Adam Lambert: No talk of U.S. Queen dates

Donna13, there are levels in everything in life. In the world of music, there are levels. For singers in the rock world, Lou Gramm from Foreigner, for example, was a terrific singer. He is probably in the realm of "terrific singers." Paul Rodgers, on the next level, is also a terrific singer, but is probably in the realm of "legends." You go up to another level and you have Freddie Mercury, who is a terrific singer, but is closer to "icon." That's rarified air.

So when Vocal Harmony says "the sheer scope of the Queen catalogue went beyond the boundaries of what a 'rock performer' would normally write and perform", its idiotic because it falls under the rock category. Freddie Mercury was rock singer, first and foremost, who could sing anything. If Vocal Harmony listens to Death on Two Legs, Brighton Rock, Now I'm Here, Father to Son, Ogre Battle or anything heavy from Queen to Jazz and tells me that a Broadway singer could handle those with the wallop and heft that Freddie did then their IQ drops from 10 to 4.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]Unfortunately for you, there's no recovery program for being a pillock.[/QUOTE] My strawman says otherwise.[/QUOTE]  My lion says your strawman is also a pillock.[/QUOTE]
"pillock" is one of those wonderfully silly Dr. Suess sounding insults Brit folk like to use. (and no, it makes little difference if you're from Canada though it does make you far more boring than your UK brothers.)

My lion also said that you and your strawman were both assholes. Plus he mentioned he would eat you in a house and he would eat you with a mouse.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
Donna13, there are levels in everything in life. In the world of music, there are levels. For singers in the rock world, Lou Gramm from Foreigner, for example, was a terrific singer. He is probably in the realm of "terrific singers." Paul Rodgers, on the next level, is also a terrific singer, but is probably in the realm of "legends." You go up to another level and you have Freddie Mercury, who is a terrific singer, but is closer to "icon." That's rarified air.
So when Vocal Harmony says "the sheer scope of the Queen catalogue went beyond the boundaries of what a 'rock performer' would normally write and perform", its idiotic because it falls under the rock category. Freddie Mercury was rock singer, first and foremost, who could sing anything. If Vocal Harmony listens to Death on Two Legs, Brighton Rock, Now I'm Here, Father to Son, Ogre Battle or anything heavy from Queen to Jazz and tells me that a Broadway singer could handle those with the wallop and heft that Freddie did then their IQ drops from 10 to 4.

--------------

You are so good at levels and measurements. So, what would make a person's IQ drop to a 3 or a 2? (I don't think I could handle hearing about 1 or 0 because I'm much too sensitive.)

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]

--------------
You are so good at levels and measurements. So, what would make a person's IQ drop to a 3 or a 2? [/QUOTE]

Listening to Kiss?

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]
--------------
You are so good at levels and measurements. So, what would make a person's IQ drop to a 3 or a 2? [/QUOTE]
Listening to Kiss?
[/QUOTE]

Correct, and thinking that Kiss were good drops you to a 1 :)

Sheer Brass Neck. . . . .
Lilly of the Valley
killer Queen
Bring Back That Leroy Brown
Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon
Sea Side Rendezvous
Love of My Life
You Take my Beath Away
Millionaire Waltz
Good old Fashioned lover Boy
My Melancholy Blues
Bicycle Race
Dreamers Ball
I'm Going Slightly Mad. . . .
Parts of some of the songs on the the first two albums.
Most of Bohemian Rhapsody. . . .
I could go on but being as my IQ is so low, my views idiotic and with no musical knowledge I won't bother.

What I will say is that Brass Necks idiotic view of what a post contains and his willingness to throw insults is perhaps an indication of the fact that his IQ is so low it can't be measured

How does spazzing at eachother solve anything? This place is meant for fun and discussions not fights and bullying. But hey i mustn't have a high enough IQ to even know how to be a bitch.
Yay for acting like know it alls. I mean does it even matter what the band are or even who is or isnt in it. So long as they still make amazing art together.
And to top things off we all love queen lambert or no lambert because we wouldn't be here fighting over it now would we?
I am not saying don't have an opinion but just don't call names or act like you know more than anyone. Because truth iswe probably don't all know as much as eachother. It just literally depends who you are. Get over yourselves and play nice or don't play at all. Just my opinion.*shrugs*

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
My lion also said that you and your strawman were both assholes. Plus he mentioned he would eat you in a house and he would eat you with a mouse.[/QUOTE]

So your lion enjoys rimming? Interesting.

Gay pride. 

Ha hahahah.

You're still an asshole though.

Vocal Harmony, since you have 62 posts, I could assume you are from an
Adam Lambert site and you are 14 years old and a musical imbecile, or a lonely middle aged housewife who fantasizes about the "Glambulge" and is a musical imbecile but I won't. I will instead assume you are a good person whose statements need to be parsed. That's why I'm here. So, when you say...

"Donna 13, your comment about Adam not being a rock performer is interesting. If you think about it neither was Freddie."

