I found this on Forbes...
I'm still not sure if its a good idea to share it, but I hope it can turn into a nice debate that could be applied not only to Q+AL but in general to Queen + any singer.
"The band Queen was founded forty-four years ago. It took a few years—and albums—for it to become one of the biggest stadium rock bands in the world. By the mid-1980s, Queen was breaking concert attendance and sales records.
Last week, two original members of Queen—Brian May and Roger Taylor—launched a tour with Adam Lambert filling in for the late Freddie Mercury. Queen joined the likes of the Rolling Stones and ZZ Top in keeping their brand alive on the stage well into their fifth and sixth decades.
Reviews of the performance were mostly ecstatic, but some critics have called for the band to create some new Queen music together, rather than reverting to releasing more albums fronted by Freddie Mercury. Does the reconfigured Queen need to make new music to be considered effective? At the heart of this issue is a question that matters not just for bands, but for any organization: Should we evaluate the effectiveness of a mature organization using the same criteria we use for upstarts? Do we judge Queen with Adam Lambert using the same metric with which we assess newcomers, like Iggy Azaelia or Imagine Dragons?"
The full article here: link
"...but some critics have called for the band to create some new Queen music together, rather than reverting to releasing more albums fronted by Freddie Mercury."
I understand their desire and all, but if they say the guys shouldn't release Rainbow because it's old and dusty, must they listen to them only because the so called "critics" in question have no idea how valuable these concerts are? Idiocy squared.