Hammersmith

[QUOTE] [b]cacatua wrote:[/b]
The very last one seems to think he/she saw Paul Rodgers there . :oD
Or was that slyly intentional?[/QUOTE]

Was an old review, dated a couple of years ago. They must run their threads by artist, and not by a specific event.

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]"The most criticism towards Adam Lambert seems to be coming from people who haven't been to one of the shows"

Aside from obvious stuff like crowd hysteria, I actually believe that listening to music at a proper volume excites different parts of your hearing than it does when you're just at home. When I saw The Who in 2009, Roger literally sounded 20 years younger than he did when I got the tape home and had a sit through it. I don't think I was delusional; I just think the volume distorts things a little. It's why I'm addicted to loud headphone use; which I'm having to give up because of my tinnitus.

Having said all of that, it's very likely that someone who goes to a Q+AL show will have a different impression of how he sounds. And live music is (no matter how dodgy) almost always a worthwhile experience if you just go there to enjoy it.

None of this accounts for his numerous fuck-ups, bad choices or goofiness though. I still have the faintest hope that I'll one day hear Brian playing without some worthless shmuck gumming up the airwaves, but I doubt it very much.[/QUOTE]

To give some concrete examples, back in the 1990s I saw The Cult at Wembley Arena and The Scorpions at Hammersmith, and both concerts were great. Ian Astbury's vocals were clear and in-tune the whole night and it was a really rockin' show. At Hammersmith, Coast to Coast by The Scorpions almost lifted the roof off and the guitars sounded awesome all night. The atmosphere at both shows was great, but at Hammersmith it was something really special and that's partly because Hammersmith is an awesome venue. A few years ago I acquired bootlegs of both shows, which I listened to exactly once. The shows are still good but I can hear the wrong notes, mistakes, timing errors etc. And of course the atmosphere isn't there -- all the things that make concerts special are missing when you hear them in the cold light of day. Even on a smaller scale it's exactly the same for me: I used to go to a r&b show once a month in a small club. The band were unknowns but they put on a hell of a show. I kept thinking "how are these guys not famous?" And then of course I bought a cassette of their live show and when I listened to it later it didn't capture anything special. The vocalist didn't sound quite as good; the horns were okay, but didn't have the magic that they did when I was actually at the show. In short, they weren't that special. It was the atmosphere in a good venue that made them sound so great. I can only really count on the fingers of one hand the concerts I didn't like on the night -- Gary Moore, Kiss, Dave Gilmour (the last one not because he was bad but because I wasn't mature enough back in my late teens to appreciate what a fantastic musician he is).

[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]
Doesn't sound like from this post, Holly, but maybe I misunderstood the intent of it.[/QUOTE]

He's referring I think to a post made several weeks ago where I recall him saying that people that attended would almost certainly enjoy the show.

Hell, *I* - Me!- even said people attending in person would be happy with the show after I watched Kiev. I would argue though about what audience reception can objectively say about the performance beyond the fact that it succeeded as a live event. Things absolutely can (and often do) sound different live than they do recorded, and similarly different when viewed critically out of the context of the live show.  I can't imagine any experienced concert goer arguing any differently.  It's impossible to separate the event, the atmosphere, the emotion of being there from the actuality of the show while you're there and in your recollections of the experience.  Much like one could have a wonderful time going out to dinner with friends or family and hardly notice the overdone calamari-- unless you tried to eat it again the next day sitting by yourself at the dining room table. Ticket buyers for any event are self selecting and unless things are a really serious mess it would be expected that they enjoy what they elected to see and pay for.

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50RKT0Umqdw
Sounds amazing![/QUOTE]

Totally! Hadn't watched this one, had to watch it several times. ty for posting. I wonder if Fred bruised his leg when he bent the mic stand hammering it into his leg? yeow!

At the end of any live concert, the only thing that really matters is "DID YOU HAVE A GOOD TIME?".

From what I've seen and heard it seems that most everyone, including (and especially)the band, had a phenomenal time. If people who weren't there, who only listened to a live stream or videos after the fact, want to knitpick and overanalyze every missed note, every warble, every move there's nothing that can be said or debated that will change their feelings on the subject.

