100 worse ideas than Adam Lambert fronting Queen

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
If I put words in your mouth Michael, I am sorry, as I should have said you were implying those things about Adam Lambert, and as your support for Adam Lambert is pretty passionate, I'd call that a fair statement. What I'd like to know is how you determine who and what is negative?
Think of Queen as a restaurant. At one time they were standard bearers in the industry, serving only the finest food and drink with panache. But then the old chef retired, and the maitre'd died, and the restaurant closed for a number of years, but decided to reopen. When they reopened, their menu was heavy on steak and potatoes just like the good old days in the 70s, but didn't really account for new food trends and offered no new dishes. Plus they had a rotating group of chefs who knew how to cook, just weren't masters like the old chef, and the old maitre'd who made the place buzzworthy with a one of a kind personality was replaced by a hotshot out of cooking school who knew how to act like a maitre'd, but lacked the skills to fully understand the role. Would you enthuse about the restaurant? Say they're trying even though they haven't anything to sell but nostalgia of the old place, and people who go to restaurants should quit being negative and accept what they're offering? Or would you say, that place was amazing in its day, but time moves on, I'm interested in current tastes? I'd do that, and for the life of me I don't see how that makes me negative.

Look look, this is all really very simple.

If you are a Freddie fan and to a lesser extent, a Queen fan, just live with the albums/videos/whatever and enjoy them whilst completely ignoring what Brian and Roger are doing now and have been since 1997. Continually bitching and moaning about "selling out", shelling out insults like the sun dishes out warmth does nothing but make you (and that's a general "you" not you specifically) look like someone who concentrates only on the negative, absolutely REFUSES to see anything remotely positive from it and so on. It's an endless cycle that, I would have thought, some would have grown out of by now. It's beyond childish.

So Lambert is not everyone's cup of tea. Ok great, ignore it. Queen is dead in your eyes when Freddie passed, what does it matter then? Ruining a legacy you say? Well Roger himself put it best when he said it's his legacy and he'll do what he pleases. I haven't agreed with every decision the band has made (mostly to do with product they've released rather than collaborations mind you) but MY GOD it's as if Brian has dug up your dead mother, raped her, videotaped it then uploaded it to youtube.

Brian and Roger are obviously not doing this for money. IF something does happen with Lambert it's because they see an opportunity to perform in front of large crowds because afterall, unlike John Deacon, they still have a passion for music, they still want to play in front of throngs of people whether it be a tour or a handful of shows. That's it. Lambert, Paul Rodgers, whomever they think that can handle their material and that they feel comfortable performing with. That's it, nothing more to it.

Queen doesn't belong to petulant children any more than to those who support (sometimes begrudgingly) their actions. It is what it is. Attacking Lambert over the mere possibility of working with Queen is ridiculous in the extreme. He's a young guy with a great voice who also happens to be like you, me and everyone else here. He admires, loves and respects Queen. People want to do the elitist snob thing because of "Idol" and to that I say, get a fucking life. It doesn't matter a lick where a person comes from or how they got their shot, you have to have SOMETHING to last and unlike so many contestants from "Idol" and other shows of that ilk, he's still around.

Like it, don't like it but god damn people, get over it.

e-man wrote:
karaoke fans;
until lambert start to write some great songs on his own, he will never hold any currency in the music world.
it's nice and jolly that he has a loyal following who worhips his selection of cover songs (and in most cases - snippets of cover songs!!)
it's all in the songs though, and lambert doesn't have them. simple as that

Elvis didn't write his material. Neither did Sinatra. I guess they're talentless too, I mean since you're going on about "holding currency in the music world" and all.

Oh ffs there are some very good singers on Idol, such as Crystal Bowersox, but Lambert's at best a nondescript karaoke singer.

And here's something else to mull over: if you don’t like the negativity, ignore it. In other words, take your own advice.

Holly2003 wrote:
Oh ffs there are some very good singers on Idol, such as Crystal Bowersox, but Lambert's at best a nondescript karaoke singer.
And here's something else to mull over: if you don’t like the negativity, ignore it. In other words, take your own advice.

and there you have it. Love how ironic his incessant negativity about negativity is.

There are very valid reasons for the negativity from a fan's POV.

jazzy mercurois wrote:
What about Adam Lambert's rendition of Born to be Wild?
Is it bad too?
Feeling Good?
Idiots.

Adam Lambert is a well trained (even if self trained) singer with a big range but many just don't like the "sound" of his voice. Simply as that. Nobody is saying he can't sing. I am saying he does not have a great "voice". I'd rather hear even Bob Dylan, who has almost no range but lots of flavor to his voice. He uses it well. Adam just tries too hard and is a generic, albeit exceptional, karaoke singer.

Holly2003 wrote:
Oh ffs there are some very good singers on Idol, such as Crystal Bowersox, but Lambert's at best a nondescript karaoke singer.
And here's something else to mull over: if you don’t like the negativity, ignore it. In other words, take your own advice.

Ignoring negativity on Queenzone is like trying to ignore oxygen, it's impossible because it completely surrounds you.

YetAnotherFreddieFan wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:
Oh ffs there are some very good singers on Idol, such as Crystal Bowersox, but Lambert's at best a nondescript karaoke singer.
And here's something else to mull over: if you don’t like the negativity, ignore it. In other words, take your own advice.

and there you have it. Love how ironic his incessant negativity about negativity is.
There are very valid reasons for the negativity from a fan's POV.

ALL you spout is bitterness and venom.

