Adam Lambert possibly new singer for Queen

I'm starting to feel a little sick....

Let's just hope that 'working with him', means nothing more then 'I want him to star in WWRY'!
I would be fine with that - I don't give a rats ass about that musical anyway. If they want to record one song together, I could even live with that, having survived all kinds of crap they pulled between 1995 and 2005.

But anyhting beyond that... I don't want to think about it. It WOULD be the final drop for me...

Well I've seen the American Idol performance and if I would use only my ears and not my eyes I would seriously think I'm listening to some sub-average pub band who made a Queen cover just for fun.

I still remember when I've first seen the Hall of fame 2004 show - I thought they sound fantastic together and I really hoped they're gonna do an album together.

When I first heard the 5ive collaboration, I though "what the f......amily ? ", but later I liked the song. The same with Robbie "look at me I'm a singer" WIlliams.

This "possible collaboration" reminds me more on the collaboration with Britney, Pink and Euthanasia. When I've heard it I wanted to scream "shut the f* up bitch", I don't like this feeling and I hope that "Queen" won't make me feel this way again.

M'eh -- I dunno. I really don't understand why people are getting upset about this. This is just an opportunity for musicians to work together -- and it just so happens that they 'might' use the name Queen, which they have every right to do.

Consider this -- there was a BBC interview a few years ago which had Brian himself admitting that he had doubts about Freddie's capabilities - and look what happened there...Freddie Bulsara honed his craft - and got better and better along with the rest of the band. So fast forward 40 years and you sort of have the same thing. The difference this time is that the 'singer' in question is already a recognized success, and the confidence and stage presence to go along with it. Added to that, it would be a serious boost to May and Taylor if they were to go with this idea as their popularity in the States is nowhere near what it is in Europe - at least right now.

What I find puzzling however -- back in 2006, Queen + Paul Rodgers also worked with the American Idol contestants and were 'supposed' to have played live on the show. This didn't happen for whatever reason. Fast forward 3 years and Brian and Roger are surprise guests...WITHOUT Paul Rodgers. Coincidence ?? I think not. Personally I think Paul Rodgers was the one who didn't want to do the show.

It'll be interesting if there is ever any mention of Rodgers again -- I can't help but think that all of these statements about how Paul was 'Our Idol...' 'Freddie's Idol...' etc...were a product of the situation. They were enjoying the moment and were all about to convince everyone of this as well.

Anyway....that's all from me.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

All tastes and opinions aside...

From a marketing standpoint, it would be a brilliant move.  The name Queen then may certainly be popular in the US at levels comparable to their peak there in the early 80s.

[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I said on a Dutch forum a couple of hours ago. Nobody can disagree on that!

If it happens... It would be like losing my hands or something :P

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

All tastes and opinions aside...

From a marketing standpoint, it would be a brilliant move.  The name Queen then may certainly be popular in the US at levels comparable to their peak there in the early 80s.

[/QUOTE]
The thing is, the marketing strategy Queen (i.e. Freddie, Brian, John and Roger) used was creating marvellous songs, doing extraordinary albums and performing good concerts. The marketing strategy B&R use now is becoming a backing band for 5ive, Robbie, Britney or this bloke (if it ever happens). One year from now we'll see them in Disney channel promoting a new 'High School Musical' generation with music by 'Queen' (sic) and a Zac Efron wannabe. There's a hell of a lot of difference between both 'brilliant moves' 'from a marketing standpoint'.

Sebastian--

I've read a lot of willfully naive posts on QZ, and I've written some myself, but to say Queen never marketed or publicized their music and made it just about the music is probably the most willfully naive statement I've ever heard.

From their very first invite-only practice gig, where they wanted to make sure everything in their production was just so, Queen marketed.  They publicized.  They dressed up.  They took publicity pictures. 

They did press.  If putting a hundred-odd naked women on bicycles in honor of a single called "Bicycle Race," and then putting a gatefold posted of said naked women in the album, isn't self-promotion, marketing, and sensationalized publicity, then I don't know what is.

The truth is Queen were, and to a large extent still are, a band that made its biggest mark with sensationalized marketing strategies.  What were those inflatable band members on the Magic tour about?  Were they simply about the music?  The prospect of an effeminate, multi-octaved, sexually ambiguous and flamboyant singer (sound familiar) doing a project with the the two active member of a band that had an all-star concert, broadcast to billions around the world all to celebrate the life of its dead singer, seems like another day at the office as far as Queen is concerned.

So Sebastian -- my point is, If you as a Queen fan want to make this whole being a fan of Queen thing just about the music, then I suggest you might be putting some huge blinders on, both through the band's history and now.  Queen were never about navel-gazing musical integrity.  They put on a show.  The music is the show.  One cannot seperate the two.

Please don't bring people from Idol into Queen!!!!!

That would just be toooo much!

