Sometimes a new singer can be better than the original?

[Thrill_KIll]

Ok, as I've said in previous posts before, one of the groups I enjoy is Queen. I like many bands, as evident by my eclectic tastes, but Queen has always been a favorite of mine due to the sheer talent that they had both vocally and instrumentally as a collective band.

I had heard a couple of years back that Queen was touring with a new front man in the form of Paul Rodgers. For those of you who don't know who Paul Rodgers is, he was the frontman for Bad Company and Free. Actually, frontman is an understatement, he was the talent behind those bands, and the one who put them together. While I like Paul Rodgers, I just couldn't comprehend how Queen's sound would mesh with his vocals.

I finally got bored, and looked some of it up. Well, all I can say is....wow!

As much as I like Freddy Mercury as a vocalist, I can't help but think they sound better with Paul. Freddy had a wider range with his vocals, but Paul has more of a "genre range" with his voice. He just can sound more rock'ish. That, and in all honesty, it helps to see a rock singer not wearing spandex body suits prancing around looking like he's doing a number from "Cats".

Examples of what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrHNu-Uq4o&feature=related <--This is them doing a Queen song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x9M3ZuPFDc&feature=related <--This is a song from Paul's time with "Free". This and the following link are to help people see who he is that are not familiar with his name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw2Bbgn-NFI&feature=related <--From his days with Bad Company.


Please don't turn this into a debate about better bands, as this is not about that. This is about a band actually sounding better without the frontman who they are known for. Besides, if I have another 20 something idiot try to tell me how I don't know about bands like Tool I am gonna puke.

On a side note, I think it is pretty damn cool that even after all these years, those old fuckers (new lead singer and all) can stil pack freaking stadiums.....LOL.

[shnedit]

Disagree, mercury made queen, doesn't have that spark.

[Spinewire]

Disagree, mercury made queen, doesn't have that spark.

QFT

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-D99n9f3vU4

Mercury is just better sorry

[Haart Maystorm]

Your lack of correctiveness disturbs me.

[Thrill_KIll]

Again, you won't get any argument from me that Freddy was one of the elite vocalists of Rock 'N Roll. Nor am I downing how Queen sounded with him, they were awesome....moreso live.

I just think that this was actually one of the times when a band continued on with a new lead singer that they actually sounded just as good if not better in some respects. The biggest plus is that with their new lead, you are getting basically three bands in one show.

You also have to keep in mind that Queen did not want to try to replace Mercury. They wanted someone who could sing with them, that would bring a fresh sound to their show. I think they accomplished this very easily with their pick of Paul Rodgers.

LOL....I hope that is a bit more clear of what I am trying to get at it.

[DrGreenThumb]

yea.it destroys the band for alot of people.to me,its nothing really more than a glorified covers band.the spark goes,and often the very soul of the band.guitarists/bassists/drummers leave,but a singers role is so unique,in regards to voice/tone etc..,melody,use of words,the actual creation of the vocal lines,alotta stuff.

change your name and put a sticker on it(or whatever) saying 'yada yada ya ex band members of 'insert band' '.I understand why they do it ofc (steady fanbase,not all but a fair few,money).

anyhows,i was shocked when it happened to Blind Melon,man,they even play some sacred songs shannon wrote before he passed (change etc..) the souls gone.ah well,at least we have memories.

[Knocky]

The OP must have gotten a bad batch of drugs if he thinks that anyone could take Mercury's place.

Either that or he needs some Q-tips.

[Lotharr]

Dunno, but this is a pretty good cover imo:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S-I-p5F-D2E

[Buckk Dich]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs5kurU647s&feature=related

Yuck.

Gimme Mercury or gimme nothing.

[Thrill_KIll]

I'm sorry, but some of you are falling into the exact trap I was talking about. If it's not the orignal person, or someone who sounds EXACTLY like them (ACDC comes to mind here), then it has to suck.



Edit:

LMAO

A look how Queen could have sounded had they gone with some different possibilities for a lead singer.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O89POsz4eq4&feature=related

[Spinewire]

he's not shit, but he does not sound better


they should have got xena in to do it...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cFoWQwiOvRA

[Thrill_KIll]

he's not shit, but he does not sound better


Well, I think I was not very precise on what I meant by sounding "better". I am not saying that Rodgers is a better singer than Mercury. I am saying that his sound actually goes very well with the songs that Queen does, which would be the hardest part in trying to find someone to sing in Freddy's place, and in some respects (again, speaking to more of a genre sound than actual vocal range) I personally like it better. In other words, it was a refreshing surprise to see that they still sound very well even without Freddy. It shows how much of a talented band Queen really was/is I guess is a better way to say it.