Well I don't think Adam is ready to "front" Queen. But singing a few songs with them would be fine. I liked his 2010 vh1 unplugged performance. I think he is better being low key and the tone of his voice is very pretty to me. Matter of taste I guess. I like the song that Justin Hawkins wrote for him - Music Again. Ha. So catchy. I downloaded that one on itunes.

In the spirit of the list ... No. 529 - Adam becoming disoriented and beaching himself on the coast of New Zealand, eating sand by mistake and making everyone worry. No. 530 - Adam becoming trapped under the ice in Alaska. No. 531 - Adam flying right into the engine of a 747.

Please treat me nicely, hosts. I am only a visitor to this forum and it is quite eye-opening since I spend all my time in the Adam Lambert forum. I am one of the middle-aged female fans of whom you speak in this forum (a Glambert). Seriously, you guys are really MEAN here. But I did have to chuckle at this post:

He is the baddest of bad asses at 1:15 when he swigs the vodka out of the bottle but sings a line a second later without spilling a drop. Waiting for the "Adam Lambert, inventor of Air Vodka" comments on Amazon.

P.S. You're wrong, though. He spills quite a bit when he takes a swig. I should know. I've watched the video hundreds of times.

#73: Making another stupid, tired arrow to the knee joke

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
If I put words in your mouth Michael, I am sorry, as I should have said you were implying those things about Adam Lambert, and as your support for Adam Lambert is pretty passionate, I'd call that a fair statement. What I'd like to know is how you determine who and what is negative?
Think of Queen as a restaurant. At one time they were standard bearers in the industry, serving only the finest food and drink with panache. But then the old chef retired, and the maitre'd died, and the restaurant closed for a number of years, but decided to reopen. When they reopened, their menu was heavy on steak and potatoes just like the good old days in the 70s, but didn't really account for new food trends and offered no new dishes. Plus they had a rotating group of chefs who knew how to cook, just weren't masters like the old chef, and the old maitre'd who made the place buzzworthy with a one of a kind personality was replaced by a hotshot out of cooking school who knew how to act like a maitre'd, but lacked the skills to fully understand the role. Would you enthuse about the restaurant? Say they're trying even though they haven't anything to sell but nostalgia of the old place, and people who go to restaurants should quit being negative and accept what they're offering? Or would you say, that place was amazing in its day, but time moves on, I'm interested in current tastes? I'd do that, and for the life of me I don't see how that makes me negative.

The thing is, some of us weren't around in the 70s and 80s when this metaphorical restaurant was popular, so we never got to see all the excitement firsthand. We have these little microwavable food packages that taste sort of like the glorious food being made then, but we can't actually experience it truly unless we actually go to the restaurant. The restaurant reopening is exciting because it gives us maybe one more chance to actually experience what we've dreamed of experiencing from years, and personally, I don't give a crap if only two of the four former staff members are still there, I'll even take some wannabe kid chef making my food, as long as it's pretty much the same stuff. It's the best we're going to get without a time machine

someonewholikesadam wrote:
Please treat me nicely, hosts. I am only a visitor to this forum and it is quite eye-opening since I spend all my time in the Adam Lambert forum. I am one of the middle-aged female fans of whom you speak in this forum (a Glambert). Seriously, you guys are really MEAN here. But I did have to chuckle at this post:
He is the baddest of bad asses at 1:15 when he swigs the vodka out of the bottle but sings a line a second later without spilling a drop. Waiting for the "Adam Lambert, inventor of Air Vodka" comments on Amazon.
P.S. You're wrong, though. He spills quite a bit when he takes a swig. I should know. I've watched the video hundreds of times.

I'm honestly not entirely sure if you're trolling or not, so I'm just going to assume you're not. It's the Internet, what did you expect? Besides, a lot of us sound kind of angry and bitter because we are bitter that two members of our formerly great favorite band are not performing anymore, so all we have are the remaining two doing the best they can with the little they still have. Our favorite band passed its prime a while ago. You're favorite artist is a young guy who still has a lot of life left in him and, if he stays popular, has a long career ahead of him. That's something to be happy about. Just don't be offended because we're bitter and we're taking it out on younger guys

I don't have a problem with people who weren't around in the 70s and 80s wanting to see Queen as you do waunakonor. But, and this a really big but, you weren't around in the 70s to experience the Queen phenomenon when it was happening, so you have no idea what Queen were like except from videos or records which you got into later. This doesn't make you any less of a fan than me or other long time fans, much as me getting into Queen for ANATO makes me less of a fan than someone who saw them at the Marquee in 1973. It just makes it impossible for you to comprehend what Queen stood for and how insanely awesome they were.

So when you say "I don't give a crap if only two of the four former staff members are still there, I'll even take some wannabe kid chef making my food, as long as it's pretty much the same stuff", people who have had the good stuff, not a microwaveable package of food that bears a passing resemblance to food, are going to think it sucks. They've experienced the greatness in a way that you never can and never will because through the unluckiness of your birth year, you came late to the party. Brian and Roger are not Queen the band, they are the surviving members of Queen, and the force (as GT points out in his post) behind the Queen brand. Queen were groundbreaking artists on record whose songs will last for centuries due to their timeless appeal. They were beasts as a live act in the 70s, and that's when they ruled the world and if not without peer live, it was a small group of people who could rock live like Queen. So you're right when you say "It's the best we're going to get without a time machine." But once you've had mind blowing sex with a bevy of Victoria's Secrets supermodels for years, getting a hand job from a drunken hobo who reeks of urine may be the "best you're going to get", but I think most people would prefer the former and think the latter ain't that good.

I want a hand job from a drunken hobo! :)

Gregsynth wrote:
I want a hand job from a drunken hobo! :)

Show up at Knebworth Park this summer, good chance your dream will come true ;)