Page 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 - Next

Many who watched the benefit noted that by far the most eligible Freddie Mercury replacement candidate was George Michael, who sang the Queen classics "These Are the Days of Our Lives" and "Somebody to Love." Michael’s smooth, yet powerful pop tenor voice, especially in the middle and low range, is comparable in timbre to Mercury’s. Both singers share a similar legato vocal approach and falsetto-like high note technique. It was evident at the concert that both George Michael and Queen felt right at home onstage with each other.

In 1993 George Michael released Five-Live, his own five-song EP Freddie Mercury tribute. All proceeds from the record also went to the Phoenix Trust. Michael was a close friend of Mercury’s, and was at his bedside the day Mercury passed away.

It’s been 13 years since that now-legendary Freddie Mercury tribute concert. The remaining Queen band members never did replace Mercury, nor did they even attempt to tour without him.

This is about to change. Queen guitarist Brian May recently announced from his own website, “For a while I used to say, 'OK, I don't want to be a part of Queen anymore, I want to be myself.’ And I think that I had to do that as part of my growth; and as part of my grieving about Mercury. Now, I think we've all grown up; and we realize, 'OK, Queen is with us forever.'”

Queen’s plan is to reform and tour in 2005 with Bad Company and Free lead singer Paul Rodgers. It’s a move that’s sure to piss off a lot of die-hard Freddie Mercury fans. It is unknown how well Rogers can pull-off the many war-horse hits that Mercury made famous and that the new Queen will surely have to offer to anxious audiences. Roger is a fine blues-rock vocalist in his own right, but nowhere near the virtuosic, 3.5 octave range wonder that was Freddie Mercury. Nor does Rogers possess Mercury’s stage flair or sheer star attractiveness. (Even foppish Darkness vocalist Justin Hawkins, who Queen recently collaborated with for their 2004 30th Anniversary show, seemed a more logical choice.)

Judging from the intense devotion still felt for Mercury from fans everywhere, and acknowledging the special gay/straight chemistry that made Queen so glorious in it’s heyday, surviving Queen members would do well to seriously consider a gay singer for their Freddie Mercury replacement. For this band, any reunion faithful to its original, winning sound and style needs to combine grand ostentation, delicate taste and operatic/classical airs with the power and crunch of pure, head-banging, raw rock power.

It’s significant to note the many “gay” artistic sensibilities Mercury imparted to his band, that helped produce such a commercially and artistically successful collaboration (starting with his idea for their fabulous name).

It was Mercury’s eccentric, flashy genius that created an operatic production as grand as Queen’s mega-hit “Bohemian Rhapsody” and made this kind of “classicized” pop music accessible to mainstream audiences. Mercury’s cinematic vision also pioneered the song’s 1975 video, widely hailed as the first true pop “video” promo that helped to launch the MTV age. His glitzy theatrical instincts were responsible for making Queen one of the first supergroups to incorporate massive lighting, huge sets and other special stage effects into their live shows.

It's also disappointing that George Michael wasn't chosen to tour with the new Queen. He has a lot of qualities in common with the late Freddy Mercury. Considering the spotty, up-and-down course George Michael’s career has been taking since the 90s, I am surprised he didn’t lobby more for the role (although he recently said in an interview that he's tired of touring in general). It could have revived his career with mainstream rock fans and treated a whole new generation of audiences to a more genuinely Queen-like (pardon the double-entendre) live-in-concert experience.

Page 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 - Next