someonewholikesadam
But did anyone see my cockatoo?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
FreddieCat
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Excellent post and spot on points. Still the overall theatrical production should be just as good as the Queen Extravaganza and WWRY shows.
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Excellent post and spot on points. Still the overall theatrical production should be just as good as the Queen Extravaganza and WWRY shows.
SweetCaroline
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Matt, I just found this link this morning. This woman was at the same show I was at in Cleveland. She is a music teacher and gives a pretty good analysis of Adam's voice and timbre:
"Countertenors and Characters"
http://www.laurawettersten.com/2010/07/countertenors-and-characters.html
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Matt, I just found this link this morning. This woman was at the same show I was at in Cleveland. She is a music teacher and gives a pretty good analysis of Adam's voice and timbre:
"Countertenors and Characters"
http://www.laurawettersten.com/2010/07/countertenors-and-characters.html
taptap
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you just don't like that there are some that disagree with some or all of your opinion. I don't think the timbre of his voice is weak at all. For you that makes me a fanatic that worships, while for me it just means I don't find he has a weak timbre. A feminine voice? What does that mean? That he's able to sing high notes? Well he does have a wide range, and he can sing well on the high end, so I suppose if that's what you mean by a feminine voice then a rose by any other name, and I'll agree. But if you mean he sings like a girl, at both ends of his range, then I have no idea what that means, and I guess that makes me a fanatic that worships.
See where I'm going with this? Define your terms and people can put forth an opinion around those definitions. But if you just want to claim fanaticism, don't define them or shift them about a bit. See, there's one objective with the first action, and a different objective with the second.
Also, I have to call a bit of pot and kettle here, if you're a Queen fan and can spot Lambert fanaticism but aren't aware of fanaticism within the fanbase of iconic artists in general, and Queen in particular. But if it makes you feel better or more superior or whatever, and if that's what matters to you, then carry on. I'm pretty sure what glamberts experience on Queen sites, with the QAL on deck, is the old, traditional fans trying to assert their primacy over the new, less traditional fans. It's all very social hierarchy and status imo, which is interesting to observe at least, if not actually leaving paths open for discussion.
*How* fans enjoy an artist in the end matters very little compared to their actual enjoyment. I'll enjoy QAL because I like both Queen and Adam, and you can consider it fanaticism because you don't. Whatever floats your boat.
You can't argue with fanaticism. I'd often thought about comparing Adam to ms Ellis... voice wise at least. Yeah they're theater. .. musical theater. And as much as Roger had gone on record about his feelings towards "musical theater" ... Lambert is exactly that.
He has a great note range but his timbre is very feminine and faint. Of course he a DOES do one song justice. WWTLF ...
Anyways ... can't argue with a fanatic. You're always wrong. Worship is worship.
Case in point. .. several years ago I was riding a bus to a bar/diner near a book store and cinema (kill the afternoon) On the ride was a "man child" probably then several years older than me. He was debating ...nay INSISTING that Hulk Hogan could defeat a heavyweight champion any day of the week.
Never mind that they're apples and oranges and that Hulk Hogan's hey day was about 25 years prior. Nor that one is a dramatic form of acting with its own physical demands and the other is a controlled form of brutality. ...
... He just bought into the illusion and could not be moved.
They few witnesses there. ... we all had a great laugh.
Like I said. It is what it is. I just want to see Brian and Roger rock out.
Of course Adam Lambert isn't rock and roll.
He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you just don't like that there are some that disagree with some or all of your opinion. I don't think the timbre of his voice is weak at all. For you that makes me a fanatic that worships, while for me it just means I don't find he has a weak timbre. A feminine voice? What does that mean? That he's able to sing high notes? Well he does have a wide range, and he can sing well on the high end, so I suppose if that's what you mean by a feminine voice then a rose by any other name, and I'll agree. But if you mean he sings like a girl, at both ends of his range, then I have no idea what that means, and I guess that makes me a fanatic that worships.
See where I'm going with this? Define your terms and people can put forth an opinion around those definitions. But if you just want to claim fanaticism, don't define them or shift them about a bit. See, there's one objective with the first action, and a different objective with the second.
Also, I have to call a bit of pot and kettle here, if you're a Queen fan and can spot Lambert fanaticism but aren't aware of fanaticism within the fanbase of iconic artists in general, and Queen in particular. But if it makes you feel better or more superior or whatever, and if that's what matters to you, then carry on. I'm pretty sure what glamberts experience on Queen sites, with the QAL on deck, is the old, traditional fans trying to assert their primacy over the new, less traditional fans. It's all very social hierarchy and status imo, which is interesting to observe at least, if not actually leaving paths open for discussion.
*How* fans enjoy an artist in the end matters very little compared to their actual enjoyment. I'll enjoy QAL because I like both Queen and Adam, and you can consider it fanaticism because you don't. Whatever floats your boat.
taptap
[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]
Matt, I just found this link this morning. This woman was at the same show I was at in Cleveland. She is a music teacher and gives a pretty good analysis of Adam's voice and timbre:
"Countertenors and Characters"
http://www.laurawettersten.com/2010/07/countertenors-and-characters.html
[/QUOTE]
I just read this, and wow, if Matt uses this definition of a weak timbre and feminine voice, then I get it. She talks about the normal distinction between the timbre when using your chest voice vs head voice, and how his head voice is liquid, and some might call it effeminate. This is interesting. I assumed by 'weak timbre' Matt meant thin and reedy - weak, which is something I don't hear from him. If he's trying to get at what this woman is describing, though, then I agree he has that characteristic to his voice. We'll still disagree on whether we like it or not, but that's just an issue of preference in the end. Cool article.
Matt, I just found this link this morning. This woman was at the same show I was at in Cleveland. She is a music teacher and gives a pretty good analysis of Adam's voice and timbre:
"Countertenors and Characters"
http://www.laurawettersten.com/2010/07/countertenors-and-characters.html
[/QUOTE]
I just read this, and wow, if Matt uses this definition of a weak timbre and feminine voice, then I get it. She talks about the normal distinction between the timbre when using your chest voice vs head voice, and how his head voice is liquid, and some might call it effeminate. This is interesting. I assumed by 'weak timbre' Matt meant thin and reedy - weak, which is something I don't hear from him. If he's trying to get at what this woman is describing, though, then I agree he has that characteristic to his voice. We'll still disagree on whether we like it or not, but that's just an issue of preference in the end. Cool article.
taptap
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] ^^^
Yes, yes, yes.
Especially the last line :)[/QUOTE]
Matt's last line was: 'He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard.'
I'm curious about something. Why do you think Brian and Roger want a Pat Boone-like voice fronting for Queen? Why didn't they go after a Little Richard-like voice instead? (I mean in relation to what Queen was with Freddie, not the literal Pat Boone and Little Richard, of course).
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] ^^^
Yes, yes, yes.
Especially the last line :)[/QUOTE]
Matt's last line was: 'He's like Pat Boone was to Little Richard.'
I'm curious about something. Why do you think Brian and Roger want a Pat Boone-like voice fronting for Queen? Why didn't they go after a Little Richard-like voice instead? (I mean in relation to what Queen was with Freddie, not the literal Pat Boone and Little Richard, of course).
barnsleybob
Its a tough one PR vs AL. Im wondering if its an age thing between fans? I would imagine older Queen fans would prefer as a majority PR because he was around when Queen was around,he has a rock voice and maybe to some of the older fans is a better fit.
Adam Lambert however attracts a younger crowd (I call 2nd gen fans) as well as some older ones but if I was to hazzard a guess the preference between the two singers is an age thing between fans and I would say many 60+ year old Queen fans if given a choice would prefer PR but maybe Brian and Roger want to bring Queen to a new gen of fans.
Me personally. Overall I prefer PR because he is more suited to the majority of the Queen songs. AL is vocally better but not vocally better for rock which is the genre of Queen although there are some songs he does sing better than PR. (Wwry,wwtlf,watc).
