QUEEN..2014 tour

Ok, so queen hired Adam Lambert on vocals and is on tour....

Lambert's voice is good enough but he's no Freddie Mercury.  Then again, no one is.  I would probably be more interested if this incarnation of Queen + whoever released a new studio album.  Hearing this guy try to be Mercury just pisses me off; I'd probably more accepting of him doing new material.

Freddie was Queen. this is just a glorified cover band, and as such Lambert is the best they could get, I suppose. I personally would not shell $100+ for a ticket for sure, but if there are enough people interested, more power to them.

I bought the two live CD's and DVD the band did with Paul Rodgers on vocals.

IMO Adam Lambert does a good job, is flamboyant and has the vocal chops, so he is not bad. But there can only be one Freddie Mercury. And as much as I enjoy their music and performance with Rodgers and Lambert, all it does is remind me how much I miss Freddie Mercury.

I will give both Lambert and Rodgers props for bringing in their own style to the classic Queen tunes. I do hope they record a new studio album with Lambert, instead of just being relegated to an oldies act.

Also no John Deacon. Without him it's even less of a Queen show.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. the singer is like a "diva".

I think a Queen re-union without Freddy Mercury would be something like the Doors re-union they tryied to promote back in 2008

Well at least Brian May and and Roger Taylor are able to keep doing it. Not really a fan but shit, its their band anyways. Lots of singers have been replaced and it may not be Freddie Murcury but its still Queen. Well as much as there will be of Queen now days.

I am not a fan of this vocalist either. Yes he is a diva! But in all reality, he's singing with them and none of us are, so good for him.

I am just glad they are able to play again even though it didn't work out with Paul Rodgers last time (which was real cool to hear him sing for them).

Adam Lambert is a great choice for Queen and they def need to do an album with him. That dude can sing!!

Doesn't do it for me. The only person I can think of that could maybe pull it off is Eric Nally, flamboyant, a great rock singer and a fantastic performer

Lurideath wrote:

its their band anyways.

That's my view on it.  While Freddie Mercury was obviously a big part of Queen, and extremely difficult if not impossible to replace, the other members contributed a lot to the band and I think it's rather disrespectful to them to state that Mercury was Queen and that they're now just a cover band. In fact, you could put together a really good setlist of Queen songs that Mercury didn't write.

I don't know what songs they're playing with Adam Lambert, but if you look at the the tracklist for the live album they did with Paul Rodgers only four songs were written my Mercury, with two more being credited to the whole band. Although that could possibly have been because Rodgers' voice was better suited to May and Taylor's songs.  Lambert appears to be more similar to Mercury and so maybe can handle songs that didn't really work for Rodgers.

So I don't see why May and Taylor shouldn't be allowed to go out and perform songs that they either wrote or had a integral part in under the name of the band that they were in for 20 years.

Citanul wrote:

 Lambert appears to be more similar to Mercury and so maybe can handle songs that didn't really work for Rodgers.

I'm struggling to see in what way Lambert is similar to Mercury?

Way I see it it's the equivalent of putting a Honda engine into a Bentley, you can probably make it work, but don't be surprised if people are not impressed.

Boris2008 wrote:

Citanul wrote:

 Lambert appears to be more similar to Mercury and so maybe can handle songs that didn't really work for Rodgers.

I'm struggling to see in what way Lambert is similar to Mercury?

I didn't say that he was similar to Mercury, just that he's closer than Rodgers who's more of a blues-rock singer, which wasn't really Mercury's thing.  At least that's how it sounds to me.

Citanul wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Citanul wrote:

 Lambert appears to be more similar to Mercury and so maybe can handle songs that didn't really work for Rodgers.

I'm struggling to see in what way Lambert is similar to Mercury?

I didn't say that he was similar to Mercury, just that he's closer than Rodgers who's more of a blues-rock singer, which wasn't really Mercury's thing.  At least that's how it sounds to me.

That's what I took from your post at least. Rogers has a deeper voice, Lambert is more in the higher range!

manny wrote:

I bought the two live CD's and DVD the band did with Paul Rodgers on vocals.

