Star*
Brian should keep his mouth shut and not say things like Adam can do what Freddie does and MORE......... Disrespectful to the late great Freddie,
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brunolezouf
Had Marc Martel been "chosen" to perform with what is left of Queen, there would have been other (or the same, maybe?) complaints probably saying that he is nothing more than an imitator who has skills to play the piano and that he is there to collect money from the Queen cash machine. If you work with someone and you have chosen to do so, you can't be something else than supportive (and this is obviously what May is), or you stop working with that person (reminds me of a story between a certain band called Queen and a singer called Paul Rodgers, maybe they wisely stopped working together because they thought supporting each other woud be complicated but did not want to go into ridiculous criticism from each part in the press or end in a bad mood towards each other, I don't know, I'm not in their mind)
people Booing Lambert all the time make me think of my dad who has a favourite singer, long dead now, but can't bear hearing singers singing his songs as a tribute, just because it does not match with the imaginary world he has built around this singer. The sound doesn't fit with the picture any more when he can hear tributes to his favourite singer. Maybe it is a way of expressing some kind of childish frustration in a different way now that he is an adult.
I like the way Marc Martel sings Queen songs and I think George Michael was very good at it too. I don't like the way Lambert does it. But that's fine to me if people enjoy it. I've tried to listen to shows of Q+AL but I couldn't get into it. I didn't feel the sing along thing I experience with original Freddie Mercury or even Martel. Lambert has a great voice( and yes I think he is able to sing without having to alter the notes because his voice gets strained) and I wouldn't be able to sing half the way he does, he is very talented and if Queen members are happy to play with him, so who would I be to insult Lambert (or May who supports him) like some people do on this forum. If you don't like it, just don't listen to it. There are enough roios of original Queen to listen to and enjoy.
people Booing Lambert all the time make me think of my dad who has a favourite singer, long dead now, but can't bear hearing singers singing his songs as a tribute, just because it does not match with the imaginary world he has built around this singer. The sound doesn't fit with the picture any more when he can hear tributes to his favourite singer. Maybe it is a way of expressing some kind of childish frustration in a different way now that he is an adult.
I like the way Marc Martel sings Queen songs and I think George Michael was very good at it too. I don't like the way Lambert does it. But that's fine to me if people enjoy it. I've tried to listen to shows of Q+AL but I couldn't get into it. I didn't feel the sing along thing I experience with original Freddie Mercury or even Martel. Lambert has a great voice( and yes I think he is able to sing without having to alter the notes because his voice gets strained) and I wouldn't be able to sing half the way he does, he is very talented and if Queen members are happy to play with him, so who would I be to insult Lambert (or May who supports him) like some people do on this forum. If you don't like it, just don't listen to it. There are enough roios of original Queen to listen to and enjoy.
Day dop
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
Sure. And at his best nobody could touch him.
But let's not forget that said equipment sometimes failed for entire tours. Have you listened to the bootleg tapes from 1979 and 84?
Brian is in marketing mode. Of course he's going to say nice things about the person who's sitting in for the greatest frontman of all time. He can't say he's not quite as good.
[/QUOTE]
It's as though May is comparing a Ferrari with a Nissan. However, the Ferrari's engine used to act up during long runs. So May is saying that the Nissan has a parallel set of equipment.
May doesn't need to do that anyway, even for marketing purposes (and I know you're not saying that he does). When it comes to marketing, the movie did wonders for them, and they were already shifting enough tickets before.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
Sure. And at his best nobody could touch him.
But let's not forget that said equipment sometimes failed for entire tours. Have you listened to the bootleg tapes from 1979 and 84?
Brian is in marketing mode. Of course he's going to say nice things about the person who's sitting in for the greatest frontman of all time. He can't say he's not quite as good.
[/QUOTE]
It's as though May is comparing a Ferrari with a Nissan. However, the Ferrari's engine used to act up during long runs. So May is saying that the Nissan has a parallel set of equipment.
