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

[QUOTE]

[b]Vocal harmony wrote: [/b] This thread is becoming a little strange.
A lot of people are running Adam Laberts ability into the ground. . .
May be some of you should remember, Freddie was far from perfect on some nights, and in fact Paul Rodgers probably did a better job per number of shows than Freddie.

Freddie's voice would quite often go sharp and sometimes crack completely.

If you don't like Adam Lambert, so what, it's just another version of Queen which no body is being forced to witness or listen too.

Funny that some people are willing to watch Kiss, only two original members, but not Queen![/QUOTE]
Paul was a more consistent live singer than Freddie (if we're comparing Freddie's era to the Queen + Paul Rodgers era). Freddie's live pitch was great, but Adam CANNOT keep in tune live (which is one of my main criticisms of him). He screams almost all of his higher notes (as opposed to Freddie/Paul singing them), and has an uncontrolled "goat" vibrato. Both of his previous performances with Brian/Roger were awful.

The point is I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an Adam Lambert fan. But I'm willing to give him a chance.
How many times does anyone have to say he's crap to make a point!

As many times as any individual finds it worthwhile to do so I suppose. You can't see the difference between putting forward a critical assessment of an artist and directing some version of "so what" or "get over it" or "move on" at that criticism? The former is conversation. The latter is trying to shut it down, or at the very least arbitrarily devaluing it. Again: nobody is chasing your opinion down and trying to pathologize it. Consider returning the favour.

I said it before if they want to play their songs with whoever, well fair enough, let's all enjoy it while we can. Tomorrow they might give it all up, would we be any happier?

Gratefulfan. This doesn't stop being a conversation because of the style of reply I choose to write.

If I wish to air an opinion, then I am perfectly entitled to do so. Just as you, or anyone else is. However none of us have the right to be critical of the way a point is put forward, unless it is vindictive and personal.

In amongst the critical assessment of Adam Lambert you must have some idea of who you think should front Queen. We are both not fans of the bands current choice but we have different opinions of how to view the situation.

So given that Mr Rodgers has run his course, who would your current choice be?

But if the discussion is AL is not suited vocally (and other ways) to front Queen, then GratefulFan's point is that AL is not suited vocally (and other ways) based on two less than stellar performances WITH Queen. Why does it matter who we think should front Queen when the discussion is who shouldn't?

Adam says he knows the songs...................aaaah does that mean he knows

Mustapha
Need your Lovin Tonight
Orge Battle
fUN IT
Dead on Time etc etc


No Adam it means you know the greatest hits
Is that what we want to see from this collaboration or should they delve into the archives and try songs that were NEVER perform live

Sheer Brass Neck.
This thread was originally about Queen+AL not touring the US.
It developed into a running down of Adam Lambert's vocal ability. Within that subject it is possible to have different views which we are free to write about. If your view of a conversation is that it can only have one side, that's up to you.

My question was directed at GratfulFan since it was his post I was answering, I exercise the freedom to answer it however I choose. It's up to him to answer anything I ask, if he wishes too. However what gives you the right to direct, or try to direct or criticize the direction of anything on here

Oh thank God! But don't go by anything he says, he wishes just the opposite. This jerk says don't get your hopes up that there's no talk of U.S. dates!! Ha he really is delusional thinking anyone is getting their hopes up to see or hear him sing! The biggest nightmare is that with any prompting Brian and Roger would go along with it. If they ever seriously decided on a permanent lead singer George Michael would do them justice or someone, anyone who's in their league. Come on Freddie didn't name them Queen to have it reduced to this laughing stock singing lead for them!

Adele would make a better choice to sing Queen's songs over Lambert and she doesn't look the fool.

Adam Lambert should stop passing the open window and jump out.

To me, Brian and Roger performing with Adam Lambert and calling themselves Queen is as ridiculous as Paul McCartney and Ringo performing with Katy Perry and calling themselves the Beatles.
Freddie charmed you into loving every minute of his performance. It is not just about the voice (which he certainly had!), but about his entire personality, his style, his natural charm! He loved his audience and they loved him back. All 4 Queen members were incredibly talented, and complemented each other perfectly, but Freddie was the King of Queen. (or, THE Queen of Queen). Queen fans would be very very happy to just have Brian and Roger perform the Queen catalogue without any two bit pop star.

Brian and Roger have as much right to call themselves Queen as Daltrey and Townsend do themselves with The Who. Deep Purple, Whitesnake and Black Sabbath have been three of the worst offenders over the years - and don't even get me started on The Sugarbabes!!

Quote
Adam Lambert should stop passing the open window and jump out.


Love that comment!

Well they have the legal right, but to be honest every one of the bands you just mentioned is really a different case. It works for The Who because Roger and Pete are enough of the equation that they can at least do something compelling.

As for Whitesnake - who the fuck cares about Whitesnake?? You could put 8 new members up there and no one would know the difference.