Queen fans, what is your opinion??

I have wondered since Adam Lambert became the lead vocalist for Queen, what do fans of Queen think about it? I was never a big fan but there was a lot of their music that I enjoyed. As the years have passed, I have come to appreciate their music even more.

I was comparing this to a "what if"; what if MJ couldn't perform anymore? What would Stones fans think of a replacement? I find it unthinkable, in that, "no MJ, no Stones". Other groups have replaced the frontman, but not successfully, bands like CCR, or Ten Years After. They are hollow imitations of what they once were.

So, fans of Queen, I am curious about your thoughts on the addition of Lambert to the group.

Thanks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-27 21:42 by bv.

I have never been a big fan of Queen although one can hear that they came up with some amazing arrangements, in the studio in particular. Great musicians and band when working together, regardless.

Funny enough my favourite is an acoustic 12 string written, played and sung by Brian May: '39.

'39.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-04-26 23:17 by TheflyingDutchman.

Queen was the first rock band I ever studied, in that my first rock record was a Queen album ("The Game") when I was around 7 or 8 years old. Personally, I would not be interested in seeing Queen without Freddie. Along with what has been said about the Stones, there is no Queen without Freddie, to me. Though there have been bands that have had a lot of success with new singers actually (Van Halen, AC/DC and Genesis come to mind) but no way with Queen and certainly no way with the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-04-29 18:10 by floodonthepage.

John Deacon had the same opinion and he was right.

I think Adam Lambert is a much better fit than Paul Rodgers. I also think that in spite of a bit too much weirdness for my taste, when Queen rocked, they ROCKED.

It's a bit like the situation with Led Zeppelin after Bonham's death, even though vocalists tend to be a lot more individual than drummers (with all due respect to Charlie). If Zeppelin were to tour with Jason Bonham in 2019 (as they did with the O2 gig in 2007), they could fill stadiums as easily as the Stones (and way easier than McCartney).

I saw both Queen and Zeppelin in their prime. I would pay good money to see Queen + Adam Lambert and/or Led Zeppelin with Jason Bonham. Even seeing them at 50% of what they were would be better than most of the concerts that I've seen in the last few years. It's a no-brainer.

Big Queen fan here and I think he’s a great fit. Amazing voice, theatrical and not taking himself too seriously.

Lambert does a wonderful job.

Not a fan of Lambert singing with Queen, though he's better than nothing I suppose.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

lambert and rodgers were never part of queen so not sure what you mean. they were clearly billed both times as QUEEN+(insert singer)

Lambert has a very modern American pop vocal style, it just doesn’t compare, imho.

I've just heard him for the first time.
At first, without knowing or listening, but or course...i was not interested.
Not a Big Queen fan except for the First LP frankly, but think they were a super great band; each player nailed it imo.
I've listened to Brian May's All The Way From Memphis, Mott The Hoople cover,
(live) and think he's fantastic; it was great music and spirit but the vocals,
tho pleasing in a cool novelty sort of way, did lack the distinct power of Freddie, or any really great lead singer.
So i searched him just a tiny bit; Lambert, that is,
and his voice is pure, facile and powerful...
...plus, imo, I don't think a guy as smart, experienced and talented
as May would make a mis-step for want of money or fame....
...
and i don't think he did with this kid; well, young man i mean...
but i'm 45 years older. The man can sing and has energy and seems to have
good personality that would translate.
hope it goes well for them.
..

Was never a huge Queen fan. I like a lot of their albums, I think they are all massively talented. Brian May is a one of a kind unique guiarist, Freddie Mercury is obviously one of the greatest vocalists of all time, and a dynamite frontman also one of the best. John Deacon is an excellent bass player and a killer songwriter, and Roger Taylor is a great drummer and vocalist. I would never compare them to the Beatles, but I will because it was 4 guys and every one was massively important. Those 4 guys were Queen. No one else is.

I don't begrudge the band for continuing. I get it, everyone is doing it and you can't resist. Having said that, I think its @#$%& stupid for all the reasons I just said. If not because it was very clearly those 4 guys then because Freddie Mercury is literally irreplaceable. Can people really not bare to just have admit they missed their chance? I'm under 30, I missed by chance to see Queen and Freddie Mercury. I can't get that back. I don't see why people today have to convince themselves they are. What bothers me is they use the name. Just don't care it Queen. You're paying $150 to see Brian May and hear a guy singing Queen songs. I have nothing against Adam Lambert. But its not Queen and I don't think they should call it that. There is no Queen without Freddie Mercury, and I get that there are just a lot of people that want to see the music live on in any fashion, but there are also a lot of stupid @#$%& people that fill MSG and convince themselves they've seen Queen. And I think thats beyond crazy. Again, people can have the music live on and enjoy it, but don't call it Queen. I really don't think its that hard. But today's concert buying public accept shockingly little at a very high ticket price.

It would absolutely be like seeing The Beatles with someone else filling in for John, and George, and if you think I'm wrong then its just because Paul and Ringo didn't try to play that card. Cause people would eat it up, you're just not used to it cause they didn't do it. Having said all that, happy for Brian and Roger and I think Adam is great. But its not Queen. They should go out under their own names. Queen is dead and for a very long time it seemed like Brian May understood that.

I never got Queen or understood the attraction. If I was a spy/secret agent or high ranking government official and was captured by any of my sworn enemies or evil doers. All they would have to do is lock me in a room play Queen at an excessive volume for an hour or so and I would give up all the Top Secret information they wanted. I would rat out all my friends and colleagues I would even give up the codes to the Nukes.

Since I am not a niether of the above and just an insignificant nobody I will put it in simpler terms. I would rather have a Root Canal performed with an oyster fork than listen to Queen because the pain is on the same level.

Queen without Freddy Mercury is not Queen. They should use another name.

I am a big fan of Queen, with Freddy Mercury. When Freddy died, it was so sad, I simply lost Queen. The movie "Bohemian Rhapsody" might be tabloid and emotional, but it is the story, in short. A sad story.

Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are great musicians, highly talented, but they were like the moon while Freddy was the sun. A major part of Queen is missing.

For me there are some really big losses in music history, like John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Freddy Mercury, Kurt Cobain. They leave such a large irreplaceable gap, an eternal loss.

Bjornulf

Here's an off topic of an off-tipic. What about Lynyrd Skynyrd. Better 1 (or 2 original) member(s) with replacements than no Skynyrd at all. It's all about the music! I'm going to see Skynyrd at the Holland International Blues Festival this year in Grolloo. For the last time........................

There are exceptions. I thought Genesis were great even if Peter gGabriel went solo, even if Phil Collins is more commercial. If fact every time a Genesis member quit we got sort of a great solo artist, like Mike & The Mechanics, and Peter Gabriel, or Steve Hackett, and still Genesis did work great as a band. So there are exceptions. But Queen was too much Freddy Mercury and Queen.

Bjornulf

Quote
GJV
John Deacon had the same opinion and he was right.

Exactly, my opinion. It is no Queen without Freddie Mercury.

I think Lambert does a fantastic job covering Queen songs.
No Freddie no Queen, however.

Ended when Freddie died

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Ended when Freddie died

hence my point that the replacement singers have never been billed as actually being part of queen. they are always listed as QUEEN+extra person

I think A Lambert seems like a lot of fun. He's abit over the top, and not in the best way. Like Patti Labelle - yes you have amazing chops, but don't swing for the fences EVERY time you sing a verse.

Re Queen; I hardly ever considered them for a long time until I hooked up with a girl who was a huge fan. She showed me the early albums, and they are pretty good.
My favorite album by them is "News of the World" and best song is "It's Late".
What has tainted my whole notion of Queen is that nowadays, for some reason every idiot has to say that they were the greatest live act, that there was no one like Freddie ever, and that Live Aid set was the greatest 20 minutes on stage by any band in history. It's like go get a tattoo, Live Aid Set, and micro brewed beer...

I'm going to see Queen in February I just hope the concert is better than that awful Bohemian Rhapsody movie I gave the DVD away,it was crap



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-04-27 16:31 by colonial.

"but they were like the moon while Freddy was the sun."

bv, excellent analogy. As immensely talented as they were, he made them shine, and was really the capstone of the group.

It’s not queen. And I’m not a fan of Lambert at all!

Quote
colonial
I'm going to see Queen in February I just hope the concert is better than that awful Bohemian Rhapsody movie I gave the DVD away,it was crap

FYI, that response right there is most people. Going to see QUEEN. Not Queen+Adam Lambert, not Brian May (which is really what you're going to see). They, in their minds, think they are going to QUEEN. And that to me, feels wrong and strange. Even though if they enjoy it I won't stop them obviously. I just don't think its correct at all.

