Sorry folks, but I can't say I'm impressed with many of the suggestions. Trouble is I can't really think of any better.
The 70s is probably my favourite decade musically, but I'm not convinced many of the artists were great singers though. Great entertainers, yes. Great songwriters, yes. Great multi talented artists, yes. But, singers? If this is the cream of the crop mentioned here, it's a no from me.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss their importance and influence is non-sensical.
Hmm. They are all great songs. No doubt at all. Hearing "We are the Champions" at The Valley when we picked up the trophy is probably one of my Top 20 Charlton moments.
But I don't think you can say that FM/Queen "dominated" the 70s and 80s. They just didn;t.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss their importance and influence is non-sensical.
Hmm. They are all great songs. No doubt at all. Hearing "We are the Champions" at The Valley when we picked up the trophy is probably one of my Top 20 Charlton moments.
But I don't think you can say that FM/Queen "dominated" the 70s and 80s. They just didn;t.
Freddie was one of the greats,but no,Queen did not dominate in the 70s,they were a part of an era which boasted,The Eagles,Dire Straits,Led Zeppelin,difficult to dominate these sort of bands.
Personally I like distinctive voices that are versatile.
Anyone wanting to hear Plant not screaming should listen to his version of the Tim Hardin classic If I Were a Carpenter. In my view he absolutely nails this ballard.
Roger Daltrey displays a similar versatlity in some of his solo work. Believe it or not his first album away from the Who was written by Leo Sayer. He also performed the Beggars Opera which involved him technically singing Opera around this time.
Other favourites of mine ( which wouldn't be fashionable) are David Essex and the previously mentioned Leo Sayer. Both of whom are good singers who both wrote much of their own material.
Agree, this is understandably about music taste.
Allegiances and personal taste aside, if I were to suggest someone based on their actual singing ability, harmonies, range and purity of vocal, John Denver would actually be right up there.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
Yes, they were popular.
No way did they "dominate" those two decades.
Their music was safe, commercial rock. There were bigger, better and more innovative artists in lots of genres, pop, soul, disco, punk, metal, new wave, indie, reggae.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
Yes, they were popular.
No way did they "dominate" those two decades.
Their music was safe, commercial rock. There were bigger, better and more innovative artists in lots of genres, pop, soul, disco, punk, metal, new wave, indie, reggae.
I wouldn’t call Bohemian Rhapsody ‘safe’, would you? A 5 minute multi-faceted piece of work with an operatic section in the middle.
They didnt just churn out songs in a cookie-cutter form as you might be suggesting. Another One Bites The Dust is a world apart from Bohemian Rhapsody as it is from Barcelona.
Out of curiosity, who are the metal/indie artists that you would say are bigger/more innovative on the world of music?
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
Yes, they were popular.
No way did they "dominate" those two decades.
Their music was safe, commercial rock. There were bigger, better and more innovative artists in lots of genres, pop, soul, disco, punk, metal, new wave, indie, reggae.
I wouldn’t call Bohemian Rhapsody ‘safe’, would you? A 5 minute multi-faceted piece of work with an operatic section in the middle.
They didnt just churn out songs in a cookie-cutter form as you might be suggesting. Another One Bites The Dust is a world apart from Bohemian Rhapsody as it is from Barcelona.
Out of curiosity, who are the metal/indie artists that you would say are bigger/more innovative on the world of music?
I don't like metal at all but Zeppelin were bigger. Queen were a led zepp lite.
BR is over the top camp nonsense. Some fancy tricks nickrd off those terrible prog rock bands like Yes and a bit of opera to make it seem important.
Yes, it was very popular and sold very well but so did Shutuppa your face and the birdy song.
Queen didn't dominate two decades. Punk happened, Saturday Night Fever happened, Abba happened, The Wailers happened,
Noddy Holder, now here is a real interesting dichotomy. He could have and indeed should have been one of the worlds greatest rock singers.........no question about it. He had a truly incredible voice......he however chose to tie himself to Slade and their largely poor quality sub standard ‘pop’ music. Make no mistake this guys voice was phenomenal and was crying out to be linked with some top class rock musicians to see what Noddy could go on and offer and become a seriously regarded world class act........IMHO a really poorly missed opportunity. Slade......Mmmmm.......... something of a joke to be honest.
Good call with David Ruffin. Great voice, not such a likeable bloke by all accounts. But that's not what the list is for. I once asked Van Morrison's long-time but former drummer what Van was like and what followed was a five-minute stream of blasphemously foul-mouthed insults.
Personally I like distinctive voices that are versatile.
Anyone wanting to hear Plant not screaming should listen to his version of the Tim Hardin classic If I Were a Carpenter. In my view he absolutely nails this ballard.
Roger Daltrey displays a similar versatlity in some of his solo work. Believe it or not his first album away from the Who was written by Leo Sayer. He also performed the Beggars Opera which involved him technically singing Opera around this time.
Other favourites of mine ( which wouldn't be fashionable) are David Essex and the previously mentioned Leo Sayer. Both of whom are good singers who both wrote much of their own material.
Agree, this is understandably about music taste.
Allegiances and personal taste aside, if I were to suggest someone based on their actual singing ability, harmonies, range and purity of vocal, John Denver would actually be right up there.
John has slipped under the radar here,I saw him at the Albert Hall not long before he died,he was alone on the stage,and his incredible voice sounded wonderful in the Albert Hall acoustics.
Anybody could dial up a dozen Zeppelin songs that could be argued are heavily influenced from various genres.
The Battle of Evermore Tangerine Gallows Pole Nobody's Fault But Mine Bron y aur Black Mountain Side D'yer maker Tea for one Hey hey what can I do Going to California The rain song Misty mountain hop
And a lot of others.
They had range, variety and showed restless development. Clearly Led Zeppelin are not to everyone's taste, but they are hard to pigeon hole and most certainly didn't find one style or groove and stick to it.
Anyway this is about male vocalists of the seventies and it is about personal taste.
In the 70s alone Mercury sang the likes of Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody To Love, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Don’t Stop Me Now just to name a few. Songs that people of all ages will be aware of, and will hear on a regular basis to this day.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
Yes, they were popular.
No way did they "dominate" those two decades.
Their music was safe, commercial rock. There were bigger, better and more innovative artists in lots of genres, pop, soul, disco, punk, metal, new wave, indie, reggae.
I wouldn’t call Bohemian Rhapsody ‘safe’, would you? A 5 minute multi-faceted piece of work with an operatic section in the middle.
They didnt just churn out songs in a cookie-cutter form as you might be suggesting. Another One Bites The Dust is a world apart from Bohemian Rhapsody as it is from Barcelona.
Out of curiosity, who are the metal/indie artists that you would say are bigger/more innovative on the world of music?
I don't like metal at all but Zeppelin were bigger. Queen were a led zepp lite.
BR is over the top camp nonsense. Some fancy tricks nickrd off those terrible prog rock bands like Yes and a bit of opera to make it seem important.
Yes, it was very popular and sold very well but so did Shutuppa your face and the birdy song.
Queen didn't dominate two decades. Punk happened, Saturday Night Fever happened, Abba happened, The Wailers happened,
I think Queen were a great band with a charismatic singer, but I also think their status and influence has become exaggerated due in part to Live Aid and primarily to the untimely death of the singer. IMHO
Comments
The 70s is probably my favourite decade musically, but I'm not convinced many of the artists were great singers though. Great entertainers, yes. Great songwriters, yes. Great multi talented artists, yes. But, singers? If this is the cream of the crop mentioned here, it's a no from me.
The fact you were ‘there’ makes little difference I’m afraid - people can still debate music from a time before they were born.
Mercury is one of the undisputed greats of that decade based on sheer influence alone. You don’t have to like Queen (which you clearly don’t), but to dismiss Mercury’s place in the conversation is non-sensical.
But I don't think you can say that FM/Queen "dominated" the 70s and 80s. They just didn;t.
Allegiances and personal taste aside, if I were to suggest someone based on their actual singing ability, harmonies, range and purity of vocal, John Denver would actually be right up there.
No way did they "dominate" those two decades.
Their music was safe, commercial rock. There were bigger, better and more innovative artists in lots of genres, pop, soul, disco, punk, metal, new wave, indie, reggae.
They didnt just churn out songs in a cookie-cutter form as you might be suggesting. Another One Bites The Dust is a world apart from Bohemian Rhapsody as it is from Barcelona.
Out of curiosity, who are the metal/indie artists that you would say are bigger/more innovative on the world of music?
BR is over the top camp nonsense. Some fancy tricks nickrd off those terrible prog rock bands like Yes and a bit of opera to make it seem important.
Yes, it was very popular and sold very well but so did Shutuppa your face and the birdy song.
Queen didn't dominate two decades. Punk happened, Saturday Night Fever happened, Abba happened, The Wailers happened,
He could have and indeed should have been one of the worlds greatest rock singers.........no question about it.
He had a truly incredible voice......he however chose to tie himself to Slade and their largely poor quality sub standard ‘pop’ music.
Make no mistake this guys voice was phenomenal and was crying out to be linked with some top class rock musicians to see what Noddy could go on and offer and become a seriously regarded world class act........IMHO a really poorly missed opportunity.
Slade......Mmmmm.......... something of a joke to be honest.
It's like saying because they released 'Crazy Horses' The Osmonds were a hard rock band.
Crazy Horses is a great song. Shows how talented and versatile the Osmonds were.
In his proper guise and field as Norman Smith the record engineer and producer he might seriously be a contender.
Come on, even you like some Zep.
The voice is always the thing for me.
The Battle of Evermore
Tangerine
Gallows Pole
Nobody's Fault But Mine
Bron y aur
Black Mountain Side
D'yer maker
Tea for one
Hey hey what can I do
Going to California
The rain song
Misty mountain hop
And a lot of others.
They had range, variety and showed restless development.
Clearly Led Zeppelin are not to everyone's taste, but they are hard to pigeon hole and most certainly didn't find one style or groove and stick to it.
Anyway this is about male vocalists of the seventies and it is about personal taste.