Emancipation89 said:

RKJCNE said:

TylerHippie said:

He ranked 30th or 28th on best singers overall.

A list is irrelevant, since the people who voted on a poll have never heard every singer that has existed either. Most probably only listen to one style of music, because I never see opera, Broadway, African, Mexican, or jazz singers on these lists. If you need opinions by other people to validate yours, then it isn't valid in the first place. You can find people to agree on anything, like the earth is flat, that humans are more important than anything else, and that there is a "pure" race. Doesn't make it so.

MickyDolenz said:

TylerHippie said:

He ranked 30th or 28th on best singers overall.

A list is irrelevant, since the people who voted on a poll have never heard every singer that has existed either. Most probably only listen to one style of music, because I never see opera, Broadway, African, Mexican, or jazz singers on these lists. If you need opinions by other people to validate yours, then it isn't valid in the first place. You can find people to agree on anything, like the earth is flat, that humans are more important than anything else, and that there is a "pure" race. Doesn't make it so.

Buddy, read my two previous post. I knowing what I'm doing.

ok, my first thought upon seeing this thread was PUHleeze! Hell to the Naw! Etc. but after reading a couple of posts and acknowledging that I'm not a Queen fan and haven't heard anything outside of We Are the Champions, Another One BTD, and Bohemian Rhapsody, I could be missing out on what Freddie was capable of.

However, he'd still be in line behind a few people for me (Stevie, Donny, Prince, George), with that said, what would you all say is his most SOULFUL song, that's a pre-req for me in response to the OP

datdude said:

ok, my first thought upon seeing this thread was PUHleeze! Hell to the Naw! Etc. but after reading a couple of posts and acknowledging that I'm not a Queen fan and haven't heard anything outside of We Are the Champions, Another One BTD, and Bohemian Rhapsody, I could be missing out on what Freddie was capable of.

However, he'd still be in line behind a few people for me (Stevie, Donny, Prince, George), with that said, what would you all say is his most SOULFUL song, that's a pre-req for me in response to the OP

This is the first thing that came to my head.

TylerHippie said:

MickyDolenz said:

A list is irrelevant, since the people who voted on a poll have never heard every singer that has existed either. Most probably only listen to one style of music, because I never see opera, Broadway, African, Mexican, or jazz singers on these lists. If you need opinions by other people to validate yours, then it isn't valid in the first place. You can find people to agree on anything, like the earth is flat, that humans are more important than anything else, and that there is a "pure" race. Doesn't make it so.

Buddy, read my two previous post. I knowing what I'm doing.

You're spreading negativity just because you want something to amuse you. I figured that out from the title of this thread. You want a bunch of people arguing over something that doesn't mean anything in the first place. Instead of claiming that someone is the best, you could have just as easily made a thread about Queen or Freddie Murcury's music. That would be more constructive than this silly "My singer is better than your singer, your singer is no good" topic. You figure that people will disagree with your statement, and thus visit your thread and respond. You're interested in numbers, that's all. It surves no purpose. Each person is going to claim their favorite is the best, and it proves nothing, except that people want to argue. Just like the gossip threads in this section get more views/responses than the ones that are actually about music.

MickyDolenz said:

TylerHippie said:

Buddy, read my two previous post. I knowing what I'm doing.

You're spreading negativity just because you want something to amuse you. I figured that out from the title of this thread. You want a bunch of people arguing over something that doesn't mean anything in the first place. Instead of claiming that someone is the best, you could have just as easily made a thread about Queen or Freddie Murcury's music. That would be more constructive than this silly "My singer is better than your singer, your singer is no good" topic. You figure that people will disagree with your statement, and thus visit your thread and respond. You're interested in numbers, that's all. It surves no purpose. Each person is going to claim their favorite is the best, and it proves nothing, except that people want to argue. Just like the gossip threads in this section get more views/responses than the ones that are actually about music.

1.Pretty much, yeah. I do things my way. If you don't like it...don't come in this thread.

