My Not-So Fun Lunchbreak.

[TheDoode]

So I'm in the living room taking a break from the day-job, flicking through things I haven't managed to catch on Youtube yet (handily on the TV screen, thanks to X-box), when my partner comes in and says 'what the hell is this? It's awful' She sits next to me and watches for the next few minutes.

And sits, and sits. I won't repeat what she said but it's probably indicative of what most non-fans would think.

It was the footage from Newbury Racecourse. Footage that I'd thought was well filmed and quite clear, and honestly not that bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI4JSPFpzzI

:oops::(

[Sebastian.]

There were a few thousand "non-fans" that stayed to watch after Red Light started at Newbury.

Does what she thinks really warrant a forum topic?

[GDW]

The girls sounded pretty good.:-)

[Evil One]

'what the hell is this? It's awful'
Probably not the first time they've said that. :lol:

[Julie in the rv mirror]

That was well-filmed and quite clear.

Looked like the weather was kind of nasty.

[TheDoode]

There were a few thousand "non-fans" that stayed to watch after Red Light started at Newbury.

Does what she thinks really warrant a forum topic?

Only about as much as what you think warrants a reply :roll:

Yeah, y'know, I hate to say it but having watched the rest it's definitely not one of Meat's better performances, vocally. Which is a shame, as the actual performance is better than I've seen in a long time.

[tonyloaf]

Got a great reception after the show :)

[LucyK!]

For the hundredth time can someone remind me, was Newbury the first or second show? I'm going with second...

[Adje]

For the hundredth time can someone remind me, was Newbury the first or second show? I'm going with second...

Good for you!

Newmarket was the first
Rainy Newbury the 2nd ;)

[JennaG]

Looked like the weather was kind of nasty.

It was bloody awful. :evil: :evil:

[Evil One]

It was bloody awful. :evil: :evil:
Thus why I try to avoid outdoor concerts and festivals. Indoor entertainment is far more pleasant. :twisted:

[JennaG]

Thus why I try to avoid outdoor concerts and festivals. Indoor entertainment is far more pleasant. :twisted:

An outdoor concert wouldn't have been my first choice either but I thought that I couldn't really take the chance and lose out on what could have been my last chance to see Meat in concert.

[Paul Richardson]

So I'm in the living room taking a break from the day-job, flicking through things I haven't managed to catch on Youtube yet (handily on the TV screen, thanks to X-box), when my partner comes in and says 'what the hell is this? It's awful' She sits next to me and watches for the next few minutes.

And sits, and sits. I won't repeat what she said but it's probably indicative of what most non-fans would think.

It was the footage from Newbury Racecourse. Footage that I'd thought was well filmed and quite clear, and honestly not that bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI4JSPFpzzI

:oops::(

I guess we've all become conditioned as it were ... either your partner is crazy or we're all crazy :D

[TheDoode]

Oh, she's definitely crazy. But it was odd to hear the reaction of someone who's only used to hearing Meat on the albums versus guys on here, who pretty much consume every performance we can find. And she's got a point - when you compare the Newbury performance to stuff like Storytellers, or the Bat 2 Picture Show footage, it's not pretty.

[tonyloaf]

but also add it was blowing a hurricane with rain coming down so hard , so really you cant compare it

[Sebastian.]

but also add it was blowing a hurricane with rain coming down so hard , so really you cant compare it

Also 20 years younger, and not filmed by someone who keeps getting the mic blocked on their camera.

I felt vocally he was pretty damn good. The reception of the people there and again a lot of people who had never seen him live before - remember this was races first Meat Loaf second - was very positive.

[Adje]

I think this has been said before. People, that are not fans, who just listen to the vocals will be bummed. In fact, my wife -not a Meat Loaf fan but fairly familiar with the music- makes fun of Meat's 'singing' when I listen/watch something from the last 5 or 6 years. None of the people that I know think the vocals are any good and they are not ashamed to tell me what they really think of it.

And of course I have had a fair share of heat, on this board, for stating my personal opinion on it. Even with my review on the LAB tour.

The thing is, we -fans- don't just listen at a concert, We live/feel/experience a show and everything that's part of it. We know background stories and issues that are playing. We watch the performance. We focus on so much more than just the singing.

