| re: Jim would be nothing with Meat | |
|
Posted by: |
daveake 10:36 am UTC 05/26/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim would be nothing with Meat - batoutofhell77 07:41 am UTC 05/26/08 |
| It's an old and fruitless argument, which I'll add to 'cos I'm bored. I'll pick you up on one thing: > the songs Meat Loaf made famous for Jim Ahem. This rather implies that Meat was in a position to make them famous, because he was famous already. Prior to Bat 1 almost no-one had heard of either Meat or Jim. Bat 1 became famous primarily because the music was like nothing anyone had heard before, and secondly because there was a big guy with a massive voice singing it. Meat didn't "make it famous". Next, if Meat is capable of making songs famous, how is it that he's never managed to do that to any song that Jim didn't write (and preferably) at least have a hand in producing? Finally, Jim has shown that he can have "famous" singles without Meat. So, remind me, which half of the duo has been most influential in their joint success? Dave | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim would be nothing with Meat - Smeghead 11:29 am UTC 05/26/08 |
| Next: | Meat Loaf in A'dam 4-8 - Cindy 01:15 pm UTC 05/25/08 |
| Thread: | |