[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
In my general absence here as of late
[/QUOTE]
Oooh. Sorry I missed that.
GratefulFan
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
Yay! GF is back! :) :)
[/QUOTE]
Yay! GF is back! :) :)
[/QUOTE]
The King Of Rhye
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
The wrenchingly awful sound of Adam Lambert 'searching' for notes (as he often does) or his off-key adlibs
Lambert might sound like drunk Oprah at a karaoke night,.[/QUOTE]
I have to take issue with those comments.....I'm a bit of a musician myself and just about a lifelong music lover.....and I have seen one Q+AL show in person, and listened to a handful of others over and over....I just don't see where he sounds off-key, or even worse, like 'drunk Oprah'......I've watched bits of that Detroit show I was at on youtube, and he sounds pretty darn good there!
The wrenchingly awful sound of Adam Lambert 'searching' for notes (as he often does) or his off-key adlibs
Lambert might sound like drunk Oprah at a karaoke night,.[/QUOTE]
I have to take issue with those comments.....I'm a bit of a musician myself and just about a lifelong music lover.....and I have seen one Q+AL show in person, and listened to a handful of others over and over....I just don't see where he sounds off-key, or even worse, like 'drunk Oprah'......I've watched bits of that Detroit show I was at on youtube, and he sounds pretty darn good there!
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Yay! GF is back! :) :)
[/QUOTE]
I'm having a nice nap. But the level of head up one's ass condescension was enough to wake the dead.
Yay! GF is back! :) :)
[/QUOTE]
I'm having a nice nap. But the level of head up one's ass condescension was enough to wake the dead.
Brian Maybe
Having the immense pleasure of hanging out with Bob (the original poster of this thread) last night, he told me about his post here. I've been pretty much avoiding this place, after trying to post some civil posts about Q+AL, and some of the misguided criticism of the collaboration.
Bob's post is spot on.
Sure, some are going to just not like AL's singing, and leave it at that. That's fine, and everyone's got a right to their opinion. Before this tour, I was mostly in that camp myself. Here's what I wrote in the "Chicago" thread in Serious Discussion:
-----------
The kid has really won me over. I was really skeptical of this pairing, to the point where I almost didn't buy tix to the show. There are some qualities to his voice that still bug me. He's no Freddie, and would be the first to admit it. But ya know, getting someone like him who's been influenced by Freddie like he has, and who really does have the range to pull it off, even without that quality to Freddie's voice that we all love, really seems to be a great, respectful way to keep the legacy of this music alive. And he seems to have a great and humble attitude about it.
The naysayers will always say that without Freddie, it's not Queen, but that's just stating the obvious. Freddie's gone, it was a tragedy that we lost him, but his music and legacy lives on. And to still get to see and hear Brian and Roger do their thing together is a rare treat. These are legends, and we're lucky to still have them around and able to tour!
Hearing Brian's guitar in person is still an awe inspiring thing. Just gorgeous.
And whining that they're not playing as good as they did 30-40 years ago, whatever. They're human, humans get old and slow down by their age. It's called life. Considering that, they've really only barely slowed down anyway! Find any 70's band who are still playing and tell me they're better than this! :-)
-----------
Bob's "musician's perspective" is relevant, and does not mean you can't have an opinion if you're not a musician. To even try to argue that that's what he's saying, is ridiculous. It's always helpful to have somewhat of an insider's perception on a situation when forming your own opinions of that situation, as it will give you information that you might not have originally known and considered.
My big question here, for those blasting this collaboration and tour, is why are you on a Queen forum? And I ask that not because you have to love everything a band does (I sure don't, take most of Hot Space, The Works and AKoM - not for me!), but because if you are a big enough fan to discuss them on a forum, I would think there would be a level of respect for who they are as people at this point in their lives, and a respect for all that they have created and achieved.
Again, you don't have to love it, or even like it, but it's difficult to understand some of the level of vitriol aimed towards a band that you're supposed to love enough to spend time discussing online.
That's all... :-)
Bob's post is spot on.