While many of the people going to a concert just go there to hear Anything for Love or Paradise, and want to hear the version they are used to hear when they play the single or cd.

It's my believe that this is the reason that Meat Loaf gets so many 1 and so many 5 stars on Ticketmaster reviews. Apart from the bullies and fans who give 1 or 5 stars because they decided to do so before the concert there are many people who experience the show and say 'What a great performance, what an intensity... wow 5 stars' And people who say 'Saw Meat in 1994. He looks old now and his voice is complete gone. Disappointing 1 star.'

Just check those reviews. You hardly see 3 stars, there are a few 2 and 4 stars but overall it's 5 or 1 star. Everything or nothing. And it all has to do with ones expectation.

[Paul Richardson]

Oh, she's definitely crazy. But it was odd to hear the reaction of someone who's only used to hearing Meat on the albums versus guys on here, who pretty much consume every performance we can find. And she's got a point - when you compare the Newbury performance to stuff like Storytellers, or the Bat 2 Picture Show footage, it's not pretty.

Probably not an odd reaction, just understandable. The march of time is cruel to us all.

[CarylB]

The thing is, we -fans- don't just listen at a concert, We live/feel/experience a show and everything that's part of it. We know background stories and issues that are playing. We watch the performance. We focus on so much more than just the singing.

Which is of course the way to approach a Meat Loaf concert, and always has been. You go on to say:

While many of the people going to a concert just go there to hear Anything for Love or Paradise, and want to hear the version they are used to hear when they play the single or cd.

Which has always been unrealistic imo. Meat has never sounded like the studio version of BOOH when performing live, and really I don't think it makes sense to expect that.

I agree with your points about TM reviews .. I just think those who express disappointment may have had completely unrealistic expectations ;) Certainly true of those who complain bitterly he didn't sound like he did on their copy of BOOH.

However, a fairer comparison of Meat then and now is surely to compare apples rather than apples and oranges .. ie authorised recordings, either two studio albums or two officially recorded live shows. To compare vocals on any album he has recorded with a bootleg recording (particularly one recorded by someone in the crowd in appalling weather conditions) is inevitably going to lead to disappointment or disapproval in my view, and is hardly a reasoned or reasonable comparison.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

However, a fairer comparison of Meat then and now is surely to compare apples rather than apples and oranges .. ie authorised recordings, either two studio albums or two officially recorded live shows. To compare vocals on any album he has recorded with a bootleg recording (particularly one recorded by someone in the crowd in appalling weather conditions) is inevitably going to lead to disappointment or disapproval in my view, and is hardly a reasoned or reasonable comparison.

But Caryl, you said yourself that Meat has never sounded the same when singing BOOH live versus the album, so in that respect, the quality of the recording is irrelevant, be it a bootleg or an official live recording. Besides, as we all know, official recordings, whether they be studio or live, can be and usually are edited/overdubbed to some degree, thus are not really a true representation of what the show sounded like on the night.

I know this won't be a popular opinion to some, but the quality of that video is actually quite good (for a boot). Good enough, anyway.

[Evil One]

There's a simple solution to Caryl's fruit basket conundrum. Sit your lady down in front of the Guilty Pleasure DVD and then report back. :twisted:

[TheDoode]

To compare vocals on any album he has recorded with a bootleg recording (particularly one recorded by someone in the crowd in appalling weather conditions) is inevitably going to lead to disappointment or disapproval in my view, and is hardly a reasoned or reasonable comparison.

Well, if you take a look at this video you'll find it's actually of a very decent quality. More than watchable, with no sign of any adverse weather conditions at all. The point for me is that we were watching an Alice Cooper video from a recent outdoor festival several weeks before - just a two song clip that helped us decide whether we were going to go and see him live - and he sounded great. Both songs were from the 70's and he owned them. And the quality of recording was arguably not quite as good as the Newbury video. I think the thing that people (non-fans, or non-super-fans at least) have a hard time with is that Meat, on the clip above at least, doesn't really sound anything like the studio recording at all.

And as for official releases - yep, what Julie said - they're overdubbed, mixed, and perfected in a studio environment - so it's never going to be a true reflection of how an artist actually sounds live.

