Jump to content

Freddie Mercury vs Geddy Lee 1973-1980


YYZumbi
 Share

  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Which singer do you think had the best voice between 1973-1980?



Recommended Posts

I actually hate the sound of Mercurys voice the same way many here hate Springsteen for his writing.

 

I think Geddy has a much nicer voice and Mercury has many levels in which to shrill.

 

Mariah Carey is better than both to my ears, and her deeper range is more convincing too.

Who said anything about Carey? If you want to start pulling in random singers, there are opera people who have better voices than she does. As for not liking a band and by extension not liking the singer, the thread is about the voice. The only reason Geddy was mistaken for Plant is because almost every review planted the seed when they said Rush sounded like Zeppelin. It's an easy, but flawed connection.

 

Is there some scientific measure for a singer's voice that is used to determine whether it's good or not? If not, then I would suggest that most people who aren't fans of a singer aren't very likely to nonetheless be fans of the band he or she sings in.

I doubt there is a scientific measure of the quality of a voice just as there is not a scientific measure of how well a guitarist plays or a drummer drums, but people who do those things or know about those things, will know when they hear someone who is good at it. NEP has been known as probably the best drummer in rock for a long time by fans and by fellow drummers. Freddie Mercury was known for having one of, if not the best voices in rock, by fans and fellow singers. It's not really a function of being a fan, it's a function of being able to look (or in this case, hear) past ones biases and judge objectively, which at least 4 people can't seem to do. I can't stand opera in the least, but I know Pavarotti, Beverly Sills, and others have outstanding singing voices, surpassing even Mercury.

 

So, Mercury's voice is "better" because it's what? Throw out the question of who is the best drummer of all time, not just on this site, and you'll get a lot of people that will say Peart. Many others will say Stewart Copeland. Others will say John Bonham. Who is the "best" guitarist in rock? Van Halen? Page? Blackmore? Is Mercury a better singer than Dio? Dio had a really powerful voice too, and when he was younger he had a pretty amazing range. Compare Mercury to William Hung and I'll agree that it's nearly an objective fact that Mercury was a "better" singer. When you start comparing two people who actually had success doing it for a living for an extended period of time, I think it becomes less clear.

True enough, but the topic at hand isn't Mercury vs Dio, it's him vs Geddy and there's really no question who is the better singer. Find someone who is a professional singer or singing coach/instructor and doesn't know either of them, and I'll wager a month's salary that they'd say Mercury is the better singer.

 

Then it should be easy for you to tell me what the quality is that makes it so. And then tell me whether Mercury is better than Dio and why. Because I don't see why it makes a difference which one you're comparing Mercury to in this context. In both cases, I don't see how you can remove preference from the analysis.

 

By asking a classically trained vocalist who doesn't know Freddie or Geddy which is the better singer, one doesn't remove preference from the analysis. The preference becomes that of the classically trained vocalist, and they are likely to have a preference for singers who adhere to classical singing convention and technique over those who don't. Freddie is a rock singer who is essentially virtuostic in the classical sense. Geddy is a rock singer who had an incredibly high and powerful (and unwieldy) voice and discovered how to use it to enormous effect, but does not adhere to classical singing techniques and conventions. Thus, and classically trained vocalist will very much most likely pick Freddie as the better singer, unless they have a really strong thing for Geddy/Rush/voices like Geddy's which they actually prefer to more classically influenced singers.

 

And no, Fordgalaxy shouldn't necessarily be able to tell you what quality makes Freddie's voice better from a classical standpoint, as Fordgalaxy may have little or no knowledge of the intricacies and details of classical singing convention. However, it's obvious to him, like many listeners, that Freddie adhere's much more to classical convention than Freddie. Call that common sense.

 

What you may still disagree with then is likely how he has decided to define an objectively good singer by referencing classically trained vocalists. Who's to say if that subset of people knows the most about the objective goodness of a singer? Is the Pantheon a beautiful building because centuries of architects and those who have learned architecture have agreed that it is objectively beautiful, or is it because you were taken aback when you walked in and gazed up and its dome? Who's to say if Michelangelo's sculptures were objectively better than my seventh grade pottery? Do we even see the same colors?

 

Most people who know of him subjectively believe Freddie was an incredible singer, one of the best. Majority opinion has a nasty habit of becoming cultural fact. Some reviewers didn't like Star Wars. Society said it was amazing. Most of those reviewers changed their evaluations, even if they're own subjective take barely changed. Why? Because society almost consistently listed Star Wars as a cultural masterpiece, and the reviewers realized they aren't the authority on greatness; culture/history/society is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geddy is much better......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at playing bass than Freddie Mercury. :P

As far as vocal ability? Freddie Mercury. Easily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually hate the sound of Mercurys voice the same way many here hate Springsteen for his writing.

