glicine Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The way to hear Paul Rodgers is Free or Bad Company... People who are judging him on the Queen stuff are going it at arse backwards if you ask me.. I said "I had listened to him and his collaboration with the Queen", of course I had heard him in Free and Bad Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Well, here are some of my thoughts of Robert Plant's change of voice. For sure, he was more powerful, had wider range in the early days of Zeppelin. Then he struggled when his throat cords suffered, couldn't exactly reach the high notes without cracking. And then, he "changed" the way he sung, reinvented a new sound, which fit his "new" voice and IMO, suited those Zeppelin albums from House of the Holy til ITTOD perfectly. And well, live performances could be sometimes different, but on the studio versions did he sound "worse" than on Led Zeppelin or II? I don't think so. And for me personally, RP's biggest talent is not his power, but the way he sings with his whole heart, the feelings he can carry along within the words. It doesn't matter what he was singing, his performance of "Nothin'" on the Raising Sand album can still blow me away. Paul Rodgers is a great singer, I had listened to him and his collaboration with Queen and appreciated that. But still, he couldn't touch my heart, I guess it's all about personal taste. And I really don't think all those "greatest singer" polls make any sense. There are so many wonderful singers, you love this one and still can enjoy the others, that's all. Absolutely 100% agree. His interpretation of a song and how he gets behind the lyrics and such are a great deal of what makes his voice so unique. He's not just singing it, he's really almost bringing the song to life, if that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetPage Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Which singer can you think of that swoops to deep deep baritones and from those baritones soars to stinging shrieks and deafening wail. No one has the range of Robert Plant. He even sounds better live. ROBERT PLANT IS #1! It is possible to have many great vocalist with extra ordinary baritones...but there are very few who have the "intellectualism" associated with profound understanding of poetry they are reciting through song. Robert Plant is such an artist, each and every word is truly crafted, he has trained himself in this respect, and now it comes naturally to him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I said "I had listened to him and his collaboration with the Queen", of course I had heard him in Free and Bad Company. Mine was more of a general statement, rather than directly aimed at you, but still, I don't get how fans of classic rock and such don't appreciate Paul Rodgers more overwhelmingly.. He's a gem among most of the rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Plant Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It is possible to have many great vocalist with extra ordinary baritones...but there are very few who have the "intellectualism" associated with profound understanding of poetry they are reciting through song. Robert Plant is such an artist, each and every word is truly crafted, he has trained himself in this respect, and now it comes naturally to him... thank you you have put it so well. it's what sets robert plant (and maybe a few others) apart. this cock-rock in fact had brains. that which lead him to his long fruitful adventure in the world of music - and continuously delight us with. rock on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbaur9 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Im a huge led zeppelin and queen fan and i do agree that freddie mercury is the no1 singer!! Rpbert plant is brilliant too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynxwizard Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Paul Rodgers' work with Free alone should get him into any top 3 of classic/blues/rock singers... Don't people listen to Free these days or something? His set of pipes circa 1970 were unrivaled. Ian Gillan in 1970 really had no equal, his power was something else, Free along with Manford Mann supported Deep Purple when they toured down under in 1970, that would of been great to have seen that, wonder if anyone on this site did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerzubs Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Do you expect his voice not to change? He is human... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I would say Freddie is definatley #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Porter Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Do you expect his voice not to change? He is human... Well, obviously yes. Of course he would change, but had Robert Plant not overtly abused his voice, he might well still be able to hit some of his high range. As it has been since really '79, though, his voice just hasn't had the kick. I do like his new approach in the more recent times, but most of the time, when he's attempting to sing Zeppelin now, he just plain can't do it. And really hasn't been able to effectively (as he used to in his younger years) for the better part of 30 years. I mean, really ... just LISTEN to that '79-'80 stuff with Zeppelin before the late Bonzo died. His voice is just completely awful at points! In many ways, it was probably best that Zeppelin ended