| re: Were still the chirldren |
|
Posted by:
 |
Pudding 07:52 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| In reply to: |
re: Were still the chirldren - Bright_Eyes 06:03 am UTC 08/15/07 |
|
> 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 absolutely agree with you. Jim can't sing for toffee and I don't buy this 'emotion' he's putting in when singing. That's no different to a Loafer saying Meat's putting 'passion' into a song when he's sounding like a dogs fart.
However, I do like the way in Jims demo it's pretty much sung solo and isn't cluttered with lots of overlaying voices. One male and one female singer is plenty for that song IMO
|
|
|
|
reply |
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Were still the chirldren - Jacob 07:57 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| Next: |
re: Were still the chirldren - Rob 11:14 am UTC 08/15/07 |
|
| Thread: |
|