| re: Jim Steinman freaks | |
|
Posted by: |
Vin 02:16 pm UTC 06/03/10 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim Steinman freaks - John_Galt 06:31 am UTC 06/03/10 |
| Well put, JG. > I've always found it funny that Steinmaniacs are so > continuously angry at Meat for not giving Steinman enough > credit, but then they get angry whenever he does mention > Steinman, because the mention didn't amount to an > expression of explicit awe-inspired worship. I'm not sure > if I'm aware of another vocalist -- maybe Elton John -- > who so frequently mentions the writer who wrote his hits. > Meat is still giving Jim credit and dropping his name even > though Jim hasn't written for him for years and doesn't > appear on the new album. Crazy. > > In defense of Meat, I agree with his decision to > vigorously promote his latest work... even when it doesn't > turn out perfect. It's his job as the front man to sell > everyone's work and Bat III hardly sucked because of him. > If he were to betray everyone and announce during the > middle of promoting Bat III that it had the wrong songs by > the wrong songwriter and production that was a lackluster > attempt at imitating Steinman, he'd be honest, but he'd be > biting the record company that took a chance on him. The > better move is to claw and fight and get heartbroken > trying to create an album that is worthy of your praise... > then market the hell out of it. The hype he creates > actually adds to some people's enjoyment of the record and > is part of the experience that he contributes too beyond > vocals. But no artists hype should be taken as a sincere > expression of their thoughts about the value of the album. > If they are worthy of the term artist, their is some > aspect of a collaborative production like an album that > they simply hate. It's hard to imagine it otherwise. > Critical honesty can come later as it has lately in his > comments about Bat III. > > Also, I should say that a pretty good measure of your > growth as an artist is if you look back on your old stuff > and say, "Wow that was inspired, but knowing what I know > now, I could kick that work's ass." I know that's true of > the web pages I work on for fun. Meat should be learning > new technigues, new technologies, and acquiring new > insights into what makes a great rock record and how to > work with people to create one. Given that, it shouldn't > surprise anyone that he's not so big on Bat III, anymore. > > -=John Galt=- > > > A recent interview were Meat has a little dig at Jim > > and/or Steinman fans, about vocals on Bat 1? > > > > I always thought that Jim spent a lot of time teaching > > Meat the phrasings for the Bat 1 songs, so that Meat > > effectively sang them like Jim would? > > > > He also disses Bat 3 again. I remember, just before Bat 3 > > was released, that Meat said he listened to it in his > > house and cried as to how good it was. Hmmmmm. > > > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim Steinman freaks - John_Galt 06:31 am UTC 06/03/10 |
| Next: | re: Jim Steinman freaks - Vin 01:38 am UTC 06/02/10 |
| Thread: | |