when it did ... it DID give him an opportunity to explore a different way to sing, which definitely has enabled him to prolong his career. I will say this, though - The O2 Arena show was definitely solid on his part, considering. His approach was more mature, and more controlled than probably any time in all of Zeppelin's history - A pity it came far too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Well, obviously yes. Of course he would change, but had Robert Plant not overtly abused his voice, he might well still be able to hit some of his high range. As it has been since really '79, though, his voice just hasn't had the kick. I do like his new approach in the more recent times, but most of the time, when he's attempting to sing Zeppelin now, he just plain can't do it. And really hasn't been able to for the better part of 30 years. I don't know - he sounded pretty damned good singing Zeppelin at the 02 concert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Porter Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I don't know - he sounded pretty damned good singing Zeppelin at the 02 concert I agree - I edited my post above as you replied to me to account for that. But then again, recall, they had to change their key, too. But that's really something they should have better accounted for when his voice started to hurt in the mid-70's - A change of pace for him, vocally. Yes, the show had to go on, but there are better ways to make that show go as it must. It's a miracle, when you think of Freddie Mercury in that same state ... he ALWAYS fought those blisters, too. The main difference for him is that he didn't ever have that surgery, though. It DID take a toll on his voice in the 80's, though - Especially with his AIDS issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glicine Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 but most of the time, when he's attempting to sing Zeppelin now, he just plain can't do it. And really hasn't been able to effectively (as he used to in his younger years) for the better part of 30 years. Wow, this is, IMO, a very bold statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Porter Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Wow, this is, IMO, a very bold statement. I don't really think it's so bold. If he always sings it like he did at O2, then he can have success, instead of stretching his vocals to points he has been unable to reach since the ladder 70's. As I type this, I'm watching Earl's Court '75, "Dazed And Confused". Exhibit A: As he attempts to even SLIGHTLY stretch his voice and even bring a bit of loudness to those notes, his voices just CRACKS - Utterly shuts off. In '77 this was definitely not nearly as bad, admittedly, but was still quite far from perfect. In 79/80, his voice was really just a different thing altogether. I won't say it's worse than his '75 presence ... I actually thought his voice was going to change towards something more effective. Admittedly, I enjoy ITOD, and what he did with his voice. It become so overwhelmingly demolishing, and extremely emotional ... unfortunately, that ferocity didn't last long past that album, and he kept trying to stretch his voice to boundaries it couldn't ... and WA-LAH! No more Percy. Just Plant, Zeppelin-less, and trying to find his way. I think Live Aid is another great example of how bad his voice became for the Zeppelin stuff. At points his voice hits it decently, but inconsistently, and often crackingly. O2 was a success story, and I believe strongly that the respect they gave Plant was about time. Plant handled his duty well that night, and if I wore a hat, it'd be off to him. But you can't possibly tell me his vocals were a consistent effective force past '73 for Zeppelin tunes in their original tuning. It's just not true. Maybe as an emotional force, yes. But technical ability and really just SOUND? No, I just don't think Plant was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glicine Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Fair enough, I've written about my thoughts in a post above. Just want to add that no singer would/could ever stay the same. And I don't really think it's a "bad" thing. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I don't really think it's so bold. If he always sings it like he did at O2, then he can have success, instead of stretching his vocals to points he has been unable to reach since the ladder 70's. As I type this, I'm watching Earl's Court '75, "Dazed And Confused". Exhibit A: As he attempts to even SLIGHTLY stretch his voice and even bring a bit of loudness to those notes, his voices just CRACKS - Utterly shuts off. In '77 this was definitely not nearly as bad, admittedly, but was still quite far from perfect. In 79/80, his voice was really just a different thing altogether. I won't say it's worse than his '75 presence ... I actually thought his voice was going to change towards something more effective. Admittedly, I enjoy ITOD, and what he did with his voice. It become so overwhelmingly demolishing, and extremely emotional ... unfortunately, that ferocity didn't last long past that album, and he kept trying to stretch his voice to boundaries it couldn't ... and WA-LAH! No more Percy. Just Plant, Zeppelin-less, and trying to find his way. I think Live Aid is another great example of how bad his voice became for the Zeppelin stuff. At points his voice hits it decently, but inconsistently, and