Lambert's Versatility

He might not be the right "voice" for Queen, but I do believe Adam's technical skill is underrated by a few on this forum, probably in part because they are comparing his tone of voice to Freddie's (which I do prefer).

However, if anyone has any doubts of Adam's singing ability, check this out. I don't think you can say Adam a bad singer after listening, regardless of tone (and no he's not a screeching goat here):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJYyqzUr6jU


I also believe Adam is a capable rock singer, but I do believe he's holding back with Queen. He is unable to sing is "style of rock" with Queen because if he does it seems to come across as "oversinging". He's learned not to do this so much with Queen, but here is evidence that Adam is a proficient rock singer (might seem like screeching goat here, but it's one hell of a performance, especially the last 3 minutes or so):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS38hz5PERU


Adam is probably more suited for Zeppelin, GNR, and Rush, than Queen. But he is a fine singer, regardless.

An original "rock" song from Adam. This is the direction I'd like to see Adam's music go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCwsv4kDHJQ


I've heard the arguments that Lambert can't do rock, but I believe he can, and can do it very well. In terms of singing Queen's rock, I don't know. I don't think is voice suits it. He seems to have different style.

hes sung with KISS too but I still tnink he sucks compared to PR who's a proper singer and never tried to sing like Freddie. Lambert is trying to be Freddie its embarrassing.

I don't get that one..........how is Adam not a 'proper singer'? What the heck is a 'proper singer' anyway?

[QUOTE] [b]Russian Headlong wrote:[/b]

hes sung with KISS too but I still tnink he sucks compared to PR who's a proper singer and never tried to sing like Freddie. Lambert is trying to be Freddie its embarrassing.[/QUOTE]

Lambert is singing like Lambert, he's not trying to be Freddie.

Also since he has been touring with BM and RT they've played a wider range of songs than they did with PR. But I guess if you tour with a proper singer you're limited by what he can, or wants, to sing.

[QUOTE] [b]Russian Headlong wrote:[/b]

Lambert is trying to be Freddie its embarrassing.[/QUOTE]

That is just so factually incorrect. The only things he has in common with Freddie are a) he is a singer b) he is flamboyant.

It's beyond me why so many people waste so much time trying to convince people ad nauseum on a Queen forum that what Queen are currently doing sucks.

Why not spend your time on a forum dedicated to a band you can say something positive about? Wouldn't that be time better spent?

Real wizard: Adam Lambert has got a good voice BUT he does make Queen material sound like he is in Glee!
Freddie had warm tones in his voice and a cracking falsetto when needed like in "Soul Brother" that was just brilliant singing.
Adam does screech and that xfactor performance was just awful last month on ITV.
all comments can not be positive, for if they were then something is wrong!

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

Real wizard: Adam Lambert has got a good voice BUT he does make Queen material sound like he is in Glee!
Freddie had warm tones in his voice and a cracking falsetto when needed like in "Soul Brother" that was just brilliant singing.
Adam does screech and that xfactor performance was just awful last month on ITV.
all comments can not be positive, for if they were then something is wrong![/QUOTE]

Gerry, it's good that you're now listening and forming a thought about opinion rather than just saying Lambert is fucking crap.

For most people the sound of a voice is more important than technical ability. Freddies voice wins out on so many levels, however I don't dislike the sound of Lambert, and he also has great range, including falsetto. Saying he belongs in Glee is a bit harsh.

Whoever fronts Queen will have a similar problem, not being Freddie creates a barrier to lots of people, but the alternative of Queen being fronted by a Freddie sound alike would be a lot worse because they'd never be as good as the real thing

The legendary Queen go back four decades. They built up an incredibly legacy of innovative music. This legacy is held dear by so many fans. They ceased to be when Freddie passed. No new singer can make the Queen legend continue, it's embarrassing to try and the buying fans are part of the legacy.
No other group of Queens standing tried to continue in this piss poor way.
It doesn't matter what Adam Lambert's pros and cons are, we're never going to agree about him.
But this ain't Queen.
Roll on the end of the flogging of the dead horse.

" Why not spend your time on a forum dedicated to a band you can say something positive about? Wouldn't that be time better spent?"

Why don't you go f@k yourself Wizard?. I used to love this band but have despised the way they have turned into a joke with Lambert upfront and May's increasingly zealot views on Animal rights. I reserve the right to make negative comments when I don't like something my favourite band, it would be nice to see them playing music with someone else like Paul Rodgers or Marc Martel. Some of us are not happy to suck up all the output of the band like you clearly do Wizard!

[QUOTE] [b]master marathon runner wrote:[/b]


No other group of Queens standing tried to continue in this piss poor way.
[/QUOTE]

What other bands of Queen's standing have found themselves in such a situation? That is, having their lead singer and most famous member die after having a successful lengthy career. I'm not coming up with much here. AC/DC? That's about the closest one I can think of, except that they got a new singer pretty quick......INXS maybe, but they werent as big as Queen.......The Doors, though they did go on for a little while without Morrison, and eventually toured with Ian Astbury......Nirvana ceased to exist completely (but Dave Grohl's been doin just fine since then!)

My point is, there's not a whole lot to compare Queen and their situation to.

[QUOTE] [b]Russian Headlong wrote:[/b]


. I used to love this band but have despised the way they have turned into a joke with Lambert upfront and May's increasingly zealot views on Animal rights. I reserve the right to make negative comments when I don't like something my favourite band, it would be nice to see them playing music with someone else like Paul Rodgers or Marc Martel. Some of us are not happy to suck up all the output of the band like you clearly do Wizard![/QUOTE]

You don't love this band any more? Your opinion of their music from '73-'91 changed because of what happened 20 years later? It sounds like that's what you're saying there, but I'm assuming that cant be right....

You don't like Lambert's voice, ok, fine, but I think calling them a joke because of that might be going a bit far....and maybe its just the way I think, but I never cared too much about what the views of my favorite bands or artists were....they're offering us music, not running for public office.

I liked the whole Paul Rodgers thing myself, but Marc Martel? At one point in this thread you were complaining about Lambert trying to be Freddie, but you'd rather have the guy whose job it is to try to be Freddie???

[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]

What other bands of Queen's standing have found themselves in such a situation? That is, having their lead singer and most famous member die after having a successful lengthy career. I'm not coming up with much here. AC/DC? That's about the closest one I can think of, except that they got a new singer pretty quick......INXS maybe, but they werent as big as Queen.......The Doors, though they did go on for a little while without Morrison, and eventually toured with Ian Astbury......Nirvana ceased to exist completely (but Dave Grohl's been doin just fine since then!)

My point is, there's not a whole lot to compare Queen and their situation to.
[/QUOTE]

Led Zeppelin and The Beatles. Only peers for Queen. AC/DC, Genesis, The Doors, all others comparisons are invalid. Zep was active, realized they couldn't continue with Bonham, he was irreplaceable. Beatles were inactive, whether they would have continued (unlikely), or couldn't have continued, Lennon was irreplaceable. Queen were in the middle ground between active and inactive, Mercury was irreplaceable, they chose to continue to drive sales and keep their legacy alive. Beatles and Zep accepted they had something special and it shouldn't be tampered with. Who's right depends on what you want in music and in life.

I was thinking of Zeppelin and the Beatles when I wrote that last post, but didn't include them because I think in each case their situations were different. With the Beatles (wasnt that the title of an album?), you're talking about them not existing as a band for 10 years prior to Lennon dying, and each member had successful solo careers in that time....and I don't think they would have re-united if Lennon had lived longer (but who knows?)......

Zep is a better example, but not QUITE the same thing either........mainly because it was their drummer, and not their singer.....not that Bonham wasn't a vital part of Zeppelin, and an awesome drummer! But I dont think it would have grabbed as much attention as Q+AL does, if Zep had replaced Bonham and went on. The Who went on without Keith Moon, but how different would it have been if they had went on without Daltrey or Townshend?

Genesis? Huh? I didnt mention them.........Gabriel left, but they're still all alive........

Wow, Mr. R. Headlong, you certainly know how to make friends and partake in civil discussions. Shame on you, sir (madam).

You know, this thread is discussing and 'Queen +' and the current lead singer, correct?

karist, I can only imagine what the Journey, Yes, Judas Priest, Styx...... 'discussion' groups act like. You know, bands that were forced to use another frontman for one reason or another.

Wonder if they're just as juvenile and hostile, and continue to beat a dead horse over and over and over and over. Most likely, as mama's basement is an amazing place to supposedly grow a pair.