2.How did you know? Your dead on.

datdude said:

ok, my first thought upon seeing this thread was PUHleeze! Hell to the Naw! Etc. but after reading a couple of posts and acknowledging that I'm not a Queen fan and haven't heard anything outside of We Are the Champions, Another One BTD, and Bohemian Rhapsody, I could be missing out on what Freddie was capable of.

However, he'd still be in line behind a few people for me (Stevie, Donny, Prince, George), with that said, what would you all say is his most SOULFUL song, that's a pre-req for me in response to the OP

they were a rock band, not a soul band, so that's like asking miles davis what his most trance like record is like

checkout the first greatest hits album. it's a stonker

key tracks...

bohemian rhapsody

killer queen

another one bites the dust

under pressure

crazy little thing called love

we are the champions

we will rock you (as covered by prince as the superbowl)

and then you have...

it's a kind of magic

radio gaga

hammer to fall

that are on the second hits album

Yeah it might've been better if a Freddie Mercury/Queen appreciation thread was created instead of this because I could tell the topic would turn out this way. Who knows if Tyler was trying to bring "negativity" to it or was otherwise was just upset that other people said "no but this person is better". Like I said earlier in this thread, Freddie was a genius at what he did vocally, musically, lyrically and onstage.

unique said:

datdude said:

ok, my first thought upon seeing this thread was PUHleeze! Hell to the Naw! Etc. but after reading a couple of posts and acknowledging that I'm not a Queen fan and haven't heard anything outside of We Are the Champions, Another One BTD, and Bohemian Rhapsody, I could be missing out on what Freddie was capable of.

However, he'd still be in line behind a few people for me (Stevie, Donny, Prince, George), with that said, what would you all say is his most SOULFUL song, that's a pre-req for me in response to the OP

they were a rock band, not a soul band, so that's like asking miles davis what his most trance like record is like

checkout the first greatest hits album. it's a stonker

key tracks...

bohemian rhapsody

killer queen

another one bites the dust

under pressure

crazy little thing called love

we are the champions

we will rock you (as covered by prince as the superbowl)

and then you have...

it's a kind of magic

radio gaga

hammer to fall

that are on the second hits album

Exactly. A rock band with elements of glam, protopunk, heavy metal, opera, musicals, new wave, funk, gospel, pop, etc. They covered a lot of bases in the 20 years they were together. It wasn't just Freddie either, you had Roger Taylor (great drummer), Brian May (loved his guitar work, his voice wasn't too bad either), and John Deacon (some of his bass riffs especially in "Another One Bites the Dust" was classic). Then you have Freddie Mercury of course. Also I think a better question would be "is Queen the best group?" But I don't think you'll get a lot of people agreeing to it since some of them don't prefer their album material, but more what was on the greatest-hits sets, their best-selling albums to date.

Timmy84 said:

This thread has reached the stupidity of congress.

I mean seriously none of you have shown any empirical evidence on why you think these vocalist are superior.

It's all subjective.

There are many factors that quantify a good vocalist.

Range is just one of them

The ability to sing harmonic intervals such as 7ths and 9ths.

The ability to chromaticize a melody

The ability to improv a melody,

The ability to recover from a slip up (cause everyone has slip ups)

The ability to change timbre of vocal tone.

The ability to sing staccato and legato and interchange between the two

The ability to utilize dynamics.

Sing chromatic harmonies.

I can go on and on.

And unless you have a doctorate in music...

I think all of yall just need to shut the fuck up.

I have a B.F.A. in music, and I still can't say whose a better vocalist.

too much research would be needed.

One thing I do know.

that the greatest male vocalist will not be in any pop genre.

sorry no...

The only person who might be an exception was Jeff Buckley

and thats because he was trained in classical, jazz and Qawwali Sufi singing

You know why?

Because the best singers are able to abandon the concept of the 12 tone scale and reach semi tones within semi tones.

Fluctuating a melody without any type of accompaniment except for a drone.

