(Untitled)

[tvor]

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

Comments

[ext_533620]

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]

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.