My thoughts on Adam Lambert+Queen plus welcome feedback.

A very good, interesting and educational conversation between SBN and taptap! Thanks to you both! Adam showed amazing versatility during his time on Idol, singing pop, rock, blues, disco, etc. so those of us who discovered him there kind of think he can sing anything and everything. He doesn't have the gritty voice of PR but he can still rock a song pretty darn good. And, yes, when he's performing live he has taken those songs from his two pop albums and put a rock vibe on them. What's funny is I think that Pat Boone could probably sing some of the Queen music much better than Little Richard could. I didn't expect to be so captivated by Adam's charisma when I saw him live, but I left that show in a trance! Ha! Ha! I know that's OTT, but true! I'm hoping he has that same effect on the audiences during this tour. Of course, the Queen music itself will have that effect no matter who is singing!

Here are two reviews from an online mag that were reviewing 5 singers who would fit with Queen. The two ive copied and pasted are reviews from PR and AL. Id say its unbiasedTo date, former lead singer of Free and Bad Company, Paul Rodgers is the only vocalist Queen have worked with on any kind of serious or semi-permanent level. Two world tours (including Queen’s first return to America since 1982,) multiple live CDs/DVDs and one studio album, “The Cosmos Rocks,” of brand new material. The partnership ended with a whimper following the so-so reaction to the new album (though their live shows were, by and large, sell-outs.) A simple press release announced their split though as time went by, Rodgers has publically said he’d work with Queen again though not quite on the scale they had previously.

This odd pairing took Queen fans by surprise as Rodgers isn’t someone you could imagine singing the rather varied styles of the band’s catalog. Being more of a blues-based rock singer, this limited his choices when performing live, opting for straight up rockers, pop rock, etc as opposed to something out of his wheelhouse like “Killer Queen” or “Somebody to Love.” Despite the out of the box thinking Queen chose in asking Paul to pair up, the combination did work. Queen played to Paul’s strengths as a singer and put on some fantastic shows. There was definitely a mutual admiration society happening throughout, Queen offered a 50/50 split of their songs with Paul’s previous work with other bands when they went on tour but Paul maintained that the shows would be for Queen fans and so played a majority of their hits instead. However when “The Cosmos Rocks” hit store shelves, many Queen fans complained that it sounded very little like Queen and more like a Paul Rodgers solo album with only a light smattering of the band’s signature sound. I would suggest that it was as it should be, Rodgers was the lead singer and the material written must be done in such a way to support and enhance his style.

While it was disappointing that Rodgers never even attempted certain Queen songs, there are still plenty of other rock tracks from the band’s history he could handle quite well in a live setting should they ever perform again (“It’s Late,” “Sleeping On the Sidewalk,” etc.) Even though their one studio album didn’t quite set the world on fire, I didn’t get the impression they were trying to impress anyone and just wanted to have a good time. “The Cosmos Rocks” doesn’t hold up well against Queen’s older, classic albums obviously but this is a different animal entirely, Queen+ Paul Rodgers. It’d be like comparing a Foo Fighters album to Nirvana’s “Nevermind” just because both bands shared a member. I would hope though that should Paul ever return to the fold, any new material written should be a bit more balanced in it’s sonic structure.

Having spent such time and energy with one person over several years suggests that Queen found a kindred spirit in Rodgers who certainly has the rock credentials to credibly front a legendary band.

------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps my most controversial pick, especially to some Queen fans(!) Lambert rose to stardom on the “American Idol” TV show a few years ago. Shortly after finishing second that season, he publically came out as a gay man which could have hurt his burgeoning career. It didn’t. His debut album placed at #2 and his most recent album debuted at #1 in America (also, Lambert became the first openly gay singer to have an album debut at #1.) His brief career has been filled with taking chances and a willingness to be raked over the coals for his choices (in song, in fashion, his sexuality.)

His soaring voice is incredible, Queen’s Brian May said that only two male voices have ever given him goosebumps, one being Freddie Mercury’s and the other belonging to Lambert. He’s only 30 years old and obviously still has some growing left to do (don’t we all?) and as he grows more confidant in his voice and finds solid footing as a live performer, I think he’ll really take the world by storm. My one bone to pick is that at times he insists on these unnecessary vocal runs live which are more distracting than anything but when he hunkers down and moderates his singing, it’s a thing of pure beauty.