often crackingly. O2 was a success story, and I believe strongly that the respect they gave Plant was about time. Plant handled his duty well that night, and if I wore a hat, it'd be off to him. But you can't possibly tell me his vocals were a consistent effective force past '73 for Zeppelin tunes in their original tuning. It's just not true. Maybe as an emotional force, yes. But technical ability and really just SOUND? No, I just don't think Plant was the same. I think Robert sounds better now than he did years ago. His voice has changed but in a good way. To say he will only have success if he sang like he did at the 02 simply isn't true. Raising Sand was a huge success and clearly not sung remotely like he did at the 02. I respect Robert for developing his voice and not resting on his laurels. To be able to convey so much emotion in those songs and sing them softly is extremely "technical" if you will. Sometimes having restraint is more powerful than belting a tune out. I just don't buy into the Robert only sounded good with Zep school of thought. Live Aid - the reason his voice was shot that day was he was on tour and had come off a few shows in a row. I was there and I can say it still didn't take away from the fact they were all on stage together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coda.S Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Robert sounds great all the time!! I luv his voice in zeppelin's era, his solo career, Page/Plant & raising sand.. This man has absolutely unique talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_72 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Robert sounds great all the time!! I luv his voice in zeppelin's era, his solo career, Page/Plant & raising sand.. This man has absolutely unique talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judgenothing Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Discuss amongst yourselves: How would Freddie Mercury's singing voice sound if he was still alive today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Porter Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Discuss amongst yourselves: How would Freddie Mercury's singing voice sound if he was still alive today? Well, suppose he didn't come down to AIDS ... I honestly think his voice would still hold itself up. I doubt it would still be as melodic as it was in his 70's days (although he seemed like as a proficient singer, he only got better as he aged), but I'm certain he'd still make quite an impact. Citing good albums that show this well are A Kind Of Magic, and the album prior to that. He is still quite capable, and even during the AIDS, was still singing QUITE well. Just listening to Innuendo ... absolutely brilliant delivery through impending death ... If that isn't emotional, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Discuss amongst yourselves: How would Freddie Mercury's singing voice sound if he was still alive today? If ever there was a question that was totally impossible to answer . . . And with regard to the discussion of Plant's voice, my personal view is that he's gotten smarter and smarter about how to use it, and has sung Zeppelin material brilliantly in recent years, even if not in the original key. I've never bought into the idea that the quality of his voice is in how high he can sing, and in fact I greatly prefer it at the current register. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 My top 3 would be David Gilmour, Robert Plant and Burton Cummings, but that's why I'm not paid to come up with these silly polls/lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms_zeppelin94 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Well a) that's your opinion. A lot of Queen fans might not agree with you. they've billed it Queen with Paul Rodgers so I think they aren't really trying to "replace" Freddie but carry on with a new singer/sound. I saw a video clip on VH1 of Brain saying "You just can't compare us to how we were with Freddie. This is us now, you can't compare us to how we were." That's the best way to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Porter Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 If ever there was a question that was totally impossible to answer . . . And with regard to the discussion of Plant's voice, my personal view is that he's gotten smarter and smarter about how to use it, and has sung Zeppelin material brilliantly in recent years, even if not in the original key. I've never bought into the idea that the quality of his voice is in how high he can sing, and in fact I greatly prefer it at the current register. I completely agree there, which is a point I didn't properly convey in the last couple of posts in this thread - His current abilities show maturity, and acknowledgement, which are definitely keys to being able to sing better, especially at his age and vocal wear and tear. He's definitely more conscious of his vocals now - As I alluded previously, if he only was that conscious back in the 70's ... we might just have Percy still, today! However, we may not have had the Zeppelin we ended up with, ultimately. So you win some, you lose some, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altermet Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Congratulationsss , but he deserves number 1 :D I AGREE WITH THAT. ROBERT PLANT DESERVES NUMBER 1......HE IS THE BEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.