|
Post by DancyGeorgia on Dec 12, 2014 12:40:12 GMT -5
If Adam's sweatshirt was sequined he removed them because it's obvious with the two pictures close together that his does not have the sequins shown on the other. Actually I think they are there just not being caught by the light... Not that it matters either way is a super cool sweater. Technically, there are no "sequins" in Adam's sweater. The large round shinny objects are known as foil "mirrors" in the costume/sewing world, at least in the USA. They are a much larger (2 or 3 times the diameter) of sequin, much more flexible than sequin, and much more shinny and reflective than sequin. Here's a close up picture of mirrored trim. Mirrors are attached to the fabric by a tight zig-zag stitch surrounding the perimeter of the mirror. Sequin are attached threading through a tiny hole in the middle of the sequin. The rest of the shinny stuff on Adam's sweater are small round and star shaped metal "studs". Like on alot of Adam's costume pieces, but much smaller. Likely they are pronged on the bottom. The metal prongs pierce the fabric and then are bent on the other side to hold the studs in place.
|
|
|
Post by mizzleme on Dec 12, 2014 12:41:31 GMT -5
Watch this! This one has additional moments to the previous 8 mins YT. Towards the end there is a bit where Roger suggests they can write NEW music! Makes me hopeful that this new music will be written with Adam, after all he doesn't want to work with anyone else! Perhaps, if they do write new music, they could name the track 'Tequilla Moments' ????
|
|
|
Post by mizzleme on Dec 12, 2014 12:43:55 GMT -5
]Perhaps, if they do write new music, they could name the track 'Tequilla Moments' ????[/quote][
Emoticon was suppose to be a winky/smiley.....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 12:44:34 GMT -5
Well most of the negative things I've seen said about Adam seem to be said more to incite and piss off zealot glamberts. The feel I get is that there is no real problem with Adam's attitude or arrogance, or ego - just that the collaboration itself doesn't work for them. Although it's really petty, I truly think if they called them selves Glam Rock Church or whatever and not Queen there wouldn't be quite as much vitriol. It would be more tolerated. MOST of the vitriol is that it's being labeled as Queen when it's not Queen. Queen is and only is Freddie/Brian/Roger/John so without 2 members it's a different band. If it's a different name it makes comparisons much less inevitable. Now me? I'm satisfied that by the designation of Queen + Adam Lambert it is a different band than Queen and Queen + Paul Rodgers....but others are more picky. *shrug* Their loss. This attitude sounds very reasonable, but on some level it's a little off, right? I mean, it would be one thing if Adam, Brian, and Roger came together to record and perform brand new music, totally unrelated to Queen, but that's not what happened. We're talking about Queen members playing Queen music that they wrote themselves. Pretty weird to call that something other than Queen (or Queen + AL), if you ask me. I understand the instinct behind wanting to define Queen as Freddie + Brian + Roger + John, but that's not how the business works. I mean, even the Beatles were called the Beatles as John + Paul + George + Stuart Sutcliffe + Pete Best, long before Ringo ever came on the scene. Hell, Sutcliffe was a founding member who even chose their name. Obviously, Stuart Sutcliffe:Beatles ≠ Freddie Mercury:Queen (hell yeah, SATs ), but you get my point. The list of bands whose members changed significantly as their name remained the same is too long to attempt to name here. Is Nile Rodgers no longer allowed to publish and perform as Chic because Bernard Edwards died 20 years ago? And I say this with every sympathy and respect for those fans who are no longer really interested in Queen without Freddie. In other words, I agree with you Talon in that Queen + Adam Lambert seems like a good designation to me. Great post, midwifespal! Do the fans who object to the name even realize that because they are using the Queen name, both John and Freddie's estate get money off of every live thing they do, merchandise sold at concerts, etc?! Pretty sure that if they changed their name, that would not happen!
