QueenZone discussion #1389352

Peaches wrote: After all, Brian and Roger chose Adam to join them because it made them feel like playing their songs again.

Band Forever wrote:
"I think Adam Lambert is turning Queen into some kind of gay cliche"
Gay cliche? I hadn't noticed because I was too distracted by his vocal talent and enormous dick. But, now that you've brought it to my attention I will seek out these overt acts of unacceptable gayness that have caused you such duress. I suppose Lambert could wear a unitard and ballet slippers to be more in line with your acceptable expression of manly gayness, or perhaps he can go shirtless and wear a pair of daisy dukes...hmm. Maybe we shouldn't leave it up to chance; can you list acceptable attire and mannerism he should adopt to help make your Queen + Adam Lambert experience more pleasurable? I'm sure he'll be more than happy to comply. He's a giver.

It's only fair that if he expends the effort to be the kind of man you like, then you should try to be the kind of man he likes. First, he likes 'em young, so, anything you can do to turn back time would be welcome. As for attire; tight pants with all your junk pulled up to the front, and a pair of suspenders should do the trick. Shave your chest, though, he's not into bears. Your overall grooming should be current; professional highlights, with a cut that's cropped close on the sides and a bit spiky on top, a little eyeliner smudged on the outside corner of your eyes, and a little scruffy facial hair would be appealing. If you don't have tattoos consider getting at least one; maybe something zodiac-related or Egyptian. As for mannerisms; looking at him adoringly and posing seductively, would be on the top of his list for sure. He's not all about looks, so, you should develop some creative skill to keep him interested. Can you do backflips or cartwheels? Can you paint lady boobs, abstractly? Sing? Dance? How about drinking? He likes drinking.
Lastly, do you have any qualms about being "shipped" or exploited sexually in fanfiction? If not, then this really could work out for you. 

Well, good luck with your transformation. Let me know if a love connection develops.
#fingerscrossed #proudmary

Holly2003 wrote: You left out the most important reason why some aren't as keen as you are on Q+AL -- some don't like Lambert's voice that much.

What I don't understand is the irrational need some of you have that others must love what you love.

Perhaps if you made it clearer who you are addressing then there would be no need to reply. At the moment, it seems like a diatribe against anyone who doesn't like Q+AL, complete with a bunch of strawmen arguments to knock over, and a familiar dose of condescension -- yeah you're a musician but I'll bet even you would agree your tour experiences are different, in many aspects, to those of multi-millionaires. And in any event, I don't need to be a miner to know working down the pit is tough, but that's not exactly what B&R are doing, is it? More like staying at the Ritz and travelling by private jet, then doing the familiar job they've been doing since the late 1960s, only not as good. But I digress... I would guess the vast majority of those critical of Q+AL simply don't like his voice. That includes those so indifferent that they don't bother posting about it much or at all: it's simply of no interest. I would count myself in that category: this is the longest piece I've written on the subject, and even then its mostly about your post and not Q+AL. Others are Freddie nuts and won't accept anyone -- the "Queen died in 1991" p.o.v. Others have listened to the shows and have commented on (in their view) poor performance i.e. Roger's drumming, so they don't like to see their idols on the wane. Others-- a very small minority-- appear to be (inexplicably and bizarrely) anti-gay and dislike AL for that reason. I've seen maybe one or two examples of that on QZ. As for not seeing anyone "force their tastes on others", clearly you haven't been paying attention to some of the AL cultists on here. I'm not sure what point you make about Alter Bridge. The point I was making is that Queen+ is a rather dull imitation-variation of a once great band, and there is much more exciting music people can and are spending their money on -- which is, of course, another reason why they (in particular) aren't going to see Q+AL or aren't excited about it. This is, indeed, a Queen forum but that has never meant uncritical celebration of the band. That would make it more like a Lambert forum I suppose.

Holly2003 wrote: And in any event, I don't need to be a miner to know working down the pit is tough, but that's not exactly what B&R are doing, is it? More like staying at the Ritz and travelling by private jet, then doing the familiar job they've been doing since the late 1960s, only not as good.

Wow! talk about binary thinking! So I disagree with you and I'm "bitter".  As for popularity, it's no indicator of quality. Do I even need to explain that? I care very little if I'm in a minorty. In fact though, I've said before I have no problem with people going and I expect they will enjoy it. Why are you trying to misrepresent that? Quite bizarre.  Anyway, hardly any point talking to you as you've failed to engage with any of my actual points and instead have gone for the usual cheap shot.  Carry on indeed. Business as usual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Real Wizard wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: And in any event, I don't need to be a miner to know working down the pit is tough, but that's not exactly what B&R are doing, is it? More like staying at the Ritz and travelling by private jet, then doing the familiar job they've been doing since the late 1960s, only not as good.

