Radio Broadcast Queen elton john adamlambert??

[QUOTE]

[b]Daniel Nester wrote: [/b] Grateful, I like the no-response response.  I guess you'll have to enforce a No Outward Homo-Acting Message-Leveraging Onstage Policy yourself? Maybe they have special glasses for that? There are some Queen videos you might want to expunge from your collection, if you actually own them.  Or you could just watch Little River Band concerts for the rest of your life.  Either way, all the best.

Holly, you just don't make any sense. I could use school-taunts or whatever, but I'm fine listening to yours.  I've heard worse.  I've resigned myself long ago to what this site has about, which has been overrun by dull and boring people like you. You'll be hitting 3400 posts soon. Congratulations. Such a milestone.[/QUOTE]
So you don't want to resort to schoolboy taunts .. and you follow that immediately with a schoolboy taunt. What an idiot.

I warned you to stop digging. Clearly your ego won't allow you to follow good advice.

I'm wondering what Nester falls back on when someone says they just don't like Lambert's singing voice or his bad habit of wasting valuable seconds on aimless trills that sail way out of key.

Is that homophobia too? I can link you guys to actual examples of said homophobia over on the Facebook page if it'd help you refresh your memory on what actually constitutes such a prejudice. But what do I know - people with high post counts aren't actually allowed to have an opinion on anything. Maybe I should start a new account.

Lambert did a lot better than his previous experiments with Queen, but let's not kid ourselves. His hit:miss ratio at this gig was unacceptable, even for a first outing. He wins points for not relying on a teleprompter and managing to avoid saying "HIT ME WITH YOUR HEART AND WITH YOUR SOUL" at every given opportunity. The duet of Under Pressure was great (although I mainly credit Roger for that). Who Wants To Live Forever was quite respectable (except for that last note).
The show was better than a lot of the naysayers said it would be, but it had more than its share of 'train wrecks' (as Brian put it) and you can't just pretend it's homophobia whenever someone says something that displeases you. This is a musical discussion, so comment on the music already.

On the bright side: A kind of magic was probably Roger's strongest version ever... What an absolutely fantastic version from him...
For me it was the closest someone came that night to a vocal performance at Mercury level:-):-)

Also, Brian clearly made his homework and his playing was actually really great imo.

AL certainly has talent... He has the gift to hit high notes (I'm not saying I like the tone of his voice when he goes up though!)so he's actually able to reproduce the singing lines like that.
But, FM had an immense musicality and this is the biggest difference, of course coupled with the fact that Freddie's timbre is so much more beautiful and steady from lower notes to higher ones. Freddie even knew to sing effectively with limited range. That's something AL can only dream off... Whenever he does adlibs or improvised lines...he just hasn't got it to do that imho. For example in STL... FM could fill up those 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the song with beautiful improvisations...AL --> forget it!

[QUOTE] [b]on my way up wrote:[/b]
But, FM had an immense musicality and this is the biggest difference, of course coupled with the fact that Freddie's timbre is so much more beautiful and steady from lower notes to higher ones. Freddie even knew to sing effectively with limited range. That's something AL can only dream off... Whenever he does adlibs or improvised lines...he just hasn't got it to do that imho. For example in STL... FM could fill up those 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the song with beautiful improvisations...AL --> forget it![/QUOTE]
Bingo. Freddie could do far more with one octave than Lambert does with three.

But comparisons aside - if Lambert would just sing the bloody song, he would actually be doing a far better job.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]on my way up wrote:[/b]
But, FM had an immense musicality and this is the biggest difference, of course coupled with the fact that Freddie's timbre is so much more beautiful and steady from lower notes to higher ones. Freddie even knew to sing effectively with limited range. That's something AL can only dream off... Whenever he does adlibs or improvised lines...he just hasn't got it to do that imho. For example in STL... FM could fill up those 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the song with beautiful improvisations...AL --> forget it![/QUOTE]
Bingo. Freddie could do far more with one octave than Lambert does with three.
But comparisons aside - if Lambert would just sing the bloody song, he would actually be doing a far better job.[/QUOTE]

That's the main problem. Always when he was SINGING, I quite liked it, but then he suddenly started to scream like a castrated mule and my ears immediately start to scream "turn off that f***ing noise !"