Sure, some are going to just not like AL's singing, and leave it at that. That's fine, and everyone's got a right to their opinion. Before this tour, I was mostly in that camp myself. Here's what I wrote in the "Chicago" thread in Serious Discussion:
-----------
The kid has really won me over. I was really skeptical of this pairing, to the point where I almost didn't buy tix to the show. There are some qualities to his voice that still bug me. He's no Freddie, and would be the first to admit it. But ya know, getting someone like him who's been influenced by Freddie like he has, and who really does have the range to pull it off, even without that quality to Freddie's voice that we all love, really seems to be a great, respectful way to keep the legacy of this music alive. And he seems to have a great and humble attitude about it.
The naysayers will always say that without Freddie, it's not Queen, but that's just stating the obvious. Freddie's gone, it was a tragedy that we lost him, but his music and legacy lives on. And to still get to see and hear Brian and Roger do their thing together is a rare treat. These are legends, and we're lucky to still have them around and able to tour!
Hearing Brian's guitar in person is still an awe inspiring thing. Just gorgeous.
And whining that they're not playing as good as they did 30-40 years ago, whatever. They're human, humans get old and slow down by their age. It's called life. Considering that, they've really only barely slowed down anyway! Find any 70's band who are still playing and tell me they're better than this! :-)
-----------
Bob's "musician's perspective" is relevant, and does not mean you can't have an opinion if you're not a musician. To even try to argue that that's what he's saying, is ridiculous. It's always helpful to have somewhat of an insider's perception on a situation when forming your own opinions of that situation, as it will give you information that you might not have originally known and considered.
My big question here, for those blasting this collaboration and tour, is why are you on a Queen forum? And I ask that not because you have to love everything a band does (I sure don't, take most of Hot Space, The Works and AKoM - not for me!), but because if you are a big enough fan to discuss them on a forum, I would think there would be a level of respect for who they are as people at this point in their lives, and a respect for all that they have created and achieved.
Again, you don't have to love it, or even like it, but it's difficult to understand some of the level of vitriol aimed towards a band that you're supposed to love enough to spend time discussing online.
That's all... :-)
Sheer Brass Neck
^^^
Hi Brian Maybe, I'm going to assume you re the Brian Maybe who posted a while back about the Queen Extravaganza experience. If that is in fact you, you are a fabulous guitarist and I have the greatest respect for you. Having said that :)
"The kid has really won me over." He has not won me, or countless others over, primarily due to the fact that I (we) can't buy him as a rock singer.
"But ya know, getting someone like him who's been influenced by Freddie like he has, and who really does have the range to pull it off, even without that quality to Freddie's voice that we all love, really seems to be a great, respectful way to keep the legacy of this music alive. And he seems to have a great and humble attitude about it." Agree whole heartedly. But if someone has seen Freddie ( 5 times form ADATR to Hot Space tours) Adam is a sincere replacement, humble, great but not the guy for the the job. Is this ignorance, or intolerance, or a sign of intelligence?
"The naysayers will always say that without Freddie, it's not Queen, but that's just stating the obvious." Yes, but Freddie is arguably the equivalent of Elvis or John Lennon. He's not Bon Scott or Peter Gabriel. He's Freddie Mercury. He is a super legend who is irreplaceable. No one can compare, so if people are happy to see what is left of Queen perform, that is awesome. If you are to compare it to a Queen show in the 70s it's pretty elfin' bad.
"Freddie's gone, it was a tragedy that we lost him, but his music and legacy lives on. And to still get to see and hear Brian and Roger do their thing together is a rare treat. These are legends, and we're lucky to still have them around and able to tour!" Amen.
"And whining that they're not playing as good as they did 30-40 years ago, whatever. They're human, humans get old and slow down by their age. It's called life" Sure, and the aren't as good, fast, whatever. If you saw Queen in the 70s they were a rock and roll juggernaut. Now they're a poppy rock band that plays at a lesser speed due to a age. I have my memories. Am i wrong to compare the shows from my day to the shows I see now and say there's less intensity, passion, vibrance than I saw in the day? Or should I be comparing them to other 60+ year old musicians? I honestly don't know the answer, but I personally see a nostalgia show, hard to get fired up for songs I've heard and seen before performed significantly better.