Thats vocal mastery...

and Jeff wasn't the best out there...

But neither Freddie, Mike, or most pop singers can do that.

[Edited 8/6/11 13:03pm]

Timmy84 said:

Yeah it might've been better if a Freddie Mercury/Queen appreciation thread was created instead of this because I could tell the topic would turn out this way. Who knows if Tyler was trying to bring "negativity" to it or was otherwise was just upset that other people said "no but this person is better". Like I said earlier in this thread, Freddie was a genius at what he did vocally, musically, lyrically and onstage.

i don't know why the MJ floons have to infect so many threads with their shite. they should all fuck off to a MJ webshite if they want to chat about like like the sun shines out his fucking arse. it's a shame you can speak openly and honestly about any artist here, in particular prince, but when it comes to MJ all the fucking arseholes come out the woodwork

i mean for fuck sake, the guy was a junkie for the last 3 decades of his life and took to miming onstage as he couldn't pull off a whole concert without miming and his fucking dickhead fans try and say he's the best vocalist? for fucksake. what next? they'll be claiming he's completely hetro and loved the pussy

he made a couple of great albums with quincy, the final one was patchy, but everything turned to shit after he stopped working with quincy, burned his fucking head, turned to drugs, got a monkey as a best friend and took to sleeping with young boys. only a fucking idiot would do something like that, and only a fucking moron would follow such an idiot. thank fuck prince didn't go down the toilet like that. a fucking waste of talent

seriously his die hard fans are the biggest bunch of fucking knobends going, and they fuck things up all over the fucking internet jumping on the slightest mention of his name on forums

just imagine a wacko.org that was a mirror of the org but MJ focused where people were real and said what they mean, and spent the last 25 years moaning about how come he hasn't made a decent album since thriller, and rips his fans off and doesn't stop playing the hits and all the same shit we talk about prince. how fucking great would that be? just slagging off the shit music on one side and dreaming about the possibility of some old shit coming out the vaults from when he was good in the early 80s. whilst the madonna fans can be a bit fucking loopy at times, they aren't a fucking patch on the jacko mentalists

when you listen to and watch the music and videos of freddy play live, a sane man couldn't possibly try and say MJ was a better vocalist. and he knew how to work a crowd too

HermesReborn said:

This thread has reached the stupidity of congress.

I mean seriously none of you have shown any empirical evidence on why you think these vocalist are superior.

It's all subjective.

There are many factors that quantify a good vocalist.

Range is just one of them

The ability to sing harmonic intervals such as 7ths and 9ths.

The ability to chromaticize a melody

The ability to improv a melody,

The ability to recover from a slip up (cause everyone has slip ups)

The ability to change timbre of vocal tone.

The ability to sing staccato and legato and interchange between the two

The ability to utilize dynamics.

Sing chromatic harmonies.

I can go on and on.

And unless you have a doctorate in music...

I think all of yall just need to shut the fuck up.

I have a B.F.A. in music, and I still can't say whose a better vocalist.

too much research would be needed.

One thing I do know.

that the greatest male vocalist will not be in any pop genre.

sorry no...

The only person who might be an exception was Jeff Buckley

and thats because he was trained in classical, jazz and Qawwali Sufi singing

You know why?

Because the best singers are able to abandon the concept of the 12 tone scale and reach semi tones within semi tones.

Fluctuating a melody without any type of accompaniment except for a drone.

Thats vocal mastery...

and Jeff wasn't the best out there...

But neither Freddie, Mike, or most pop singers can do that.

[Edited 8/6/11 13:03pm]

I've heard Jeff sing on so many songs of different genres on YouTube it's fucking ridiculous. He showed real depth in his songs. His early death robbed what could've been IMHO.

^^^Is insulting people really necassary? What's it to you what someone thinks about their favorite singer? Calling people names and making derogatory comments about their performer that they like is serving no purpose. You nor they know anything about Michael Jackson, Prince, Freddie, or anybody else's life. Only gossip and media stories. Do you know these people personally or hung out with them? If so, then maybe you can comment. If not, you should have nothing to say.

