Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter?

The forum to discuss the ongoing collaboration with Adam Lambert. Talk about the tour etc in here but please and chat type stuff into the designated chat thread in Fried Chicken.

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby Echoplex » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:08 pm

fairydandy wrote:
Echoplex wrote:....and Queen are no different to any other band .


Really? There are probably other sites more suited to you then?


And maybe you should get over your need to cherry pick a line and quote it out of context to illustrate what you want to say. Go back and read what I wrote, or is it that you actually do believe that in Queen fandom time really does stand still. If that's the case you're in for a shock
 
Echoplex
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:00 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby Echoplex » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:48 pm

icy wrote:No, you mentioned Sabbath in your above post. Don't assume, because there is only one or two people who know/understand my thoughts about the Sabbath line up through the years. And it's not you.
When Ozzy was replaced there wasn't such a thing as message boards and the like, really are you comparing to things that happened years ago to how some people feel about Q+AL?
Thanks, I have indeed talked to real dyed in the wool fans of many bands. Fact is, Queen were not the same as any other band. There are many reasons as to why Queen were and different than music of the time, even now. I'm glad Queen were different, they paved their way for so many.


Actually I LISTED a number of bands to illustrate a point. You chose to make a comment on Black Sabbath's change of singer's (just one part of many lineup changes) I then responded to your post.

I have assumed nothing, I've taken points in your posts and using the information you provided I responded to them. As I've said before no band is totally unique, it's the fans who believe they are. All art, and music is no different is influenced in some way by what came before and Queen are no exception . Just to make things clear for you I'm not saying they weren't brilliant, wrote and recorded some amazing songs but so have many other bands.
 
Echoplex
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:00 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby CNB » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:59 pm

I don't know how the QPR collaboration came about but the QAL collab was spontaneous even though it had to wait a while to come about. B and R have said many times that they were not actively pursuing a new singer for their band. It just happened!
IT'S LATE !!!!!
WHO WANTS TO LIVE FOREVER !!!!!
SPREAD YOUR WINGS !!!!!
 
CNB
Somebody To Love
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 8262
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 400 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby fairydandy » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:37 pm

Echoplex wrote:
And maybe you should get over your need to cherry pick a line....


No. :)
 
fairydandy
Somebody To Love
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 7995
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:37 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 401 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby JLP » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:51 pm

The problem I have with this argument regarding the other bands is quite simple. In every case, the replacements were established rock musicians and/or singers. Adam Lambert was and remains neither. Therin lies the difference.
Come on you Tigers.
 
JLP
Site Admin
 
User avatar

 

Growing old disgracefully

      
 
Posts: 10244
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:33 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby fairydandy » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:13 pm

JLP wrote:The problem I have with this argument regarding the other bands is quite simple. In every case, the replacements were established rock musicians and/or singers. Adam Lambert was and remains neither. Therin lies the difference.


Surely the fact that the band had been going 18 or more years when the singer died (and then it was another 13 years before they 'replaced' him), have something to do with it as well?

The Beatles lasted 10 years or so...maybe they could have replaced Lennon 13 years after he died too...I don't know, with Will Young or something?

Lambert was on the X Factor last night. He's a decent vocalist, if you like that screechy sort of a tone, but he's nothing at all to do with Queen...well, not the Queen I came here for.
 
fairydandy
Somebody To Love
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 7995
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:37 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 401 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby liliane » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:38 am

JLP wrote:The problem I have with this argument regarding the other bands is quite simple. In every case, the replacements were established rock musicians and/or singers. Adam Lambert was and remains neither. Therin lies the difference.

