QUEEN To Headline Sonisphere 2012 with Adam Lambert

[ILoveJimmyPage]

Odd combination, but I could think of plenty worse candidates. Glambert has that same appeal Freddie did IMO, just not quite that same brilliant vocal range but he can still hit those high notes. He also has a good stage presence and during his time on Idol really brought some of the younger listeners (which is a huge portion of that audience) to rock music. He did a pretty killer cover of "Whole Lotta Love" that even Simon Cowell loved. Maybe he can bring Queen's work to a whole new demographic too.

Hey... at least it's not Lady Gaga.

 

[Rock Candy]

And so my dream of seeing Jeff Scott Soto perform with Queen will seemingly never reach fruition

 

[TheSound]

I think it's mainly more of an issue when it's the singer who is no longer around. Nobody says much about The Who for example, because Daltrey is still there, and so the overall sound doesn't change fundamentally as it basically doesn't matter as much who is banging drums and playing bass guitar as it does when your singer is gone. At least they should drop the Queen name, it has no credibility, like when Page and Plant played together they didn't pretend to be Led Zeppelin any more, though it's probably a commercial decision, I guarantee there are many dim people who will buy a ticket to see Queen, but who wouldn't buy a ticket if it was just advertised as 'The Taylor-May Band'... and Taylor and May realise this, they can continue to use the Queen brand name to make lots of $$$$$. But Queen really doesn't exist in purely musical terms, their last album was 17 years ago. Without Mercury to me they always just sound like a Queen tribute band no matter who sings with them, Paul Rodgers just made them sound like Bad Company with Brian May standing in for Mick Ralphs. John Deacon for me has real integrity, he made his mind up years ago after Mercury died that he wasn't go to be a part of some endless 'Queen's Greatest Hits' thing which May and Taylor just can't let go of.

Does Sacha Baron Cohen sing I wonder? Now him I could believe...

 

[Hydrazoic Acid]

 

[That 70s Guy]

Better than that gaga dude!

 

[METALPRIEST]

 

[Cosmic Harmony]

I don't get people. Deep Purple, The Who, Black Sabbath, Boston, and countless other change have made tremendous changes in their lineups over the years but people always shit themselves whenever anyone else sings in Queen because no matter the band says people are always convinced that they are trying to replace Freddie and are so dramatic about it. I mean, I think of anyone on the planet Roger and Brian know that you can't replace Freddie.

If anyone should be getting slammed for working with different singers it should be Carlos Santana. His resume includes Scott Stapp of Creed, Daughtry, Jacoby Shaddix from Papa Roach, rapper Nas, Dave Mattews, Dido, Will.i.am from the Black Eyes Peas, Bo Bice, Sean Paul, Chad Kroeger from Nickelback, and so many other people who are much larger sins among classic rock artists than Adam Lambert.

 

[METALPRIEST]

Good points ...but Santana was really all about himself, and he couldn't sing.

I didn't have a real big problem with Rodgers though. I think wat it is, is it's not just Freddie. Queen is one of those bands where the sum is bigger than the parts. On top of that it's Freddie.

To many people he IS Queen, even though they all contributed to the writing.

Black Sabbath did alright, cause they got someone iconic and made new music. Same with many other big name bands that have added new singers.

Bands like Priest and Maiden did it with relatively unknown singers at the time, though Bailey's track record was a little better than Ripper's.

I dunno why this would bug me. I think it's just the epicness of Freddie and Queen as a whole really. It's like if Adam Lambert sang for Zeppelin, or joined The Beatles with Paul & Ringo. Queen is one of those HUGE special bands with irreplaceable members.

UNLESS they altered their sound and tried to record a whole new album...then you would have to at least give the new music a shot.

I'm ramblin' here.....

Freddie is just tooooo huge. That's my take on it.

 

[LG]

Considering Freddie is one of the top ten most charismatic live performers and such a unique vocalist that is one reason hard core fans will not be impressed with whoever they picked to replace him.

I agree with TS, Cosmic and MP.

The remaining members can use the name, tour and give the fans a taste of what Queen once was, but there is no duplicating the legacy when they were on top of the world. Consider the stumbling block with a Led Zeppelin reunion/tour, only Robert Plant is not interested for numerous reasons and without him there is no Zeppelin the fans would not accept a substitute.

Singers more than any other member in a massively successful band stand out, no offense to the unique sound of the rest of the band but a voice is instantly associated with the band/artist. Some have managed to pull off numerous switches and make it work, some won't try and others well I for one wouldn't attend a Queen concert with Lambert singing if you gave me free tickets. That's not a slam against him, but I would sit at home and spin a few Queen albums instead.

 

[JerseyGirl]

I've said this before, but personally for me I don't think any band should continue on without the high profile lead singer that made them famous, like...Journey, Boston etc. It's that voice that was a main reason for why the bands were/are so wildly popular. It's different if it's a member of the band that plays an instrument because that sound can be more easily duplicated. But a lead singer is too distinctive. If they do decide to continue on, then change the band name to Queen II or Journey II or something. Just my opinion and I know some people will disagree with it.