The ones on here who prefer Lambert would it be possible to give us an idea of your age group.??
Adam Lambert however attracts a younger crowd (I call 2nd gen fans) as well as some older ones but if I was to hazzard a guess the preference between the two singers is an age thing between fans and I would say many 60+ year old Queen fans if given a choice would prefer PR but maybe Brian and Roger want to bring Queen to a new gen of fans.
Me personally. Overall I prefer PR because he is more suited to the majority of the Queen songs. AL is vocally better but not vocally better for rock which is the genre of Queen although there are some songs he does sing better than PR. (Wwry,wwtlf,watc).
The ones on here who prefer Lambert would it be possible to give us an idea of your age group.??
taptap
[QUOTE]
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Its a tough one PR vs AL. Im wondering if its an age thing between fans? I would imagine older Queen fans would prefer as a majority PR because he was around when Queen was around,he has a rock voice and maybe to some of the older fans is a better fit.
Adam Lambert however attracts a younger crowd (I call 2nd gen fans) as well as some older ones but if I was to hazzard a guess the preference between the two singers is an age thing between fans and I would say many 60+ year old Queen fans if given a choice would prefer PR but maybe Brian and Roger want to bring Queen to a new gen of fans.
Me personally. Overall I prefer PR because he is more suited to the majority of the Queen songs. AL is vocally better but not vocally better for rock which is the genre of Queen although there are some songs he does sing better than PR. (Wwry,wwtlf,watc).
The ones on here who prefer Lambert would it be possible to give us an idea of your age group.??[/QUOTE]
I agree with pretty much all of this (in terms of why different fans have different preferences, and why Brian and Roger have moved in the direction they have). I'm probably right in-between the two generational groups you're talking about.
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Its a tough one PR vs AL. Im wondering if its an age thing between fans? I would imagine older Queen fans would prefer as a majority PR because he was around when Queen was around,he has a rock voice and maybe to some of the older fans is a better fit.
Adam Lambert however attracts a younger crowd (I call 2nd gen fans) as well as some older ones but if I was to hazzard a guess the preference between the two singers is an age thing between fans and I would say many 60+ year old Queen fans if given a choice would prefer PR but maybe Brian and Roger want to bring Queen to a new gen of fans.
Me personally. Overall I prefer PR because he is more suited to the majority of the Queen songs. AL is vocally better but not vocally better for rock which is the genre of Queen although there are some songs he does sing better than PR. (Wwry,wwtlf,watc).
The ones on here who prefer Lambert would it be possible to give us an idea of your age group.??[/QUOTE]
I agree with pretty much all of this (in terms of why different fans have different preferences, and why Brian and Roger have moved in the direction they have). I'm probably right in-between the two generational groups you're talking about.
barnsleybob
Im 41 so im sort of in the middle. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when Queen was in prime although a little young to go to any concerts. Queen songs are known through all generations of people. You put a Queen song on for an 18year old and he/she will probably tell you it was Queen and would tell you the singer was Freddie Mercury.
I think the one blessing is that at least no.matter who is singing,one half of Queen are still performing which is a big plus.
I think the one blessing is that at least no.matter who is singing,one half of Queen are still performing which is a big plus.
taptap
[QUOTE]
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Im 41 so im sort of in the middle. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when Queen was in prime although a little young to go to any concerts. Queen songs are known through all generations of people. You put a Queen song on for an 18year old and he/she will probably tell you it was Queen and would tell you the singer was Freddie Mercury.
I think the one blessing is that at least no.matter who is singing,one half of Queen are still performing which is a big plus.[/QUOTE]
I'm 42, so you and I probably had very similar experiences re Queen (if you're from the US). I am in agreement with you on your last point, but some Queen fans don't like the fact that 1/2 of Queen is still performing and calling themselves Queen, regardless of who fronts.