|
|
mszue
Member
Posts: 4,975
Location:
|
Post by mszue on Dec 12, 2014 12:46:18 GMT -5
you know, I've been thinking about this as well... and the only explanation I can come up with is that Adam is so good they feel he is threatening Freddie's legacy - it is all so idiotic that I hope I am wrong. But I can't come up with anything else, the fraction wanting to bury B&R in the archives not withstanding. I also think the majority of Q fans ARE happy for them, we see only a few posting all the hate. And even these can't come up with anything of substance, consistently spewing pure nonsense... I also think Adam succeeded in winning the majority of doubters over! And he's done it by just being himself. Well most of the negative things I've seen said about Adam seem to be said more to incite and piss off zealot glamberts. The feel I get is that there is no real problem with Adam's attitude or arrogance, or ego - just that the collaboration itself doesn't work for them. Although it's really petty, I truly think if they called them selves Glam Rock Church or whatever and not Queen there wouldn't be quite as much vitriol. It would be more tolerated. MOST of the vitriol is that it's being labeled as Queen when it's not Queen. Queen is and only is Freddie/Brian/Roger/John so without 2 members it's a different band. If it's a different name it makes comparisons much less inevitable. Now me? I'm satisfied that by the designation of Queen + Adam Lambert it is a different band than Queen and Queen + Paul Rodgers....but others are more picky. *shrug* Their loss. I hear what you have been saying Talon and you are careful in your wording but is this 'purity' of concept only applicable to music? Where and when does it stop? Now that Steve Jobs is gone, should Apple call itself something else? Nobody can claim his name is not tied to the company name and game... What about things like the James Bond franchise....should a film or character not be referred to 007 or Bond after Connery ceased playing it? I would love to see criteria for ownership of a name and a brand kept consistent .... and what are Brian and Roger to do....and why? Do fans really feel they have the right to suggest these men have no right to the band name they created and paid for with their own B,S & T?? seriously? Don't go and or don't like, that is absolutely anyone's prerogative, but claim they have no right to the name...that is ludicrous....it belongs to them and that is that, in my humble opinion. I don't know John but throwing up his name as the 'honourable' one when he is still cashing in on the cow is not that cool, again, imho. And I am not blaming him here, albeit if he is collecting at all on this iteration then I do believe he could put out one definitive and supporting statement...if he isn't then he owes nobody anything. Sorry if I am just sounding too cranky...torn rotator cuff and waiting on surgery makes me sleepless and testy...but that does not change what I feel, ymmv
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 12:48:29 GMT -5
Actually I think they are there just not being caught by the light... Not that it matters either way is a super cool sweater. Technically, there are no "sequins" in Adam's sweater. The large round shinny objects are known as foil "mirrors" in the costume/sewing world, at least in the USA. They are a much larger (2 or 3 times the diameter) of sequin, much more flexible than sequin, and much more shinny and reflective than sequin. Here's a close up picture of mirrored trim. Mirrors are attached to the fabric by a tight zig-zag stitch surrounding the perimeter of the mirror. Sequin are attached threading through a tiny hole in the middle of the sequin. The rest of the shinny stuff on Adam's sweater are small round and star shaped metal "studs". Like on alot of Adam's costume pieces, but much smaller. Likely they are pronged on the bottom. The metal prongs pierce the fabric and then are bent on the other side to hold the studs in place. I knew you would know!
|
|
|
Post by houselady on Dec 12, 2014 13:03:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by houselady on Dec 12, 2014 13:05:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 13:05:10 GMT -5
Well most of the negative things I've seen said about Adam seem to be said more to incite and piss off zealot glamberts. The feel I get is that there is no real problem with Adam's attitude or arrogance, or ego - just that the collaboration itself doesn't work for them. Although it's really petty, I truly think if they called them selves Glam Rock Church or whatever and not Queen there wouldn't be quite as much vitriol. It would be more tolerated. MOST of the vitriol is that it's being labeled as Queen when it's not Queen. Queen is and only is Freddie/Brian/Roger/John so without 2 members it's a different band. If it's a different name it makes comparisons much less inevitable. Now me? I'm satisfied that by the designation of Queen + Adam Lambert it is a different band than Queen and Queen + Paul Rodgers....but others are more picky. *shrug* Their loss. I hear what you have been saying Talon and you are careful in your wording but is this 'purity' of concept only applicable to music? Where and when does it stop? Now that Steve Jobs is gone, should Apple call itself something else? Nobody can claim his name is not tied to the company name and game... What about things like the James Bond franchise....should a film or character not be referred to 007 or Bond after Connery ceased playing it? I would love to see criteria for ownership of a name and a brand kept consistent .... and what are Brian and Roger to do....and why? Do fans really feel they have the right to suggest these men have no right to the band name they created and paid for with their own B,S & T?? seriously? Don't go and or don't like, that is absolutely anyone's prerogative, but claim they have no right to the name...that is ludicrous....it belongs to them and that is that, in my humble opinion. I don't know John but throwing up his name as the 'honourable' one when he is still cashing in on the cow is not that cool, again, imho. And I am not blaming him here, albeit if he is collecting at all on this iteration then I do believe he could put out one definitive and supporting statement...if he isn't then he owes nobody anything. Sorry if I am just sounding too cranky...torn rotator cuff and waiting on surgery makes me sleepless and testy...but that does not change what I feel, ymmv I have no reason to be cranky, and I am not! But i agree with everything!!
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Dec 12, 2014 13:08:59 GMT -5
[This attitude sounds very reasonable, but on some level it's a little off, right? I mean, it would be one thing if Adam, Brian, and Roger came together to record and perform brand new music, totally unrelated to Queen, but that's not what happened. We're talking about Queen members playing Queen music that they wrote themselves. Pretty weird to call that something other than Queen (or Queen + AL), if you ask me. I understand the instinct behind wanting to define Queen as Freddie + Brian + Roger + John, but that's not how the business works. I mean, even the Beatles were called the Beatles as John + Paul + George + Stuart Sutcliffe + Pete Best, long before Ringo ever came on the scene. Hell, Sutcliffe was a founding member who even chose their name. Obviously, Stuart Sutcliffe:Beatles ≠ Freddie Mercury:Queen (hell yeah, SATs ), but you get my point. The list of bands whose members changed significantly as their name remained the same is too long to attempt to name here. Is Nile Rodgers no longer allowed to publish and perform as Chic because Bernard Edwards died 20 years ago? And I say this with every sympathy and respect for those fans who are no longer really interested in Queen without Freddie. In other words, I agree with you Talon in that Queen + Adam Lambert seems like a good designation to me. I hear what you have been saying Talon and you are careful in your wording but is this 'purity' of concept only applicable to music? Where and when does it stop? Now that Steve Jobs is gone, should Apple call itself something else? Nobody can claim his name is not tied to the company name and game... What about things like the James Bond franchise....should a film or character not be referred to 007 or Bond after Connery ceased playing it? I would love to see criteria for ownership of a name and a brand kept consistent .... and what are Brian and Roger to do....and why? Do fans really feel they have the right to suggest these men have no right to the band name they created and paid for with their own B,S & T?? seriously? Don't go and or don't like, that is absolutely anyone's prerogative, but claim they have no right to the name...that is ludicrous....it belongs to them and that is that, in my humble opinion. I don't know John but throwing up his name as the 'honourable' one when he is still cashing in on the cow is not that cool, again, imho. And I am not blaming him here, albeit if he is collecting at all on this iteration then I do believe he could put out one definitive and supporting statement...if he isn't then he owes nobody anything. Sorry if I am just sounding too cranky...torn rotator cuff and waiting on surgery makes me sleepless and testy...but that does not change what I feel, ymmv --- I think at least a portion of those against it always took great pride that most bands never made it 20 years without changing a single line up. It was a big source of pride. MOST bands either broke up sooner (Beatles/Zeppelin) or there was a revolving door of people. Queen was a long lasting - no member changing group so it meant something....*shrug* I guess I can kind of see it but again being a Queen + doesn't change that for me really...The only thing I wouldn't like personally is if they just called themselves Queen and Queen suddenly meant Brian/Roger/Adam. That would be wrong. Great post, midwifespal! Do the fans who object to the name even realize that because they are using the Queen name, both John and Freddie's estate get money off of every live thing they do, merchandise sold at concerts, etc?! Pretty sure that if they changed their name, that would not happen! They do. I don't think it's much of a concern. Let's face it, John and Freddie's estate are quite well off regardless
|
|