Quote
Freebird1959
Here's an off topic of an off-tipic. What about Lynyrd Skynyrd. Better 1 (or 2 original) member(s) with replacements than no Skynyrd at all. It's all about the music! I'm going to see Skynyrd at the Holland International Blues Festival this year in Grolloo. For the last time........................

Skynyrd is weird to me. Cause they also ended so abruptly. So I understood when they came back. Also Rossington Collins Band was excellent. But there were enough people that it felt warranted. Now its just on prop legs and should go away. Yeah yeah yeah the music, but it isn't Lynyrd Skynyrd anymore. It is 100% a glorified tribute band. And I've seen it, it was fun. But I knew I wasn't seeing Skynyrd. They've actually made some decent music. I thought Skynyrd Nation and Still Unbroken were excellent songs. But Skynyrd is dead. I understood it maybe being back in 87-95, but whenever they lost like 2 more of the originals after the reformation is when they should have called it quits. Up until then, you're missing Ronnie but I at least understand how you call it Skynyrd.

For me, Lynyrd Skynyrd was completely over after Street Survivors - RIP.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
For me, Lynyrd Skynyrd was completely over after Street Survivors - RIP.

It clearly was, but literally they brought back EVERYONE in 87 besides Ronnie, and in his place they got his brother. But literally Rossington, Powell, Wilkeson, Pyle, and Ed King were there, and Allen Collins (who could no longer play) participated the whole tour. Skynyrd was over, but I can understand that lineup, due to the abrupt end, continuing under that name as the legitimate thing. When Pyle and King left in the early-mid 90s, I'd say it was over then.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball
For me, Lynyrd Skynyrd was completely over after Street Survivors - RIP.

It clearly was, but literally they brought back EVERYONE in 87 besides Ronnie, and in his place they got his brother. But literally Rossington, Powell, Wilkeson, Pyle, and Ed King were there, and Allen Collins (who could no longer play) participated the whole tour. Skynyrd was over, but I can understand that lineup, due to the abrupt end, continuing under that name as the legitimate thing. When Pyle and King left in the early-mid 90s, I'd say it was over then.

I don't want to be at a concert in 1987 that had steve gaines brought back

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball
For me, Lynyrd Skynyrd was completely over after Street Survivors - RIP.

It clearly was, but literally they brought back EVERYONE in 87 besides Ronnie, and in his place they got his brother. But literally Rossington, Powell, Wilkeson, Pyle, and Ed King were there, and Allen Collins (who could no longer play) participated the whole tour. Skynyrd was over, but I can understand that lineup, due to the abrupt end, continuing under that name as the legitimate thing. When Pyle and King left in the early-mid 90s, I'd say it was over then.

No, they didn't literally bring back everyone except Ronnie. Guitarist Steve Gaines also died in the plane crash along with his sister who was a backup vocalist, True he wasn't an original member, and yes King was there in the beginning, but the fact is King quit in '75, and Gaines was brought in as an official member in '76- he's all over Street Survivors with his songwriting, guitar playing, and even has a lead vocal. So with the deaths of Ronnie Van Zandt and guitar player Steve Gaines, they wait 10 years and bring in Ronnie's little brother who might look like Ronnie but in no way has the same talents - not singing or songwriting. Great that King was back, but he was a quitter in the first place, and as mentioned Allen Collins was paralyzed. Lynyrd Skynyrd was over after Street Surviviors, and after that it became a soap opera as this tidbit via wiki along with this article from Business Florida spells out:

"The reunited band was intended to be a one-time tribute to the original lineup, captured on the double-live album Southern by the Grace of God: Lynyrd Skynyrd Tribute Tour 1987. That the band chose to continue after the 1987 tribute tour caused legal problems for the survivors, as Judy Van Zant Jenness and Teresa Gaines Rapp (widows of Ronnie and Steve, respectively) sued the others for violating an agreement made shortly after the plane crash, stating that they would not "exploit" the Skynyrd name for profit. As part of the settlement, Jenness and Rapp collect nearly 30% of the band's touring revenues (representing the shares their husbands would have earned had they lived), and hold a proviso requiring any band touring as Lynyrd Skynyrd to include Rossington and at least two of the other four surviving members from the pre-crash era, namely Wilkeson, Powell, King and Pyle"

A one-time tribute to the original lineup is understandable and a nice gesture I suppose ( it was actually billed as a "Tribute Tour"), but they really should have left it at that imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......