nikki
Member
Posts: 747
Location:
|
Post by nikki on Feb 26, 2015 19:19:43 GMT -5
This I hesitated to say but I figure we can all deal with a little bit of questioning. I certainly understand why FLD became a mantra here as there was a lot at the beginning so it was easy just to dismiss an FLD or whatever. BUT as many will say that praising Adam shouldn't be a slight to Freddie so there is no reason to say it...on the same token I find that many times if someone says they prefer Freddie to Adam it is automatically tossed out as a bad review or even worse as someone who has a "wrong" opinion - sorry if that is never the intent but I do think it comes off that way sometimes....SO If praising Adam shouldn't be a slight to Freddie or Freddie fans shouldn't the same be true? If someone says that in their mind no one can replace Freddie but Adam is great, isn't that a valid viewpoint? I think it's not black and white. It's not FLD or not. There are shades within FLD's. I mean if I were to write a review I would probably give off an FLD because it is truly how I feel. No one can replace Freddie but Adam has certainly done a damn good job performing with Queen. His voice is extraordinary, his presence is improving with each gig, and right now I think he's by far the best choice to front Queen. To me, much like Adam takes time out to praise Freddie during the show, it's the same for reviewers and fans - They want to acknowledge where the band came from and Freddie's influence and impact. NOW if a review slams Adam and the whole article is how Freddie was far better and that the show can't live up to the past or Freddie takes up 75-80% of the reivew...than THAT is something that could be dismissed or ignored. Is there a difference there? I might just be being sensitive...and if that is the case, I apologize. Just some thoughts I was having. Talon, people have responded to other parts of your post, but not the #FLD. There is a big difference, but it is in the big picture, not individual reviews, as I see it. Freddie is the platinum standard that defined Queen - how could it be otherwise? I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But it's not Queen now and it's that simple. The subtext of the whole exercise of, "He's no Freddie, but .... (or worse still, he's no Freddy, but ...) is that Adam is a poor man's Freddie. Destined never to live up to the great one. The comparison is inherently unfair and disrespectful to both, because it sets up the comparison in competitive terms. It reduces artistry to a crass notion of, ‘who is better’. This is something very different to taste and preference. It is also a truism that no two artists can ever be the same, and that is the basis for a lot of the *eyeroll*. That is also the beauty of it all, it's never a flaw, and yet the whole discussion frames it that way, simply because of who he is not. And there has been quite a bit of damning by faint praise along the way stemming from that. There have been a couple of reviews that didn't use that competitive dynamic as the basis - but most did. I think too, that what is particularly ugly about it as well is viewing Adam in purely transactional terms - "Well, I'm thankful because it at least gave me the opportunity to see Brian and Roger again." Statements like that de-humanise him as an individual and as an artist and that has been part of the narrative as well. Adam's charisma is very powerful and potent - he has had to captivate Freddie's audience night after night, otherwise he would have been eaten alive. He does it in his own way and the degree of difficulty in that task alone deserves accolades. Yes, he is a ‘stand in’. Yes, he rightly acknowledges Freddie, but notice he doesn’t diminish himself in the process, he frames it as a celebration. If that were the basis for comparison, which is Brian, Roger and Adam’s intention, there would be no problems. People have trouble living in the moment and the concept goes over their head. But that was all that was being offered. I remember our discussion when I said I would love Adam to sing LMIYHA. Your response was that it was too soon for you to hear another ‘voice’ on something so new and that you would prefer to sit with Freddie’s version for a while. The reverse runs true for me and I no doubt believe for others here who simply want to celebrate the extraordinary artistry of what is taking place concert after concert on its own terms without constant reference to another ‘voice’. |
|
|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on Feb 26, 2015 19:25:04 GMT -5
Have to ask, is Roger really 100% deaf? How does he play then or communicate? #Dummyquestion #sorry I don't know Rodger (of course) personally, but I used to work with a number of guys who lost a lot of hearing over time - either because they worked sound or they spent a lot of years around industrial equipment. And because I'm also around industrial equipment I'm required by my job to have hearing protection, yearly hearing testing, and periodic hearing training. First, no, I doubt Roger is totally deaf. What usually happens in noise-induced hearing loss is that the top of your hearing range get damaged first. If I recall properly, the cillia in the inner ear that transmit sound waves into electrical signals get permanently bent/withered. That means that speech becomes really fuzzy. You hear things, but speech is increasingly hard to decipher. Ironically since children and women have higher voices, its harder to hear what they're saying then men. But you don't lose the ability to hear unless things get really bad. The primary problem is that the frequency distortion makes it difficult to comprehend the noises that you get bouncing down your ear canals. Maybe this is a better example: Think of a TV screen covered in pixels. First, you lose the ability of the pixels to turn yellow. Then, maybe 20% don't light up at all. You still have a picture. You haven't lost your ability to see. But it sure might be hard to tell what that picture is. Based on watching him in interviews, Roger can hear just fine when he uses hearing aids to compensate for the lost frequency ranges. It doesn't affect how he sings (probably - cassie chime in please - because you sing partially based on bone conduction which is why your voice sounds so different to you when you listen to a recording of yourself). He can feel the rhythm of what he's doing perfectly well. BUT he likely can't hear much of anything distinctive in a noisy environment anymore. My $0.02.  |
