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

I was thinking back to the mid 1970s when Queen started to become popular in the US. I was in my mid-teens. I remember everyone really liking Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought it was just okay. At that time I thought all Queen songs were just okay. And I thought Freddie was just okay. I was into soul music, disco music, blah, blah. I never was a rocker. When Madonna and Prince came along, I LOVED them because they had great music and did more than just sing when performing. Freddie was a great showman but his music didn't appeal to me.

In retrospect, I've come to realize the enormity of Freddie's talent. Still, when I watch videos of him (never saw him live), he is good but not great to me.

Adam is my type of performer and singer 100%. So, in fairness, I guess most of you feel about Adam as I felt and feel about Freddie.

In summary, everybody likes a different cup of tea.

But, again, I still cannot see how anyone thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible.

Can only speak for myself, and Adam is supremely talented, and far from horrible. To be honest, he has a thankless job. Some people compare the Queen situation to Genesis, Yes, AC/DC, Black Sabbath in terms of replacements. Pretty stupid analogies but on this board sometimes intelligence appears on a monthly basis if you're lucky. So, putting aside all of those bad comparisons, Adam is replacing not just a singer, but a man who arguably:

* is the greatest rock singer ever, or is on a very short list
* is the writer of the greatest rock song ever, or one on a very short list
* is the greatest frontman ever, or on a very short list
* is almost single handedly responsible for delivering the greatest set of live music in the modern era, or is on a very short list

Look at Van Halen. Sammy Hagar and Gary Cherone are both better singers (by a mile) and arguably better songwriters than David Lee Roth, but for VH fans, Dave's their guy. Forget that you and I could probably sing better live than DLR, VH fans will go to their graves thinking only Dave is the guy because he was a better frontman and wrote some good lyrics. Adam does nothing from singing/writing/performing (let alone producing and arranging) better than Freddie. Nothing. Great voice, not a rock and roll voice though. Do you really wonder why fans are split? He's a great singer, but is an untenable position with fans of Queen when they were a rock band. Fans of Queen the pop band are likely more pleased as they have no point of reference as Queen in the early to late 80s were not the same band they were in the 70s.

[QUOTE]

[b]someonewholikesadam wrote: [/b] I was thinking back to the mid 1970s when Queen started to become popular in the US. I was in my mid-teens. I remember everyone really liking Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought it was just okay. At that time I thought all Queen songs were just okay. And I thought Freddie was just okay. I was into soul music, disco music, blah, blah. I never was a rocker. When Madonna and Prince came along, I LOVED them because they had great music and did more than just sing when performing. Freddie was a great showman but his music didn't appeal to me.

In retrospect, I've come to realize the enormity of Freddie's talent. Still, when I watch videos of him (never saw him live), he is good but not great to me.

Adam is my type of performer and singer 100%. So, in fairness, I guess most of you feel about Adam as I felt and feel about Freddie.

In summary, everybody likes a different cup of tea.

But, again, I still cannot see how anyone thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible.
[/QUOTE]

No we dont, because you have (probably) never felt disgusted from Freddie, like I feel because of Lambert´s performance. Your music history just proved why you simply do not get Queen music at all, Queen were and still are mainly rock band and rock as genre has roots in blues - that´s the reason why bluesrock singer is much more natural fit, than pop singer with them. Main key of Queen music is rock. Freddie´s fantastic showmanship was great but it wasnt his greatest talent - it was composing and using the voice as instrument. That´s huge difference between Lambert´s using of voice and Mercury´s using of voice and Rodgers´s using of voice. FM and PR are using the voice as instruments "fitting" into the band sound - each one was sounding different - FM was sort of leadership type of singer (like drummer or lead guitar player is - much more obvious in the sound), PR with Queen was sort of singer on the position of bass player (he´s not so "obvious" in the sound, but without him it´s going to break appart). AL sounds like he wants "oversing" the band. I dont know how to describe it.... but its like:

Queen: Freddie´s voice + music
QPR: music + PR´s voice
QAL: LAMBERT´s VOICE + ............................. somewhere hidden "background music"

It´s like when you would try to cut your tulips in the garden with chainsaw..... Totally unfitting to the situation. That´s how AL´s voice sounds with Queen+ to me.

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

I was thinking back to the mid 1970s when Queen started to become popular in the US. I was in my mid-teens. I remember everyone really liking Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought it was just okay. At that time I thought all Queen songs were just okay. And I thought Freddie was just okay. I was into soul music, disco music, blah, blah. I never was a rocker. When Madonna and Prince came along, I LOVED them because they had great music and did more than just sing when performing. Freddie was a great showman but his music didn't appeal to me.

