Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 13:05:01 GMT
I am catching up now. Just listened to the first three episodes on Spotify. Re. the lip-sync discussion in Ep 3. There has been a bit of a argument on Twitter about it a couple of weeks ago, due to some comments that Charles Thomson made. Needless to say the lip-sync debate about MJ came up due to the Super Bowl, then one thing led to another and the HIStory Tour came up. While I am no fan of the lip-syncing on HIStory Tour myself (you will see me object to the prospect of a HIStory Tour show being released as the live representation of MJ in any thread about that) but there was something about the way Charles expressed himself that rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. Mostly some claims he made that seemed to be based on anecdotal evidence rather than fact. For example, he claimed that the interest in MJ dropped by the HIStory Tour and he wasn't selling out Wembley during the HIStory Tour because people were so upset by him lip syncing on the Dangerous Tour. To me that totally seemed like Charles creating his own version of events based on his own prejudices and taste. First of all, while MJ did not strictly sell out the three Wembley shows on HIStory Tour, he did sell 98% of the tickets, so it is not like it was a flop. (212,601 / 216,000 (98%) - according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory_World_Tour ) Then his conclusion that the "drop" from Dangerous Tour was due to him lipping some songs on the Dangerous Tour was a totally arbitrary conclusion. MJ just went through horrible allegations between the two tours, they might have had something to do with his popularity dropping a little, right? There is just no evidence it had to do with lip-syncing. And it is not like the Wembley shows on HIStory Tour were flopping, either. 98% of the tickets selling out in three Wembley shows is a flop in what world? U2 sold out two Wembley shows on their PopMart show, around the same time, in 1997. A lot of bands are happy to sell out just one.
Absolute nonsense, and glad the eejit has me blocked! Spot on with everything else you said too.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 29, 2020 13:30:41 GMT
I am catching up now. Just listened to the first three episodes on Spotify. Re. the lip-sync discussion in Ep 3. There has been a bit of a argument on Twitter about it a couple of weeks ago, due to some comments that Charles Thomson made. Needless to say the lip-sync debate about MJ came up due to the Super Bowl, then one thing led to another and the HIStory Tour came up. While I am no fan of the lip-syncing on HIStory Tour myself (you will see me object to the prospect of a HIStory Tour show being released as the live representation of MJ in any thread about that) but there was something about the way Charles expressed himself that rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. Mostly some claims he made that seemed to be based on anecdotal evidence rather than fact. For example, he claimed that the interest in MJ dropped by the HIStory Tour and he wasn't selling out Wembley during the HIStory Tour because people were so upset by him lip syncing on the Dangerous Tour. To me that totally seemed like Charles creating his own version of events based on his own prejudices and taste. First of all, while MJ did not strictly sell out the three Wembley shows on HIStory Tour, he did sell 98% of the tickets, so it is not like it was a flop. (212,601 / 216,000 (98%) - according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory_World_Tour ) Then his conclusion that the "drop" from Dangerous Tour was due to him lipping some songs on the Dangerous Tour was a totally arbitrary conclusion. MJ just went through horrible allegations between the two tours, they might have had something to do with his popularity dropping a little, right? There is just no evidence it had to do with lip-syncing. And it is not like the Wembley shows on HIStory Tour were flopping, either. 98% of the tickets selling out in three Wembley shows is a flop in what world? U2 sold out two Wembley shows on their PopMart show, around the same time, in 1997. A lot of bands are happy to sell out just one.
Absolute nonsense, and glad the eejit has me blocked! Spot on with everything else you said too.
He has you blocked? Wow!
During the debate he also brought up how people were upset and demanded their money back at Brintey's Circus tour in Australia due to lip-synching. He mentioned this as a way to show how much of a capital sin lip-synching is. Basically it is cheating according to him. Now, I looked up what actually happened on Britney's tour and from this to me it seems like it was an artificially induced "controversy", started by a politician, then carried on by a journalist. From this it doesn't seem to me that it was an organic bottom-up thing coming from the fans who were attending the show. It seems more like a politician, then the media trying to stir shit.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,489
|
Post by TonyR on Feb 29, 2020 16:12:44 GMT
On the above respect77 I hate lip syncing as much as the next guy, but it's a nonsense to say tickets were low because of it. The fact is tickets went on sale months before the shows so no one would know the extent of the lip syncing . For example, I had tickets for two shows, and have to admit (sorry for this in advance) that had I known what the shows were like, I wouldn't have bought them for the 2nd show but it was already done.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 29, 2020 16:29:38 GMT
Generally, I feel the world has become a bit too obsessed with lip-synching in the past 10-15 years. I mean sometimes it's like the only aspect of a show people are looking at when assessing if it is good or bad. Don't get me wrong the same show is always better sung live (unless the singer is absolutely horrible live) than lip-synched but is it really true that a show cannot be great, even legendary when lip-synched? Motown 25 tells you otherwise. Or MTV VMAs 1995. If other aspects of the show make up for it, it still can be great. And that Whitney national anthem tells us that even a performance focused on singing can be considered legendary even if it is lip-synched if the performance is charismatic. And you just knew she could have sung it live too, so it didn't matter she didn't out of technical reasons.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,489
|
Post by TonyR on Feb 29, 2020 16:32:16 GMT
Generally, I feel the world has become a bit too obsessed with lip-synching in the past 10-15 years. I mean sometimes it's like the only aspect of a show people are looking at when assessing if it is good or bad. Don't get me wrong the same show is always better sung live (unless the singer is absolutely horrible live) than lip-synched but is it really true that a show cannot be great, even legendary when lip-synched? Motown 25 tells you otherwise. Or MTV VMAs 1995. If other aspects of the show make up for it, it still can be great. And that Whitney national anthem tells us that even a performance focused on singing can be considered legendary even if it is lip-synched if the performance is charismatic. And you just knew she could have sung it live too, so it didn't matter she didn't out of technical reasons. Needs it's own thread I guess (!) But TV performances are fully different than a live show. And if you are going to do it, at least record a new version and not the original CD from 25 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 29, 2020 17:47:08 GMT
Actually I remember at the 1995 VMAs MJ was criticized for the lip synching by Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins. But that's the only criticism I heard of it, it wasn't a widespread one. Most people were just in awe of the performance. But it made me smile a bit that in this podcast Corgan was brought up as an example of subpar live performances. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by russtcb on Feb 29, 2020 17:47:21 GMT
Really enjoyed the last episode Russ. Excited you're so enthused about the new Ozzy record. I mentioned in the Ozzy thread that I promised the missus that I would wait until my birthday to listen to it as she's got me the album as a present, and it's killing me not hearing it. I love Ozzmosis, and always respect your opinion Russ, as we seem so like minded about a lot of music stuff, so I know if you say it's good, I won't be disappointed. I really liked the direct approach to this show, a clear subject outlined in the title and at the beginning. Melissa is hilarious. It's great that you're not just doing a circle jerk with buddies who love all the same stuff as you. She adds a humour and the age gap is something which makes the show feel cross-generational. Not to make you feel like a dinosaur (I'm pretty sure I'm closer myself to your age than Melissa's!), but it's just good to have a perspective from different age groups. I was surprised you didn't mention Black Sabbath once!! I still know a guy who refuses to listen to a single Sab record without Ozzy. Whilst many grew to love the Dio years, it seems that only hardcore Sabbath fans could name you a single song from the Tony Martin, Ian Gillan eras. A good spinoff topic might be, is one guy ever important enough to carry the band on his own? Some would argue that if Tony Iommi calls it Black Sabbath, then it's Black Sabbath. I don't think Axl was afforded the same courtesy with Chinese Democracy, but then you could argue he didn't earn the right to carry the name alone, like Iommi did. Food for thought. Anyways, nothing but positive feedback from me about the changes you've made. It felt concise, and you kept things moving and I'll definitely be tuning in again. Thank you very much for all the feedback. And yeah, Michelle is a wonderful person. I've known her since about 2004 and she's one of my favorite people I've ever met. The age thing does help the dynamic of the show IMO along with the fact that Michelle is no pushover. She very much knows what she likes and isn't going to be swayed easily. There were so many bands I could've gone on about for that particular episode. I surprised myself by barely mentioning The Black Crowes. I'm a huge fan and wildly offended by their latest "reunion" tour.
