Michael Jackson: The Greatest Singer Ever…Really?- NME article

[teli-mj]

Am sorry but David Bowie is not a good singer, no matter what. He is an amazing musician but not a good singer. Same with Kurt Cobain and Bob Marley , Dilan and the list goes on .No one dismisses them as musician and we know that they are tremdus influential figures but as singers and objectively speaking there are better than those. You might enjoy their singing voice, as i enjoy Madonna's singing voice, but they are not great vocalists. There are people who should have been on that list and they weren't and it's sad. By the way am not tryint to bring those people down in order to lift MJ up or something. Am speaking objectively.

For the peson who said that Mike's voice wasn't that good in his last years, well Whitney's Houston isn't either right now, Maria Kallas voice wasn't in her last years but that doesn't negate the fact that those two are/were probably the best of their fild. We are talking about giftet and great vocalist in general and MJ was one. Even if his voice wasn't in his best the last years of his life, wich This is It proved that it was, that doesn't mean that he should be out of lists of this kind. I hope am making a sence

 

[aliana101]

I'm appalled. I wish I hadn't read that horrible lie. Michael's voice was always great!!! They need new ears or brains for that statement!

edit: Wait...this is just from a blog from some member on there? hahahahahahaha pffft

NME.COM blogs contain the opinions of the individual writer and not necessarily those of NME magazine or NME.COM.

You should add this to 1st post because I thought it's a real article from NME

 

[benscarr]

I don't have anything against David Bowie, I like a couple of songs from him, though I have never thought of him as a "great vocalist" before. But you are right, I don't know everything from him, so probably you are right about his vocals. To me Freddie Mercury is second on that list, I just love him, I even voted for him, even though he was in competition with Michael (I gave him 9 stars and 10 to Michael).

I totally agree about music magazines. I don't even know what's the point of a bunch of people telling other people what to like. I have always felt magazines like these are for people who can't make their own decisions. I don't care what's considered to be "cool" by the media, I won't let any of them tell me what to like and what to hate. I know what these type of magazines usually like, so they are pretty predictable which means they cannot think outside of a certain box.

They expect artists to be "serious", sing about politics and social things. Not realizing that those messages about current politics etc. may sound "serious" now, but they won't mean anything to anybody in 100 years. While the kind of message that Michael had is universal and will still be undetstood and enjoyed.

That's why I'm glad about Joseph Vogel's upcoming book. Finally a writer who gets him and also is fair to him and his aim is not to look "cool" with the snobs of this business.

Good post. Besides vocals are a matter of taste, because it also weather the texture of an artists voice appeals to the listener. I know some people who dislike Michael's vocals and say it's too high pitched. But like I said about David Bowie, have they heard all of Michael's albums because he has a very wide vocal range. Michael isn't just full hee hee's, aoaw's etc. Because as the man who wrote this blog for NME saying Michael was a parody of him as a vocalist over the last 20's of his career. He fails to forget Michael's vocals always maintained a lot of depth. And Michael's last studio album Invincible really showcased the depth and wide range, on songs like Unbreakable, Butterfilies and Speechless.

I gave Michael 10/10 on the NME site, David Bowie, Prince and Freddie Mercury 9/10 for vocals.

Am sorry but David Bowie is not a good singer, no matter what. He is an amazing musician but not a good singer. Same with Kurt Cobain and Bob Marley , Dilan and the list goes on .No one dismisses them as musician and we know that they are tremdus influential figures but as singers and objectively speaking there are better than those. You might enjoy their singing voice, as i enjoy Madonna's singing voice, but they are not great vocalists. There are people who should have been on that list and they weren't and it's sad. By the way am not tryint to bring those people down in order to lift MJ up or something. Am speaking objectively.

For the peson who said that Mike's voice wasn't that good in his last years, well Whitney's Houston isn't either right now, Maria Kallas voice wasn't in her last years but that doesn't negate the fact that those two are/were probably the best of their fild. We are talking about giftet and great vocalist in general and MJ was one. Even if his voice wasn't in his best the last years of his life, wich This is It proved that it was, that doesn't mean that he should be out of lists of this kind. I hope am making a sence

I disagree with your view about David Bowie's vocals. I am well aware we are talking about gifted and great vocalists, and David Bowie is one on them. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, because vocals like music are also a matter of personal taste (I know many people would agree with me, not on this site, but on other sites and work etc). ie I have never considered Whitney Houston a great vocalist, neither do I consider Otis Reading to be one. Versatility in being about to sing different genre's on music, and not always in the the exact same vocal style is what I like in a vocalist. That is why Michael Jackson, David Bowie and Prince are my favorite vocalists. Many "great" vocalist are just pure generic Rock or Soul/R&B vocalists, and that doesn't keep me too interested in a vocalists whole body of music.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Because I have no interest in taking part on heated debates.

