QAL European Tour 2018: post your videos here !!

princetom wrote:

HEY ! it's BM ... AND ... RT... doing stuff... live... i would have died for that stuff in the end of the 90s !

I remember that time very well. It seemed completely impossible that they would work together again after No One But You, as they each released solo albums the following year. It all seemed to be over. But then the Queen+ activities slowly began (likely because Cozy Powell died - I really am certain these two things are correlated).

After a bunch of missteps, they hooked up with Paul Rodgers and everything changed. I have never heard Brian May sound so upbeat than the interviews in early 2005. It's like he got a second lease on life.

The Lambert period has lasted longer and may ultimately be a better product, but nothing in the last decade of Queen+ compares to the excitement people felt before that first proper gig at the Brixton Academy in 2005. To suggest otherwise is revisionist history. It really felt like hell froze over.

The Real Wizard wrote:

princetom wrote:

HEY ! it's BM ... AND ... RT... doing stuff... live... i would have died for that stuff in the end of the 90s !

I remember that time very well. It seemed completely impossible that they would work together again after No One But You, as they each released solo albums the following year. It all seemed to be over. But then the Queen+ activities slowly began (likely because Cozy Powell died - I really am certain these two things are correlated).

After a bunch of missteps, they hooked up with Paul Rodgers and everything changed. I have never heard Brian May sound so upbeat than the interviews in early 2005. It's like he got a second lease on life.

The Lambert period has lasted longer and may ultimately be a better product, but nothing in the last decade of Queen+ compares to the excitement people felt before that first proper gig at the Brixton Academy in 2005. To suggest otherwise is revisionist history. It really felt like hell froze over.

I truly thought NBY was the end of Queen. For me, it is he end, I suppose. Q+PR wasn't Queen to me, even though I liked it despite a quibble or two. I remember being so shocked when the Q+PR tour news and album news broke. I never went to one of those shows, but I do remember that time with fondness. I wish it could have lasted longer.

QPR could have been the final epitaph - it was believable - the pairing of three legends was daring and convincing. Who would have thought that they team up with a casting monkey and sellout as lame Greatest Hits cover band. Freddie would not have loved it - he woulöd have hated it being non creative (not to mention a guy with no talent whatsoever destroying his songs)

runner_70 wrote:

QPR could have been the final epitaph - it was believable - the pairing of three legends was daring and convincing. Who would have thought that they team up with a casting monkey and sellout as lame Greatest Hits cover band. Freddie would not have loved it - he woulöd have hated it being non creative (not to mention a guy with no talent whatsoever destroying his songs)

You seem to know a lot considering you've never met or spoken too the people you are speaking for.

With regards to Q+PR, you're obviously not aware of the greatest hits setlist those shows featured. In fact the Q+AL tours have dug deeper and presented a far more interesting set of songs

If you're going to level the greatest argument, with PR we had two separate "acts" presented as a band performing each other's greatest hits.

If a greatest hits setlist is a problem you obviously thought the same of the Magic tour which included Queen performing covers!

The Real Wizard wrote:



. . . . The Lambert period has lasted longer and may ultimately be a better product, but nothing in the last decade of Queen+ compares to the excitement people felt before that first proper gig at the Brixton Academy in 2005. To suggest otherwise is revisionist history. It really felt like hell froze over.

True.

QPR might heve been Ghits to a certain extent too-but most have never heard PR live and his songs are awesome as well. SOmething you cannopt say about the drivel which is Lamebird solo-and he gets one (!!!!!!) song too much. Have Maylor ever stepped that low doing a Lamebird song??? It's like Muse did some carneval song

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16320180.outrage-as-queen-adam-lambert-trnsmt-tickets-sold-for-half-price/?ref=fbshr

Not a sign of a well going tour. DIscounts - sad

Check out the reviews, dude, because I have not read one single positive review of QPR anywhere. Many of the QAL reviews mention how ill fit Rogers and Queen were. The only place they seem to be a resounding success is on Queen sites and that alone is suspicious. I gave Rogers a good listen on Youtube and found him boring as all get out, like watching paint dry. His voice is not suited to Queen's music ( didn't even like the heavier stuff with him) and he has zero charisma or style. I would say 99%of what I have seen, says he was a NO GO!! Not surprised you are wild about him, since you hate Adam. By the way, being a successful band like Bad Co does not make PR sound any better and that is the most important thing of all, not whether he is a rock legend (not to me!).

snifflese wrote:

Check out the reviews, dude, because I have not read one single positive review of QPR anywhere. Many of the QAL reviews mention how ill fit Rogers and Queen were. The only place they seem to be a resounding success is on Queen sites and that alone is suspicious. I gave Rogers a good listen on Youtube and found him boring as all get out, like watching paint dry. His voice is not suited to Queen's music ( didn't even like the heavier stuff with him) and he has zero charisma or style.

Paul's treatment of the end of Bohemian Rhapsody forgives any of the follies. It was done with creatively yet complete respect for the original.

They liked him because he was nothing like Freddie musically or visually. He was a breath of fresh air, and the exact opposite of who people spent a decade saying they should hook up with - George Michael. And they had access to Paul's back catalog, which made for a pretty interesting show.

I saw the show three times, and my resounding memory is the Free and Bad Company tunes getting equally big cheers as Queen's biggest tunes. At that first show in 2005 I learned that Queen were just another big rock band in the US, equal to Bad Company, unlike their regal status in the UK of being second to The Beatles.

There were lots of good reviews:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/3639525/Its-a-kind-of-magic.html

https://www.thelocal.se/20050502/1363

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/review-queen-1-2292622

I knew there was a good reason I saved these.

Snifflese is a moron - completely delusional when it comes to good music. Lameturd has nothing to do with music at all. he is a manufactured casting monkey whose own career is over

runner_70 wrote:

Snifflese is a moron - completely delusional when it comes to good music. Lameturd has nothing to do with music at all. he is a manufactured casting monkey whose own career is over

I'll try not to say I told you so when that comment comes back to bite you on the ass!!

how will it? YOu still think Lamefart will be the megastar? MOst Queen Followers who visit this tragedy tolerate him nothing more. Most hate him. He ditched his solocareer to live on Maylors laurels. Noone wants to listen to Lamebert solo

runner_70 wrote:

how will it? YOu still think Lamefart will be the megastar? MOst Queen Followers who visit this tragedy tolerate him nothing more. Most hate him. He ditched his solocareer to live on Maylors laurels. Noone wants to listen to Lamebert solo

I really can't tell if you actually believe they hate him and only tolerate him or you just say what you wish to be true because facebook and Twitter comments after every show tell a different story. People saying how they went skeptical and come away a Lambert fan, some even say they would now see him solo and all sorts of other comments about him, all good. Here's one from yesterday and there's plenty more of those after every show. "Tonight I went to see two of my rock heroes and found a third new one!" www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1888593811164096&set=a.103425939680901.7127.100000404864831&type=3&theater …

The Real Wizard wrote:


Paul's treatment of the end of Bohemian Rhapsody forgives any of the follies. It was done with creatively yet complete respect for the original.

They liked him because he was nothing like Freddie musically or visually. He was a breath of fresh air, and the exact opposite of who people spent a decade saying they should hook up with - George Michael. And they had access to Paul's back catalog, which made for a pretty interesting show.

I saw the show three times, and my resounding memory is the Free and Bad Company tunes getting equally big cheers as Queen's biggest tunes. At that first show in 2005 I learned that Queen were just another big rock band in the US, equal to Bad Company, unlike their regal status in the UK of being second to The Beatles.

There were lots of good reviews:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/3639525/Its-a-kind-of-magic.html

https://www.thelocal.se/20050502/1363

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/review-queen-1-2292622

I knew there was a good reason I saved these.

Yes to all of this.
I regret never having seen Q+PR live. I think I would have loved it. Reading those articles brings me back. I had dozens of articles and reviews saved about Q+PR, but lost it all during a computer crash.
Q+PR had more credibility than Q+AL. And what some people forget, if not for Q+PR there would be no Q+AL.
Why is it that Glamberts tend to knock Q+PR down? Suspicious ;-).

I never saw QPR. Maybe I would have loved it. But if you have never seen QPR or QAL, you are not qualified to make a credible comparison!