Originally Posted by kippery:
“I accept Michael Buble can sing, and that a lot of great music came from the 1950's, but every young male singer today seems to have to do rat-pack type numbers. I'm finding this a bit tiresome now. Best left to the originals IMHO.
I did refer to Josh Groban, if you look back to the beginning, but I'm afraid it was not complimentary either.”
“I accept Michael Buble can sing, and that a lot of great music came from the 1950's, but every young male singer today seems to have to do rat-pack type numbers. I'm finding this a bit tiresome now. Best left to the originals IMHO.
I did refer to Josh Groban, if you look back to the beginning, but I'm afraid it was not complimentary either.”
But we are talking about someone who can sing, not Westlife who should have died a quick death a long time ago. Buble has made a career out of singing songs that suit his voice, and he sings them well.
Josh Groban is someone who gives his all to a performance, is a good singer and sings what he wants. I prefer him to all the pants that people seem to be releasing these days...I am just relieved that they didn't get Band Aid 20 on there, because that would have ruined my current record of not having heard the song at all (not even snippets) since it's release (or even before that).
It strikes me Kippery that you need to either start listening to proper music or perhaps prove to us all that you are a far superior musician and audition to perform something you do like.
I assume you were being facetious!? You're not seriously saying someone has to prove they are "far superior musicians" to post an opinion here?
