Adam Lambert is just terrible, period

Tarabostes
I thought I bid farewell forever, and here I am again for the sake of a little , good fight(read chat) with AdamMethos!
I've always been fascinated by the discussions on QZ on how different FM and AL seem to be. I really, really like your twists and turns used to demonstrate that Freddie's flamboyance was natural while Adam's is ...fake? You've got to be very ostentatious, to possess a high dose of exhibitionism to wear leotards(Freddie), high heels (Adam) or furry jackets(both). And all these come , I think, from their ambiguous sexuality, lack of inhibition. They both like(d) to act , to play with them. That's why I love them both. Of course , Freddie left his mark on his successors who have the same flamboyance in a greater or less degree. With one exception, Paul Rodgers.
As to who hates who, that's another discussion.

[QUOTE] [b]AdamMethos wrote:[/b]
I think the difference between Adam and Freddie is (apparent) authenticity.
I'm a longtime Star Trek fan. I also loved the TV show Friday Night Lights. The acting on those shows are dramatically different but works in the context of each show. Star Trek is very stylized, almost like watching a theatrical play. FNL is very naturalistic, like watching a documentary.
When I was younger, I used to love going to scifi cons in a Star Trek uniform costume because it was just so cool hanging out with similarly costumed friends, like being part of the Enterprise crew if only for a weekend. There were other fans for whom the fun part of wearing costumes was the attention--getting their pictures taken, getting interviews in newspapers or on TV.
When Freddie dressed like a harlequin and pranced around in ballet flats, I get the sense he just thought it was fun and cool to do so. When Adam slinks around in a furry Elmo jacket, I get the sense that he's thinking, what can I do to surprise/shock people and get them taking about me for days?
Freddie's flamboyance comes across as just a natural extension of his personality--it has a "dance like no one is watching" quality. While Adam's flamboyance is also an expression of his personality, it comes across as very stylized, being done with purpose to achieve a reaction from the audience. I think that's why people can have no problem with Freddie's flamboyance, yet hate Adam's flamboyance.[/QUOTE]
but
he didnt just
and pranced around.
The point is he studied and perfected every move he made.
It wasn't just camp prancing, it was organized perfection of movement, more interesting than most ballet.

But i get your main point, Freddie made it look natural, and lived in , but it was all worked out.

But everybody thinks Freddie was camp on stage, but truly it was not camp at all.

People think that but if you really think about it, it was not camp at all, camp is a cliche, camp is pretending to be feminine.

i love to say this because it needs saying ,(and i am not talking about Adam here )

far less talented people want to place themselves in the same bracket as Freddie by lumping him in the camp category, but they are just trying to steal his limelight.

David Bowie was infact in his hay day ,camp and theatrical ON STAGE, but that was not what Freddie did, he was unique never beaten never equalled.

And Freddie was doing his thing 40 years ago.  I posted a while ago about the prototypical rock frontman and Freddie was the opposite to the macho swagger of the day, at a time being outrageous for a predominantly male audience couldn't be construed as a benefit.  He was who he was, and there was no one like him.  He paved the way for AL and performers of his ilk, regardless of whether he wore his sexuality on his sleeve.  AL strikes me as the shocking type of performer, like Madonna, who kisses his male guitarist and wonders why there is a backlash.  It's calculated to me, which is fine.  I don't care for him because he can't sing Queen songs particularly well, and he's Broadway's idea of rock and roll, not a real rocker.

'He paved the way for AL and performers of his ilk,'

Oh i dont think so, your maybe right but it is like lets pretend we are great big adults.

", at a time being outrageous for a predominantly male audience couldn't be construed as a benefit. "

but it was wasn't it?

"And Freddie was doing his thing 40 years ago"

Freddie never did anything Al does.

[QUOTE] [b]Montreux wrote:[/b]
Personally for me that's most terrible Queen + project ever![/QUOTE]
It is more entertaining than Paul Rodgers
though, it makes me laugh, so i like it.

i love it when he shuffles upto Brian in his high heels he can hardly walk in and gently places his hand on Brian's shoulder and smiles that libarace smile.

The whole thing is hilarious.

But i do wish Brian would wear his white shawl, i dont like the black one so much, you cant see it for a start.

[QUOTE]

[b]qz08927 wrote: [/b] 'He paved the way for AL and performers of his ilk,'

Oh i dont think so, your maybe right but it is like lets pretend we are great big adults.

", at a time being outrageous for a predominantly male audience couldn't be construed as a benefit. "

but it was wasn't it?

"And Freddie was doing his thing 40 years ago"

Freddie never did anything Al does.[/QUOTE]
qz08927, if you were around in 1976, you'd have an idea of how unique Freddie Mercury was.  Society has made incredible strides in tolerance, and in rock and roll, people like Bowie, and Freddie were challenging the norm.  But Bowie did his as a character.  Freddie Mercury was a total one off.  Compare Freddie to popular groups with prominent frontmen at the time.  The Who, Zep, Van Halen all had guys baring their chests and wearing sprayed on pants.  Freddie was donning a harlequin leotard.  I am pretty certain that is not in Rock Star 101 - How to win a male fan base.  It was a benefit only as he delivered the goods live, and Queen in the 70s were as muscular as Zeppelin in a live setting.  Largely because the guy in the leotard could sing the fuck out of anything, and win over guys who tossed around the words faggot and homo like they were saying hello.  Not an easy task.

people like Bowie, and Freddie were challenging the norm

true but you made out it was rejected
they did challenge the norm yes
with no resistance whatsoever

Freddie was donning a harlequin leotard. I am pretty certain that is not in Rock Star 101

IT IS

Tarabostes
Liberace!

[QUOTE] [b]Tarabostes wrote:[/b]
I really, really like your twists and turns used to demonstrate that Freddie's flamboyance was natural while Adam's is ...fake?[/QUOTE]

The "twists and turns" as you put it was to be specific in saying that Freddie's flamboyance APPEARED to be natural and unstudied while Adam's flamboyance APPEARS to have forethought and be done for a specific effect.

I specifically said that Adam's flamboyance is an expression of his personality, i.e. not fake. For all I know, Freddie could have put a lot of forethought into which outrageous outfit would get the best audience reaction, BUT IT DIDN'T COME ACROSS THAT WAY IN HIS PERFORMANCES.

Perhaps Adam just needs more practice to work on being more natural in his flamboyance. Or perhaps, like in the Star Trek example (or Lady Gaga, for a musical example), Adam is not aiming to be natural but wants to be stylized and super-theatrical in his performances. There is nothing wrong with either approach other than some people will like one over the other (while other people like yourself won't care).

So my point is that while on the surface Adam and Freddie seem to have a the same flamboyant sensibility in their performances, there IS a relatively minor but fundamental difference. And that difference is the reason why some people may give Freddie a pass but then crucify Adam.

well, jessie j destroyed WWRY right now...

Brian's and Roger's appearences in the last few years (with the 2 of them alone or in combination with that Lambert kid, Paul Rodgers and other musicians) have seriously damaged the image of Queen. They've made a parody of something that was once a great band. I think they're entitled to do so, as it is their band, but it really, really makes me sad... The legacy of Queen is seriously damaged in their hands. It makes that I have even more respect for John Deacon's decision to stop when it was time to do so!