Day dop
Double post.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Star*
So Brian has had more than his fair share of digs at Freddie and even attacked John by saying "John was delicate" and Roger saying "Fred is dead" get over it! May & Taylor have become bitter old men.
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.
rockchic65
[QUOTE] [b]Inspired wrote:[/b]
So Brian has had more than his fair share of digs at Freddie and even attacked John by saying "John was delicate" and Roger saying "Fred is dead" get over it! May & Taylor have become bitter old men.[/QUOTE]
Brian hasn't had digs at Freddie and has in interview talked very highly of him, as you'd know if you bothered to watch some of them instead of believing headlines. Roger didn't say "get over it", that's another of your examples of distorting what is actually said and making it sound worse.
So Brian has had more than his fair share of digs at Freddie and even attacked John by saying "John was delicate" and Roger saying "Fred is dead" get over it! May & Taylor have become bitter old men.[/QUOTE]
Brian hasn't had digs at Freddie and has in interview talked very highly of him, as you'd know if you bothered to watch some of them instead of believing headlines. Roger didn't say "get over it", that's another of your examples of distorting what is actually said and making it sound worse.
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]
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Except I've not distorted what May said at all. I'm going on what May actually said. You've been going on what you want to interpret it as.
There's been plenty of examples of how it's been interpreted different ways on this very thread, by some defending May's words. Examples including thinking it's his interaction with the audience, some think it's about Lambert hitting the high notes.
I'm going on what the actual words May said. And Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Except I've not distorted what May said at all. I'm going on what May actually said. You've been going on what you want to interpret it as.
There's been plenty of examples of how it's been interpreted different ways on this very thread, by some defending May's words. Examples including thinking it's his interaction with the audience, some think it's about Lambert hitting the high notes.
I'm going on what the actual words May said. And Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment.
Day dop
Repeat post
dysan
Can you just quote the bit you are responding to please? Thanks xx
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Except I've not distorted what May said at all. I'm going on what May actually said. You've been going on what you want to interpret it as.
There's been plenty of examples of how it's been interpreted different ways on this very thread, by some defending May's words. Examples including thinking it's his interaction with the audience, some think it's about Lambert hitting the high notes.
I'm going on what the actual words May said. And Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment.
[/QUOTE]
Brian’s a dick.
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
[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.
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
[/QUOTE]
i wasn't clear - sorry, what i meant was you distort the word equipment to mean quality of vocal chords, but i'm using the simple definition in that the equipment is the vocal chords - not the quality. the "distortion" i speak of is that you are giving a misleading impression of what brian meant when he said "parallel set of equipment"... he did not definitely mean that the quality of the equipment was the same... which is exactly why he said "parallel".
If two people walked in parallel forever, will they ever meet? if freddie's equpment is parallel to adam's and say, freddie's is better... based on brian's analogy, will adam ever be as good as freddie?
essentially, we are both saying the same thing, freddie does have better equipment. i'm saying, brian never qualified adam's nor freddie's equipment - maybe he should have. rather than to insult adam, who he is currently working with, he simply said parallel equipment... which could BOTH be argued to mean better equipment, or worse equipment... there is not one person in the world who would argue that adam's "equipment" is better than freddie's.... they are "parallel".... which again, does not mean they are the of the same quality. that is all i am saying.
but no, sorry, i didn't get a chance to read the journal... if they define equipment as quality of vocals, then yes, maybe i am wrong in that case. i used the definition that 99.99% use found on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Except I've not distorted what May said at all. I'm going on what May actually said. You've been going on what you want to interpret it as.
There's been plenty of examples of how it's been interpreted different ways on this very thread, by some defending May's words. Examples including thinking it's his interaction with the audience, some think it's about Lambert hitting the high notes.
I'm going on what the actual words May said. And Lambert does not have a parallel set of equipment.
[/QUOTE]
Brian’s a dick.
The Circle of Eidolon
[QUOTE] [b]Inspired wrote:[/b]
Day drop Lets see if Vocal Harmony or her user name Circle of Eidolon comments on your post, Mrs righteous now i have spoken lol[/QUOTE]
We The Circle of Eidolon are aware that you have spoken much but have said nothing. . .
The lesson is obvious, but not to you. You as usual have gained nothing. .
The laughing idiot is no more than that, laugh all you want.
The Circle of Eidolon has spoken
Day drop Lets see if Vocal Harmony or her user name Circle of Eidolon comments on your post, Mrs righteous now i have spoken lol[/QUOTE]
We The Circle of Eidolon are aware that you have spoken much but have said nothing. . .
The lesson is obvious, but not to you. You as usual have gained nothing. .
The laughing idiot is no more than that, laugh all you want.
The Circle of Eidolon has spoken
Star*
Circle of Eidolon: I do not want any more arguments on here so keep your thought to yourself and shut the fuck up.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
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.[/QUOTE]
Awesome some up! Kudos to you!
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.[/QUOTE]
Awesome some up! Kudos to you!
kosimodo
This agaain? Man o man. Seen Adam with Queen 3 times. Enjoyed it a lot. More then with that other guy.
And yes He was even more special. Sadly died too soon.
And yes He was even more special. Sadly died too soon.
Sheer Brass Neck
Tired argument, Adam Lambert can hit notes and perhaps, or even likely, more consistently in a live setting. Freddie Mercury was a rock and roll monster vocally, Adam Lambert has a shrill, tiny voice that is what Broadway thinks is rock and roll. Don't care who thinks who is better live he;'s a fantastic fit for ballads and pop, pretty poor at rock and roll.
Metropolis
Look, Adam is an OK singer, alright? He'll probably be fine if he was with his own band.
But nooooooooo, he tries to replace THE greatest singer in history.
I have no problem with Adam Lambert, but Queen+Adam Lambert can never be Queen.
But nooooooooo, he tries to replace THE greatest singer in history.
I have no problem with Adam Lambert, but Queen+Adam Lambert can never be Queen.
Metropolis
Freddie Mercury's voice is strong even when he hits high notes.
Adam Lambert sounds like the chicken from the BoRhap movie when he tries to match them.
Adam Lambert sounds like the chicken from the BoRhap movie when he tries to match them.