Why do the replacements have to be established rock musicians and/or singers? I would think things like talent, chemistry between band members and an understanding of and the ability to sing the material should be the only things that matter. And I am guessing that Brian and Roger are of the same opinion because they chose Adam when they could pretty much have almost anybody else. And it seems they made the right call because QAL is a success both critically and commercially. Adam is only 7 years into his career, isn't it too early to judge his career? I'd say he has done pretty well for himself in such a short time.
 
liliane
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:39 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby icy » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:59 am

Echoplex wrote:
icy wrote:No, you mentioned Sabbath in your above post. Don't assume, because there is only one or two people who know/understand my thoughts about the Sabbath line up through the years. And it's not you.
When Ozzy was replaced there wasn't such a thing as message boards and the like, really are you comparing to things that happened years ago to how some people feel about Q+AL?
Thanks, I have indeed talked to real dyed in the wool fans of many bands. Fact is, Queen were not the same as any other band. There are many reasons as to why Queen were and different than music of the time, even now. I'm glad Queen were different, they paved their way for so many.


Actually I LISTED a number of bands to illustrate a point. You chose to make a comment on Black Sabbath's change of singer's (just one part of many lineup changes) I then responded to your post.

I have assumed nothing, I've taken points in your posts and using the information you provided I responded to them. As I've said before no band is totally unique, it's the fans who believe they are. All art, and music is no different is influenced in some way by what came before and Queen are no exception . Just to make things clear for you I'm not saying they weren't brilliant, wrote and recorded some amazing songs but so have many other bands.

Oh yes you have indeed assumed. The post of yours where you said the people who feel Queen doesn't exist or tour without Freddie or John have never bought tickets to the other artists you mentioned. Big and wrong assumption right there. Then you assumed I didn't have a problem with the Sabbath line up through the years.
Yes, many other bands have written brilliant songs too, I never would say otherwise. I strongly feel, and have always felt because Queen back catalogue, and the way they did things makes them different than any other band you mentioned...and any other band/artist out there. Thank gawd they did things their way. I like a great deal of music from many genes/decades, so yes I can safely say and I stand by Queen were and remain different than artists back then, or even now.
~Godspeed little one~
~Don't talk about angels
Or how I'll be saved
I'm no coward
But I'm not that brave
Rags are blowing
Rain's getting near
I'm done with running
And it's getting dark in here~

~Sleep in peace old friend for me you'll never die~
 
icy
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 

And the wounded skies above say it's much too late

      
 
Posts: 14913
Images: 0
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:44 am
Location: Persona non grata
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 511 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby icy » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:10 am

CNB wrote:I don't know how the QPR collaboration came about but the QAL collab was spontaneous even though it had to wait a while to come about. B and R have said many times that they were not actively pursuing a new singer for their band. It just happened!

Fender Stray Pack concert in 04, where Brian and Paul performed together, later in the year UK Music Hall Of Fame the same year where Paul joined Brian and Roger for 3 songs, and in 05 a tour was announced. Rest is history.
Brian and Roger apparently had a good connection with Paul too, enough to release live DVDs and a studio album.
All in all...a good time. I'm just sorry it ended.
*Strat pack* Bloody tablet.
~Godspeed little one~
~Don't talk about angels
Or how I'll be saved
I'm no coward
But I'm not that brave
Rags are blowing
Rain's getting near
I'm done with running
And it's getting dark in here~

~Sleep in peace old friend for me you'll never die~
 
icy
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 

And the wounded skies above say it's much too late

      
 
Posts: 14913
Images: 0
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:44 am
Location: Persona non grata
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 511 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby Echoplex » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:14 pm

icy wrote:

Oh yes you have indeed assumed. The post of yours where you said the people who feel Queen doesn't exist or tour without Freddie or John have never bought tickets to the other artists you mentioned. Big and wrong assumption right there. Then you assumed I didn't have a problem with the Sabbath line up through the years.
Yes, many other bands have written brilliant songs too, I never would say otherwise. I strongly feel, and have always felt because Queen back catalogue, and the way they did things makes them different than any other band you mentioned...and any other band/artist out there. Thank gawd they did things their way. I like a great deal of music from many genes/decades, so yes I can safely say and I stand by Queen were and remain different than artists back then, or even now.


You really need to read my post again because you have totally missed the point of that line that you claim says people who feel Queen don't exist etc etc . . Never bought tickets to other artists. . That is very clearly not what I said, so not a wrong assumption on my part. The Sabbath subject I answered given the information you provided and you, not me mentioned Dio and only Dio. . . .

