Martin Packer
And "Jayne Mansfield", FWIW. :-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
Freddie also called himself Kim Basinger, just for anyone out there who would like to start referring to Freddie as 'Kim'.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but did Kim Basinger ever call herself Fredrick?
Freddie also called himself Kim Basinger, just for anyone out there who would like to start referring to Freddie as 'Kim'.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but did Kim Basinger ever call herself Fredrick?
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]
why shouldnt they go-selfpromotion and free food and drinks[/QUOTE]
Because most people don't have you're mentality and wouldn't bother seeing a band they can't stand just for a free back stage lig!
Be honest you can't stand the fact that other pro musicians are enjoying these shows as much as the band.
why shouldnt they go-selfpromotion and free food and drinks[/QUOTE]
Because most people don't have you're mentality and wouldn't bother seeing a band they can't stand just for a free back stage lig!
Be honest you can't stand the fact that other pro musicians are enjoying these shows as much as the band.
Sebastian
Kimila called herself many things, I reckon. No idea if 'Frederick' was one of them.
miraclesteinway
I don't believe Adam IS better than Freddie but.....
Let's say for arguments sake that Adam Lambert is a technically better singer than Freddie, based on his ability to hit all the notes every time. Let's also say that Adam can control the tone of his voice, sing loud, sing soft, and avoid fatigue. These are all important things for a singer to be able to do. Freddie himself didn't always manage to do that live (but then Freddie partied way harder than Adam Lambert ever could....).
Now before I'm lambasted and stoned and beheaded for saying all this....
What Adam Lambert doesn't have is the innate musicianship of Freddie Mercury. He can sing the notes but he doesn't have the internal rhythm, the sense of vitality, nor does he have that very special spark that Freddie had. Not many people do. The other problem of course is that Adam Lambert is a hired hand singing someone else's music with the original band members minus John. Actually the new bass player is good but he is very different to John... Freddie was singing his own music with people he'd had beside him in those formative years. Freddie's musicianship is streets ahead of pretty much anyone else's in rock music. True - he didn't always get it right, but when he did, his songwriting was the best, his backing vocals were the best, his lead vocals were exemplary, and he's pretty much the reason why we're all here.
Adam Lambert I think is a good singer, but I've yet to see him flex his pecs as a musician in the fullest sense of the word. That comes over in the singing, and I think that's what the haters miss most.
So, Freddie might be *impressed* by Adam Lambert's ability, but I don't think he'd be in any way threatened.
For all we know Freddie might think he's shit of course.
Let's say for arguments sake that Adam Lambert is a technically better singer than Freddie, based on his ability to hit all the notes every time. Let's also say that Adam can control the tone of his voice, sing loud, sing soft, and avoid fatigue. These are all important things for a singer to be able to do. Freddie himself didn't always manage to do that live (but then Freddie partied way harder than Adam Lambert ever could....).
Now before I'm lambasted and stoned and beheaded for saying all this....
What Adam Lambert doesn't have is the innate musicianship of Freddie Mercury. He can sing the notes but he doesn't have the internal rhythm, the sense of vitality, nor does he have that very special spark that Freddie had. Not many people do. The other problem of course is that Adam Lambert is a hired hand singing someone else's music with the original band members minus John. Actually the new bass player is good but he is very different to John... Freddie was singing his own music with people he'd had beside him in those formative years. Freddie's musicianship is streets ahead of pretty much anyone else's in rock music. True - he didn't always get it right, but when he did, his songwriting was the best, his backing vocals were the best, his lead vocals were exemplary, and he's pretty much the reason why we're all here.
Adam Lambert I think is a good singer, but I've yet to see him flex his pecs as a musician in the fullest sense of the word. That comes over in the singing, and I think that's what the haters miss most.
So, Freddie might be *impressed* by Adam Lambert's ability, but I don't think he'd be in any way threatened.
For all we know Freddie might think he's shit of course.
rockchic65
[QUOTE] [b]miraclesteinway wrote:[/b]
I don't believe Adam IS better than Freddie but.....
Let's say for arguments sake that Adam Lambert is a technically better singer than Freddie, based on his ability to hit all the notes every time. Let's also say that Adam can control the tone of his voice, sing loud, sing soft, and avoid fatigue. These are all important things for a singer to be able to do. Freddie himself didn't always manage to do that live (but then Freddie partied way harder than Adam Lambert ever could....).