[tonyloaf]

belive me the weather was bad, i was in line the whole day braveing it

[Adje]

There's a simple solution to Caryl's fruit basket conundrum. Sit your lady down in front of the Guilty Pleasure DVD and then report back. :twisted:

Actually I had the following conversation with my wife, while watching GP. On forehand I have to say that I am not a fan of Meat Loaf as an actor. I'm just in it for the music.

Anyway, while the BluRay was playing my wife made a comment about the vocals. Sayin' something like "I can't understand you're listening to this. It sounds terrible, He really can't sing [anymore]"

I tried to make a smart reply, avoiding any debate about it by saying "Yeah but baby, Meat Loaf himself once said -I'm not a singer, I'm an actor who acts he's singing-"

My wife: "No wonder you find him a bad actor" (after which she left the room with a big smile on her face)

What I'm trying to say is that, like my previous statement, it has nothing to do with bootleg material or original material. It has to do with ones expectation. My wife has listened to older bootlegs. Not always great quality but she prefers a bad 1987 bootleg over the 3 Bats or GP DVD any time.

Or as my wife states it "If it's the quality of the bootleg, then why do the band and the other vocals sound great?"

[TheDoode]

belive me the weather was bad, i was in line the whole day braveing it

I believe you man - but the video doesn't capture it, so maybe the weather had died down by the time the set had started?

[JennaG]

I believe you man - but the video doesn't capture it, so maybe the weather had died down by the time the had started?

I wish!!!

The way I look at this is that if you don't like the bootleg don't watch it, if Meat's singing no longer meets your expectations then go and listen to something that does. Personally, I enjoyed the Newbury show (except for the weather) and didn't think that Meat was in bad voice at all but it's all down to personal tastes. I'm not saying your partner is wrong but from where I was stood at Newbury there seemed to be plenty of people who thought the show was great.

[TheDoode]

Agreed Jenna - and I'm not saying that if I don't like it, then nobody else can - I'm definitely all for other people being able to like what they like (and express that they like it), but I'm also for the reverse as well. I like the discussion, I think. As for not watching the clips - personally, I watch because I want to see Meat performing brilliantly again (again, that's just my opinion - I know a lot of people believe that he is performing brilliantly), and there are clips I've seen (this one for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq9cs4uDdSU&list=FLU1Weuoo4pi6zG08v4C9D-g&index=20 filmed within the last few years) which I think are great. I think he sounds solid for his age (and that's not a negative at all) :-)

[duke knooby]

just from watchin meats scarf tied to the mic stand in the opening, i knew the weather must have been bad

it's great being able to see shows that i wasn't able to attend

so thanks for posting the clip

:)

[JennaG]

Agreed Jenna - and I'm not saying that if I don't like it, then nobody else can - I'm definitely all for other people being able to like what they like (and express that they like it), but I'm also for the reverse as well. I like the discussion, I think.

I'm not saying discussion is a bad thing because without discussion we'd just be saying hello to each other and posting smileys all the time and that would get tedious. ;)

What I'm saying I suppose is that if you really don't like how an artist sounds then there's bound to be something else out there that you can enjoy instead.

I saw Scouting For Girls in concert recently and I wasn't all that impressed. The words were barely audible and I didn't feel that they were putting the same into it as it sounded like they had on the studio versions, therefore I'll stick to listening to the studio versions of the songs that I know I'll enjoy and just put the rest down to experience.

Here's one of my photos that was taken halfway through the Newbury show that should give you a fair idea on the weather whilst Meat was on stage:

http://i1298.photobucket.com/albums/ag44/theiconicmeatloaf/weather_zps60492722.jpg~original

It seemed to me like the wind was blowing the rain right across his face which can't have been all that easy for him to sing through and he kept his nice warm scarf on throughout the show because it was that cold.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

it's great being able to see shows that i wasn't able to attend


This is what it's really about, IMO. :cool: I have some mediocre quality boots that I'm thrilled to have because the performances were so good that I'm grateful to be able to hear/see them at all.

[TheDoode]

I'm not saying discussion is a bad thing because without discussion we'd just be saying hello to each other and posting smileys all the time and that would get tedious. ;)

What I'm saying I suppose is that if you really don't like how an artist sounds then there's bound to be something else out there that you can enjoy instead.

I saw Scouting For Girls in concert recently and I wasn't all that impressed. The words were barely audible and I didn't feel that they were putting the same into it as it sounded like they had on the studio versions, therefore I'll stick to listening to the studio versions of the songs that I know I'll enjoy and just put the rest down to experience.

Here's one of my photos that was taken halfway through the Newbury show that should give you a fair idea on the weather whilst Meat was on stage:

It seemed to me like the wind was blowing the rain right across his face which can't have been all that easy for him to sing through and he kept his nice warm scarf on throughout the show because it was that cold.

I can see in retrospect that it was quite windy, but if you're playing an outdoor festival you have to factor that in I guess. I've seen a lot of bands at a lot of festivals who have to play in harsh conditions, and from the look of the video I'd say it wasn't the best environment, but definitely not the worst, either :-)

As for choosing to ignore a medium by a given artist, well, I think that people who like Meat Loaf have pretty much grown up with him (to generalise), so I think the appeal is that we're going to keep watching, because we want to believe that he can improve (and on some nights he sounds good to these ears, just not for the majority sadly). But I'd love nothing more than to hear Meat Loaf singing on form again, every performance. I'd be very very happy for him (and me, too!).

[TheDoode]

Meat has never sounded like the studio version of BOOH when performing live, and really I don't think it makes sense to expect that.

On a second glance through this thread I have to say that this is something I really disagree with. Anyone going to see an artist live are going to expect to hear the the songs delivered in a way that is not too dissimilar to the recorded version. Compare the clip of BOOH I posted further down this thread from a recent tour. It sounds like BOOH. Good enough for me. Now compare that with Red Light from the Newbury gig. My partner couldn't even place the song the 'we're gonna have a good time tonight' line, and even then it took her a while to process it.

[CarylB]

On a second glance through this thread I have to say that this is something I really disagree with. Anyone going to see an artist live are going to expect to hear the the songs delivered in a way that is not too dissimilar to the recorded version. Compare the clip of BOOH I posted further down this thread from a recent tour. It sounds like BOOH. Good enough for me. Now compare that with Red Light from the Newbury gig. My partner couldn't even place the song the 'we're gonna have a good time tonight' line, and even then it took her a while to process it.

We shall need to disagree then .. Meat himself points out he has never sounded quite the same as the studio version of BOOH because they sped it up a fraction, and his voice has matured over the years. I don't find that clip sounds like the studio version of BOOH at all. The first Meat concert I went to back in 78 was stunning .. much more than simply listening to the album, and it has been that way ever since through the decades. I feel sorry for those who do not see that .. they miss the essence of a Meat Loaf live performance in my view.

I have stood listening to Meat sing Running for the Red Light at a host of MMW shows, at the Last at Bat shows and in Vegas .. At the first show on MMW to me it was instantly recognisable, and has been every time.

I was ill and unable to get to Newbury, but given I had attended Newmarket the day before and been treated to a great show with impressive vocals, I am perfectly prepared to accept the view of those who were there and say he was very strong. I will never rely on bootlegs to judge a performance, and it is clear both from photos and the comments of those who were there, that the weather was appalling, the wind gusting fiercely. In those conditions unless you are really close to the amplifiers you do not in my view get an accurate reflection.

But he's retired from touring .. so our different perspectives can become something of history ;) I shall do my best to see him in Vegas again, and enjoy every sodding minute :D

[Julie in the rv mirror]

We shall need to disagree then .. Meat himself points out he has never sounded quite the same as the studio version of BOOH because they sped it up a fraction, and his voice has matured over the years. I don't find that clip sounds like the studio version of BOOH at all.

I've gotta agree with TheDoode here; every version of BOOH I've ever heard live still sounds like BOOH to me. Bands do this all the time- play songs slower or faster, change keys- it shouldn't matter.

In the same vein, they sped up Springsteen's voice on the studio version of Hungry Heart, and his voice has matured as well, yet I've never heard anyone say they couldn't recognize the song when it's played live, nor complain about the difference. (I truthfully think most people don't even notice.)

I'm not a person who cares so much to hear live performances sound exactly like their album versions (in fact I like it when artists change it up somewhat), as long as I find the performance enjoyable. That is the main criteria for me. I saw Elton John last week, and I couldn't care less that he can no longer hit the high notes- I thoroughly enjoyed his performance just the same.