May doesn't need to do that anyway, even for marketing purposes (and I know you're not saying that he does). When it comes to marketing, the movie did wonders for them, and they were already shifting enough tickets before.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Inspired wrote:[/b]
Brian should keep his mouth shut and not say things like Adam can do what Freddie does and MORE......... Disrespectful to the late great Freddie,[/QUOTE]
You're out of your league. You couldn't even qualify for a high school debating team.
Brian should keep his mouth shut and not say things like Adam can do what Freddie does and MORE......... Disrespectful to the late great Freddie,[/QUOTE]
You're out of your league. You couldn't even qualify for a high school debating team.
dudeofqueen
The Real Wizard, re:
>Nobody in 1977 thought their current band or any of its members were "legendary" or a "gift from god".
Apart from Freddie, obviously: "I'm not going to be a star, I'm going to be a legend!"
>Nobody in 1977 thought their current band or any of its members were "legendary" or a "gift from god".
Apart from Freddie, obviously: "I'm not going to be a star, I'm going to be a legend!"
frank152
When is everyone gonna realise that Queen + is not Queen. If u don’t like Queen + don’t go to the gigs. Most people who slag it off haven’t been to a Queen + show.
People take everything to heart to much
For example does Adam have problems singing the high bits live? No
Did Freddie? yes with his vocal problems often letting roger carry the high notes. That’s an example of something “more” than Freddie
Freddie is only human at the end of the day.
Does that make Freddie shit no
Is Adam shit no.
I personally think Adam sings who wants to live forever better than Freddie live to the point gives me chills. And i’ve Heard other Freddie fans say that. What Brian n roger has done is great for queens legacy they have kept Queen in public eye all these years n people are still talking about them. And in turn keeping Freddie very much alive.
People take everything to heart to much
For example does Adam have problems singing the high bits live? No
Did Freddie? yes with his vocal problems often letting roger carry the high notes. That’s an example of something “more” than Freddie
Freddie is only human at the end of the day.
Does that make Freddie shit no
Is Adam shit no.
I personally think Adam sings who wants to live forever better than Freddie live to the point gives me chills. And i’ve Heard other Freddie fans say that. What Brian n roger has done is great for queens legacy they have kept Queen in public eye all these years n people are still talking about them. And in turn keeping Freddie very much alive.
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
Day dop
[QUOTE] [b]frank152 wrote:[/b]
When is everyone gonna realise that Queen + is not Queen. If u don’t like Queen + don’t go to the gigs. Most people who slag it off haven’t been to a Queen + show.
People take everything to heart to much
For example does Adam have problems singing the high bits live? No
Did Freddie? yes with his vocal problems often letting roger carry the high notes. That’s an example of something “more” than Freddie
Freddie is only human at the end of the day.
Does that make Freddie shit no
Is Adam shit no.
I personally think Adam sings who wants to live forever better than Freddie live to the point gives me chills. And i’ve Heard other Freddie fans say that. What Brian n roger has done is great for queens legacy they have kept Queen in public eye all these years n people are still talking about them. And in turn keeping Freddie very much alive.
[/QUOTE]
I think people already know that Queen and Queen+ aren't the same thing.
The issue is when you log into Queenzone and see Lambert stuff in the Queen section, or you have to unfollow the Queen page on facebook as they keep promoting Lambert, when you consider him to be nothing other than tacky.
I have been to a Queen+AL show, back when he started singing for May and Taylor. And what you see on YouTube is the same as what you get in real life. Harsh, grating vocals.
Sure, Lambert can hit the high notes whereas Freddie couldn't when he suffered from vocal nodlues. But that's just one thing. Everything else, Mercury did way better, so May's choice of words was poor.
Overall, Mercury had a far soupier voice and was 10 times the front-man Lambert could ever wish to be.
Is Adam shit? Yes, in my opinion. I find his voice intolerable, and his style tacky as hell.
