Seriously, Elvis had a crappy voice. Really.
Though I suppose low voices are underrated in modern music.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Beatles are amazing. In my opinion Elvis is a bit over-rated. Little Richard was the first true rock and roller, you are better off listening to him darlings :)[/QUOTE]
Try Chuck Berry
Try Chuck Berry
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, Elvis had a crappy voice. Really.
Though I suppose low voices are underrated in modern music.[/QUOTE]????
ridiculous
Though I suppose low voices are underrated in modern music.[/QUOTE]????
ridiculous
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously, Elvis had a crappy voice. Really.
Though I suppose low voices are underrated in modern music.[/QUOTE]????
ridiculous[/QUOTE]
elvis' voice doesn't suck, but, i think his singing tends to be a little monotonous. it's too consistent. the beatles, on the other hand, explored their talent more than elvis did. and that's why they deserve to be the kings of rock and roll. :)
Though I suppose low voices are underrated in modern music.[/QUOTE]????
ridiculous[/QUOTE]
elvis' voice doesn't suck, but, i think his singing tends to be a little monotonous. it's too consistent. the beatles, on the other hand, explored their talent more than elvis did. and that's why they deserve to be the kings of rock and roll. :)
I don't care who deserves or who is the rock N roll king or whatever. Elvis is an outstanding singer with a great voice, he sings great.
So... you guys think low voices are underrated?
Yes and no
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes and no
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes and no
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
LMAO!!!! ;)
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
LMAO!!!! ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes and no
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
giggling...I hear thunder and lighting!!!
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
giggling...I hear thunder and lighting!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=Blue>Retro<font color=1>Love wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we were to write a bible today, it would be about Paul McCartney[/QUOTE]
How would it start out?:
When thee was 64 he divorced thou peasant wife, the one legged one...lol[/QUOTE]
Jesus and Paul McCartney both died and were raised from the dead
but Jesus sure as hell didnt sing Get Back
How would it start out?:
When thee was 64 he divorced thou peasant wife, the one legged one...lol[/QUOTE]
Jesus and Paul McCartney both died and were raised from the dead
but Jesus sure as hell didnt sing Get Back
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=Blue>Retro<font color=1>Love wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes and no
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
giggling...I hear thunder and lighting!!![/QUOTE]
a strong gust of wind is blowing me away. i am currently clinging on a pole.
99% of the people that listen to music, know NOTHING about singing, even musicians know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about singing.
Sometimes low voices are underrated because they're low, and sometimes they're overrated for being so "deep."
Whatever...[/QUOTE]
The Rainmaker has spoken.[/QUOTE]
giggling...I hear thunder and lighting!!![/QUOTE]
a strong gust of wind is blowing me away. i am currently clinging on a pole.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Let me just say this...
If Elvis was black, there's no way he would have given the media the title of "King of Rock N' Roll".
Elvis basically stole what black artists have been working for decades, by then having RCA sell it under a white package.[/QUOTE]
True enough. Any intelligent person knows where Elvis derived his stuff from. It doesn't discount his abilities as a singer though.
If Elvis was black, there's no way he would have given the media the title of "King of Rock N' Roll".
Elvis basically stole what black artists have been working for decades, by then having RCA sell it under a white package.[/QUOTE]
True enough. Any intelligent person knows where Elvis derived his stuff from. It doesn't discount his abilities as a singer though.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Let me just say this...
If Elvis was black, there's no way he would have given the media the title of "King of Rock N' Roll".
Elvis basically stole what black artists have been working for decades, by then having RCA sell it under a white package.[/QUOTE]
True enough. Any intelligent person knows where Elvis derived his stuff from. It doesn't discount his abilities as a singer though.[/QUOTE]
Elvis had 107 songs hit the top 40
Im not saying you're wrong but...
If Elvis was black, there's no way he would have given the media the title of "King of Rock N' Roll".
Elvis basically stole what black artists have been working for decades, by then having RCA sell it under a white package.[/QUOTE]
True enough. Any intelligent person knows where Elvis derived his stuff from. It doesn't discount his abilities as a singer though.[/QUOTE]
Elvis had 107 songs hit the top 40
Im not saying you're wrong but...