Yeah - you definitely don't get it. Leave it to the inherent bitterness of Holly to turn something positive into yet another Bri and Rog trashing session. When's the last time a single post here inspired a dozen people to join just to say "cool, that was refreshing" ? Has it ever happened in the 15 years this place has existed ?? If Lambert's voice sucks, then why are all the arenas full ? Why aren't people leaving during the show? And they're not Glambert kids. They're mostly middle aged Queen fans. So it looks like you're in the minority. But obviously you know better since you weren't there and all... Carry on..

Band Forever wrote: I think Adam Lambert is turning Queen into some kind of gay cliche which is not entirely the focus of the band and alienates large sections of the fanbase.

VickStix wrote: Love this essay. Thank you so much for stating the obvious. I saw Queen live with Freddie 12 times. I didn't ever think the magic could happen again, UNTIL Adam came along. I've been to 4 shows so far, and all I can say is WOW WOW WOW!!! Screw the naysayers, it truly is their loss. And it just means more great seats for the TRUE Queen fan's.

Bad Seed wrote:
Right. And you think it SO MUCH you had to post the same thing twice. Please back away from mommy's computer. The adults are trying to have a discussion.

hottramp wrote: However, your insightful and on point post, which was shared on Twitter, finally lured me in.

The Real Wizard wrote: How many 68 year old musicians who understand the health issues and touring schedules of 68 year old musicians and have the balls to cut other 68 year old musicians to shreds over their choices to play their music live as they want to? That's right - none.

The Real Wizard wrote: Leave it to the inherent bitterness of Holly to turn something positive into yet another Bri and Rog trashing session. When's the last time a single post here inspired a dozen people to join just to say "cool, that was refreshing" ? Has it ever happened in the 15 years this place has existed ??

Of course some people don't like his voice. Art is all about taste. But if Lambert's voice sucks and that's the primary reason why people seem to not like this collaboration, then why are all the arenas full? Why aren't people leaving during the show? And they're not Glambert kids. They're mostly middle aged Queen fans.

Gattina wrote: Excuse me??? "Gay cliche"?? Are you on crack? You can't hide the fact that you're *exactly* one of the whiners the author is referring to. Trust me, Freddie wouldn't like you or your attitude.

The Real Wizard wrote:The negativity on this forum is not unexpected, but still incredibly disappointing to witness. A decade ago Queen fans were aching for any kind of collaboration between Brian and Roger, never mind full-scale tours where they are playing songs they haven't played in 30 years (or ever). .

brians wig wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: How many 68 year old musicians who understand the health issues and touring schedules of 68 year old musicians and have the balls to cut other 68 year old musicians to shreds over their choices to play their music live as they want to? That's right - none.

Aerosmith. (Okay, Tyler's 66) Sorry Bob. Couldn't resist! ;-)

people on streets wrote:I would love to see Brian and Roger solo a la Page and Plant. But not with Q+AL.

Mr. Bed Guy wrote: An evil painted world-wide unknown teenage-celebrity and Queen easily doesn't fit. Thats all that has to be said.

The Real Wizard wrote: Brian May is 68 next week. .

Yet another bizarre post. Where did yo get the idea I was "boycotting" the shows? I live in the UK. Presumably I am also boycotting the superbowl, the world series etc by not attending events 1000s of miles away? As for my "problem" -- lol! Pot and kettle springs to mind. I have said nothing controversial here. Maybe that's why TRW chose cheap shots rather than respond sensibly. Or maybe his massive ego has got the better of him again. Business as usual on QZ.     inu-liger wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Leave it to the inherent bitterness of Holly to turn something positive into yet another Bri and Rog trashing session. When's the last time a single post here inspired a dozen people to join just to say "cool, that was refreshing" ? Has it ever happened in the 15 years this place has existed ??

Never! The fact your post has inspired both long time Queen fans (making up the majority of the 'lurkers' here) and newer fans (Queen or AL) to come out in such a huge drove has definitely made this THE Queenzone topic of 2014, and probably will go down as one of the top 10 slam dunk topics ever. Holly's problem is that he lacks the capability to look at himself from an outsider's perspective (no offense Holly!) so he wouldn't understand in the meantime why many here view him in such a critical fashion, and he probably won't realize it until it's past way too late. Holly, all I will say is that you literally have absolutely no idea what you are missing by boycotting the shows. And you will regret it someday.

Of course some people don't like his voice. Art is all about taste. But if Lambert's voice sucks and that's the primary reason why people seem to not like this collaboration, then why are all the arenas full? Why aren't people leaving during the show? And they're not Glambert kids. They're mostly middle aged Queen fans.

THIS! ^ I can back this up 100% having been to see two of these shows in separate cities.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Geez Bob, it's absolutely fine if you like it, but why is it not OK if I don't like this? Same as with the Rolling Stones - some people find it great and admirable, I find it awkward. There are people who like it, and people who don't.

The Real Wizard wrote: In my general absence here as of late, I thought I'd offer a little something to the ongoing discussion about the current tour. The negativity on this forum is not unexpected, but still incredibly disappointing to witness. A decade ago Queen fans were aching for any kind of collaboration between Brian and Roger, never mind full-scale tours where they are playing songs they haven't played in 30 years (or ever). They aren't spring chickens anymore. Brian May is 68 next week. How many 68 year old musicians who understand the health issues and touring schedules of 68 year old musicians and have the balls to cut other 68 year old musicians to shreds over their choices to play their music live as they want to? That's right - none. The self-appointed experts are exclusively those who haven't got a clue about the strain on one's health it is to do one nighters (travel, hotels, soundchecks, tech meetings, physio, etc.) at any age, never mind age 68. I do. I've done it. It's grueling. Most people are completely ignorant of the challenges and hardships one has to put themselves through for months at a time so that you can be entertained for those two hours ONCE. A few years back Brian May played on Lady Gaga's song You And I. He soon joined her on a big awards show to perform the song, and immediately tens of thousands of kids are asking, "Daddy, who's the old guitar player?" And suddenly they're on YouTube watching Bohemian Rhapsody, perhaps for the first time. Brian May knows exactly what he's doing. He knows his days are limited, and he wants the kids to know who Queen are. The kids know who Lady Gaga is, and they know who Adam Lambert is. They are vessels to the next generation. Those who found Paul Rodgers unfit for Queen's throne said he was too masculine, too bluesy, too different from what Queen once were. Now they have a flamboyant frontman who wears six outfits like Cher, has an incredible vocal range, and has his own approach to theatricality that smoothly blends into what Queen were all about. Comparing Adam Lambert (or anyone) to the timeless, unadulterated, irreplaceable genius of Freddie Mercury is pointless - but there is no rationale in arguing that he doesn't fit the profile. He does, perfectly. Equally pointless is turning it into an either/or boolean type equation. This mentality is why people of one religion are able to smite those of another. At the risk of sounding pathetically mundane, can't we all just get along? Sure, Lambert has messed up lyrics on a couple songs he has only sung a few times. So did Freddie Mercury, on songs he had sung dozens or hundreds of times. These guys are human, not machines. This really need not be explained to anyone who isn't fueled by confirmation bias in a time warp. Osaka '76 - link Stockholm '78 - link Buenos Aires '81 - link Birmingham '84 - link Bottom line? Shit happens. Move on. Music is an experience of emotion. It is the soundtrack of our lives. Songs bring people back to their youth. Changing any one variable can translate to being an attack on one's memory or not being faithful to their past. Just take a deep breath and know that nobody's trying to trivialize that. But let's call a spade a spade. These feelings of having realized that 30 years have passed and that your dreams didn't come true and that you're 50-something and missed the boat are then externalized onto the music of your youth, that time of hopes and dreams - when we were kids when we were young and things seemed so perfect, you know - and the creators of said music are typecast into the listener's past and are almost not allowed to live in the present. Ask Journey fans who can't hear Steve Perry sing Don't Stop Believin' with his old mates anymore, or Yes fans who can't hear Jon Anderson do And You And I or Roundabout. Some people would prefer to see Brian and Roger call it a day because Freddie Mercury died. Fortunately they don't care about your opinion. Even if they did, they wouldn't have time for it. They have packed arenas to play to. When one has run out of arguments (such as "all they play is the hits - boring!" now that they're doing a few obscure tunes), the last resort is to complain that the tempos of the tunes are too slow. These guys are in their 60s. Do you not realize that a 60-something year old body doesn't work like a 20-something year old body works? Some people can just never be pleased. I have news for you - the tempos of many of the tunes were once getting much too fast. Let Me Entertain You started to sound like a bear trapped in a cave high on angel dust. Oh, the silliness of youth. They've grown up now. Perspective sucks, doesn't it? It's easy to throw stones from your glass house, and so much harder to cast your ego or preconceptions aside and simply be happy that these guys who formed a band you supposedly love are touring again. Do you think they're playing Now I'm Here, Stone Cold Crazy and Love Kills for the man on the street? No, you numbskulls. They're playing it for YOU - you know, the thousands of people who read forums like this and have been waiting 30 years for Queen to tour the US and play the old songs again. They're saying thanks for waiting for the circumstances to present themselves and for the right moment to arrive. And that moment is now. And you're all too stuck in the past and your own anger to notice. Instead of trying on a different coloured shirt, you're on setlist.fm changing every song of every show to "Queen cover," as if to imply that your definition of Queen is more valid than the people who formed the band. To quote the great Roger Taylor - I pity you. You suck. So I echo the sentiments of those who say the naysayers tend to be unhappy people who want to drag happy and successful people down to the basement of life where they currently reside rather than seek their own happiness. I fear that many people will be kicking themselves one day for choosing to miss out on what may be the final tour of the remaining members of Queen. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but stranger things have happened. Contrary to what's happening in the real world where there are a ton of positive reviews of the tour (including from Rolling Stone, a magazine that has notoriously panned Queen as if it were a sport), there seems to be a need to provide something to complement the overwhelming "waaahhh, waaaahhhh, I'm a binary thinking closed minded idiot and can't perform a resurrection, therefore Lambert sucks and Bri and Rog should retire and/or die" attitude that tends to pervade places like this in times like this. So let the mudslinging, reflection, glee, and/or despair begin.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Ok, that's totally fair. I just hope the missionary work between the two sides can cease. Q+AL doesn't bother me, but the 'orthodox' and 'Lambertine' schools of Queen seeking to convert the heathens is getting to me a little...

