 sj |
||
|
||
Review: Michael Buble
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Brakn Date: 22 Dec 11 - 02:54 AM This thread says more about Mudcat than it does about Michael Buble - perhaps people are bored or just boring. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Arthur_itus Date: 22 Dec 11 - 01:55 AM Well I and my family watched Michael Buble last night in a Christmas program. We all thought he was very good. Why do people have to slag off a performer publically, just becuase they do not like that person. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Dec 11 - 01:12 AM ·····! just revenge for all the times you switch on the telly and Mr Bubble is grinning back at you······ Big Al ,.,.,. But WHY 'revenge', Al? What harm has he done to you just by being there and doing what he does that so many, incomprehensible as it may seem to you, enjoy & appreciate? Hasn't your telly got on off-switch or a channel-changer? As somebody who, like one above, had never even heard of him before this thread, I can only say after U-tubing that he sounds to me no better or worse than so many others at doing the sort of music I don't all that much care for anyhow ~ tho prefer pre-rock to post-rock on the whole; I should have thought him rather old-fashioned to appeal to enough people to make such an impact and such a living, but I suppose there must be some huge nostalgia market that he is tapping. As to 'talent', if he has the 'talent' to convince so many that he is something special and earn all those million $$$ from it ~~ an enviable talent in itself ~~ then good luck to him. I ask again ~~ what harm is he doing to incur the sort of animus that this thread, and its title, imply? Emma likes him anyhow. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Bert Date: 22 Dec 11 - 12:48 AM You are right Genie, but I would put 'connection with the audience' way near the top. If you can't hold the audience then what is the point of singing? |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 22 Dec 11 - 12:42 AM To say that a crooner is not a singer defies logical description! They may sing soft and low and vocal power may play second place to smooth and mellow but sing they do, and do it damn well! If Jim Reeves was not a country icon his style would be called "crooner". The same goes for Eddy Arnold and Red Foley. Where would you place Bill Anderson? Crooners are singers of course, Bubble included! |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Genie Date: 22 Dec 11 - 12:41 AM As for talent as a singer, vocal power (being able to fill a large concert hall sans amplification) is just one of several important factors. Range of pitch, precision of pitch, ability to "carry a tune" (which is not the same thing as just being on pitch), tonal quality (resonance, etc.), phrasing, interpretation of the songs, connection with the audience -- all these are important aspects of being a good singer. Since people don't always have to sing live in large rooms and since excellent vocal amplification tools are pretty standard these days, I'd say that sheer vocal power (volume) is maybe the least important. If you don't care for Bublé's music, fine. But if his unamplified voice is rather soft (a "crooner"), that seems a poor justification for dismissing his talent as a singer altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Bert Date: 21 Dec 11 - 09:01 PM Gawd, If talent was a requirement, I'd never be able to sing anywhere. Once someone said to me (at a songwriters circle) 'You don't have a very good voice and you don't play the guitar very well.... ....But you're the best one here'. I think it comes down to If you want to sing and if you have a good repertoire and if you sing like yourself (not some Dylan soundalike) Then go ahead and bloody well sing, 'cos no one else can do it for you. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Dec 11 - 08:37 PM But the crucial difference is that both my comment and your reply (by and large) did at least make sense, Perhaps according to structure, yes but does "anyone who sings can hear that he can sing, and probably has just as "big a voice" as the next successful professional mainstream singer who makes a living out of his vocal chords. mean that someone stating, "Mr Buble is a crooner not a singer - ie he needs a mike near his gob to make the voice work" can not sing? |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Acorn4 Date: 19 Dec 11 - 02:10 PM Big voices ? Small voices? Size isn't everything! |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: pdq Date: 19 Dec 11 - 12:33 PM There are many singers who do older Pop Standards almost exclusively. Michael Feinstein, Josh Grogan and Harry Connick, Jr, come to mind. They can play the big clubs in Vegas and entertain an audience of older, more conservative patrons that have just as much right to be accomodated as the Rock, Soul and Country fans. They are an improvement over the sewer sludge that has oozed into Pop music in the last 20 years. We really had a good thing going, as a country, when great Pop singers like Bing Crosby, Jo Stafford, Frank Sinatra, Nancy Wilson, Perry Como and Nat Cole brought people of all backgrounds together. Music right now is dividing people into distinct tribes. Not good for this country's future. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 19 Dec 11 - 09:28 AM Well, to be pedantic again, you're just plain wrong in the first instance. That's a standard use of the English word "anyone": the "[who?]" has already been answered by "who sings". One might equally pointlessly point out that your post above could be "edited" in exactly the same way: "I" [who?] and "might" [citation needed] etc etc. But the crucial difference is that both my comment and your reply (by and large) did at least make sense, unlike the inarticulate comment on Wikipedia about crooners that mildly irritated me in a Lynne Truss-like fashion. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Dec 11 - 08:21 AM anyone who sings can hear that he can sing... I think Wikipedia might edit that to read anyone [who?] who sings can hear that he can sing [citation needed]... |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Tootler Date: 19 Dec 11 - 08:13 AM I think the OP is being more than a little unkind. I'm sure he is an excellent singer and thoroughly professional in his approach. However, his music is just not my favourite style which is an entirely different matter. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Dec 11 - 07:57 AM Although on thinking again. I think opera singers tend to have "huge voices" so I guess it might be relative. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Dec 11 - 07:50 AM That's hardly the same thing as stating that crooners by definition have small voices. Who's suggesting it is? |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,matt miltion Date: 19 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM "Originally it was an ironic term denoting an emphatically sentimental, often emotional singing style made possible by the use of microphones." That's hardly the same thing as stating that crooners by definition have small voices. It's simply saying that, at the time, they were dismissed by some people in that regard. (It's also typical Wikipedia-ese, in that it doesn't actually make any semantic sense. "Emphatically sentimental", "emotional" singing is equally possible with or without a microphone. And what does "often emotional" mean anyway? You can't trust anything writing that inept is telling you.) When you actually look at singers described as crooners - Frank Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jnr - they did not have small voices. Again, while I'm utterly uninterested in Michael Buble, anyone who sings can hear that he can sing, and probably has just as "big a voice" as the next successful professional mainstream singer who makes a living out of his vocal chords. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Big Al Whittle Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:54 AM Possibly hugely talented - but still irritating. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:49 AM From Wikipedia: Crooner is an American epithet given to male singers of pop standards, mostly from the Great American Songbook, either backed by a full orchestra, a big band or by a piano. Originally it was an ironic term denoting an emphatically sentimental, often emotional singing style made possible by the use of microphones. So it would seem to me, "small voices" as compared to opera singers, etc. But I'd think there are plenty of other singing styles where most singers would not make that sort of volume. --- I'd not even heard of Micheal Buble until this thread. I've just had a listen to a few bits of him singing on youtube. Personally, I'd be more inclined to describe him as "run of the mill" than talentless. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:22 AM I couldn't be less interested in Michael Buble's music. But he clearly has talent: he can sing well. And what's this nonsense about crooners having small voices, and needing a microphone? There's some footage of him singing on some TV show, where a post-production engineer added autotune, Glee-style. Utterly unnecessarily, and nothing to do with his singing. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Darowyn Date: 19 Dec 11 - 04:27 AM Originally, I had dismissed Michael Buble as a Sinatra tribute act, but it turned out that I was wrong. OK, so he does do a lot of covers of the classic crooners' songs, but more recently he has recorded several of his own songs, and they are good. "I Just Haven't Met You Yet" has a wonderful melody and a very clever lyric, and he sings it with an energy that he has kept well reined-in when he's been doing the Bing Crosby songs. As far as the power of his voice is concerned, we were watching a TV show last night in which he was singing with Gary Barlow (of Take That). GB stayed within three or four inches of the mic. MB was up to two feet away. That takes power. I would never have expected to be defending a MOR singer, being biassed towards the wilder side myself, but to say that Michael Buble has no talent is ridiculous. He's paid his dues and learned his trade, writes well, has a good, accurate voice, with a decent range and some vocal tricks, and a superb rapport with an audience. As for that insane comment that "those old ballads are pretty easy to sing" Yeah! Right! Let's hear YOU then! We do a few with the band, and I don't sing them. I can do folk and Pop, but the classics, I leave to Karen, the real singer. Cheers Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Big Al Whittle Date: 19 Dec 11 - 04:22 AM nah ! just revenge for all the times you switch on the telly and Mr Bubble is grinning back at you with that gee wizz! I'm so glad i'm a real hunk of sexiness! I think I'll Hug myself! smirk on his clock. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Brakn Date: 19 Dec 11 - 02:48 AM A sad thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Genie Date: 19 Dec 11 - 01:08 AM Jack, I'd say "having no talent" and "not having anything unique" are two very different things. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Eric Armstrong Date: 18 Dec 11 - 06:08 PM Buble is yet another Vancouver boy who has been pushed to international fame by the considerable promtional talents of Bruce Allen (Canada's answer to Col. Tom Parker) who was also the force behind Brian Adams, The Guess Who and Lover Boy. Without this he would be nothing more than a very ordinary singer with a limited range who does those great standards no justice whatsoever. However he surely has made a lot of money Eric Armstrong |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Tunesmith Date: 18 Dec 11 - 02:29 PM No! No! Bing had his "negro influences" flittered through white musicians. God, you only have to listen to him to hear that! |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: tonyteach1 Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:56 PM Just checked crooning on Wikipedia - yep he is in there with Bing and Frank The first crooner was one Rudy Vallee who used a megaphone in the 20s His singing was supposed to induce sexual frenzy among female listeners Never worked for me but then I am an ugly bastard |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: pdq Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:49 PM Bing Crosby had to re-invent his singing style because he almost ruined his vocal cords singing with Whiteman's Rhythm Boys. From 1931 on he is quite a different singer. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: tonyteach1 Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:43 PM Crooners need a mike to make a sound - cannot be heard unaided - may have pleasant voice but no volume and not much carrying power - the ping or resonance you hear in a big or trained voice is not there Singers can make themselves heard in medium sized rooms and project their voices whether trained or not without a mike - stand further back from mike as it only assists How do I know 47 years of singing plus working as a teacher and singing everything from country music to jazz - cabaret - musical theatre and classical stuff |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:23 PM Oh tunesmith! not true! Listen to Bing with Whiteman's orchestra. treat youself yo the Bix Beiderbeck collection - lots of crooners there trying to do negro! Its an oldfield of contention whether Mike Buble rhymes with bells tubule |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Tunesmith Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:01 PM Well, Buble is different. Any singer who has grown up post-Swing era is going to be different than the old crooners. Buble's listening experience is so different than the classic crooners The swing era crooners - at least the white ones- were not influenced by gospel music or earthier blues. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Dec 11 - 12:16 PM He can't even spell Bubble. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,999 Date: 18 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM I have never liked crooners at all. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 18 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM Not really my stuff but I like Buble well enough! Of the crooners I liked Bing Crosby, Dean Martin and Perry Como best. I never liked Sinatra, not because of his voice, but I always regarded him as an arsehole. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Dec 11 - 12:02 PM Prefixes are optional... |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Crowhugger Date: 18 Dec 11 - 11:38 AM Is there a thread title prefix for "invitation to bicker"? |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Dec 11 - 11:13 AM here's an interesting read for a few spare minutes... google "Michael Buble autotune" |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Tunesmith Date: 18 Dec 11 - 10:43 AM tonyteach says, "Mr Buble is a crooner not a singer - ie he needs a mike near his gob to make the voice work" How do you know that? There have a number of singers down the years who had very "small" voices; Karen Carpenter was one, as was Julie London. I suspect Roy Orbison also had a voice that was greatly enhanced with microphone technique. I would be surprised if Michael Buble belonged in that group, but I must say that when he did his "Audience with..." Tv show in the UK, there was a heck of a lot of "presense" added to his singing voice |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: tonyteach1 Date: 18 Dec 11 - 08:39 AM Mr Buble is a crooner not a singer - ie he needs a mike near his gob to make the voice work He also writes music and arranges, I do not like his voice which is different from saying he cannot sing, Me and Mrs Jones which he does requires a fair old range But then I hate Russell Watson Andrea Bocelli - Tony Bennet was lousy on the Royal Variety Show in my opinion |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: fat B****rd Date: 18 Dec 11 - 07:51 AM Don't miss Mickey's Bing Crosby style Christmas tv show tonite, folks. (ITV UK, sorry US 'Catters) |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: Arthur_itus Date: 18 Dec 11 - 07:30 AM To be as succesful as he he is, I would say he was very talented. I suppose some people get a bit jealous becuase they are not as good. |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: MartinRyan Date: 18 Dec 11 - 06:32 AM Shouldn't this be in BS? Why? Just because he "has no talent"? If that were the criterion... ;>)> Regards |
|
Subject: RE: Michael buble has no talent From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Dec 11 - 06:00 AM Shouldn't this be in BS? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Arthur_itus Date: 18 Dec 11 - 05:25 AM Sour grapes Jack. My daughter who is 20, surprised me, by asking for a Michael Buble CD for her birthday last July. She think he is brilliant. She also likes Folk Music, in case you wondered. If you don't like him, why moan. Just don't listen to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: MartinRyan Date: 18 Dec 11 - 05:15 AM I remember my first reaction to hearing a Buble recording some years ago - "Jeez! That's a nice tight band!". Heard him live in Dublin a while back and had the same reaction. For me, his singing, stage presence and persona are fine - but the band are great. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 11 - 04:09 AM I buble has a bigger voice than Willie Nelson, he has kept it well hidden. Buble is pretty mellow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Tunesmith Date: 18 Dec 11 - 03:26 AM Jim Dixon named a number of singers who could sing the Buble repertoire; well, forget Carole King, Nora Jones and Paul Simon. They are just not up to the job. Willie Nelson is an interesting singer, but he hasn't got a big voice. Harry Connick? I'm not a fan of his. Bonnie Raitt? Well, she CAN do anything. And, of course Tonny Bennett is the man! But, Michael Buble is a fine singer who gets the job done with a lot of style and class. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 11 - 03:13 AM I saw him on SNL and I asked myself "Why?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Jim Dixon Date: 18 Dec 11 - 02:11 AM It's all about the songs. If you want to hear those songs, who else is there to sing them? Well, I can think of a few that have the chops: Norah Jones, Bonnie Raitt (but she does mainly blues), Carole King (but she does only her own songs), Willie Nelson (but he does mainly country), Tony Bennett, Harry Connick, Jr., Paul Simon (but he does only his own songs) There are a few more whom I don't particularly like. And there must be some others that I haven't heard of yet. But the field isn't really very big, is it? Anyway, I'd rather hear people talk about what they do like, instead of what they don't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:42 AM Jimmie Fallon likes Bob Dylan and Neil Young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: michael buble has no talent From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Dec 11 - 01:01 AM If Jimmie Fallon likes him, then he must be okay. Wait for the ad to end. SRS |
| Share Thread: |