Radio Broadcast Queen elton john adamlambert??

[i]Sometimes artists make image choices that get in the way of communicating their music for some and leverage it's [sic] message for others.[/i]

This is the kind of nonsense the 2000-plus Deity Poster Club throws around all the time on Queenzone fora, and, for sentient beings at least, leaves them scratching their heads and run away screaming.

What the frick does that quote mean?

"Image choices"? The same could be said of Freddie, frankly. White leather shorts aren't everyone's cup of tea.

I'd like to hear a *single* example of *any* artist who made image choices that didn't get in the way of communicating for some and didn't leverage its message for others. Or, put another way, any artist who does *not* make image choices that do same?

It's more than a little disingenuous to throw around the term "femme" as regards an openly gay person and not think it's not approaching homophobic, or intentionally naive, or just-don't-know-the-connotations-of-words/

The real head-scratcher, however, the Lady Ga Ga counter-example. There haven't been many heterophobic hate crimes, for example, at least none documented. Maybe you mean rape?

At any rate, I have plenty of good things to say about Adam Lambert, his singing, his image. Sometimes tight leather pants and spiky shoulders works, even for uptight heteros.

O.k. 24 hours in...I love it! Owww! They were great! That does not mean I would want Adam to be an official member or others not to work with Queen or not see Paul Rogers again but Queen + Adam Lambert (and Rufus Tiger Taylor) were killer man...just killer! Whoo!

Scared and lost child?? Funniest thing I've ever heard!

"It's more than a little disingenuous to throw around the term "femme" as regards an openly gay person and not think it's not approaching homophobic, or intentionally naive, or just-don't-know-the-connotations-of-words"
You mean words like gay? The meaning of which is 'full of or showing high-spirited merriment' or 'bright and pleasant'?

[QUOTE]

[b]Daniel Nester wrote: [/b][i]Sometimes artists make image choices that get in the way of communicating their music for some and leverage it's [sic] message for others.[/i]

This is the kind of nonsense the 2000-plus Deity Poster Club throws around all the time on Queenzone fora, and, for sentient beings at least, leaves them scratching their heads and run away screaming.

What the frick does that quote mean?

"Image choices"? The same could be said of Freddie, frankly. White leather shorts aren't everyone's cup of tea.

I'd like to hear a *single* example of *any* artist who made image choices that didn't get in the way of communicating for some and didn't leverage its message for others. Or, put another way, any artist who does *not* make image choices that do same?

It's more than a little disingenuous to throw around the term "femme" as regards an openly gay person and not think it's not approaching homophobic, or intentionally naive, or just-don't-know-the-connotations-of-words/

The real head-scratcher, however, the Lady Ga Ga counter-example. There haven't been many heterophobic hate crimes, for example, at least none documented. Maybe you mean rape?

At any rate, I have plenty of good things to say about Adam Lambert, his singing, his image. Sometimes tight leather pants and spiky shoulders works, even for uptight heteros.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing controversial or difficult to understand in GF's comments. Your responses are difficult to follow however, because they don't relate much to GF's. You seem to be adding a whole bunch of "homophobia" baggage for whatever reason. Maybe you aren't as "sentient" as you believe?

ps if you're going to be pretentious and use "sic" you might want to italicise it. Also don't end a sentence with a backslash.

I'll be writing complete review on the performance in the next day or so (I'll make sure I get it done before I head off to New York City), but I'll quickly summarize it:

It was a pretty good first show (lots of nerves/errors in spots--but it's completely excusable), and for the 1st half, Adam did better than what I predicted (and left his EMA performance in the dust). I thought he was going to be off the wall/obnoxious, and oversing the songs to death--but I was taken aback by some performances (he actually did JAZZ TOUR phrasing on the fast WWRY--and didn't hit the A4s), and it shows that when he controls himself, he can get the job done pretty well.

The Roger Taylor/Brian May sections were great (nice Roger vocals on AKOM), and that bass player is awesome.

The second half had Adam starting to get back into old habits (out of control vibrato, and very pitchy on some songs), but I'm going to give him a pass on this one and chalk it up to "1st show nerves." By the time the Hammy gigs come up, I'm sure everybody will be well-oiled.

I'll be waiting for the next show!

I just listened to thwe whole concert for the third time and I noticed some annoying background voacals during the songs..... is that Rufus Taylor??? That may explaines why song harmonies of Roger sound so well maybe....

Holly -- The entire post was trying to parse a single sentence of GF's previous response. That sentence makes no sense. Perhaps it's a reading level issue on your part; I can't tell from my lofty perch. Safe to say that trying to explain away Adam Lambert by making a blanket statement so ridiculous and non-sensical has its hazards.

As for a typo--horror!--in my post and my use of sic, yes, guilty as charged. It's not universal or established style to italicize "sic"; I work from the MLA manual. Anyway, it's one of my pet peeves getting "it's/its" wrong, especially when the author is trying to sound like he or she know everything about Adam Lambert and all artists everywhere.

The it's/its error is not as bad, however, as forgetting to use two commas before and after "however," which you do in your post. It makes it seem like you're trying to "follow" this person named "however."

[QUOTE] [b]Gregsynth wrote:[/b]
I'll be writing complete review on the performance in the next day or so (I'll make sure I get it done before I head off to New York City), but I'll quickly summarize it:
It was a pretty good first show (lots of nerves/errors in spots--but it's completely excusable), and for the 1st half, Adam did better than what I predicted (and left his EMA performance in the dust). I thought he was going to be off the wall/obnoxious, and oversing the songs to death--but I was taken aback by some performances (he actually did JAZZ TOUR phrasing on the fast WWRY--and didn't hit the A4s), and it shows that when he controls himself, he can get the job done pretty well.
The Roger Taylor/Brian May sections were great (nice Roger vocals on AKOM), and that bass player is awesome.
The second half had Adam starting to get back into old habits (out of control vibrato, and very pitchy on some songs), but I'm going to give him a pass on this one and chalk it up to "1st show nerves." By the time the Hammy gigs come up, I'm sure everybody will be well-oiled.
I'll be waiting for the next show![/QUOTE]

That's exactly what happened : the beginning of the show had a rather restrained Adam on the most exciting part of the setlist (WWTLF a highlight, too bad about the out of key big note at the end): after the guitar solo AL gradually lost the plot, relied on old nasty habits (sheep-like vibrato, unreliable pitch, out of key demonstrations), as he grew tired and his kept getting thinner. Bo Rhap was a low point in terms of technique and style. Mix that with a setlist that had become very predictable at this point, and the last third of the show was a bit painful to watch.

I agree however that he regularly hits high notes that even Freddie seldom attempted.

Can AL be persuaded that LESS IS MORE ?

[QUOTE]

[b]Daniel Nester wrote: [/b]Holly -- The entire post was trying to parse a single sentence of GF's previous response. That sentence makes no sense. Perhaps it's a reading level issue on your part; I can't tell from my lofty perch. Safe to say that trying to explain away Adam Lambert by making a blanket statement so ridiculous and non-sensical has its hazards.

As for a typo--horror!--in my post and my use of sic, yes, guilty as charged. It's not universal or established style to italicize "sic"; I work from the MLA manual. Anyway, it's one of my pet peeves getting "it's/its" wrong, especially when the author is trying to sound like he or she know everything about Adam Lambert and all artists everywhere.

The it's/its error is not as bad, however, as forgetting to use two commas before and after "however," which you do in your post. It makes it seem like you're trying to "follow" this person named "however."[/QUOTE]

Ah but you see, unlike you, I'm not on a high horse about punctuation and grammar. There's a time and a place for that, and it's not necessarily on Queenzone. Hence I can write whatever I like in the knowledge this is an informal internet forum and I have nothing to prove, whereas you need to be 100% correct otherwise you look like an idiot.  

As for the substance of your ramblings, well there is none. You haven't understood GF's comments and have therefore loaded on some baggage about homophobia. Quite simply (for you) it's possible to dislike Lambert's singing and image without being homophobic. Clear enough?

Holly -- You're not clear at all. You're actually doing the trademark Queenzone Willful Misinterpretation

Willfully stupid? Dishonest? Gay comments?

If you weren't so boring, I might be offended.

Haters will always be hatin'. Anyway, I liked the show but I'll grant you there are areas to improve upon.

[b][/b] [QUOTE][b] [/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [b]Daniel Nester wrote:[/b] This still leaves me perplexed, and anyone who cares about the English language should.[/QUOTE] There's a great sentence professor. [QUOTE] [b]Daniel Nester wrote:[/b]He's [sic] trying to say, I think, that Adam Lambert turns him [sic] off, and Lambert belongs to an exclusive club of artists who make choices of presentation that alienate some and attract others.  As if every other artist since the beginning of time doesn't do that already![/QUOTE] Its (hope your head just exploded) self evident that some artists adopt and nurture images that are a much more outsized part of the whole offering, thus my initial use of the word 'sometimes'. I've never seen a heated debate about the effectiveness of a Dave Grohl t-shirt for example. Out of respect for your selective attention to precision of language however, I'll acknowledge that there might have been one at some point. What IS dishonest (as opposed to Holly2003 - WTF?!) is pretending factors relevant to sexual orientation are not present where they are, invariably twinned with pretending they're there when they're not. One frequent message of Lambert's image, performances and words is "Gay gay gay! I'm gay! Look at me! I'm gay! Has everybody noticed that I'm really hip and gay? No?  Let me french my guitar player on national prime time TV so it's clear.". I deeply appreciate that homophobia is still a scourge on the existence of too many gay human beings and that an artist like Lambert can play a role in incremental cultural change. However as an observer I claim the common privilege of criticism of artists and the arts to note that I think his effectiveness on that message is limited and less than that of other artists who are simply better at communicating it without being so on the nose, self serving and incessant.   Utterly apart from all that, for many there is much to dislike about his tone, his delivery, his instincts, his musicality and his taste.  The delusion that liking his output on whatever level is somehow superior to and more reasonable and enlightened than not liking his output is a virus that has infected QZ for months now. The amount of time spent on arrogantly dressing down people for not liking a douchey American Idol contestant and saying so is equal parts amusing and annoying.  Get over yourselves.  Really. I'm years of life experience and personal enlightenment past needing to conspicuously and self consciously fly my freak flag in support of gay homies everywhere.  In an instance like this I'm content to let all human beings stand or fall on their faces, glittering and otherwise, on merit.  Let me know when you catch up.  You'll like it here--it's a lot less awkward and incoherent.

[QUOTE] [b]queenman!! 12321 wrote:[/b]
I just listened to thwe whole concert for the third time and I noticed some annoying background voacals during the songs..... is that Rufus Taylor??? That may explaines why song harmonies of Roger sound so well maybe....[/QUOTE]
For the THIRD time ? Wow, you're seriously brave !
I still didn't find the courage to watch it the second time :-)