 

I think Geddy has a much nicer voice and Mercury has many levels in which to shrill.

 

Mariah Carey is better than both to my ears, and her deeper range is more convincing too.

Who said anything about Carey? If you want to start pulling in random singers, there are opera people who have better voices than she does. As for not liking a band and by extension not liking the singer, the thread is about the voice. The only reason Geddy was mistaken for Plant is because almost every review planted the seed when they said Rush sounded like Zeppelin. It's an easy, but flawed connection.

 

Is there some scientific measure for a singer's voice that is used to determine whether it's good or not? If not, then I would suggest that most people who aren't fans of a singer aren't very likely to nonetheless be fans of the band he or she sings in.

I doubt there is a scientific measure of the quality of a voice just as there is not a scientific measure of how well a guitarist plays or a drummer drums, but people who do those things or know about those things, will know when they hear someone who is good at it. NEP has been known as probably the best drummer in rock for a long time by fans and by fellow drummers. Freddie Mercury was known for having one of, if not the best voices in rock, by fans and fellow singers. It's not really a function of being a fan, it's a function of being able to look (or in this case, hear) past ones biases and judge objectively, which at least 4 people can't seem to do. I can't stand opera in the least, but I know Pavarotti, Beverly Sills, and others have outstanding singing voices, surpassing even Mercury.

 

So, Mercury's voice is "better" because it's what? Throw out the question of who is the best drummer of all time, not just on this site, and you'll get a lot of people that will say Peart. Many others will say Stewart Copeland. Others will say John Bonham. Who is the "best" guitarist in rock? Van Halen? Page? Blackmore? Is Mercury a better singer than Dio? Dio had a really powerful voice too, and when he was younger he had a pretty amazing range. Compare Mercury to William Hung and I'll agree that it's nearly an objective fact that Mercury was a "better" singer. When you start comparing two people who actually had success doing it for a living for an extended period of time, I think it becomes less clear.

True enough, but the topic at hand isn't Mercury vs Dio, it's him vs Geddy and there's really no question who is the better singer. Find someone who is a professional singer or singing coach/instructor and doesn't know either of them, and I'll wager a month's salary that they'd say Mercury is the better singer.

 

Then it should be easy for you to tell me what the quality is that makes it so. And then tell me whether Mercury is better than Dio and why. Because I don't see why it makes a difference which one you're comparing Mercury to in this context. In both cases, I don't see how you can remove preference from the analysis.

 

By asking a classically trained vocalist who doesn't know Freddie or Geddy which is the better singer, one doesn't remove preference from the analysis. The preference becomes that of the classically trained vocalist, and they are likely to have a preference for singers who adhere to classical singing convention and technique over those who don't. Freddie is a rock singer who is essentially virtuostic in the classical sense. Geddy is a rock singer who had an incredibly high and powerful (and unwieldy) voice and discovered how to use it to enormous effect, but does not adhere to classical singing techniques and conventions. Thus, and classically trained vocalist will very much most likely pick Freddie as the better singer, unless they have a really strong thing for Geddy/Rush/voices like Geddy's which they actually prefer to more classically influenced singers.

 

And no, Fordgalaxy shouldn't necessarily be able to tell you what quality makes Freddie's voice better from a classical standpoint, as Fordgalaxy may have little or no knowledge of the intricacies and details of classical singing convention. However, it's obvious to him, like many listeners, that Freddie adhere's much more to classical convention than Freddie. Call that common sense.

 

What you may still disagree with then is likely how he has decided to define an objectively good singer by referencing classically trained vocalists. Who's to say if that subset of people knows the most about the objective goodness of a singer? Is the Pantheon a beautiful building because centuries of architects and those who have learned architecture have agreed that it is objectively beautiful, or is it because you were taken aback when you walked in and gazed up and its dome? Who's to say if Michelangelo's sculptures were objectively better than my seventh grade pottery? Do we even see the same colors?

 

Most people who know of him subjectively believe Freddie was an incredible singer, one of the best. Majority opinion has a nasty habit of becoming cultural fact. Some reviewers didn't like Star Wars. Society said it was amazing. Most of those reviewers changed their evaluations, even if they're own subjective take barely changed. Why? Because society almost consistently listed Star Wars as a cultural masterpiece, and the reviewers realized they aren't the authority on greatness; culture/history/society is.

