Snejk Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Take a listen and tell me what you think!! I made a video of recording ala Jugulator ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 You have the same or very similar accent as the original dude. This is a hard song to sing dude, I think besides the stuff you already know about, it sounds great. The "my" in "with my beauty queen" is very hard, it's a choice to sing a high chest or a low head tone - Both very very hard for me right now. I was a little disappointed that the cool part after the guitar solo wasn't there.. You should record that and post it - because thats the most technical part of the song man! ~Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Thanks a bunch for the reply!! I have always found the ballads to be tremendously easy compared to the up-tempo stuff.. Never mind the extreme high chest Tony pulls off in a lot of his songs, but also the "high energy" sound I can never get... I do agree, it's a shame I forgot that part... I find however, the first stick to be much more difficult, but they are both definitely the most demanding parts of the song.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Thanks a bunch for the reply!! I have always found the ballads to be tremendously easy compared to the up-tempo stuff.. Never mind the extreme high chest Tony pulls off in a lot of his songs, but also the "high energy" sound I can never get... I do agree, it's a shame I forgot that part... I find however, the first stick to be much more difficult, but they are both definitely the most demanding parts of the song.. The part after the solo requires you bounce back and forth between head and chest without and good bridging notes - which I find very alarming lol. I can blast through the part before the guitar solo a TON easier than the part after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 I must respectfully disagree Keith ;P The part after the solo is ALL chest in the original. The higher harmony is also in high chest If you listen when I sing the first bridge, the background "I see you walking hand in hand", is also chest... Tony sings this ENTIRE song in full chest, as do I strive to... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Pulling chest that high is ridiculous - thats why he can't sing those songs like that anymore lol. I would prefer to hit those higher notes with a strong head voice, rather than do damage yankin my chest up there lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Indeed! I fully agree... It's not worth ruining your voice for it... But it's the high notes in songs such as Full Moon that's the main cause. This song is not THAT high, plus you could always overdrive the backing harmonies instead of head... But that's just because I don't like the sound of head notes/falsetto :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Tommy approves of this video. Nice one Snejk. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 Thanks Tommy and wedwabbit!! I have worked alot on that vibrato o_O Never had any to start with but then I heard Michael Kiske and I decided I wanted a rhythmic one xD The airy tone is very artificial, I use it because everyone think it sounds much better My real voice is much more like the chorus, more.. closed... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Well, done, Pat. Good connection on camera, too. I like the Darkness thumb salute at the end. And i thought that looked like a Miller Lite tall boy. And I agree, you have the right voice for this song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devaitis Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Thanks Ron! Not sure what Miller Lite Tall Boy is though xD Glad you both liked it :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Tall Boy is beer in a 16 oz can and Miller Lite is a brand name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Oooh, that makes sense ;D The beer I drank is called "Sofiero", cheap but does the trick ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Over here, the usual size is 12 oz. 16 oz is a tall boy. I've seen some 20 oz. And some companies make a 40 oz single container. Often, the malt liquor companies willl make those. In the bottles, there short necks and long necks. And now, there are plastic 20 oz bottles. However, alcohol content will vary from state to state. Oklahoma only allows 3.2 percent in their beer. Texas allows 6.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Not sure how much an oz is... Why can't you guys just tag along with the metric system? Anywho that's a bit... 3.2 percent is not much... Here we got beer ranging from 2.8% up to 12% Although the latter taste like crap o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I can't drink that mass produced crap anymore like Miller or Bud or any other commercial swill. I haven't in years. I usually don't drink any brews under 7% alcohol either and have plenty in the 9, 10 and 11 range. I've had up to 14% For awhile I was making my own beer, but it's a lot of work and one thing I lack is spare time. But a few stores around here sell "craft beer." There are also a few small private breweries around here with the good stuff. Also there are some brew pubs that make there own beer and serve food. All high alcohol. Yea, I gotta go big....that high power shit! Love me some IPA's!!! :cool: Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Hey Pat, 1 fluid US ounce is 29.57 milliliters. 12 oz (ounces) is 355 ml. 16 oz is 473 ml. 40 oz is 1.2 L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 Hey Tommy... I guess that comes to me when I acquaint more familiarity to a higher rate of alcohol coupled with a different taste... It is indeed something you "learn to appreciate". I'm still a "sparkly drink" kinda guy Ron, there we have the thing... 355ml is indeed a can of "whatever brand" really.. But look at it this way; 10 ml = 1 cl 10 cl = 1 dl 10 dl = 1 l Etc. To me this sounds way more logical, way easier to understand and... I'm drunk as a mofo and I sway back and forth between my inner universe and this particular keyboard. I spell correcly I hope, but this does not excluse the fact that I lack in areas such as.. Well, I'm going to sleep... This took like an hour to type -.---- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Sorry, Pat, I am an old stick in the mud. I was born sometime ago. Back then, videos were hand shadow puppets on the cave wall in front of the fire. The internet was smoke signals from hilltopo to hilltop. Fred Flintstone was still in the business of excavating for swimming pools. And in America, we had SAE measurements. Until my 1996 Chevy 1/2 ton, all my vehicles used 1/2 inch or 9/16 inch for the drain plug on the oil pan. When I got the 1/2 ton, I was stymied. The thing turned out to be 15 mm. And the lug nuts on the wheels were 22 mm, instead of 7/8 inch. And it was heartbreaking when Harley Davidson came out with the V-Rod. The angle was increased to 61 degrees. And the motor was metric. I still yearn for the '68 Shovelhead 80 inch on a Dyna-Glide suspension. My tombstone will probably read "he was hopelessly outdated." :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snejk Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 Haha Ron!! You always bring a smile to my face you old geezer!! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 You old guys crack me up :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 You old guys crack me up Perhaps I overexplained it. It's just, after all these years, even with instruction in school on how to use metric, everything was SAE for the longest time and I am still used to SAE. Maybe "set in my ways" is more like it. But be of good cheer, Tommy. I'm not much younger than you. Do like I do and drink Diet Coke. The preservatives will keep us looking young forever. At least, that is what I tell people. And poor Pat - this thread has drifted far afield from his original intent. Fortunately, he has a great sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daug Poland Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah. Nicely done! Also very nicely mixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts