uhhhh, that realllly isn't something to be proud of dude. like, "wow, i can sing like a girl! oh, and a guy!" if i could do that it wouldn't be something i'd tell anyone about, let alone put up on youtube. but yeah, very/mad freaky.
Quite believable and not all that unusual. Choirs that use only men have long valued those male singers who can sing the soprano parts so the harmony is complete. The top chazanim were also capable of singing soprano--I believe they used to call it using "Kop shtimeh."
SJ, I understand why you would make that argument, and you certainly have a valid point. Matching the "freaky" with the "mad" and the "very" with the "weird" would keep in line with slang staying together with slang and regular together with regular; the irony is that this dude is obviously confused, much like my slang usage. :)
Matching the "freaky" with the "mad" and the "very" with the "weird" would keep in line with slang staying together with slang and regular together with regular;
[is this an apples to apples joke that I'm interrupting? ah well, what can I say, I'm a rude girl who likes to interrupt. :D]
It is also more aesthetically pleasing to the ear! Instead of one phrase having two syllables and the other having four, they each have three which makes them pleasanter to say together in a sentence! "Very weird and mad freaky" sounds SO much better than "very freaky and mad weird."
"Mad weird" in particular sounds really...odd. Kind of like the guy singing.
I actually find the backwards alliteration of mad wierd and very freaky to be audibly pleasing as well, giving them a more slangly associated edge that is quite appropriate. The refined sound of the syllable placement is no doubt easy on the ear, and also apropo being as it is the more proper match up of slang adverb with slang adjective and formal adverb with formal adjective, as SJ was pointing out. No, the inside joke wasn't from apples to apples. I'm just playing with words (and a semi-colon) with an english major. :D Either way you slice it, I'm sure both ways sound better than this guys voice...
I actually find the backwards alliteration of mad wierd and very freaky to be audibly pleasing as well
You may find so, but I disagree. I think too much alliteration when speaking makes one sound like Dr. Seuss. If you're going to insist on sounding like Dr. Seuss when you speak, I'm going to expect some "mad weird" illustrations to go with it.
Having just returned from a five hour rehearsal, I'm going to revise my original statement and scrap "weird," "mad," "freaky," and "very" altogether, in favor of "disconcertingly perplexing"-- or should that be "perplexingly disconcerting"?
SJ - Well, do you find it perplexing that you are disconcerted? Or do you find it disconcerting that you are perplexed? Does the disconcerting nature of the performance perplex you? Or do the perplexity of the performance disconcert you?
With the Aladdin one, at first I'm like "Umm, okaaay..." before suddenly going WHOA. Holy...!!!
ReplyDeleteSorry, not buyin'
ReplyDeleteI am terrified of his chin.
ReplyDeleteweeeeeird!
ReplyDelete::sigh::
ReplyDeleteSuch a skeptic. :P
hooray,
ReplyDeleteretroactive annulment of kol isha!
Interesting. A+ on the lip synching.
ReplyDeleteuhhhh, that realllly isn't something to be proud of dude. like, "wow, i can sing like a girl! oh, and a guy!"
ReplyDeleteif i could do that it wouldn't be something i'd tell anyone about, let alone put up on youtube.
but yeah, very/mad freaky.
yaakov young can do the same thing
ReplyDeleteAnon Mom - not lip synching. It's him.
ReplyDeleteMordy - uh huh, maaaaaaaad freaky.
um, whoa!
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think it's him? I don't think so. I've seen stuff like that before. And, why do I care? I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteQuite believable and not all that unusual. Choirs that use only men have long valued those male singers who can sing the soprano parts so the harmony is complete. The top chazanim were also capable of singing soprano--I believe they used to call it using "Kop shtimeh."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think it's not him? Sheesh people, have a little faith in unusual talent.
ReplyDeleteI've reconsidered, and I conclude it is not in fact MAD freaky. It is rather the standard VERY freaky. And also weird. Mad weird.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think it's not him?
ReplyDelete--Why are we all so convinced this is a "him"?
--i echo anonymom...who cares...i'm out
Mordy, I disagree--it's VERY weird and MAD freaky. C'mon, get it straight.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we all so convinced this is a "him"?
ReplyDeleteOuch. But LOLOL!!
It's him because at some parts, he sounds really scratchy.
ReplyDeleteHE IS FREAKY.
SJ, I understand why you would make that argument, and you certainly have a valid point. Matching the "freaky" with the "mad" and the "very" with the "weird" would keep in line with slang staying together with slang and regular together with regular; the irony is that this dude is obviously confused, much like my slang usage. :)
ReplyDeleteMatching the "freaky" with the "mad" and the "very" with the "weird" would keep in line with slang staying together with slang and regular together with regular;
ReplyDelete[is this an apples to apples joke that I'm interrupting? ah well, what can I say, I'm a rude girl who likes to interrupt. :D]
It is also more aesthetically pleasing to the ear! Instead of one phrase having two syllables and the other having four, they each have three which makes them pleasanter to say together in a sentence! "Very weird and mad freaky" sounds SO much better than "very freaky and mad weird."
"Mad weird" in particular sounds really...odd. Kind of like the guy singing.
I actually find the backwards alliteration of mad wierd and very freaky to be audibly pleasing as well, giving them a more slangly associated edge that is quite appropriate. The refined sound of the syllable placement is no doubt easy on the ear, and also apropo being as it is the more proper match up of slang adverb with slang adjective and formal adverb with formal adjective, as SJ was pointing out.
ReplyDeleteNo, the inside joke wasn't from apples to apples. I'm just playing with words (and a semi-colon) with an english major. :D
Either way you slice it, I'm sure both ways sound better than this guys voice...
I actually find the backwards alliteration of mad wierd and very freaky to be audibly pleasing as well
ReplyDeleteYou may find so, but I disagree. I think too much alliteration when speaking makes one sound like Dr. Seuss. If you're going to insist on sounding like Dr. Seuss when you speak, I'm going to expect some "mad weird" illustrations to go with it.
Identity crisis- perhaps JASMINE and no ALADIN!
ReplyDeleteHaving just returned from a five hour rehearsal, I'm going to revise my original statement and scrap "weird," "mad," "freaky," and "very" altogether, in favor of "disconcertingly perplexing"-- or should that be "perplexingly disconcerting"?
ReplyDeleteperhaps JASMINE and no ALADIN!
ReplyDeleteALADDIN.
SJ - Well, do you find it perplexing that you are disconcerted? Or do you find it disconcerting that you are perplexed? Does the disconcerting nature of the performance perplex you? Or do the perplexity of the performance disconcert you?
Hmmm...something to ponder.
Or do the perplexity
ReplyDeleteDOES THE. Sorry!
Touche Erachet... (pardon the lack of illustration)
ReplyDeleteI happen to find it both perplexing and disconcerting.