 

I'd recommend the book "Why AC/DC Matters." It's a short, but interesting read. It contains a section where, as I recall, a music professor talks about why Brian Johnson is, in his view, actually an excellent singer. It had a discussion about his impressive technique. My point is you can find "experts" to say almost anything. If you like Queen, you think Mercury is a great singer. If you're not, his operatic style probably won't carry the day. Bruce Dickinson has a somewhat similar quality to his voice. I love Maiden. Is he objectively better than Mercury? No. He's better to me.

 

I just think the Queen supporters are letting their love for Mercury transform their opinion into an objective fact. If I ask you to tell me what makes Shaquille O'Neal taller than Brad Pitt, it's easy to do. Because it's not an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a massive Rush fan who doesn't give two shits about Queen.

But as far as vocal ability, Freddie Mercury over Geddy for sure

 

Now, if Geddy had the vocal training to preserve and maintain his range and power when he was younger, he would have been phenomenal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a massive Rush fan who doesn't give two shits about Queen.

But as far as vocal ability, Freddie Mercury over Geddy for sure

 

Now, if Geddy had the vocal training to preserve and maintain his range and power when he was younger, he would have been phenomenal.

That I agree with very much about Geddy. Why he never did amazes me.

 

Our loss. His too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ged Screaming in the 70's did him no favors. i mean even listening to 70's bootlegs even talking he was screaming sometimes. now he backed off in the 80's which was smart. but i agree vocal training would have added lots of miles to his voice.

 

but instead we have yodels.

 

pretty abusive towards a precious instrument.

 

Just my view.

 

Mick

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ged Screaming in the 70's did him no favors. i mean even listening to 70's bootlegs even talking he was screaming sometimes. now he backed off in the 80's which was smart. but i agree vocal training would have added lots of miles to his voice.

 

but instead we have yodels.

 

pretty abusive towards a precious instrument.

 

Just my view.

 

Mick

 

What other band has lasted so long for so many years? He probably didn't figure he would be Still singing after about 10 years...and another 10....etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ged Screaming in the 70's did him no favors. i mean even listening to 70's bootlegs even talking he was screaming sometimes. now he backed off in the 80's which was smart. but i agree vocal training would have added lots of miles to his voice.

 

but instead we have yodels.

 

pretty abusive towards a precious instrument.

 

Just my view.

 

Mick

 

What other band has lasted so long for so many years? He probably didn't figure he would be Still singing after about 10 years...and another 10....etc.

 

well you're right. it's easy to look back and talk. but my god what he could have preserved.

 

Mick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ged Screaming in the 70's did him no favors. i mean even listening to 70's bootlegs even talking he was screaming sometimes. now he backed off in the 80's which was smart. but i agree vocal training would have added lots of miles to his voice.

 

but instead we have yodels.

 

pretty abusive towards a precious instrument.

 

Just my view.

 

Mick

 

What other band has lasted so long for so many years? He probably didn't figure he would be Still singing after about 10 years...and another 10....etc.

 

well you're right. it's easy to look back and talk. but my god what he could have preserved.

 

Mick

 

Oh I agree totally. But singing the way he did is what has made him famous. I think natural wear and tear and just aging probably would've knocked his high notes off by the time he hit his 30s anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually hate the sound of Mercurys voice the same way many here hate Springsteen for his writing.

 

I think Geddy has a much nicer voice and Mercury has many levels in which to shrill.

 

Mariah Carey is better than both to my ears, and her deeper range is more convincing too.

Who said anything about Carey? If you want to start pulling in random singers, there are opera people who have better voices than she does. As for not liking a band and by extension not liking the singer, the thread is about the voice. The only reason Geddy was mistaken for Plant is because almost every review planted the seed when they said Rush sounded like Zeppelin. It's an easy, but flawed connection.

 

Is there some scientific measure for a singer's voice that is used to determine whether it's good or not? If not, then I would suggest that most people who aren't fans of a singer aren't very likely to nonetheless be fans of the band he or she sings in.

 

art cannot be explained in any capacity with science, nor should it ever be.

That's overly simplistic. Pitch is a fairly objective criterion, for example. Edited by goose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I doubt there is a scientific measure of the quality of a voice just as there is not a scientific measure of how well a guitarist plays or a drummer drums

Pitch, tone, timbre, volume, phrasing...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Best" I'd have to say Freddie because everyone hated Geddy's voice back then.

My favorite? Geddy of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...