Vocal Ability: Paul McCartney vs. Freddie Mercury

[The Beatles]

I love both of these singers, both deep into my top 10.

Paul's main facet, imo, was his ability to sing several types of music well (See: helter skelter, here there and everywhere, ive just seen a face, besame mucho, maybe im amazed, etc)

Freddie's main facet, imo, was his beautiful falsetto.

I, personally, would put Paul one spot ahead of Freddie. My main problem with Mercury is his inability to control his register changes at certain points in his career. Paul was always able to fake his chest voice up to high C, or, if he felt it were more emotionally meaningful (in Here, There, and Everywhere, for example), he could slip into his falsetto around G above middle C, or even lower if he really held back his breath. Mercury always broke around the same place, higher than Paul around A above middle C, and he never was able to, or at least he never did it, fake that register break any lower. Still an amazing singer though.

What's your opinion?

 

[Groovy Man]

Paul McCartney is the better singer, just on the fact I can listen to him all day - every day.

Queen fans over hype Freddie Mercury.

Heck, Paul Rodgers was the better Queen singer.

No joke.

 

[LG]

This is a tough one...Freddie is the far more powerful singer, but I love Paul's voice both with the Beatles and on his own.

Live...hands down Freddie is the better frontman.

Studio...Paul takes it for my money.

Final verdict...Paul by the virtue that I have more of his work than Freddie's, can't miss with either one both in the top echelon of rock stars in my view.

 

[Kuaizi]

Paul Rodgers... better Queen singer than Freddy Mercury - not a joke? I sure got a HUGE laugh outta that one LOL!

As far as vocals go, Freddy beats Paul in my book. To me, Freddy had a huge range of dynamics in his vocal range, for example: from the soft and melodious Love of my Life (where he switches between vocal registers flawlessly), to a more gritty and powerful Death on Two Legs. I feel like Paul is a lot more confined in what he can do with his voice.

I do appreciate the fact that Paul can sing various types of music, but Freddy also did as well. They both have very distinct voices that I love, but when I think vocals, Paul is far from my mind in my top choices, where Freddy is up at the top.

Now if we were talking songwriting? Paul trumps most other songwriters easily.

 

[The Beatles]

This is a tough one...Freddie is the far more powerful singer, but I love Paul's voice both with the Beatles and on his own.

Live...hands down Freddie is the better frontman.

Studio...Paul takes it for my money.

Final verdict...Paul by the virtue that I have more of his work than Freddie's, can't miss with either one both in the top echelon of rock stars in my view.

Agree.

Though in defense of Paul live, the amplification in the early 60s combined with the tens of thousands of people screaming at their concerts made it so that not even they could hear what they were singing/playing.

 

[The Beatles]

Paul Rodgers... better Queen singer than Freddy Mercury - not a joke? I sure got a HUGE laugh outta that one LOL!

As far as vocals go, Freddy beats Paul in my book. To me, Freddy had a huge range of dynamics in his vocal range, for example: from the soft and melodious Love of my Life (where he switches between vocal registers flawlessly), to a more gritty and powerful Death on Two Legs. I feel like Paul is a lot more confined in what he can do with his voice.

I do appreciate the fact that Paul can sing various types of music, but Freddy also did as well. They both have very distinct voices that I love, but when I think vocals, Paul is far from my mind in my top choices, where Freddy is up at the top.

Now if we were talking songwriting? Paul trumps most other songwriters easily.

Yeah I agree Freddie was brilliant. What I was talking about is that Paul was better at faking registral breaks in his singing voice. Basically, when someone sings their range (distance from highest note singable to lowest) can be broken into chest voice (parts of the range where one can sing comfortably and strongly), head voice (higher parts where one can still sing strongly, but with extra effort), and falsetto (typically the highest parts of ones range that can be sung without screaming). Whenever one gets near the boundaries between these areas (the chest, head, and falsetto) there is usually a break that good singers learn to cover-up so that listeners can't really hear it. What I'm saying is that Paul could use his head voice to disguise that break (from F above middle C to high C), or if he wanted to, could effectively lower his falsetto (which he would normally run into around G above middle C) for some sort of emotional affect. Freddie never did this, he would use, and I would say over-use, his head voice, never using the lower limits of his falsetto voice for textural reasons. Instead, he would typically use his falsetto for its more typical purpose, to sing very high notes.

 

[Groovy Man]

Paul Rodgers... better Queen singer than Freddy Mercury - not a joke? I sure got a HUGE laugh outta that one LOL!

Not as funny as Freddie Mercury prancing around the stage looking like one of the lost Village People.



Paul Rodgers has one of the best vocals in rock music.

 

[The Beatles]

Not as funny as Freddie Mercury prancing around the stage looking like one of the lost Village People.

ok I laughed at this

 

[ILoveJimmyPage]

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.

 

[The Beatles]

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.

Thats fair. We're all allowed opinions.