talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Jul 10, 2017 14:54:54 GMT -5
Your post was interesting, Talon, but the point being addressed here was the term"stand in." I don't think your example addressed that. Would quarterbackC ever be referred to as a standin? I say, "No." Yes, I am a sports fan and have never heard a new player being called a stand in or as in sports, a substitute, unless the other guy was still around and coming back. Was Luck the standin for Manning? No. Has he achieved what Manning achieved in Indiana? No. I don't think anyone here ever said Adam's Queen legacy would ever be what Freddie's is. As you pointed out, there just are not enough years left for Brian and Roger! But I still don't see him as a standin for someone who died 20+ years ago Well that is where the football analogy here doesn't really hold water because of one thing. The Colts aren't going anywhere. The Colts are a football team that is here and now and driving for championships (and records and what not here and now).
Luck is not a stand in with the Colts because he IS a Colt. Luck has the opportunity to be there long enough to really challenge Manning's records and championships and everything Manning did achieve.
Adam is NOT in Queen and he's the first to say that. He not going to get an opportunity to sell 300 million records as the front man of Queen and become a Hall of Famer with Queen....And exactly my point...If you go to the Hall of Fame, Adam is not in the Hall of Fame with Queen. There may be a notation that Adam filled Freddie's spot for tours in 2012-2018 (or beyond) but he's not *IN* the band which a replacement would be. A better scenario is if the Colts decided to put on an exhibition game with the greatest living players in Colts history...no doubt Manning would get the starting nod over Luck. If Manning were ill or broke a shoulder or something...Luck WOULD be a stand in then! Standing in because Manning can't be. It could still be an extremely fun game to watch and maybe being younger, Luck would actually throw better than Manning or whatever....but he'd still be a fill in. Queen is not a current act with plans on being hungry enough to challenge for global success on the charts, and in the present pop culture. As much as I hate to admit it, the band has no real future...ESPECIALLY if they don't put out anything new together. This is why the Theatrical analogy is closer to the mark for me. This is one last run with everyone from the original cast singing the original works with stand-ins for those who can't make it. But when you look back at the run of the show - the original is what you look to in the legacy.
|
|
|
Post by bridgeymah on Jul 10, 2017 21:42:12 GMT -5
Wow - what a great rich and very thoughtful intelligent discussion about what to call Adam's role. Thanks to Pattihum, Talon, Cassie and Marionm. Stuff like this is one of the reasons I keep on coming back to this place :-)
|
|
|
Post by liliane12 on Jul 11, 2017 1:11:58 GMT -5
I was just catching up on the recent posts on the board and saw this interesting discussion about whether Adam should be considered as a stand-in for Freddie or not...just thought I'd delurk and share my opinion.
I thought the theater analogy worked the best but I'd just simply consider Adam as the new "revival star" and not a stand-in nor a replacement. He would be a replacement if he were part of Queen but technically he isn't a part of Queen because they are touring as Q+AL and have not released nor toured any new material together. Nor is he a stand-in for Freddie because standing in for someone means to substitute for someone who is temporarily not available to do the job. I don't think it is the case here.
To me, "revival star" is the closest description. Talon, in your analogy, you mention Phantom so let's use that example. Phantom was a production and as such, it features many people's work: Sarah Brightman, Michael Crawford. ALW, other cast and crew. Just like Phantom is a production, Queen is a band composed of 4 talented individuals who all had a hand in the eventual success of the band. Queen was created by and made famous by Freddie, John, Brian and Roger. Just like Phantom was created by ALW and made famous by the original cast including Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman who were the main faces of the original production.
What is different in this case is that Queen has stopped touring since Freddie passed away in 1991 until PR and stopped again until Adam whereas Phantom has continued its run since the original production with many different cast members being replaced.
So if Phantom had stopped its run for many many years and then came back with some new and old cast members and with some production change, the new show would be called a revival. A revival while not being the original is a new entity using the same story and music.
To me, Q+PR and Q+AL could both be considered revivals. A revival stands on it own. It is eligible for awards and depending on its success, commercially and critically, will either see a limited or a semi-permanent run.
Adam's involvement with Queen could have been a disaster just like a new hypothetical revival of Phantom could have been a disaster especially when you look at the legacy of the show and of the band and at the talent involved in the original band and production. Both could have been badly reviewed and closed shop very quickly if they did not work critically and commercially.
Q+AL, especially Adam, had a big hill to climb but they did it despite all that was against them.
So while I agree that Adam is not a part of Queen and probably never will, he is their revival star and their new face for a whole new generation of Queen fans. To the new generation of fans who never got to see Freddie live, he is their new frontman in fact if not in name. His voice singing Queen songs live will be in their memories forever just like Freddie's voice singing Queen songs live is still in your memories Talon.
To call him a stand in is to underestimate the fact that without him, Queen's story would have probably ended in 2009 with Q+PR. He is one of the main reasons why Queen is still active in 2017 and touring at such a high level and bringing the new music live on stage for a new generation of fans.
After all is said and done, if there was ever a book written about Queen, Adam would not have more than a few pages in the book and rightfully so but he'll probably be in that beautiful epilogue at the end. And I am happy enough with it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:56:25 GMT -5
liliane12 Great post! And "Weclome!" You should not be a "quiet member!" My last post on this subject, is going to be to retype what the current tour program says about this collaboration! And what it calls Adam! After writing about the success of all previous QAL tours, this was the wrap up paragraph: ""From that point on, there was no stopping the mighty Queen sound machine and their incandescent new frontman, Adam Lambert." Maybe it's just me, but "new Frontman" sounds like a little more than a stand in.
|
|
|
Post by nica575 on Jul 11, 2017 12:05:50 GMT -5
lilliane12 - WELCOME! after reading this thread with so many opinions on which word to use describing Adam's role in Queen I realized that first of all it doesn't matter and second of all it IS and will continue to be different for each one of us: for some he is an intruder brought in by money hungry misguided old geezers to ruin Queen legacy; for others he is a tolerable stand in who enables Queen to go on the road and play old music; for many he is an honorary replacement who revived Queen making it possible for the millions to hear the great music; and to some of us Adam is a gift from god whose unsurpassed vocals exceed those of the original, who brought the wonderful world of Queen catalog into their lives and rejuvenated Dr Bri and RT! I am in the 2 latter groups, but I think I understand all POV with the exception of the very first listed variety.
|
|
|
Post by stardust on Jul 11, 2017 15:28:27 GMT -5
lilliane12 - WELCOME! after reading this thread with so many opinions on which word to use describing Adam's role in Queen I realized that first of all it doesn't matter and second of all it IS and will continue to be different for each one of us: for some he is an intruder brought in by money hungry misguided old geezers to ruin Queen legacy; for others he is a tolerable stand in who enables Queen to go on the road and play old music; for many he is an honorary replacement who revived Queen making it possible for the millions to hear the great music; and to some of us Adam is a gift from god whose unsurpassed vocals exceed those of the original, who brought the wonderful world of Queen catalog into their lives and rejuvenated Dr Bri and RT! I am in the 2 latter groups, but I think I understand all POV with the exception of the very first listed variety. I think we will never all agree about this and frankly I don't think it really matters. It just is individual POV which everyone is allowed to have!!
|
|
happy
Member
Posts: 3,359
Location:
|
Post by happy on Jul 11, 2017 19:13:14 GMT -5
I noticed a reviewer called Adam "an ideal surrogate." Oh the English language with all its synonyms!
|
|
marionm
Member
Posts: 2,640
Location:
|
Post by marionm on Jul 11, 2017 21:24:25 GMT -5
nica575 very good point! What I've really wondered about is comments by part of that first group you mentioned, that Brian and Roger tour with Adam because he's a crowd drawer...like WTF?! Like Adam was a Mendes, Bieber or Sheeran...just puzzles me^^
|
|