thank you for the link!
i appreciate the different approach to the song, i think it can suit the taste of many "modern-pop-jazz" listeners since it reminds me a bit of Norah Jones feat. Sara Bareilles. Well: not bad, i often hear in Queen tributes cds horrible renditions of queen's song and that represents instead an example of new ideas on a classic.
Off topic let me recall the popular Borhap version from The Braids. It's still aired quite often on italian radios. I don't know if this Porter's version of Somebody to love will have the same fortune...we'll see!
inu-liger · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Hitman wrote: [/b]
Off topic let me recall the popular Borhap version from The Braids. It's still aired quite often on italian radios. I don't know if this Porter's version of Somebody to love will have the same fortune...we'll see!
[/QUOTE]
[i]That[/i] was a travesty that should never have been allowed to happen.
jadedlady · Member since
To me it's great when other musicians put their own stamp while covering a classic song. It does not always work, but IMHO this one does. I like this quite a lot.
Sebastian · Member since
I like it.
Yara · Member since
It sounded very boring and predictable to me, though I admire the effort. The thing is that it's a kind of jazz arrangement absolutely identifical to many standards and, what I think is actually even worse, a kind of pasteurized, pastiched smooth night club song-style which has been passing as jazz nowadays.
She has problems with tune, that's clear, regardless of taste. Even though the arrangement and the key it's in don't require accidentals, she goes as far as sharpening notes that should be, if anything, in the case she wanted to go for other interesting effects, flatenned.
She unfortunately mistook smooth singing for apathic pale singing, which is something many present soi-distant jazz singers do nowadays. Sounding smooth and earning, exciting, is the very beauty of many of not only many jazz, but also classical techniques.
The arrangement is standardized and, why not say it!?, sounds one of many versions of plenty of songs out there; and again, that's usual nowadays.
Of course, it'd take creativity, time and ideas to arrange the song properly to a jazz style, but it was obviously not their intention: it was aimed at reaching a cool audience which needs the music as a background for something else.
So, again, just like happened in Cosmos Rock: my critique doesn't have anything do to with Freddie. The problem is that they fail to achieve the goals they set themselves or which are expected to be met if you're going for something original, which I'm ABSOLUTELY for.
Nothing of this is there, so I think it'll go down in history just like Cosmos Rock: a failed, poor and begging-to fade-away effort to create something.
This one no one will remember because few will even care to know about; the Cosmos, well, it's already being effaced from people's mind.
Now, is it BAD OR SERIOUS? No. There's absolutely nothing terrible, bad or serious about doing a poor job in music, because a song is just...a song. No one is being hurt, no damage is being done, so I would never get mad at Brian or something like this.
It's not morals. I'm not worried about "hurting Freddie's legacy" or some nonsense like this: it's just a plain, simple, outright poor rendition of a song, and that happens every single week. Nothing to be excited or outraged about, I guess.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
Well, simply put, I think she has a pretty voice but I don't like the arrangement. At least, I don't think I like it. I can't say so for sure because I fell asleep halfway through it. :-/
4 x Vision · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Saif wrote: [/b]
What I [b]hate[/b] about Queen fans is how the always have to remark how "inferior" a cover is compared to the version sung by Freddie. There are some people here who, no matter how great a "cover" is, will slag it saying, "meh, not as good as the original".
I admit, at one time, I was a zealous Queen fan and couldn't entertain the thought of them not being the greatest band ever. There was a time I felt that way about Led Zeppelin too. [b]But it was just a phase and I got over[/b].
[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I'm one of those Freddie fanatics that can't agree that a cover sounds better than his original vocals... but you've given me hope! Did you take pills or go to therapy, maybe attend group meetings? I really want to know.
I mean I'm not saying i don't like covers of Queen songs... I actually really liked Travis' version of Killer Queen, I liked Valensia's Queen album, I even liked those two girls that Bri mentioned from YouTube... but am I really to be hated for preferring Freddie Mercury's original vocal... even if it's every time? He was good remember.
PS... you mention Stone Cold Crazy by Metallica... what other singers do you personally think sang a Queen song better than Freddie did in the original? Just out of curiosity.
BTW... on topic, I thought this was a nice version, but it's not something I would give a second listen to. She does have a pretty voice though.
maxpower · Member since
For me it doesn't work, like someone else said the meaning of the song is lost in this arrangement, horses for courses as you say
gnomo · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
It sounded very boring and predictable to me, though I admire the effort.
(...)
Now, is it BAD OR SERIOUS? No. There's absolutely nothing terrible, bad or serious about doing a poor job in music, because a song is just...a song. No one is being hurt, no damage is being done, so I would never get mad at Brian or something like this.
It's not morals. I'm not worried about "hurting Freddie's legacy" or some nonsense like this: it's just a plain, simple, outright poor rendition of a song, and that happens every single week. Nothing to be excited or outraged about, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
... I wish half of us were so balanced and sensible in expressing their opinions ...