MickyDolenz said:

^^^Is insulting people really necassary? What's it to you what someone thinks about their favorite singer? Calling people names and making derogatory comments about their performer that they like is serving no purpose. You nor they know anything about Michael Jackson, Prince, Freddie, or anybody else's life. Only gossip and media stories. Do you know these people personally or hung out with them? If so, then maybe you can comment. If not, you should have nothing to say.

exactly. the way some of the fucking MJ fans go on about him, you'd think they were related to him or some shit

for fuck sake, pretty much none of those fans have even met him, and a fucking ridiculous amount haven't even seen him live, but they defend every last fart of his as if some cunt was calling their mother a whore. what the fuck is up with that? it's just fucking mental. if you want to be like that, fuck off to a MJ fansite. no-one even talks about prince like that here (at least no-one who is serious or taken seriously)

HermesReborn said:

This thread has reached the stupidity of congress.

I mean seriously none of you have shown any empirical evidence on why you think these vocalist are superior.

It's all subjective.

There are many factors that quantify a good vocalist.

Range is just one of them

The ability to sing harmonic intervals such as 7ths and 9ths.

The ability to chromaticize a melody

The ability to improv a melody,

The ability to recover from a slip up (cause everyone has slip ups)

The ability to change timbre of vocal tone.

The ability to sing staccato and legato and interchange between the two

The ability to utilize dynamics.

Sing chromatic harmonies.

I can go on and on.

And unless you have a doctorate in music...

I think all of yall just need to shut the fuck up.

I have a B.F.A. in music, and I still can't say whose a better vocalist.

too much research would be needed.

One thing I do know.

that the greatest male vocalist will not be in any pop genre.

sorry no...

The only person who might be an exception was Jeff Buckley

and thats because he was trained in classical, jazz and Qawwali Sufi singing

You know why?

Because the best singers are able to abandon the concept of the 12 tone scale and reach semi tones within semi tones.

Fluctuating a melody without any type of accompaniment except for a drone.

Thats vocal mastery...

and Jeff wasn't the best out there...

But neither Freddie, Mike, or most pop singers can do that.

well said

i also studied music at college and came top of my class with top marks, but i studied contemporary popular music which was the study of popular music such as pop, rock and jazz, with some study into other styles of music such as classical and various world/ethnic styles

as i mentioned before, the best vocalist is likely to be someone that no-one here has even heard of

you can set personal preferance aside, well at least some people can, and look at things objectively without bias, discrimination and favouritism, and look at some of the more technical aspects. and whilst most people wouldn't have a clue what those were, any idiot should be able to summise that an artist who can perform vocals live over one that resorts to miming is the better artist, thus anyone that says different isn't impartial

unique said:

dm3857 said:

you are sadly mistaken.. go look at footage from the bad tour, EVERY song i done live, not only is he singing live but also dancing his hard working butt off at the same time..Go look at the dangerous tour, michael sag 9 out of the 14 songs live..songs that were not live were:jam,smooth criminal,thriller,will you be there,and SOME of man in the mirror was live, some was not.. so more that 75% of that tour was live as well, the HIStory tour was mostly lip synched due to michael's bad case of laryngitis.. so your are very incorrect..

freddy is a great singer, IMO michael is the greatest.. im in no way trying to change your opinion, im simply stating that when you said " for someone who some claim to be such a great vocalist, he wasn't able to sing live during his live solo concerts" that was a EXTREMELY false statement..

