QPR vs QAL

Discuss Queen's collaboration with Adam Lambert
User avatar
whitequeen20
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:45 pm
Location: UK

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by whitequeen20 »

midnight sky wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:21 am
whitequeen20 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:09 am
midnight sky wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:54 am

It just amazes me that some people can post what some think about Freddie, then turn around to defend AL.
He? I got the impression the poster was female. Oh dear :oops:
Yes I am female.

You seem confused, the difference is obvious, I wasn't personally calling Freddie or Queen at all I was simply pointing out that there are people out there who weren't impressed.

Not confused at all ;)
Some aren't impressed by AL, either with Brian and Roger or his solo music I'm amazed you felt the need to defend him by saying he doesn't have an overbite for example.
As reguards to a part of your earlier post, I will never think AL is a collaborator with Brian and Roger. His singing usually cover songs with them for nearly a decade, hardly what I'd call a collaboration. Under Pressure with Queen and Bowie was a collaboration, Q+AL isn't it in my books.
You consider pointing out something that's a lie defending him? It's underbite that Jake claims and he doesn't have one, that's fact and no amount of Jake saying it makes it true, it's just another of his pathetic attempts to put him down without reason.

Of course it's a collaboration just like it was with Paul, neither were hired hands, that's been obvious from the start.

User avatar
midnight sky
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by midnight sky »

whitequeen20 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:26 am
midnight sky wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:21 am
whitequeen20 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:09 am

Yes I am female.

You seem confused, the difference is obvious, I wasn't personally calling Freddie or Queen at all I was simply pointing out that there are people out there who weren't impressed.

Not confused at all ;)
Some aren't impressed by AL, either with Brian and Roger or his solo music I'm amazed you felt the need to defend him by saying he doesn't have an overbite for example.
As reguards to a part of your earlier post, I will never think AL is a collaborator with Brian and Roger. His singing usually cover songs with them for nearly a decade, hardly what I'd call a collaboration. Under Pressure with Queen and Bowie was a collaboration, Q+AL isn't it in my books.
You consider pointing out something that's a lie defending him? It's underbite that Jake claims and he doesn't have one, that's fact and no amount of Jake saying it makes it true, it's just another of his pathetic attempts to put him down without reason.

Of course it's a collaboration just like it was with Paul, neither were hired hands, that's been obvious from the start.
Was it underbite in Jake's post, sorry if I got that confused , I have never noticed and nor do I care if he has one.
Q+PR collaborated in many more ways than Q+AL ever has. Yea, some of TCR wasn't so good, but hey at least they gave it a go. On the other hand a Q+AL live album that was quickly put together. So, I do feel Q+PR was more of a collaboration.

User avatar
midnight sky
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by midnight sky »

I stand corrected, Jake mentioned an underbite not overbite.

User avatar
Leigh Burne
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:55 am
Location: England

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by Leigh Burne »

whitequeen20 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:09 amYes I am female.
Sorry about that!

User avatar
whitequeen20
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:45 pm
Location: UK

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by whitequeen20 »

Leigh Burne wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:49 pm
whitequeen20 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:09 amYes I am female.
Sorry about that!
No worries, it's hard to know from usernames lol

Peace Loving Guy
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:08 am

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by Peace Loving Guy »

Posters and entitled to interpret this topic as they wish, and may like or dislike QPR or QAL based on whatever parameters they want. But I do think context helps.

There was an element of Queen’s decision making in their career that can be described as calculating, regarding money, but it was hardly the defining characteristic of the band. For instance, barely a note on A Night At The Opera could be described as commercial sounding. Sometimes their output coincides with sounding commercial, (eg Radio Ga Ga as a single), but it doesn’t define their creative decision making (eg Innuendo as a single).

Queen were massive in the early 90s after Freddie died. They are only, maybe, possibly, as big now since the film came out as they were then. They sold truck loads of records (including in the US) and there was huge demand for them to tour. It could’ve been with George Michael, it could’ve been with Robbie Williams. They could’ve approached any number of huge stars and gone on the road. But at least one of them, if not two, if not three, did not want to. Regardless of who felt like what and a what time, Brian, for instance, clearly felt more comfortable doing a solo tour and supporting Guns N Roses than he did playing to huge stadiums as Queen plus.

