I'm clearly in a minority of 1. Queen with Adam L content

not_the_dj

monquixote said:

Here is a hypothetical question:

Sabbath without Ozzy

AC/DC without Bon Scott

Alice in Chains without Layne Staley

Genesis without Peter Gabriel

Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green

Should those bands have split up?

All of those went on to do new original material. Have Queen done that, or are they just playing all the old songs? (I genuinely don't know, I lost interest in the various new versions of Queen a while back)

bluechargeboy

I have just viewed some of this on iPlayer, and the main issue as I see it is not whether he should be compared to Freddie, or whether Queen are allowed to call their band what their band is called, but that this Lambert character has a grating, whiney, annoying voice that sounds rather like a guinea pig begging for a slice of cucumber. Never again do I want to hear this.

monquixote

not_the_dj said:

monquixote said:

Here is a hypothetical question:

Sabbath without Ozzy

AC/DC without Bon Scott

Alice in Chains without Layne Staley

Genesis without Peter Gabriel

Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green

Should those bands have split up?

All of those went on to do new original material. Have Queen done that, or are they just playing all the old songs? (I genuinely don't know, I lost interest in the various new versions of Queen a while back)

They did an album with Paul Rogers I think

Jez6345789

Glad I am not alone in thinking Lambert was awful Lucky enough to see the band 3 times from 76 onwards and this had nothing of Freddie about him. Mercury could be the campest of old queens when he wanted but he did it with style panache and humour, and one of the best voices uk rock has produced. Mr lambert comes across as stage school camp. Sort of now class I want you all to all do an impression of a camp gay man. He just seemed all jazz hands and exaggerated mincing around. As for wether queen should carry on yes if the guys can find a new singer and write new material for the new voice great. But bringing on a load of Freddie wannabes and rolling out a greatest hits show is abit lame. Floyd found a new approach sans Waters. Genesis without Gabriel Ultimately I think it's just easy money for them. Me I think it's more a freak show

Antique_Guitars

I read the title as you were coming out (in a town populated by skinked thugs) and professing your love for a man called Adam.

Somewhat disappointed with truth I must say.

koneguitarist

monquixote said:

Here is a hypothetical question:

Sabbath without Ozzy

AC/DC without Bon Scott

Alice in Chains without Layne Staley

Genesis without Peter Gabriel

Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green

Should those bands have split up?

Well like not_the_dj said, those bands went on to do original new material, and In many ways became better bands, and some certainly far more successful. I have no problem with Brian May wanting to keep queen going, but to keep playing the same stuff with different singers, to me smacks of money grabbing not being a musician with a creative intent.

Jalapeno

A bit too low key tbh - technically very good.

Also IMHO Ronnie Spector was great !

Wilko's first number wasn't good, but his other number was.  Really enjoyed Ruby turner, Joss Stone and Paloma Faith

Nunogilberto

I thought Brian sounded decent enough, ut I'm no fan of Adam Lambert.

bingefeller

monquixote said:

bingefeller said:

The thing I don't like about Lambert is that I think he camps it up too much.  Yes, Freddie was camp, but Lambert over does it and goes beyond what Freddie did on stage IMO.  

I think he is just being himself. 

He is that camp when he does his own music. 

monquixote said:

bingefeller said:

The thing I don't like about Lambert is that I think he camps it up too much.  Yes, Freddie was camp, but Lambert over does it and goes beyond what Freddie did on stage IMO.  

I think he is just being himself. 

He is that camp when he does his own music. 

Fair enough they have given him freedom of expression and creativity and that's great.  That is what music should be all about...however....  I personally think it's a bit too over the top for a rock band and it enters into cabaret land.  Maybe his own music lends itself to that better than Queen's does.  I also think that having a young guy acting like that on stage with men old enough to be his father looks a bit awkward or something, especially when their image doesn't match his.  Not against the idea of campness, but I think there is a time and a place and Queen's performances don't lend themselves well to this.   

I do like his leather trousers though.  

RocknRollDave

I don't especially want to go and see them, but why the hell shouldn't they go out and play with that line up if people want to see it? Noone's being hoodwinked, we all know Freddie won't be there in the flesh. You pays your money....I'm actually more against the recent "new" Queen album. I have avhuge problem with people resurrecting dead people's work and finishing it off/ releasing it when they're not around to give their permission/ blessing. It's icky, IMO

EricTheWeary

I have previously defended the current line up of Dr Feelgood which contains no original members so it's maybe odd that I can't cope with May and Taylor calling themselves Queen. I think it's just a case by case basis. Few people would probably call MkI Deep Purple the definitive line up for example and Sabbath were able to pursue a new direction with Dio that kept the band progressing, having basically run out of steam with Ozzy. When Scott died ACDC weren't the mega stars they are now so financially they may not have had the option to start a new project whereas Bri and Rog presumably aren't short of a bob or too.
If Queen are doing the wrong thing I'm not so sure Deacon is completely spotless, presumably he is happy to earn a few quid from increased back catalogue sales or could have raised his objections to the continued use of the name.

axisus

Loved it. Too many typically whiny Internet whingers around here. Stop telling others what they can or can't do and stick to what you enjoy listening to rather than rain on other people's parades.

samzadgan

Ive never been a fan of queen or brian may...but my thoughts on reviving the band with a new singer and going on the road...i would expect that they would have put out a new album with new material first. The live set would then include new stuff as well as classics.

To do only old songs...is just lazy and cashing in on previous glory. And for a musician like May, who seems to get a lot of praise, seems a bit odd.

joeyowen

axisus said:

Loved it. Too many typically whiny Internet whingers around here. Stop telling others what they can or can't do and stick to what you enjoy listening to rather than rain on other people's parades.

You clearly don't understand forums

axisus

joeyowen said:

axisus said:

Loved it. Too many typically whiny Internet whingers around here. Stop telling others what they can or can't do and stick to what you enjoy listening to rather than rain on other people's parades.

You clearly don't understand forums

Yeah I do, I'm just being a grumpy sod.

Nomad

Don't know what you're all moaning about. The boy dun good. Well rehearsed and damn slick, in fact.

Those that watched the Queen documentary linked to recently may recall that, when Mercury was on the slippery slope, he kept working in the studio, recording vocals - did three takes of everything he could manage and told the band to use his stuff once he was gone. Said, "don't let me be forgotten". Far from putting Queen to bed and calling it a day, he wanted the exact opposite.

As for just playing the classic tunes, who cares? If the punters like it, and they like playing them, then go ahead. It's not as if May and Taylor aren't entitled.

Bucket

monquixote said:

Watching now.

I don't see why Taylor and May shouldn't play if they want to Plenty of people want to see them.

Adam Lambert doesn't have Freddie's charisma but then neither does anyone else on the planet. He does have incredible technical ability and he is pretty and camp so he is a good choice.

All of this.

If they came out with a bunch of new material as a new band, who would be interested in hearing any of that when the people involved have done We Will Rock You, We Are the Champions and Bohemian Rhapsody? People still want to hear those songs live, and if two of the original members want to play them then who are we to take issue? No, Adam Lambert isn't Freddie, but he isn't claiming to be and no-one should expect him to be. What he is is a bloody good singer, with stage presence, who does the songs justice. IMO.

holnrew

I think people judge him based on being on American Idol and Glee and therefore somehow less authentic and deserving. I think he's got a great voice and I look forward to watching this on iPlayer.

Handsome_Chris

I think a lot of the problem ref doing 'new stuff' is that they have been but not in the music field. Dr Brian May PhD has went out and got his PhD in Astrophysics, authored a few books on the subject, and has been a regular on TV about the subject.  I don't think that he has the time or energy to get back into the studio.

Maybe Queen is just something they do every now and again for the fans?  I don't know, it doesn't affect my pay packet.

dafuzz

Saw it. Didn't like it. Adam is better suited to a stage show type environment, not fronting a rock band. Brian May was on great form.

The guy who fronted 'The Queen Experience' is a million times better - something Martel? Should've used him. I can't use youchoob from work but if you search 'Mercury Pavarotti' it's the top vid.

If they want to call themselves Queen I have no issue with that, anybody who knows anything about anything knows Freddie's dead, if people want to pay their money to hear those songs delivered by 50% of the original line up then good luck to them - they're cracking songs.