not logged in
| re: Braver Than We Are.....how is it holding up? | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 06:17 pm UTC 12/14/16 |
| In reply to: | re: Braver Than We Are.....how is it holding up? - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:05 pm UTC 12/14/16 |
I love Karine as well, but yeah, the demo version she did really doesn't do much for me either. When I think what "Braver than we are" would sound like if Jim produced it on an album, I think almost like a sequel to "I'd do anything for love (But I won't do that)". Indeed it absolutely has that quality in the stage show. But then I really like Karine's version from the angle that it's like a radio/end credits version like the Disney movies, e.g. Mrs Potts singing "Beauty and the Beast" and then Peabo Bryson & Celine Dion on the credits, if you know what I mean. I love it from that angle, or if it was the "second version" that was released and not the first. With "Loving you", it doesn't sound better to me. It's just another version of the song. I really like the original too. At first I thought the album was too quick, but something about it just works for me the way it is. Part of that's due to the fact that THAT album was never going to exist for me either way, because they missed that boat on "Bat 3". In my mind, THAT CD would have had "Body", "Not allowed to love", "Braver", "Speaking in tongues", everything. > For me, Jim's music starts with his melodies, his > evocatice words create such vivid world's. In short, what > makes a good Jim Steinman song are how visual they are. > Sometimes this is achieved very simply, with songs like > Heaven Can Wait and and Rory's version of Making Love Out > of Nothing At All, others it's achieved by throwing the > kitchen sink into and creating these long sprawling sagas > of songs. > > It's because of this I love Braver Than We Are. Yes, the > backing vocals lack the oomph that other Steinman > productions have, and there a few questionable choices on > it, but it sounds new enough and seeped in enough > nostalgia for me to dig it. My initial review went through > each song individually so I went go into to much detail, > rather go through it's biggest triumphs. > > Going All the Way. > > Never cared for the song before in any of it's previous > incarnations. Everyone sites the Karienna Hannah version > as vastly superior but to me it's a snooze fest and sound > like a knock off Bond theme. I love Karienna, but her > version just does nothing for me. Meat's version is dark, > hopeful and VISUAL. Later in his career, Jim seemed to cut > corners with his production (the all revved up demo that > was leaked a little while ago for me is as uninspired as > people say Braver is) but this song feels like Jim at his > best. > > Loving You's a Dirty Job > > The Original sounds like a demo, a not very polished demo > that with horrendous vocals from Rundgren and, again, an > uninspired production from Jim. The contrast of Meat and > Stacy's vocals, the vastly improved, atmospheric > production all unlock the potential the song always felt > short of. > > MORE > > Aside from the odd lyric twea, this is superior to the > original in every way. People cite Meat's vocals as a weak > on the album as a whole but here he sounds awesome, low > and drawling and instantly "More" memorable that Andrew > Eldritch's contrived whine. Eldritch's singing lacks > bite, Meat's are ravenous. > > The effects on Meat's vocals seem to be a creative choice, > as sometimes there not present at all and Meat sounds > great, and unaltered stripped down version of the album > would be really interesting to hear at some point. > > Some of the songs choices are questionable, Train of Love > isn't a very good song by Jim's standards, but Meat and > Paul elevate to something that I actually really enjoy. > Only When I Feel isn't expanded on or re-recorded in full > and More seems to be put after it to fill the part Break > It did in the live recording. I love the full song but > More is stronger than Break It so I'm in two minds about > it as there definitely wasn't room for both. > > God's and Skull are both trimmed down, but Paul made them > work as self contained little songs that it's not so much > a detractor that there incomplete. > > I said before but it bares repeating. I wish there was > more of this album, which I think is a testament to how > good it is. Meat adapts his singing, some songs this > proves a triumph and in others not so much, but nowhere on > the album is he "shot" or any of the other over reactions > people seem to be having. A 70 year old Meat Loaf is still > Meat Loaf, and his vocals are far and away more compelling > and passionate then what I'm hearing of this Tyce Green > album so far. > > This isn't a normal Jim and Meat album, and nor should > have been. Over four album's we heard them do the > Wagnerain, the over the top, and to bookend thier > collaborative cycle they did something more experimental > and triumphed. > > > > > So it's been with us a while now. Like it better than at > > first? Less? Just the same? > > Be really keen to hear your thoughts JD? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Braver Than We Are.....how is it holding up? - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:05 pm UTC 12/14/16 |
| Next: | re: Braver Than We Are.....how is it holding up? - fnord 06:55 pm UTC 12/07/16 |
| Thread: | |