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Im 41 so im sort of in the middle. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when Queen was in prime although a little young to go to any concerts. Queen songs are known through all generations of people. You put a Queen song on for an 18year old and he/she will probably tell you it was Queen and would tell you the singer was Freddie Mercury.
I think the one blessing is that at least no.matter who is singing,one half of Queen are still performing which is a big plus.[/QUOTE]
I'm 42, so you and I probably had very similar experiences re Queen (if you're from the US). I am in agreement with you on your last point, but some Queen fans don't like the fact that 1/2 of Queen is still performing and calling themselves Queen, regardless of who fronts.
barnsleybob
Im from Leeds in the Uk. 20mins car ride to Elland Road football stadium where Queen performed in 82.
I wasnt too aware of some of the Queen fans thinking that. For me its never going to be the same but Roger and especially Brian wrote some great Queen songs. What are the main reasons behind this do you think? A money spinner for them?
I wasnt too aware of some of the Queen fans thinking that. For me its never going to be the same but Roger and especially Brian wrote some great Queen songs. What are the main reasons behind this do you think? A money spinner for them?
taptap
[QUOTE]
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Im from Leeds in the Uk. 20mins car ride to Elland Road football stadium where Queen performed in 82.
I wasnt too aware of some of the Queen fans thinking that. For me its never going to be the same but Roger and especially Brian wrote some great Queen songs. What are the main reasons behind this do you think? A money spinner for them?[/QUOTE]
I guess it could be money, but considering how much they already have, it doesn't seem like the best answer. Although people who think in terms of multi-generational wealth have a whole different concept of wealth than the rest of us do, so maybe that plays a part. I tend to think it's a combination of things, and I'll include the money part as well:
1. Being young enough to want another go at doing something you love and that defined your youth.
2. Being old enough to see that you won't be young enough to keep doing it for much longer.
3. Wanting to make a hit in the US, the place they most regret missing back in the day.
4. Increasing their generational wealth as much as they can in the time left to them.
[b]barnsleybob wrote: [/b] Im from Leeds in the Uk. 20mins car ride to Elland Road football stadium where Queen performed in 82.
I wasnt too aware of some of the Queen fans thinking that. For me its never going to be the same but Roger and especially Brian wrote some great Queen songs. What are the main reasons behind this do you think? A money spinner for them?[/QUOTE]
I guess it could be money, but considering how much they already have, it doesn't seem like the best answer. Although people who think in terms of multi-generational wealth have a whole different concept of wealth than the rest of us do, so maybe that plays a part. I tend to think it's a combination of things, and I'll include the money part as well:
1. Being young enough to want another go at doing something you love and that defined your youth.
2. Being old enough to see that you won't be young enough to keep doing it for much longer.
3. Wanting to make a hit in the US, the place they most regret missing back in the day.
4. Increasing their generational wealth as much as they can in the time left to them.
barnsleybob
Yeah its probably a combination of a few things. Brian was doing a few small scoutic sets with a singer called Kerry Ellis. Ive never actually heard of her but they were to a very small audience.
I still think they probably still get that buzz from it also. Like you say he is worth many millions and its not as if he need the cash. I think there might be some genuine reasons for them still touring as well as other reason you mentioned. I suppose on the flip side im their album sales are still taking care of themselves. I read that that Freddie is worth three times as much as he was worth in 91. Same will apply for BM and RT.
Its a hard one to really get an answer from speculation I guess.
I still think they probably still get that buzz from it also. Like you say he is worth many millions and its not as if he need the cash. I think there might be some genuine reasons for them still touring as well as other reason you mentioned. I suppose on the flip side im their album sales are still taking care of themselves. I read that that Freddie is worth three times as much as he was worth in 91. Same will apply for BM and RT.
Its a hard one to really get an answer from speculation I guess.
barnsleybob
Ps the bit about Kerry Ellis earnings will have been pocket money to him,I just thoughg it was worth mentioning.
Iron Butterfly
No doubt in my mind the guys love performing. A part of me thinks it's done to get the States back.