Hi Lee, since I know you are an avid listener and have been so for decades, I find it surprising if you don't notice the very obvious use of pitch correction in both the studio and the live version. But maybe you do and just find it fits the song, I'm not there, but it for sure is a valid point.

@@annatraustadottir4387 Hi Anna, good to hear from you. It has been a long time since we chatted. There are a lot of different aspects of the performances I didn't comment on. My comments tend to be too long as it is, so I focus on the things I want to communicate and relate to Amy about her reaction. I happen to really like this cover, so I was happy to see how much Amy enjoyed and related to it. There are plenty of other comments focused on the auto-tune (used on the live Conan) and pitch correction (used on the studio/music video), usually as evidence that this isn't a valid cover or that David Draiman really isn't a good singer. Many get this from the Wings of Pegasus analysis, but never seem to mention that Fil thinks David Draiman is a great singer, with great range, timbre, vibrato, and interval accuracy. But that like much of modern recordings, it tends to rely on this technology rather than doing multiple takes to get the starting pitch accurate, since as he says David has great interval accuracy. People also don't seem to mention that Fil also did a video on a 2009 live Simon & Garfunkel performance that is also auto-tuned. I don't like the use of auto-tune and pitch correction in general, but didn't find it worth dismissing these performances. I particularly don't like when it is used to make those that don't really have any natural talent sound good, but in the case of David Draiman I know he happens to be a great singer with genuine talent.

so many of the bands i love, they SUCK live, like they don't take their craft seriously and just slob through it.

@@LeeKennison I understand what your are saying but at the same time not. I don't always dislike heavy pitch correction because it can fit the song and even if I don't find it fitting to the song, the artist can of course have different opinion and using it as a deliberate artistic choice, and really wanting the mechanical effect. But it is difficult being positive about it nowadays, because it is used so widely and without thought, just because it's available. And now it comes to the part I don't understand in your comment. Many say the same as you do, that you don't like it when it is used to make people that can't sing in tune, sing in tune, but if the singer can sing it's acceptable to help the performance or to reduce the time spent in studio. I in fact, don't care so much, if it is used to help singers that have difficulty singing in tune, at least it makes sense using it then. And it can never make a great singer out of a bad one. I hate when it is used when you have a good singer and that is what is done today. And it has very little to do with a singer singing a note or two out of tune. For sure, you can save time, fixing a note or two in Melodyne, in a tasteful natural way, instead of splicing different takes together or doing many takes. But usually the producer does a lot more. They are "correcting" singing that no one hears as out of pitch, nailing the voice to a line in a computer program, not allowing the natural movement of a human voice around a note and between notes. Taking away some elements of the singer's expression and some of the character of that singer's voice. And that is what I hear, and in THIS song, you can hear the mechanical sound, the robotic elements, through out the song. And why should you want to hear that, instead of the real human expression of a really good singer. You are not helping the singer to sound BETTER but making him sound WORSE, taking away some of his talent. In the studio version of this song it is used through the song, probably by using Melodyne or something similar program, and of course David is not singing half of the song out of pitch, it is used as an kind of an effect, an effect that is used in most pop music today and increasingly in other genres as well. And it's boring at best and disabling at worst. For sure it could fit the feeling and mood of certain songs and make sense to be even commonly used in certain genres, but it is used everywhere without much thought, just because. And in this song I find it disturbing, this strangled robotic long notes (the tempo is slow). I realize that people seem to be able to hear this to a different degree and I for sure do not always hear this. But in this song it is so, so, obvious. So I was curious, do you hear how the pitch correction program is used in this Disturbed song, and if you do, do you just find it to fit the song and mood, which could be a valid point. Finally, I would like you to listen to a performance, that many hail as great and many fans think is just natural singing and go to great lengths describing how great the singing is. The singing sounds awful and is extremely unnatural, although I'm sure that all the singers in this group are really good singers. The song is pitch corrected after the fact, by Melodyne, or something like that, not autotuned. So a person went through the song, editing the voices in order to let the singing sound like that. I could hardly listen to it after a friend sent it to me as an example of a great Christmas song and performance. I physically suffered through the song. It was then I realized for the first time, that many, many people do not hear the difference from real human voice and even extremely computerized voice. And it made me sad. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iMt6dLhj0r7RaKs.html The typical pop/rock producer today, would pitch correct to hell the greatest classical singers, singing a beautiful Puccini aria, believing they were improving the singing, but really killing it, and maybe in few years we will all clap along.

