‘I don’t think those guys want to’: Adam Lambert nixes idea of a world tour

your comments are imbecilic (at best) and moronic (at worst) - Freddie either looked like a drag queen - or he didn't, and if HE didn't then AL - by consequence of looking incredibly similar will or won't

So I guess what your saying is in the 70's Freddie jumped on the band wagon when it came to image, but Adam Lambert is doing something different to what's "in" at the moment.

As far as good singers go. Both Paul Rodgers and Adam Lambert are technically better then Freddie. They both use their vocal range much more easily then Freddie ever did as a live performer. Yes Freddie was an amazing front man with an incredible range, but he was lacking in his ability to use that voice to it's full potential night after night.

i doubt Gerry will agree with you

All three singers are fantastic in their own way. Adam's the technical beast, Paul's the bluesy powerhouse that gets better with age, and Freddie's the well-rounded vocalist with great tone and a gift for awesome vocal melodies.

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b] And by the way (inu-liger) i dont give a fuck what you think about me, im older and wiser than you [/QUOTE] Suuuuuuuuuuuure. Age doesn't mean jack squat, I've met 30-somethings for instance that act far more humble, wise and receptive than certain 60-somethings. You sir are not a humble man, and I question your purported wisdom. For all I know, you could be lying about your age range since I don't know who you really are behind your username. Just sayin' ;-) [QUOTE]and i have better musical tastes than you.[/QUOTE] Don't make me laugh. You don't even know me as a person beyond my username, who are you to think that you know what I like in music? You are an incredibly lame man. [QUOTE]i surprised you dont worship justin bieber![/QUOTE] Anyone who really has ever bothered to get to know me on a personal level, knows I absolutely fucking hate his guts. Bieber represents nothing else but how to make bad music and be a piss poor role model for today's tween market. I really hope he'll get his comeuppance sooner than later.

And by the way...

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b] Now i wont be replying back...[/QUOTE]

Whatever happened to your stance there? ;-)

Prat.

lol...this entire thread is about as entertaining as I find Adam Lambert to be....NOT. Differences are just a part of life. Why do you guys bicker so much?

In this case, because a certain prick wants to play the fan division game and deliberately rub people the wrong way.

(vocal harmony) what are you saying here?
cant believe what i read here when your saying Lambert and Rodgers are better singers
than Freddie, dont make me laugh!!
Well why does Freddie top all the male vocalist polls then??
Everyone agrees he is the greatest male vocalist EVER to grace a stage!
Rodgers and lame Lambert would be lucky to make the top 50!
Still thats your opinion but millions of other people would disagree with you!

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b] (vocal harmony) what are you saying here? cant believe what i read here when your saying Lambert and Rodgers are better singers than Freddie, dont make me laugh!! [/QUOTE] It's very subjective, but there IS some element of truth in VH's post. Freddie indeed had a difficult time with maintaining live vocal consistency. Look at the Works tour for instance, that tour has got to be officially the worst for vocal "consistency", and even in the 70's Freddie put himself at risk of going through what Elton John had done to himself by '87, and it's been documented very well his issues with vocal nodules there (heck, Freddie even acknowledged it during the intro to "White Man" at Houston '77!) What VH was talking about was the vocal technique on a technical level, not necessarily about the quality of the vocals themselves with regards to Rodgers and Lambert. Freddie no doubt will forever 'own' them in the latter department, but when it comes to live technique and consistency combined, Rodgers and Lambert have some advantages there. Rodgers for instance has always been consistent on "Another One Bites The Dust" regardless whether it was performed in D (Europe 2005) or the original key of E (USA/Japan 2005 through Cosmos Tour 2008), something you cannot say about Freddie's 5-6 years performing that song live. What's very unfortunate though, is that QPL have tried over the years by means of overdubbing and more recently using Pro Tools & pitch correction to fix Freddie's vocals on official live releases to present a revisionist sugarcoated image on how Freddie supposedly performed live, which gives some very false impressions to the average joe public who've never heard real raw bootlegs that Freddie was a perfect performer live. And even the Queen + Paul Rodgers live releases (with the rare exception of "Super Live In Japan") have mostly not been spared this perfectionist revisionism either!

Basically Inuliger hit the nail on the head.

I'd like to add though that the official releases of Queen are usually not the best indication of Queen or Freddie live (that's one major reason why I got so into the live unofficial recordings). The classic example is the 2nd Wembley gig where Freddie sounds rough but the unofficial stuff from the beginning of the Magic Tour and after Wembley have him sounding WAY better than Wembley.

Freddie was generally a good live singer and he had plenty of great shows live, but due to his vocal nodules and living the rock and roll lifestyle--that combination caused his vocal stamina to not be all there.

There's also been a lot of debate whether cigarettes also contributed heavily to his 80's vocal instability.

I think were clutching at straws here yeah cos Freddies voice was bound to come in for some damage
the amount of concerts that he did in the 70s and 80s, and when you consider freddie did 2 hour sets
nearly every night going around the world, who cares if he sang out of key, i take my hat off to this incredible man,
Lambert & Rodgers probably dont do as much work live as freddie did so there voices are not really over worked in any way.
Freddie is not a machine but a human being so what ever folk say about him, not many can sing his songs, the freddie tribute
concert proved that one!
I know freds voice got worse in the late 80s mainly because he was smoking like a chimney every 5 minutes
and by the time "The Miracle came out he had a raspy sort of voice and this is evident on "i want it all"
i have heard Queen bootlegs and seen Queen live 6 times, and freds vocals were always spot on.

The cigarettes didn't affect his voice as much as it did the live stamina/recovery time. Freddie wasn't really a heavy smoker--he just liked to keep his hands busy and if you watch interviews with him having a cigarette, he doesn't smoke it too much and when he does--little smoke appears.

The main problem was Freddie did TONS of studio work in 1983-1984 (his solo stuff and the Works being the main stuff) and then went right into the Works Tour stuff (they rehearsed 40 songs and then did a tour with over 25 songs in the set). He basically wore his voice out from excessive singing, changing his vocal style to a chest-driven belty style (which can wear a voice out quickly), and then partied hard.

If smoking had a major factor on his voice--he wouldn't have sounded as amazing as he did during the 1980-1982 era and Live Aid (where he maintains his early 80s voice).

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]
i have heard Queen bootlegs and seen Queen live 6 times, and freds vocals were always spot on.
[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity, what 6 shows were those, particularly date/venue/country wise? Would like to see if Greg here would happen to have bootleg recordings so we can assess that claim ourselves :-)