Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah_MaxCash
I just heard a bit of the new Queen album that is about to come out. It is the same band but with Paul Rodgers on vocals. He has been touring with Queen for years now and I have always liked Paul Rodgers's voice with Bad Company, etc. Still, it doesn't really feel like Queen without Freddie's voice.
Can a band like Queen really be Queen without Freddie? What about other bands that reform with part of the original lineup?
|
I always treated Queen as a very inventional pop / rock hybrid with some of the best brandable image / sound and most of all singer.
I don't think Queen can quite make the transition, and I don't think it's a good move (not finanicallywise) to record another album.
No matter how good the record CAN be it will always compared and most likely slayed by the orthodox fans.
Simply, to record another album with a Queen name on it there has to be Freddy Mercury, he was the ultimate late 70's 80's rock band frontman and the combination of his flamboyance / charisma / contraversial nature / sick fashion / voice is quite impossible to imitate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainPat
Freddie was 50% of Queen ( at least)> It's not Paul Rodgers fault that Freddie can't be replaced.. If you think INXS singer Michael Hutchense is irreplacable, imagine a pure talent and king of the stage like Freddie Mercury... But Paul is an ok singer...
The very best scenario for Queen: the new album is so good that people will forget for one moment Freddie is not the singing voice.. Kind of like Van Halen with Sammy Hagar... it's the closest thing to the real deal.. Hope I made sense...
|
Paul took his own approach and is not trying to fill shoes he can't fit in, respect for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebring Studios
No it's not Queen, but if they had to choose a new singer they made the right choice.
On the same subject Deep Purple will never be Deep Purple without Blackmore. As good a guitarist as Steve Moorse is, Ritchie just set the bar far too high for anyone to even come close.
That does make sense. And it's true.
|
The only singer that ever came close to Mercury was George Michael, his live performance in 92 was a highlight, his voice is close in the colour and he is an incredible singer, he is the only singer that would be able to replace Freddie Mercury in my book.
About Ritchie Blackmore - he made the Purple sound in their best era (70 - 73) but he also made the best thing that he left the band in 93 after their 84 reunion.
Someone can say it's not Deep Purple but Ian Gillan's Deep Purple revival these days, it might be partially true and there might never ever happen a real reunion of the MK II lineup, but there simply would be more destruction than good if Ritch stayed in the band.
I am glad for what he did with Rainbow and Ronnie James Dio - time to move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentKnight
To me, Ozzie was always the voice of Sabbath - I lost interest in the band after Dio took over the mic.
|
Sabbath with Ozzy and Sabbath with Dio are totally different episodes, what one needs is to lighten up on prejudices and listen.
Of course w. Ozzy it was THE revolutional band, it was THE band that started to play something noone ever heard before and that launched the whole darker / heavy movement that some of us enjoy so much.
But Dio put in it his own influence, which is very much obvious if someone listens to the (mainly early) Dio albums, but their work with Tommi Iommi (Heaven n Hell / Mob Rules) is a classic. At the end it also lead to a break up of the lineup.
Different approaches / different episodes - that's all, note that they always played their own and new signature material (even their later reunion 1992 Dehumanizer is a very intense and underrated album more than worth mentioning).
I have seen both lineups live and I am a big fan of both, although I would never want to mix their repertoirs and anything from Ozzy sounds weird if sang by Dio while Ozzy would probably have a hard time to keep up with Dio's voice equilibrism.