|
|
|
Post by russtcb on Feb 29, 2020 17:54:48 GMT
Actually I remember at the 1995 VMAs MJ was criticized for the lip synching by Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins. But that's the only criticism I heard of it, it wasn't a widespread one. Most people were just in awe of the performance. But it made me smile a bit that in this podcast Corgan was brought up as an example of subpar live performances. LOL. I've always been fairly indifferent to Corgan to be honest, but man oh man do I remember him running his mouth about Michael after the VMAs. He was like "a guy comes out, lip syncs 3 songs and gets a standing ovation. Something is wrong with music". Shut the fuck up, Billy. I think you meant to say "a guy comes out, works his ass off and gets a standing ovation. Something is right with music". In any case, as I mentioned on the show: I always grew up thinking that maybe I was giving Michael a pass just because he's Michael. The older I got and the more performers I saw, it became my opinion that it would be impossible for him to perform the way he did and sing live most of the time. Also....thank you for listening to the show. I really, really appreciate all the support we've received from this forum!
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 29, 2020 18:00:28 GMT
During the Dangerous part of the 1995 VMAs MJ didn't even try to pretend he was singing live. There was no microphone and at a point he lip synced to Janet's voice ("You know you want me"). To me that makes the lip synching even more OK, because he didn't even try to sell it as live singing.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Feb 29, 2020 22:12:45 GMT
During the Dangerous part of the 1995 VMAs MJ didn't even try to pretend he was singing live. There was no microphone and at a point he lip synced to Janet's voice ("You know you want me"). To me that makes the lip synching even more OK, because he didn't even try to sell it as live singing. I actually think MJ never tried to be deceptive about it. Wasn't there an interview with one of his engineers or musical director's for TII who spoke about this? He said that the original plan was for MJ to re-record some of the songs he wasn't going to be singing live to give the impression of it being a live take. That kind of thing is standard industry practise for a lot of artists, but apparently MJ changed his mind about it, as he felt it was deceptive and he wanted to just focus his energies instead on doing as much live singing as possible.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Feb 29, 2020 22:25:56 GMT
The older I got and the more performers I saw, it became my opinion that it would be impossible for him to perform the way he did and sing live most of the time. I totally agree here! I know it sounds like fans just giving him a pass, but some performances and songs just don't lend themselves well to live singing. Can you imagine MJ pulling off a live vocal version of Earth Song running around the stage and hanging off a crane? Not only that, as a vocalist, his songs became increasingly more vocally challenging as his career went on. Songs from OTW and Thriller are, on the whole, a lot less taxing vocally than much of the material from Bad, Dangerous and HIStory. As someone who has had vocal lessons and studied the anatomy of singing for years, I can say with confidence that it'd be impossible for MJ to perform a song like Earth Song live every night without blowing out his voice. The What About Us parts alone would leave him sounding hoarse and throaty. You can't just transition on a whim from a light, airy mixed voice to a grovelly, shouting rock voice and then do a smooth transition back again for the next song. The human voice doesn't work like that. I'm not making excuses for him, but the truth is, most singers don't have songs with that kind of range in them. Songs like Earth Song or TWYMMF or Man In The Mirror would be challenging for the best singers in the world.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Feb 29, 2020 23:10:52 GMT
During the Dangerous part of the 1995 VMAs MJ didn't even try to pretend he was singing live. There was no microphone and at a point he lip synced to Janet's voice ("You know you want me"). To me that makes the lip synching even more OK, because he didn't even try to sell it as live singing. I actually think MJ never tried to be deceptive about it. Wasn't there an interview with one of his engineers or musical director's for TII who spoke about this? He said that the original plan was for MJ to re-record some of the songs he wasn't going to be singing live to give the impression of it being a live take. That kind of thing is standard industry practise for a lot of artists, but apparently MJ changed his mind about it, as he felt it was deceptive and he wanted to just focus his energies instead on doing as much live singing as possible. I mean, it's already deceptive if you're lipsyncing and wearing a microphone - especially so in performances where he's standing around doing very little or the dancing is minimal, therefore placing an emphasis on the vocals (Stranger in Moscow comes to mind). When it comes to songs that need lip-syncing due to their choreography, I'd personally rather have something new to listen to rather than the studio recording I've heard 100 times before because other wise I'll notice right away and be taken out of the performance.
