Radio Broadcast Queen elton john adamlambert??

-Double post-

And that Medusa chap didn't post once!

They started that synth backing on acoustic tunes in the 80s, and that's where it should stay. If they want to fatten up the sound, I'm sure Spike could do some Mike Garsonesque florishes.

When Brian and Roger are doing their stuff they're still a force to be reckoned with. I thought the duet drum solo with Rufus was good, even though it looked like Rufus dropped his stick at one point. Lambert was a mixed bag: WWTLF was very good, and the duet with Rog for UnderPressure was excellent. STL was, however, a train wreck, and many other songs just didn;t sound that great as quite often he was off key and his phrasing is too "cabaret" rather than rock. At times this was like a musical theatre production rather than a rock show. His banter between songs was cringeworthy. On the plus side, Brian looked like a legend with his monster double guitar, and he played very well all night. Roger looked fit and up for it. Minus points: rotten piano and synth sounds and weak bass (played well, but didn't sound that great).

Agreed. Although I'd say Queen were always cabaret rock so AL is still kind of on message. And yes, I hate myself for saying that.

I went to bed after Lambert fucked up Bohemian Rhapsody. Did I miss something ?

[QUOTE]

[b]dysan wrote: [/b]Agreed. Although I'd say Queen were always cabaret rock so AL is still kind of on message. And yes, I hate myself for saying that.[/QUOTE]

There were certainly elements of cabaret in Queen -- sometimes in very large doses -- but Lambert is ALL cabaret. When he reigns it in he sounds better. Trouble is, he rarely reigns it in. He's not a rock singer.

Yeah. Although I'd say the worst bits where when he sings 'shh' instead of 'ess'. Dunno if anyone noticed that. Could start a good AL drinking game.

Sounds like a couple of legends fronted by a leather-clad Ken doll! The man has a strong voice, he has range but there is a limit to his taste and musicality. There is a certain emptiness to his singing and posturing that doesn't ring true. Vocally Roger was in good form, especially AKOM. Tempos on some songs (Dragon Attack) were surprisingly slow, but he drummed the shit out of I want it All. Dr. Bri had some great lead work in there too.

So, good to see them having fun yes, but I always thought that Paul Rodgers had some personal integrity and cred as a rocker and some bloody fine songs of his own that took on new life under the Queen machine. The union felt real; this feels synthetic and created out of a matter of convenience ('he has a good voice').

Let's see what the next shows bring.

As Roger said once, Rude Fun to you all!

Cred as rockers is something Queen didn't have until about 2005 then.

Paul Rodger's at least is from the same generation as Queen, but they also sounded forced...Everything post Mercury has sounded forced IMO....like I said, lambert has a very strong voice, but he's lacking that something...and like someone else mentioned, he's not a rock singer....

[QUOTE] [b]BlackQueen69 wrote:[/b]
Paul Rodger's at least is from the same generation as Queen, but they also sounded forced...Everything post Mercury has sounded forced IMO....like I said, lambert has a very strong voice, but he's lacking that something...and like someone else mentioned, he's not a rock singer.... [/QUOTE]
Lacking something ... Maybe talent ?

Terrible, terrible, terrible, the biggest mistake in the Queen history... This guy has a voice, but he doesn't sing, he cries and looks like his dog died today... Sorry this is worse than all artists which played together with Queen - incl. Will Young, Anastacia or Robbie Williams.

At least Paul Rodgers can count to four(Fat Bottomed Girls, second verse). I reserved judgement until I actually heard them play, but this was quite enough. I'll take Paul over Lambert any day.

Seriously, they should have played the acoustic version of "Aftermath" with Lambert before '39 and have "the lamb" sing backing on '39.

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Lacking something ... Maybe talent ?[/QUOTE]

To me it's not talent that he's lacking. He just has impaired instincts for what a song needs, none at all for what it doesn't need, and he attempts to paper over the gap between what he is as a singer and what a rock singer is with too much of just about everything. As always with live concerts, the the whole thing suffered for the replays. Listening back this morning was a fairly rough experience in terms of Lambert's contribution. I think there was a total of two, maybe three songs where I genuinely feel it worked. People attending in person should be satisfied enough though, unless he really loses the plot.