I just don't see how anyone can argue that Robert Plant was a better live/studio singer than Freddie Mercury. I'll listen to every argument between the two except for that one because Mercury is simply better live than Plant was.
Robert Plant was a better frontman than Freddie Mercury.
Nobody cares about vocal range. Christina Aguilera has an amazing voice, but that doesn't mean I like to hear her sing. I get the distinct impression that when she sings, her intent isn't to sing in a way that makes for a better song, it's to sing in a way that most displays her ability to sing. Her songs would be much better if she wasn't trying out for American Idol on all of them.
Same deal with Mercury. When I hear Queen songs -- primarily live renditions -- I find that I'm paying more attention to Freddie Mercury's voice, than I am to the song. He oversings, and it detracts from the song.
Case in point: here are two live versions of "Somebody to Love". The first is with Freddie Mercury. The second with George Michael (at a Freddie Mercury tribute concert). Which version sounds better?
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRt2jX1kaYo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYAR8RigqDA[/YOUTUBE]
The George Michael version sounds better. And I actually don't even think it's a particularly close call.
I hope I've illustrated to you that there is a difference between a guy with a great voice and a guy who is a great frontman.
Mercury used his voice to show off the fact that he had a great voice. Plant used his voice to make Zeppelin songs sound awesome.
Robert Plant was a better frontman than Freddie Mercury.