QueenZone discussion #1325534

YAFF wrote: Once QE is done I believe that will be the end of Marc Martel's direct involvement with the Queen organization. At least it should be. He sounds too much like Freddie but HE AIN'T FREDDIE. It's one thing to sanction and give support to a tribute band but to reduce yourself to one is just the bottom. This is not a slam against Martel. He has a great voice and seems like a great guy. He can now take his new fame and carve out his own niche' instead of leeching off of Freddie's.

AdamMethos wrote: Don't worry. YAFF secretly LOVES Marc but is just in major denial. Just look at the Freudian slip in the title of this post -- "Time For Marc Martel To Move In" instead of "Time For Marc Martel To Move On"! ;-)

YAFF wrote:

AdamMethos wrote: Don't worry. YAFF secretly LOVES Marc but is just in major denial. Just look at the Freudian slip in the title of this post -- "Time For Marc Martel To Move In" instead of "Time For Marc Martel To Move On"! ;-)

And on that note, thanks YAFF for bringing MM back into the threads!

tomchristie22 wrote: The post might hold more weight if Martel looked or sounded at all like a Freddie impersonator.

Zebonka12 wrote: Great post. It's just the meth talking, I'm sure.

Missreclusive wrote:

YAFF wrote:

AdamMethos wrote: Don't worry. YAFF secretly LOVES Marc but is just in major denial. Just look at the Freudian slip in the title of this post -- "Time For Marc Martel To Move In" instead of "Time For Marc Martel To Move On"! ;-)

And on that note, thanks YAFF for bringing MM back into the threads!

Didn't seem like he'd left. There's actual QE fans on here. I've heard some nitwits say they are better than Queen

YAFF wrote: I've heard some nitwits say they are better than Queen

GratefulFan wrote: But those whose arguments include the assertion that Martel is not an 'impersonator' are on shaky ground. He clearly deliberately took on parts of Freddie's tone and delivery at times and is on record claiming mimicry as one of his talents. It's certainly not a criticism - as a talented musician and highly skilled vocalist he made perfect artistic choices for the gig he had as a tribute artist.

GratefulFan wrote: The whole thing is clouded by the association in time with the Adam Lambert collaboration which generally ranged from ill advised to ridiculous. One considers Martel and sees in him so much more fundamentally important to the experience of live music than Lambert and his vocal histrionics, tubs of eyeliner and muppetskin jackets.

YAFF wrote: I find it disgusting and utterly daft at the number of numbskulls who are crying out for Brian & Roger to perform with Marc Martel. Why on earth would they do that? Martel is close but he isn't Freddie. Freddie Mercury wasn't just a voice. ZeBONKER's says "the kid deserves a s shot." Why? Huh? Let's see.... has he written a song anywhere near as good as Freddie Mercury? Has he exhibited the uncanny ability to captivate a crowd of 300,000 people? What has he done to "earn a shot"? .

YAFF wrote: It's one thing to sanction and give support to a tribute band but to reduce yourself to one is just the bottom.

waunakonor wrote: I couldn't help but notice that there are a few things Marc didn't do that would make him seem even more like a Freddie impersonator. For example, I couldn't help but notice that, at least in the show I was at, he didn't say "I still love you" at the end of LoML in the way that Freddie did. That struck me a bit, as it really seemed to show that he was respecting Freddie by not using one of his little trademarks. Also, nobody did a Freddie-esque vocal impromptu or call and response with the audience, again Freddie trademarks that they pretty much just left alone.

The Real Wizard wrote:

YAFF wrote: It's one thing to sanction and give support to a tribute band but to reduce yourself to one is just the bottom.

Should Bach be the only person allowed to play or conduct his music in front of an audience?

waunakonor wrote: Also, nobody did a Freddie-esque vocal impromptu or call and response with the audience, again Freddie trademarks that they pretty much just left alone.

...and AdamMethos was all like:

I was like: Also, nobody did a Freddie-esque vocal impromptu or call and response with the audience, again Freddie trademarks that they pretty much just left alone.

But Marc's not above stealing from the best for his own shows!!! At the Downhere concert I went to, not only did he do vocal improv (though nothing as elaborate as Freddie) and audience call-and-response, but he picked an encore song that most of the audience knew such that he stopped singing at the middle section and the audience sang it back to him!

brENsKi wrote: my own opinions on the many queen+ collaborations are well-known around here, so i won't regurgitate my distaste. hwoever, i will spew my distaste for your utterly banal and vacuous statement. let's examine your rather stupid comments: 1. he's close but not freddie? well that's a darn sight better than any other collaboration (so far) none of which have ever been "close" 2. what the fuck had freddie written when he started out with queen in 1971? nada that's what 3. freddie was pretty audience shy in the early days, and from what i recall, the old "marquee, wardour street" never held 300,000...maybe about 700 people...everyone has to start somewhere, otherwise in your benevolent world Freddie would never have been given that chance either...idiot now perhaps you can start a thread in future that actually makes an accurate point?

