I thought it was good.. but I also thought his moments when he was being extremely gruff were forced and not his real vocals. To me, that really stands out when people try to make themselves more gruff/scratchy than they are. But aside from those parts here and there, I liked it (only trying to criticize it more than I would a normal cover because people are saying it's unbelievable or one of the best covers ever or whatever)
I'm gonna play a game of Uno with ya'll. No longer amateurs playing (the furthest thing from it), but it's still a Radiohead cover... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yeR5qUtd5U8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yeR5qUtd5U8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
and again, you have made ZERO argument as to why my musical ear is inferior. by all means Hmm, present an actual argument, and talk like a human, nobody cares that you know big words. Alex Trebek and James Lipton do not participate in this thread. Your subjective blasts are, thus far, are extremely hollow. If you don't think it's a good cover, I have no problems with that opinion. But, if you are going to openly challenge me, I need you to follow it with some substance. Not just some..."you don't understand what 'unreal' is." big words might impress Fraiser Crane, but you need to follow up your attack with some sort of actual meat and potatos, otherwise you just seem like an irritated old hack.
first.. it wasn't an attack.. it was an astute observation.. secondly, one can't reasonably make an argument against.. when there is no reasonable argument for..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NGU_JJroVms&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NGU_JJroVms&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I truly appreciate your opinion. but the dude sounds like puddle of mud covering radiohead. does not compute
I will see your: and raise you: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8jpL_lU3WTA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8jpL_lU3WTA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
it was a hollow observation. you can't make an argument against because your criterion is empty. you're just here to troll. do yourself a favor and respectfully bow out of this conversation. you've already lost, even in a subjective debate.
I recommend you take your own advice.. thus far you've had more disagree with you or just been general indifferent to your summation of this man's "performance".. than agreed.. on your very own thread.. why you haven't even managed to keep your take on it floating.. been dropping like an anchor from the beginning..
do you at least understand the meaning of the word FAIL? learn how to count. otherwise, I'm still waiting for a viable counter as to why I have no understanding of the term 'unreal' in the context of the vid I posted.
I like David Cook's version better: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4P3Ty0p3x84&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4P3Ty0p3x84&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> DD
