not logged in
| re: So actually, to sum it up more succinctly… | |
Posted by:  |
Wilbury 03:49 pm UTC 05/29/11 |
| In reply to: | re: So actually, to sum it up more succinctly… - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 03:22 pm UTC 05/29/11 |
| Doesn't sound very likely tho, does it. Remembering that Steinman has said that "if pandora's box had been a success then there wouldn't have been a Bat 2". I doubt they were in solid contact thru this time. And it's not like Meat doesn't have the vocal chops all on his own.I guess it would just be the subtle nuances that Jim would have coaxed out of him. Maybe that last 10% that turns a natural talent into a Grammy award winner. I definitely hear a difference on bat2, sounds significantly better than anything he did either side. Bat2 is pitch perfect, instead of meat ending every line a semi tone flat. With the exception of the second last line of It Just Won't Quit. "So long aGO". A *wee* bit flat. A lot annoying. Not sure why Jim wouldn't have kept going til this one was perfect. I still think good girls is meats best performance. > I know they talked about doing as early as 84 if sources > are to be believed, but the fact that both Jim and Meat > were busy with their own solo works, I think alot of > Meat's voice during the periods between the two Bats, both > good and bad, was down to Meat himself, but I suppose it's > possible Jim listened to Meat's solo records and gave him > tips I guess. > > > > > > > > But his best work (From the two Bat albums) most > > > certiantly had Jim's "help", not a discredit to Meat, just > > > shows how obessive Jim is. > > > > And what makes you think that he wasn't reteaching him in > > 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: So actually, to sum it up more succinctly… - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 03:22 pm UTC 05/29/11 |
| Next: | re: So actually, to sum it up more succinctly… - rockfenris2005 04:13 pm UTC 05/29/11 |
| Thread: |
|