You're kidding, aren't you? Do you think that Queen was a cabaret act or a funk/pop act? Queen were monsters of rock and roll live and on record, from 1973 until 1980, when they went for a safer pop ground. Freddie was the ultimate rock frontman, not a pop frontman like George Michael. I will deduct points from you for your ignorance.

"He was a Great and gifted singer in a band who performed rock songs, amongst others."

Yes he did. But Queen, if you were around at the time, were a rock band that was ridiculously eclectic. They were not an eclectic band that dabbled in rock.

"The sheer scope of the Queen catalogue went beyond the boundaries of what a "rock performer" would normally write and perform."

Absolutely. But that gets back to the eclectic nature of the band. Queen and Queen II were rock and toll albums. SHA was perhaps their best "rock" album, but the pop elements were showing with Killer Queen (see Brian's comments on how he wasn't sure about KQ changing the direction of the band.) ANATO had scores of heavy songs, DOTL, IILWMC, Sweet Lady, The Prophet's Song, the heavy section of BR), as did ADATR (TYMD, White Man, Drowse) but lots of other styles. Same with News and Jazz. Queen were a rock band, but as they reached The Game they were less rock, more pop.

"Maybe in Adam Lambert, Brian and Roger are trying to bring some of that broader scope of performance and feel back to the band."

Maybe not. Maybe they are doing stuff with Adam Lambert to bring Queen to the next generation. Regardless, it is their choice. I choose to be disinterested, you choose to be interested. I have no qualms with your views, but if you say, "if you think about it, neither was Freddie (a rock performer)", you'll be called on it. Listing the songs that he showed he versatility means nothing unless you want to call him a singer instead of a rock singer, which is fine by me. But if you're justifying Adam Lambert as a Broadway singer being form Freddie's world as a singer, you are maybe a lovely person, but musically clueless.

Adam Lambert is a C lebrity and not fit to play with Queen. That is the consensus of most longtime Queen fans judging from the Internet. The Knebworth show will be a disaster, its struggling to sell tickets now. Paul Rodgers would have added credibility unlike Lambert. The sad thing is Brin and/or Roger have fallen out with him and think its hip to replace him with Lambert. By the way Jazzy Mercois and Michael Allred are you the same peoeple because you write some crap on here. Jazzy's comment about Paul Rodger's are the lowest of the low. Rodgers has a rich legacy of great music and respect, Lambert is a fake, and not a good one.

He might be the topic of discussion at the moment but nobody will remember this guy as having any historical musical significance years from now, so that would rank KISS even higher than him.

Sheer Brass Neck, you can't help really can you?
Musical imbecile now am I? Or a 14 year old Adam Lambert fan because up until my last post I had only posted 62 times.
Your logic and willingness to again throw insults is plain childish.

Your to stupid to read and understand what I have clearly said. I pointed out that Queen were a rock band,whose influence went beyond just being a rock band, and the reason that they could often do this is because Freddie was beyond being just a rock singer

As far as being 14 years old, I'm not, but maybe you are. I have over twenty years professional experience in the music industry, most of the people I know, or have spoken too who had any kind of professional relationship with Freddie all agreed that he was not a mere rock singer.

Funny that you question me thinking Queen were a cabaret or Funk Pop act. Your words, obviously your view. Not mine. I didn't say anything like that. Part of your post is based on insults, part of it you are agreeing with me and the rest you're turning what I have said into something that suits your argument.

Your little list of songs from A Night At The Opera makes interesting reading. You have offered those songs as proof of the fact that the album "had scores of heavy songs". You seem willing to go on about people not understanding music. In your list I'm in Love With My Car makes an appearance. Are you even aware that song is a waltz, if you understand the difference in rhythm and time, which I doubt, you would not have put it forward as proof of being a heavy rock song.
Yes it's performed like a rock song, but it isn't in 4/4 so in the conventional use of the term, it's not a rock song.

In fact your such an imbecile you can't get around the fact that me saying that Freddie was not a rock singer, but in fact was a very gifted versatile singer, with very view limits actually means that I rate him as being far better than anyone your thinking of.

I haven't compared Freddie and Adam Lamberts ability as singers, because that would be stupid, and I didn't say that they came from the same musical backgrounds. What I said was maybe Brian and Roger were looking for someone, like Freddie, has a broader scope of influences.

Before you start with your mundane insults, which by now you know I'm just going to throw back in your face. Maybe you could try to read and understand what I've written, if that's not beyond what appears to be your very limited intellect.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Sheer Brass Neck, you can't help really can you?
Musical imbecile now am I? Or a 14 year old Adam Lambert fan because up until my last post I had only posted 62 times.


Re-read my first paragraph, which I've capitalized, see if your comprehension is better in CAPITAL LETTERS then re-think the above statement.
"Vocal Harmony, since you have 62 posts, I COULD ASSUME you are from an
Adam Lambert site and you are 14 years old and a musical imbecile, or a lonely middle aged housewife who fantasizes about the "Glambulge" and is a musical imbecile BUT I WON'T. I WILL INSTEAD ASSUME YOU ARE A GOOD PERSON whose statements need to be parsed."