@@annatraustadottir4387 Thanks for the detailed explanation on why you feel so strongly about this. I went back and listened to it again with all you said in mind, and I still enjoy the performance, including vocally and without being bothered or distracted by any artificial digital manipulation, whether from using Melodyne or any other pitch correction. It does not sound robotic or mechanical to me at all, even though I know it is pitch corrected. In reality any recorded or amplified vocals is manipulated to some degree. You are never hearing the pure human voice that you hear in an unamplified live performance, such as you might experience with opera. If you have ever used any recording software, then I'm sure you are aware of how differently your own voice sounds through just simple EQ adjustment, without even applying other effects such as reverb. Or even how differently your voice will sound by just using a different microphone. So I am never expecting a completely pure and unaltered vocal. Although I do understand that the negative qualities that you say you are experiencing (robotic and mechanical sounding) is on a different level than EQ and microphone choices, just pointing out that nothing we hear through recording is pure. This is even more the case today, since just about everything we listen to since the 90s is digitally recorded or stored at some point in the process. Even if we ultimately listen to it on an analog vinyl recording. It is this digitally recorded image that allows something like pitch correction to adjust the pitch, while retaining the other qualities of the voice, so theoretically keeping it more natural sounding, without sounding artificial or robotic. Even Fil at the Wings of Pegasus wasn't critical on the quality of the resulting vocals, just the fact that it had been pitch corrected. He even made the point that he could have achieved the same result if they had done additional takes. He didn't mention it sounding robotic or mechanical. He is generally less critical of pitch-correction that is applied afterwards in the studio, than he is with auto-tune which is applied automatically, more often in live performances. He has shown how auto-tune really does make the vocals sound more artificial and manipulated, removing the human characteristics. Whereas carefully applied pitch correction can retain many of the other vocal characteristics. Bottom line, I really enjoy this performance, primarily as an artistic statement, but I also enjoy the vocal and musical performance. I am not going to stop enjoying it, even if people tell me I shouldn't for a variety of reasons. Disturbed is certainly living up to their name, by disturbing a lot of people. Perhaps I am not as discerning as people thing I should be, but I go with what I like, not what others say I should like. Granted, as I have gotten older my hearing has deteriorated and I have been spoiled by the convenience of digital music, and rarely listen to my better quality vinyl records. I used to be a hardcore audiophile, both in terms of equipment and recordings. One thing I learned through that process is that much of what we hear is psychological. We hear what we want to hear, which is why you should always do blind comparisons when evaluating two things. Since you feel so strongly about this, you will probably never be able to not hear the mechanical and robotic quality. Whereas I don't even notice it, which again may be due to my lack of discernment. I'm just glad that I can enjoy this for what it means to me.

This comment has been regurgitated in various forms since the performance first aired. If you've read it once, you've read it a hundred times.

@@sillysausage4549 aye, good for you pal.

Greta Thunberg arranged it!

@@sillysausage4549pretty reflected of what is happening. Basically a tantrum.

Quite nicely addressed!

Wonderful thought. The Disturbed version is truly beautiful and powerful but perhaps it makes such an impact because of the S&G version from so many years before. They keep it just close enough to the original to almost constantly remind you of it throughout. Where S&G were almost melancholy, suddenly Disturbed is more angry and forceful.

Oh do fuck off. You just so happened to 'always' think the exact same thing that a thousand other people have ripped off from a comment on the original Disturbed YT video??? Word for word?

And the PTX version that their is still hope.

I like to add: it did where the Metallica cover of Dire Straits failed miserably for me.

Good cover from disturbed. Another cover you canister to is Amazing grace by Dan Vasc.

Which is perfect, the real original or the remix most people believe to be the original? 😊

@@HardcoreIPA Do you really care?

@@stanleymyrick4068 yeah in a way. I was asking myself if the perfect version was actually Simon and Garfunkel's original, or the one that their producer re-recorded without even telling them, projecting the song, and the duo, into fame.

maestro shit here!

David is definitely highly educated , well spoken and articulate. He also takes very good care of himself; meaning he doesn’t fit the stereotype of metal guys constantly partying. He’s also very respectful to his religion and family. Although he didn’t become a Cantor as his father and grandfather, David does not have any tattoos and when he visits his family he removes his piercings. He’s a really caring person.

Although I fully agree with your point, even if Paul Simon didn't like the cover: as long as the covering artist gets the Ok from the owner of the publishing rights (ideally that should always be the writers of the song) it's perfectly fine to cover great songs and add your own artistic skills. If covers would be a 'no no' we wouldn't have great songs like Johnny Cash's version of Hurt or Jimmy Hendrix "all along the watchtower" and so many other great covers. Of course there are covers that are terrible and kind of "rapes" the original: but as long as you don't steal a song (and forget to pay the royalties and acknowledging the original) covers are important as well

@@jantonkens9820 if I'm not mistaken, you can always cover a song. You just end up having to pay a fee. Can you imagine if you needed someone's permission just to sign a song? I just looked it up and it's called a "Compulsory Mechanical License" (you can make your own recording of the song but you have to pay a fee) but there are conditions such as the original artist must have released a recording, and you can't change the words. And there's a different license if you release a video. If you perform a cover live, then the venue would typically have a license for that already. A parodies are covered by fair use. There's a lot more to it, but basically you don't need permission directly from the original artist to make a cover.