"Find any 70's band who are still playing and tell me they're better than this! :-)" So is the comparison what you see today or what you've seen in the past? If you've seen Queen 30+ years ago they are a shadow of what they were. However, they still play great. What is the point of comparison?
"Bob's "musician's perspective" is relevant, and does not mean you can't have an opinion if you're not a musician." Too true.
"To even try to argue that that's what he's saying, is ridiculous. It's always helpful to have somewhat of an insider's perception on a situation when forming your own opinions of that situation, as it will give you information that you might not have originally known and considered."
Can't agree. "They're older", "touring is tough", "you've never been on the road" justifies $200+ ticket prices? Nope. They're touring a greatest hits tour and have for the last three tours. Nothing new to see, their performance has deteriorated with age and they are asking for top dollar (which the market apparently is fine with), but I don't see how they are different than any other oldies group apart from the quality of their catalogue. But your post is great and I always appreciate a great musicians POV.
Hi Brian Maybe, I'm going to assume you re the Brian Maybe who posted a while back about the Queen Extravaganza experience. If that is in fact you, you are a fabulous guitarist and I have the greatest respect for you. Having said that :)
"The kid has really won me over." He has not won me, or countless others over, primarily due to the fact that I (we) can't buy him as a rock singer.
"But ya know, getting someone like him who's been influenced by Freddie like he has, and who really does have the range to pull it off, even without that quality to Freddie's voice that we all love, really seems to be a great, respectful way to keep the legacy of this music alive. And he seems to have a great and humble attitude about it." Agree whole heartedly. But if someone has seen Freddie ( 5 times form ADATR to Hot Space tours) Adam is a sincere replacement, humble, great but not the guy for the the job. Is this ignorance, or intolerance, or a sign of intelligence?
"The naysayers will always say that without Freddie, it's not Queen, but that's just stating the obvious." Yes, but Freddie is arguably the equivalent of Elvis or John Lennon. He's not Bon Scott or Peter Gabriel. He's Freddie Mercury. He is a super legend who is irreplaceable. No one can compare, so if people are happy to see what is left of Queen perform, that is awesome. If you are to compare it to a Queen show in the 70s it's pretty elfin' bad.
"Freddie's gone, it was a tragedy that we lost him, but his music and legacy lives on. And to still get to see and hear Brian and Roger do their thing together is a rare treat. These are legends, and we're lucky to still have them around and able to tour!" Amen.
"And whining that they're not playing as good as they did 30-40 years ago, whatever. They're human, humans get old and slow down by their age. It's called life" Sure, and the aren't as good, fast, whatever. If you saw Queen in the 70s they were a rock and roll juggernaut. Now they're a poppy rock band that plays at a lesser speed due to a age. I have my memories. Am i wrong to compare the shows from my day to the shows I see now and say there's less intensity, passion, vibrance than I saw in the day? Or should I be comparing them to other 60+ year old musicians? I honestly don't know the answer, but I personally see a nostalgia show, hard to get fired up for songs I've heard and seen before performed significantly better.
"Find any 70's band who are still playing and tell me they're better than this! :-)" So is the comparison what you see today or what you've seen in the past? If you've seen Queen 30+ years ago they are a shadow of what they were. However, they still play great. What is the point of comparison?
"Bob's "musician's perspective" is relevant, and does not mean you can't have an opinion if you're not a musician." Too true.
"To even try to argue that that's what he's saying, is ridiculous. It's always helpful to have somewhat of an insider's perception on a situation when forming your own opinions of that situation, as it will give you information that you might not have originally known and considered."
Can't agree. "They're older", "touring is tough", "you've never been on the road" justifies $200+ ticket prices? Nope. They're touring a greatest hits tour and have for the last three tours. Nothing new to see, their performance has deteriorated with age and they are asking for top dollar (which the market apparently is fine with), but I don't see how they are different than any other oldies group apart from the quality of their catalogue. But your post is great and I always appreciate a great musicians POV.