 

[religieuse]

Am sorry but David Bowie is not a good singer, no matter what. He is an amazing musician but not a good singer. Same with Kurt Cobain and Bob Marley , Dilan and the list goes on .No one dismisses them as musician and we know that they are tremdus influential figures but as singers and objectively speaking there are better than those. You might enjoy their singing voice, as i enjoy Madonna's singing voice, but they are not great vocalists. There are people who should have been on that list and they weren't and it's sad. By the way am not tryint to bring those people down in order to lift MJ up or something. Am speaking objectively.

For the peson who said that Mike's voice wasn't that good in his last years, well Whitney's Houston isn't either right now, Maria Kallas voice wasn't in her last years but that doesn't negate the fact that those two are/were probably the best of their fild. We are talking about giftet and great vocalist in general and MJ was one. Even if his voice wasn't in his best the last years of his life, wich This is It proved that it was, that doesn't mean that he should be out of lists of this kind. I hope am making a sence

I think the same thing.

 

[LaNixie]

"Really?" YES, really!

But it’s clear that for about 20 years towards the end of his career Michael Jackson’s voice was a parody of what it had formerly been.

Obiviously that person has never heard Michael's singing voice.

 

[Indra]

This has now been written about in Sweden too but we need some help with some more voting on the matter. I'm gussing I can't open a new thread with this so I'm writting here and hope people will help out.

Go to this link.
It's all in swedish but the right under the picture you will see all the names. Click in Michael and that's it, you have voted. Please do it.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/musik/rockbjornen2011/article13214816.ab


Can someone tell me how Elvis even made it to the top?

 

[Severus Snape]

You're all going to have a hard time in life if you get upset everytime someone disagrees with you.

There's a huge difference between disagreement and maliciousness, though. Especially if this is a public opinion poll, in which voters participated. The author of this piece is basically insulting the musical tastes of his readers, and the overall tone of the article reads as incredibly biased and asinine.

If this were a random person on the street, hardly any of us would give a damn [I'd like to think]. However, this is a writer for a music magazine who should exhibit more professionalism in his prose. We, as the people [and some of us as the target audience of magazines like these], have a right to voice our disgust over such a poorly written piece. The author fails to counter the readers' views on Michael, resorting to petty insults and giving no real structure to his argument that Michael Jackson is not the best singer or whatever.

In short, I have no problem with someone who disagrees with something and gives proper argumentation so as to support the validity of his point. However, I have massive problems with someone whose argument is completely devoid of logic/evidence to prove his point, and is composed of nothing but poorly crafted insults. That's why I boycott these "music" magazines. I don't care to spend my money to read some jackass' opinion. I can do that for free on the Internet, and save some trees along the way.

 

[claudiadoina]

There's a huge difference between disagreement and maliciousness, though. Especially if this is a public opinion poll, in which voters participated. The author of this piece is basically insulting the musical tastes of his readers, and the overall tone of the article reads as incredibly biased and asinine.

If this were a random person on the street, hardly any of us would give a damn [I'd like to think]. However, this is a writer for a music magazine who should exhibit more professionalism in his prose. We, as the people [and some of us as the target audience of magazines like these], have a right to voice our disgust over such a poorly written piece. The author fails to counter the readers' views on Michael, resorting to petty insults and giving no real structure to his argument that Michael Jackson is not the best singer or whatever.

In short, I have no problem with someone who disagrees with something and gives proper argumentation so as to support the validity of his point. However, I have massive problems with someone whose argument is completely devoid of logic/evidence to prove his point, and is composed of nothing but poorly crafted insults. That's why I boycott these "music" magazines. I don't care to spend my money to read some jackass' opinion. I can do that for free on the Internet, and save some trees along the way.

well said

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

First I didn't want to sart a new thread about this but I am so fucking angry


Michael Jackson: The Greatest Singer Ever…Really?
So Michael Jackson has topped our poll of the Greatest Singers Ever. Ever. Really?

Jackson’s pipes had some fine moments during his early career. ‘I Want You Back’, ‘I’ll Be There’ and ‘She’s Out Of My Life’ were all brilliant displays of youthful soulfulness and heart.


But it’s clear that for about 20 years towards the end of his career Michael Jackson’s voice was a parody of what it had formerly been. It had disappeared up its own backside, full of weird whoops, ghostly shrieking and so many vocal ticks that it deserved its own definition in the medical dictionary. Or, in fact, perhaps it did. I think it was called ‘Shamone-itis’.

Out of the list, my personal favourites are Kurt Cobain whose ghostly howl was profoundly affecting, like he was emoting every vowel...


...and David Bowie, who also sometimes pushed himself into parody, but whose best vocal performances lurch from cooingly gentle to matter-a-fact honest.


