https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbx9MN_Pdc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-DUpkz6a2Y
Two reasons why Justin Hawkins should front Queen instead of Lambert. His full time band are bloody good too!
Russian Headlong 2
Thread
Posts in chronological order
AngelR
Love Justin, saw the Darkness on tour several times. Great fun!
Justin's the great Queen fan and always talks about them as his main infulence. Queen are aware about him and his support. Roger's son Rufus is the drummer for the Darkness. Surely Justin would've been asked to join Queen if he was a good fit for them ages ago?!
Justin's the great Queen fan and always talks about them as his main infulence. Queen are aware about him and his support. Roger's son Rufus is the drummer for the Darkness. Surely Justin would've been asked to join Queen if he was a good fit for them ages ago?!
Thistle
I love Justin and I love the Darkness, but I think those were two reasons for him NOT to front Queen. I tell you what, though - Bernard Cribbins was awesome on Under Pressure.
ANAGRAMER
There's no getting away from the fact that if you watch the Fire Aid, then Live Aid back to back it's obvious which one is better
ANAGRAMER
There's no getting away from the fact that if you watch the Fire Aid, then Live Aid back to back it's obvious which one is better
Star*
@Thistle: Justin Hawkins would have been a million times better fronting Queen than that tit Adam.
The Fairy King
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b]
@Thistle: Justin Hawkins would have been a million times better fronting Queen than that tit Adam.[/QUOTE]
Bet you wouldn't be saying that if Justin was actually fronting Queen. You are just being negative for the sake of being negative and you get a kick out of it somehow, like so many others on here.
Argumentum ad hominem seems to be your modus operandi.
@Thistle: Justin Hawkins would have been a million times better fronting Queen than that tit Adam.[/QUOTE]
Bet you wouldn't be saying that if Justin was actually fronting Queen. You are just being negative for the sake of being negative and you get a kick out of it somehow, like so many others on here.
Argumentum ad hominem seems to be your modus operandi.
Star*
Seriously Justin has a love of Queen were Adam has a love of all the gay 70s artists.
Justin really admired Freddie and i know he is genuine.
Justin really admired Freddie and i know he is genuine.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b]Seriously Justin has a love of Queen were Adam has a love of all the gay 70s artists.
Justin really admired Freddie and i know he is genuine.[/QUOTE]
and just like Freddie he's also wasted huge amounts of money on cocaine.
Justin really admired Freddie and i know he is genuine.[/QUOTE]
and just like Freddie he's also wasted huge amounts of money on cocaine.
Star*
What has cocaine got to do with the music Mr Brenski?
Surely are you whiter than white then?
Surely are you whiter than white then?
ggo1
ANAGRAMER wrote "There's no getting away from the fact that if you watch the Fire Aid, then Live Aid back to back it's obvious which one is better"
Well, yes, when compared with what is widely regarded as the best performance by a band ever, then it is somewhat lacking. Not sure what that proves though. I don't think anyone on here has ever tried to make out that QAL is better than Queen. Actually there probably is someone, but in general, most people who are fine with QAL are in no way suggesting it's better than before.
What does come across when watching back to back is the increased energy in the Live Aid performance, it's absolutely electric.
Good to watch it again, I was kind of done with it because I overloaded on it when the movie came out.
Well, yes, when compared with what is widely regarded as the best performance by a band ever, then it is somewhat lacking. Not sure what that proves though. I don't think anyone on here has ever tried to make out that QAL is better than Queen. Actually there probably is someone, but in general, most people who are fine with QAL are in no way suggesting it's better than before.
What does come across when watching back to back is the increased energy in the Live Aid performance, it's absolutely electric.
Good to watch it again, I was kind of done with it because I overloaded on it when the movie came out.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b]What has cocaine got to do with the music Mr Brenski?
Surely are you whiter than white then?[/QUOTE]
it has lots to do with it - you really don't help your argument by failing to read up on things before challenging posts in that way. Freddie didn't look after his voice. here is the actual description of what cocaine use does to the vocal cords - whether nasally or smoked : [b][u][color=blue] https://www.ohniww.org/drugs-and-the-voice-does-cocaine-affect-the-voice/[/b][/u][/color]
[i][color=blue]Cocaine may affect the voice in varied ways, according to how it is used.
Cocaine, when snorted, will cause significant injury to the nose and nasal septum due to the chronic constriction of the blood vessels in the nose.
Cocaine “drip” is the mechanism by which cocaine may affect the voice. This occurs when cocaine that is not absorbed by the nose combines with the mucous in the nose and drips down the back of the throat. This is when the drug is often tasted. Because it is dripping into your throat, it also drips onto the vocal cords.
Postnasal drip of mucous alone will affect the voice. The damage is worsened when the mucous is combined with an irritating drug. The vocal cords will swell and become more prone to injury. The voice will become hoarse and higher notes will be more difficult to reach. Damage often results from singing on cords swollen from cocaine “drip.”
When smoked, cocaine results in similar injuries to those that occur with smoking other drugs, such as marijuana and tobacco. This includes laryngitis (inflammation of the cords), which will produce hoarseness. The vocal range will also be affected and restricted.
How would cocaine affect a singer/professional voice user?
A professional voice user is at high risk for voice problems if cocaine is used. There is a risk of:
Septal perforation causing nasal cosmetic deformity (saddle nose, etc)
Chronic laryngitis, Permanent hoarseness, Asthma/reactive airway , Chronic cough, Loss of vocal range (due to vocal scarring), Voice fatigue[/i][/color]
the last two definitely occurred with Freddie and Justin. cigarettes certainly didn;t help either. his live vocals definitely suffered. and there's no escaping that cocaine use contributed to this in some way.
Surely are you whiter than white then?[/QUOTE]
it has lots to do with it - you really don't help your argument by failing to read up on things before challenging posts in that way. Freddie didn't look after his voice. here is the actual description of what cocaine use does to the vocal cords - whether nasally or smoked : [b][u][color=blue] https://www.ohniww.org/drugs-and-the-voice-does-cocaine-affect-the-voice/[/b][/u][/color]
[i][color=blue]Cocaine may affect the voice in varied ways, according to how it is used.
Cocaine, when snorted, will cause significant injury to the nose and nasal septum due to the chronic constriction of the blood vessels in the nose.
Cocaine “drip” is the mechanism by which cocaine may affect the voice. This occurs when cocaine that is not absorbed by the nose combines with the mucous in the nose and drips down the back of the throat. This is when the drug is often tasted. Because it is dripping into your throat, it also drips onto the vocal cords.
Postnasal drip of mucous alone will affect the voice. The damage is worsened when the mucous is combined with an irritating drug. The vocal cords will swell and become more prone to injury. The voice will become hoarse and higher notes will be more difficult to reach. Damage often results from singing on cords swollen from cocaine “drip.”
When smoked, cocaine results in similar injuries to those that occur with smoking other drugs, such as marijuana and tobacco. This includes laryngitis (inflammation of the cords), which will produce hoarseness. The vocal range will also be affected and restricted.
How would cocaine affect a singer/professional voice user?
A professional voice user is at high risk for voice problems if cocaine is used. There is a risk of:
Septal perforation causing nasal cosmetic deformity (saddle nose, etc)
Chronic laryngitis, Permanent hoarseness, Asthma/reactive airway , Chronic cough, Loss of vocal range (due to vocal scarring), Voice fatigue[/i][/color]
the last two definitely occurred with Freddie and Justin. cigarettes certainly didn;t help either. his live vocals definitely suffered. and there's no escaping that cocaine use contributed to this in some way.
Star*
Wow did you google all of that lol
chill out we do not want a medical account of how Fred snorted cocaine and why don't you have a go at Roger too as he snorted cocaine too, but since you dislike Freddie you gun for him the most - yes?
chill out we do not want a medical account of how Fred snorted cocaine and why don't you have a go at Roger too as he snorted cocaine too, but since you dislike Freddie you gun for him the most - yes?
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b]Wow did you google all of that lol
chill out we do not want a medical account of how Fred snorted cocaine and why don't you have a go at Roger too as he snorted cocaine too, but since you dislike Freddie you gun for him the most - yes?[/QUOTE]
i knew about the "nasal drip" effect - we had prisoners over the years who were heavy users, and one of the things that cropped up was laryngitis. it's quite well known that singers who don't look after their vocal cords do lose some range. the vocal cords are their instrument and cocaine abuse can cause medium/long term damage. cocaine abuse for singers would be like a guitarist enjoying bare-knuckle fist-fights for pleasure.
the argument here is about what effect it has. why would i slag Roger off? remember, this isn't something that will affect other band members' performances - unless they're playing while "high".
but yes, i googled that to find the full list of effects for you.
as regards Freddie: you have me wrong. my favourite band members have always been Freddie, then Roger (next). that doesn't make Freddie beyond reproach, though. you probably need to chill out.
your starting point was ill-conceived :
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b][color=blue]What has cocaine got to do with the music Mr Brenski? Surely are you whiter than white then?[/color][/QUOTE] because you then followed it up with:
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b][color=blue]Wow did you google all of that lol[/color][/QUOTE]
my point being that, rather than reply initially as you did, why not google it yourself first? - you may have just agreed with someone for once - instead of defending Freddie at all costs - even when you are wrong. quite often (with Freddie) you're defending the indefensible. it doesn't matter how great he was, he also had flaws - and drugs were one of those flaws.
surely you can see that you don't come up with the musical/lyrical chaos of "Bicycle Race" and "Don't Stop Me Now" without some chemical assistance from "Colombia"
chill out we do not want a medical account of how Fred snorted cocaine and why don't you have a go at Roger too as he snorted cocaine too, but since you dislike Freddie you gun for him the most - yes?[/QUOTE]
i knew about the "nasal drip" effect - we had prisoners over the years who were heavy users, and one of the things that cropped up was laryngitis. it's quite well known that singers who don't look after their vocal cords do lose some range. the vocal cords are their instrument and cocaine abuse can cause medium/long term damage. cocaine abuse for singers would be like a guitarist enjoying bare-knuckle fist-fights for pleasure.
the argument here is about what effect it has. why would i slag Roger off? remember, this isn't something that will affect other band members' performances - unless they're playing while "high".
but yes, i googled that to find the full list of effects for you.
as regards Freddie: you have me wrong. my favourite band members have always been Freddie, then Roger (next). that doesn't make Freddie beyond reproach, though. you probably need to chill out.
your starting point was ill-conceived :
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b][color=blue]What has cocaine got to do with the music Mr Brenski? Surely are you whiter than white then?[/color][/QUOTE] because you then followed it up with:
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b][color=blue]Wow did you google all of that lol[/color][/QUOTE]
my point being that, rather than reply initially as you did, why not google it yourself first? - you may have just agreed with someone for once - instead of defending Freddie at all costs - even when you are wrong. quite often (with Freddie) you're defending the indefensible. it doesn't matter how great he was, he also had flaws - and drugs were one of those flaws.
surely you can see that you don't come up with the musical/lyrical chaos of "Bicycle Race" and "Don't Stop Me Now" without some chemical assistance from "Colombia"