Is Michael Buble the Bubluonic plague of popular music?

rcaz

Sinfonia wrote: »

That's in the Grove? Who wrote the entry?

Richard Middleton and Peter Manuel. Middleton did a section on Popular Music In The West, Manuel did World Popular Music, that quote was from the introduction section, doesn't specify there.

rcaz

Anyone watch his Christmas special last night? :pac:

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

Anyone watch his Christmas special last night? :pac:

I watched part of it, mostly the two duets he performed with Gary Barlow:p.

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

I watched part of it, mostly the two duets he performed with Gary Barlow:p.

A man after your own heart :pac:

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

A man after your own heart :pac:

LMFAO

smokedeels

I look at him like he's his own tribute act. Fame is a strange thing and the fact that he's been able to attain it makes it even more bizzare.

Also, he reminds me of Peter from the TV show Fringe.

NIMAN

No he's not imho.

He's out there for a certain audience, like many acts in the music world.

Many think REM were geniuses, I hated them and thought they made **** music.
Many loved Sinatra, many think he just spoke his way through songs.
Many think Mariah Carey has a great voice, I think she just screams a lot.
Many think Foo Fighters are the worlds best bad, I think they shout their way through most of their songs.

Music is very subjective. No great fan of Buble tbh, but I'm sure many are.

Rigsby

NIMAN wrote: »

No he's not imho.

He's out there for a certain audience, like many acts in the music world.

Many think REM were geniuses, I hated them and thought they made **** music.
Many loved Sinatra, many think he just spoke his way through songs.
Many think Mariah Carey has a great voice, I think she just screams a lot.
Many think Foo Fighters are the worlds best bad, I think they shout their way through most of their songs.

Music is very subjective. No great fan of Buble tbh, but I'm sure many are.

Well said. I am not a Buble fan either. With music, it's a case of "one's person's meat is another's poison."

To each their own.

Johro

Jeez he may not be to your taste but ffs, there's so much really bad stuff out there.

MrStuffins

NIMAN wrote: »

No he's not imho.

He's out there for a certain audience, like many acts in the music world.

Many think REM were geniuses, I hated them and thought they made **** music.
Many loved Sinatra, many think he just spoke his way through songs.
Many think Mariah Carey has a great voice, I think she just screams a lot.
Many think Foo Fighters are the worlds best bad, I think they shout their way through most of their songs.

Music is very subjective. No great fan of Buble tbh, but I'm sure many are.

While I understand your post, and I kinda agree, if everyone just lisened to this then there would be no need for discussion on music.

I know music is subjective, but also a lot of music is pure sh*te!

Example: I always say Rap Music is to music as Horror is to movies. Rap is everywhere but if you want quality you have to look for it! A good horror movie is rare. Horror is easy and cheap to make these days, you just throw together some poorly paid sexy teens in a cabin somewhere and a load of gore and BINGO!! A movie that cost $10k to make and makes £100m at the Box Office!

There are some "rappers" out there who are a disaster! I love a bit of hip hop, there are some immense poets out there who have things to say, there are some who might not be as good lyrically but are superb when it comes to the music side, sometimes you have all the elements come together like when you get Blackstar, Mos Def teaming up with Talib Kweli and then teaming up with MadLib!

Then there are........ others. Ones I won't even mention. They are offensive to the ear and offensive to the face! They sell 2m CDs a day and live in a house made of gold and drugs, meaning that SOMEONE is listening........ but just because someone is listening and there are people who like it, doesn't mean it's not complete feces!

NIMAN

But all music is subjective, as is art, films, TV programmes, books etc.

If we take the history of music and some of the biggest selling artists ever i.e. The Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Abba, REM, U2, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Joe Dolce etc, then we probably all know someone who doesn't like each of these, as well as know someone who thinks they are great.

And there you have the 2 extremes.

How can you say there is some real sh1te out there? Its only real sh1te in your opinion. As long as other people find it good then it negates your argument. And its even more wrong if millions of people like the act who you think is utter sh1te. Can millions be wrong?

Personally I don't like Buble myself, but millions do cos he is a very wealthy man. I didnt like Garth Brooks either, but he made a killing too.

I am not a fan of Little Mix or Matt Cardle but hey if people in their hundreds of thousands want to buy their music, then who am I to say they are wrong?

JerryHandbag

NIMAN wrote: »

But all music is subjective, as is art, films, TV programmes, books etc.