For me personally, a concert is all about the excitement of real, live, musicians, real PEOPLE standing on a stage and giving it their all. People who are willing to take the chance that not everything will be perfect but still dedicated to giving you the best show they know how. Maybe Im crazy but I think the little missteps create their own bit of art and beauty. I'm not really a fan of live albums or dvds (although I do have a few and would love one of this concert). Too many essential elements of a live event are lost in translation.

Queen + Adam Lambert pulled off 3 fucking AMAZING shows at Hammersmith and they did it by having the time of their lives on that stage and wanting to share that with the fans. If someone can't see past their own knitpicking to just ENJOY the moment, be IN the moment we have been gifted then I truly feel for you.

[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]
I think you are wrong Holly. I sat thru many "acts" waiting for Adam to perform and have been to concerts where other artists perform . They don't always sound live.[/QUOTE]


Meant to say "sound better live."

[QUOTE]

[b]chica63 wrote: [/b] At the end of any live concert, the only thing that really matters is "DID YOU HAVE A GOOD TIME?".

From what I've seen and heard it seems that most everyone, including (and especially)the band, had a phenomenal time. If people who weren't there, who only listened to a live stream or videos after the fact, want to knitpick and overanalyze every missed note, every warble, every move there's nothing that can be said or debated that will change their feelings on the subject.

For me personally, a concert is all about the excitement of real, live, musicians, real PEOPLE standing on a stage and giving it their all. People who are willing to take the chance that not everything will be perfect but still dedicated to giving you the best show they know how. Maybe Im crazy but I think the little missteps create their own bit of art and beauty. I'm not really a fan of live albums or dvds (although I do have a few and would love one of this concert). Too many essential elements of a live event are lost in translation.

Queen + Adam Lambert pulled off 3 fucking AMAZING shows at Hammersmith and they did it by having the time of their lives on that stage and wanting to share that with the fans. If someone can't see past their own knitpicking to just ENJOY the moment, be IN the moment we have been gifted then I truly feel for you.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make any sense. If you agree being at a live show is a better experience than listening to a CD or watching an internet stream you can't then berate people for not enjoying the latter as much as the former.

I've been at the first and second Hammersmith gigs, they have been nice concerts, especially the second. At the first gig they seemed to me a bit tired, but the second gig was really great!

I've seen two Queen + P.R. concerts, one in 2005 and another in the 2008 and I have to say that I like a lot P.R., but A.L. seems to me a more suitable singer for Queen, especially in the medium and slow songs. He has a glam attitude while P.R. is a (great) classic rocker.
None could be like Freddie but, especially for people like me, that never saw Queen live with Freddie because I was too young, it's great to see Brian and Roger live.
In those two concerts I also liked a lot the lights, I dislike a bit the fire, because I was in the second row and it was too near me.
They are old, it's clear, but they're still great!

http://xoomer.alice.it/tonyhomepage

I love a lot of the songs I hear on the radio and when performed live the majority do NOT live up to the recorded version. The opposite is true with Adam. He can make me love a song I wasn't crazy about after seeing him perform it live. I guess people here are strictly speaking about the vocals, but you are ignoring the fact that it isn't only about the vocals with hugely popular recording artists. I cite Madonna as an example. Adam has it all as far as I'm concerned, the vocals, the stage presence, the personality in interviews, and he is extremely good-looking and sexy. And when I go back and listen to recorded versions of his concerts (Glamnation Live and Acoustic Sessions), I am blown away by his singing. I venture to say that anyone who loved the live performance at Hammersmith will also love the YouTube vids and any recorded DVD of the show. Holly, admit it. You don't like AL and can't fathom that any other Queen fan would.

I don't mean to be argumentative, Holly (well, really I do), but it would be gracious of you to concede that there are plenty of Queen fans (yourself excluded) who loved Adam with Queen because he flat-out did a fabulous job, not just that they were caught up in the moment at a live concert.

