Post: #1

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/ne...ing-voice/

Quote:

Regardless of what they might think personally about Queen, most rock critics and music fans alike recognize the immense vocal talent that was the great Freddie Mercury.
Still, in case there was ever any doubt, new analysis of both Mercury’s singing and speaking voices has shed fresh light on just how special his pipes really were.

A group of Austrian, Czech, and Swedish researchers conducted the research, the results of which were published on Friday in Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology (via AlphaGalileo).
While they couldn’t confirm the long-held belief that Mercury’s range spanned four full octaves, they did discover some interesting tidbits about the expanse of his voice.
For one, despite being known largely as a tenor, he was more likely a baritone. They based this assumption off analysis of six interviews that revealed a median speaking fundamental frequency of 117.3 Hz. That, coupled with anecdotal evidence that Mercury once turned down an opera duet because he was afraid fans wouldn’t recognize his baritone voice, led the conclusion that the singer was talented enough to jump out of his base range.

It’s true that without a living test subject, the researchers’ conclusions are largely unconformable. To get closer to the truth, however, the team brought in professional rock singer Daniel Zangger-Borch to imitate Mercury’s voice. They filmed his larynx at 4,000 frames per second in order to look at exactly how the Queen frontman created those iconic rough growls and jaw-dropping vibratos.
What they discovered was that he likely employed subharmonics, a singing style where the ventricular folds vibrate along with the vocal folds.
Most humans never speak or sing with their ventricular folds unless they’re Tuvan throat singers, so the fact that this popular rock vocalist was probably dealing with subharmonics is pretty incredible.

What’s more, Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz.
To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat.
Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move.

There’s a lot of scientific and analytical music terminology in the full study (which can be read here),
but the conclusion was clear from the beginning: Freddie Mercury had a voice unlike anyone else in rock ‘n’ roll, and that led to one of the most unique singers and stage performers of all time.

TL;DR: Scientists wasted time and money to reach an obvious conclusion: Freddie Mercury was a kickass singer.




(Fun fact: Mercury had a throat infection at that Live Aid gig. Doctors told him not to perform or he'd risk losing his voice.)

Post: #2

I thought they'd find out he had a gay voice.
Nah, just trolling. He was a great singer. Any other singers with a similar vocal range? I'd guess the Alter Bridge guy and Chris Cornell.

Post: #3

Whatever your opinions may be, Nate Ruess is one of the best singers I've listened to. Amazing range, creativity, and skill. There's tons of recording of him in small intimate acoustic sets as well, showing that unlike a lot of big pop artists these days, he's not afraid to show you he really sounds like he does on record.

Post: #4

(04-20-2016 11:02 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  Whatever your opinions may be, Nate Ruess is one of the best singers I've listened to. Amazing range, creativity, and skill. There's tons of recording of him in small intimate acoustic sets as well, showing that unlike a lot of big pop artists these days, he's not afraid to show you he really sounds like he does on record.

First time I heard fun I thought it was an old Queen song that wasn't released yet. Fun's a good group.

Post: #5

(04-20-2016 10:14 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/ne...ing-voice/

Quote:Regardless of what they might think personally about Queen...

Are there even any people who don't like Queen?

Post: #6

(04-20-2016 01:59 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 10:14 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/ne...ing-voice/

Quote:Regardless of what they might think personally about Queen...

Are there even any people who don't like Queen?

That might require scientific research.

Post: #7

What is even more odd is FM was Indian, from Bombay --and he once said that his stage performance was influenced by Bollywood - and the famous Indian female singer Lata Mangeshwar was whom he was also much influenced by.

Post: #8

(04-20-2016 11:02 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  Whatever your opinions may be, Nate Ruess is one of the best singers I've listened to. Amazing range, creativity, and skill. There's tons of recording of him in small intimate acoustic sets as well, showing that unlike a lot of big pop artists these days, he's not afraid to show you he really sounds like he does on record.

Which is weird, 'cause I owned that chamber pop record before they hit it big. Was it called, 'Aim and Ingite'? Seeing concert footage at the time, I remember noticing how bad his voice was compared to the album and and being disappointed that the record must have been far less organic than it originally-sounded.

So why has his voice improved so much live? The band signed to Warner for the second album and now has major label money behind it. Don't be fooled by acoustic setting - we can autotune live on the fly, or if it's being recorded for promotional reasons, the audio track will most likely be tweaked before wider release. Hell, we can even make you harmonise with yourself in the moment.

I'm lucky to be working with a band at the moment where the guy and girl in it both have incredible voices with perfect pitch. It's incredibly-refreshing to not have to tweak anything.

Post: #9

Yes "Aim and Ignite" was the debut, then before Fun. Nate was in The Format which was similar but a bit more eccentric and had a more "vintage" style to it.

I'm not saying he's a pitch perfect singer - what I am saying is that he has great range, skill, and creativity. He has been interviewed saying he never has any kind of classical singing education prior to writing and recording. He's a great singer and performer much like Robert Plant was in that Plant wasn't known for being an accurate vocalist but rather for his distinct voice and range, creative singing style, and way with words and expression in his music.

