|
|
Post by adamrocks on Sept 2, 2014 15:56:00 GMT -5
Katerina @jadelle1 1h Queen and Adam Lambert -We Will Rock You-Live At Brisbane Entertainment Centre 01-09-14: youtu.be/AMIMqp1s9hM via Christine Dobis |
|
|
|
Post by bridgeymah on Sept 2, 2014 15:59:22 GMT -5
Finally, you bet we are going to continue to hear Adam Lambert, Queen frontman from his PR team, over and over. This was probably the hardest rock singing assignment in the world and Adam pulled it off. This is a huge achievement for Adam to pull this off. I do not know how long this will last but I cannot imagine anyone else wanted to set into both Freddie's and Adam's shoes after this tour. And I am sure that Brian and Roger would strongly prefer to perform with Adam vs. other singers. This is just too good. I agree that it IS the hardest rock singing assignment in the world. Difficult repertoire, difficult range (vocally and in terms of musical styles), taxing length of singing, huge "shoes to fill", preconceived negative expectations to shatter, incredible amount of energy to keep up the crowd energy for 2+ hours ( and rebuild it after it sags in the middle when he leaves the stage - sorry, but it's true). Lots of people have sung with Queen since Freddie, and none have conquered the assignment as Adam has. (If I hear how "perfect" George Michael was after only singing one frickn' song at one concert I might just scream!) I have little doubt that Roger and Brian will continue to perform with other singers from time to time. They enjoy the interaction. I do not think they would consider doing another major tour as Queen with someone else. They have basically said the only reason they considered doing this one was because of Adam and how perfectly they fit. Since they consider him "one in a billion" that probably means no one else could fit into that frontman slot at this late time in their careers. Fronting Queen on such a wildly successful tour amidst world wide demands for more appearances around the globe would be a life time crowning achievement for any singer. However, in the last interview we saw with the three, when Adam was asked if this was the "gig of a lifetime" Adam did not say "yes." He repeated what an honor it was, etc. etc. I think he leaves himself open to the idea that there will be an even more glorious and successful gig some time in the future, with him as the main attraction. I agree! I commented on the bolded part in my recap. The sheer force that Adam needs to exert on the crowd at this point in the show is a thing to behold - I think I said is like he picks up the whole crowd and puts them on his shoulders while running around singing Tie your mother down... and agree that while this is a great achievement and certainly a highlight I can't wait to see him top it (cause I'm 99% sure he will sometime). |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 15:59:28 GMT -5
Now, the discussion about whether Adam can afford a better band is something I am interested in and I certainly don't think it should be dismissed so readily. Surely there are pop rockers out there who have better musical support than Adam. Actually, I think the question should be Does Adam feel a better band and/or supporting muscians are a worthy investment? Frankly I can't imagine after spending a summer with Queen as a band, performers, and song writers, this isn't a question going through Adam's head (and accountant's desk) right now. That is an excellent question. A lot of data go into most economic decisions but this one may be hard to quantify. The most important part of this, it seems to me, is how does the back-up band effect concert sales? Without a doubt, most people who go to Adam concerts, go to see Adam only. How many of these fans would chose not to go if the band was mediocre? What level of skill is required before the cost to hire becomes too much to support? Will big name musicians bring in enough new people to justify their cost from an expanded fan base? Remember, Adam is not the only one making these decisions, it is a negotiated settlement between Adam's management and a promoter. Hell, a known group of exceptional musicians only originally scheduled 18 shows until the viability of the new configuration proved profitable. I don't know who funded the upfront costs for QAL, or what percentage seat venue sales was the breakeven point, but there was a lot of risk spread around. The economic success of A3 is going to determine a lot of these boundaries. I go to many concerts a year. If it is a solo artist, the back up band doesn't even enter my thoughts when buying tickets. & rarely during their concert. TBH, I have mostly enjoyed all Adam's bands except for Brian's vocals. Really bad! Not sure, but I think the pay for union musicians working back up is set. Don't know any big name musicians that do back up! |
|
|
|
Post by cassie on Sept 2, 2014 16:07:15 GMT -5
Now, the discussion about whether Adam can afford a better band is something I am interested in and I certainly don't think it should be dismissed so readily. Surely there are pop rockers out there who have better musical support than Adam. Actually, I think the question should be Does Adam feel a better band and/or supporting muscians are a worthy investment? Frankly I can't imagine after spending a summer with Queen as a band, performers, and song writers, this isn't a question going through Adam's head (and accountant's desk) right now. That is an excellent question. A lot of data go into most economic decisions but this one may be hard to quantify. The most important part of this, it seems to me, is how does the back-up band effect concert sales? Without a doubt, most people who go to Adam concerts, go to see Adam only. How many of these fans would chose not to go if the band was mediocre? What level of skill is required before the cost to hire becomes too much to support? Will big name musicians bring in enough new people to justify their cost from an expanded fan base? Remember, Adam is not the only one making these decisions, it is a negotiated settlement between Adam's management and a promoter. Hell, a known group of exceptional musicians only originally scheduled 18 shows until the viability of the new configuration proved profitable. I don't know who funded the upfront costs for QAL, or what