Now before I'm lambasted and stoned and beheaded for saying all this....
What Adam Lambert doesn't have is the innate musicianship of Freddie Mercury. He can sing the notes but he doesn't have the internal rhythm, the sense of vitality, nor does he have that very special spark that Freddie had. Not many people do. The other problem of course is that Adam Lambert is a hired hand singing someone else's music with the original band members minus John. Actually the new bass player is good but he is very different to John... Freddie was singing his own music with people he'd had beside him in those formative years. Freddie's musicianship is streets ahead of pretty much anyone else's in rock music. True - he didn't always get it right, but when he did, his songwriting was the best, his backing vocals were the best, his lead vocals were exemplary, and he's pretty much the reason why we're all here.
Adam Lambert I think is a good singer, but I've yet to see him flex his pecs as a musician in the fullest sense of the word. That comes over in the singing, and I think that's what the haters miss most.
So, Freddie might be *impressed* by Adam Lambert's ability, but I don't think he'd be in any way threatened.
For all we know Freddie might think he's shit of course.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I agree and disagree with parts of that. Technically Adam is impressive, but I also doubt Freddie would feel threatened by him, why would he, he wasn't just a singer he played instruments and wrote incredible music. Added to that the tone of his voice was really unique and on recordings he was amazing, but like you say he partied hard and didn't look after his voice too well plus he didn't have formal training so in that sense Adam is a more consistent live singer.
I don't think Adam lacks musicianship regarding singing but he is a perfectionist and sings more technically, a lot more when with Queen than solo, and my guess is it's because he's aware he's filling in for Freddie and will be judged, he can't have failed to see some of the comments. IMO he comes across as a lot more free and easy with his singing in his solo shows, obviously because he's in charge, it's his vision and he can just do what he feels in the moment, with Queen + there's a lot of cues to follow with the stage show so it has to be tighter and he's probably more concerned with getting it just right. But that said I don't believe Brian meant it the way it sounded either.
I don't believe Adam IS better than Freddie but.....
Let's say for arguments sake that Adam Lambert is a technically better singer than Freddie, based on his ability to hit all the notes every time. Let's also say that Adam can control the tone of his voice, sing loud, sing soft, and avoid fatigue. These are all important things for a singer to be able to do. Freddie himself didn't always manage to do that live (but then Freddie partied way harder than Adam Lambert ever could....).
Now before I'm lambasted and stoned and beheaded for saying all this....
What Adam Lambert doesn't have is the innate musicianship of Freddie Mercury. He can sing the notes but he doesn't have the internal rhythm, the sense of vitality, nor does he have that very special spark that Freddie had. Not many people do. The other problem of course is that Adam Lambert is a hired hand singing someone else's music with the original band members minus John. Actually the new bass player is good but he is very different to John... Freddie was singing his own music with people he'd had beside him in those formative years. Freddie's musicianship is streets ahead of pretty much anyone else's in rock music. True - he didn't always get it right, but when he did, his songwriting was the best, his backing vocals were the best, his lead vocals were exemplary, and he's pretty much the reason why we're all here.
Adam Lambert I think is a good singer, but I've yet to see him flex his pecs as a musician in the fullest sense of the word. That comes over in the singing, and I think that's what the haters miss most.
So, Freddie might be *impressed* by Adam Lambert's ability, but I don't think he'd be in any way threatened.
For all we know Freddie might think he's shit of course.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I agree and disagree with parts of that. Technically Adam is impressive, but I also doubt Freddie would feel threatened by him, why would he, he wasn't just a singer he played instruments and wrote incredible music. Added to that the tone of his voice was really unique and on recordings he was amazing, but like you say he partied hard and didn't look after his voice too well plus he didn't have formal training so in that sense Adam is a more consistent live singer.
I don't think Adam lacks musicianship regarding singing but he is a perfectionist and sings more technically, a lot more when with Queen than solo, and my guess is it's because he's aware he's filling in for Freddie and will be judged, he can't have failed to see some of the comments. IMO he comes across as a lot more free and easy with his singing in his solo shows, obviously because he's in charge, it's his vision and he can just do what he feels in the moment, with Queen + there's a lot of cues to follow with the stage show so it has to be tighter and he's probably more concerned with getting it just right. But that said I don't believe Brian meant it the way it sounded either.