Idol is just an excuse to make their own TV-channel celebrities, and bring them into every other single TV-show on the same channel.  They're not famous, we just think it because they're in every show on the same channel...

Oh please..you people make me laugh...QUEEN'S reputation was already ruined when they signed on Paul Rodgers!!!!

[QUOTE]





[b]Daniel Nester wrote: [/b]



Sebastian--

I've read a lot of willfully naive posts on QZ, and I've written some myself, but to say Queen never marketed or publicized their music and made it just about the music is probably the most willfully naive statement I've ever heard.

From their very first invite-only practice gig, where they wanted to make sure everything in their production was just so, Queen marketed.  They publicized.  They dressed up.  They took publicity pictures. 

They did press.  If putting a hundred-odd naked women on bicycles in honor of a single called "Bicycle Race," and then putting a gatefold posted of said naked women in the album, isn't self-promotion, marketing, and sensationalized publicity, then I don't know what is.

The truth is Queen were, and to a large extent still are, a band that made its biggest mark with sensationalized marketing strategies.  What were those inflatable band members on the Magic tour about?  Were they simply about the music?  The prospect of an effeminate, multi-octaved, sexually ambiguous and flamboyant singer (sound familiar) doing a project with the the two active member of a band that had an all-star concert, broadcast to billions around the world all to celebrate the life of its dead singer, seems like another day at the office as far as Queen is concerned.

So Sebastian -- my point is, If you as a Queen fan want to make this whole being a fan of Queen thing just about the music, then I suggest you might be putting some huge blinders on, both through the band's history and now.  Queen were never about navel-gazing musical integrity.  They put on a show.  The music is the show.  One cannot seperate the two.

[/QUOTE]

I know you're addressing this to Sebastian but can I throw in my own two cents about this question of publicity. I think there's a difference between what Queen did in the 70's for publicity and what they are doing now. Putting a hundred-odd naked women on bicycles was new, different and alot of fun. It featured the sense of humour that Queen brought to most of their albums, in particular Jazz. The fact that it caused so much controversy would also no doubt have tickled the group. Their preening and dressing up would have related to their belief, and Freddie's in particular, that they were [b]special.[/b][img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] Everything else they did no doubt related to their wanting to be the best and biggest, (the bigger the group, the bigger the publicity) as well as their sense of fun and their belief that they were a truly great group. I don't think they ever did anything merely for the sake of publicity.

This is different. American Idol is only about publicity. Now, I like Lambert; he could become great, but the idea that this kid who did well in American Idol might team up with two of the greatest musical artists of all time strikes me as publicity for publicity's sake. I hope I'm wrong, in which case Brian and Roger will either do something else or wait a while before teaming up with Lambert, but I do think thay if they do something with him straight away, I will be more disappointed then when they teamed up with Paul Rodgers.

*If they wait a while, I think it'll come across less than publicity for publicity's sake than if they teamed up with him straight away. Plus, they won't appear as desperate.

I agree with Amazon, Sebastian and Daniel.  All good points.  My take?
[/QUOTE]Queen (were) like Beethoven, or The Beatles, once in a lifetime artists whose music will stand the test of time. Their legacy is secure, but it's becoming tarnished. TCR and Paul Rodgers did nothing to help, nad this little charade makes them appear as hangers on of the first class.  Eminently knowledgeable posters like Sir GH and Daniel among others point that for publicity purposes, doing this type of stuff is fantastic as Idol is a ratings juggernaut.  True, but what's the cost?  We're fans, but for people who know Queen casually, or not at all, I'm sure it appears that here are these guys playing those songs again for the hundredth time, desperately trying to hang on by glomming on to an up and coming talent. Sure they mayget noticed, but it's below them, and pathetic.  The Hills is a scripted reality show about a vapid group of pretty people in Hollywood.  It's very popular, and made stars out of the cast (think Paris Hilton variety in the talent department).  Should Martin Scorsese cast the women of The Hills in his next flick?  After all, he's getting a little long in the tooth, and people would relate more to his movies if they had Audina Partridge in them instead of someone like Meryl Streep.  Or Woody Allen could cast the Real Housewives of Atlanta in his next ensemble.  What would people think in Hollywood?  They'd think that they were pathetic.  Which is what Brian and Roger are if they're thinking that.  Having said that I understand why.  They know that there is no market or future for Queen without Freddie Mercury, and that in itself must be a death sentence.  Poor John Deacon is the only one left with any sense of dignity left.   [/QUOTE]

Next they'll be doing their own Rock Star show to find a singer....just like INXS!!   *shudder*

Daniel: I'm sorry if you understood that I meant they were all about the music and no marketing before. And I'm sure it's my mistake not yours, since I delivered my message in the wrong way.

Of course there was a lot of show involved, but music still came first, at least during the golden years: writing, arranging, recording and releasing [i]Bohemian Rhapsody[/i] was a brilliant move from a marketing standpoint: it's catchy, original, well-done and the video was successful. It's got a lot of non-musical sides about it: the whole 'what's it all about?' deal, the way they promoted it by the video, even the fact the tour started off shortly before Xmas and the single was issued on Halloween... so of course it's got many sides, off which music is just one of them - but still the main one!

If Queen had done back then what Brian & Roger do now, it'd have been making duets with KC & The Sunshine Band, touring with the Sex Pistols after harshly criticising them, writing only (or mostly) Donny Osmond-type of songs and submitting them to Eurovision, etc.

Note that Queen (the real Queen) made a single with David Bowie, had Michael Kamen orchestratring a single, featured Steve Howe playing a flamenco solo... Bowie, Kamen and Howe were all big commercial names, but they still were top-class musicians, and Queen never 'milked' the fact Kamen and Howe were on their records; they did 'milk' Bowie (it was mutual, actually), but it's still a great artist, way way way better than Britney, Pink, Beyonce or Robbie.

Brian and Roger, regardless of the name they're using (which is another debate altogether), could have spent this decade creating a project with Dave Gilmour, touring with a symphony orchestra, or indeed joining forces with a young act. And there are loads of great emerging or relatively new young artists out there: Jeff Scott Soto, Buckethead, even that X-Japan bloke Roger recorded with in the 90's.

While Sting made an album with Edin Karamazov, Brian and Roger recorded with Robbie Williams; while Queen had collaborated with Howard Blake and Michael Kamen, Brian and Roger did a Pepsi commercial with Britney Spears.

now this garbage perez hilton is calling him new Freddie Mercury... i cant believe what i've got today, a link from a girlfriend...[b]

Is Glambert The New Freddie Mercury???[/b]
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-24-is-glambert-the-new-freddie-mercury

[i]Talk about a match made in heaven!
Publicly closeted homosexual, Adam Lambert, and Queen???
After Lambert's performance with the rock legends on the American Idol finale last week, Queen guitarist Brian May told Rolling Stone magazine that the band is toying around with the idea of Glambert becoming Queen's permanent frontman!
Wow!
Says May: "…[Drummer Roger Taylor] and I are definitely hoping to
have a meaningful conversation with [Lambert] at some point. It's not
like we, as Queen, would rush into coalescing with another singer just
like that. It isn't that easy. But I'd certainly like to work with
Adam. That is one amazing instrument he has there."
It just goes to show that losing American Idol can be more beneficial than winning in the long run!
Glamberella's got quite the career in front of him!
Would U like to see Lambert fronting Queen??? [/i]

again, please God do not let this happen..

The sad thing is that after a certain point (say 175 million albums sold, a tour that just did pretty well, 30 plus years of commercial success), one would become isolated from reality a build a wall.  Brian May is like that.  He's your genius grandfather who now goes to the store in his slippers and pyjamas because they're comfortable.  You forget that at one time he was God like, now he has feet of clay.  I think Brian is so set on proving that Queen wasn't Freddie (100% right, and 1000000% wrong), that he'd do anything to prove that his input was equal as great, and will go to sad lengths to prove it.  The party I'd be concerned for is Adam Lambert.  If he got into a Queen style project, it could ruin him, because no one in North America gave a shit about TCR for one reason: bad songs.  If he did a back catalogue tour, it would stunt his development, and if he depended on Brian and Roger to write a hit he may be waiting a long time. 
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]BTW, Sebastian, you are so right, this isn't Queen in the slightest sense, but it besmirches the name so it offends us senior citizens![/QUOTE]

I agree with just about what everybody says about Queen and publicity.

I guess I don't think Queen's legacy would be tarnished by pretty much anything they do.  They're doing what they do: play music.

Boy do we throw that word--legacy--around a lot here.  It carries a lot of weight. 

Can anyone name an artist that diluted, ruined, or otherwise hurt their legacy, after they had done great work?

I can start.

[b]Beach Boys:
[/b][i]Crimes against legacy: [/i]Duets with Fat Boys and John Stamos.  Tours now with just one guy, Mike Love, who is a total Republican a-hole. 
[i]Ruling: [/i]There's still Pet Sounds for everyone to listen to.

[b]The Who:
[/b][i]Crimes against legacy: [/i]Tours as duo now.  Has greatest hits packages every fiscal quarter. 
[i]Ruling: [/i]Albums still on soundtrack of every teenage boy who wants to twirl air guitar.

[b]Led Zeppelin:
[/b][i]Crimes against legacy: [/i]Jimmy Page duets with Puff Daddy for Godzilla soundtrack; Page/Coverdale; Live Aid performance; Robert Plant's solo career
[i]Ruling: [/i]They are freaking Led Zeppelin

Who else?  Beatles?  Michael Jackson?  Prince?  I think one could make an argument for all of them sullying their legacies at some point.

Perhaps the question should be: Which truly great artist has ever [b][i]not [/i][/b]done anything that might ruin their legacy?