you know how a dominant music figure can stand truly out
and Queen was no exception so i wounder
what did you think of Queen's overall talent if you took Mercury out of the picture? and I know Brian may gets love on the axe, but what do you think of them as a band on a whole?

mistermaxxx R.Kelly, Michael Jackson,Stevie wonder,Rick James,Marvin Gaye,El Debarge, Barry WHite Lionel RIchie,Isleys EWF,Lady T.,Kid creole and coconuts,the crusaders,kc sunshine band,bee gees,jW,sd,NE,JB

Miami Heat, New York Yankees,buffalo bills

to do what you are asking with any band. Freddie Mercury was a phenomenal performer, the lead songwriter, and had such a gifted, unique voice that I just don't see the band having as much appeal without him. Then again, you can say that for most successful bands.

freddie just put it over the top kinda like diamond dave.

Brian May in particular was a really good guitarist. But without Mercury that band is nowhere near the same. He's the most indispensable member by far, you can leave it at that.

--

they were a very good band. Jerry wrote and sang more than people know and is a ridiculously good guitarist. Starr and Kinney were great musicians in their own right, but it never was the same again without Layne. Just couldn't be. He was super unique.

...I'm from the era when A.I. was the answer, now they think ai is the answer - Marlon Craft

...as the lyrics. Skills.

Obviously, I'm sure May came up with his guitar-parts and so on but still...

Also, Mercury was not just a singer but an accomplished pianist as well and played a big part in arranging their music so no, I don't think they would have really made it without him regardless of talent. I mean, he wrote Bohemian Rhapsody, Killer Queen, Somebody to love, We are the champions, Don't stop me now and probably several other of their early hits. Remove those songs from their discography and I kind of suspect they would have been mid-level successful at best purely on the basis of songwriting. Add his vocals, "swag" etc. and he's REALLY hard to replace; I have a hard time thinking of another vocalist that could have filled his shoes.

Actually, I have a hard time thinking of any big 70's arena rock band who were as "vocalist-oriented" as Queen.

...but take the lead singer out of most bands and you don't have near the appeal.

many of those bands could still have existed in somewhat the same form, even if diminished in popularity. Queen is one of the few that would have barely even resembled themselves if you subtract their singer, because besides his inimitable vocals and stage presence, he also was pretty much the main creative presence in the group.

Or to put it yet another way... it's easier to imagine Queen being close to the same band if you replaced ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS than if you tried to replace Mercury.

--

AC/DC, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Toto (EDIT:bad example) are some counter-examples; that I personally think Van Halen without Dave is some bullshit or that AC/DC with Brian only made one album that measures up to the stuff with Bon or that Black Sabbath with Dio doesn't even sound like the same band but rather like 70's Rainbow with a different lead-guitarist and so on is besides the point...