And it's not like he doesn't trick the audience during other parts of his show either. It was only a few years ago that I realised he's not actually flying away on a jetpack at the end of his Dangerous shows, but that he instead used a visual trick to secretly swap with someone else. That was probably influenced by insurance/safety reasons, but seeing someone swap with Michael would lessen the experience - as does it when you hear the studio recording. If deception was really an issue, there's other ways to end the show on a more genuine note (though granted, that ending is easily the coolest I've seen from a show). It was also only a few years ago I learnt that the This Is It film is partially dubbed in places too - but I remember walking away from the film enjoying the fact so much of it was 'live'. So that to me shows I personally would've enjoyed a performance where I was tricked into thinking it was live, rather than the unaltered studio recordings.
Now a days I'm not sure how much live singing he was going to do with his TII shows, but that last sentence of your post where he says he hoped to focus so he could do as much as possible is great to hear. Like everyone else I'd take that over pre-recordings anyday.
|
|
|
Post by russtcb on Mar 1, 2020 4:18:52 GMT
I actually think MJ never tried to be deceptive about it. Wasn't there an interview with one of his engineers or musical director's for TII who spoke about this? He said that the original plan was for MJ to re-record some of the songs he wasn't going to be singing live to give the impression of it being a live take. That kind of thing is standard industry practise for a lot of artists, but apparently MJ changed his mind about it, as he felt it was deceptive and he wanted to just focus his energies instead on doing as much live singing as possible. I mean, it's already deceptive if you're lipsyncing and wearing a microphone - especially so in performances where he's standing around doing very little or the dancing is minimal, therefore placing an emphasis on the vocals (Stranger in Moscow comes to mind). When it comes to songs that need lip-syncing due to their choreography, I'd personally rather have something new to listen to rather than the studio recording I've heard 100 times before because other wise I'll notice right away and be taken out of the performance.
And it's not like he doesn't trick the audience during other parts of his show either. It was only a few years ago that I realised he's not actually flying away on a jetpack at the end of his Dangerous shows, but that he instead used a visual trick to secretly swap with someone else. That was probably influenced by insurance/safety reasons, but seeing someone swap with Michael would lessen the experience - as does it when you hear the studio recording. If deception was really an issue, there's other ways to end the show on a more genuine note (though granted, that ending is easily the coolest I've seen from a show). It was also only a few years ago I learnt that the This Is It film is partially dubbed in places too - but I remember walking away from the film enjoying the fact so much of it was 'live'. So that to me shows I personally would've enjoyed a performance where I was tricked into thinking it was live, rather than the unaltered studio recordings.
Now a days I'm not sure how much live singing he was going to do with his TII shows, but that last sentence of your post where he says he hoped to focus so he could do as much as possible is great to hear. Like everyone else I'd take that over pre-recordings anyday.
The overall point I made on the show was that while I personally would've been fine with Michael signing his best live, (or any performer for that matter) the general public doesn't seem to want to accept that these artists are human and with age they'll sound different.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 1, 2020 5:56:43 GMT
The older I got and the more performers I saw, it became my opinion that it would be impossible for him to perform the way he did and sing live most of the time. I totally agree here! I know it sounds like fans just giving him a pass, but some performances and songs just don't lend themselves well to live singing. Can you imagine MJ pulling off a live vocal version of Earth Song running around the stage and hanging off a crane? Not only that, as a vocalist, his songs became increasingly more vocally challenging as his career went on. Songs from OTW and Thriller are, on the whole, a lot less taxing vocally than much of the material from Bad, Dangerous and HIStory. As someone who has had vocal lessons and studied the anatomy of singing for years, I can say with confidence that it'd be impossible for MJ to perform a song like Earth Song live every night without blowing out his voice. The What About Us parts alone would leave him sounding hoarse and throaty. You can't just transition on a whim from a light, airy mixed voice to a grovelly, shouting rock voice and then do a smooth transition back again for the next song. The human voice doesn't work like that. I'm not making excuses for him, but the truth is, most singers don't have songs with that kind of range in them. Songs like Earth Song or TWYMMF or Man In The Mirror would be challenging for the best singers in the world. Yes, this. I'm not a vocal expert but I always felt that many of MJ's songs are very challenging vocally. Add that he's also dancing on stage and it was really not easy for him to do a full live show. Not impossible, of course, as he proved on the Bad Tour and before but it's tough and does take a toll. And it's a good point how his songs very diverse in vocal style and it's really not easy to change from Rock with You to Scream or vica versa during a live show. I also think he had some physical problems later on in his career. (Which Charles was dismissive of too. But we know for a fact that already on the HIStory Tour he had so bad sleeping issues that he used Propofol. I don't think such a thing will allow anyone to be psychically in top shape.) So once again, people need to consider the differences between different styles and genres. With a rock band that doesn't have songs with especially challenging vocals and their whole game is just standing on stage and play their instruments with some mediocre vocals and with all of their songs requiring the same, monotonous vocal style - hell, they better sing live! Say the Smashing Pumpkins. Lol. But it's not really fair to expect the same from an act that does much more physically demanding stuff on stage and on top of that with vocally more challenging songs. I wonder if this discussion can be placed in the context of rockism vs. poptimism debate, where again pop music is set to rockist standards with disregard to the unique challenges of a pop performance (dance, choreography, with often vocally more challenging songs etc)?
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Mar 1, 2020 7:22:41 GMT
I totally agree here! I know it sounds like fans just giving him a pass, but some performances and songs just don't lend themselves well to live singing. Can you imagine MJ pulling off a live vocal version of Earth Song running around the stage and hanging off a crane? Not only that, as a vocalist, his songs became increasingly more vocally challenging as his career went on. Songs from OTW and Thriller are, on the whole, a lot less taxing vocally than much of the material from Bad, Dangerous and HIStory. As someone who has had vocal lessons and studied the anatomy of singing for years, I can say with confidence that it'd be impossible for MJ to perform a song like Earth Song live every night without blowing out his voice. The What About Us parts alone would leave him sounding hoarse and throaty. You can't just transition on a whim from a light, airy mixed voice to a grovelly, shouting rock voice and then do a smooth transition back again for the next song. The human voice doesn't work like that. I'm not making excuses for him, but the truth is, most singers don't have songs with that kind of range in them. Songs like Earth Song or TWYMMF or Man In The Mirror would be challenging for the best singers in the world. Yes, this. I'm not a vocal expert but I always felt that many of MJ's songs are very challenging vocally. Add that he's also dancing on stage and it was really not easy for him to do a full live show. Not impossible, of course, as he proved on the Bad Tour and before but it's tough and does take a toll. And it's a good point how his songs very diverse in vocal style and it's really not easy to change from Rock with You to Scream or vica versa during a live show. I also think he had some physical problems later on in his career. (Which Charles was dismissive of too. But we know for a fact that already on the HIStory Tour he had so bad sleeping issues that he used Propofol. I don't think such a thing will allow anyone to be psychically in top shape.) So once again, people need to consider the differences between different styles and genres. With a rock band that doesn't have songs with especially challenging vocals and their whole game is just standing on stage and play their instruments with some mediocre vocals and with all of their songs requiring the same, monotonous vocal style - hell, they better sing live! Say the Smashing Pumpkins. Lol. But it's not really fair to expect the same from an act that does much more physically demanding stuff on stage and on top of that with vocally more challenging songs. I wonder if this discussion can be placed in the context of rockism vs. poptimism debate, where again pop music is set to rockist standards with disregard to the unique challenges of a pop performance (dance, choreography, with