|
|
Post by adamrocks on Oct 5, 2013 14:22:38 GMT -5
After the the iHeart concert, I whined about reviews using the stock phrase "He's no Freddie Mercury . . " followed by something like "he did a good job." It's such a back-handed compliment--to me. This particular author acknowledged Freddie's great reputation without taking anything away from Adam. Much better writing in my opinion. The other way seems a bit lazy and predictable. It is impossible to think or talk about Queen without Freddie looming large in the background. For many, Freddie WAS the face, voice and spirit of Queen. Add to that he got sick when he was arguably at his prime creatively and in terms of performance, and you have an icon and legacy that takes on mythic proportions. No one in the media or in the rock world would EVER dare to say that anyone singing with Queen was equal to Freddie, much less even hint at the possibility that in some ways, he was better. In the comparative safety of an Adam forum I will risk saying that in terms of vocal technique, control and range, Adam exceeds Freddie. (And yes, you don't have to tell me that Freddie was not a trained singer while Adam has a dozen years of lessons at least.) In conventional terms of classic beauty, Adam is better looking than Freddie. Even on this forum, there will be argument about these statements because, for many, Freddie is incomparable. You just don't go there! So, I figure that the "he's no Freddie Mercury" but "he is damned good" is the closest authors can get to enthusiastic praise of Adam as long as Freddie's ghost is still very much in the theater.I agree with you Cassie. And..."Freddie's ghost" I feel to some...will ALWAYS be "very much in the theater". It is what it is. I'm just glad that the powers that be connected Queen with Adam and those of us who already knew the greatness of Queen's music and new generations of fans that are just now hearing their songs...have the privilege to hear and feel Adam and Queen bring to life again such powerful music! |
|
|
|
Post by adamrocks on Oct 5, 2013 14:29:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 4Ms on Oct 5, 2013 14:31:57 GMT -5
After the the iHeart concert, I whined about reviews using the stock phrase "He's no Freddie Mercury . . " followed by something like "he did a good job." It's such a back-handed compliment--to me. This particular author acknowledged Freddie's great reputation without taking anything away from Adam. Much better writing in my opinion. The other way seems a bit lazy and predictable. It is impossible to think or talk about Queen without Freddie looming large in the background. For many, Freddie WAS the face, voice and spirit of Queen. Add to that he got sick when he was arguably at his prime creatively and in terms of performance, and you have an icon and legacy that takes on mythic proportions. No one in the media or in the rock world would EVER dare to say that anyone singing with Queen was equal to Freddie, much less even hint at the possibility that in some ways, he was better. In the comparative safety of an Adam forum I will risk saying that in terms of vocal technique, control and range, Adam exceeds Freddie. (And yes, you don't have to tell me that Freddie was not a trained singer while Adam has a dozen years of lessons at least.) In conventional terms of classic beauty, Adam is better looking than Freddie. Even on this forum, there will be argument about these statements because, for many, Freddie is incomparable. You just don't go there! So, I figure that the "he's no Freddie Mercury" but "he is damned good" is the closest authors can get to enthusiastic praise of Adam as long as Freddie's ghost is still very much in the theater. Thank you! I will be long gone, but I can imagine some distant future with a performer trying to sing Adam's songs. Lol, perhaps there'll be an Adam Lambert impersonator. I would hate to think of a review of such a performer/performance that didn't acknowledge the original Adam's unique and extraordinary talent. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 15:48:55 GMT -5
After the the iHeart concert, I whined about reviews using the stock phrase "He's no Freddie Mercury . . " followed by something like "he did a good job." It's such a back-handed compliment--to me. This particular author acknowledged Freddie's great reputation without taking anything away from Adam. Much better writing in my opinion. The other way seems a bit lazy and predictable. It is impossible to think or talk about Queen without Freddie looming large in the background. For many, Freddie WAS the face, voice and spirit of Queen. Add to that he got sick when he was arguably at his prime creatively and in terms of performance, and you have an icon and legacy that takes on mythic proportions. No one in the media or in the rock world would EVER dare to say that anyone singing with Queen was equal to Freddie, much less even hint at the possibility that in some ways, he was better. In the comparative safety of an Adam forum I will risk saying that in terms of vocal technique, control and range, Adam exceeds Freddie. (And yes, you don't have to tell me that Freddie was not a trained singer while Adam has a dozen years of lessons at least.) In conventional terms of classic beauty, Adam is better looking than Freddie. Even on this forum, there will be argument about these statements because, for many, Freddie is incomparable. You just don't go there! So, I figure that the "he's no Freddie Mercury" but "he is damned good" is the closest authors can get to enthusiastic praise of Adam as long as Freddie's ghost is still very much in the theater. Well, to play devil's advocate for a bit  , there is more to singing than technical ability. There is also how a singer chooses to sing a song, as well as interpretation. I love Adam's voice, but I have to admit I don't love every performance that he has done. For example, I've never liked his performance of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" on American Idol. Adam is technically a better singer than Mick Jagger, but his performance of this song was, to me, overbaked. Too many runs and too much wailing at the high end of his range for my taste. So, if I had to put Jagger vs. Lambert, I would pick Jagger on this one. Same goes for a few of the Queen songs -- I just prefer the way Freddie sang them. Also, I think it's important to remember the emotional connection that people can have to the original performers of songs. I have to admit I feel that way about the music of the Beatles. I've heard many good singers sing their songs over the years, including people who are better singers than Paul, John and George, but for some reason I prefer the originals. Maybe it's the associations that I have with those recordings ... I don't know. I imagine there are quite a few Queen fans who might prefer Freddie's performances for a similar reason. And lastly, the regard for Freddie is based not only on his voice, but on his charisma and amazing stage presence, as well as his songwriting ability. He was also a trained pianist (he started studying at the age of 7). He was a quadruple threat. And the fact that Queen was tremendously successful in their prime adds to the legend. So, maybe when Adam has achieved what Freddie achieved he too will be considered "legendary" and irreplaceable. I'm hoping that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by coo.coo.ca.choo on Oct 5, 2013 15:56:03 GMT -5
Legs! Oh, (and, I think) elf shoes!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 16:03:10 GMT -5
OT, but Annie Lennox tweeted a strong statement today, inspired, I'm guessing, at least in part by Miley Cyrus's recent performances. She makes many good points: Annie Lennox @annielennox 2h I have to say that I'm disturbed and dismayed by the recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos.... fb.me/Ltrjg0GD Here's her entire post on Facebook: "I have to say that I'm disturbed and dismayed by the recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos. You know the ones I'm talking about. It seems obvious that certain record companies are peddling highly styled pornography with musical accompaniment. As if the tidal wave of sexualised imagery wasn't already bombarding impressionable young girls enough..I believe in freedom of speech and expression, but the market forces don't give a toss about the notion of boundaries. As long as there's booty to make money out of, it will be bought and sold. It's depressing to see how these performers are so eager to push this new level of low.Their assumption seems to be that misogyny- utilised and displayed through oneself is totally fine, as long as you are the one creating it. As if it's all justified by how many millions of dollars and U tube hits you get from behaving like pimp and prostitute at the same time. It's a glorified and monetized form of self harm." She is a wise woman. (Of course, I'm a long-time fan of hers, so I might be a bit biased. ) |
|
belle
Member
Posts: 4,732
Location:
|
Post by belle on Oct 5, 2013 16:04:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nonchallance on Oct 5, 2013 16:26:26 GMT -5
It is impossible to think or talk about Queen without Freddie looming large in the background. For many, Freddie WAS the face, voice and spirit of Queen. Add to that he got sick when he was arguably at his prime creatively and in terms of performance, and you have an icon and legacy that takes on mythic proportions. No one in the media or in the rock world would EVER dare to say that anyone singing with Queen was equal to Freddie, much less even hint at the possibility that in some ways, he was better. In the comparative safety of an Adam forum I will risk saying that in terms of vocal technique, control and range, Adam exceeds Freddie. (And yes, you don't have to tell me that Freddie was not a trained singer while Adam has a dozen years of lessons at least.) In conventional terms of classic beauty, Adam is better looking than Freddie. Even on this forum, there will be argument about these statements because, for many, Freddie is incomparable. You just don't go there! So, I figure that the "he's no Freddie Mercury" but "he is damned good" is the closest authors can get to enthusiastic praise of Adam as long as Freddie's ghost is still very much in the theater. Well, to play devil's advocate for a bit , there is more to singing than technical ability. There is also how a singer chooses to sing a song, as well as interpretation. I love Adam's voice, but I have to admit I don't love every performance that he has done. For example, I've never liked his performance of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" on American Idol. Adam is technically a better singer than Mick Jagger, but his performance of this song was, to me, overbaked. Too many runs and too much wailing at the high end of his range for my taste. So, if I had to put Jagger vs. Lambert, I would pick Jagger on this one. Same goes for a few of the Queen songs -- I just prefer the way Freddie sang them. Also, I think it's important to remember the emotional connection that people can have to the original performers of songs. I have to admit I feel that way about the music of the Beatles. I've heard many good singers sing their songs over the years, including people who are better singers than Paul, John and George, but for some reason I prefer the originals. Maybe it's the associations that I have with those recordings ... I don't know. I imagine there are quite a few Queen fans who might prefer Freddie's performances for a similar reason. And lastly, the regard for Freddie is based not only on his voice, but on his charisma and amazing stage presence, as well as his songwriting ability. He was also a trained pianist (he started studying at the age of 7). He was a quadruple threat. And the fact that Queen was tremendously successful in their prime adds to the legend. So, maybe when Adam has achieved what Freddie achieved he too will be considered "legendary" and irreplaceable. I'm hoping that happens. For some reason I don't have this problem at all. I worship diversity. Every song, every work of art that was created need to be discussed, reinterpreted and recreated to be alive. I don't compare Adam to Freddie or Mick. I don't compare originals to covers. If I like originals I listen to them, if covers are any good I will listen to them too. I often have many versions of this same song because I like all renditions. My only preference is good rendition and nothing else. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 16:27:13 GMT -5
Morning! ![]() Sunday morning with coffee and Adam .. ![]()  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 16:31:37 GMT -5
Kell Bell @jeepster318 2h Picked up a Dallas Observer last week and had a nice surprise when I opened it! @adamlambert @winstarworld pic.twitter.com/L3mA8ErquR  |
|
, there is more to singing than technical ability. There is also how a singer chooses to sing a song, as well as interpretation. I love Adam's voice, but I have to admit I don't love every performance that he has done. For example, I've never liked his performance of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" on American Idol. Adam is technically a better singer than Mick Jagger, but his performance of this song was, to me, overbaked. Too many runs and too much wailing at the high end of his range for my taste. So, if I had to put Jagger vs. Lambert, I would pick Jagger on this one. Same goes for a few of the Queen songs -- I just prefer the way Freddie sang them. 
