Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2011 15:58:26 GMT -5
It just seems like, with the low pre-orders, they're going to have a hell of a time proving actual damages. Maybe Welsford wants to be paid to go away, or paid for the costs of printing the CDs that he can't sell now? According the statute, at least, we're not talking about tons of money here.
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Nov 3, 2011 16:01:58 GMT -5
Why does everybody want Adam to sing BR? Mostly other websites and twitter, not so much here, but I am just so surprised by that. To my ears, Adam does not actually sound like Freddie, except in the high upper range. First of all, both can access those high notes cleanly and play around with their sound and their delivery and interpretation, when in such lofty heights others usually just try to not tumble (i.e. go off key, break in voice, lose their flow of air or turn wobbly in their sound, etc). Also, Freddie's voice is crystal clear in that high register and so is Adam's. Like a little mountain spring or as Jacob called it, angels ice-scating. Describes that same sound quality. Now in every other range, I find Freddie's voice very different. Freddie has an ability to sing with an operatic voice and he uses it during BR, but it sounds way different from Adam's. Freddie's is rawer to my ears, but also flatter. When they try to sing with strong resonance in their middle range, then Adam has more of a chest resonance added and Freddie goes more nasal in sound. Both sound great, just different. In deeper registers, Freddie has access to certain rich Barritone sounding notes that Adam does not have in same way. But Adam can slide up and down his range like I don't believe Freddie could. Adam can change his voice to sound more masculine or feminine in ways I have never heard Freddie do and I think Adam has the stronger upper register of the two. And there are probably tons of other things that could be pointed out. Bottom-line, they both are tenors with tremendous skill and versatility, but they are different. Bohemian Rhapsody is a song that lives from the unique composition made around Freddie's vocal ability. It is almost an ode to his unique vocal talent. But that also makes it impossible to emulate completely. I agree that Under Pressure would be great song because it would work vocally, in diction, in delivery and personality wise, so we'll have to see, what he will cover. It will be interesting. By the way, here is Pink with a BR cover and she is doing a great job, but is she Freddie? Of course not, nobody ever will and BR is the one song where imo this will always be felt the most. And one day I hope there will be a song of such gigantic musical quality written exactly for Adam's voice. Because his voice is also one that nobody in the world other than him has nor ever will again and such voices need to have songs written for them. Such a song is larger than life, because it is written for somebody who is larger than life and in that Adam and Freddie do have something very much in common. Here now the Pink cover: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cL8lGioyOM
|
|
cookie
Member
Posts: 1,988
Location:
|
Post by cookie on Nov 3, 2011 16:04:21 GMT -5
It just seems like, with the low pre-orders, they're going to have a hell of a time proving actual damages. Maybe Welsford wants to be paid to go away, or paid for the costs of printing the CDs that he can't sell now? According the statute, at least, we're not talking about tons of money here. Or they may claim that the low pre-orders are because Adam talked against it. We were talking at the time that Adam was choosing his words very carefully- this is likely why.
|
|
|
Post by gelly14 on Nov 3, 2011 16:04:29 GMT -5
I don't know the law. I don't even understand well English.
But it is possible that Adam's team stopped the release of BFM. This guy says that they cannot stop him because Adam doesn't own the songs so Adam is not allowed to stop the release.
Therefore copyright infringement from Adam's part, and they say that Adam shouldn't claim copyright infringment (according to them)
On the other hand this guy used dirty methods to promote the album. I'm probably wrong with all of this.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2011 16:10:30 GMT -5
It just seems like, with the low pre-orders, they're going to have a hell of a time proving actual damages. Maybe Welsford wants to be paid to go away, or paid for the costs of printing the CDs that he can't sell now? According the statute, at least, we're not talking about tons of money here. Or they may claim that the low pre-orders are because Adam talked against it. We were talking at the time that Adam was choosing his words very carefully- this is likely why. Maybe ... but wow. I never heard of such a thing. By that measure, a bad review would be copyright infringement, because it would be urging people not to buy something. I don't get it. ETA: Last time I looked, the First Amendment was still in effect. Not related, but I don't get why MJ took down the post where anybody got off asking MJ to take down the post about Durbs and his lousy song. It is clearly constitutionally protected free speech to comment on such a thing.
|
|
cookie
Member
Posts: 1,988
Location:
|
Post by cookie on Nov 3, 2011 16:13:55 GMT -5
Or they may claim that the low pre-orders are because Adam talked against it. We were talking at the time that Adam was choosing his words very carefully- this is likely why. Maybe ... but wow. I never heard of such a thing. By that measure, a bad review would be copyright infringement, because it would be urging people not to buy something. I don't get it. I think the possibility of this being a countersuit is a good one. I've watched enough Judge Judy to know that countersuits are often counterintuitive.
|
|
pjd
Member
Posts: 358
Location:
|
Post by pjd on Nov 3, 2011 16:21:00 GMT -5
ETA: Last time I looked, the First Amendment was still in effect. Not related, but I don't get why MJ took down the post where anybody got off asking MJ to take down the post about Durbs and his lousy song. It is clearly constitutionally protected free speech to comment on such a thing. First Amendment means that MJ or any other can not be required to delete these posts - however, it doesn't stop the management rep from asking. The ONLY leverage they would have would be that she won't be able to get access to that person (such as for an interview) because they do not HAVE to give access. Then again, if they are desperate enough for publicity in the future, they may just "forget" that she ever didn't accommodate them.
|
|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on Nov 3, 2011 16:23:34 GMT -5
Ugh. Just found out that may be missing all the fun here on Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2011 16:24:41 GMT -5
ETA: Last time I looked, the First Amendment was still in effect. Not related, but I don't get why MJ took down the post where anybody got off asking MJ to take down the post about Durbs and his lousy song. It is clearly constitutionally protected free speech to comment on such a thing. First Amendment means that MJ or any other can not be required to delete these posts - however, it doesn't stop the management rep from asking. The ONLY leverage they would have would be that she won't be able to get access to that person (such as for an interview) because they do not HAVE to give access. Then again, if they are desperate enough for publicity in the future, they may just "forget" that she ever didn't accommodate them. And not being able to interview Durbs would be such an immense loss. I'm sure MJ's heart is broken, but she will soldier on somehow, perhaps consoled by the immense entertainment value of making fun of him.
|
|
NoAngel
Member
Take a bow, Adam Lambert, you fucking legend.
Posts: 2,575
Location:
|
Post by NoAngel on Nov 3, 2011 16:24:41 GMT -5
ETA: Last time I looked, the First Amendment was still in effect. Not related, but I don't get why MJ took down the post where anybody got off asking MJ to take down the post about Durbs and his lousy song. It is clearly constitutionally protected free speech to comment on such a thing. First Amendment means that MJ or any other can not be required to delete these posts - however, it doesn't stop the management rep from asking. The ONLY leverage they would have would be that she won't be able to get access to that person (such as for an interview) because they do not HAVE to give access. Then again, if they are desperate enough for publicity in the future, they may just "forget" that she ever didn't accommodate them. I don't know that 1st Amendment applies to a blog. As the administrator, MJ has the right to delete/edit posts as she sees fit based on the rules of her forum. People can gripe, but they have no legal standing, lol. And management can certainly ask for anything they wish, and she has the right to say f*ck no, as she did.
|
|