una999 wrote: where the fuck do people get time to write passages like these. do people on this site actually have a life? i really wonder not being smart just being serious.

The Real Wizard wrote:

una999 wrote: where the fuck do people get time to write passages like these. do people on this site actually have a life? i really wonder not being smart just being serious.

Bach used to churn out one choral piece per week for the church. You've be surprised at what people with a life, passion and drive can pack into their day. For starters, I skip the videos of cats falling down stairs and don't watch reality TV. It took me a couple weeks to write the article. A few minutes here, a few minutes there.

Sebastian wrote: Let's bring in some numbers: Bob's post contained 1,203 words. Assuming he's not a professional typist but can still use a computer keyboard well enough, he'd probably type about 60 words per minute: 20 minutes to type this whole thing... half an hour if we add the time it could've taken him editing or stopping to think about what to write next, etc. Half an hour are 2% of a day, 0.3% of a week, 0.07% of a month and 0.006% of a year, so it's entirely possible to type something like that and still have a life, using the remaining 98% of the day, 99.7% of the week, 99.93% of the month and 99.994% of the year for something else.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: I haven't seen a reply to Holly's question ye on commenting about topics you're not familiar with.

I am playing Wembley while you are in a cover band doing Bon Jovi tunes.

I'm happy they're getting out there and playing, but for me, it's a nostalgia show. Does that make me or others a bad person? You seem to think so. That's as narrow minded and ill informed as me calling you and others who are happy at the tour/collaboration Stepfords and suckers. Most people who son't like it aren't trying to change people's minds, they just aren't into it. Doesn't make them hateful bitter people. IMHO.

The Real Wizard wrote: In my general absence here as of late

Yay! GF is back! :) :)

Zebonka12 wrote: The wrenchingly awful sound of Adam Lambert 'searching' for notes (as he often does) or his off-key adlibs Lambert might sound like drunk Oprah at a karaoke night,.

Holly2003 wrote: Yay! GF is back! :) :)

Daniel Nester wrote: One of the many levels of irony to peel off in these QAL discussions is how some in the anti-Lambert camp refer to negative reviews to point out that not everyone loves Queen + Adam Lambert. While that's true, it's also true that rock critics--in particular the more traditional ones, who are on staff at the big-city papers--have always hated Queen, and made big sport in coming up with new ways of insulting them. The small town writers are usually covering several beats and likely haven't gotten the memo from Rock Critic Central that Queen are horrible.

Daniel Nester wrote: First review ever in NYT: link

Zebonka12 wrote: But it really comes across as though people who go to these shows want them to be all things to all people.

miraclesteinway wrote: My suspicion is that that haters are not really listening to Adam Lambert. They are not listening to the qualities of his voice, the quality of his interpretation, they are not listening to the amazing things he can do with the songs. In their minds, they are witnessing a blasphemy. It's easy to elevate Freddie to the status of legend/god and feel that nobody should be a pretender to his throne.

Adam Lambert must be pretty f***ing happy right now!!!

The King Of Rhye wrote: Maybe its the cynical side of me.........but I think they ARE doing this at least partly for the money

The King Of Rhye wrote: I was really saying they might be doing it for BOTH reasons..........that they are enjoying it, and the money doesn't hurt....... I shouldnt have said I was being 'cynical'.............I dont think theres one darn thing wrong with wanting to amass obscene amounts of money...........:D