I would go see them.

[Spinewire]

Well, I think I was not very precise on what I meant by sounding "better". I am not saying that Rodgers is a better singer than Mercury. I am saying that his sound actually goes very well with the songs that Queen does, which would be the hardest part in trying to find someone to sing in Freddy's place, and in some respects (again, speaking to more of a genre sound than actual vocal range) I personally like it better. In other words, it was a refreshing surprise to see that they still sound very well even without Freddy. It shows how much of a talented band Queen really was/is I guess is a better way to say it.

I would go see them.
I'm sad that you have said this as i was looking foward to thowing the "You think that Rodgers is a better singer than Mercury" back in your face in any future disagreements we may have.

[Thrill_KIll]

I'm sad that you have said this as i was looking foward to thowing the "You think that Rodgers is a better singer than Mercury" back in your face in any future disagreements we may have.


LOL

I'm sorry.....


Paul Rodgers OWNZ Freddy Mercury!!!!1!!11one11!!!

[Spinewire]

that will do....

[Kagetora8151]

Two of my friends saw Queen+Paul Rodgers. They enjoyed it a lot. I think Paul Rodgers is a great choice for a frontman. There are some Queen songs that he can do very well. Others, not so much. Still, I think he is a great addition for them.

Even though he is goofy as fuck I think Dennis DeYoung would also have been a great pick for Queen. He has a great operatic voice.

[ClownFoot]

New singers are never better. It's the original singer that defined the band, and when you try and replace him it isn't even the same band.

[Osirus]

William DuVall, the new Alice in Chains frontman, is wearing Layne Staley's shoes ... they seem to fit quite well.

[Mulambo]

HENRY ROLLINS!111one1
BRANDON CRUZ!!!1
AL BARR!!!!1

[kingpin]

here is the original "against all odds" by phil collins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjt0av-GWak

and here it is by mariah carey which i think it's much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqJSYjRERE8&feature=related

so yeah of course they can be.

[Slypieguy]

That's impossible. Every music and/or movie snob knows that the frist album or first movie in a series is always the best. If you break this rule you are out of the club and considered one of the sheep.

[Elicas]

When I saw this title, I thought "maybe, but he's definitely not talking about Queen!"

:eek:

[Peith]

Yes.

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

[Rhailith]

I think Iron Maiden with Bruce Dickinson is far better than Iron Maiden with Paul Di'Anno

[Dragonfly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O89POsz4eq4&feature=related

That was awesome, but I can do a much better impression of the guy from the B52s. He has me beat on the other 24 though.

Someone above said that Freddie Mercury was the force behind Queen and I agree with that.

Then again, Faith No More was much better after they went from :http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VDwiTxXzFsA to: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BclS5syB9Zg

[GFH_Spike]

Rodgers can't replace Mercury, but he's a great addition to the band for some of their material. Here's an example of how Mercury blows Rodgers away with his sheer vocal power.

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

[Drunkenork]

I have to say imo I still have to stick with Freddy. To me he gave it that certain vocal flarish feel I have always come to expect from the group, the music and lyrics I feel backed eachother up. No diss on Rodgers but it seemed like a cover band to me.

[Barbarossa]

New Paul Rodgers & Queen - C-Lebrity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ovN40FwRI)

Not only is it extremely bad, they totally stole the riff from Judas Priests' "Touch Of Evil" and the background vocals are as gay as gay can be.

Freddie Mercury is rolling in his grave.

[deja TBH]

New singers are never better. It's the original singer that defined the band, and when you try and replace him it isn't even the same band.
This


It's not terrible, but it's not Queen. Poor Freddy

[KingAndQueen]

LOL

I'm sorry.....


Paul Rodgers OWNZ Freddy Mercury!!!!1!!11one11!!!

Yes, But Freddie Mercury owns both of them.

[Spinewire]

Yes, But Freddie Mercury owns both of them.
hardly worth a necro, please, more funny next time

[Temet nosce]

hardly worth a necro, please, more funny next time

Meh, it's another one of the fucking noob GDers. Not exactly a surprise it it? Although honestly I'm getting increasingly annoyed, I swear more of them skip GD to irritate Forumfall every day.

[Spinewire]

Meh, it's another one of the fucking noob GDers. Not exactly a surprise it it? Although honestly I'm getting increasingly annoyed, I swear more of them skip GD to irritate Forumfall every day.
10 days... 10 days and it will all be a distant memory.

