Vocal Ability: Paul McCartney vs. Freddie Mercury

well?


  • Total voters
    38
Status
Not open for further replies.

Prime

Daydreaming
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Posts
10,853
Reaction score
67
Freddie Mercury for me as well. Never really could get used to McCartneys voice.
 

Hardnecker

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Posts
487
Reaction score
2
Location
Florida
I'll take Paul. He was in the greatest band ever and then continued that success with Wings. He sings ballads and rockers with equal sensibilities to serve the song. I would choose Freddie in an apple bobbing contest all day. Just kidding, I like Queen and think Freddie was an awesome talent.
 

Hardnecker

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Posts
487
Reaction score
2
Location
Florida
To avoid a storm I'll just say that I voted Freddie and I put him leagues above anyone in rock, and I'm a huge Robert Plant fan (who I usually see people comparing Freddie to in terms of showmanship and vocal power). Please no bashing, just my opinion. :grinthumb

:cheers2
Robert Plant in a live setting is vastly overrated. He didn't take care of his throat and his performances suffered for it. I've heard many performances from him where he didn't have any business taking the stage, let alone taking the fans money. Plant doesn't compare to Freddie when it counted, live in concert. Not bashing, just the facts.:D
 

ILoveJimmyPage

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Posts
11,206
Reaction score
14
Robert Plant in a live setting is vastly overrated. He didn't take care of his throat and his performances suffered for it. I've heard many performances from him where he didn't have any business taking the stage, let alone taking the fans money. Plant doesn't compare to Freddie when it counted, live in concert. Not bashing, just the facts.:D

I knew one of you wouldn't be able to resist. :heheh:

I never said ole Percy was as gifted as singer as Freddie. I even said Freddie was the better singer and leagues ahead of anyone else in rock. But I HAVE seen, on various occasions, the comparison between Robert and Freddie in terms of basic vocal power. But I don't look at LZ through rose-colored glasses just because I'm a big fan. I realize they sucked live starting around '74 when it was rumored that Plant had vocal surgery after Houses of the Holy and Jimmy was putting God knows what into his body. But you look on just about any top rock vocalists list and Robert AND Freddie are always near the top, with Freddie soaring high above pretty much anyone. He's a polarizing character but you can't deny the man has talent. :grinthumb Oh, and LZ still was a killer live act if not just for their music and much less Robert's voice beginning to falter. :)

Also, I think some people may sell Freddie short in this poll just because Paul was in the Beatles (aka the "best band ever")
 

Nololob

Long Live Wock 'n' Woll
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Posts
7,987
Reaction score
22
Location
Reading, UK
Neither of them had that vocal range as David Byron or Ian Gillan, which I prefer.
 

snowblue

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Posts
1,493
Reaction score
28
Location
UK
I can listen to both singers but, personally, I think Paul's voice is average. I know nothing about vocal techniques so have no idea who is technically the better singer - I just know that I'd rather listen to Freddie.

For the record, I'm a fan of the Beatles and Queen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find member

Forum statistics

Threads
30,658
Posts
1,064,900
Members
6,353
Latest member
edmerka

Staff online

Members online

Top