My point is, organically, they wanted to work with Paul Rogers and Adam Lambert. It just felt right for them to do so. I’m sure Paul and Adam loved/love the money they get from it, but they both stepped up to do something that is basically painting a big target on their head for Queen fans to rip in to them.

As to who is better, and as I said, that’s obviously subjective, I think the question is which feels more like a real, distinct band playing Queen songs live. I think they were both very good at it, but QPR always came alive especially well doing Free and Bad Company hits, (I mean, hell, who didn’t think they were maybe better at All Right Now than Free were?) whereas there is an entire camp/cabaret/theatrical and hyper-sleaze-thrash element of Queen that only QAL can do justice to. They are actually way more like a 70s iteration of Queen live - a mix of juke box hits, camp/cabaret and near thrash metal. Their rang live is the range of Queen live. QPR did not have that range. The spiritual home of QAL is the Sheer Heart Attack album. They nail those songs.

It is true that QAL are not a very kinetic band live. It is noticeable that the experience is far more static than Queen, but conversely, this somewhat helps focus on them musically knocking out songs. I really like QAL just standing there and belting out songs I love. I enjoy that more than the show elements of the stage show (set and lights) and the Freddie homages and Adam having to justify his presence every night with “the speech”.

If it’s accepted that QAL has come together organically, (I know some of you won’t see it that way), the touring juggernaut that they have become, playing to youthful audiences that must make their contemporaries green with envy, that is an extraordinary vindication of the legacy of Queen.

User avatar
midnight sky
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by midnight sky »

Q+AL is nowhere near metal, let alone near thrash metal. For example when AL sang Stone cold Crazy, it usually sounded so forced and grating to my ears. I don't think he could have pulled that off at every show.
For me, Q+PR was more organic and original than Q+AL ever has been up to this point. And likely ever will be.
*All opinions my own**

User avatar
MusicalProstitute
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:05 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by MusicalProstitute »

Jake wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:31 am
MusicalProstitute wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:21 pm
Jake wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:35 am

True. Paul actually moved. Adam takes one inch steps on stage and loves standing in the same position making faces. Wayne Newton moves faster than Adam. Adam is very anti-athletic on stage.
Um, stage presence amounts to so much more than how much someone actually moves. The clue is in the word 'presence'.
His physical presence is not impressive.
Again, the clue is in the word 'presence'. Does not have to be a physical thing.

Anyway, have no patience with those who just Adam-bash. It is immature, pointless and shallow. Knock him all you want - your idols know better.

dave4343palace
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by dave4343palace »

MusicalProstitute wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:28 pm
Jake wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:31 am
MusicalProstitute wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:21 pm

Um, stage presence amounts to so much more than how much someone actually moves. The clue is in the word 'presence'.
His physical presence is not impressive.
Again, the clue is in the word 'presence'. Does not have to be a physical thing.

Anyway, have no patience with those who just Adam-bash. It is immature, pointless and shallow. Knock him all you want - your idols know better.
I completely agree... but every single word exactly applies the same for Q+PR, as well as solo work etc and projects from the archive that newer fans have no respect for or comprehension of what they may have meant at the time...

User avatar
midnight sky
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: QPR vs QAL

Post by midnight sky »

dave4343palace wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:46 pm
MusicalProstitute wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:28 pm
Jake wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:31 am

His physical presence is not impressive.
Again, the clue is in the word 'presence'. Does not have to be a physical thing.

Anyway, have no patience with those who just Adam-bash. It is immature, pointless and shallow. Knock him all you want - your idols know better.
I completely agree... but every single word exactly applies the same for Q+PR, as well as solo work etc and projects from the archive that newer fans have no respect for or comprehension of what they may have meant at the time...
I will always think it's a shame that some AL fans are ignorant to the history of Queen. A more recent example just from yestersay, AL will be taking part in a Bowie tribute today. Apparently some AL fans on an AL fan site don't know much about Bowie. They just want to watch AL's part and that's it, don't want to pay the 25 dollars to watch the other artists. That tells me so much right there.
Personally, if I could afford it, I would pay to watch the Bowie Tribute. There is going to be some very good artists involved, I'm surprised Brian and Roger are not. Maybe they will join Adam?
It just makes me sad and it rankles when people are ignorant to history. And it's been said so many times Freddie, Bowie etc were Idols for AL...as if that means we all must instantly accept AL because of that.

Post Reply