Nevermind Lambert, can we get rid of Spike and his awful synth sounds?

Freddie was, at least, convincing as a singer. When he sung Somebody to Love it really was reminscent of a gospel song. Lambert, however, sung the lines as if he was arguing with a waiter about the quality of his lasagna.

He was mostly bad. Nevertheless,he did a good job on WWTLF and UP, which suggests with a few more years experience under his belt he might be a good performer. Unfortunately, Queen don't have the luxury of time: in a few short years they will be eligible for free bus passes. Hopefully Brian, Roger and AL will go their separate ways and Queen will recruit Martel for a bit. Either that or Roger should just take over vocal duties. If Queen+AL showed anything, it's that Roger's voice is still strong and he could easily take over lead vocals, possibly with Rufus on drums. I think though that BRian and Roger would see that as Queen minus rather than Queen plus, which is why they feel they need a "name" singer. Damn their eyes! They need to spemd more time hanging out with the Foos instead of showbiz luvvies.

Y'all have pretty well nailed it.

Lambert can do a good job when he knuckles down and pays attention to the music; see Under Pressure and Who Wants To Live Forever. One's a great duet, the other was a great solo performance ('cept for maybe that last bit). He doesn't lack ability; this music is just a different beast to what he usually does. It's a bit of a mismatch, but I don't think the gap is so great that a bit of focus couldn't bridge it.

Now listen to his Somebody to Love and Bohemian Rhapsody; there's a couple of real messes in there. And it's nothing to do with him being a bad singer, it's just bad choices. I'd almost say he's acting like a lead guitarist who hasn't quite settled into the idea of serving the music just yet. Too much noodling.

Roger's drumming was pretty soft, but I was really impressed by his singing. I would really, really like to hear Brian and Roger make some music without a 3rd singer, and I don't much care if they call it Queen or Bottled Pumpkin.

"Nevermind Lambert, can we get rid of Spike and his awful synth sounds?"

Yeah. What the hell was that all about anyway??

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]on my way up wrote:[/b]
But, FM had an immense musicality and this is the biggest difference, of course coupled with the fact that Freddie's timbre is so much more beautiful and steady from lower notes to higher ones. Freddie even knew to sing effectively with limited range. That's something AL can only dream off... Whenever he does adlibs or improvised lines...he just hasn't got it to do that imho. For example in STL... FM could fill up those 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the song with beautiful improvisations...AL --> forget it![/QUOTE]
Bingo. Freddie could do far more with one octave than Lambert does with three.
But comparisons aside - if Lambert would just sing the bloody song, he would actually be doing a far better job.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree and I think this is what Pittrek and Zebonka are saying aswell.

Zebonka, I don't really fall back on anything when I don't like what Adam Lambert sings, but safe to I don't say I don't like how he once kissed a member of his band or projects/leverages the wrong message.

I dunno. Melisma is an overused word, as is oversung.

What got on my nerves with Adam Lambert, as it did/does with Paul Rogers, is just they forgot words. That will be fixed, but still.

I hated the expressions on his face, his shrill voice (when it was) and his going off-key at times and over-singing. In general, his voice is not suited for most of Queens catalogue. So many times I was uncomfortable listening/watching him.

I also dislike the stupid bickering on this board even tho entertaining at times. You people are a bunch of know-it-alls. Granted, I'm quite certain you know more about music in general than I do! However, there's only a couple of you who can insult and do it in a "fun" way. Nester, you aren't one of em. I know....who am I?? Just anuther middle aged person who happens to love Queen back in the day. I could listen to them for hours on end and never tire of it all.

"how he once kissed a member of his band"

It might be just me, but I'd forgotten about that already!

