. . . . So tell me if Lambert has so much respect for Freddie then he should get some of those millions into "The Mercury Phoenix Account" and prove that he respects Fred.
[/QUOTE]
So because of your huge respect for Freddie I take it you pay large amounts to the Phoenix Trust!
Star* · Member since
Listen i am not the one making millions of pounds out of a dead Legend, Lambert is though! Furthermore this character would be nothing on his own. May & Taylor have furthered his failing career.
His solo albums never actually set the uk charts on fire did they and he never wins best male vocalist awards! Half a Queen band have helped him to get noticed.
Invisible Woman · Member since
I don't now how many people will listen to Queen's music in the future. But I think that next generations will not start listening to Queen's music because of the touring with Adam Lambert, but because of the recorded songs and albums with Freddie.
And about the work of the band (the next tour, the new material) time goes bay and people don't become younger.
Star* · Member since
Yes i agree with your comments. Queen as a band is about the four original members and all the studio albums that still interest the world. The last 8 or so years with Queen + whoever is irrelevant as far as i am concerned because it was not Queen it was half a Queen band with backing musicians and a bland boring American boy who got luck through Brian May's desperation to get back on the road. I would have attended many live shows to see Brian & Roger but Lambert stopped me because those songs do not sound right with somebody else singing them. I hope the powers that be will release something exciting this year and not rip us all off again. It seems Queen productions enjoy ripping the fans off and not giving us better products. Beatles fans get treated to all sorts of archive material and bonus tracks and i have my suspicions that Brian & Roger have many better archives on tape and film of the band that they aint willing to share with us all. Just look how long it took to get The News of the world raw sessions, 40 years!
Vocal harmony · Member since
Believe what you want, you've said all this before Gerry
mike hunt · Member since
Oh vocal harmony....you still going on how imperfect Freddie was. No one, even Hendrix, Page and any other great weren't perfect, but they were originals who wrote and played their own music. Ground breakers like Freddie Mercury. You're really trying too compare what Freddie did for Queen with Adam? Are you really going there? I agree with the poster who said they should be playing with proper rock musicians and being more creative rather than playing the hits over and over again. Embarrassing after a while.
mike hunt · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]
I don't now how many people will listen to Queen's music in the future. But I think that next generations will not start listening to Queen's music because of the touring with Adam Lambert, but because of the recorded songs and albums with Freddie.
And about the work of the band (the next tour, the new material) time goes bay and people don't become younger.[/QUOTE]
Queen put out their first album In 1973, That's 45 years ago. People still listen and love Queen. Even In the States where they're not as popular as the rest of the world they have over a dozen songs that are voted in the top 1000 best Rock songs of all time, with 4 songs in the top 100, Bo Rhap in the top 5... Believe me when I say it has nothing to do with Lambert. Ever since Wayne's World they been relevant again in The States. Sadly, if Freddie was healthy when Wayne's world came out they would have made a nice comeback.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]
Oh vocal harmony....you still going on how imperfect Freddie was. No one, even Hendrix, Page and any other great weren't perfect, but they were originals who wrote and played their own music. Ground breakers like Freddie Mercury. You're really trying too compare what Freddie did for Queen with Adam? Are you really going there? I agree with the poster who said they should be playing with proper rock musicians and being more creative rather than playing the hits over and over again. Embarrassing after a while.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, I agree with your point that many artists had/have inperfections and that ground breaking artists who perform their own material are streets ahead of the rest.
My post was in answer to the the person who is rubbishing almost everyone in comparison with Freddie.
I only pointed out that as live singers both Paul Rodgers and Adam Lambert are more consistent than Freddie was.
Holly brought up the subject of vocal sound (Rodgers nasal tones as he puts it for example). Again thats not what I was talking about, vocal ability and technical performance is different to personal taste which is what Holly brought to the sudject.
My point was simply if you take one hundred live Freddie performances and one hundred each from Lambert and Rodgers the two Queen+ members hit the right notes more consistently.
As far as how the band want to present themselves is up to them, they have a huge legacy which they seem to enjoy performing and people enjoy being part of. If they decide to be creative and record that's up to them but I don't think any of us should tart saying what they can or can't do. I'm just pleased to see and hear half of my favourite bands still out there playing.
As for the argument that Lambert shouldn't be out there with them and Roger ad Brian should be fronting the show themselves, do you really believe that they could cover a two show vocally, to at least Lamberts standard, and play their instruments?
aristide1 · Member since
He was consistent with himself, and "the solo crap" was another facet of his brilliance.
Since he sang his own music he could afford to be inconsistent, the others can't because consistency is all they got.
Anyway, it's one of the dumbest comparison I've heard.
mike hunt · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]
He was consistent with himself, and "the solo crap" was another facet of his brilliance.
Since he sang his own music he could afford to be inconsistent, the others can't because consistency is all they got.
Anyway, it's one of the dumbest comparison I've heard.[/QUOTE]
I know, the reason I sought out Harmony is because he/she say's how imperfect Freddie is over and over. If it was Just once I wouldn't think nothing of it. And I also think his music outside of Queen can't really be Judged, it was short and in between Queen albums and Tours....music is subjective, right? So in my opinion most of his side stuff is good. Mr. Guy was poor. Barcelona in my opinion was one of my favorite Records he made. A real highlight for me. The cover songs I like as well, Pretender, my Defense, Time.... As far Rodgers, great singer for Bad Company and Free, but hearing him sing Queen songs was cringe worthy. I watched a performance recently with him singing The Show Must Go on and was reminded how bad he was singing Queen.
mike hunt · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]
He was consistent with himself, and "the solo crap" was another facet of his brilliance.
Since he sang his own music he could afford to be inconsistent, the others can't because consistency is all they got.
Anyway, it's one of the dumbest comparison I've heard.[/QUOTE]
I know, the reason I sought out Harmony is because he/she say's how imperfect Freddie is over and over. If it was Just once I wouldn't think nothing of it. And I also think his music outside of Queen can't was short and in between Queen albums and Tours....music is subjective, right? So in my opinion most of his side stuff is good. Mr. Guy was poor. Barcelona in my opinion was one of my favorite Records he made. A real highlight for me. The cover songs I like as well, Pretender, my Defense, Time.... As far Rodgers, great singer for Bad Company and Free, but hearing him sing Queen songs was cringe worthy. I watched a performance recently with him singing The Show Must Go on and was reminded how bad he was singing Queen.[/QUOTE]
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]
Oh vocal harmony....you still going on how imperfect Freddie was. No one, even Hendrix, Page and any other great weren't perfect, but they were originals who wrote and played their own music. Ground breakers like Freddie Mercury. You're really trying too compare what Freddie did for Queen with Adam? Are you really going there? I agree with the poster who said they should be playing with proper rock musicians and being more creative rather than playing the hits over and over again. Embarrassing after a while.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, I agree with your point that many artists had/have inperfections and that ground breaking artists who perform their own material are streets ahead of the rest.
My post was in answer to the the person who is rubbishing almost everyone in comparison with Freddie.
I only pointed out that as live singers both Paul Rodgers and Adam Lambert are more consistent than Freddie was.
Holly brought up the subject of vocal sound (Rodgers nasal tones as he puts it for example). Again thats not what I was talking about, vocal ability and technical performance is different to personal taste which is what Holly brought to the sudject.
My point was simply if you take one hundred live Freddie performances and one hundred each from Lambert and Rodgers the two Queen+ members hit the right notes more consistently.
As far as how the band want to present themselves is up to them, they have a huge legacy which they seem to enjoy performing and people enjoy being part of. If they decide to be creative and record that's up to them but I don't think any of us should tart saying what they can or can't do. I'm just pleased to see and hear half of my favourite bands still out there playing.
As for the argument that Lambert shouldn't be out there with them and Roger ad Brian should be fronting the show themselves, do you really believe that they could cover a two show vocally, to at least Lamberts standard, and play their instruments?[/QUOTE]
Nasal whining aside for now ("radio what's new, someone still loves yew") Rodgers was anything but consistent: he rarely tried to sing the songs as they were on the albums, he didn't try to hit the high notes, and in his phrasing he was often ahead of or behind the beat in every song. He rarely sung a song the same way twice. You can debate the merits of that, good or bad (IMO sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't) but Rodgers was not consistent even two nights in a row!
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]
He was consistent with himself, and "the solo crap" was another facet of his brilliance.
Since he sang his own music he could afford to be inconsistent, the others can't because consistency is all they got.
Anyway, it's one of the dumbest comparison I've heard.[/QUOTE]
darrell · Member since
The Future? Queen Extravaganza will put Lambert in the shade.
cmsdrums · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]
Oh vocal harmony....you still going on how imperfect Freddie was. No one, even Hendrix, Page and any other great weren't perfect, but they were originals who wrote and played their own music. Ground breakers like Freddie Mercury. You're really trying too compare what Freddie did for Queen with Adam? Are you really going there? I agree with the poster who said they should be playing with proper rock musicians and being more creative rather than playing the hits over and over again. Embarrassing after a while.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, I agree with your point that many artists had/have inperfections and that ground breaking artists who perform their own material are streets ahead of the rest.
My post was in answer to the the person who is rubbishing almost everyone in comparison with Freddie.
I only pointed out that as live singers both Paul Rodgers and Adam Lambert are more consistent than Freddie was.
Holly brought up the subject of vocal sound (Rodgers nasal tones as he puts it for example). Again thats not what I was talking about, vocal ability and technical performance is different to personal taste which is what Holly brought to the sudject.
My point was simply if you take one hundred live Freddie performances and one hundred each from Lambert and Rodgers the two Queen+ members hit the right notes more consistently.
As far as how the band want to present themselves is up to them, they have a huge legacy which they seem to enjoy performing and people enjoy being part of. If they decide to be creative and record that's up to them but I don't think any of us should tart saying what they can or can't do. I'm just pleased to see and hear half of my favourite bands still out there playing.
As for the argument that Lambert shouldn't be out there with them and Roger ad Brian should be fronting the show themselves, do you really believe that they could cover a two show vocally, to at least Lamberts standard, and play their instruments?[/QUOTE]
Nasal whining aside for now ("radio what's new, someone still loves yew") Rodgers was anything but consistent: he rarely tried to sing the songs as they were on the albums, he didn't try to hit the high notes, and in his phrasing he was often ahead of or behind the beat in every song. He rarely sung a song the same way twice. You can debate the merits of that, good or bad (IMO sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't) but Rodgers was not consistent even two nights in a row!
[/QUOTE]
very much agree - whilst Rodgers has some credit for helping Roger and Brian to tour again, this inconsistency in delivery showed a real lack of respect to Queen’s music and the fans; those songs are so recognisable, that to expect people to hear those songs sung with such massive variances in melody - in some cases so much so that Brian and Roger struggled to realise where in the song they were - just didn’t cut it for me.
Regardless of any individual view over Lambert’s suitability for the role, he at least delivers a true enough rendition of the songs to recognise them!