Sheer Brass Neck
Further to my reply, here is another less than stellar review of the New York show. It seems big city writers aren't digging the pairing, smaller town writers like it. What doe s that prove, and is this a harsh review?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/arts/music/queen-adam-lambert-take-on-madison-square-garden.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/arts/music/queen-adam-lambert-take-on-madison-square-garden.html?_r=0
Daniel Nester
Yes, it is a harsh review. And it proves that some of the old guard critics still have jobs. Jon Pareles has slagged on Queen multiple times in New York Times over the years, and the Old Gray Lady has a track record of hating on Queen, second to Rolling Stone.
First review ever in NYT:
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490239799547023360/photo/1
1977 MSG gig (i.e., the legendary one where Brian's parents came to visit):
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490469789458911233
One of the many levels of irony to peel off in these QAL discussions is how some in the anti-Lambert camp refer to negative reviews to point out that not everyone loves Queen + Adam Lambert.
While that's true, it's also true that rock critics--in particular the more traditional ones, who are on staff at the big-city papers--have always hated Queen, and made big sport in coming up with new ways of insulting them. The small town writers are usually covering several beats and likely haven't gotten the memo from Rock Critic Central that Queen are horrible.
First review ever in NYT:
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490239799547023360/photo/1
1977 MSG gig (i.e., the legendary one where Brian's parents came to visit):
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490469789458911233
One of the many levels of irony to peel off in these QAL discussions is how some in the anti-Lambert camp refer to negative reviews to point out that not everyone loves Queen + Adam Lambert.
While that's true, it's also true that rock critics--in particular the more traditional ones, who are on staff at the big-city papers--have always hated Queen, and made big sport in coming up with new ways of insulting them. The small town writers are usually covering several beats and likely haven't gotten the memo from Rock Critic Central that Queen are horrible.
Sheer Brass Neck
Good post Daniel, if there is a pattern of bias it hardly helps the reviewer's credibility as having an honest take.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Daniel Nester wrote:[/b]
One of the many levels of irony to peel off in these QAL discussions is how some in the anti-Lambert camp refer to negative reviews to point out that not everyone loves Queen + Adam Lambert.
While that's true, it's also true that rock critics--in particular the more traditional ones, who are on staff at the big-city papers--have always hated Queen, and made big sport in coming up with new ways of insulting them. The small town writers are usually covering several beats and likely haven't gotten the memo from Rock Critic Central that Queen are horrible.
[/QUOTE]
Bang on. Most reviews of Queen shows from 1974-80 ranged from lukewarm to downright hostile and personal. Only by 1982 did these guys seem to finally "get it." But at the end of the day, Queen were just too British and not one-dimensional for these critics get their heads around. They want to compartmentalize things into a box, a nice easy to understand category. This is why Queen never really fit the mold of an American rock scene with The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and Springsteen.
That said..
"I've traveled the world, and not once have I ever seen a statue of a music critic." -- Frank Zappa
One of the many levels of irony to peel off in these QAL discussions is how some in the anti-Lambert camp refer to negative reviews to point out that not everyone loves Queen + Adam Lambert.
While that's true, it's also true that rock critics--in particular the more traditional ones, who are on staff at the big-city papers--have always hated Queen, and made big sport in coming up with new ways of insulting them. The small town writers are usually covering several beats and likely haven't gotten the memo from Rock Critic Central that Queen are horrible.
[/QUOTE]
Bang on. Most reviews of Queen shows from 1974-80 ranged from lukewarm to downright hostile and personal. Only by 1982 did these guys seem to finally "get it." But at the end of the day, Queen were just too British and not one-dimensional for these critics get their heads around. They want to compartmentalize things into a box, a nice easy to understand category. This is why Queen never really fit the mold of an American rock scene with The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and Springsteen.
That said..
"I've traveled the world, and not once have I ever seen a statue of a music critic." -- Frank Zappa
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Daniel Nester wrote:[/b]
First review ever in NYT:
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490239799547023360/photo/1
[/QUOTE]
Yup, that's where it all began..