[Thrill_KIll]

hardly worth a necro, please, more funny next time

I know, right?

wtf is up with this?

[Ankh]

I know, right?

wtf is up with this?

It's the ghost of freddie mercury come to tell you paul rodgers is a tit.

[kordoyn]

As if you just compared Paul to Freddy. Freddy could mime a song better than Paul could sing it.

[Lictor]

Tom Petty - Free Fallin' (original (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htytygggB4k)).
John Mayer - Free Fallin' (epic live remake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLW6G6LYLt4)).

[Fro]

Ok, as I've said in previous posts before, one of the groups I enjoy is Queen. I like many bands, as evident by my eclectic tastes, but Queen has always been a favorite of mine due to the sheer talent that they had both vocally and instrumentally as a collective band.

I had heard a couple of years back that Queen was touring with a new front man in the form of Paul Rodgers. For those of you who don't know who Paul Rodgers is, he was the frontman for Bad Company and Free. Actually, frontman is an understatement, he was the talent behind those bands, and the one who put them together. While I like Paul Rodgers, I just couldn't comprehend how Queen's sound would mesh with his vocals.

I finally got bored, and looked some of it up. Well, all I can say is....wow!

As much as I like Freddy Mercury as a vocalist, I can't help but think they sound better with Paul. Freddy had a wider range with his vocals, but Paul has more of a "genre range" with his voice. He just can sound more rock'ish. That, and in all honesty, it helps to see a rock singer not wearing spandex body suits prancing around looking like he's doing a number from "Cats".

Examples of what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrHNu-Uq4o&feature=related <--This is them doing a Queen song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x9M3ZuPFDc&feature=related <--This is a song from Paul's time with "Free". This and the following link are to help people see who he is that are not familiar with his name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw2Bbgn-NFI&feature=related <--From his days with Bad Company.


Please don't turn this into a debate about better bands, as this is not about that. This is about a band actually sounding better without the frontman who they are known for. Besides, if I have another 20 something idiot try to tell me how I don't know about bands like Tool I am gonna puke.

On a side note, I think it is pretty damn cool that even after all these years, those old fuckers (new lead singer and all) can stil pack freaking stadiums.....LOL.

You make me sick.

[ejnomad07]

I swear the necromancers are getting worse.

[AmonDominus]

What self respecting band names themselves Queen?

[Titus Ultor]

What self respecting band names themselves Queen?

One fronted by a flaming homosexual/virtuoso?

[FraBaktos]

Ok, as I've said in previous posts before, one of the groups I enjoy is Queen. I like many bands, as evident by my eclectic tastes, but Queen has always been a favorite of mine due to the sheer talent that they had both vocally and instrumentally as a collective band.

I had heard a couple of years back that Queen was touring with a new front man in the form of Paul Rodgers. For those of you who don't know who Paul Rodgers is, he was the frontman for Bad Company and Free. Actually, frontman is an understatement, he was the talent behind those bands, and the one who put them together. While I like Paul Rodgers, I just couldn't comprehend how Queen's sound would mesh with his vocals.

I finally got bored, and looked some of it up. Well, all I can say is....wow!

As much as I like Freddy Mercury as a vocalist, I can't help but think they sound better with Paul. Freddy had a wider range with his vocals, but Paul has more of a "genre range" with his voice. He just can sound more rock'ish. That, and in all honesty, it helps to see a rock singer not wearing spandex body suits prancing around looking like he's doing a number from "Cats".

Examples of what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrHNu-Uq4o&feature=related <--This is them doing a Queen song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x9M3ZuPFDc&feature=related <--This is a song from Paul's time with "Free". This and the following link are to help people see who he is that are not familiar with his name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw2Bbgn-NFI&feature=related <--From his days with Bad Company.


Please don't turn this into a debate about better bands, as this is not about that. This is about a band actually sounding better without the frontman who they are known for. Besides, if I have another 20 something idiot try to tell me how I don't know about bands like Tool I am gonna puke.

On a side note, I think it is pretty damn cool that even after all these years, those old fuckers (new lead singer and all) can stil pack freaking stadiums.....LOL.

Paul is a great singer in his own right, but you're definitely wrong. Queen can never be Queen without freddy.

[PrimalSign]

Paul is a great singer in his own right, but you're definitely wrong. Queen can never be Queen without freddy.

It's a good thing we have so many necromancers on Forumfall then.

[Jangang]

You guys are gay... A couple queen songs were decent, mostly for comic value. Beyond that they were pretty fruity.