded the horizons of many listeners, many who would outright reject many genres unless a trusted teacher of sorts, introduced them to it. Not everyone has the privledge of being exposed to various art forms.  

The reason Freddie was so magnificent is he had the unique experience of eastern and western influences and delved into both spheres, he explored everything from rock, to rap, opera, athaan, folk, classical etc.  Even his band mates, who were brilliant talents, said some of the things Freddie came up with they didn't understand but it was so personal to Freddie.  They were some seriously cool people to not restrain that but get involved and experience something new. That's a real group of musicians .

Hey I'm just a shit eating northern monkey. What would I know?

[Pishy]

@SoulMonster it's not in the US, the younger generations have been conditioned to hate anything not current, even humans. Old is the dirtiest word around here.  The reasons for that tie into the political agenda which is not relevant here but that's the fact, maybe different in Britain. The only exception is if it's currently trendy to brand something old , but again it's showcasing the brand of the moment that's the appeal.

 

 

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Pishy said:

@SoulMonster it's not in the US, the younger generations have been conditioned to hate anything not current, even humans. Old is the dirtiest word around here.  The reasons for that tie into the political agenda which is not relevant here but that's the fact, maybe different in Britain. The only exception is if it's currently trendy to brand something old , but again it's showcasing the brand of the moment that's the appeal.

 

 

He's Norwegian. 

[Pishy]

Just now, Dazey said:

He's Norwegian. 

well, they're far more civilized so he would have a difficult time believing a lot of this 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

For a little while I thought I was reading a Queen fans forum...

I think it's inevitable that bands are judged mostly from their hits by the majority of people. Like it or not, the hits or most played/known songs are the "face" of a band/artist. When people have heard 3-4 songs and liked them, they may want to hear more; if they didn't like them, they won't bother. Then there's the case when they hear many other people say that a band is great. In the pre-internet era, the first step would usually be to buy a compilation of said band; now it's a search on youtube. If they don't like a single song on the compilation or on the first 5-10 results youtube, it's expected that they won't look deeper in the band's discography; I think it's how it works for most of us.

I have reacted in the same way as Queen fans here when people told me they didn't like Bowie knowing only some of the hit songs he did after the 70s. But even in the case of someone with Bowie's catalogue and versatility, compilations are kinda representative, having Space Oddity, Ziggy Stardust, The Jean Genie, Rebel Rebel, Heroes, Fame etc; if one doesn't like a single one of these songs, there's a fair chance that they don't like Bowie and there's nothing I can do about it (the case of them finding 4-5 other songs in his discography that they like doesn't make a difference).

You have a point but you have to remember that Top 40 singles 'Tie Your Mother Down', 'Spread Your Wings' and 'Scandal' - the latter a UK #21 - did not make Queen's iconic Greatest Hits I and II albums, not to mention singles which for some inexplicable reason did not do as well such as 'Love of My Life', albeit only released as a live variant. Strangely 'Body Language', Fred's foray into homosexual New York disco, made #25! By the letter of the law it probably should've been included on Greatest Hits!

From my experience Americans are more familiar with the album The Game which was when they were becoming gradually more concise and pop. It is a good album but I wouldn't rank it with their golden era: Sheer Heart Attack, Night at the Opera, Day at the Races - nor even News of the World.

[coolranchdressing!]

Obviously, personally I choose Axl...his whole package...the vocal range...the danger, unpredictability, the anger, frustration, the sorrow...also visually in his prime he was FAR more attractive (!!)

Freddy is obviously more talented vocally but I feel his voice is more theatrical vs. raw rock n' roll

 

[Pishy]

57 minutes ago, coolranchdressing! said:

Obviously, personally I choose Axl...his whole package...the vocal range...the danger, unpredictability, the anger, frustration, the sorrow...also visually in his prime he was FAR more attractive (!!)

Freddy is obviously more talented vocally but I feel his voice is more theatrical vs. raw rock n' roll

 

His name is Freddie and although Axl is a very handsome man, I think Freddie is extremely good looking, certainly a deeper beauty but that will vary with everyone and besides the point. We are talking about talent.  The default for those who don't know Queen's work is, "Freddie's voice was theatrical", so they can seem like they know something, you just know the soundbite, doesn't mean much.  He wasn't a god damn Broadway singer, he was a rock singer and yes, he had a number of styles no doubt but if you knew any of his rock songs, you would not call him "theatrical". I hate Broadway musicals because of the heinous singing that jangles every last one of my nerves, that sure as hell is not Freddie. Had it been the case, there are far better "theatrical" , professionally trained snores out there and there would be no Freddie.  

And when it comes to anger, frustration and sorrow, no one in rock history,  expressed it like Freddie. But he also was able to convey love and hope, mortality, fear, joy, Freddie could reach emotional depths that I don't think anyone has ever been able to replicate musically. He was a highly developed person, a conscious one. Someone like Axl, could be reached and understood by Freddie, but not the reverse, Freddie could also make sense of things, teach. He was on another level in every respect. 

Don't listen to Queen ever, but it is disingenuous to negate what Freddie is in order to create a contrast or provide a false analysis.  

Edited August 23, 2017 by Pishy