I think the elephant in the room here is that some people just don't care for how Meat sounds now, and I don't think that you can just blame it on people's expectations of studio versus live, sorry to say.

[JennaG]

I've gotta agree with TheDoode here; every version of BOOH I've ever heard live still sounds like BOOH to me. Bands do this all the time- play songs slower or faster, change keys- it shouldn't matter.

Whilst I think the song is instantly recognisable as Bat Out Of Hell and still sounds like the song, it doesn't sound the same as it does on the record and to be honest, I rather like that. Meat's vioce does sound different and I'd much sooner listen to a decent live recording of the song than the studio version. In fact I can't even remember the last time I listened to the studio version of it whereas I listened to (and enjoyed) the Guilty Pleasures version a few days ago.

It's fair enough that some people don't care for how Meat sounds these days, that's their decision and if they don't like it then, as I said there are plenty of other things that they can listen to instead. It seems a bit strange to me to carry on listening to something that you're not enjoying out of choice in the hope that it'll miraculously change into something that meets your expectations.

I can see why people might think Meat will sound like he did on BOOH because that might be all they know of Meat's career but the fact is that he doesn't and those people who are expecting that will end up disappointed.

[TheDoode]

Caryl, Jenna, I appreciate your replies :-)

Just to clarify though, I wasn't suggesting that BOOH should/does sound exactly like it did on the album or in '78. I don't care about tiny nuances or what hardcore fans might see as 'imperfections'. I just expect it to sound like BOOH. I still enjoyed when Meat's voice matured in the 90's and was noticeably different to how he used to sound in the 70's. The point is that it still sounded like BOOH. And to me, it still sounds that way in the clip above. I asked my partner to take a listen. She was apprehensive at first (she'd said she just wanted to stick to the albums, as she really isn't a fan of live Meat Loaf these days, as she's recently discovered). She was surprised by how good it sounded. 'If only he sounded like that all the time'. I'm paraphrasing, but that was more or less the gist.

I have to disagree on Red Light. The video posted on youtube is incredibly clear. Again, you can't really blame fan recorded clips or weather conditions when all the the backing vocals are dead on. It's an apologist argument that doesn't really hold up, in my view. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy it personally, but there has to be some balance as to what the truth really is here.

As for not relying on bootlegs to judge a performance - well, they're a lot more reliable than studio edited, blu ray quality official releases.

Sorry to hear that you were ill Caryl, hope you get to visit Vegas again to make up for it! :-)

[JennaG]

I'm not saying that you can't enjoy it personally, but there has to be some balance as to what the truth really is here.

I think in a situation like this it's hard to really come to a conclusion as to what the truth is as so much of it is tied up in an individual's perception. I don't think that anyone's perception of what they believe to be the truth about this performance is wrong if that's how they see it even if it does differ to my own.

:-)

[CarylB]

Bands do this all the time- play songs slower or faster, change keys- it shouldn't matter.

As you quoted me I'll just clarify .. my point was that they sped up the RECORDING, not the way they played and he sang. I think that does make a difference (except apparently with Bruce, though I cannot comment on that as I have none of his records and have never seen him perform). Meat says he could never have sung exactly like that .. it altered the sound of his voice. I mentioned this initially because many of the one star ratings I have read on TM refer to people's disappointment that this was their first concert and he didn't sound like their album. Well it won't.

In the same vein, they sped up Springsteen's voice on the studio version of Hungry Heart, and his voice has matured as well, yet I've never heard anyone say they couldn't recognize the song when it's played live, nor complain about the difference. (I truthfully think most people don't even notice.)

