This is sooo saaad (aka another Queen+Lambert-bashing thread)

Food for thought (posted on AL fan site).


The reviews so far for this tour have been rightly admiring, but it amuses me no end that most (if not all) of the critics feel compelled to say that of course Adam Lambert is no Freddie Mercury. Would those same critics have recognized Freddie's genius back in the days before he was a legend? Or, for that matter, the glory of Queen?

It's easy to forget that Queen didn't enjoy anything like universal critical acclaim back in the 1970s & 1980s. Nor were Freddie's vocal gifts fully appreciated. Even Rolling Stone, which gave only 3.5 stars to the classic Queen album A Night at the Opera, was writing in the 1970s that Freddie had merely "a serviceable voice"!

My favourite retort so far to the "Ah, but he's not Freddie" reviewers was this comment in response to the snooty music critic of the Calgary Herald:
Brilliant.

What's the bet that twenty years from now, reviewers will be saying of an up-and-coming singer of exceptional ability: "But of course he's no Adam Lambert"? haha.gif

That should be copy and pasted on all the reviews for the haters to read...My god I am so sick of these whiney Freddie fans...such babies..

And another tidbit from the same site.

I'll raise you a history lesson.

In 1977 Bill Lindsay, of the Calgary Herald, reviewed Queen's show at the Jubilee Auditorium. He had this to say about the band; "It would be a major mistake to believe that this British glitter quartet is original. They owe an immense debt to the likes of David Bowie, Lou Reed and even The Rolling Stones in their staging and persona, if not in their music." He then chided Brian May for being too serious about his finger work and pointed out absurdities in the staging. He wasn't all the impressed with Freddie either; "Mercury was "decked in white tights exposing his chest, cavorted about the stage in a manner very much like the emcee in the film “Cabaret.” No mention of his iconic vocal prowess or incomparable stage persona. It seems this reviewer had no idea what he was witnessing. Funny how history repeats itself.

A history lesson...? That's wonderful, out of context, of course.

You are posting a bad review of a Queen gig, well, we could put one hundred.
That doesn't mean Queen music was worse or their live gigs less effective. As you probably know, Queen mixed glam rock with metal in their first albums (have you listen to them?) At the time the review was made punk was the trendy thing, and bands who knew more than two chords and play songs of more than three minutes were impopular by the music media.

Let me point that in this way, you think AL is wonderful... how many bad reviews he got for being gay? Seriously, conservative people in America treat gay people like dirt, and are a dead weight for their careers. Artist like Mika, Sccissor Sisters, Queen... and many others suffered from it in the past, and i imagine Adam Lambert is no different. What if we put bad reviews of Alan from these conservative journalists? Will it mean Alan is worse singer?

And about the differences between Adam and Freddie... Freddie was a great musician, not only an stage performer, he was able to write and compose great tracks, what Queen did in the past live and in the studio was simply remarkable, Adam is starting his career (how many records he has, two, three?) Let's see what happen to him in the future. I wish him well, seriously, even if some of his fans can be a bit obnoxious sometimes (I guess that happens to fans of others bands too, including Queen) Adam looks like a nice guy.

"show me a negative comment from someone who's actually been to a show"

Not wanting to be blunt about this, but I don't know if I've heard a dumber argument yet, and I'm sort of sad that more of the users here don't consider themselves thoughtful enough to be above it.

It really is like saying one can't judge a Miley gig until they've been to one. Miley Cyrus isn't what this hypothetical concert-goer wants to listen to in the slightest, ergo they don't go to the show.

Martin Crane says it best (I'm paraphrasing) : 'I didn't need to get shot in the hip to know it'd hurt'.

To me, 'you can't comment until you've been to a show' is close minded and stupid. Especially with the audience recordings that are available now; I see comments to the effect of 'great recording', so clearly they convey the shows somewhat accurately, right??

Nuke this place, honestly.

"... of the Calgary Herald"

You might as well cite a model railway magazine, at this juncture.

"3) Those who do think Adam is brilliant, and want the people in category 1 and 2 to shut up, especially those in category 1"

Yeah well I want Emily Browning to come to my house and eat soft serve ice cream while washing my car, but it's not happening.

[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]
What's the bet that twenty years from now, reviewers will be saying of an up-and-coming singer of exceptional ability: "But of course he's no Adam Lambert"? haha.gif
[/QUOTE]

Very unlikely.

[QUOTE] [b]someonewholikesadam wrote:[/b]

And another tidbit from the same site.

I'll raise you a history lesson.

In 1977 Bill Lindsay, of the Calgary Herald, reviewed Queen's show at the Jubilee Auditorium. He had this to say about the band; "It would be a major mistake to believe that this British glitter quartet is original. They owe an immense debt to the likes of David Bowie, Lou Reed and even The Rolling Stones in their staging and persona, if not in their music." He then chided Brian May for being too serious about his finger work and pointed out absurdities in the staging. He wasn't all the impressed with Freddie either; "Mercury was "decked in white tights exposing his chest, cavorted about the stage in a manner very much like the emcee in the film “Cabaret.” No mention of his iconic vocal prowess or incomparable stage persona. It seems this reviewer had no idea what he was witnessing. Funny how history repeats itself. [/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea how many artists, musicians, writers, scientists etc. weren't appreciated by critics in their own time? I'm not an Adam Lambert hater, but getting good critical reviews isn't necessarily a measure of merit, as history has shown time and again. You've quoted one critic here, but even if you'd linked the 100s of similar reviews Queen got in the 70s and 80s, what does it prove?

Citing the critics is like looking across at someone else while you're using the urinal.

You guys are missing the whole point.

my new favorite song

Meh. Adam's lower register is tolerable, but this slower version is soulless.

My mum and dad went to see the show in Vancouver last night. My dad is 57, and has been to tons of Queen concerts, including the Rainbow, Hammersmith, Knebworth, etc.
According to him, he enjoyed the show because of the nostalgia. He was happy to see Brian and Roger, and sing along with the old Queen numbers. And he felt AL was passable. But he thought this felt more like a well rehearsed, well choreographed show, not a rock concert. It was too stage managed.
Not like the Freddie concerts, where Freddie just came out and entertained everybody effortlessly with his fabulous voice, and also with his fun and zany personality.

[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]

Meh. Adam's lower register is tolerable, but this slower version is soulless.[/QUOTE]

Meh is correct!

[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]

Meh. Adam's lower register is tolerable, but this slower version is soulless.[/QUOTE]

Soulless. Thank you, that's the term I was looking for.