And they weren't much nicer to Mott..
http://queenlive.ca/queen/reviews/74-05-07_New%20York_review.jpg
First review ever in NYT:
https://twitter.com/DanielNester/status/490239799547023360/photo/1
[/QUOTE]
Yup, that's where it all began..
And they weren't much nicer to Mott..
http://queenlive.ca/queen/reviews/74-05-07_New%20York_review.jpg
Sheer Brass Neck
There are a group of American writers who never got Queen. Springsteen, the Eagles, Lynard Skynard or any bunch of guys in jeans and guitars were easy to understand for lots of American's (generalization I know) at the time. A guy in a harlequin Nijinsky leotard in 1977 wasn't an everyday occurrence. Easier to relate to songs about your hometown, factory jobs, dive bars and cars. Moet et Chandon, tatterdemalions and Beelzebub? Not so much :)
queenUSA
NYT says one thing NYP says another, and same city. This experience hasn't been about reading papers, but actually going to the shows. Fans who know Love of My Life are going to get why Brian continues to perform it and can even relish those moments, the same with Roger on Days of our Lives - but your average writer doesn't get the heart of Queen and is just doing a clinical review on an ipad and then onto the next article. So he said the middle portion lagged, but a lot of ticket holders like me know exactly what the set list is and look forward to it.
john bodega
"I would think there would be a level of respect for who they are as people at this point in their lives, and a respect for all that they have created and achieved"
Honesty is (or I think should be) a part of real respect. Queen's just about the most important band in my life, and therefore I think I sort of owe it to them to be as honest as I can when we're sharing opinions of what they've been up to lately.
And I dunno, maybe you're referring to someone else here because I think I've been pretty fair myself. Q+AL as a collaboration is by no means anywhere near as retarded as the 5ive shit, or the Wyclif Jean thing, or that Godawful Britney/Pink/Bouncy ad they did. It sits above all of that crap, whether one finds the sound itself pleasing or not. Again, there seems to be this thing people do where they just stop giving a fuck about the finer points and accept whatever lands in their face. It's the same trick one pulls when watching a Michael Bay movie. I think my favourite band deserves better. And again; Q+AL is not without merit.
Also ... I don't know why the fuck people keep linking to old reviews of this or that. 'Actual Queen got bad reviews too!' is meaningless. You do realise this, right?
Virtually the only thing I've ever learned from a published review on this forum is that the guitarist from the first line-up of Queen Extravaganza is a top order douche canoe. And that was only because he did us all a favour by commenting on it when he was clearly in a bad mood.
PS. ^ not a review.
Honesty is (or I think should be) a part of real respect. Queen's just about the most important band in my life, and therefore I think I sort of owe it to them to be as honest as I can when we're sharing opinions of what they've been up to lately.
And I dunno, maybe you're referring to someone else here because I think I've been pretty fair myself. Q+AL as a collaboration is by no means anywhere near as retarded as the 5ive shit, or the Wyclif Jean thing, or that Godawful Britney/Pink/Bouncy ad they did. It sits above all of that crap, whether one finds the sound itself pleasing or not. Again, there seems to be this thing people do where they just stop giving a fuck about the finer points and accept whatever lands in their face. It's the same trick one pulls when watching a Michael Bay movie. I think my favourite band deserves better. And again; Q+AL is not without merit.
Also ... I don't know why the fuck people keep linking to old reviews of this or that. 'Actual Queen got bad reviews too!' is meaningless. You do realise this, right?
Virtually the only thing I've ever learned from a published review on this forum is that the guitarist from the first line-up of Queen Extravaganza is a top order douche canoe. And that was only because he did us all a favour by commenting on it when he was clearly in a bad mood.
PS. ^ not a review.
john bodega
"Easier to relate to songs about your hometown, factory jobs, dive bars and cars"
Brian did his best with 'Put Out The Fire'. No better way to relate to an American than with the 'sell the guns!" message, ha.
Brian did his best with 'Put Out The Fire'. No better way to relate to an American than with the 'sell the guns!" message, ha.