Nate Ruess

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  inhibitions on Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:05 am

Nate Ruess

moar like I get to go see him for free this September. Dance

Is it worth it? I haven't heard a lot of Fun. But... It's theoretically free so I guess yolo
avatar
inhibitions

Posts : 1921
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  B6 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:10 pm

it should be fun.
(lololol geddit)
avatar
B6
Range Advisor

Posts : 4682
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 19
Location : Desert island

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  inhibitions on Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:11 pm

oh god, the best part is that I had to think about it. Laughing
avatar
inhibitions

Posts : 1921
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  SpiralStatic on Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:45 pm

You guys seriously don't hear the F#2?
Get yourselves some new headphones (or ears)
avatar
SpiralStatic

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-05-08
Age : 27
Location : Hobbits

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  inhibitions on Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:00 pm

SpiralStatic wrote:You guys seriously don't hear the F#2?
Get yourselves some new headphones (or ears)

There's no way I could hear it with the guitar doing that thing. Also, it's not an F#2.
avatar
inhibitions

Posts : 1921
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  SpiralStatic on Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:25 pm

Think you're listening to the wrong part, 1:04 is definitely an F#2 ("Well I know")

though I don't know what I was thinking when I said E2 in the earlier part, must've been drunk or something
avatar
SpiralStatic

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-05-08
Age : 27
Location : Hobbits

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Danerage on Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:39 pm

SpiralStatic wrote:You guys seriously don't hear the F#2?
Get yourselves some new headphones (or ears)
Take your own advice because the F#2 doesn't exist
avatar
Danerage

Posts : 255
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Danerage on Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:41 pm

Actually I totally hear it ROFL
avatar
Danerage

Posts : 255
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  SpiralStatic on Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 pm

Yeah take your own advice and all that

(though can I stop being a pretentious dick for a second and ask what you were hearing that note as before? just find it odd that nobody else could hear it till now even though it seems incredibly obvious to me)
avatar
SpiralStatic

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-05-08
Age : 27
Location : Hobbits

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Danerage on Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:38 pm

It wasn't audible until I cranked the volume waaaaaaaaaay up

at all
avatar
Danerage

Posts : 255
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Moreno on Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

I totally hear the F#2. Just sayin'...

Moreno

Posts : 18
Join date : 2012-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  SpiralStatic on Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:30 am

Thanks, good to know I'm not going insane (or at least if I am it's for other reasons)

I'm gonna chalk it up to people using terribly cheap in-ear headphones with shite bass response, not that mine are particularly fancy but seeing how many people are still using those horrible white Apple earphones I wouldn't be too surpsrised.
avatar
SpiralStatic

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-05-08
Age : 27
Location : Hobbits

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Milksteak_Magnet on Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:27 am

I Don't Know wrote:Live F5 at 0:40!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoqHTnohzU

Are you talking about the voice crack? That's what it sounds like.. Doesn't sound intentional to me. Not that I doubt his capability of going that high, I just don't think that was particularly musical.

Milksteak_Magnet

Posts : 13
Join date : 2013-07-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Moreno on Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:27 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeYF6_bLf-M Falsetto note that sounds in the F5-G5 area at 0:29. I was surprised to see Nate actually singing (if you can call it that, it's pretty rough) in falsetto live, he usually seems to avoid it at all costs. Even on the albums, I think he only goes up to about D5 for singing. I wonder why?

Moreno

Posts : 18
Join date : 2012-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Moreno on Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:52 am

Milksteak_Magnet wrote:
I Don't Know wrote:Live F5 at 0:40!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoqHTnohzU
Are you talking about the voice crack? That's what it sounds like.. Doesn't sound intentional to me. Not that I doubt his capability of going that high, I just don't think that was particularly musical.
He does the same thing on the album version, so even though it doesn't sound very musical, it's pretty clear that he's replicating a specific note.

Moreno

Posts : 18
Join date : 2012-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Lurex on Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:49 am

the harmonies in this and his vocal part sound so queen.
avatar
Lurex

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Young Heroins on Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:39 am

Nate Ruess... great singer! Now that he has the official heroins stamp of approval maybe he can sleep at night.
avatar
Young Heroins

Posts : 4186
Join date : 2013-01-15
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Lurex on Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:51 am


the performance was a bit shaky, but man did he nail some of those highs - and his mouth went to Steven Tyler lengths.

he sounds uncomfortable and weak in his midrange, oddly enough.  he seems more in control and powerful with high notes, around 1:50.  what a tenor Embarassed
avatar
Lurex

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer on Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:37 am

Have you heard his brief cover of "I Will Always Love You"? He is, oddly enough, rather uncomfortable singing around that range, but doesn't sound too bad doing so, maybe a tad shaky.
avatar
R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2013-09-04
Location : IRL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Lurex on Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:40 am

Just pulled it up, but wow - he hit that first note with confidence.
avatar
Lurex

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Lurex on Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:43 am

Damn, I see what you meant.  He doesn't sound too bad up there at all, although a bit pulled.  I feel like he doesn't really know how to sing up there, yet his voice has so much more texture and power up there than it does lower down.

I noticed during his Somebody To Love cover with Queen - which I was not too fond of - how oddly placed his voice is. It's at a bizarre intermediate of a voice that's higher than it's own tessitura. Maybe that's just my weird observation, but whatever.
avatar
Lurex

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Starman on Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:01 am

This guy's voice is incredible!

B4s, C5s and an F5 at the end


C5s at 1.10
2.25 descent from C3-A2
2.30 G5
avatar
Starman
Range Advisor

Posts : 2891
Join date : 2013-12-22
Age : 24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Guest on Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:24 am

Wow that Bohemian Rhapsody cover was awful. I mean really, really bad.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Starman on Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:27 am

full voice wrote:Wow that Bohemian Rhapsody cover was awful. I mean really, really bad.

I agree completely. I think it was more for audience participation than showing they could cover Queen.
avatar
Starman
Range Advisor

Posts : 2891
Join date : 2013-12-22
Age : 24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  xale on Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:25 am

His new solo single has some significant notes in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssVvkfcL9HI

(The official version of the song's on Spotify and iTunes but not yet YouTube, so I just went off of the music video version.)

At 0:42, 1:06, and a couple other times throughout the song, "I" is a B♭4. (Not sure if we're recording those for him though, since the lowest high note in the OP is a B4.) At 2:29 "state" is around a C3, I believe. At 2:48 there are a couple notes around C5 (I think "show" gets up to to a C♯5?). There are a couple more C5s (3:00 and 4:00), and I believe C♯5s at 4:11. The backing vocals at around 4:32 get pretty high (up to a G♯5, I'm saying tentatively), but I'll let someone with more experience note-watching than me confirm that, haha.

Altogether, this song's pretty reminiscent of the stuff he'd been doing with fun., and I think it's a pretty solid song for his first solo single.


Last edited by anniegraves on Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
xale

Posts : 4
Join date : 2015-01-30
Age : 20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Nate Ruess

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum