hahahahahaha

This is the first song on this list I like!

i kinda thought the ground floor for this stuff was back when RevCo covered Rod Stewart, but maybe that was in another building.

I've gotta admit, I kinda like this one, too. But, I also really liked the original when I was ten years old. So, maybe that's got someting to do with it.

Don't forget that In Flames did a metal cover of Land Of Confusion years before Disturbed did. So they managed to rip-off a cover, which is really saying something.

'...I had the misfortune of seeing Disturbed twice this decade and can definitively describe frontman Dave Draiman's stage presence as "total dick"...'
- Christopher Weingarten

- nothing says 'dick' more than a pop-metal fan writing about how 'suck' pop-metal is, now that he's realized (too late) how 'suck' it's always been.

'...when I saw him do "Land Of Confusion" live he changed the lyrics to "There's too many men, and not enough pussy." I can't make this stuff up...'
- Christopher Weingarten

- not only does this show that Chris was paying attention (which was his second 'Disturbed sucks!' FAIL), I'm sure you threw goats and hi-fived your sideways baseball cap-wearing bromances, d00d, when you heard it live.

Chris, you're a douche.

It's your right not to love a particular band or the "personnage", the frontman, but look, I dont know how old you writers are (probably really old), in 1986 when I guess this song first came out of phil colin's mouth, I was like 3 years old. So there's no way I could have got into it.. not my kind of music, it's way to slow and its just way too 80s. One thing you might have to understand about covers and how they can be useful to music in general, is the ability to transmit it to a new generation of people that otherwise would never have guessed that it was good. I mean before you told me here that this song was from phil colin, I had no clue (probably because this version -to my ears- is waaaaayyyy nicer). You seem to hate covers so much that I'm almost afraid of mentionning a band name that only do covers, and that I hold responsible for openning my eyes to much older stuff, really old songs, you know 50s, 60s and 70s songs that I would have overlooked if I had heard the original version first. This is stuff I came to like because a heavier/faster version had got me on their path. This band is Me first and the gimme gimmies.

You know, I can understand that if you heard and liked an original version on it's first hours of glory, you may think that these old "gems" arranged in today's fashion are garbage. But please don't go thinking that you hold the only truth, music is only a matter of taste. Thus your taste and opinion is no better and no more true than any other out there. I often wonder what is the relevance or music critics in general. why should one care about your particular opinion about a song?

Disturbed are fun to listen to, but they are definitely a joke. When their debut came out, i remember thinking it sounded the nu-metal equivalent of hair metal. it's pure poser rock, and in 09 especially, it's completely out of date, but they are a guilty pleasure of mine.

"Thus your taste and opinion is no better and no more true than any other out there. I often wonder what is the relevance or music critics in general. why should one care about your particular opinion about a song?"

this is coming from a guy that just previously said that he couldn't listen to a piece of music because it was 'too 80's? I'll tell you what critics can offer that somebody like you can't: balance. as well as some objectivity.

Um... Kios... the fact that Dave up there said a song was too "80's" is an opinion, and one that he was not trying to pass off as fact.

He was trying to make a point that music is totally subjective.

This music reviewer is not being balanced, nor is he being really objective.

I'm intrigued, however; what kind of objectivity do you think a reviewer can offer?

Besides stating their opinion of a song, all they can do is elaborate on why...

And, as in this particular case, the reasoning is usually horribly, horribly stupid. He's bashing the song simply because it's a remake, and then tells us everything he arbitrarily hates about Disturbed.

And it's a persons right to state their opinion; just... I wouldn't try and pass it off as being more legitimate than any others.

Particularly in this case.

this is the first song i heard be Disturbed and when i heard this song Disturbed came on of my favorite bands... and this song is good i like is better then the original

I really don't mind this version. Maybe I just HATE Phil Collins that much...

Seether's Careless Whisper is MUCH MUCH worse.
I would never see Disturbed live unless it was in Chicago. They are from Illinois and always give Chicago a great show and phone it in the rest of their shows (for whatever lame reason)

Let me see if I understand...Disturbed was so bad that you saw them a second time? I am confused here: Did you not expect them to suck ass the second time around, considering that they did so the first?

I personally have never seen the band. My comment is more geared toward the expectation that the would miraculously not be tools the second time around.