Here's the full Top 20, as voted by NME.COM users:

1. Michael Jackson
2. Freddie Mercury
3. Elvis Presley
4. Axl Rose
5. John Lennon
6. David Bowie
7. Robert Plant
8. Paul McCartney
9. Stevie Wonder
10. Aretha Franklin
11. Matt Bellamy
12. Ray Charles
13. Jim Morrison
14. Bob Marley
15. Elton John
16. Kurt Cobain
17. Steven Tyler
18. Mick Jagger
19. Marvin Gaye
20. Tina Turner


:mat::mat::mat:

Okay he won cause he's the best and why are you mad ? Aren't you a MJ fan ?

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Oh sorry I thought it was you who was saying that woop you should really said it was someone else cause that really pissed me off when I read it I thought you were saying that

 

[claudiadoina]

Oh sorry I thought it was you who was saying that woop you should really said it was someone else cause that really pissed me off when I read it I thought you were saying that

That's ok, I thought that you might have mistunderstood.My bad for not providing the link in my first post.

 

[Severus Snape]

You know, I really didn't want to say this, as it is technically off-topic, but since ADKIc3mAnX has brought it to my attention once more, I'll say it.

How on Earth did this idiot get hired to write for a magazine!? His writing sucks!

It had disappeared up its own backside, full of weird whoops, ghostly shrieking and so many vocal ticks that it deserved its own definition in the medical dictionary. Or, in fact, perhaps it did.

This would be acceptable if he had said, "...it deserved to have its own..." Then, the "...perhaps it did," would make sense.

...and David Bowie, who also sometimes pushed himself into parody, but whose best vocal performances lurch from cooingly gentle to matter-a-fact honest.

Also, "matter-a-fact" is misspelled. I believe "matter of fact" fits the bill much better.

Why am I pointing this out? Well, the writing tells us a bit about the author in question. There are people who believe one can deduce a man's character by the way he hits a golf ball--well, I'm not one of them. I believe a man's writing can tell us much about his nature, and in this instance, the person in question is strongly opinionated, and highly sloppy in both his argument and his writing. This kind of prose would be tolerable for the average schmoe [or Sarah Palin] to produce, but a magazine writer? Completely unacceptable.

To think he has the nerve to not only look down on people who admire Michael Jackson's singing, but to criticize his singing as well... wow. What is that thing they say about throwing stones from glass houses? While he failed to provide proper evidence to cast doubt in our minds about Michael's talent, he has provided plenty of evidence to confirm the already abundant doubt in our minds about his competence when it comes to professional [not to mention well-balanced/fair] article writing.

 

[aliana101]

I see people ignored my post! This article was NOT written by someone hired by NME! It's just a BLOG by a random person!!!!!!!! Why give this jerk more attention??? He's clearly clueless and bitter lol

NME.COM blogs contain the opinions of the individual writer and not necessarily those of NME magazine or NME.COM.

 

[aliana101]

You know, I really didn't want to say this, as it is technically off-topic, but since ADKIc3mAnX has brought it to my attention once more, I'll say it.

How on Earth did this idiot get hired to write for a magazine!? His writing sucks!



This would be acceptable if he had said, "...it deserved to have its own..." Then, the "...perhaps it did," would make sense.



Also, "matter-a-fact" is misspelled. I believe "matter of fact" fits the bill much better.

Why am I pointing this out? Well, the writing tells us a bit about the author in question. There are people who believe one can deduce a man's character by the way he hits a golf ball--well, I'm not one of them. I believe a man's writing can tell us much about his nature, and in this instance, the person in question is strongly opinionated, and highly sloppy in both his argument and his writing. This kind of prose would be tolerable for the average schmoe [or Sarah Palin] to produce, but a magazine writer? Completely unacceptable.

To think he has the nerve to not only look down on people who admire Michael Jackson's singing, but to criticize his singing as well... wow. What is that thing they say about throwing stones from glass houses? While he failed to provide proper evidence to cast doubt in our minds about Michael's talent, he has provided plenty of evidence to confirm the already abundant doubt in our minds about his competence when it comes to professional [not to mention well-balanced/fair] article writing.

The person is not a hired writer!!! It's a blog. read my post above and don't worry about this hater

 

[Severus Snape]

^Well, that makes it a bit less alarming, and more typical. I still stand by my statement on his spelling, etc., however. He was obviously attempting to sound moderately educated in his "critique", but failed in an epic manner at doing so. :3

 

[aliana101]

^Well, that makes it a bit less alarming, and more typical. I still stand by my statement on his spelling, etc., however. He was obviously attempting to sound moderately educated in his "critique", but failed in an epic manner at doing so. :3

LOL! That person failed. btw a part of that blog reminds me of a critique I once read about Invincible.

 

[Severus Snape]

LOL! That person failed. btw a part of that blog reminds me of a critique I once read about Invincible.

Ah, shame. I wouldn't expect someone with such little sophistication [assuming the "critique" author you speak of resembles the idiot blogger in cognitive ability] to understand the meaning and value of Invincible anyway. They're probably more fond of lesser musicians, and we all know who those are.