If we take the history of music and some of the biggest selling artists ever i.e. The Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Abba, REM, U2, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Joe Dolce etc, then we probably all know someone who doesn't like each of these, as well as know someone who thinks they are great.

Whazza matta you! Ah shaddup a yo face!

karaokeman

NIMAN wrote: »

I am not a fan of Little Mix or Matt Cardle but hey if people in their hundreds of thousands want to buy their music, then who am I to say they are wrong?

Finally, someone other than myself doesn't like Matt Cardle:D

MrStuffins

NIMAN wrote: »

But all music is subjective, as is art, films, TV programmes, books etc.

If we take the history of music and some of the biggest selling artists ever i.e. The Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Abba, REM, U2, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Joe Dolce etc, then we probably all know someone who doesn't like each of these, as well as know someone who thinks they are great.

And there you have the 2 extremes.

How can you say there is some real sh1te out there? Its only real sh1te in your opinion. As long as other people find it good then it negates your argument. And its even more wrong if millions of people like the act who you think is utter sh1te. Can millions be wrong?

Personally I don't like Buble myself, but millions do cos he is a very wealthy man. I didnt like Garth Brooks either, but he made a killing too.

I am not a fan of Little Mix or Matt Cardle but hey if people in their hundreds of thousands want to buy their music, then who am I to say they are wrong?

Look, I get your point. I understand your train of thought. But just because some people know how to sell sh*te to people who are more than happy to buy sh*te that doesn't mean it stops becoming sh*te!

I'm not talking about particular artists or genres or whatever, but sh*te music exists whether you like it or not. Just like sh*t films exist, no matter how many people might've paid to see it in the cinema or bought the DVD.

There are people who drink their own piss and eat their own sh*t! Because they eat it, does that make it not sh*t but a food I just have a negative opinion of? No sir!

Rigsby

MrStuffins wrote: »

Look, I get your point. I understand your train of thought. But just because some people know how to sell sh*te to people who are more than happy to buy sh*te that doesn't mean it stops becoming sh*te!

I'm not talking about particular artists or genres or whatever, but sh*te music exists whether you like it or not. Just like sh*t films exist, no matter how many people might've paid to see it in the cinema or bought the DVD.

There are people who drink their own piss and eat their own sh*t! Because they eat it, does that make it not sh*t but a food I just have a negative opinion of? No sir!

From your post, it appears to me that you don't get his point, or train of thought at all. It seems logical to assume that if people thought a certain type of music was sh**e then they would not spend their hard earned money on it, don't you think, or waste a whole evening at the cinema, and paying for the privilege of watching something they don't like ? You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that some people might like what others may think is sh**e. This is called human nature.

Yes, sh**e music exists, simply because some people perceive a certain type of music in that way.

MrStuffins

Rigsby wrote: »

From your post, it appears to me that you don't get his point, or train of thought at all. It seems logical to assume that if people thought a certain type of music was sh**e then they would not spend their hard earned money on it, don't you think, or waste a whole evening at the cinema, and paying for the privilege of watching something they don't like ? You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that some people might like what others may think is sh**e. This is called human nature.

I get the points. I completely understand. But you're not getting what i'm saying because......

Yes, sh**e music exists, simply because some people perceive a certain type of music in that way.

No. Not really. it's not about perception sometimes. Sometimes it's just plain sh*t!

Whether people choose to ignore it, or choose not to buy it, doesn't mean it's just pure ballocks!

EdenHazard

The man is a gent. Great performer and a legend.

Rigsby

MrStuffins wrote: »

No. Not really. it's not about perception sometimes. Sometimes it's just plain sh*t!

Nope, the point still has not sunk in with you.

IMO, it is always about perception. How a person perceives a given music will determine whether that music is great or sh**e, but only in THAT PERSON'S (the previous two words seems to be where you are missing the point) mind. Someone else might have a different perception on the exact same music, with a completely different result, again only in THAT PERSON'S mind. Either way, the perception is always there.

walshb

MrStuffins wrote: »

He's a cabaret/pub singer who happened to be popular for a while last year.

He was a bit tubby, nobody cared. He lost a bit of weight and girls started buying his CDs. Now he's put a bit of weight back on and he's been relegated to releasing Christmas albums.

I have nothing against him but my opinion is that even though he has a "good" voice, each of the songs that he choses to cover is always sang better by the original singer, at least the ones i've heard so far. So I find him pointless.

I cannot stomach the guy. Cannot see how he is so popular. Pub singer at best. He is no Frank Sinatra; not freaking close.

