| re: Were still the chirldren | |
|
Posted by: |
Bright_Eyes 06:03 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Were still the chirldren - Willis 12:43 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| > I prefer Jim's version. It seems so much sadder and > personal. > TDE version is amazing for the overlapping, and much > better vocals and all, but Jim's just had more feeling. > At least to me. I have a pet theory about Jim's vocals and Jim's fans in general (not just you). I've had this theory for years. I believe Jim's fans drastically alter their perception because they know that's Jim Steinman singing. Imagine we were given all the recordings we have of Jim singing, and we were told that's not Jim Steinman, but some random guy who was hired just to sing. If fans were told that, and fully believed it, I really *really* doubt you'd hear as many of them claim that "that guy" beautifully captures the feeling of the song. I think they'd probably claim he's just not very good. Jim can't sing his way out of a wet paper bag. By professional standards. I'm definitely not a fan of Jim's singing. On Children I prefer the TDE version in every way possible. That definitely includes the emotive/interpretation sort of thing. That Children thing on myspace is one of my favorite recordings I've ever heard of Jim's work. But that's a very unfair comparison, because one was just the writer's demo and the other was meant for the public. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Were still the chirldren - Willis 12:43 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| Next: | re: Were still the chirldren - pidunk 09:13 pm UTC 08/15/07 |
| Thread: |
|