Latest on MJJC

Underrated vocalist

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,245
Points
113
I've always felt that Michael especially during his adult years was a very underrated vocalist. The amount of range and power that man had with his voice was insane but sadly a lot of people overlook that about Michael. People spend so much time focusing on his dancing that they forget what an amazing vocalist he was. It also frustrates me when i see people (mainly white rock critics) rank rock singers with average vocal skills above Michael as a vocalist.
 
No worries. Studying classical music I had countless felllow students and even profs who admired and loved Michael. My cello teacher was a MAJOR MJ fan.
Those who can look past their own narrow confine can appreciate him genius without feeling they have to throw shade on someone to elevate themselves.

He had a wonderfully trained voice and he didn't get where he was by singing in the shower twice a week, the man worked his butt off in addition to his talent - and you can hear that. He has a lovely head voice. He barely sang in this much belabored 'falsetto', that was a wonderful tenor's head voice. His register control was off the charts.

I sing completely different stuff and I regularly listen him and learn from him. He's a great listener, listening to those who came before and used his knowledge to become great himself. That's true humility coupled with an amazing amount of purpose behind it.
 
IMO, Michael's vocals are the best vocals there is. Second person is Freddie Mercury
 
I definitely agree. I think Michael vocals are the best! There are very few other artists who can even come close to Michael's skill.

Some of my favorites vocals of MJ that show the power he had are, Keep The Faith, Stranger In Moscow, Earth Song, and especially We've Had Enough.
 
I LOVE his voice!

It's soulful, colorful, unique, warm.

People who come close: Freddie Mercury, Marvin Gaye.

I agree that Michael tends to be underrated as a vocalist. I love it when someone has passion in his voice and he sings with so much passion! His voice alone is so expressive.


I prefer his adult voice and I never understood people who said he was a better singer as a child. IMO those are people who are stuck with the "cute, little Michael" image (it's more about the image IMO than really about the voice). Although he was a great singer as a child - but his voice as a child is just that: a child's voice. People even mistook him for Donny Osmond on One Bad Apple. It's after growing up when it became so soulful and warm and unique and colorful. There's no chance of mistaking him with Donny as an adult.

It also frustrates me when i see people (mainly white rock critics) rank rock singers with average vocal skills above Michael as a vocalist.
Click to expand...

I agree. IMO there are very few really great singers in the rock genre. The excuse for that is usually that the rock genre is not about great vocals. That's fine, but then when it comes to ranking singers do not rank rock singers above truly great soul singers. But I think rock criticts just can't help but always push their genre above everything else on every list.

One of the few exceptions in the rock genre was Freddie Mercury. He really was a great singer, but then he was despised by rock critics. Now, of course, he's rated as a great vocalist and he's constantly named as one of the greatest vocalists, but when he was alive he and Queen were constantly bashed by critics.

BTW, I realized that in my country, at least (which is a white European country) people usually consider "shouters" with a rough, brazen voice like Springsteen, Joe Cocker etc. the greatest singers, which I always thought is a joke (just like most people's music taste is in this country, LOL), because being a shouter isn't equal to being a great vocalist.

BTW, this is a great article about Michael as a vocalist: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...o-great-singing-is-about-more-than-the-notes/
 
Last edited:
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z-qaXtFoUU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Very interesting.

Ofc he's the greatest vocalist all time. There are some underrated songs where the vocals are great/pretty great, like Is It Scary.
 
Pentum said:
IMO, Michael's vocals are the best vocals there is. Second person is Freddie Mercury
Click to expand...

I'd say that's a tricky one. Then again, Michael was a trained vocalist while Freddie wasn't (as far as I'm aware of) who still sounded more than amazing (better than ever, some might say) even on his death bed, being a smoker and drinker all his life as well.

I'd say it's a tie between them for the 'best vocalist in history' trophy, if you will.
 
The disappointing thing about Michael is he almost never sang live in his last few years (HIStory Tour onwards). I understand it had to do with health issues be that laryngitis or lupus but I think he became more paranoid with his live singing voice.

Conversely, Freddie Mercury almost always sang live (if not, he always took out his microphone just to prove there was playback lol), even if he wasn't always consistent. He almost never sang falsetto live and tended to hit lower notes.

Russian singer Vitas has one of the widest vocal range and he's consistent live. However, there's still some controversy whether he's singing live or it's a sophisticated playback system (having see him live, I'm pretty sure he does sing live). However he's one of those "easy" singers and lacks any form of grit although he can reach extremely low notes with a soft but growling tone. He is better known for his operatic falsetto voice.
 
Last edited:
:nono:








popcorn-MJ.gif
 
According to Answers.com, this is Michael's vocal range which is quite rich. It's sadly true what your saying guys, many people focused more on his dancing and it's a shame they forget how versatile he is in every area in artistry he'd decide to be part of... :sigh:

Vocal Timbre: Spinto, Countertenor, Baritone (in the song 2000 Watts of Invincible album, for example) Highest note: B5
Lowest note : E2
Vocal range: 3.6+ octaves (E2-B5; 44 notes by the middle of 1980s according to Seth Riggs, Jackson's vocal consultant (Quote from Seth Riggs); in the 1990s, Riggs said the range expanded to 4 octaves. Apparently, due to aging, Jackson got few additional lower notes, while not losing the highest ones.)

​
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_vocal_range_of_Michael_Jackson#ixzz2JnkQHdb2
​
Click to expand...
​


 
Yes, I totally understand you analogue. I feel the same all the time especially as a fan of his amazing vocals as much as his dancing skills. I honestly focus on both when I see his live performances/videos. But I know the average person doesn't and it's sad because the older he got the better he knew how to take advantage of his vocal skills, he was amazingly talented all in all. Hopefully people will recognize that in the near future.
 
Frankyboy5 said:
The disappointing thing about Michael is he almost never sang live in his last few years (HIStory Tour onwards). I understand it had to do with health issues be that laryngitis or lupus but I think he became more paranoid with his live singing voice.

Conversely, Freddie Mercury almost always sang live (if not, he always took out his microphone just to prove there was playback lol), even if he wasn't always consistent. He almost never sang falsetto live and tended to hit lower notes.

Russian singer Vitas has one of the widest vocal range and he's consistent live. However, there's still some controversy whether he's singing live or it's a sophisticated playback system (having see him live, I'm pretty sure he does sing live). However he's one of those "easy" singers and lacks any form of grit although he can reach extremely low notes with a soft but growling tone. He is better known for his operatic falsetto voice.
Click to expand...

Let's not take this into the lip-synching direction. That has been discussed a million times.
 
There is a reason why I don´t want to listen to other artists covering the songs Michael sang.
 
Michael voice is amazing...and he grew so much, always learning, always improving...that's why I very much appreciate more recent albums, you can really hear that stunning range and melodicity:)
 
MIST;3772390 said:
There is a reason why I don´t want to listen to other artists covering the songs Michael sang.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't like other artists covering him either. At least when they are singing too. I prefer instrumental covers - like jazz or classical arrangements.
 
AND lets not forget kid Michael. I wonder what Freddie Mercury, Marvin Gaye sounded like at 12 years old, and they wasn't performing in front of 20,000 people every weekend. People forget Michael had a career in terms of singing, recording, performing, shows, interviews, concerts, as big as any other artists and that was all before he was even 18 years old let alone adult Michael.
 
His voice was his greatest gift and he used it to the best. That he could always sing the way he did during his whole life, from child to adult, is a talent that we've haven't seen before or after.
 
His voice was just beatiful. No one can sing like Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top