Adam Lambert is just terrible, period

NOT. A good fit? lol NOT. Queen with Freddie was undeniably EPIC. There's some serious serious dilution going on and has been since Freddies death. I feel so sad that they continue diluting such perfect music without caring about how it sounds. It's very very sad to me. I am passionate about it and have great hearing!

I saw/heard Adam Lambert cover Tracks of my tears and thought he was wonderful.  He got it.  Smokey Robinson would have been pleased.  But that's Adam Lambert's wheelhouse, pop balladry.  He's a great pop singer.  Freddie Mercury was a great pop singer.  Freddie Mercury was a great rock singer.  But Adam Lambert tries to sing rock, but doesn't have the grit to pull it off.  People who don't get that don't understand music.  Freddie Mercury was (IMHO) the greatest singer in the rock era by a country mile.  Having said that, while his singing on Barcelona was wonderful, he was not an opera singer, and there's no shame in that.  Pavarotti's pop forays were abysmal too.

That's the point. Freddie could sing pop or rock and wasn't afraid to try opera, for which as you said was wonderful but not Pavarotti. YET, it was better than good! AL isn't even a great pop singer, avg at best. I think his physical appearance is what they all really love about him. He's sorta pretty, if he'd stop it with the ridiculous facial expressions. No matter what they say, I think that's it, what he looks like. I didn't care a lot for Michael Jackson yet, he trumps AL all over the place.

[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]
Sometimes I think deep down I just post things so I can read
GFs long nonsensical reply posts.[/QUOTE]
My too long replies are perfectly sensical! :)

Quite simply Adam Lambert was really good. The atmosphere at the Apollo was electric. He fits into the band better than Paul Rodgers. It had more of a Queen show feeling, and if you didn't, or couldn't attend any of the shows then you are missing out on what it was really like.

Happy to say that I was proved right - I thought Adam would be awesome and the guy DELIVERED. He seemed to "get" Queen more than Chuck Norris from the last tour ever did. I wonder how much of the dissent comes from habitual complainers as the show I saw was absolutely stunning. As Brian said, "He's a keeper isn't he?".

Yeah the people who don't like what the band did seem to be those who just don't like Lambert and aren't willing to open their minds to the fact that this line up could and in fact does work.

Sitting at home watchinging a gig on a laptop slating the performance is hardly justifiable. A lot of The Wall looks fairly pedestrian on film, but if you're at the gig, it's mind blowing.

The shows with Adam Lambert worked and didn't have the obvious divide in the line up that they had with PR.

Yes a lot of people don't like AL, but in the early 70's a lot of people didn't like Freddie, probably for the same reasons!

[QUOTE]

[b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b] The shows with Adam Lambert worked and didn't have the obvious divide in the line up that they had with PR.

Yes a lot of people don't like AL, but in the early 70's a lot of people didn't like Freddie, probably for the same reasons![/QUOTE]
The shows worked because you like Adam Lambert, which is fine.  Lots of people don't like him as a rock singer (because he isn't one) so it didn't work for them.  There's an equal divide, you're cherry picking (PR couldn't sing the pop stuff like Adam, too bluesy!), but AL can't sing the rock stuff because his voice is tiny and has no grit.  He's a Broadway/West End pop singer and there's no shame in that.  He's not in PR/Freddie/Robert Plant/Axl Rose territory in rock because even if he hits notes that they can't, they can sell it, he can't.

People didn't like Freddie in the early 70s because he was like Adam Lambert?  Freddie Mercury wore ballet suits and ridiculous suspenders with super tight shorts in the 70s when we weren't as enlightened as we were today about sexuality.  And people (including rock and roll loving men) loved Freddie because he was the real deal.  Music first, image next.  If Freddie Mercury stood still like Liam Gallagher and was a shitty frontman in live shows, he'd still have left the world with Killer Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody and We are the Champions, along with his fabulous songs that are lesser known to the general public, all pretty much written by the age Adam Lambert is now.  Only thing they have in common is their sexuality and they both sing.

Sheer Brass Neck, I agree with most of what you said. However I don't think you can bring Freddies song writing into this, as Adam Lambert isn't or wasn't anything but a live singer in this current line up.

If you were around as a fan in the early 70's you may remember Freddie being criticized for his singing, the material, his mannerisms as much as for the way he dressed. So three out of four fall into the areas that Lambert is criticized for.

Yes you're right about what you say about the list of singers you mention, all though I would say that Freddie and AL are closer then Freddie and the others listed. As far as falling into the typical rock singer style voice, no he doesn't, but neither does Steve Perry and the vocals in Journey were always one of that bands strengths

SBN! You couldn't be more rigt. Imo, Adam Lambert is bumholian and doesn't belong anywhere near Queen legacy!

Hmmmmm....Is it fair to use Brian's word when you are dissing his choice of frontman?

First of all, I happen to like Queen + Adam, so yes, due to that I do not find Adam's presence inherently offensive regardless of anything he might do. Also I am able to retain at least some sort of objectivity about the combination. There are times it has made me cringe early on, but I do feel that they have overcome some of that and were they to continue there would be even more improvement. Adam is not as versatile as Freddie but then nobody else ever will be most likely. I feel that he is a good enough fit for them to do quite well with it. I do not know exactly how well Adam's voice carried the songs because all I have heard have been an assortment of YouTube videos, and the sound quality differed vastly in them.

Those who say he is not a rock singer in the sense of being gutsy and gritty enough are probably right though It did seem as though he was adapting himself to the songs better as they went along.

What really does annoy me here is that I have seen Brian, and Roger to a lesser extent, referred to in all sorts of disrespectful ways, as doddering old fools and so on. This is your prerogative in this forum, BUT.........I think it unfair when you got started pouncing on Adam for being "disrespectful" of Brian and Roger, by "condescendingly" (as you see it) touching them or putting his hand on their shoulder. I think this is pure spite! You seem very eager to cast him as someone who is taking advantage of Brian and Roger. I don't see this. I give them more credit than that. I think there is a genuinely warm relationship there. Perhaps I am wrong and somewhere down the line something to the contrary will come out, but unless it does I don't see anyone here having any room to cast Adam in that light, especially by those who have dissed Brian and Roger themselves.

I'm sorry that for all of your reasons that many you do not like Queen + Adam, but I know a few people who went to the Hammersmith shows, and they were still raving about it days later - still are in fact. They hadn't known much about Adam before they went, though they liked him with Queen very well afterwards. But then perhaps they just love Brian and Roger more than they love what Queen once was. I can't fault them for that.

al[QUOTE] [b]cacatua wrote:[/b]
Hmmmmm....Is it fair to use Brian's word when you are dissing his choice of frontman?[/QUOTE]

It's what I think of his choice of frontman! I doubt he would take it personal. And if so, I can not help it, I do not care for AL. As far as his touchy feely thing, it appears condescending to me and ick. His voice and style, performance are annoying to me. I'm sure the concerts were sensational, youtube shows that, however, I wouldn't pay to see AL no matter who he's fronting. Think of an entertainer/musician that you dislike hearing/seeing. Now have people trying to tell you he/she is GREAT. Does it force you to enjoy? It's a stupid argument at best. It saddens me to see the choices they've made in a frontman. It changes the sound of the songs I love. QE did it with integrity and it sounded absolutely wonderful. I don't think anyone who loves the legacy sound would argue with the way QE sounds and especially live. AL's voice on the other hand will sound shrill live or recorded. Freddies voice when he was younger was very different however, I watch him perform and his flamboyant way isn't annoying, Freddie comes off as genuine. I really hate comparing the two because there isn't a comparison except they have performed the same songs and a Queen fan can not help but remember Freddie. Once again, my opinion, Bri and Rog should make new music, even though they have and it just isn't going to be Queen again.

[QUOTE]

[b]Vocal harmony wrote: [/b] If you were around as a fan in the early 70's you may remember Freddie being criticized for his singing, the material, his mannerisms as much as for the way he dressed. So three out of four fall into the areas that Lambert is criticized for.

Yes you're right about what you say about the list of singers you mention, all though I would say that Freddie and AL are closer then Freddie and the others listed. As far as falling into the typical rock singer style voice, no he doesn't, but neither does Steve Perry and the vocals in Journey were always one of that bands strengths[/QUOTE]

Hi VH, a young 52 years old so I saw Queen many times in the day.  Freddie was criticized by the press for singing and mannerisms.  Brian was noted for having the "ugliest legs in Christiandom" by Creem magazine.  Roger Taylor was identified as Britt Ekland by Circus magazine for wearing a fur a la Rod Stewart's ex.  John Deacon's bass playing was referred to as "pedestrian" by Rolling Stone in a NOTW review, so I know of what i speak.  Freddie was screaming, ridiculously, flaming over the top gay, yet no review I ever read mentioned it.  Because Freddie was a beast live.  Adam is not.  He's a pussycat.  I don't care if he can hit notes that Andrea Bocelli or Steve Perry or Johnny Rotten can't hit, he's not of the rock world and that diminishes the show for ME as I saw Queen when they were a rock band.  If your point of reference is AKOM and forward, Queen were a pop band both in the studio and live, almost different bands.

And yes, Steve Perry was a poppier singer, but on songs like Stone in LOve, he has "oomph" or grit to his voice.  I would never say AL does not have a good voice, but he is ill suited to the rock side of Queen's rrepertoire, fine for the other stuff.  That may make me a homophobe :)

SBN, it was never mentioned that Freddie,was gay because he was in the closet and it would be merely speculation. . Am I not right? Adam just came right out and stated it. and here we are in 2012 for Christ's sake and it comes up in EVERY interview.

And a LOT of folks, including the judges on AI, think Adam's forte is rock.