No wonder he's seen as a god of rock and roll ;) You're a lucky fan. May the glory that is Bruce long continue for all his fans :-)

Caryl, Jenna, I appreciate your replies :-)

And I yours

Sorry to hear that you were ill Caryl, hope you get to visit Vegas again to make up for it! :-)

Thank you. Vegas this year more than made up for it :-)

One thing I meant to say before. The first time I saw Meat on the OGWT I knew I wanted to see this man in concert. Yes, the voice was amazing .. but it was the charisma of the performance, the passion that I wanted to see because I had never seen anything quite like it. I have not missed a tour here in 35 years, have not missed a US tour since 2000. The performance has always been stunning to me. There were times in the 80s when Meat was touring relentlessly, and the time when he was developing the vocal cyst, when his vocals were not as he wanted; some nights he struggled at times. I still loved every show, because the passion, stagecraft, charisma were just as exciting .. the performance was marvellous and I enjoyed every one completely. I go to the shows to see a stand-out artist give a unique performance, rather than someone singing a bunch of songs, and I have never been disappointed. I am thrilled when the vocals are superb .. and since the cyst healed Meat's vocals have for me been consistently strong. I am I guess lucky that Meat always exceeds my hopes and more than meets my expectations.

Jenna said:

It's fair enough that some people don't care for how Meat sounds these days, that's their decision and if they don't like it then, as I said there are plenty of other things that they can listen to instead. It seems a bit strange to me to carry on listening to something that you're not enjoying out of choice in the hope that it'll miraculously change into something that meets your expectations.

I can see why people might think Meat will sound like he did on BOOH because that might be all they know of Meat's career but the fact is that he doesn't and those people who are expecting that will end up disappointed.

I agree with that. Meat does not sing like he did in 1978, and won't. Those of us who go for the sheer artistry and splendour of a live Meat show are not disappointed .. thousands who went to Last at Bat were not. The reviews on here, night after night (and not all from people who are considered to never be critical of Meat's vocals btw) bear that out. Imo he still sings better than many artists (even on one of the days he is personally disappointed with how a song went), and remains a tour de force on stage. Long may he remain so .. and those of us who go to have that experience will continue to leave an auditorium where he has performed, uplifted and with another couple of hours of splendour in our memory banks :-)

[TheDoode]

I like that Jenna; it is pretty much down to subjectivity I guess. Though you could argue that it's only that way amongst us - the super fans - and probably not that way for the general, music consuming public. But that's a whole other argument!

Speaking of 'the super fans', Caryl, I've read your vegas reviews and it sounds like you've had a great time. You did a good job, definitely brought it across in a vivid way, which was nice, as I haven't had the opportunity to go (and it's unlikely that I will). I also like what you wrote above about your history with Meat Loaf. You're definitely dedicated, and passionate about both the man and the music :-) and though that might come across as being slightly heavy sometimes, it's definitely not a bad thing at all. But you'd have to agree that it doesn't give you the most balanced, unbiased view at times?

[CarylB]

I think one's liking of any artist and their performance is of necessity subjective as Jenna has said. This forum came about as part of the then Meat Loaf UK Fan Club. I would expect "fans" by definition to be passionate about the artist they follow, and in their reviews to give their own perspective, their feelings which the artist inspired.

I was criticised here some years ago for not giving "balanced and objective reviews" upon which people could judge and decide whether or not to go to a Meat show. My view then, and now, is that is the job of critics. Meat would be the first to say that in every show there are things he wasn't happy with. His commitment means he examines every show looking for flaws. I am a fan. I don't. I simply ride the wave of each performance, and my reviews reflect what I experienced. Of course I am not unbiased .. I am a fan. I have friends who would never go to a Meat show. I also have friends who are certainly not "superfans", would not join a forum dedicated to him, and have attended just a handful of shows over the years, but who have on each occasion had a great time and had no criticisms .. and before anyone says anything, they would tell me if they had because we ARE friends, and would not have gone to see him again were they disappointed or thought he was no longer up to snuff. They might not fly to Vegas unless they happen to be in the US at the right time .. but if he brings the show to London they'll be there ;)

If Meat's shows disappointed me I would not attend them. There are other artists I have seen who have been disappointing (at one I actually kept falling asleep!). I haven't sought out their sites to criticise them, nor posted negative reviews on TM, because it was my disappointment, my subjective expectations they failed to meet; I simply voted with my feet. Other fans at those shows were clearly delighted. Doubtless they will continue to follow the artist of their choice as I do mine.

I'm glad you enjoyed my reviews of Vegas. Meat is a skilled, charismatic and vivid performer and not to write a vivid review fails to do him justice imo :-) I don't think I've seen any review of Vegas here that didn't say the show was great; certainly the fans from this forum who I saw at Vegas, without exception, said on coming out of the theatre that it was brilliant. We are unlikely to ever see a Meat concert again, and if anyone goes to Vegas (or any other theatre where he does a residency) expecting a concert they may be disappointed .. on the other hand they may, like those of us here who went, be bowled over by a show that plays to the full range of Meat's artistic talents, and think it's one of the best things they've seen him do. I believe I said in my last Vegas review that it seems to me to be what Meat's stage career has been leading him to, and I stand by that.

[Evil One]

I don't think I've seen any review of Vegas here that didn't say the show was greatThat may say more about this forum than Meat Loaf's shows. I've seen a few less than complimentary reviews elsewhere.

[Adje]

That may say more about this forum than Meat Loaf's shows. I've seen a few less than complimentary reviews elsewhere.

Yup. It, also, has mainly 1 and 5 star reviews. Like I mentioned earlier. Overall the one star comments are that Meat can't sing (anymore) The 5 star reviewers on the other hand talk about a perfect Vegas show.

On this forum there are -maybe- 3 or 4 people that I take serious, review-wise. I don't care for people who give every show a 10 (or perfect) or a 1 (or only negative comments). Reviews are subjective enough without them :cool:

[CarylB]

That may say more about this forum than Meat Loaf's shows. I've seen a few less than complimentary reviews elsewhere.

Of course

On this forum there are -maybe- 3 or 4 people that I take serious, review-wise. I don't care for people who give every show a 10 (or perfect) or a 1 (or only negative comments). Reviews are subjective enough without them :cool:

I'm OK without the caring, and you'll pass mine by I'm sure :-)

[Julie in the rv mirror]

As you quoted me I'll just clarify .. my point was that they sped up the RECORDING, not the way they played and he sang. I think that does make a difference (except apparently with Bruce, though I cannot comment on that as I have none of his records and have never seen him perform). Meat says he could never have sung exactly like that .. it altered the sound of his voice.

I know they sped up the recording; the effect of that would be to change the speed and/or pitch, both of which a band can also change when playing live. IMO, it doesn't make as much difference as you think, though you can tell me your opinion of Bruce:

Hungry Heart- album version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQSn26zCXYQ

Fairness demands a fan-shot (i.e. "bootleg") version, so here's a random one from YouTube- the quality is good enough, IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRdiAFflMv0 (Bruce doesn't mind if you watch it, I promise! ;) ) The audience always sings the first verse, so you can limit your appraisal to the two verses he does sing, if you like.

I still think people either don't notice, or just don't care.

You might try going to a show one day- They're a lot of fun! :-)

No wonder he's seen as a god of rock and roll ;) You're a lucky fan. May the glory that is Bruce long continue for all his fans :-)

Why, thank you, Caryl, I AM a lucky fan! :-) Thank you so much also for your kind words, which, I assure you, is more than he gets from many of his own "fans" on his own website. Although, he'd probably laugh at the "god of rock and roll" label. ;)

My point (which I think you either missed or are just ignoring), however, was not to sing Bruce's praises, but simply to illustrate that the situation with BOOH is far from unique in music. Blaming it for people's dissatisfaction, is, if I may quote TheDoode:

It's an apologist argument that doesn't really hold up, in my view.

[tonyloaf]

Yup. It, also, has mainly 1 and 5 star reviews. Like I mentioned earlier. Overall the one star comments are that Meat can't sing (anymore) The 5 star reviewers on the other hand talk about a perfect Vegas show.

On this forum there are -maybe- 3 or 4 people that I take serious, review-wise. I don't care for people who give every show a 10 (or perfect) or a 1 (or only negative comments). Reviews are subjective enough without them :cool:

Adje, i know you are a big fan of my wow reviews ;)

[TheDoode]

I know they sped up the recording; the effect of that would be to change the speed and/or pitch, both of which a band can also change when playing live. IMO, it doesn't make as much difference as you think, though you can tell me your opinion of Bruce:

Hungry Heart- album version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQSn26zCXYQ

Fairness demands a fan-shot (i.e. "bootleg") version, so here's a random one from YouTube- the quality is good enough, IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRdiAFflMv0 (Bruce doesn't mind if you watch it, I promise! ;) ) The audience always sings the first verse, so you can limit your appraisal to the two verses he does sing, if you like.

I still think people either don't notice, or just don't care.

You might try going to a show one day- They're a lot of fun! :-)



Why, thank you, Caryl, I AM a lucky fan! :-) Thank you so much also for your kind words, which, I assure you, is more than he gets from many of his own "fans" on his own website. Although, he'd probably laugh at the "god of rock and roll" label. ;)

My point (which I think you either missed or are just ignoring), however, was not to sing Bruce's praises, but simply to illustrate that the situation with BOOH is far from unique in music. Blaming it for people's dissatisfaction, is, if I may quote TheDoode:

The Doode abides ;)

I watched both of those clips Julie. Now I've never been a Springsteen fan, but I have to say he's sounding really good. The quality of that clip wasn't half as good as the quality of the Newbury gig, yet you can still hear that he's in tune, the intonation is there, and basically, it still sounds like the same guy from the record. And that's not to say it sounds identical, but I don't think anyone's really bothered about an artist sounding EXACTLY like the studio recording, as long as it's in tune, in pitch, and a good, strong performance.

[JennaG]

I know they sped up the recording; the effect of that would be to change the speed and/or pitch, both of which a band can also change when playing live. IMO, it doesn't make as much difference as you think, though you can tell me your opinion of Bruce:

Hungry Heart- album version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQSn26zCXYQ

Fairness demands a fan-shot (i.e. "bootleg") version, so here's a random one from YouTube- the quality is good enough, IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRdiAFflMv0 (Bruce doesn't mind if you watch it, I promise! ;) ) The audience always sings the first verse, so you can limit your appraisal to the two verses he does sing, if you like.

I still think people either don't notice, or just don't care.

You might try going to a show one day- They're a lot of fun! :-)



So Bruce sounds like he did on the record. Good for him.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate that he has talent but from a personal point of view, his voice just does not appeal to me. Therefore I'll follow my own advice and spend my time listening to music that I know I will enjoy and allow you to carry on enjoying the music that you enjoy. ;)

[Julie in the rv mirror]

So Bruce sounds like he did on the record. Good for him.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate that he has talent but from a personal point of view, his voice just does not appeal to me. Therefore I'll follow my own advice and spend my time listening to music that I know I will enjoy and allow you to carry on enjoying the music that you enjoy. ;)

I understand that, Jenna, and of course that's what you should do (as will I). I don't take it personally.;)

But once again, that wasn't my point- I just used Bruce as an example, of which I am sure there are many. I don't care whether he (or anyone else) sounds like the record or not, as long as it sounds good to my ears, and I think the majority of the concert-going public would feel the same.

[tonyloaf]

are we talking about Meat or Bruce?? lol

[BostonAngel]

are we talking about Meat or Bruce?? lol

we both must have accidentally found our way over to the Unofficial Bruce Springsteen Fansite, Tony

[TheDoode]

No, it was a comparison to illustrate a point. Give Julie a break :-)

[JennaG]

But once again, that wasn't my point- I just used Bruce as an example, of which I am sure there are many. I don't care whether he (or anyone else) sounds like the record or not, as long as it sounds good to my ears, and I think the majority of the concert-going public would feel the same.

I can see what you mean and that, in a way is the point I've been trying to make.

I thought the Newbury concert was fantastic, it sounded good to my ears and I left the concert happy with what I had just seen. It might not have been to everyone's cup of tea and I'm not saying that they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa. I simply don't think there is such a thing as a right or a wrong answer because it comes down to something that is entirely down to individual perception.

[Ollie241189]

But it was an outdoor concert and it was cold. If I remember reading somewhere, a comment on Facebook I believe, Meat said outdoor shows are alot harder because he battles with the elements and with his voice in the wind, rain, dryness etc

[Julie in the rv mirror]

we both must have accidentally found our way over to the Unofficial Bruce Springsteen Fansite, Tony

Nah, there's not nearly enough bitching and complaining. :roll: :lol:

No, it was a comparison to illustrate a point. Give Julie a break :-)

Thanks, Doode. ;)

[tonyloaf]

No, it was a comparison to illustrate a point. Give Julie a break :-)

:)