QUEEN..2014 tour

Boris2008 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Witchfinder 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.

Just to be clear - MG71 said that, not me.

That clips kinda proves my point though. Yea, he sounds like Freddie and mimics his moves on stage, but where's the flair? The camp and flamboyancy (is that a word) that people come to expect of Queen?

I'm not knocking the guy, but people going to see Queen 2014 want a SHOW and get their moneys worth. I think Adam Lambert gives them that aspect of it.

Boris2008 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Witchfinder 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.

What I mean is, they could've just gotten a Freddy clone, with all the sounds and moves. But they went with someone that could bring his own style that could add to the show.

Witchfinder wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Witchfinder 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.

Just to be clear - MG71 said that, not me.

Sorry man! Changed it.   

I think there's this weird tendency to try to distill great performers into a formula and you see that a lot with Freddie. Anyone who camps it up and puts on some eyeliner or glitter is "The next Freddie Mercury."

It's really annoying on two fronts: any superficial crap that bears a resemblance rises to the top and it really diminishes how awesome FM really was. He wasn't just a gay dude who liked to sing. The guy had charisma, personality, a VERY wide range of musical interests, etc.

The camp thing is so disposable relative to the other aspects of what made FM great that I'm really tired of it being front and center. I mean, hell, even Elton John wasn't as camp as they want to paint Freddie posthumously...

Runicen wrote:

I think there's this weird tendency to try to distill great performers into a formula and you see that a lot with Freddie.  Anyone who camps it up and puts on some eyeliner or glitter is "The next Freddie Mercury."

It's really annoying on two fronts: any superficial crap that bears a resemblance rises to the top and it really diminishes how awesome FM really was.  He wasn't just a gay dude who liked to sing.  The guy had charisma, personality, a VERY wide range of musical interests, etc.  

The camp thing is so disposable relative to the other aspects of what made FM great that I'm really tired of it being front and center.  I mean, hell, even Elton John wasn't as camp as they want to paint Freddie posthumously...

Freddie was insanely camp!! But you are right, and that was the point I was making with the Live Aid performance was that wasn't even a Queen crowd but he had the whole place 80,000 people in the palm of his hand about 2 minutes in. That's a rare gift that only a few have.

Queen do need a flamboyant singer, the songs demand it, but it doesn't have to be the same kind of flamboyancy that Freddie had, I think Meat Loaf could do a good Queen set as could the already mentioned Eric Nally, neither of whom are gay (although both are a little camp)

My biggest problem with Adam Lambert is he is not, and never will be 'a f**king rock star!!' like Freddie, he's not really a rock singer and to me he gives Queen a bit of a cornball 'Vegas' vibe.

They are in a no win though, Freddie really is irreplaceable.

I'm perfectly fine with Queen still performing.

IMO Adam Lambert is almost the perfect choice to front the band, he does not sound all that much like Freddie Mercury but he brings his own style and flair to the songs without making them unrecognizable

Paul Rodgers did an excellent job, especially if you consider Bad Company and Free are about as far away stylistic wise as Queen as one can get.

manny wrote:

Paul Rodgers did an excellent job, especially if you consider Bad Company and Free are about as far away stylistic wise as Queen as one can get.

Nah, they could have got Atilla from Mayhem!   

I'm only a fan of Queen up until Sheer Heart Attack; everything after that is spotty and sometimes dull to me. That said my affinity for Freddy is huge, and I'm just not that interested in a new singer (sorry but I though Rodgers was a disaster). More power to them if they want to go that route, but I won't be at the show. Shrug.

I don't think Rodgers was a "disaster" at all, he was no Freddy but he was pretty good in his own right.

I think the irreplaceable aspect of Freddie still exists in some singers who you wouldn't want within spitting distance of Queen material.

Freddie sounded natural belting it out on stage, dueting with a Spanish opera soprano (a weird, but very good album, btw), or singing ballads. And hell, the Innuendo album almost veered into electronica territory, which makes me wonder what they would have done as a band had he lived.

Basically, the people most people peg as replacements for Freddie wouldn't be able to wear that many hats without seeming self-conscious. He just went in and OWNED whatever it was he was doing. Even if it was objectively stupid.

Here's where my point gets weird - anyone ever seen the U.D.O. video for "Dancing with an Angel?" On paper, that is one of the WORST voices for a ballad, let alone a LOVE ballad and yet, he owns it. He is so %$#@ing sincere about it that you end up on his side completely, even though it sounds like a hobo sweet talking some lady walking down the street. Granted, I wouldn't want to see him front Queen, but you can bet your ass that he'd give it 100% and at no point seem self-conscious about what he was doing.

Weird example, but I think it illustrates the problem with the people they keep pulling for this stuff. These replacements have all the technique and training in the world, but none of the presence of confidence.