[QUOTE]

[b]someonewholikesadam wrote: [/b] I love a lot of the songs I hear on the radio and when performed live the majority do NOT live up to the recorded version. The opposite is true with Adam. He can make me love a song I wasn't crazy about after seeing him perform it live. I guess people here are strictly speaking about the vocals, but you are ignoring the fact that it isn't only about the vocals with hugely popular recording artists. I cite Madonna as an example. Adam has it all as far as I'm concerned, the vocals, the stage presence, the personality in interviews, and he is extremely good-looking and sexy. And when I go back and listen to recorded versions of his concerts (Glamnation Live and Acoustic Sessions), I am blown away by his singing. I venture to say that anyone who loved the live performance at Hammersmith will also love the YouTube vids and any recorded DVD of the show. Holly, admit it. You don't like AL and can't fathom that any other Queen fan would.[/QUOTE]

I don't particularly like his voice. He's not even the best singer from Idol --  Crystal Bowersox is a better singer than he is by a long long way, for example. But a lot of this is down to personal taste and as I have stated before, I totally accept that some people like him. He sings some Queen songs well: WWTLF and UP were good. But many other songs sounded bad. It doesn't matter much to me how many outfits he wears or if he has stage presence etc., because I personally find a lot of those things superfluous. I would much rather Fred was remembered as a musician than as a "front man" -- a term which devalues his musical skills and turns him into some sort of sideshow attraction. Queen (remember them? that's why I'm here) were musically much better in the 1970s when Fred spent most of his time playing piano and not faffing about singing de de de do de day.

Poor Holly2003. If we could easily pull up previous posts on this wobbly featured discussion board you'd truly see that of all the people that had/have doubts about AL he's been one of the most even handed of all commenters. So you really are kind of picking on the wrong guy. Fortunately he's tough, and I'm sure he can take it. :)

It has seemed to me for some time that AL fans seem to have lost the concept of subjectivity. "Flat out fabulous job" and "stage presence" and "personality" and god knows "extremely good looking and sexy" are entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Thus the irritating tendency of supporters to "correct" people who don't share their perceptions. That dynamic doesn't work the other way, or at least rarely does.

This Queen fan can't ever like AL. NOT because of pettiness or any other reason than his voice and stage presence. I never saw Freddie live however, he is enjoyable on vids or recording, live or not. He has talent that AL could only hope for but most likely never achieve. How not to do comparisons when you care about "SOUND". I love Queen legacy, adore it. I want it to sound the way it should. I don't like Freddie impersonators but I do like the way Freddies voice sounded and the way the original songs sounded live or recorded. The only one I see that got the job done was QE. AL can not duplicate that at all. He never will. You are an AL fan, good, carry on. I think there are plenty of Queen fans out here who would never "concede" to something their ears/eyes tell them is uck.

Applaudes GF and Holly for being gracious. I agree with regard to Crystal B. and all that both of you have stated. I'm obviously not an intelligent writer, however, whether they intend to or not, the AL fans tend to grate on me as much as he does! All for the reasons you stated GF.

Holly, my point is that if we agree the live experience is always better, there's no point in picking apart details that can not be captured on film and often get distorted or left out in fan recorded videos. That is unless one is using the recording/video they know can't compare to the live experience to whine and moan about thier dislike of the event and/or diss someone they already don't like. Which again, I don't understand. What's the point? And I don't feel like I'm 'berating' anyone.. just don't understand the thought process. Why watch the videos at all if all you're going to do is pick them apart?


The fact that we have videos at ALL is a gift and if one is a fan of Queen or Adam or both then why not just enjoy the fact that we got to see the show at all. (which is likely the part of my point you missed or thought didn't make sense. Not sure I expressed my thought clearly) Back in the olden days (:P) we couldn't even dream of having instant videos and livestreams of concerts. We are SO spoiled! lol


I'll tell you this; Adam's like nothing I've ever heard and I've been to over 400 concerts in my 49 years. I wasn't lucky enough to see Queen with Freddie but no one else has ever made me feel the way Adam did when I left a show. What's wrong with getting caught up in the moment of a concert? Isn't that kind of the point? Being present and enjoying what's being played in front of us for our entertainment? Which leads me back to my first sentence in that last post: At the end of the concert, the only thing that matters is: Did you have a good time? :)

Edit: I changed my wording above because it read like I was attacking or accusing one person in particular and that's not how I meant it to read. :)