In retrospect, I've come to realize the enormity of Freddie's talent. Still, when I watch videos of him (never saw him live), he is good but not great to me.

Adam is my type of performer and singer 100%. So, in fairness, I guess most of you feel about Adam as I felt and feel about Freddie.

In summary, everybody likes a different cup of tea.

But, again, I still cannot see how anyone thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible.
[/QUOTE]

The first paragraph actually explains a LOT of your passion for Adam, thank you for that, I think I understand you better now.

Also, I don't know if somebody here thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible. I don't really have time to read everything here but from what I read I was under the impression that most of the "negative" people simply think AL is inappropriate for singing Queen songs, or classic rock songs. I for example seriously like his voice but at the same time i absolutely hate his STYLE of singing. The funny thing is he is REALLY getting better with each gig

[QUOTE]

[b]someonewholikesadam wrote: [/b] I was thinking back to the mid 1970s when Queen started to become popular in the US. I was in my mid-teens. I remember everyone really liking Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought it was just okay. At that time I thought all Queen songs were just okay. And I thought Freddie was just okay. I was into soul music, disco music, blah, blah. I never was a rocker. When Madonna and Prince came along, I LOVED them because they had great music and did more than just sing when performing. Freddie was a great showman but his music didn't appeal to me.

In retrospect, I've come to realize the enormity of Freddie's talent. Still, when I watch videos of him (never saw him live), he is good but not great to me.

Adam is my type of performer and singer 100%. So, in fairness, I guess most of you feel about Adam as I felt and feel about Freddie.

In summary, everybody likes a different cup of tea.

But, again, I still cannot see how anyone thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, that's a good comment unlike rocknrolllover's hate eruptions that never seem to end. You do make a point and I understand what you mean :) More comments like this and Queenzone will become a better place.

Being a disco-fan does explain why someone likes AL, IMHO. It's all synthetic and fake, and how anyone can fail to see that is beyond me. He came out of the American Idol-circuit, for goodness sake!

But one crucial thing: I would not find AL quite as unbearable as I do if it weren't for his horde of deranged fans acting like compulsive missionaries, insisting everyone convert to their worship of AL as the incarnation of musical divinity and spamming the whole damn internet and especially every Queen-site with their hero-worshiping drivel. I can't stand Freddie Mercury-stepfords, and I feel the same way about AL-stepfords.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Being a disco-fan does explain why someone likes AL, IMHO. It's all synthetic and fake, and how anyone can fail to see that is beyond me. He came out of the American Idol-circuit, for goodness sake!

But one crucial thing: I would not find AL quite as unbearable as I do if it weren't for his horde of deranged fans acting like compulsive missionaries, insisting everyone convert to their worship of AL as the incarnation of musical divinity and spamming the whole damn internet and especially every Queen-site with their hero-worshiping drivel. I can't stand Freddie Mercury-stepfords, and I feel the same way about AL-stepfords.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of AL's background and the process that put him where he is now.

He is fronting a band, singing LIVE to large ecstatic audiences. Not only that, but he's singing classic songs that stretch a long way into that bands history. The last time such a cross section of songs were presented live it needed a selection of singers, some of who couldn't sing as well as AL.

How is that, in anyone mind synthetic?

In 2012 when the first AL dates with Queen were announced, the amount of abuse and negative comments on hear were unbelievable. at the time my reply was that time would tell.

In now think he and the band are doing fine had it's working better than the PR tours

What you think of the band is your responsibility and you are as much entitled to your views as I am to mine. I don't like some American Idol synthetic starlet fronting any band and I refuse to have anything to do with this travesty. I prefer to spend my time on interesting music, not on some record company tool rehashing a band's back catalog.

One of things I simply cant get..... Why there is even "need" to say that he´s singing live. I read an interview with them when they said numerous times that they are all playing live, there are no playbacks, they are all singing, no click track etc..... What the hell are they talking about. It´s supposed to be natural thing on rock concert. Do you want to tell me that you had playbacks, you were not playing live or you were not singing during tours with Freddie or Paul? Why do you even feel the need to say these things which SHOULD be normal on live rock concert. It´s like saying our grass is green, our water is wet.... I KNOW that music scene today is filled with so-called stars performing on playback, but that´s just different world and I always thought that there are things which are just so obvious that its not even need to say them - neither use them as "promotion", and that´s what happened.... It´s really strange world we are living in...

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]


In 2012 when the first AL dates with Queen were announced, the amount of abuse and negative comments on hear were unbelievable. at the time my reply was that time would tell.