often vocally more challenging songs etc)? There's also the misconception that because someone is exceptionally gifted, they find it easy. Will.i.am said that MJ spent hours warming up his voice before hitting the studio when they worked together and that he'd never experienced anything like that before with anyone else he'd worked with. Fans love to think of MJ as being superhuman,but he couldn't just roll out of bed and produce an exquisite vocal performance on a tap without intense warming up of the vocal chords first. Of course, MJ had a naturally beautiful tone, but take a look at the WMA 2006 when they literally shoved a microphone in front of him to try and force him into a performance. He sings a little and although he doesn't sound bad, he's using head voice/falsetto to produce some of those higher notes. On the studio demo he sings those same parts effortlessly in a mixed voice and sounds great. The media tried to push the angle that MJ had lost his voice, but the great live performances of IJCSLY and Human Nature on TII prove that was bs. With the WMA 06, he hadn't anticipated someone literally bullying him out onto stage and therefore didn't prepare or warm up the voice. Another misconception about singing is that you can always reproduce the same results once you've trained. Singing is a discipline like learning to play any instrument, and if you don't practise everyday, you will start to suck. The larynx is a muscle, which has muscle memory. If you don't use that muscle regularly, it won't work. MJs vocal coach on TII said that they'd worked extensively on building MJs voice back up and this would be because he hadn't toured or recorded in many years and it would've taken time to get his voice where it needed to be. There are dozen of variables that effect how good you sound, and tiredness is a big one. Singing can be a very frustrating artform to practise, because one day you can be hitting all the notes with ease and the next it can take an hour and a half of warming up the voice first to produce the same result. The difference is usually down to something physical, like how well rested you are or whether you've had a stressful day. Tiredness and tension are the enemies of a singer. My singing teacher used to get me to use the Alexander technique to relieve tension and it's incredible to see how carrying lower tension in your back for example, can adversely effect what you're capable of producing with your voice. If MJ was sleep deprived on the HIStory tour, there is no way he would be able to give decent vocal performances night after night. HIStoric questionned why he didn't try and perform some of the slower songs like Stranger In Moscow, but even that song has a very demanding chest voice section at the end (the "we're talking danger" part). That is the part of MJs voice that would be the most challenging for him to produce, as is evidenced by the fact that whenever The Voice/X Factor singers cover Earth Song, they pretend as if the What About Us section of the song doesn't exist. I keep talking about Earth Song, because that is one of the most extreme examples (probably alongside Keep The Faith), where he is singing with that aggressive, shouting chest voice for a prolonged period of time. That's why it makes me laugh when you see those graph charts of singers ranges and it looks like people like Justin Timberlake or Prince hit higher notes than MJ. Yes, maybe they do using their head voice or falsetto, which is relatively easy to accomplish, but these guys would never be able to replicate MJs chest voice range even on their best day. The reason why MJs songs became increasingly more challenging from a technical standpoint is because he used that "Earth Song voice" a lot, albeit fleetingly on many songs on Bad, Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible. And it's the transition between the two, from the clean mixed voice, to the angry chest voice which is challenging, and would cause MJ to struggle to perform much of this material live. When you really study his catalogue from a vocal perspective, there are songs which sound deceptively easy, where you wouldn't necessarily identify him using that "Earth Song voice", but he does it fleetingly to accomplish the higher notes, instead of using head voice or falsetto like many singers would. A song like You Are My Life for example, the middle eight section, the "love was always here waiting for me" line uses that angry chest voice. It's just one line, but I'd wager that if MJ were just to roll out of bed and try and sing that song, he would have to use his falsetto to sing that bit, as his angry chest voices isn't something that can just be turned on like a tap. If a singer like Usher or Timberlake were to sing that same song, they would not be able to pull off that line without copping out and using falsetto, no matter how many takes they did. I personally believe this is why MJ didn't perform more songs from the Dangerous album on the Dangerous tour and why the new songs on HIStory were all lip-synched on the HIStory tour. He transitions constantly from his mixed voice to his chest voice on those albums, making it almost impossible to pull off a lot of those songs live on a two and a half hour show. Perhaps if he was doing a one-off performance, then it would be more realistic. What MJ achieved vocally on Bad, Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible is nothing short of spectacular, and utterly, utterly world class. But in essence, MJ became a studio singer after the Bad tour, focusing his efforts on producing vocal performances in the studio which other singers could only dream of pulling off. He could've chosen to focus more on the live singing aspect of his career, but then he would've had to dial back some of the more ambitious vocal songs on his albums to realistically be able to perform his music live. And I don't know about you, but I would rather have the world class vocal performances on songs that I can enjoy for the rest of my life, than MJ have been less demanding of his voice, and produced material that was easier to sing just so that he could pull it off live.
|
|