Lambert doesn't sing anything better as Lambert's voice is thin, harsh and grating. Freddie had a wonderful tone to his voice.
When is everyone gonna realise that Queen + is not Queen. If u don’t like Queen + don’t go to the gigs. Most people who slag it off haven’t been to a Queen + show.
People take everything to heart to much
For example does Adam have problems singing the high bits live? No
Did Freddie? yes with his vocal problems often letting roger carry the high notes. That’s an example of something “more” than Freddie
Freddie is only human at the end of the day.
Does that make Freddie shit no
Is Adam shit no.
I personally think Adam sings who wants to live forever better than Freddie live to the point gives me chills. And i’ve Heard other Freddie fans say that. What Brian n roger has done is great for queens legacy they have kept Queen in public eye all these years n people are still talking about them. And in turn keeping Freddie very much alive.
[/QUOTE]
I think people already know that Queen and Queen+ aren't the same thing.
The issue is when you log into Queenzone and see Lambert stuff in the Queen section, or you have to unfollow the Queen page on facebook as they keep promoting Lambert, when you consider him to be nothing other than tacky.
I have been to a Queen+AL show, back when he started singing for May and Taylor. And what you see on YouTube is the same as what you get in real life. Harsh, grating vocals.
Sure, Lambert can hit the high notes whereas Freddie couldn't when he suffered from vocal nodlues. But that's just one thing. Everything else, Mercury did way better, so May's choice of words was poor.
Overall, Mercury had a far soupier voice and was 10 times the front-man Lambert could ever wish to be.
Is Adam shit? Yes, in my opinion. I find his voice intolerable, and his style tacky as hell.
Lambert doesn't sing anything better as Lambert's voice is thin, harsh and grating. Freddie had a wonderful tone to his voice.
Day dop
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, May said "equipment", hence I dropped the link to the scientific journal. What part of this don't you grasp?
You've not read the journal, have you?
Here's the direct link to the journal: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/14015439.2016.1156737
But I get the impression from all you've said so far that you're making a bad faith argument, and you're not interested in the facts here.
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
I hope you're not going to carry on down the same road, as that would suggest you have a poor understanding of the English language.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, May said "equipment", hence I dropped the link to the scientific journal. What part of this don't you grasp?
You've not read the journal, have you?
Here's the direct link to the journal: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/14015439.2016.1156737
But I get the impression from all you've said so far that you're making a bad faith argument, and you're not interested in the facts here.
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
I hope you're not going to carry on down the same road, as that would suggest you have a poor understanding of the English language.
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
You don't like being proved wrong, do you?
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
Your reading and interpretation skills seem to be as bad as your English.
[/QUOTE]
i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not.
distortion: the action of giving a misleading account or impression. (you're making me use a dictionary for the first time in maybe 20 years! and it ends up proving me.... great king rat drum roll....rrrrrrright again sir).
i don't have the best interpretation skills, i work with many people who are better than i, and yes it's possible that my interpretation skills are as good or as bad as my english. I'm not an english major nor do i pretend to be - i'm just a lowly highly trained tax expert that reads and interprets taxation acts, legal cases and other trivial mumbo jumbo like that. i need to work on my queenzone interpretive skills where you are only correct if you believe adam lambert is the worst thing to happen to a queenfan regardless of the outcome. i understand that I need to learn to accept it. alas, this is my greatest weakness. one day, i too, will see the light.
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
You don't like being proved wrong, do you?
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
Your reading and interpretation skills seem to be as bad as your English.