[/QUOTE]

Do you think that the reaction would have been the same if Brian and Roger hadn't used the name 'Queen'? Or had modified it somehow ('Queen - revisited', or something)?

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

I was thinking back to the mid 1970s when Queen started to become popular in the US. I was in my mid-teens. I remember everyone really liking Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought it was just okay. At that time I thought all Queen songs were just okay. And I thought Freddie was just okay. I was into soul music, disco music, blah, blah. I never was a rocker. When Madonna and Prince came along, I LOVED them because they had great music and did more than just sing when performing. Freddie was a great showman but his music didn't appeal to me.

In retrospect, I've come to realize the enormity of Freddie's talent. Still, when I watch videos of him (never saw him live), he is good but not great to me.

Adam is my type of performer and singer 100%. So, in fairness, I guess most of you feel about Adam as I felt and feel about Freddie.

In summary, everybody likes a different cup of tea.

But, again, I still cannot see how anyone thinks AL is talentless and/or horrible.
[/QUOTE]

You do not think Freddie is great and I have not seen any comments from you regarding Brian and Roger. It shows that you are not a Queen fan. You are just a troll who is here to hard sell AL. QZ is for Queen fans only.

@someonewholikesadam

Going by what you've said, It seems as if you're just here (or mainly here) to promote Adam, or to defend him, which is somewhat pointless really.
His performances speak for themselves - people either like those performances if they don't. You can't make people like Lambert's style, or convert those who don't particularly rate him into people who love him fronting the band - the band of which, as you said, Freddie's music didn't appeal to you. Bare in mind they weren't only Freddie's songs, as Freddie wasn't the only songwriter in Queen. Therefore it was Queens music that didn't appeal to you.


This has me wondering why you bother with a Queen forum, instead of a Lambert one. If it's just to promote Lambert and defend him from Queen fans who don't really dig him, then your efforts would most likely only prove to be in vain.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

How is that, in anyone mind synthetic?

[/QUOTE]

Synthetic in the sense that although Lambert hits the notes, he lacks (most importantly) depth to his voice, or the right tone. Not rock n roll. Cabaret.

Here's a comparison for everyone reading to make.

Another example of a voice that sounds far more suited to a rock number like Stone Cold Crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY05WFFvovU

Now compare that to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT43MOKsN-M

The first version, I can imagine blasting out in a car, the other, would be an embarrassment. It might sound alright in the arena or whatever at the time, but take a step back, and it's seriously lackluster. Not the case with the first version.


Sure, in the absence of Freddie, Lambert's voice is a way for people to hear Queen songs live again,. But that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

And as you brought it up, some of those songs have been done better by other performers. My example there being just one.

[QUOTE] [b]ptr wrote:[/b]

One of things I simply cant get..... Why there is even "need" to say that he´s singing live. I read an interview with them when they said numerous times that they are all playing live, there are no playbacks, they are all singing, no click track etc..... What the hell are they talking about. It´s supposed to be natural thing on rock concert. Do you want to tell me that you had playbacks, you were not playing live or you were not singing during tours with Freddie or Paul? Why do you even feel the need to say these things which SHOULD be normal on live rock concert. It´s like saying our grass is green, our water is wet.... I KNOW that music scene today is filled with so-called stars performing on playback, but that´s just different world and I always thought that there are things which are just so obvious that its not even need to say them - neither use them as "promotion", and that´s what happened.... It´s really strange world we are living in... [/QUOTE]

There are many acts that do play with prerecorded music, Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath's keyboard, Therion's orchestral background and some operatic vocals etc

Using prerecorded music is very common in this time and age, that's why Queen+AL want to let you know that they are playing live (with the exception of Freddie on LOML or BoRap)

[QUOTE]

[b]winterspelt wrote: [/b] There are many acts that do play with prerecorded music, Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath's keyboard, Therion's orchestral background and some operatic vocals etc

Using prerecorded music is very common in this time and age, that's why Queen+AL want to let you know that they are playing live (with the exception of Freddie on LOML or BoRap)
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea about Iron Maiden, but Sabbath´s have keyboardists since 80s and use them during concerts.... pre-recorded music is maybe just introduction.... Maybe they meant Radio Ga Ga / Days Of Our Lives during 2005 Tour? I have no idea. I have other serious issue with them but it was already mentioned - TYMD played by Rufus on drums and Roger offstage..... That´s much worse than when Brian plays guitar, Roger sings and they have "sampled" drum track - like in 2005 for half of Ga Ga....