Rigsby

walshb wrote: »

I cannot stomach the guy. Cannot see how he is so popular. Pub singer at best. He is no Frank Sinatra; not freaking close.

Fair comment, as this is how you perceive his music. For the record, I'm not a fan of his either. The reason why he is popular ? Others perceive him differently to us. No mystery there.

Sinfonia

Rigsby wrote: »

Nope, the point still has not sunk in with you.

IMO, it is always about perception. How a person perceives a given music will determine whether that music is great or sh**e, but only in THAT PERSON'S (the previous two words seems to be where you are missing the point) mind. Someone else might have a different perception on the exact same music, with a completely different result, again only in THAT PERSON'S mind. Either way, the perception is always there.

I think what he's getting at is that it doesn't take much knowledge, skill, talent or craft with respect to musicianship to sing songs that are covers or otherwise built on hackneyed ideas in an acceptable but by no means outstanding voice.

Rigsby

Sinfonia wrote: »

I think what he's getting at is that it doesn't take much knowledge, skill, talent or craft with respect to musicianship to sing songs that are covers or otherwise built on hackneyed ideas in an acceptable but by no means outstanding voice.

I accept your point. However, music does not have to be skillful, talented, or complex to appeal to people. Granted, that type of music where musicians put in work, writing, performing, and trying to be original is much more deserving of appreciation, but such is the human perception of music, that we all know this is not always the case.

All I am saying is that if a person likes any type of music, for whatever reason, then in their eyes/ears it is good, and I say good luck to them.

MrStuffins

Rigsby wrote: »

Nope, the point still has not sunk in with you.

IMO, it is always about perception. How a person perceives a given music will determine whether that music is great or sh**e, but only in THAT PERSON'S (the previous two words seems to be where you are missing the point) mind. Someone else might have a different perception on the exact same music, with a completely different result, again only in THAT PERSON'S mind. Either way, the perception is always there.

:rolleyes:

Lad, I DO get the point. It has sunk in well! I just bloody disagree with you!

Rigsby

MrStuffins wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Lad, I DO get the point. It has sunk in well!

At last... !!! Took awhile !

We'll agree to disagree then.

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

While I understand your post, and I kinda agree,

MrStuffins wrote: »

Look, I get your point. I understand your train of thought.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I get the points. I completely understand.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Lad, I DO get the point. It has sunk in well! I just bloody disagree with you!

Rigsby wrote: »

At last... !!! Took awhile !

We'll agree to disagree then.

Er........... yeah. At last

Rigsby

MrStuffins wrote: »

Er........... yeah. At last

Yes. You said you understood, but some of the accompanying posts to those quotes suggested otherwise.

Over and out !!

MrStuffins

Rigsby wrote: »

Yes. You said you understood, but some of the accompanying posts to those quotes suggested otherwise.

Over and out !!

Yes, I said I understood. Which would imply that my comments to the contrary meant that I just disagreed no?

I don't know how many times it was necessary for me to say I understood!

karaokeman

In the words of Noel Gallagher "Music is all about perception of the listener", that is the bottom line as a few posters here have pointed out.

I don't know why there is always such bickering about it.

I can't stand The (un)Wanted and they are dire to me but there are other people who like them so I cannot be qualified to say they shouldn't be making music. Sure I don't enjoy what they create but the world doesn't revolve around me.

Michael Buble, I like some of his songs but admittedly he's not the best showman who ever lived. Maybe some people think he's up there with Sinatra, Elvis and Diamond but thats just their opinion and they should be entitled to it.

MrStuffins

karaokeman wrote: »

In the words of Noel Gallagher "Music is all about perception of the listener", that is the bottom line as a few posters here have pointed out.

I don't know why there is always such bickering about it.

I can't stand The (un)Wanted and they are dire to me but there are other people who like them so I cannot be qualified to say they shouldn't be making music. Sure I don't enjoy what they create but the world doesn't revolve around me.

Michael Buble, I like some of his songs but admittedly he's not the best showman who ever lived. Maybe some people think he's up there with Sinatra, Elvis and Diamond but thats just their opinion and they should be entitled to it.

This is true and I wasn't talking about The Wanted, Justin Bieber etc who people always claim are sh*t and who are actually just not to their taste.

But to say that there is no such thing as bad music just because a couple of people might like it is not true in my opinion!

daveyeh

Rigsby wrote: »

I accept your point. However, music does not have to be skillful, talented, or complex to appeal to people.

Bono? Is that you?