Would you folks consider Adam Lambert a "rock star"?

[QUOTE] [b]GrowUpGlamberts wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Unless you’re willing to argue Freddie wasn’t by then.

[/QUOTE]

I am willing to concede that. He definitely had a rock star attitude before then, but it took him time to ease into his role... certainly less time than it has for Adam with the remaining active members of Queen.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but Adam is not a full time member of Queen. Nor is Queen a full time band. He only tours with them when they get the itch. So that could explain it. He doesn't have the same experience level.

And to be fair, no, i don't think Adam Lambert has the potential to get to the same level Freddie Mercury. But after watching Adam in action - he pulls off a Queen show with relative ease. Look at the "rock stars" try to pull off Queen songs at the FM Tribute show. Adam makes it look comparably easy. Right, he rehearses the material more often but at the same time - a lot of those guys had much more stage time.

At this moment, I wouldn't rather another front man filling in for Adam Lambert. Gary Cherone or Matthew Bellamy may prove interesting but exhaustive in the long run. Adam Lambert still feels like he has to prove something.

No he hasn't proved himself in the Queen world. Has he put his emotion into writing and producing the songs for years? No, and that's just one thing.
Seriously, the bullshit you come out with to promote Adam, sweetcaroline...it's so far out there, it's hysterical.

Don't forget sweetcaroline, your reasoning on QOL. " Life isn't fair so AL has taken the financial opportunity to tour with Queen ".
One of your last posts before your ban. By you saying that, you make it seem AL is n t for the money and nothing else.

AL is nothing but a footnote in Queen history.

Rock NO!!!! , POP and a bit Glamrock YES. Using your microfone and pretend it's a cock your lickin'and putting in your ass various times during a live show of Queen+AL is not what I see in a ROCKSTAR.

Adam is a better live performer than recording artist. His powerful voice was meant to be heard in large arenas and stadiums and not manipulated with studio recording equipment. That’s why he has thrived as a Queen front man more than a recording artist. He’s not a weepy soul singer like big record sellers and Grammy winners Adele and Sam Smith. He has three good albums but the singles from those albums have not been hits. When he has toured those albums worldwide he brings an exciting live rock edge to the songs that don’t come across as rock in the studio.atmosphere.

How do you think he is better live than in studio, sweetcaroline? By that, I mean in his own solo career.

Hahahahah !

I like Adam, he's alright for what he is. It's enjoyable seeing the music live and he does a good job of carrying the tunes.

He's not a rock star, he's a pop singer who would be suited to musical theater, which is pretty much what QAL is.

[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]

Adam is a better live performer than recording artist. His powerful voice was meant to be heard in large arenas and stadiums and not manipulated with studio recording equipment. That’s why he has thrived as a Queen front man more than a recording artist. He’s not a weepy soul singer like big record sellers and Grammy winners Adele and Sam Smith. He has three good albums but the singles from those albums have not been hits. When he has toured those albums worldwide he brings an exciting live rock edge to the songs that don’t come across as rock in the studio.atmosphere.[/QUOTE]

Priceless

By that reckoning bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Puple Queen ( the original band with that Bulsara fellow) should have returned piss poor record sales despite sellout tours

You heard it here first people Adam Lamberts voice was never meant to be recorded!!

[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]

Glam rocker with the best of them, including Mercury, Bowie, Elvis, Bono and Michael Jackson!
[/QUOTE]

Clearly u must be new to this planet.


Since when oh when were ELVIS, BONO & MICHAEL JACKSON glam rockers? ???

personally cannot stand the fairy fellow, nothing but a reality show karaoake winner and I have zero interest in seeing the band with him fronting.

Adam didn’t WIN American Idol because it was on a homophobic TV station (Fox) with homophobic viewers who preferred the GWG (guys with guitars) to the guy with guyliner! There were 6 of them who won in a row including the year Adam came in 2nd. The guys who won are nowhere now. The ones who made it are Kelly ,and Carrie. Adam is the energizer bunny who has kept on going for the 8 years since Idol because his raw talent cannot be denied. He is a solo singer and shouldn’t be compared to recording bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, U2 and Queen. Even Freddie was not successful when he went solo. Adam Levine would not sell records if he wasn’t part of the Maroon 5 band.

Where are they now:

http://articles.syracuse.com/tv/index.ssf/2016/01/american_idol_stars_where_now_list.amp

[QUOTE] [b]SweetCaroline wrote:[/b]

Adam didn’t WIN American Idol because it was on a homophobic TV station (Fox) with homophobic viewers who preferred the GWG (guys with guitars) to the guy with guyliner! There were 6 of them who won in a row including the year Adam came in 2nd. The guys who won are nowhere now. The ones who made it are Kelly ,and Carrie. Adam is the energizer bunny who has kept on going for the 8 years since Idol because his raw talent cannot be denied. He is a solo singer and shouldn’t be compared to recording bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, U2 and Queen. Even Freddie was not successful when he went solo. Adam Levine would not sell records if he wasn’t part of the Maroon 5 band.[/QUOTE]

Freddie has had a UK no1 you fucking imbecile. You don't knwo anything about Freddie or Queen in your little bubble. Don't mention the cunt from Maroon 5 in the same conversation as Freddie.

Kindly fuck off.