Swap numb for the resurectionist.....

Message

Technotrancemix · #31 Post by **Technotrancemix** » Sun 07 May 2006, 1:31 am

Neil tries really hard vocally for this track, but I'm not sure it's single material

glennjridge · #32 Post by **glennjridge** » Sun 07 May 2006, 1:35 am

if you are talking about numb I dont think he does any different then say a phil collins did on a song like against all odds. both arent the greatest singers but they pulled their respective songs off IMO.

Janet Street-Porter · Sun 07 May 2006, 1:47 am

"Sussudio"

glennjridge · #34 Post by **glennjridge** » Sun 07 May 2006, 2:27 am

awesome movie. I think it would have worked even without the serial killer angle.

now excuse me,I have to return some video tapes.

skyhigh · #35 Post by **skyhigh** » Sun 07 May 2006, 3:59 am

Hmmm wrote: .. this is the wave you'r arms in the Air with a lighter Anthem..

you can't like the song cos if u light a lighter at a psb gig u must be lookin for them to walk off.

Or don't you know how much they hate the whole lighter thing?

skyhigh · #36 Post by **skyhigh** » Sun 07 May 2006, 4:03 am

Janet Street-Porter wrote:I haven't heard Numb yet but The Resurrectionist is a classic PSB b-side. As Drico observes in his review, it's always been thus. Paninaro, Do I have to?, Your funny uncle, Shameless and We all feel better in the dark are all b-sides! Plus countless other gems.

The Resurrectionist is also b-side material thematically, like Zazou in the night or Don Juan in the Balkans. And the whole Victorian theme complements Neil's garb for I'm with Stupid too.

the Resurectionist is an A-side!

discotex · #37 Post by **discotex** » Sun 07 May 2006, 5:28 pm

ACK! How can people compare Phil Collins overwrought vocals on Against All Odds with Neil's tender and heartbreaking vocals on Numb. I've got to go now...

...must...inhale...

glennjridge · #38 Post by **glennjridge** » Sun 07 May 2006, 9:05 pm

well I mean that both singers are comparable.some seem to be suggesting that numb fails because neil couldnt pull if off vocally.I was saying if phil collins can have a hit with against all odds and not be the greatest vocalist so can neil with his performance on numb. which i think is excellent.

and I wouldnt describe neils vocals as tender on numb. maybe for indefinite but not numb.

Burj · #39 Post by **Burj** » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 12:25 pm

will_castano wrote:What is it specifically that people don't like about Numb- i would really like to understand.

Does it sound too American Idol? Is it because (apart from God Willing) it's the only song on the album with a maximum of 2 syllables per word?

For me it's one of the highlights. On first listening I could instantly get why they planned to add it to Popart & give it a single release.

If they'd have saved Flamboyant over fom PopArt instead of Numb it would have sounded horribly dated by the time Fundamental was released. At least Numb is kinda timeless...

Hillbilly · #40 Post by **Hillbilly** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 7:39 am

will_castano wrote:What is it specifically that people don't like about Numb- i would really like to understand.

Is it because (apart from God Willing) it's the only song on the album with a maximum of 2 syllables per word?

Haha

Yeah, that's kind of odd I think... very "minimal" lyrics so to speak. What a strange language is English: most words are one syllable. I tell you, in my native tongue Swedish you wouldn't be able to write a whole song only using words with one and two syllables (oh, that's three syllables!).

Honestly, I think the "Numb" lyrics are flat.

slurmjunkie · #41 Post by **slurmjunkie** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 9:08 pm

paninaro28 wrote:....and fundamental would be even more amazing.

Totally agree with you - and they should replace "Before" or "Numb" with it on the current tour.

glennjridge · #42 Post by **glennjridge** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 9:26 pm

Jareth wrote:NO. It's fine how it is! The Resurrectionist sounds very dated.

add fugitive to that also. my theory is some people are trapped in the 80's with please.
they want that PSB back so any song the PSB come up with now that sounds like it harkens back to that era is considered their A material.

ugh. those fat analog sounds are so over.I am starting to think the PSB did those songs just to shut up the people who keep saying do more songs like they did in the 80's.

joncool5 · #43 Post by **joncool5** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 9:32 pm

glennjridge wrote:
Jareth wrote:NO. It's fine how it is! The Resurrectionist sounds very dated.
add fugitive to that also. my theory is some people are trapped in the 80's with please.
they want that PSB back so any song the PSB come up with now that sounds like it harkens back to that era is considered their A material.

ugh. those fat analog sounds are so over.I am starting to think the PSB did those songs just to shut up the people who keep saying do more songs like they did in the 80's.

I know what you're saying Pete but at the end of the day "The Resurrectionist" and especially "Fugitive" are examples where a nod to the past doesn't mean looking backwards.

glennjridge · #44 Post by **glennjridge** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 9:55 pm

true. now who the f**k is pete?

joncool5 · #45 Post by **joncool5** » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 10:05 pm

glennjridge wrote:true. now who the f**k is pete?

*bang, bang*

Swap numb for the resurectionist.....

Re: Swap numb for the resurectionist.....