Daniel Nester
Hey I just wanted to provide a generic douchebag comment that's negative toward Adam Lambert!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
john bodega
I'm putting money down on the idea that most of the people with an idea in their head of how the gig will be are not going to change their tune post-gig. If it's shit, you'll still have Lambert fans saying it's amazing. If he outdoes himself (the way Martel has been doing) you'll still get a lot of people shooting him down for not being a dead man.
Anyway, I'm betting $50. Taking all bets.
Anyway, I'm betting $50. Taking all bets.
tomchristie22
Haha! I bet if they were currently trying to avoid 'living in the past', people would complain that they're neglecting Queen. You can't be satisfied either way
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Haha! I bet if they were currently trying to avoid 'living in the past', people would complain that they're neglecting Queen. You can't be satisfied either way[/QUOTE]
That's easy enough for Brian and Roger to avoid, by realising the situation for what it is: They used to be in a great band, but that band no longer exists.
They can release all the Queen material from the archives as that book-end-project for Queen (a term which is used to justify why nothing is released while the band members are still alive), and still continue their recording and performing career with all the new material they want.
Those two are entirely separate things, and you don't need to neglect either one of them.
The only thing preventing it from happening is Brian and Roger desperately clinging to their past.
Haha! I bet if they were currently trying to avoid 'living in the past', people would complain that they're neglecting Queen. You can't be satisfied either way[/QUOTE]
That's easy enough for Brian and Roger to avoid, by realising the situation for what it is: They used to be in a great band, but that band no longer exists.
They can release all the Queen material from the archives as that book-end-project for Queen (a term which is used to justify why nothing is released while the band members are still alive), and still continue their recording and performing career with all the new material they want.
Those two are entirely separate things, and you don't need to neglect either one of them.
The only thing preventing it from happening is Brian and Roger desperately clinging to their past.
OhioBobcat555
I rarely post on here and generally watch and read out of amusement and for occasional updates on what my favorite band of all time is doing.
Let me say that I think it's awesome there are so many passionate fans as you reading this.
Let me also say that a lot of you continue to be a bunch of whiny little brats. Music is to be played and celebrated. From John Lennon to Freddie Mercury to Beethoven... each and everyone in between would love to know their music and tradition is being carried on. We have celebrated great music since the dawn of time and great music never dies. It only continues to be played for future generations. 500 years from now, I am quite confident that people will hear renditions of Bohemian Rhapsody being played at a local bar.
I fully support Brian and Roger doing whatever the hell they want. It was their band and it is their band. And honestly I think it is great that they have kept the legacy alive. Do I agree with everything they've done post Freddie? Of course not. But kudos to them for staying active.
Let me say that I think it's awesome there are so many passionate fans as you reading this.
Let me also say that a lot of you continue to be a bunch of whiny little brats. Music is to be played and celebrated. From John Lennon to Freddie Mercury to Beethoven... each and everyone in between would love to know their music and tradition is being carried on. We have celebrated great music since the dawn of time and great music never dies. It only continues to be played for future generations. 500 years from now, I am quite confident that people will hear renditions of Bohemian Rhapsody being played at a local bar.
I fully support Brian and Roger doing whatever the hell they want. It was their band and it is their band. And honestly I think it is great that they have kept the legacy alive. Do I agree with everything they've done post Freddie? Of course not. But kudos to them for staying active.
philip storey
Given the choice ,what would people prefer,Brian and Roger and Adam plus a backing band doing some shows ? Or nothing ? Also consider this,back at the very begining were Brian and Roger already in a band which Freddie joined ?
tomcat39
I'm very much looking forward to seeing the setlist. Regardless of how B&R found him, Adam's a good vocalist and they will take this very seriously. I expect great lighting, probably some pyro. Mostly a greatest hits setlist with maybe a surprise deep cut two from B&R.
8 days until the Kiev concert is televised. First gig in front of the biggest audience. Takes some balls on Lambert's part, kudos to that.
I'm thankful they are still playing, many never got the chance while Freddie was alive.
8 days until the Kiev concert is televised. First gig in front of the biggest audience. Takes some balls on Lambert's part, kudos to that.
I'm thankful they are still playing, many never got the chance while Freddie was alive.
Missreclusive
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
I'm putting money down on the idea that most of the people with an idea in their head of how the gig will be are not going to change their tune post-gig. If it's shit, you'll still have Lambert fans saying it's amazing. If he outdoes himself (the way Martel has been doing) you'll still get a lot of people shooting him down for not being a dead man.
Anyway, I'm betting $50. Taking all bets.[/QUOTE]
Naaa Z, if he outdoes himself as Martel is, then I will applaude him and admit being wrong. I wonder if Roger and Brian are giving him full reign to sing/do as he pleases? Or, are they giving him direction as to the way they want it?