IMO Adam Lambert does a good job, is flamboyant and has the vocal chops, so he is not bad. But there can only be one Freddie Mercury. And as much as I enjoy their music and performance with Rodgers and Lambert, all it does is remind me how much I miss Freddie Mercury.

I will give both Lambert and Rodgers props for bringing in their own style to the classic Queen tunes. I do hope they record a new studio album with Lambert, instead of just being relegated to an oldies act.  

I'm kind of on board with this. Lambert has the range to pull off the songs, but whie I was impressed with him on a technical level, there's a kind of "presence" lacking when I see him fronting the band.

While I would never begrudge May and Taylor hitting the road and doing Queen stuff, I do have some issues with how badly they're milking the name. I mean, they pimp the We Will Rock You musical every chance they get (I'm sorry, but that is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard - it'd be like the Judas Priest cabaret show), there's the Queen Experience, so they already have their own cover act touring - presumably at the same time, etc. It does feel a bit like they're padding the trust funds more than catering to the fans.

First, the musical... I mean, when they did that PC game back in the day, that was an interesting idea that fit in nicely with Queen as a band that liked to push boundaries (hell, even Hot Space was an EXPERIMENTAL album if you want to get technical), but the musical thing is one of those fossilized oldies act tricks. Just my take. Maybe it's righteously awesome and I'm just missing out, but the idea leaves me really cold and the promo materials come across as very, "Remember being young and rocking out? So do we! Instead of doing that, sit in a theater seat and watch Cirque du Soleis fart around to songs you used to love. Only $250 a seat!"

The Queen Experience would make a LOT more sense if Queen itself wasn't still touring. If May and Taylor wanted to just do solo stuff (which I would approve of so hard) and let the QE handle the Queen side of things with younger musicians, I'd be skeptical that it was any good, but I'd understand the logic. Having both together is, again, kind of an old farty "nostalgia" act thing to do.

Just my take. I still love the band and anything its members put out, but I question whether their choices are being driven artistically or financially. Brian May would make a really ugly Gene Simmons.

Man, it's just hard to take anyone in Mercury's shoes. It just seems wrong.

Same thing with Thin Lizzy without Philip Lynott. It's just not Thin Lizzy not matter how much they try.

Lambert sounds better live than Mercury.

I doubt he could write anything 1/2 as good though.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Lambert sounds better live than Mercury.

I doubt he could write anything 1/2 as good though.

I'll second this. The one thing I will give Lambert is that it's nice to actually hear these songs being performed more or less as if they were on the record. Pretty much all later Queen recordings had Taylor covering the high end while Freddie played it pretty safe (which is probably why his studio voice was still so good when he was on death's door).

At the same time, there is something to be said for the energy Queen had as a live act. It does come across a little TOO perfect now.

This tour is playing in my local arena next month. I might stick around to catch a little of it if I can.

Just watched all of this



That's what Freddie could do!

Nothing against Brian, Roger or even Adam Lambert, but nobody is realistically going to fill those shoes (even if they are technically a better live singer)

Freddie was an excellent live vocalist, I saw them on The Game tour in 1980 and he was amazing.

They should have just gone with Marc Martel. The dude is amazing:

Witchfinder wrote:

They should have just gone with Marc Martel.  The dude is amazing:

He's got the sound down, for sure. Who knows what kind of persona he'd have on stage in front of 10,000 Queen fans though. He could have all the personality of a wet turd when it's showtime. I think this guy is phenomenal too, but can he command an audience?




If they're going to tour arenas and charge a mortgage payment for tickets, you'd better be damn sure that the person fronting the band can do the songs justice AND command the stage as well. You need both for this tour.

That's what I think people are overlooking. I don't know much about this Lambert guy, but he seems to have both the chops and the charisma to handle such a monumental task, whether you like his diva-like antics or not. He's no Freddie, sure, but he's likely as close as you're get in 2014.

Marc Martel was chosen by the band to front the Queen Extravaganza, and he does very well in that setting, playing mid-size venues.  I doubt he'd have a problem handling a bigger audience. For example:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

. He's no Freddie, sure, but he's likely as close as you're get in 2014.

Maybe you're right but i find it difficult to believe that the closest you could get would be that far away.[/quote]