Much like how the Queen+ Paul Rodgers collaboration happened, Queen ended up performing live with Lambert at a televised awards show in Europe. The resulting performance sparked interest from both sides to doing something again at a later date. The following Summer, Queen+ Adam Lambert went on a short mini-tour of Europe ending in three sold out shows in London.

Lambert’s youth added a certain vitality and freshness to the old Queen classics, something that we hadn’t seen from any of the Queen+ projects to date. His vocal range and versatility showed he could indeed handle the majority of Queen’s wide variety of song styles. Brian May has said that he and Lambert are in constant communication so perhaps something more substantial is coming than just a handful of live shows and I certainly hope that to be the case. I have to think that a young, openly gay and fantastically gifted performer like Lambert would be exactly the choice Mercury himself would give a rousing thumbs up to.

Wow, barnsleybob, what a great post! Thanks!

I merely post the word fanatic to denote excessively boisterous fanaticism approaching salesmanship.

Anyways. Just looking forward to the gigs.

As for the Little Richard comparison it is rooted in the HISTORY of rock and roll.


While producers looked for ways to cash in on black music (early rock and roll) and found their savior in Elvis, the social police clearly wanted to do anything to prevent black music from reaching the masses (and white women from falling in love with black men) ... so they produced plain white Pat Boone. ... covering tutti frutti and so forth. ....


Antiseptic watered down versions (that sold tons and benefited songwriters)

In that respect it's kinda unfair to Adam Lambert... he's not as plain as Pat Boone was.



The Tour should be great. As long as they don't do Dragon Attack again. He's comically bad at that.

But seeing how he's new to this rock and roll ACT, he could only really get better at it..... hopefully.

Sweet caroline.
Thanks. I just copied and pasted it from an unbiased site giving their view of the 5 best replacements. But yeah,it was a good read.

[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]

A very good, interesting and educational conversation between SBN and taptap! Thanks to you both! Adam showed amazing versatility during his time on Idol, singing pop, rock, blues, disco, etc. so those of us who discovered him there kind of think he can sing anything and everything. He doesn't have the gritty voice of PR but he can still rock a song pretty darn good. And, yes, when he's performing live he has taken those songs from his two pop albums and put a rock vibe on them. What's funny is I think that Pat Boone could probably sing some of the Queen music much better than Little Richard could. I didn't expect to be so captivated by Adam's charisma when I saw him live, but I left that show in a trance! Ha! Ha! I know that's OTT, but true! I'm hoping he has that same effect on the audiences during this tour. Of course, the Queen music itself will have that effect no matter who is singing!
[/QUOTE]

Earlier I used a few very well known people that have defined the world of rock, which emerged out of R&B and Country for a sort of soul fusion, which evolved in different directions as the decades passed. There's the gritty voice of rock, as represented by Springsteen, PR, KISS, and many, many others, then there's the smoother side as represented by Lou Reed, Roy Orbison, Elvis, etc. People like Freddie and Robert Plant were able to sort of bridge the sound gap between these two. I see Adam fitting better into the Lou Reed/Roy Orbison/Elvis category (in terms of sound), but also able to bridge the gap, like Freddie and R. Plant, more with his stagemanship, less with the grit.

This is why I don't have a problem fitting him into the rock category. His ideal niche is not GNR or Judas Priest, obviously, and yet both Slash and Rob Halpford love his voice. Of course that doesn't mean he'd fit in with GNR or JP, but it does explain why B&R like him in Queen+, and while Nile thinks he's a fit with Chic.

There are a lot of different types of rock, even if, imo, that genre has changed for the worse in the last two decades. I just don't care at all for the Nickleback and Daughtry form of rock as it exists now, and don't even get me started on the Maroon5 stuff. Now David Bowie, that was some amazing music from my personal perspective. I liked both his glam and non-glam style. He's such a fascinating and talented guy. I think this is why the legacy rock musicians are doing so well touring right now - they represent a form of rock that no longer exists on radio or stage, except when they tour.

It's telling that Adam's personal heroes are Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, Michael Jackson and even Madonna. They have all influenced him in his performance style. I especially loved the David Bowie medley he performed during the 2009 Idol Summer Tour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugQmGJxoQDQ

cabbage

It's kind of hilarious..

People squawked about Rodgers being too bluesy and not sounding or being anything like Mercury (which I personally found refreshing).

Now they've got a flamboyant gay guy with a massive vocal range and they're still complaining.

Even performing a resurrection wouldn't be good enough because they won't play Queen II in its entirety. And if they did, they'd complain because they didn't hire 18 guitar players to perform White Queen accurately.