was it fuck. yet again another fucking MJ loonatic will twist words

at least you admit he did lipsynch during his shows. and based on the footage from this is shit, it looked like he was about to try it again

btw he mimed during at least thriller during the bad tour. you can tell when he's singing live and he usually sounds shit and out of breathe compared to the prerecorded vocals. same with madonna and the rest of the shouters. you notice people tend to shout rather than sing when they are out of breathe? interestingly prince NEVER does that, no matter how energetic his performances. watch some of the 90-92 era stuff when the game boys are throwing him about and he still returns to the mic and sounds the same. he must have excellent cardio vasclular and breath control

to say that about this is it is not fair, those are rehearsals..if you look at the dangerous world tour rehearsals, and the rehearsals from this is it..michael is FAR more energetic..and no, thriller was indeed live on the bad tour..im in no way trying to say that freddy or prince aren't good, because of coarse they are!! but michael was a great LIVE performer,

if you don't wanna watch this whole clip watch from 3:15-

he is IMO the GREATEST live performer..of coarse thats biased.. but.. mike still had at 50.

Timmy84 said:

HermesReborn said:

This thread has reached the stupidity of congress.

I mean seriously none of you have shown any empirical evidence on why you think these vocalist are superior.

It's all subjective.

There are many factors that quantify a good vocalist.

Range is just one of them

The ability to sing harmonic intervals such as 7ths and 9ths.

The ability to chromaticize a melody

The ability to improv a melody,

The ability to recover from a slip up (cause everyone has slip ups)

The ability to change timbre of vocal tone.

The ability to sing staccato and legato and interchange between the two

The ability to utilize dynamics.

Sing chromatic harmonies.

I can go on and on.

And unless you have a doctorate in music...

I think all of yall just need to shut the fuck up.

I have a B.F.A. in music, and I still can't say whose a better vocalist.

too much research would be needed.

One thing I do know.

that the greatest male vocalist will not be in any pop genre.

sorry no...

The only person who might be an exception was Jeff Buckley

and thats because he was trained in classical, jazz and Qawwali Sufi singing

You know why?

Because the best singers are able to abandon the concept of the 12 tone scale and reach semi tones within semi tones.

Fluctuating a melody without any type of accompaniment except for a drone.

Thats vocal mastery...

and Jeff wasn't the best out there...

But neither Freddie, Mike, or most pop singers can do that.

[Edited 8/6/11 13:03pm]

I've heard Jeff sing on so many songs of different genres on YouTube it's fucking ridiculous. He showed real depth in his songs. His early death robbed what could've been IMHO.

you are so right.

Jeff Buckley was like a plateau that was reached in pop music and what can be done creatively

I mean the guy did everything

The ability to write songs that rivaled Lennon.

To play and sing grunge that was better then Nirvana.

the ability to sing classical, opera and jazz, better than those properly trained.

And the ability to sing sufi and raga based indian music

Who knows what he could've done had he lived.

When Jimmy Page calls you the best vocalist in pop

and Bob Dylan is admiring your songs?

thats fucking astounding...

such a lost...

But I still...

still wouldn't say he was the best out there.

dm3857 said:

unique said:

was it fuck. yet again another fucking MJ loonatic will twist words

at least you admit he did lipsynch during his shows. and based on the footage from this is shit, it looked like he was about to try it again

btw he mimed during at least thriller during the bad tour. you can tell when he's singing live and he usually sounds shit and out of breathe compared to the prerecorded vocals. same with madonna and the rest of the shouters. you notice people tend to shout rather than sing when they are out of breathe? interestingly prince NEVER does that, no matter how energetic his performances. watch some of the 90-92 era stuff when the game boys are throwing him about and he still returns to the mic and sounds the same. he must have excellent cardio vasclular and breath control

to say that about this is it is not fair, those are rehearsals..if you look at the dangerous world tour rehearsals, and the rehearsals from this is it..michael is FAR more energetic..and no, thriller was indeed live on the bad tour..im in no way trying to say that freddy or prince aren't good, because of coarse they are!! but michael was a great LIVE performer,

if you don't wanna watch this whole clip watch from 3:15-

he is IMO the GREATEST live performer..of coarse thats biased.. but.. mike still had at 50.

Mj as an adult was a shite live performer. fucking absolute fucking shite

anyone who says different doesn't have a fucking clue. go listen to more music if that's what you think

all he fucking did was dance to choreography and mime to his records, and when he did sing live, more often than not it sounded shite compared to the records. that's why you don't have any MJ live albums and why there is a lack of official live dvds. the cunt died years ago and the record company want to rape every last fucking cent out of him but the best they can come up with is that album that was shat into creation last year and more fucking rereleases?

why not some live lbums or dvds? well a live album would be pointless as he mimed so much and sounded shit when he didn't mime, as he spent more time dancing than trying to sing well, and the live videos that are circulating show a far from enthusiastic side of him. you might be able to cut and paste a few minutes here and there from various gigs, but how many full shows out of all that are circulating on video could you honestly say show the best side of him?

he fucked up big style by not touring off the wall or thriller and doing the jacksons tour instead

unique said:

TylerHippie said:

This whole thread is based on opinions.

not all, i try and seperate opinion from fact. and you can write MJ off for mimimg on stage as you couldn't consider someone the best vocalist if they mime on stage

some things can be measured by tanglible means. personal taste of vocal thus should be set aside. doing that, then no-one would ever consider MJ as the best. he's number 1 with madonna number 2 of the lipsynch crew that has the likes of britney in the list

people like prince, freddy and george michael played for years without lipsynching gigs

No you don't.

HermesReborn said:

you are so right.

Jeff Buckley was like a plateau that was reached in pop music and what can be done creatively

I mean the guy did everything

The ability to write songs that rivaled Lennon.

To play and sing grunge that was better then Nirvana.

the ability to sing classical, opera and jazz, better than those properly trained.

And the ability to sing sufi and raga based indian music

Who knows what he could've done had he lived.

When Jimmy Page calls you the best vocalist in pop

and Bob Dylan is admiring your songs?

thats fucking astounding...

such a lost...

But I still...

still wouldn't say he was the best out there.

i sometimes wonder what the music would be like had certain artists lived instead of died young, and i think in most cases they would have petered out and ended up releasing shit album after shit album like alanis morrisette or lou reed or even bowie and elton john in later years, even stevie wonder

few artists are able to keep up the high quality work of their prime. most have a 10 year or shorter period and if they keep on going like macca or morrsey the fans seem to hope that one day they will record somthing as good as they used to make

whilst jeff's second album wasn't completed, what we have isn't a patch on his first album. if you look to his earlier work and the numerous bootlegs (fortunately the fan base is particularly good at preserving his works for the future) the majority of his work was his own interpretations of cover versions. i think he probably had a bit more in him than say curt or some other artists but sometimes i think some of the artists died in their prime and if they kept on they would have just released a series of unimpressive albums

i have a huge collection, fucking huge, of jeff bootlegs btw. there is some fantastic stuff out there. his voice is haunting at times. listening to the outtakes of hallelujah is amazing. the thing is, he didn't seem to take it all seriously if you listen to the chat in between his recordings, yet i think many people on the basis of his recorded work would consider him very serious

unique said:

HermesReborn said:

This thread has reached the stupidity of congress.

I mean seriously none of you have shown any empirical evidence on why you think these vocalist are superior.

It's all subjective.

There are many factors that quantify a good vocalist.

Range is just one of them

The ability to sing harmonic intervals such as 7ths and 9ths.

The ability to chromaticize a melody

The ability to improv a melody,

The ability to recover from a slip up (cause everyone has slip ups)

The ability to change timbre of vocal tone.

The ability to sing staccato and legato and interchange between the two

The ability to utilize dynamics.

Sing chromatic harmonies.

I can go on and on.

And unless you have a doctorate in music...

I think all of yall just need to shut the fuck up.

I have a B.F.A. in music, and I still can't say whose a better vocalist.

too much research would be needed.

One thing I do know.

that the greatest male vocalist will not be in any pop genre.

sorry no...

The only person who might be an exception was Jeff Buckley

and thats because he was trained in classical, jazz and Qawwali Sufi singing

You know why?

