(no subject)

[tvordlj]

I've been perusing some of the reviews for the Queen concerts, from Toronto, Montreal and last night's gig in New York. You know most of the serious newspapers are not going to have a lot of good to say and true to form the Globe and Mail and the New York Times reviews were churlish and petty. While they also raise some truths, they're probably not fans and for fans, the concerts were pretty fucking awesome. Did the middle acoustic set and solos drag things down? Yes, a bit, the solos put some focus on the band members who take a back seat to the lead singer who garners a lot of the attention most of the time,  and having video of  Freddie is also a treat for long time fans. It's a Queen concert, after all, not an Adam Lambert solo concert. He's there for Queen, not for his own material, so showcasing Freddie is a nice tribute.

While I do think Adam Lambert does a very good job, and I don't want to compare him to Freddie too much, it's inevitable and I wasn't sure how to explain what I thought of the differences between the two. He's very much the type that a front man for Queen needs to be, that's for sure. But a couple of reviews hit the nail on the head. Freddie's voice has more richness, one said, and another talked about Freddie's presence on stage as having authority. Yes, that's it, exactly. Freddie really did command the stage and his voice had the authority and richness and depth, no matter how high or low the octave. Most people's singing does tend to go a bit wobbly at the high end of their range, or sound screechy. Adam's does a little, too but he does have a pretty good range and the material requires it.

The reviews from the Montreal Gazette and the New York Daily News were a lot more balanced, I thought. Ok, maybe  a lot more positive than negative but since I enjoyed the concert so much, I'd agree with them anyway! A few of my friends have seen the concerts and they have all been blown away. One saw them in New York last night and said it was "wicked"!

I concur.

Comments

[john beresford (from livejournal.com)]

I haven't seen any footage of the concert, have never seen Queen live, and haven't seen anything of Adam Lambert since he left American Idol, but from what I DO know, I would make these observations:
* No one will ever match Freddie as front man for Queen, that's a given. But Queen *without* a front man is a diminished quantity, and when I learned Adam was stepping in I thought yeah, of all the artistes around at the moment, I can see him making a pretty good job of it.
* Adam Lambert in his own right is an awesome, original talent. Stuff he did on Idol has never been bettered, or even (mostly) equalled. He didn't need to do this. That he picked up the Queen baton at all is something to applaud.

[tvor.livejournal.com]

I agree on both counts. I had no previous experience of him as i don't watch the Idol shows. Queen is not Queen without a showman for a front man. Paul Rogers, while being a great vocalist, didn't suit the band as we knew and loved them. Adam most certainly does and I would happily see them again, circumstances allowing.