Add to the list those bands that changed their line ups,Kiss,Metalica,Foo Fighters,Deep Purlple,Journey,ELO,Extreme,Priest,Big Country,Foreigner,Cheap Trick,Inxs,Rainbow,Quo,Nightwish.Ah well I hear you cry this is Queen we are talking about,no its rock n roll sell the album,concert ticket,tee shirt,dvd of the tour,end of.
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
By that token, neither is The Who, Fleetwood Mac, The Rolling Stones, Yes, Genesis, Bon Jovi, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, ........[/QUOTE]
But then there is no such group as Queen anymore. May and Taylor go under the banner of Queen+.
Which was the right decision really. At least it draws a line between Queen and Queen+.
If you say to a friend who is into music,i am going to see Queen the week before Christmas you normally get yeah but their is no Freddie anymore.So you politely say no its Queen plus Adam Lambert.Whos he they ask oh well he was runner up in an American pop show.It sounds pretty crap really,no I mean really its just pants.Then again who else is there ??? We had Paul who stood rooted to the spot until throwing his Mike stand up in the air and catching it at the end of alright now....I wonder if Adam is even a household name in USA.At least we should have the glitter ball moment at the end of Brians solo ,that was used by Floyd on the Division Bell tour.Iam going to stop now as I am tired,cheers to those of you who loyal fans ,god knows its been no pleasure cruise in recent years.
Two faux is great live
No reason to suspect they will record together but, if they do, I'll give it a go; might be great
Hopefully better than TCR
I would pay not to release such sh..t
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
A covers album might be interesting. The last Rolling Stones album ( blues covers) was the best thing they've done in years, but it was very much an album that went back to their influential roots.
I'm not convinced that Brian and Roger could write a really good collection of songs that would stand up as a good Queen album now. It would be nice if they could and with AL's vocals I think it could be closer to a recognised Queen sound than the cosmos rocks was.[/QUOTE]
With re to the Rolling Stones album - it was also the only thing they've done in years. But I agree, it sounded good.
Your reservations re a new QAL album are very justified. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't do it for three reasons. 1) In terms of creativity, Brian and Roger are a spent force, "The Cosmos Rocks" was a painful proof; 2) AL is still perceived by many as that American Idol pop singer, I don't think they would do themselves any service releasing some pop/rock crap with him; 3) John is not there, it's just not for me.
[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
A covers album might be interesting. The last Rolling Stones album ( blues covers) was the best thing they've done in years, but it was very much an album that went back to their influential roots.
I'm not convinced that Brian and Roger could write a really good collection of songs that would stand up as a good Queen album now. It would be nice if they could and with AL's vocals I think it could be closer to a recognised Queen sound than the cosmos rocks was.[/QUOTE]
With re to the Rolling Stones album - it was also the only thing they've done in years. But I agree, it sounded good.
Your reservations re a new QAL album are very justified. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't do it for three reasons. 1) In terms of creativity, Brian and Roger are a spent force, "The Cosmos Rocks" was a painful proof; 2) AL is still perceived by many as that American Idol pop singer, I don't think they would do themselves any service releasing some pop/rock crap with him; 3) John is not there, it's just not for me.
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that The Rolling Stones still have their original singer (as opposed to a Pop Idol singer).
I wonder if there would be as much vitriol aimed at Adam if he were just "discovered" by Queen and not someone famous for being on American Idol?
[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]
I wonder if there would be as much vitriol aimed at Adam if he were just "discovered" by Queen and not someone famous for being on American Idol?[/QUOTE]
I don't see what odds it would make. If someone less tacky with a better voice was discovered on Pop Idol, I think that would've been okay. But Lambert's voice and style would be just as bad no matter where he was discovered.
I think people still refer to him as a Pop idol singer as that's his style, as well as that being where he was discovered.
I don't like Adam Lambert, but I really like the idea of them making an album together.
Let me explain.
I don't like him as a vocalist. He's not my style. However, I definitely think he's enough of a showman to front Queen+______. I'm not saying he's fit to replace Freddie. I don't even think it's Queen anymore, it's Queen+Adam Lambert, which I think was a really good choice on Brian and Roger's part. All this about tarnishing Freddie's legacy doesn't really make sense to me, because Freddie will always live on in the albums and even in the videos of him performing. Queen+Adam Lambert is a completely new group and I'm just glad that the wonderful music they've made over the years is still being performed.
As for a new album, I think it's a great idea. The main reason that Cosmos Rocks didn't do it for me was because the music sounded dated and low-quality. My personal theory on this is that it's a bunch of old guys trying to appeal to a generation that's not the same generation that were fans of them in the 70s and 80s. They're all lovely musicians, but I don't think they know how to appeal to a younger audience as much, because people like different things now. In that sense, I feel that Paul Rodgers was the wrong choice to make a new album with—because the guy was 58 at the time and the music sounded old. I think that Adam has the freshness to put a new twist on Queen's style of music and really make it into something great. If they make an album together, I probably won't buy it (I don't make enough per hour to afford much lmao) but I'll definitely give it a listen on YouTube and see what it's like.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Not to mention that The Rolling Stones still have their original singer (as opposed to a Pop Idol singer).[/QUOTE]
They might have, but AC/DC, Journey, Deep Purple, Marillion and a few others didn't and built careers without their original singers, so that's probably not a valid argument for them not too
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Not to mention that The Rolling Stones still have their original singer (as opposed to a Pop Idol singer).[/QUOTE]
They might have, but AC/DC, Journey, Deep Purple, Marillion and a few others didn't and built careers without their original singers, so that's probably not a valid argument for them not too[/QUOTE]
I don't recall making an argument for them not to.
They can do as they please, as they are, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my opinion on it.
Queen didn't build their career with a pop Idol style singer. And AC/DC, Journey, Deep Purple, and Marillion didn't build their careers with pop idol singers either.
I'm fairly sure if Lambert had stepped in for Roger Waters, or Mick Jagger (if he'd left for whatever reason), or any of the groups you mentioned, the reaction would've been the same as it is on this thread.
Like any music - if it was shite I wouldn't listen to it, if it was good I would.
It wouldn't erase anything or ruin any legacy. It's not as if a new Queen album with Adam means that Queen II suddenly fails to exist.
[QUOTE] [b]LOTV wrote:[/b]
Like any music - if it was shite I wouldn't listen to it, if it was good I would.
It wouldn't erase anything or ruin any legacy. It's not as if a new Queen album with Adam means that Queen II suddenly fails to exist.
[/QUOTE]
Here, here!
Queen and Queen+ activities are two different things. I don't see how anything Queen+ does could erase Queen's legacy.