Seriously - some people need to get a life.

^ yeah. Cause he couldn't deliver rock and roll even as a postal worker with vertigo and a bum hip, during an earthquake in an active demolition site within a tragically massive planetary magnetic polar shift



Anyways, I love Brian and Roger's contribution to music. I'm sure it will be great to finally see them perform.


If miraculously it somehow isn't. ..I can always go to the concession stand and buy some booze until it IS.


I enjoy the ridiculous debate. The super fans with self validation and possibly two accounts patting themselves on the back AND the staunch UBER queen fans complaining of inaccuracies *(despite Freddie being dead)

I understand it. It's controversy AND it's pretty entertaining

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wanker wrote:[/b]

It's kind of hilarious..

People squawked about Rodgers being too bluesy and not sounding or being anything like Mercury (which I personally found refreshing).

Now they've got a flamboyant gay guy with a massive vocal range and they're still complaining.

Even performing a resurrection wouldn't be good enough because they won't play Queen II in its entirety. And if they did, they'd complain because they didn't hire 18 guitar players to perform White Queen accurately.

Seriously - some people need to get a life.[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, flamboyance and vocal range isn't everything. Freddie was quite individual in what he did, and it worked for him. For years. It still stands out, I dare say it will years from now.
AL is just a copy with the cover songs, at times IMO a bad copy at that.
Yea, the people who spam/promote/take offense on AL's behalf need to get a life.
I've said this elsewhere. I'd be much happier to see shows just with Brian and Roger or even long term friends in the business.

Anyone who's not happy with this collaboration should write to the remaining Queen guys and express their dissatisfaction, especially if they're not even going to the shows! LOL

[QUOTE] [b]Black Velvet wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wanker wrote:[/b]

It's kind of hilarious..

People squawked about Rodgers being too bluesy and not sounding or being anything like Mercury (which I personally found refreshing).

Now they've got a flamboyant gay guy with a massive vocal range and they're still complaining.

Even performing a resurrection wouldn't be good enough because they won't play Queen II in its entirety. And if they did, they'd complain because they didn't hire 18 guitar players to perform White Queen accurately.

Seriously - some people need to get a life.[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, flamboyance and vocal range isn't everything. Freddie was quite individual in what he did, and it worked for him. For years. It still stands out, I dare say it will years from now.
AL is just a copy with the cover songs, at times IMO a bad copy at that.
Yea, the people who spam/promote/take offense on AL's behalf need to get a life.
I've said this elsewhere. I'd be much happier to see shows just with Brian and Roger or even long term friends in the business.
[/QUOTE]

Odd post from The Real Wizard, who usually is sensible. I know that if you're a certain age, Queen in the 80s is an entirely different beast than Queen in the 70s. But Queen, at their greatest was a rock and roll monster. If you are used to that Queen (guilty), then Adam Lambert is a bad, bad joke. If you knew Queen from the 80s (poppy, less edge) then Adam Lambert might fit. But Adam Lambert is not a rock singer. Gay guy? Check. Flamboyant? Check. Great vocal range? Check. Rock and roll chops and conviction? Pat Boone laughs at his cred in the rock world, as does George Michael/

[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]

Anyone who's not happy with this collaboration should write to the remaining Queen guys and express their dissatisfaction, especially if they're not even going to the shows! LOL
[/QUOTE]
LOL. The way some Glamberts tweeted Brian when threads were locked at QOL like a crybaby. No thanks, no one is that sad. Before you spout about stalkers again it was the very mithril/taptap who posted about that on QOL. Guessing she thought it would help her cause. The lengths some go to.
In case you missed it, I'm happy for the ones who go. I can't go in case you missed that too.

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

Odd post from The Real Wizard, who usually is sensible. I know that if you're a certain age, Queen in the 80s is an entirely different beast than Queen in the 70s. But Queen, at their greatest was a rock and roll monster. If you are used to that Queen (guilty), then Adam Lambert is a bad, bad joke. If you knew Queen from the 80s (poppy, less edge) then Adam Lambert might fit. But Adam Lambert is not a rock singer. Gay guy? Check. Flamboyant? Check. Great vocal range? Check. Rock and roll chops and conviction? Pat Boone laughs at his cred in the rock world, as does George Michael/ [/QUOTE]

Ha! They were calling Adam a "rock God" on Idol! He's not Pat Boone OR George Michael -- he's Adam Lambert and people should stop trying to put him in a nice, neat little box because that's where he doesn't fit!