[/QUOTE]
i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not.
distortion: the action of giving a misleading account or impression. (you're making me use a dictionary for the first time in maybe 20 years! and it ends up proving me.... great king rat drum roll....rrrrrrright again sir).
i don't have the best interpretation skills, i work with many people who are better than i, and yes it's possible that my interpretation skills are as good or as bad as my english. I'm not an english major nor do i pretend to be - i'm just a lowly highly trained tax expert that reads and interprets taxation acts, legal cases and other trivial mumbo jumbo like that. i need to work on my queenzone interpretive skills where you are only correct if you believe adam lambert is the worst thing to happen to a queenfan regardless of the outcome. i understand that I need to learn to accept it. alas, this is my greatest weakness. one day, i too, will see the light.
rockchic65
Anyone not completely biased would understand what Brian meant.
Can do more than Freddie is clearly referring to his vocal stamina and ability to hit high notes, sing in the original key for an entire tour without problems. That's fact and has been proved over and over.
Parallel set of equipment IMO means he is able to interact with the audience and entertain them, not the same way Freddie did since he's nothing like Freddie but in Brian's opinion he's great at that type of thing in his own way, as evidenced by the reaction at the shows. Also he's flamboyant and theatrical, also in a different way to Freddie but that's still his persona and in Brian's opinion that fits with Queen and is what they need. He mentioned clothes/style etc and Adam clearly thinks that's important as did Freddie, again they aren't alike in the way they do things but both liked to dress up. Parallel (meaning doing the same things but in a different way).
He was clearly only talking about the live shows and not including song writing, musicianship etc.
He also said they treat Adam almost the same way the treated Freddie, which I take to mean he's not just a hired hand and the shows are a joint venture and they all have a part in putting them together.
IMO he's tired of all the crap that gets thrown at Adam and is putting the record straight, as did Roger. None of that is a slight against Freddie and none of it takes away from what they achieved as a band with Freddie. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deliberately reading things into it that weren't meant IMO.
Can do more than Freddie is clearly referring to his vocal stamina and ability to hit high notes, sing in the original key for an entire tour without problems. That's fact and has been proved over and over.
Parallel set of equipment IMO means he is able to interact with the audience and entertain them, not the same way Freddie did since he's nothing like Freddie but in Brian's opinion he's great at that type of thing in his own way, as evidenced by the reaction at the shows. Also he's flamboyant and theatrical, also in a different way to Freddie but that's still his persona and in Brian's opinion that fits with Queen and is what they need. He mentioned clothes/style etc and Adam clearly thinks that's important as did Freddie, again they aren't alike in the way they do things but both liked to dress up. Parallel (meaning doing the same things but in a different way).
He was clearly only talking about the live shows and not including song writing, musicianship etc.
He also said they treat Adam almost the same way the treated Freddie, which I take to mean he's not just a hired hand and the shows are a joint venture and they all have a part in putting them together.
IMO he's tired of all the crap that gets thrown at Adam and is putting the record straight, as did Roger. None of that is a slight against Freddie and none of it takes away from what they achieved as a band with Freddie. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deliberately reading things into it that weren't meant IMO.
Holly2003
If Fred is as talented and as great as we all believe, then a few words by the band's guitarist isn't going to change that.
dysan
I wonder what the reaction would be if he said the Queen session bassist was all John was, and more?
dysan
Actually scrub that. I don't want to know.
Day dop
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
You don't like being proved wrong, do you?
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
Your reading and interpretation skills seem to be as bad as your English.
[/QUOTE]
i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not.
distortion: the action of giving a misleading account or impression. (you're making me use a dictionary for the first time in maybe 20 years! and it ends up proving me.... great king rat drum roll....rrrrrrright again sir).
i don't have the best interpretation skills, i work with many people who are better than i, and yes it's possible that my interpretation skills are as good or as bad as my english. I'm not an english major nor do i pretend to be - i'm just a lowly highly trained tax expert that reads and interprets taxation acts, legal cases and other trivial mumbo jumbo like that. i need to work on my queenzone interpretive skills where you are only correct if you believe adam lambert is the worst thing to happen to a queenfan regardless of the outcome. i understand that I need to learn to accept it. alas, this is my greatest weakness. one day, i too, will see the light.[/QUOTE]
So now you should understand that you've been misapplying the word "distortion" when it comes to what I've said.