Hey Lee! I have to comment on this because I see that many people are annoyed by this cover and I simply don't understand why. As I've written to Amy, this is one of the best covers ever made, to me, and in my opinion it did more than a justice to the original.

@@jovana_r Hey Jovana! Great to see you. I was hoping you would see this one. I also love this cover and don't understand the hostility to it either. Not only did Paul Simon appreciate it, but Amy herself really liked and appreciated it, including liking David Draiman's voice and the intensity of the rage he expresses. She pointed out a lot of the qualities that make his voice great. I certainly love and appreciate both the original and this cover. It doesn't have to be one or the other with me. I can like them both for different reasons. In a sense, David Draiman achieved his goal (as reflected in the band's name) of disturbing people. Sometimes people need to be disturbed in order to wake them up.

@@LeeKennison Completely agree. Unfortunately, being disturbed is the best way to wake up.

Great post!

NOTE: that David Draiman was really sick and had a fever for the Conan live performance and I heard he was not pleased with his performance, being the perfectionist that he is I can understand why he felt that way. However, the production as a whole performance was amazing and he voice was EXCEPTIONAL! I loved it. So POWERFUL and EMOTIONAL! - Disturbed "The Sound Of Silence" 03/28/16 | CONAN on TBS Team Coco Diane ❤

Nah

It's also the highest compliment that can be made to the song writer, musicians, band etc.

It was kind of intended but for T, it's just that technology has advanced.

It's true. And it's magnificent in the rare times that they converge! Metallica's first S&M album is my absolute favorite of theirs; them in their prime, performing with the outstanding Michael Kamen led San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. The whole album is perfection, they complement each other beautifully.

'Land of Confusion' is a Genesis song.

Well the song does say the message was ignored

Well, since both studio and the Conan version are obviously very pitch corrected, it does not show his talent clearly, but he is a very good singer.

@@annatraustadottir4387 Thanks for calling that out. It's so overdone as to be pathetic. IMHO. Doesn't even sound human.

Also, whether or not you believe in spirit guides, I recently discovered that I am blessed to have some and decided to start listening to them. They actually led me to Disturbed and David Draiman on KZfaq and their cover B&W 4K video rendition of Simon and Garfunkels The Sound of Silence. My spirit guides are screaming at me to tell all of you that if we lose our Democracy we will lose our freedom to listen to the music of our choice like Disturbed! If THEY can ban our books, THEY can ban/outlaw our music 🎶! Love you all, Diane ❤

Agreed! Rare in reaction videos. Delightful

Applause for this. One of those comments I couldn't realize in my own head until I saw written down. 😊😊

Well said! This really helps folks understand what’s happening while he sings. At least those of us not trained in vocals. I grew up a musician so I understand music theory and composition but nothing about vocals. I do know that David still uses a vocal coach who helps people with using distortion in a healthy way. Plus being trained as a Cantor when he was young certainly helped too. Anyhoo, thanks for the explanation!! 😊

I hate to admit i had no idea land of confusion was a cover. 😅

Ooh, I'll have to look that one up. In trade, have you heard Katzenjammer 's cover of LoC? It's delightfully... different. =:o}

@@RaXXha I personally prefer the Genesis version of LoC.

Missed a 3rd. They also covered Sting's If I Ever Lose My Faith in You.

I can't have an honest opinion of their 'Land of Confusion' cover at this point - it was PLAYED SO DAMN MUCH on the radio that it's almost hard for me to listen to at this point(even after all these damn years LOL). Even though I really like the cover.

It is up there with the Hurt cover by Johnny Cash.

If I remember correctly, Draiman was sick right before he sang on Conan. I don’t remember if that one was also pitch corrected. I know I listened to both several times and I too prefer the performance on Conan. Which version did Paul Simon hear that prompted him to call David with strong praise, ending with saying, you own this now (I may be paraphrasing …)? I love Paul Simon; I love Simon & Garfunkel. I’m a great lover of most genres, and I was an impressionable young teen who heard so much great folk rock and classic rock upon release. And I never stopped …punk, post punk, new wave, grunge . . . and classical since a child. I’ll be 70 end of month and have gone to hundreds of concerts, mostly in small- to medium-sized venues. A fortunate New York City girl. By the way, David Draiman’s musical training and life experience is fascinating; and he has been lead singer of the band Disturbed for 30 years.