| catevenus 28.02.2009 12:03 |
Catherine Porter's beautiful new version of the classic Queen song features Brian May on guitar. What does everyone think about it? link |
| Ms. Rebel 28.02.2009 13:25 |
Well, at least far better than that Michael guy. Nice cover. |
| Amazon 28.02.2009 15:02 |
Sorry, but I didn't particularly like it. It actually proves my theory; that IMO STL is a song that nobody gets right, apart from Freddie. George Michael's was very good, but I don't think that anybody who tackles it have the abilties and emotional power that Freddie did. This version is a perfect example of that. Whether Freddie's version struck me as yearning, desperately and with all his might, this version lacks all power. George Michael's version struck me as too 'joyful.' I don' t think he truly understood the song (at least from my perspective.) This version also suggests to me that the singer doesn't quite get the song. Plus, Brian's guitar, of what I heard of it (I tried listening to it twice yet I couldn't finish either time) is nowhere near as superb as it was on the original version. Funnilly enough, the only good cover version I ever heard was in Happy Feet [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] , but that was based purely on the voice, rather than the emotion. |
| Knute 28.02.2009 16:17 |
Amazon wrote: Sorry, but I didn't particularly like it. It actually proves my theory; that IMO STL is a song that nobody gets right, apart from Freddie. George Michael's was very good, but I don't think that anybody who tackles it have the abilties and emotional power that Freddie did. This version is a perfect example of that. Whether Freddie's version struck me as yearning, desperately and with all his might, this version lacks all power. George Michael's version struck me as too 'joyful.' I don' t think he truly understood the song (at least from my perspective.) This version also suggests to me that the singer doesn't quite get the song. Plus, Brian's guitar, of what I heard of it (I tried listening to it twice yet I couldn't finish either time) is nowhere near as superb as it was on the original version. Funnilly enough, the only good cover version I ever heard was in Happy Feet [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] , but that was based purely on the voice, rather than the emotion. This is exactly the attitude I can't stand and soon that video will soon be chock full of similar comments. The objective is not to 'match" Freddie as you infer It's a restructuring of harmonic and melodic material. It's being placed in a different feel to achieve a completely different effect. Close minded people seemingly can't expand their awareness enough to appreciate the effect of this. They are obsessed with pointing out how it lacks relative to it's difference from the original She's not trying to best Freddie or improve upon the original in any way. Not surprisingly the only cover version of this song you approve of is the one most similar to the original. Wow, what a surprise. Let me take a wild guess. You are the type that can't stand it when Paul Rodgers interprets We Are The Champions in a bluesy manner. I suppose he doesn't get it or understand the emotion..whatever the fuck that mean. *rolls eyes way fucking back into head* Now watch as the "Dis sucks she killed Freddy's song" comments come rolling in. |
| Erin 28.02.2009 16:23 |
Great voice, but not my cup of tea... |
| Winter Land Man 28.02.2009 17:22 |
Erin, just say thank-you to them, so you can add the information to your website, queenpedia. [img=/images/smiley/msn/shades_smile.gif][/img] |
| silver_salmon 28.02.2009 19:02 |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
| Erin 28.02.2009 23:19 |
Jacob Britt wrote: Erin, just say thank-you to them, so you can add the information to your website, queenpedia. Pieter had already added it. |
| thunderbolt 31742 01.03.2009 02:06 |
Actually, I kind of like it. I kept waiting for the guitar and harmony vocals to kick in, a la the slow-fast Hammer to Fall. I could see it working out very well in that sense as a live number for Catherine Porter, playing the first couple verses slow like that, then changing more to the original arrangement. Not bad at all, I dare say. I admire artists covering a song who have the balls to change the arrangement that drastically. I love it when it works, like that did. |
| ANAGRAMER 01.03.2009 03:38 |
Great cover- totally different emotional response to the usual renditions - felt like hearing the song for the first time Brill (just to put cat amongst pidgeons - B's guitar is a tad predictable) |
| inu-liger 01.03.2009 04:35 |
I like this one too. Very different. |
| Amazon 01.03.2009 08:25 |
Knute wrote:Amazon wrote: Sorry, but I didn't particularly like it. It actually proves my theory; that IMO STL is a song that nobody gets right, apart from Freddie. George Michael's was very good, but I don't think that anybody who tackles it have the abilties and emotional power that Freddie did. This version is a perfect example of that. Whether Freddie's version struck me as yearning, desperately and with all his might, this version lacks all power. George Michael's version struck me as too 'joyful.' I don' t think he truly understood the song (at least from my perspective.) This version also suggests to me that the singer doesn't quite get the song. Plus, Brian's guitar, of what I heard of it (I tried listening to it twice yet I couldn't finish either time) is nowhere near as superb as it was on the original version. Funnilly enough, the only good cover version I ever heard was in Happy Feet [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] , but that was based purely on the voice, rather than the emotion.This is exactly the attitude I can't stand and soon that video will soon be chock full of similar comments. The objective is not to 'match" Freddie as you infer It's a restructuring of harmonic and melodic material. It's being placed in a different feel to achieve a completely different effect. Close minded people seemingly can't expand their awareness enough to appreciate the effect of this. They are obsessed with pointing out how it lacks relative to it's difference from the original She's not trying to best Freddie or improve upon the original in any way. Not surprisingly the only cover version of this song you approve of is the one most similar to the original. Wow, what a surprise. Let me take a wild guess. You are the type that can't stand it when Paul Rodgers interprets We Are The Champions in a bluesy manner. I suppose he doesn't get it or understand the emotion..whatever the fuck that mean. *rolls eyes way fucking back into head* Now watch as the "Dis sucks she killed Freddy's song" comments come rolling in. Did I just hit a nerve? (Rolls eyes) Let me guess; the only comments that will satisfy you are those that treat this version as if it was the greatest musical performance of all time? Right. Well, please allow me to have a different opinion to you. Is that alright? First of all, I'm not a type. So whatever you may think of my comments (which I couldn't care less about), don't treat me as I'm some 'type' rather than a person who is entitled to her point of view. Alright, let me tell you what I think. I do not want want people to match Freddie; I think it's impossible as I consider him to have been the greatest male rock singer of all time and truly unique. But I do think that certain songs should be sung in certain ways; do you really think that Yesterday would sound good as a rap song or Bohemian Rhapsody would sound good as a Country song? Does my dislking Rolf Harris's version of Stairway to Heaven make me close minded? Well, who knows and who cares. Although, I do find it interesting that you called me narrow minded because I disliked this version. Let me guess, if I liked it, that would make me real open minded? LOL. And for your information, I did not infer that the objective should be to match Freddie, but I do think that IMO he is the only person who truly understood the emotions that the song required; you disagree, fine, but that is my opinion. So don't give me that crap about 'how It's a restructuring of harmonic and melodic material. It's being placed in a different feel to achieve a completely different effect'; well, yes, but I can still dislike it. You also say 'she's not trying to best Freddie or improve upon the original in any way'; well, she certainly succeeded as I don't think she improed upon it at all (the opposite in fact.) As for Paul Rodger's version of We Are The Champions; let me guess, if I say that I love it, then I must be open minded; but if I say that I hate it, then I'm close minded? Well, what if I said that Rodgers is a extremely overrated singer whose version of WATC is as I always expected it to be; entirely forgettable. I guess that makes me narrow minded then. To quote you, *rolls eyes way fucking back into head*! Oh, and regarding the last comment; at least I can spell! |
| john bodega 01.03.2009 08:46 |
For what it is, it's really rather well done. I think they could've gotten more out of her voice and Brian's playing, while still keeping it mostly mellow though. She has a pretty decent set of pipes on her to be sure. |
| Saif 01.03.2009 11:51 |
What I hate 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. But it was just a phase and I got over. When I was obsessed, it seemed like a fact to me and I thought everyone else were idiots for not agreeing with me as it seemed so factual. Later, I realized that I was the idiot for being so narrow-minded to others' opinions since it was all really subjective. As I got more and more interested in metal, I started enjoying Queen less. Honestly, I think Metallica's version of "Stone Cold Crazy" is better than Queen's but that's just my opinion. You can't measure the two versions with a stick and conclusively declare one better. If I listen to a cover of an originally great song and like it, but not as much as the original, I say "nice attempt". But a lot of people here are acclimatized to saying, "Not as good as the original" as if it were some sort of catchphrase. Yeah, maybe I'm spewing nonsense here. What do I know? |
| john bodega 01.03.2009 20:13 |
I think in a lot of cases, people are merely covering their asses when they write 'not as good as the original'. I'd rather put that disclaimer in one of my posts than have some Freddie Cultist coming after me and complaining that I've disrespected the Master or something... |
| Hitman 01.03.2009 21:02 |
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 01.03.2009 23:53 |
Hitman wrote: 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! That was a travesty that should never have been allowed to happen. |
| jadedlady 02.03.2009 00:34 |
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 02.03.2009 05:58 |
I like it. |
| Yara 02.03.2009 13:05 |
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 02.03.2009 13:56 |
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 02.03.2009 17:56 |
Saif wrote: What I hate 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. But it was just a phase and I got over. 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 05.03.2009 10:08 |
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 05.03.2009 11:25 |
Yara wrote: 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. ... I wish half of us were so balanced and sensible in expressing their opinions ... |