I'm putting money down on the idea that most of the people with an idea in their head of how the gig will be are not going to change their tune post-gig. If it's shit, you'll still have Lambert fans saying it's amazing. If he outdoes himself (the way Martel has been doing) you'll still get a lot of people shooting him down for not being a dead man.
Anyway, I'm betting $50. Taking all bets.[/QUOTE]
Naaa Z, if he outdoes himself as Martel is, then I will applaude him and admit being wrong. I wonder if Roger and Brian are giving him full reign to sing/do as he pleases? Or, are they giving him direction as to the way they want it?
tomchristie22
Despite all the negativity surrounding Q+AL, I am very interested to see how it all plays out. If Brian and Roger sing lead vocals as well then I'll be satisfied
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]
Given the choice ,what would people prefer,Brian and Roger and Adam plus a backing band doing some shows ? Or nothing ? Also consider this,back at the very begining were Brian and Roger already in a band which Freddie joined ?[/QUOTE]
I'm all for Brian and Roger + backing playing together as much as they want...
What I'm NOT for (which you kindly didn't mention) is Brian and Roger using the Queen name, and playing Queen songs like a poor man's tribute band.
Given the choice ,what would people prefer,Brian and Roger and Adam plus a backing band doing some shows ? Or nothing ? Also consider this,back at the very begining were Brian and Roger already in a band which Freddie joined ?[/QUOTE]
I'm all for Brian and Roger + backing playing together as much as they want...
What I'm NOT for (which you kindly didn't mention) is Brian and Roger using the Queen name, and playing Queen songs like a poor man's tribute band.
philip storey
Its their brand name,why change it to something else it sells albums and puts bums on seats.I dont think that Deep Purple,Sabbath,Yes ,Genesis,Kiss,etc changed their name after band changes.Get real .
inu-liger
People need to lighten up and back off...geez!
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]
Its their brand name,why change it to something else it sells albums and puts bums on seats.I dont think that Deep Purple,Sabbath,Yes ,Genesis,Kiss,etc changed their name after band changes.Get real .[/QUOTE]
Its their brand name,why change it to something else it sells albums and puts bums on seats.I dont think that Deep Purple,Sabbath,Yes ,Genesis,Kiss,etc changed their name after band changes.Get real .[/QUOTE]
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]
Its their brand name,why change it to something else it sells albums and puts bums on seats.I dont think that Deep Purple,Sabbath,Yes ,Genesis,Kiss,etc changed their name after band changes.Get real .[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right that the band is all about selling more tickets and albums, but you're dead wrong about using the name...
Deep Purple has a 40 year recording career, but major line-up changes after just two years of their recording career.
Black Sabbath managed half a dozen albums and almost a decade, but has seen more members than a brothel since 1978.
By their 6th album (in under five years) Yes had three changes in personnel.
Before Genesis hit any real success in 1976, they had had about half a dozen changes, including their lead singer/lyricist who was deemed irreplaceable.
Compared to the other bands you listed, Kiss is relatively stable by managing ten years and ten albums before shuffling through the people.
And then we have Queen. A band which stayed with the same exact line-up from the recording of their first album in 1971, to the the death of Freddie in 1991. In the music business that's absolutely phenomenal, and makes Queen stand out from the crowd.
Or actually it DID make them stand out until 2004 when Brian and Roger decided that after 33 years, Queen would actually be just two members.
Its their brand name,why change it to something else it sells albums and puts bums on seats.I dont think that Deep Purple,Sabbath,Yes ,Genesis,Kiss,etc changed their name after band changes.Get real .[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right that the band is all about selling more tickets and albums, but you're dead wrong about using the name...
Deep Purple has a 40 year recording career, but major line-up changes after just two years of their recording career.
Black Sabbath managed half a dozen albums and almost a decade, but has seen more members than a brothel since 1978.
By their 6th album (in under five years) Yes had three changes in personnel.
Before Genesis hit any real success in 1976, they had had about half a dozen changes, including their lead singer/lyricist who was deemed irreplaceable.
Compared to the other bands you listed, Kiss is relatively stable by managing ten years and ten albums before shuffling through the people.
And then we have Queen. A band which stayed with the same exact line-up from the recording of their first album in 1971, to the the death of Freddie in 1991. In the music business that's absolutely phenomenal, and makes Queen stand out from the crowd.
Or actually it DID make them stand out until 2004 when Brian and Roger decided that after 33 years, Queen would actually be just two members.
philip storey
Can you imagine Brian and Roger telling the record company that they were losing the Queen name.It would be finacial suicide and Queen are a registered company ,which John gets his slice of the pie.