soxtalon wrote:I like what I see in QAL...I'm not going to lie.
If I had the choice to see Queen or QAL, it would be Queen 7 times a week and twice on Sunday.
But between QAL and nothing, I'd make the same choice...QAL 7 times a week and twice on Sunday. No matter the "problems" or if Adam is no where near Freddie, I still enjoy the catalogue, I still like getting to see Brian and Roger play and I don't mind the flash and pomp. *shrugs* NO QAL will never approach Queen in terms of musical genius.
But not everything has to and I enjoy it for what it is...
OH and yes I would also choose Queen Forever or an anthology of QAL - but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy QAL since I don't have that option yet either!
YAFF wrote:There's a fundamental difference between Queen and Queen + Adam Lambert
Some people seem to fail to see the difference.
Queen is a hard rock band with theatrical flourishes who put on a rock concert
Queen + Adam Lambert is a a theatrical, cabaret-like, rock musical karaoke-type "show"
Now if you're into the latter you will be "blown away" by the "show". People who are enamored with pop culture are impressed by lights, glitter, smoke and mirrors, costumes and dancing but not necessarily the grittiness of rock & roll. It's a bit of harmless fun you might see as entertainment on a cruise ship.
The problem the way I see it is that many Queen fans think Brian & Roger have jumped the shark beginning with the WWRY musical, collabs with 5five, Robbie Williams, etc. onto QueenExtravaganza and reaching the nadir with an American B-list celebrity.....and have drug the Queen name down with it. Or have they really? No, real Queen is indomitable. The catalog, the canon, marches on, scooping up new fans daily.
But because everything Brian & Roger are involved in as of late is flashy and loud like American TV some object to the use of "Queen". Adam Lambert is a perfect fit for this because he's "showy" like a model on a catwalk or , well, a talent show contestant. He is a spectacle when he performs. His fans are in awe of the way he looks and the way he oversells songs that he sings. They like his voice for some of the same reasons others detest it. So it all just comes down to taste. When he "shows off" his voice with his powerful vibrato it both thrills and irritates depending on one's taste. To me and likely the reason so many think he's a "perfect fit" Adam Lambert is a cartoonish, exaggerated version of one aspect of Freddie Mercury. He is the campy, operatic, peacock-strutting Freddie in overdrive. What he is not and does not possess is the "soulfulness" of Freddie. Oh yes Freddie was one of the greatest "soul" singers ever. And more so the artistry of Freddie.
So to people like me Adam is hollow but I think I've come to accept that. It's not fair to compare a mere good entertainer like Lambert to a rarefied, musical genius that was Freddie Mercury.
Queen + AL is not Queen. If one just views it as a different beast it all makes sense. It could be seen as a parody of Queen or to be more charitable it's a pimped-out Broadway version of Queen. If you like it you are in luck.
Kes wrote:The only occasions I'll have an issue with it, are when it gets in the way of product.
All the time you have stuff like Earl's Court, Houston, Hammersmith '79, and Hyde Park in "the bank", I find it a bit hard to consider the possibility that QAL Live in Japan might well wind up leapfroging the release of those concerts.
People actually going to see live concerts is fine by me.
If they decide to release QAL product, then I hope it's a simultaneous parallel release with something by "Queen".
AlexKx wrote:Oh, snap! The original poster asked if it "really matters"! "Nothing really matters!", duh!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests