Who is a better vocalist: Freddie Mercury or Steve Perry?

[YYZ Working Man]

Pardon me sir, but do have any Grey Poupon?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Perry. He has a mathematically superior voice.

 

Mathematically?

 

 

 

If that's synonymous for subjectively, sure, why not? If you mean technically, then I don't believe so.

 

Math is made up of objective facts. The way some seem to believe singing quality can be assessed.

 

as opposed to subjective facts...:P

 

sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Rick N. Backer]

Perry. He has a mathematically superior voice.

 

Mathematically?

 

 

 

If that's synonymous for subjectively, sure, why not? If you mean technically, then I don't believe so.

 

Math is made up of objective facts. The way some seem to believe singing quality can be assessed.

 

as opposed to subjective facts...:P

 

sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Objective opinions. ;)

[Rick N. Backer]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

[Rick N. Backer]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

 

Wouldn't Perry get the nod over Mercury then?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

 

Wouldn't Perry get the nod over Mercury then?

 

What, was Perry a trained vocalist?

[treeduck]

Perry is getting absolutely decimated in the poll, 18-0.

[Lucas]

Listening to Freddie, I feel that I have a much better idea of who he is and what makes him tick -- it feels like a much more personal relationship, performer and fan ..

 

And he did all that with a fantastic voice

 

Freddie wins easy

 

 

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Perry is getting absolutely decimated in the poll, 18-0.

 

I'm curious as to why Perry hasn't gotten a single vote. There have been a number of posters here who prefer Perry. Why not vote?

[treeduck]

Perry is getting absolutely decimated in the poll, 18-0.

 

I'm curious as to why Perry hasn't gotten a single vote. There have been a number of posters here who prefer Perry. Why not vote?

Not sure.

[Rick N. Backer]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

 

Wouldn't Perry get the nod over Mercury then?

 

What, was Perry a trained vocalist?

 

Is being trained one of the indicators?

[Fordgalaxy]

Perry. He has a mathematically superior voice.

 

You're killin' me. :laughing guy:

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

 

Wouldn't Perry get the nod over Mercury then?

 

What, was Perry a trained vocalist?

 

Is being trained one of the indicators?

 

No, but I thought that's what you were referring to. I don't think Perry has better pitch control and tone than Freddie. Especially tone. Perry is a great vocalist, but in his heyday he had a very nasally tone and he often reached for higher notes with an "eeee" sound (see Lovin', Touching', Squeezin'), which isn't good technique.

[djflex]

Voted mercury,

 

 

Also journey sucks

 

 

 

[MMCXII]

Perry is getting absolutely decimated in the poll, 18-0.

 

Perry's mathematically better but he's still getting decimated.. !!

[Lucas]

Voted mercury,

 

 

Also journey sucks

 

http://www.journeyunauthorized.com/images/JU2014horz2-1020.jpg

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Voted mercury,

 

 

Also journey sucks

 

Ever listen to the drums in Don't Stop Believing? Neil Peart would've murdered that song. Steve Smith makes it live while stealthily putting his stamp on it.

[EagleMoon]

I think Steve Perry had a beautiful voice but he just wasn't in the same league as Freddie.

[Rick N. Backer]

Does that mean Perry was better at math?

 

No. In another thread it was suggested, seriously it seems, that Mercury is an objectively better singer than Geddy. I don't believe there are objective ways to measure how well someone sings.

 

There aren't objective ways. However, if one is looking at things from the perspective of a classically trained and educated vocalist, someone who went to school for voice performance, there are objective indicators of better and worse singing. Freddie meets nearly all of those indicators, Ged doesn't. Doesn't mean Ged is objectively worse, but he isn't classically as good as Freddie, which means something to some people.

 

Me, I hear more music in Freddie's voice than I hear in any other singer. That's all I care about.

 

What are those indicators?

 

Tone, control, vibrato, pitch control, etc.

 

On second thought, they aren't objective in the way that math is, but they are widely agreed upon as to how these subjects should be approached and executed among trained vocalists. Freddie wasn't "trained," but he sang like he was because he picked up the trained style from listening to opera and other great singers. Emphasis on great, as in universally acclaimed.

 

Wouldn't Perry get the nod over Mercury then?

 

What, was Perry a trained vocalist?

 

Is being trained one of the indicators?

 

No, but I thought that's what you were referring to. I don't think Perry has better pitch control and tone than Freddie. Especially tone. Perry is a great vocalist, but in his heyday he had a very nasally tone and he often reached for higher notes with an "eeee" sound (see Lovin', Touching', Squeezin'), which isn't good technique.

 

There's the illustration of my point. Perry's voice sounds more powerful to me. Better range too. If people love Mercury, that's great. I don't understand the need to believe that there's some scientific proof that his voice was the best in rock history.

[Rick N. Backer]

Perry. He has a mathematically superior voice.

 

You're killin' me. :laughing guy:

 

It's true. If you have a protractor, you can measure it yourself.

[Fridge]

It's not even remotely close...Freddie every time

 

Perry has a technically good voice, but I just can't stand him, or Journey (apart from the first three albums which were pretty decent)

[Pressure/Hopenosis]

Can't stand Queen or Freddie's voice. I know I'm in the minority...

[Segue Myles]

Can't stand Queen or Freddie's voice. I know I'm in the minority...

 

Queen have a lot of fans. But that doesn't mean the majority of rock fans love them. The world of rock and metal is mighty big after all.

[Lorraine]

This is an interesting poll.

 

Freddie is the better vocalist, but I think Steve could've blown Freddy off the stage with his voice in his heyday. Steve had a more powerful voice.

 

hm...disagree.

hm...don't care.

 

lol, that's fine, agree to disagree then.

Apologies, my young friend. I could have chosen a nicer way to say that.

 

I know you love Freddie.