Okay then, I posted a few things on the beatles side of this forum about Beatles tribute bands such as "1964", "The Cavern beatles" and "The Fab Four" But there are plenty tribute bands on the globe who pay tribute to other legendary acts.
However, it's the hardest part to find a vocalist who has a matching voice of the guy who sang with the band they pay tribute to. So let's name the guys who succeed in that tough task.
I'll start with Martin Levac from Canada based Genesis Tribute band "Turn it on again" who NAILS Phil Collins' voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcnKXhNz2ZM
The most convincing tribute band singers
The most convincing tribute band singers
"The stronger one gets the stronger one smells." - Son Goku, Dragonball Z.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
That's Dave Brock.
I first saw WC in Fullerton in a small club. Even back then (1989) they were darned convincing. They've gotten better--and he looks more like Morrison than ever.
In early '90, I met Dave again. He was working as a stand-in for Val Kilmer in the Oliver Stone film, "The Doors", and he looked more like Morrison than Kilmer did. Nothing new about that--name stars always trump actors that nobody's heard of--I read for--and got--the Andy Warhol part, only to be bumped before the contracts were signed, by Crispin Glover, who at that time was semi-hot. I got a small speaking part which was later rendered non-speaking on the cutting-room floor, although I pop up in several scenes.
I was (with my blond wig) a very close Warhol; same Polish gene pool, I suppose. Glover, OTOH, took three hours to make up and looked awful. He spent the entire shoot virtually blotto, and in one scene we had to literally prop him up to walk him down a hallway. You can see it on camera.
Dave was a terrific guy to talk to; Val Kilmer was "in character" and entirely unapproachable between takes.
That was my movie career...sorry about the drift.
I first saw WC in Fullerton in a small club. Even back then (1989) they were darned convincing. They've gotten better--and he looks more like Morrison than ever.
In early '90, I met Dave again. He was working as a stand-in for Val Kilmer in the Oliver Stone film, "The Doors", and he looked more like Morrison than Kilmer did. Nothing new about that--name stars always trump actors that nobody's heard of--I read for--and got--the Andy Warhol part, only to be bumped before the contracts were signed, by Crispin Glover, who at that time was semi-hot. I got a small speaking part which was later rendered non-speaking on the cutting-room floor, although I pop up in several scenes.
I was (with my blond wig) a very close Warhol; same Polish gene pool, I suppose. Glover, OTOH, took three hours to make up and looked awful. He spent the entire shoot virtually blotto, and in one scene we had to literally prop him up to walk him down a hallway. You can see it on camera.
Dave was a terrific guy to talk to; Val Kilmer was "in character" and entirely unapproachable between takes.
That was my movie career...sorry about the drift.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
phlemmy
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Bob, I'm far from conservative in most of my views.
I find Michael Moore to be as irritating as Garrison Keillor, and much more influential.
My biggest problem with him is his censorship. There's no doubt he's got a whole lot of valid points to make in all of his films; however, his choice of anecdotes panders to simplistic thinking and half-a$$ed solutions.
Why he picked the Canadian healthcare system to hold up as a shining example, I fail to understand; I think that Australia's public/private system makes more sense, at least on paper. Australians please comment and go ahead and flame me, but to me the only valid comments (including my own) would come from someone who's lived under both systems--USA and Australian.
Michael Moore, like Garrison Keillor before him, is not what he pretends to be. Both men are quite wealthy yet affect "guy next door" personae (can you say, "Dubya"?). Moore still dresses like a bum/clown and seems to search out the worst barbers on the planet. Keillor tries to get special treatment from the St. Paul city government for his real estate holdings, and, like Newt Gingrich and Billy Joel, and (fill in the blank), discarded the woman and mate who saw him through hard times to marry another, more eye-candy type.
I fear that substance AND balance are becoming mutually exclusive in most public discourse.
I find Michael Moore to be as irritating as Garrison Keillor, and much more influential.
My biggest problem with him is his censorship. There's no doubt he's got a whole lot of valid points to make in all of his films; however, his choice of anecdotes panders to simplistic thinking and half-a$$ed solutions.
Why he picked the Canadian healthcare system to hold up as a shining example, I fail to understand; I think that Australia's public/private system makes more sense, at least on paper. Australians please comment and go ahead and flame me, but to me the only valid comments (including my own) would come from someone who's lived under both systems--USA and Australian.
Michael Moore, like Garrison Keillor before him, is not what he pretends to be. Both men are quite wealthy yet affect "guy next door" personae (can you say, "Dubya"?). Moore still dresses like a bum/clown and seems to search out the worst barbers on the planet. Keillor tries to get special treatment from the St. Paul city government for his real estate holdings, and, like Newt Gingrich and Billy Joel, and (fill in the blank), discarded the woman and mate who saw him through hard times to marry another, more eye-candy type.
I fear that substance AND balance are becoming mutually exclusive in most public discourse.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
I wouldn't care if Jerry Lewis filmed "Sicko"--I'm just glad someone is putting forth the effort.
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
-
phlemmy
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
I'm merely in favor of health care.
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
MM put Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba all in equal measure in his movie as they all have complete national health care, most for at least 50 years and their life spans surpass ours in every country, even in Cuba. You walk in any hospital in any of those countries and you get treatment whether you have money or not, there is no health insurance in any of those countries, nor does there need to be. You don't have to show your insurance card like here and risk getting thrown out. I work in health care and will tell you that most people I work with agree with the movie's central points whether or not they like Michael Moore: that the health care system in the USA stinks and is run (into the ground) by the insurance companies and is getting smellier by the day. This movie explodes many of the myths which the insurance industry perpetuates over here, long long waits in ER's: BS, doctors and nurses making little money and being overloaded with work: BS etc. etc. etc.
There are pros and cons to MM making this movie, one of the pros is the he's known and a lot of people will go see it, and one of the cons is that most of them will be liberals which is like preaching to the choir for the most part. If it was a straight documentary without him it would have been more powerful and would have appealed to a much wider audience if it had a chance but no one would have ever heard of it as it would have gotten buried by the insurance industry's BIG money which currently controls healthcare in this country.
Do me a favor, if you guys who are going to rip it apart haven't seen it, please go see it first as it is very apparent that most or all of you haven't seen it.
There are pros and cons to MM making this movie, one of the pros is the he's known and a lot of people will go see it, and one of the cons is that most of them will be liberals which is like preaching to the choir for the most part. If it was a straight documentary without him it would have been more powerful and would have appealed to a much wider audience if it had a chance but no one would have ever heard of it as it would have gotten buried by the insurance industry's BIG money which currently controls healthcare in this country.
Do me a favor, if you guys who are going to rip it apart haven't seen it, please go see it first as it is very apparent that most or all of you haven't seen it.