percentage seat venue sales was the breakeven point, but there was a lot of risk spread around. The economic success of A3 is going to determine a lot of these boundaries. Excellent point. There are MANY incredible musicians out there who are looking for gigs at any one time. MANY who are better than who he has been using. (Heck, my sister is a much better keyboardist than his recent one, and would do much better as musical director, too. But, at 63 years old, I'm thinking she wouldn't exactly fit into the image Adam is going for. hahaha) But, is that quality desirable enough to spend the time auditioning and checking out tons of applicants and paying them to play and be available whenever/wherever for indeterminate times? I imagine Adam is almost painfully aware of the limitations of his musicians after working with Spike, Brian, Roger and Neil. In order to get the quality he has become accustomed to, tho', he would have to spend an exorbitant amount of money that would not be recouped by extra ticket sales or bookings. The same could be said about the staging of the Queen concerts: the lights, sound, equipment, and personnel. I am sure Adam would love to be able to create such a quality production his next time out. But, remember, Roger said prior to the start of the tour that it would be a spectacle with "no expense spared." Brian and Roger can do that, spending all the money they take in on production and personnel. Adam may be able to do that some day in the future when he has become an Icon for the ages as well. As of now, "good enough" will probably have to do. |
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Sept 2, 2014 16:11:27 GMT -5
The thing that most saddens me and angers me about the"openly gay" label is that it I feel makes Adam "the other," by qualifying him by who he is attracted to. If everyone were qualified the same way, it would be different. For example, "Brian May, openly hetero guitar player," or "Barack Obama, openly hetero President." But that's not how it is done, in my opinion. I think it is done in a way that excludes homosexual people from the norm, makes them different, uses their sexuality as an identifier. "Oh, you mean that gay guy." I really really hate that. I'm with Adam, I long for a time when people aren't identified by the way in which they are different from the white heterosexuals. There are so many other ways to identify, to quantify, to refer to people. Much more loving, kind ways. "Oh you meant that woman who is so funny," or "that guy who always speaks so nicely to his kids." Ways that don't have to use color. or ethic origin, or appearance. Ways that don't make people "the other." There is another way to look at this. There was a time when all 'this sexuality thing' was extremely hush-hush and many people in the "norm" had no idea that there was a group of people shunned by society. They lived on the outskirts in precarious circumstances which could blow up in a heartbeat. Now, every time someone is identified as "gay" and there is anyone listening who identifies in some way with that person, then "gay" just becomes the awesome guy down the street until finally it becomes irrelevant. So when people refer to Adam as "openly gay", they are really putting another nail in that "other" coffin. That is the way I chose to look at it and although I would never presume to speak for Adam, I think that he has come around to that view and understands his relevance to an inclusive society. |
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Sept 2, 2014 16:21:44 GMT -5
That is an excellent question. A lot of data go into most economic decisions but this one may be hard to quantify. The most important part of this, it seems to me, is how does the back-up band effect concert sales? Without a doubt, most people who go to Adam concerts, go to see Adam only. How many of these fans would chose not to go if the band was mediocre? What level of skill is required before the cost to hire becomes too much to support? Will big name musicians bring in enough new people to justify their cost from an expanded fan base? Remember, Adam is not the only one making these decisions, it is a negotiated settlement between Adam's management and a promoter. Hell, a known group of exceptional musicians only originally scheduled 18 shows until the viability of the new configuration proved profitable. I don't know who funded the upfront costs for QAL, or what percentage seat venue sales was the breakeven point, but there was a lot of risk spread around. The economic success of A3 is going to determine a lot of these boundaries. I go to many concerts a year. If it is a solo artist, the back up band doesn't even enter my thoughts when buying tickets. & rarely during their concert. TBH, I have mostly enjoyed all Adam's bands except for Brian's vocals. Really bad! Not sure, but I think the pay for union musicians working back up is set. Don't know any big name musicians that do back up! Queen? Hahaha, j/k  I will admit to giving some thought of avoiding listening to RJ relentlessly bang that drum, but it would not stop me from going to a concert close to me. Would I spend a boatload of money to travel somewhere ... probably not as long as there were one close by. |
|
|
|
Post by geezlouise on Sept 2, 2014 16:26:53 GMT -5
The thing that most saddens me and angers me about the"openly gay" label is that it I feel makes Adam "the other," by qualifying him by who he is attracted to. If everyone were qualified the same way, it would be different. For example, "Brian May, openly hetero guitar player," or "Barack Obama, openly hetero President." But that's not how it is done, in my opinion. I think it is done in a way that excludes homosexual people from the norm, makes them different, uses their sexuality as an identifier. "Oh, you mean that gay guy." I really really hate that. I'm with Adam, I long for a time when people aren't identified by the way in which they are different from the white heterosexuals. There are so many other ways to identify, to quantify, to refer to people. Much more loving, kind ways. "Oh you meant that woman who is so funny," or "that guy who always speaks so nicely to his kids." Ways that don't have to use color. or ethic origin, or appearance. Ways that don't make people "the other." There is another way to look at this. There was a time when all 'this sexuality thing' was extremely hush-hush and many people in the "norm" had no idea that there was a group of people shunned by society. They lived on the outskirts in precarious circumstances which could blow up in a heartbeat. Now, every time someone is identified as "gay" and there is anyone listening who identifies in some way with that person, then "gay" just becomes the awesome guy down the street until finally it becomes irrelevant. So when people refer to Adam as "openly gay", they are really putting another nail in that "other" coffin. That is the way I chose to look at it and although I would never presume to speak for Adam, I think that he has come around to that view and understands his relevance to an inclusive society. Just glanced through dozens of online articles about current 'IT' boy, Sam Smith (whom I enjoy and whose music I own)................ not one started with 'openly gay'. Every article begins with lines like 'buttery voiced soul singer' ...... 'emotive Brit neo-soul singer'. Why is this? Is it because he has chosen to come out in a much quieter way? Is it because his sexless, average looking, everyman image (and music) appeals more to the mainstream? |
|
|
|
Post by DancyGeorgia on Sept 2, 2014 16:28:40 GMT -5
That is an excellent question. A lot of data go into most economic decisions but this one may be hard to quantify. The most important part of this, it seems to me, is how does the back-up band effect concert sales? Without a doubt, most people who go to Adam concerts, go to see Adam only. How many of these fans would chose not to go if the band was mediocre? What level of skill is required before the cost to hire becomes too much to support? Will big name musicians bring in enough new people to justify their cost from an expanded fan base? Remember, Adam is not the only one making these decisions, it is a negotiated settlement between Adam's management and a promoter. Hell, a known group of exceptional musicians only originally scheduled 18 shows until the viability of the new configuration proved profitable. I don't know who funded the upfront costs for QAL, or what percentage seat venue sales was the breakeven point, but there was a lot of risk spread around. The economic success of A3 is going to determine a lot of these boundaries. Excellent point. There are MANY incredible musicians out there who are looking for gigs at any one time. MANY who are better than who he has been using. (Heck, my sister is a much better keyboardist than his recent one, and would do much better as musical director, too. But, at 63 years old, I'm thinking she wouldn't exactly fit into the image Adam is going for. hahaha) But, is that quality desirable enough to spend the time auditioning and checking out tons of applicants and paying them to play and be available whenever/wherever for indeterminate times? I imagine Adam is almost painfully aware of the limitations of his musicians after working with Spike, Brian, Roger and Neil. In order to get the quality he has become accustomed to, tho', he would have to spend an exorbitant amount of money that would not be recouped by extra ticket sales or bookings. The same could be said about the staging of the Queen concerts: the lights, sound, equipment, and personnel. I am sure Adam would love to be able to create such a quality production his next time out. But, remember, Roger said prior to the start of the tour that it would be a spectacle with "no expense spared." Brian and Roger can do that, spending all the money they take in on production and personnel. Adam may be able to do that some day in the future when he has become an Icon for the ages as well. As of now, "good enough" will probably have to do. Yes! For A3 I think the money is better spent on writing and producing really great songs and effective promo since without those there will not be any extensive touring. Somewhere Brian/Roger talked about how Queen spent so much money on production that they did not make any money from touring until the last tour which was a stadium tour. And now they do not need the money and are touring for the joy of it. So I think they are happy if they clear enough to pay the band well and Adam really well. And with so many sold out and nearly sold out shows I bet they are making money even after production costs. |
|
|
|
Post by red panda on Sept 2, 2014 16:28:42 GMT -5
Thanks, LindaG23, for giving me another way to look at this issue. I like the idea that this is actually a way for a positive erosion of the otherness. The more we find we are alike, the more we can identify with other people, the closer we are to a better world, in my opinion. Appreciate your measured response.
|
|
|
|
Post by geezlouise on Sept 2, 2014 16:29:45 GMT -5
That is an excellent question. A lot of data go into most economic decisions but this one may be hard to quantify. The most important part of this, it seems to me, is how does the back-up band effect concert sales? Without a doubt, most people who go to Adam concerts, go to see Adam only. How many of these fans would chose not to go if the band was mediocre? What level of skill is required before the cost to hire becomes too much to support? Will big name musicians bring in enough new people to justify their cost from an expanded fan base? Remember, Adam is not the only one making these decisions, it is a negotiated settlement between Adam's management and a promoter. Hell, a known group of exceptional musicians only originally scheduled 18 shows until the viability of the new configuration proved profitable. I don't know who funded the upfront costs for QAL, or what percentage seat venue sales was the breakeven point, but there was a lot of risk spread around. The economic success of A3 is going to determine a lot of these boundaries. I go to many concerts a year. If it is a solo artist, the back up band doesn't even enter my thoughts when buying tickets. & rarely during their concert. TBH, I have mostly enjoyed all Adam's bands except for Brian's vocals. Really bad! Not sure, but I think the pay for union musicians working back up is set. Don't know any big name musicians that do back up! Yep...... don't care about a solo performers backing band either. It would never stop me from buying a ticket. |
|
