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

[librarian]

Mercury vs Perry? Really? Come on, now...

[Lorraine]

Mercury vs Perry? Really? Come on, now...

Librarian wins again! :)

[Fordgalaxy]

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.

 

Dang. And here I am with only an amateurtractor.

[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.

 

Dang. And here I am with only an amateurtractor.

 

Actually, if you use a slide rule, you can calculate it too. It will take a little longer because you have to convert it from Kelvin, but it can be done.

[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.

 

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.

 

Don't see how I illustrated your point. But I'm not going to try to prove to you Freddie has the better voice, that would be wrong of me. I believe he does, and I believe he's more classically "correct" in his style and voice and such, but that doesn't have to mean anything to you. If Freddie had a one octave range and still sang with as much music as he did with four octaves, I'd love him no less.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

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.

 

s'all good. I love Journey too. :)

[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.

 

Don't see how I illustrated your point. But I'm not going to try to prove to you Freddie has the better voice, that would be wrong of me. I believe he does, and I believe he's more classically "correct" in his style and voice and such, but that doesn't have to mean anything to you. If Freddie had a one octave range and still sang with as much music as he did with four octaves, I'd love him no less.

 

Pitch control and tone seem to me to be subjective qualities, within reason of course.

 

And, as I said, I know Mercury has dedicated supporters, of which you seem to be one. He doesn't do anything for me personally. One of my favorite bands of all time is Roth era VH. No one would accuse Dave of being a great "singer." What ultimately makes someone a good vocalist is entirely in the ear of the "behearer." Cheers.

[Segue Myles]

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.

 

Don't see how I illustrated your point. But I'm not going to try to prove to you Freddie has the better voice, that would be wrong of me. I believe he does, and I believe he's more classically "correct" in his style and voice and such, but that doesn't have to mean anything to you. If Freddie had a one octave range and still sang with as much music as he did with four octaves, I'd love him no less.

 

Pitch control and tone seem to me to be subjective qualities, within reason of course.

 

And, as I said, I know Mercury has dedicated supporters, of which you seem to be one. He doesn't do anything for me personally. One of my favorite bands of all time is Roth era VH. No one would accuse Dave of being a great "singer." What ultimately makes someone a good vocalist is entirely in the ear of the "behearer." Cheers.

 

Exactly!

 

Take for example Nightwish. Their original female vocalist was a classically trained operatic powerhouse. They followed her up with a self trained pop rock style vocalist, and then followed her with a very versatile, mostly self trained, singer with various vocal techniques.

 

Fans argue all the time over who was best. The point of the matter is that, if having technically the best voice is what is most important, everyone would agree that the first was best.

 

But she wasn't as good at some songs whereas the other two were. And the third singer can sing every style pretty much, even if she never quite hits a world class standard (some may disagree here).

 

It comes down to what you like. I bet you anything Pavarroti would have struggled to sing a Journey song and Steve Perry would suck at opera. It's not about who has the best range, it's about emotional connection and personal taste.

 

Even the most remarkable talents have limitations.

[ReRushed]

Perry is a fantastic vocalist. His tone and timbre is wonderful. Very smooth, very pleasant. A perfect fit for the mass appeal Journey achieved, especially with its ballads.

 

Mercury had more range and more options because of Queen's eclectic output. Pop, punk, metal, prog... Mercury sang all of it convincingly and confidently. Cocky bastard.

 

I will fall back on the all too comfortable opinion of why choose when each vocalist was perfect for their band?

[djflex]

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.

 

No i try to avoid all journey songs