 |
|
Behind Blue Eyes
Plain sailing for me. The remake by Limp Bizkit is totally redundant. If someone doesn't know the original by The Who, he should make up for it as soon as possible.
Limp Bizkit
2003 |
vs. |
The Who
1971 |
| Click on the cover for listening |
|
Click on the cover for listening |
Further information about the bands:
Limp Bizkit
Fanpage |
Well designed Fan-Page about Limp Bizkit.
You can find biographies of the band members, a discography, audio and video downloads. |
The Who
Rarities |
Fanpage about The Who. Lots of rare items, unique photos, autographps and much more. A very interesting site! |
Comments about Behind Blue Eyes:
What a great roesucre this text is.
- Issy, zZnJaGRFNARnsrEo, Luxembourg, 8-.-0.2011 |
I really appreciate free, succicnt, reliable data like this.
- Kaeden, ozPdMCGfkx, Argentina, 8-.-0.2011 |
The original is wonderful but the LB version has a much tighter guitar arrangement and hauntingly beautiful vocals. While very slow and, therefore, not particularly difficult from a technical standpoint it's significantly more precise. The up-tempo break was left out and I think the cover is better for it. That part of the song was relevent to mainly to the original intent to make BBE a rock opera-song as part of the "Lifehouse Project" It's an abrupt change of pace that, when disembodied from any operatic performance is jolting and not altogether pleasant.
- Billy, Oklahoa City, United States, 0-.-1.2010 |
well i for one prefer LBs vocals and music, it is grittier. the who is still awesome and I commend them for writing this masterpiece but its a bit soft in their version, but props to LB for making it hard and messy.
- dave, TX, United States, 7-.-0.2010 |
in response to LimpBizkitForLife:
everyone except limpbizkitforlife knows what music is Stfu noob. The Who> Limp dicksh*t.. thats true the whos 1ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo better than crappy limp.
- TheWhoForLife, tennessee, United States, 3-.-0.2010 |
Just wait 75 years, and see which one is still around.
.....I'd say "hope I die before I get old, but it's too late.
- Bob, College Park, United States, 1-.-0.2010 |
I like Limp Bizkit ALOT. Their cover wasnt as good though. There was no emotion and to be fair, against Roger, Keith, Pete and John, who stands a chance at doing a better cover?
- Jas, London, England, 2-.-1.2009 |
Esta canción es una de las mejores de The Who, un temazo!!!, asik no hay comparación, aunque la version de Limp Bizkit igual está buena y la dio a conocer sobretodo al público más joven.
De todas maneras me quedo con la de The Who... una de las mejores bandas de rock de la historia!!!
- Cristian, Viña del mar, Chile, 1-.-1.2009 |
Limp Bizkit totally pussed out. Only explanation was that they were either going for bucks on the adult contempo stations or that they were physically incapable of doing the best part of the song.
I like a good cover, but the first rule is to bring a balance of reverence and reinvention. They barely do the former and don't even attempt the latter.
FAIL
- WW85, NYC, United States, 4-.-0.2009 |
Limp Bizkit totally pussed out. Only explanation was that they were either going for bucks on the adult contempo stations or that they were physically incapable of doing the best part of the song.
I like a good cover, but the first rule is to bring a balance of reverence and reinvention. They barely do the former and don't even attempt the latter.
FAIL
- WW85, NYC, United States, 4-.-0.2009 |
|