Because the best singers are able to abandon the concept of the 12 tone scale and reach semi tones within semi tones.

Fluctuating a melody without any type of accompaniment except for a drone.

Thats vocal mastery...

and Jeff wasn't the best out there...

But neither Freddie, Mike, or most pop singers can do that.

well said

i also studied music at college and came top of my class with top marks, but i studied contemporary popular music which was the study of popular music such as pop, rock and jazz, with some study into other styles of music such as classical and various world/ethnic styles

as i mentioned before, the best vocalist is likely to be someone that no-one here has even heard of

you can set personal preferance aside, well at least some people can, and look at things objectively without bias, discrimination and favouritism, and look at some of the more technical aspects. and whilst most people wouldn't have a clue what those were, any idiot should be able to summise that an artist who can perform vocals live over one that resorts to miming is the better artist, thus anyone that says different isn't impartial

Yeah...

But it's also insanely obvious that you have a bias against Michael Jackson.

now I don't think the man is the Bee's knees as some do.

But I wouldn't short change the man either.

Michael to my best of knowledge, focused more on putting a show than actual singing.

He was a dancer and a showman.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a great singer.

But what I don't like about Michael was that he put dancing and putting on a show first,

then actually showing his true singing capability.

Michael had perfect pitch, and thats an advantage many do not have.

What michael did was pigeonhole himself into purely being a studio singer.

cause he was Lazy.

But when he was in the studio, he always wowed his producers.

The ability to perform vocals live is important.

But even I know that singing and dancing simultaneously is hard work.

And to do that on a night after night basis is ridiculous.

So I get why he lip synced

Does that take away from his actual singing ability?

No.

It's really more a matter of laziness and integrity.

Is Michael Jackson the best singer?

fuck no

Is he the worst?

fuck no.

He was better than most.

and thats really all you can ask for.

HermesReborn said:

unique said:

well said

i also studied music at college and came top of my class with top marks, but i studied contemporary popular music which was the study of popular music such as pop, rock and jazz, with some study into other styles of music such as classical and various world/ethnic styles

as i mentioned before, the best vocalist is likely to be someone that no-one here has even heard of

you can set personal preferance aside, well at least some people can, and look at things objectively without bias, discrimination and favouritism, and look at some of the more technical aspects. and whilst most people wouldn't have a clue what those were, any idiot should be able to summise that an artist who can perform vocals live over one that resorts to miming is the better artist, thus anyone that says different isn't impartial

Yeah...

But it's also insanely obvious that you have a bias against Michael Jackson.

now I don't think the man is the Bee's knees as some do.

But I wouldn't short change the man either.

Michael to my best of knowledge, focused more on putting a show than actual singing.

He was a dancer and a showman.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a great singer.

But what I don't like about Michael was that he put dancing and putting on a show first,

then actually showing his true singing capability.

Michael had perfect pitch, and thats an advantage many do not have.

What michael did was pigeonhole himself into purely being a studio singer.

cause he was Lazy.

But when he was in the studio, he always wowed his producers.

The ability to perform vocals live is important.

But even I know that singing and dancing simultaneously is hard work.

And to do that on a night after night basis is ridiculous.

So I get why he lip synced

Does that take away from his actual singing ability?

No.

It's really more a matter of laziness and integrity.

Is Michael Jackson the best singer?

fuck no

Is he the worst?

fuck no.

He was better than most.

and thats really all you can ask for.

Amen.

HermesReborn said:

unique said:

well said

i also studied music at college and came top of my class with top marks, but i studied contemporary popular music which was the study of popular music such as pop, rock and jazz, with some study into other styles of music such as classical and various world/ethnic styles

as i mentioned before, the best vocalist is likely to be someone that no-one here has even heard of

you can set personal preferance aside, well at least some people can, and look at things objectively without bias, discrimination and favouritism, and look at some of the more technical aspects. and whilst most people wouldn't have a clue what those were, any idiot should be able to summise that an artist who can perform vocals live over one that resorts to miming is the better artist, thus anyone that says different isn't impartial

Yeah...