"However, there's only a couple of you who can insult and do it in a "fun" way"

Regardless of whether or not you perceive me to be someone who's good at it or bad at it, I feel like I have to point out - there are very rarely any times that I actually want to insult anyone on here. 'Somebodywholovesadam' reckons I was harsh with them, but I totally wasn't. I know that we're supposed to drive around the internet with our handbrake on whenever a fangirl/fanboy starts posting crap on our forums because it's "mean" to do anything else, but seriously ... I don't see why I should have to put up with it.

"What got on my nerves with Adam Lambert, as it did/does with Paul Rogers, is just they forgot words"

It's always a pisser, that. For my money, I'm more comfortable with someone who's at least engaging the audience and flubbing the odd lyric, as opposed to someone who spends half of their time looking at a teleprompter. As a punter, it's just as annoying for me to look up and see someone peering at lyrics as it must be for Brian to look out and see a sea of mobile phones filming his ass.

"Freddie could do far more with one octave than Lambert does with three."

And for those of us who don't see the point of this whole AL thing, this sentence sums it up. Adam Lambert has an amazing voice. Freddie Mercury had an amazing voice. Adam Lambert is a decent singer. Freddie Mercury was (arguably) rock's greatest singer. Of course AL wouldn't hold a candle to Freddie Mercury, and no one can.

[QUOTE] [b]Daniel Nester wrote:[/b]
Zebonka, I don't really fall back on anything when I don't like what Adam Lambert sings, but safe to I don't say I don't like how he once kissed a member of his band or projects/leverages the wrong message.[/QUOTE]

A new pinnacle of sentence construction from Professor "I critique language". If this thread is any guide and sentence clarity was an Olympic sport you'd be sweating in a mascot suit, hauling water bottles and rubbing Ben Gay on the lips of real communicators.

Did you forget the quotations on "message" this time? Eliminating them kind of loses that smarmy sense of exasperated incredulousness that some of an artist's choices just might be in service of a deliberate theme. When one pulls a hamstring pretending that concept is even remotely difficult to plumb it becomes clear they were never really capable of dicussing the ideas in the first place.

As far as I can tell your investment in issues that affect gay people is about an inch deep, inch and a half if you count the self serving part. You are completely ignorant on the specifics here: You clearly don't know much about Lambert, or the extent to which he himself has tethered his sexuality to his art and his fame and how clear he has made it that he intends to be a vocal and visible role model. You don't know who makes up his fanbase. You don't know what you're talking about. So you assemble arguments clearly predicated on uptight redneck male stereotypes and project them like a clueless ass at a liberal minded female poster and ramble about Mick Jagger instead. Those with a productive investment in human issues like this don't stoop to faux outrage and the indiscriminate splatter of slyly manufactured homophobia, they attempt to look at things as they are, and sometimes framing them in a way that is honest means it will not be politically correct. They don't handicap gay people or treat them like china dolls when what is deserved and has been earned is the equal right and equal responsibility to succeed and shine or fail and learn on their own merit. I've never once implied that Lambert projects the wrong message. What I very specifically communicated is that I think he projects the right message ineffectively. Oh and that he often sounds like shit. I said that too. So I'll worry about keeping track of what I say and what I mean and supporting meaningful equality as I see it, and you can focus on making sure you're conspicuously seen regularly doodling pride rainbows in some earnest hipster grub pub in the U district.

Loose end: You mentioned in one way or another higher post counts on QZ not once, not twice, but THREE times. It really does kind of blow my mind that somebody would volunteer to lay themsleves out as that much of an imperious ass on the internet. Your inflated sense of superiority is unearned on just about every front you've tried to assert it on. I can think of at least three high count regular posters on QZ off the top of my head who almost certainly have superior intelligence, you're not consistently coherent, your comprehension sucks ass and you actually posted "[sic]" at somebody and yacked about the MLA guide. Hilarious in a Jesus Christ kind of way.

Anyway, whatever. I'm done with this. Apologies to those weary of the arguing on this topic whose names don't rhyme with Spaniel Fester.