I've never personally seen/heard any recordings of Nate sounding dog awful, though I will admit he is not a "perfect" singer. It's not about how accurately he hits his marks but how he voices his music that gets me.

Post: #10

A great voice is a gift from God, no question about it. Christina Aguilera has a 4 octave range, and look what she does with it. When I listen to Freddie Mercury, I can't help but feel the emotion that that level of talent carelessly inspires.

I guess, though, in the end, I would rather listen to someone who can put some real emotion, into a song that is about something other than the devil or slutting it up, and can do it live or in the studio without electronic help.

First one that pops into my mind is dowdy old Gladys Knight, with that scratchy earthy soul, I mean man it just grabs me:

Post: #11

One of the other truly great singers in 70's/80's rock was Rob halford. (also Gay!)

http://www.invisibleoranges.com/ask-a-re...l-singers/

A classical vocal tutor's reaction on hearing a Rob Halford vocal:-

"Initial reaction: “Last guy is super talented and the only one I really wish I could get my hands on. He demonstrates several mad skills, but they aren’t well-integrated. It doesn’t matter so much because he is so committed, expressive, and musical, but I could have helped him do it easier and better”.
This singer has a fabulous range of vocal colors and effects to choose from. His diction is easy to understand, and his phrasing is lovely throughout. He begins with such a high, gorgeous, resonant messa di voce that I was surprised to hear how low his actual full singing voice sits once he moved into it. Clearly he had been singing with a somewhat elevated larynx when he started out so high, and later in the song when he moves into a more shrill, high sneer or a scream you can tell his larynx is in a much higher position once again. The high singing and screaming is still relatively free, but I feel that it would be even more impactful if he would master a vocal technique that would enable him to better integrate all of these different things he does so well, primarily with the goal of incorporating the depth and resonance of his natural low sound into the high stuff. He is the only one of the five who I truly wish would visit my studio some time.





Read More: Ask a real musician: 5 classic male metal singers | http://www.invisibleoranges.com/ask-a-real-musician-

Post: #12

Freddie Mercury's voice, stage performances, and physical mannerisms were much more masculine and less gay than the vast majority of the allegedly heterosexual singers in present day rock bands.

Post: #13

As was Rob Halford's stage presence!

Post: #14

Paul McCartney and Axl Rose are at or near the top for men for range. Mariah Carey for female vocalists. McCartney, somehow, was an underrated vocalist. Just a powerhouse.

Post: #15

He might have been batting for the wrong team, but no one can deny the Alpha frame Freddy had when he struts around stage.

Us hetros could learn a lot from his frame.

Post: #16

Maybe all that sperm he swallowed lubricated his vocal chords.

Post: #17

Very much agree with Nate Ruess being this generation's (admittedly lesser) version of Freddy Mercury. He's got a similar delivery, control and can really get up there. Incidentally, people talk about Freddy Mercury's range all the time but that famous high note at the end of the bridge in Bohemian Rhapsody was sung by the drummer, not Mercury.

The Indian Zoroastrian background probably had a lot to do with Mercury's incredible sound. Those with music theory knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe where Western music has 1 step between whole notes (sharp/flat) certain branches of subcontinental music have 7 steps in the same interval.

It's like when you listen to Weezer's Blue Album: producer Ric Ocasek's master touch was to layer several vocal tracks with slightly different Hz frequencies over each other on many of the songs. Gave the vocals a very full, expansive sound that still sounds fresh to this day. This is with post-editing and studio magic... Freddy Mercury did this shit organically by dint of sheer vocal skill, not to mention his incredible stage presence. One of the greats.

Post: #18

(04-20-2016 03:20 PM)tanner Wrote:  What is even more odd is FM was Indian, from Bombay --and he once said that his stage performance was influenced by Bollywood - and the famous Indian female singer Lata Mangeshwar was whom he was also much influenced by.

Mercury is actually of Persian ancestry. After the Arabs forced Islam on Persia by sword (gag), many Zoroastrians fled down to India. Those Zoroastrians who now reside in India, so Mercury and his family, are called Parsi. The more you know...

Post: #19

Quote:What’s more, Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz.

So he could gargle balls at a higher frequency than most?

All jokes aside, I dont think its just his vocal ability but his delivery and use of his vocal talent that made him a true master of his craft.

There will never be another singer like him.

Post: #20

(04-20-2016 01:59 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 10:14 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/ne...ing-voice/

Quote:Regardless of what they might think personally about Queen...

Are there even any people who don't like Queen?

I don't, but that'll happen when you've heard Bohemian Rhapsody 2134567092186 times and you didn't particularly care for the sound in the first place.

Post: #21

   

Post: #22

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=miU6ruUPZHI

Post: #23

Post: #24

If you're interested in dissecting the Queen sound, there are multitrack masters converted to digital files floating around on the internet for two songs: Killer Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody.

KQ is fairly simple and easily laid out, but the BR tape is just a big confusing mess of vocals, it takes a lot of time to figure out which pieces were actually included on the final mix for the record.


This is Killer Queen:


   

   

Post: #25

He pours emotion in every word uttered, check out his vocal tracks