not logged in
| re: Were still the chirldren | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 09:13 pm UTC 08/15/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Were still the chirldren - Bright_Eyes 06:03 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. I agree that this would exist with respect to any artist; there is that psychological imprint one places inside their head when they know or think it is or is not the writer singing, and it goes both ways. Not believing Jim is singing his own songs reduces the depth perceptions amongst the listeners, just as believing Jim is singing increases it. >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. Someone had done this, with the insistences of Rory Dodd for some things, and someone named Leavitt with respect to another, where all these songs in question had Jim's vocals quite present on them. Some people cling to these ideas with a passion because they seem to have invested themselves in their opinions/perceptions, and can't quite segue into the adaptation of Jim singing where they thought it was someone emotionally detached from the songs. Even though Rory does do bg vocals, on the same tracks as Jim sings lead, the perception arrived that Rory did all those vocals instead. Now, what if they felt that they HAD to change their thinking, and love something different way than they did before, or be disillusioned in a way that they had not expected? My bias is clearly not another's bias, and another's bias is one that is personal to them. Loving, iconicizing Jim to such extent, may find difficult space to squeeze out when having to alter the dimensions of that. So they want to believe it is Rory Dodd in some songs more than Rory Dodd is actually in some songs, and they want to believe that Not Allowed to Love is is not sung by Jim. It helps to preserve the image of Jim that they have invested themselves into. People don't like changing things that they love, I suppose, and I could only consider that natural and understandable. But, the misinformation is something that should be attributed to that, a sad phenomenon, but one that rests in favor of accuracy. Feelings about the singer won't alter the fact of who is the singer. But it could make something less because maybe they thought that Jim had something more to offer than what he gave. >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. Interestingly enough, the "Rory Dodd" fans do indeed feel that this vocal captured feelings of the songs, and they love the vocal immensely. People who really know Rory Dodd's singing can be justified in their own admiration of his voice, but it is just not the same voice as Jim's, and where Jim's voice exists, is somehow a disappointment I don't understand. If you like something, like people say that they hear songs on the radio and wonder if it is Steinman related then find that it was, and how happy they are....why not apply that to these as well? Happy, happy. >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. ROFL!!! :) :) One should be aware, if one is not, that singing as a trained art, is one that gives one the ability to sing badly, or to sing well. If Jim wanted to sing and sound like he has snot running down his nose, he could....without the snot! He can sing like he can't sing, he can sing like he can, and he can sing his way out of a wet paper bag, except he should not actually be in a wet paper bag in the first place. Not knowing who he was, I spoke to him and said that they way he speaks sounds to me like he could sing very well. He was really modest about it. He did not say he could really, he said, well, maybe. A singer who is heard speaking in conversation carries the techniques of singing into thier speaking voice, so one could tell when one can or cannot sing even before hearing a note. But remember his performance on Graveyard Shift, if wondering. > > I'm definitely not a fan of Jim's singing. On Children I > prefer the TDE version in every way possible. I agree except that the song just does not belong on a recording at all in my opinion.....it is one of those things that should be buried in the back of the garage IMHO. Jim's emotions on that song mean something to me, and other than that as a public recording, I don't feel like it has any place without a better performance by someone in a better context. I don't think TDE has that context. It is not a stand-alone song. >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. ROFL again!! I would so much favor Nowhere Fast to that on the myspace than Children. But in terms of others' performances I have to say that I really like "Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young". >But > that's a very unfair comparison, because one was just the > writer's demo and the other was meant for the public. Indeed, and in my view, that public recording is not fitting the actual message of the song, which if a story, should be part of the story. It isn't like something as independently standing as "One Enchanted Evening" from South Pacific, which is one of my all-time favorite songs. > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Were still the chirldren - Bright_Eyes 06:03 am UTC 08/15/07 |
| Next: | I mean.....I meeeaaaan......... - pidunk 10:19 pm UTC 08/15/07 |
| Thread: |
|