Are you sure they always did things their way, They had Mac making them change their recording methods, they had Paul Prenter dragging Freddie down the nose candy euro disco club alleyway which led to their decimation in the then biggest record market in the world They had to sign to Hollywood in the states because no one else was willing to pay anything like what they thought they were worth in the states. Yes they were a brilliant recording band in the 70's, but as musicians no better than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd and certainly not as gifted as King Crimson or any of Zappa's lineups .

As far as being different is concerned, yes they were, but so was Bowie, Roxy Music Genisis and Pink Floyd. . . . And more. In fact if you take elements of Zeppelin, 10cc, Roxy Music and Bowie and the Beatles it shouldn't take long to recognise what went into making the "unique" Queen sound of the 70's.
 
Echoplex
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:00 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby Echoplex » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:22 pm

icy wrote:
CNB wrote:I don't know how the QPR collaboration came about but the QAL collab was spontaneous even though it had to wait a while to come about. B and R have said many times that they were not actively pursuing a new singer for their band. It just happened!

Fender Stray Pack concert in 04, where Brian and Paul performed together, later in the year UK Music Hall Of Fame the same year where Paul joined Brian and Roger for 3 songs, and in 05 a tour was announced. Rest is history.
Brian and Roger apparently had a good connection with Paul too, enough to release live DVDs and a studio album.
All in all...a good time. I'm just sorry it ended.
*Strat pack* Bloody tablet.


Goes back even more than that. Brian was the feature guitarist on Reaching Out, lead vocals Paul Rodgers, in the mid 90's. Hence it was used (in part) as the opening song to the 2005 set.
 
Echoplex
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:00 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby Echoplex » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:47 pm

liliane wrote:
JLP wrote:The problem I have with this argument regarding the other bands is quite simple. In every case, the replacements were established rock musicians and/or singers. Adam Lambert was and remains neither. Therin lies the difference.

Why do the replacements have to be established rock musicians and/or singers? I would think things like talent, chemistry between band members and an understanding of and the ability to sing the material should be the only things that matter. And I am guessing that Brian and Roger are of the same opinion because they chose Adam when they could pretty much have almost anybody else. And it seems they made the right call because QAL is a success both critically and commercially. Adam is only 7 years into his career, isn't it too early to judge his career? I'd say he has done pretty well for himself in such a short time.


Well Coverdale came from a North Yorkshire variety club background and a failed attempt to turn the band he was in into a professional unit.

Journey found an,Internationally, unknown tribute singer as did Judus Priest . Yes both had a back ground/ history in music but their is a huge difference between singing Don't Stop Believing to 150 people and not looking lost on a 70 foot wide stage standing next to Neil Schon and Ross Valory being watched by 15000 people and having to be note perfect.

The "current" Rainbow lineup featured no one who is well known apart from Blackmore. Many bands have taken on members who have never toured or played large venues.

If someone can perform and can connect to an audience and gets on with the other members of the band, that is more important then them have 10 million sales under their belt.

The Paul Rodgers fronted Queen+ was enjoyable but did kind of sound more like Brian had joined Bad Co and was covering some Queen songs. With Adam Lambert the whole thing sounds more flamboyant and more like Queen, I don't mean the vocal sound I'm talking about the overal experience, and they're playing at a higher volume too, more like the late 70's early 80's with Freddie.
 
Echoplex
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:00 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby CNB » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:30 pm

Echoplex, thanks for your very good explanation of why Adam "fits" the Queen band and music! There are people who are still hung up on the notion that Adam's performance skills started on American Idol when in fact he's been a stage performer since age 10. He was 27 on Idol and was already a polished singer and entertainer!
IT'S LATE !!!!!
WHO WANTS TO LIVE FOREVER !!!!!
SPREAD YOUR WINGS !!!!!
 
CNB
Somebody To Love
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 8262
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 400 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby liliane » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:36 am

Echoplex wrote:
liliane wrote:
JLP wrote:The problem I have with this argument regarding the other bands is quite simple. In every case, the replacements were established rock musicians and/or singers. Adam Lambert was and remains neither. Therin lies the difference.

Why do the replacements have to be established rock musicians and/or singers? I would think things like talent, chemistry between band members and an understanding of and the ability to sing the material should be the only things that matter. And I am guessing that Brian and Roger are of the same opinion because they chose Adam when they could pretty much have almost anybody else. And it seems they made the right call because QAL is a success both critically and commercially. Adam is only 7 years into his career, isn't it too early to judge his career? I'd say he has done pretty well for himself in such a short time.


Well Coverdale came from a North Yorkshire variety club background and a failed attempt to turn the band he was in into a professional unit.

Journey found an,Internationally, unknown tribute singer as did Judus Priest . Yes both had a back ground/ history in music but their is a huge difference between singing Don't Stop Believing to 150 people and not looking lost on a 70 foot wide stage standing next to Neil Schon and Ross Valory being watched by 15000 people and having to be note perfect.

The "current" Rainbow lineup featured no one who is well known apart from Blackmore. Many bands have taken on members who have never toured or played large venues.

If someone can perform and can connect to an audience and gets on with the other members of the band, that is more important then them have 10 million sales under their belt.

The Paul Rodgers fronted Queen+ was enjoyable but did kind of sound more like Brian had joined Bad Co and was covering some Queen songs. With Adam Lambert the whole thing sounds more flamboyant and more like Queen, I don't mean the vocal sound I'm talking about the overal experience, and they're playing at a higher volume too, more like the late 70's early 80's with Freddie.


Amen to all this! Thank you Echoplex!
 
liliane
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:39 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Queen + Adam Lambert. Is It Queen? Does It Really Matter

Postby icy » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:29 pm

Echoplex wrote:
icy wrote:

Oh yes you have indeed assumed. The post of yours where you said the people who feel Queen doesn't exist or tour without Freddie or John have never bought tickets to the other artists you mentioned. Big and wrong assumption right there. Then you assumed I didn't have a problem with the Sabbath line up through the years.
Yes, many other bands have written brilliant songs too, I never would say otherwise. I strongly feel, and have always felt because Queen back catalogue, and the way they did things makes them different than any other band you mentioned...and any other band/artist out there. Thank gawd they did things their way. I like a great deal of music from many genes/decades, so yes I can safely say and I stand by Queen were and remain different than artists back then, or even now.


You really need to read my post again because you have totally missed the point of that line that you claim says people who feel Queen don't exist etc etc . . Never bought tickets to other artists. . That is very clearly not what I said, so not a wrong assumption on my part. The Sabbath subject I answered given the information you provided and you, not me mentioned Dio and only Dio. . . .

Are you sure they always did things their way, They had Mac making them change their recording methods, they had Paul Prenter dragging Freddie down the nose candy euro disco club alleyway which led to their decimation in the then biggest record market in the world They had to sign to Hollywood in the states because no one else was willing to pay anything like what they thought they were worth in the states. Yes they were a brilliant recording band in the 70's, but as musicians no better than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd and certainly not as gifted as King Crimson or any of Zappa's lineups .

As far as being different is concerned, yes they were, but so was Bowie, Roxy Music Genisis and Pink Floyd. . . . And more. In fact if you take elements of Zeppelin, 10cc, Roxy Music and Bowie and the Beatles it shouldn't take long to recognise what went into making the "unique" Queen sound of the 70's.

Quite sure from how I look at it, Queen did things their own way. From videos to life performances, stage set ups, lyrics..they sure stood apart and were different. Queen kept changing through the years, I know I am glad the band branched out. They were so much more than a rock or pop band. No doubt Queen were influenced by others, who hasn't been. I'm not going to say who is better than Queen, not getting into that, but yes they were different and yes I feel they did much to change the world of music.
~Godspeed little one~
~Don't talk about angels
Or how I'll be saved
I'm no coward
But I'm not that brave
Rags are blowing
Rain's getting near
I'm done with running
And it's getting dark in here~

~Sleep in peace old friend for me you'll never die~
 
icy
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 

And the wounded skies above say it's much too late

      
 
Posts: 14913
Images: 0
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:44 am
Location: Persona non grata
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 511 times

Previous

Return to Queen + Adam Lambert

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests