Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Michael, a runner-up on a talent show with a decent voice isn't anything close to an "artist", that demeans the term for people who have talent. He's no better than Gary Mullen, or no worse, because they've both made their mark singing others material. Adam Lambert is the world's most flamboyant karaoke singer, not worthy of a spot with Queen, maybe a Queen tribute band.
Adam Lambert is the rough equivalent of Celine Dion, if Celine regularly jacked Rob Halford's wardrobe closet and sang shittily more often than she does. They both have big polished voices that take up a lot of space in the room, but little anywhere else. Somebody remarked about Bob Dylan that he had changed things such that it was no longer good enough to sing sweetly because what mattered was if people believed you. Lambert is not believable. Some people are high achievers technically and never let you forget for a moment that they are 'performing'. Some people apparently like that. Hey if you like his effusive and elaborate vocal love notes to himself, knock yourself out, but don't be looking to hard for exotic reasons why other people don't. The fact it that at 27 years old, Adam got as far as he was going to get on his own before AI because as a true artist he has done nothing to suggest that he is not exceedingly limited. People comparing him to early Fred when Fred was still reaching around a bit are really pretty delusional. Adam is 29 or 30 now I think? I guess we can expect his Bohemian Rhapsody magnum opus any day now...