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Feb 26, 2015 19:56:15 GMT -5
Talon, people have responded to other parts of your post, but not the #FLD. There is a big difference, but it is in the big picture, not individual reviews, as I see it. Freddie is the platinum standard that defined Queen - how could it be otherwise? I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But it's not Queen now and it's that simple. The subtext of the whole exercise of, "He's no Freddie, but .... (or worse still, he's no Freddy, but ...) is that Adam is a poor man's Freddie. Destined never to live up to the great one. The comparison is inherently unfair and disrespectful to both, because it sets up the comparison competitive terms. It reduces artistry to a crass notion of, ‘who is better’. First off - thanks for the response! Even if I don't necessarily agree, I can see and understand where you are coming from. In this case for example you say it's not Queen and it's that simple...and on a surface level sure. BUT A lot of these Queen fans are younger Queen fans who maybe didn't get to see Queen with Freddie and are coming because it was their only chance. I myself was one of those during the QPR tour. I knew who Paul Rodgers was and I dug some of his work but I would have gone if B/R were playing with Big Bird (and yes I know they kind of played with Elmo  OR the rest of the Muppets for that matter in a different way  ) . And I would go for the chance to see Queen...even if Queen + Paul Rodgers or in this case Queen+ Adam Lambert isn't Queen. So to those fans it is going to invoke a definite comparison...and almost never for the better. BUT I disagree it really slights Adam per se. No-one is going to ever live up to Freddie while performing Queen songs with Brian and Roger. It can't happen because of how closely defined Freddie is with that catalogue and those band members. The fact that people can say he did a great job or that he's the best choice for the job just says HOW amazingly well Adam is pulling it off...so to me it is far from disrespectful. ..and again I'm not talking about trolls who trash and trash away - those are completely different hatchet jobs. Faint praise may still be praise. There are some who think Adam is doing a fine job - but still don't think he has a rock voice for that matter or think that while Adam hits it out of the park on some numbers, he's less than thrilling on others. Those are just opinions and if said respectfully - then again I don't see it as a problem. For example I feel I've been VERY respectful of Adam overall - and I have said just that. I think his WWTLF and Save Me, and Show Must Go On have been BRILLIANT. I'm not as fond of his WATC (it's fine up until Nica's run ), Stone Cold Crazy, Tie Your Mother Down rock numbers. BUT It doesn't bring the show way down for me. Well let's call a spade a spade shall we? There are frankly people who will treat Adam in purely transactional terms and there are quite a few Glamberts who would treat Brian and Roger the same way. "I'm thankful B/R is giving me the chance to see Adam perform iconic songs in a big arena setting" but are running for the bathroom during the Adam-less sections. I'm not complaining - I'm simply saying that this is going to happen on both sides so it's fruitless to complain about it or argue that it dehumanizes as the sides will cancel each other out. Agreed 110% there. Which is why I've always been behind the shows. It's a bloody concert and a bloody good one. You have 2 legendary, iconic musicians, with a aolid band piece to complete the set combining with a very talented vocalist to perform some of the most iconic songs in history with a spectacle of a show. THAT'S it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, stay home end of story. BUT I'm still gonna watch and I'm still going to subconsciously wish that Freddie was still with us. It's human nature. It doesn't make Adam's contribution less at all. If anything I appreciate it more knowing what he's up against! I can absolutely understand the idea you're promoting here, but I just think it's impossible because at the end of the day...it all is Freddie's domain. To combat this, if QAL were to do a new album that would be something that could be judged entirely on its own merit. (Although I admit there would still be some that would decry and point out just where Freddie was missing) but by ME? I could judge it completely without even thinking of Freddie..and I know more Queen fans could to. But whether it's Let Me In Your Heart Again....or Save Me. The difference is Freddie sang em both first. I guess the only way I can compare is take your favorite Adam song. 20 years later god forbid Adam passes...and someone wants to sing the song and does it well. Are you going to be able to listen to it and NOT compare it to Adam's version? I can almost guarantee that even if you like it - it would be a case of well it's not Adam...but it's pretty good And you won't even mean it as a slight. Even more..say they found an unreleased Adam outtake and release it on a compilation...then a month later New singer's fan say OOOh let's here how so and so sounds on it? It would probably be a bit much..... I appreciate the respectful discourse though....a bit refreshing |