But it's also insanely obvious that you have a bias against Michael Jackson.

now I don't think the man is the Bee's knees as some do.

But I wouldn't short change the man either.

Michael to my best of knowledge, focused more on putting a show than actual singing.

He was a dancer and a showman.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a great singer.

But what I don't like about Michael was that he put dancing and putting on a show first,

then actually showing his true singing capability.

Michael had perfect pitch, and thats an advantage many do not have.

What michael did was pigeonhole himself into purely being a studio singer.

cause he was Lazy.

But when he was in the studio, he always wowed his producers.

The ability to perform vocals live is important.

But even I know that singing and dancing simultaneously is hard work.

And to do that on a night after night basis is ridiculous.

So I get why he lip synced

Does that take away from his actual singing ability?

No.

It's really more a matter of laziness and integrity.

Is Michael Jackson the best singer?

fuck no

Is he the worst?

fuck no.

He was better than most.

and thats really all you can ask for.

i agree with what you say. but i have no bias against him. i have a larger collection of MJ stuff than most MJ fans

what i will make clear is when his fanatical fans come out with some biased bullshit so i'll put them firmly in their place. his arsehole fans don't do his shattered reputation any favours

and it's shame that we can't discuss the good and bad aspects of MJ as an artist without the morons jumping on the thread to deny any negative comments no matter how true, and worse, post a load of fucking youtube videos that no-one has the slightest interest in watching. if there is one way to put a point across badly, it's to post shitty quality videos of shitty performances. i don't even watch youtubes of prince

unique said:

HermesReborn said:

Yeah...

But it's also insanely obvious that you have a bias against Michael Jackson.

now I don't think the man is the Bee's knees as some do.

But I wouldn't short change the man either.

Michael to my best of knowledge, focused more on putting a show than actual singing.

He was a dancer and a showman.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a great singer.

But what I don't like about Michael was that he put dancing and putting on a show first,

then actually showing his true singing capability.

Michael had perfect pitch, and thats an advantage many do not have.

What michael did was pigeonhole himself into purely being a studio singer.

cause he was Lazy.

But when he was in the studio, he always wowed his producers.

The ability to perform vocals live is important.

But even I know that singing and dancing simultaneously is hard work.

And to do that on a night after night basis is ridiculous.

So I get why he lip synced

Does that take away from his actual singing ability?

No.

It's really more a matter of laziness and integrity.

Is Michael Jackson the best singer?

fuck no

Is he the worst?

fuck no.

He was better than most.

and thats really all you can ask for.

i agree with what you say. but i have no bias against him. i have a larger collection of MJ stuff than most MJ fans

what i will make clear is when his fanatical fans come out with some biased bullshit so i'll put them firmly in their place. his arsehole fans don't do his shattered reputation any favours

and it's shame that we can't discuss the good and bad aspects of MJ as an artist without the morons jumping on the thread to deny any negative comments no matter how true, and worse, post a load of fucking youtube videos that no-one has the slightest interest in watching. if there is one way to put a point across badly, it's to post shitty quality videos of shitty performances. i don't even watch youtubes of prince

I'm sorry, but you do have an obvious bias. You simply cannot claim to be as objective as you think you are because you really aren't.

smoothcriminal12 said:

I'm sorry, but you do have an obvious bias. You simply cannot claim to be as objective as you think you are because you really aren't.

what the fuck do you know, and who gives a shit what you think? based on the shit you've posted so far that i've read, your opinion isn't worth airing

All I know is that I sucessfully mediated the argument between you two.

and you both agree with me.

So technically you two are on the same page.

I think the animosity is personal

So if you guys wanna go on flaming each other, take it to the orgnote.

But if anymore flaming happens,

It's time to let the mods in.

lets get back to intellectual debate.

[Edited 8/6/11 14:12pm]