You wrote, "i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not."
Then this is one of those occasions where you are wrong. You've not read the journal, have you? Yes, May said "equipment", hence I dropped the link to the scientific journal.
Here's the direct link to the journal: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/14015439.2016.1156737
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
May also said, "He’s not Freddie, and he’s not pretending to be him, but he has a parallel set of equipment."
No, Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever.
"Mercury’s vocal cords just moved faster than other people’s. While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz. To look at that in a more scientific way, a perfect sine wave for vibrato assumes the value of 1, which is pretty close to where famous opera singer Luciano Pavarotti sat. Mercury, on the other hand, averaged a value of 0.57, meaning he was vibrating something in his throat even Pavarotti couldn’t move."
https://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/new-scientific-study-confirms-the-audience-freddie-mercury-had-an-unparalleled-singing-voice/
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475611808/why-freddie-mercurys-voice-was-so-great-as-explained-by-science
[/QUOTE]
more distortion. yes, Brian said parallel equipment. He chose his words wisely... he didn't use the word "same" nor did he use terms such as "talent", "league", "skills", etc... he used "equipment"... he purposefully used a generic term and described it as "parallel". Actually the definition of a "parallel" should be enough to suggest he did not mean the word "same".
also, never qualified that equipment. he didn't say the quality of the equipment that adam has is equivalent to Freddie's. not once. my reading skills are quite good. as are my interpretive skills. i can probably say, you and i have the same equipment in that regard. we clearly both have brains, and a device of some sort to communicate with. so far, i didn't insult you... but i you may think i did if i had your interpretive skills ;-)
back to "parallel set of equipment"... parallel, would mean "side by side and having the same distance continuously between them"... equipment would mean "the necessary items for a particular purpose".
i believe he chose the word parallel to mean, no, he is not as good as freddie, as there will always be that same distance between them. But yes, they do have the same "equpiment"... such that they have great voices, can play with the audience, have stage presence, etc etc... and hey, while we're at it... and more: wardrobe changes, more interaction, greater sense of humility, etc etc etc (Stuff a lot of us find annoying... but is still quantifiable as "more").
And finally, the guy has a PhD... so yes, i do believe, he chose his words, to mean exactly what he said... and not what you have quickly interpreted.
[/QUOTE]
You don't like being proved wrong, do you?
I think you need to look up the word "distortion". I've already pointed out that I didn't distort anything in the first place. You've not acknowledged that.
Instead, bizarrely, you come out with "more distortion".
No. Not at all. Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment whatsoever. I've already said this, and dropped the link to the articles that you can click on to reach the scientific journal and read about Mercury's voice.
Your reading and interpretation skills seem to be as bad as your English.
[/QUOTE]
i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not.
distortion: the action of giving a misleading account or impression. (you're making me use a dictionary for the first time in maybe 20 years! and it ends up proving me.... great king rat drum roll....rrrrrrright again sir).
i don't have the best interpretation skills, i work with many people who are better than i, and yes it's possible that my interpretation skills are as good or as bad as my english. I'm not an english major nor do i pretend to be - i'm just a lowly highly trained tax expert that reads and interprets taxation acts, legal cases and other trivial mumbo jumbo like that. i need to work on my queenzone interpretive skills where you are only correct if you believe adam lambert is the worst thing to happen to a queenfan regardless of the outcome. i understand that I need to learn to accept it. alas, this is my greatest weakness. one day, i too, will see the light.[/QUOTE]
So now you should understand that you've been misapplying the word "distortion" when it comes to what I've said.
You wrote, "i'm rarely wrong. not here, definitely not."
Then this is one of those occasions where you are wrong. You've not read the journal, have you? Yes, May said "equipment", hence I dropped the link to the scientific journal.
Here's the direct link to the journal: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/14015439.2016.1156737