|
|
|
Post by cassie on Feb 26, 2015 21:04:50 GMT -5
Have to ask, is Roger really 100% deaf? How does he play then or communicate? #Dummyquestion #sorry I don't know Rodger (of course) personally, but I used to work with a number of guys who lost a lot of hearing over time - either because they worked sound or they spent a lot of years around industrial equipment. And because I'm also around industrial equipment I'm required by my job to have hearing protection, yearly hearing testing, and periodic hearing training. First, no, I doubt Roger is totally deaf. What usually happens in noise-induced hearing loss is that the top of your hearing range get damaged first. If I recall properly, the cillia in the inner ear that transmit sound waves into electrical signals get permanently bent/withered. That means that speech becomes really fuzzy. You hear things, but speech is increasingly hard to decipher. Ironically since children and women have higher voices, its harder to hear what they're saying then men. But you don't lose the ability to hear unless things get really bad. The primary problem is that the frequency distortion makes it difficult to comprehend the noises that you get bouncing down your ear canals. Maybe this is a better example: Think of a TV screen covered in pixels. First, you lose the ability of the pixels to turn yellow. Then, maybe 20% don't light up at all. You still have a picture. You haven't lost your ability to see. But it sure might be hard to tell what that picture is. Based on watching him in interviews, Roger can hear just fine when he uses hearing aids to compensate for the lost frequency ranges. It doesn't affect how he sings (probably - cassie chime in please - because you sing partially based on bone conduction which is why your voice sounds so different to you when you listen to a recording of yourself). He can feel the rhythm of what he's doing perfectly well. BUT he likely can't hear much of anything distinctive in a noisy environment anymore. My $0.02. You did a good job of explaining, Hoppers. Noise induced hearing loss affects the higher frequencies more severely than the lower ones. By "higher" I am not talking about high as in the high notes Adam sings. The fundamental frequency of Adam highest notes are around 780-1000 Hz. Noise induced losses generally start being significant at around 2000-3000 Hz, which in terms of notes are the highest octave of a piano and higher. (This is an audiogram, a graph of what the person can just barely hear at each different frequency or tone. On the graph, the pitch goes from lowest on the left to highest on the right. The loudness goes from the quietest sound a young person with normal hearing can hear at the top to painfully loud at the bottom.)  So, how does that affect a person's ability to "hear"? Well, they can hear the notes of a guitar or piano (except the very top ones) and the voice of a singer almost normally, tho' the quality may be a bit dull without the high harmonics. What they cannot hear clearly, or at all, are the consonants of speech. "Fat," "cat", "sat" "fast" all would sound the same basically, because they cannot hear the F, K, T or S sounds. You know how your grandmother used to ask you what you said, and when you raised your voice and repeated it she said, "You don't have to shout!" That's because when you talk louder, you are increasing the vibrations of your vocal cords in the 100-600 Hz range, where your grandmother hears almost normally. You cannot increase the intensity of the consonants that distinguish one word from another. High end, expensive hearing aids can be adjusted to amplify only the frequencies that are most affected by the hearing loss. So when Roger is wearing his aids and in a quiet environment, he probably hears quite well. But when there is noise, it can mask or cover the relatively quiet consonants and make speech very difficult to understand.   More than you wanted to know, right? But check how loud the rock concert is. Louder than a lawn mower! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 22:19:41 GMT -5
Thanks, ladies! I also Googled "Roger Taylor hearing loss" after i left here & there is an interview with him, where he explains what was happening. I wonder how the ear monitors work with his hearing aids? I wonder that time he was "off" at beginning of TSMGO, what was the problem? His hearing or was it just a general audio problem in that venue that night? |
|
OR the rest of the Muppets for that matter in a different way 
) . And I would go for the chance to see Queen...even if Queen + Paul Rodgers or in this case Queen+ Adam Lambert isn't Queen. So to those fans it is going to invoke a definite comparison...and almost never for the better. BUT I disagree it really slights Adam per se. No-one is going to ever live up to Freddie while performing Queen songs with Brian and Roger. It can't happen because of how closely defined Freddie is with that catalogue and those band members. The fact that people can say he did a great job or that he's the best choice for the job just says HOW amazingly well Adam is pulling it off...so to me it is far from disrespectful. ..and again I'm not talking about trolls who trash and trash away - those are completely different hatchet jobs.