Wilmert
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2019
- Messages
- 36
- Points
- 0
Back in the day when I was younger and solely focused on Michael, I overestimated him as a vocalist. I used to joust with friends and everyone's favorite artist was their lance. My lance was Michael. These discussions degenerated into shouting matches with everyone trying to establish the superiority of their artist not by providing well-thought-out arguments but by loudly asserting what you thought. I always won. I guess I was the loudest and most assertive. Everyone went home with their perception of the greatness of Freddy Mercury or George Michael diminished because of my forcefulness. I was a young kid.<br>
<br>
My tastes have diversified over time. I know more than I did back in elementary school. I always try to avoid saying so-and-so is the best because there's a lot of subjectivity packed into that affirmation.<br>
<br>
In my view, Michael is one of the most well-rounded and versatile vocalists that ever lived. He's well-regarded by the critics and by other artists. Frank Sinatra said he was one of the best and there's a reason why Freddy collaborated with Mike. Now, Mike is no Freddy or no George Michael if I'm being honest. However, I wouldn't say they're better than Michael. I'd only say their voices are more powerful. But Michael is sure more versatile.<br>
<br>
I think the 90's and beyond contain rare glimpses of Michael's greatness as a vocalist as most of his concerts and appearances were lipsynch affairs. This did him a total disservice. You'd have to go back to early in his career to see the real. His rehearsal of Human Nature for This is it show reminded me of how great a vocalist he was. It'd been a while since I heard the beauty of his voice live acapella and not drowned out by the music. In the studio, you can make anything happen, but live is the real test.
<br>
My tastes have diversified over time. I know more than I did back in elementary school. I always try to avoid saying so-and-so is the best because there's a lot of subjectivity packed into that affirmation.<br>
<br>
In my view, Michael is one of the most well-rounded and versatile vocalists that ever lived. He's well-regarded by the critics and by other artists. Frank Sinatra said he was one of the best and there's a reason why Freddy collaborated with Mike. Now, Mike is no Freddy or no George Michael if I'm being honest. However, I wouldn't say they're better than Michael. I'd only say their voices are more powerful. But Michael is sure more versatile.<br>
<br>
I think the 90's and beyond contain rare glimpses of Michael's greatness as a vocalist as most of his concerts and appearances were lipsynch affairs. This did him a total disservice. You'd have to go back to early in his career to see the real. His rehearsal of Human Nature for This is it show reminded me of how great a vocalist he was. It'd been a while since I heard the beauty of his voice live acapella and not drowned out by the music. In the studio, you can make anything happen, but live is the real test.