AdamMethos wrote: I only saw one way over-enthusiastic person claim that. In context, I think they meant that QE PERFORMS Queen music better than the CURRENT incarnation of Queen+. If they actually did mean QE is a better band that Queen overall, then yeah, that's crayzeee.

waunakonor wrote: However, Queen are definitely not the only band who allow the audience to sing parts of songs for them. Also, were the vocal impromptu or call-and-response sessions really that much like the way Freddie did them, because Freddie has kind of a distinct style. If they weren't all that similar, then that's probably just being influenced by Queen--perfectly acceptable--not actually stealing from them.

YAFF wrote:

brENsKi wrote: my own opinions on the many queen+ collaborations are well-known around here, so i won't regurgitate my distaste. hwoever, i will spew my distaste for your utterly banal and vacuous statement. let's examine your rather stupid comments: 1. he's close but not freddie? well that's a darn sight better than any other collaboration (so far) none of which have ever been "close" 2. what the fuck had freddie written when he started out with queen in 1971? nada that's what 3. freddie was pretty audience shy in the early days, and from what i recall, the old "marquee, wardour street" never held 300,000...maybe about 700 people...everyone has to start somewhere, otherwise in your benevolent world Freddie would never have been given that chance either...idiot now perhaps you can start a thread in future that actually makes an accurate point?

I had a good laugh at the tragic irony you created here. After calling my statements "utterly banal and Vacuous...stupid" you proceed to make banal and stupid statements and show you didn't have the intellectual acumen to even comprehend what you dismiss as vacuous. I guess you have no shame. Anyway, point one is that many people want MM to sing with Queen because he comes close to Freddie but since it's not as good as the real thing then why bother? It's better to have a singer singing in his/her own style. My remarks were based on someone saying MM had "earned it" and I think not. George Michael is a star of his own so he would have "earned" it Point two Mark has been a professional musician for years and played with his own band for years. Nothing brilliant has emerged. It didn't take long for Freddie to come up with masterpieces. Point three. You're just talking out yer ass there. My comment had to do with why MM had "earned" to sing with Queen as a Freddie impersonator. Point 4. You're an imbecile.

Zebonka12 wrote: "My comment had to do with why MM had "earned" to sing with Queen as a Freddie impersonator" Fair point, but here's the thing - Queen as they are now have performed with a lot of people who cannot do the songs justice. My logic is that if they're allowed to do it, then Martel ought to be as well. It's a double standard and it's unacceptable considering his plain superiority over some of the fucks that have been guesting with Brian and Roger. And I personally wouldn't want him to be recording with the band or being an 'official' member. I don't even see Queen as a thing that exists anymore. But if the songs are going to be played, let's at least get people up there who can do the job. Martel's the only bloke doing it right now who could do it a good service, yet he's the only one not being considered. Which is daft.

brENsKi wrote: at least when i disagree with someone, if i agree on some of their points i say so, then argue the rest

Zebonka12 wrote: But if the songs are going to be played, let's at least get people up there who can do the job. Martel's the only bloke doing it right now who could do it a good service, yet he's the only one not being considered. Which is daft.

Zebonka12 wrote: "Using Marc would be exactly that. If they have any dignity or respect for Freddie they won't do it" And that is a crock, unless you'd be willing to admit that they've done him a far bigger disrespect by going the full Open Mic Night in recent years. That hideous display in the Ukraine, with that random X-Factor contestant hopping up as if he belonged on a stage in the first place - I mean, if one wants to talk about disrespecting the music, that's a good starting point.

YAFF wrote:

brENsKi wrote: Anyway, there's really no point debating. You're for the idea of Martel playing with Queen and I'm not...neither of our opinions mean a thing to Brian & Roger anyway.

there's every point in debate. interesting stuff can come from debate
and no. i'm not for MM playing with queen. i'm for letting him have the opportunity to find out if he can.
as i said before - if some of those shouters, wailers and cacophonists "not even remotely close to freddie, vocally" can have a go - then surely someone YOU yourself called "close" is entitled to a fair crack of the whip?

brENsKi wrote: there's every point in debate. interesting stuff can come from debate and no. i'm not for MM playing with queen. i'm for letting him have the opportunity to find out if he can. as i said before - if some of those shouters, wailers and cacophonists "not even remotely close to freddie, vocally" can have a go - then surely someone YOU yourself called "close" is entitled to a fair crack of the whip?

YAFF wrote:

Why not get a great new singer who's also in the same league as a songwriter and write some new songs?

Because Queen are finished mate. Haven't you noticed?

Holly2003 wrote:

YAFF wrote:

Why not get a great new singer who's also in the same league as a songwriter and write some new songs?

Because Queen are finished mate. Haven't you noticed?

since 1995. Yes. There is no Queen without Freddie

YAFF wrote: Oh he comes VERY close especially on "STL"... If Roger wanted a Freddie sound-a-like why didn't they use Gary Mullen or many others over the years...

YAFF wrote: when they saw that MM audition tape why not scoop him up for an audition for the real band right away instead of Lambert?

the dude 1366 wrote: Aw Yaff. There's therapy. Brian and Roger told me that the talk of Martel is a personal attack against you.