Is Michael Buble the Bubluonic plague of popular music?

mike65

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels nauseous when the sickly sweet tones of glorified night club warbler Michael Buble seep out of the radio or tv speakers.

If you can't abide him please sign in and if you have time post a youtube video which illustrates the original version of a song he has covered so badly

I'll kick of with a personal favourite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE

Dark Artist

I'm fairly indifferent to him to be honest, but one thing that I like to do if I need a laugh is put on a live YouTube video of him with the audio muted. It can be hilarious at times.

MrStuffins

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.

Mars Bar

Like Dark Artist, I'm indifferent to him.

I'd say Justin Bieber is the bubonic plague of music.

adox

He's harmless and not particularly offensive. He'd be way down my list of a musical cull.

take everything

Bubonic plague might be a bit harsh. :pac:
But yeah he is annoyingly bland.

Scubadevils

I'd say popular music is the bubonic plague of music.

rcaz

Scubadevils wrote: »

I'd say popular music is the bubonic plague of music.

It's not so bad

Scubadevils

What really gets me and I suppose I tend to use it as a measure of 'popular' music are the various music channels on Sky, I dunno how many there are but there are a lot - at times I'd feel like a browse of some music channels, maybe before bed and its just channel after channel of absolute tripe... Pretty much every time I do it its the same and that's how I've arrived at the conclusion!

JerryHandbag

The Canadian Daniel O'Donnell

adox

JerryHandbag wrote: »

The Canadian Daniel O'Donnell

Harsh.

washman3

JerryHandbag wrote: »

The Canadian Daniel O'Donnell

but Daniel's got a nicer house......

The Golden Miller

he's mock jazz for people that dont know any better

MrStuffins

Scubadevils wrote: »

I'd say popular music is the bubonic plague of music.

Sorry but this is a silly statement! Doesn't matter whether you're into Electro, Rock, Thrash Metal............ everyone loves a good Pop song!

Kadent

I don't get Michael Buble I really don't. I don't consider his voice record producing worthy and I really have no idea what those attractive qualities that make women worship him are. I don't even get his songs. I don't get Michael Buble at all.

henryporter

The Golden Miller wrote: »

he's mock jazz for people that dont know any better

I thought that was Paddy Cole:D

Scubadevils

MrStuffins wrote: »

Sorry but this is a silly statement! Doesn't matter whether you're into Electro, Rock, Thrash Metal............ everyone loves a good Pop song!

Ah yeah I know - I'd had a few Christmas drinks and felt like a sweeping statement!

LowOdour

if he was michael smith from cavan, he would probably be a regular on tg4's Glor Tire, and thats about it

Rigsby

The Golden Miller wrote: »

he's mock jazz for people that dont know any better

This sounds a bit snobbish and condescending to me. Not everyone came out of the womb to the sound of Coltrane in full flight Maybe by listening to Buble, people's curiosity will be stirred into delving deeper into jazz. He fills a niche and people like him. So I don't really see every one's problem here.

rcaz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Sorry but this is a silly statement! Doesn't matter whether you're into Electro, Rock, Thrash Metal............ everyone loves a good Pop song!

Popular music is wider than just pop songs though. I looked up 'Popular Music' in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, it said;

A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite.

I don't agree that it's of lower value and complexity than any other music (a lot of it is, sure, but it's not a defining characteristic), I don't really like how that definition is kinda classist. But Philip Tagg, a musicologist who specialises in pop said;

"Popular music, unlike art music, is conceived for mass distribution to large and often socioculturally heterogeneous groups of listeners...

Is that better? It's music not designed to be really challenging (though I can think of plenty of difficult popular albums...), to be distributed, with groups of listeners in mind... Tunes for the lads? :pac:

Da Shins Kelly

He doesn't really offend me. I can think of far worse people out there. Having said that, yes, the originals of his songs are much better.

Pretty disheartening that his version of this song has millions more views on Youtube than Nina Simone's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tuTSi6Sck

MrStuffins

El Pr0n wrote: »

Popular music is wider than just pop songs though. I looked up 'Popular Music' in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, it said;



I don't agree that it's of lower value and complexity than any other music (a lot of it is, sure, but it's not a defining characteristic), I don't really like how that definition is kinda classist. But Philip Tagg, a musicologist who specialises in pop said;



Is that better? It's music not designed to be really challenging (though I can think of plenty of difficult popular albums...), to be distributed, with groups of listeners in mind... Tunes for the lads? :pac:

Well I don't mind a good brainless tune. I mean, I love a good complex thrller when I go to the cinema with plot twists and shocks and the whole shabang!

But then I also love sitting down and watching Arnie blow things up with a massive bazzoka while saing "GET TO DA CHOPPAAAAAAAAA!!!!!".

So bring on the pop music :pac:

super_furry

He's a watered down Sinatra impersonator.

Dudess

"Lounge" style, rat pack worshipping etc puts me off anyway - Tubridy-tastic. Covering standards in a lounge style with a fairly mediocre voice - just horrible. Something a bit smug about it too.

His Christmas compilation is bellowing out all over the place - it's punchably bad.

MrStuffins

And there is only one man who can get away with being a lounge singer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRwgNtv29ig

Auvers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hSUDCWKDc

love a bit of Cheese

Da Shins Kelly

Dudess wrote: »

"Lounge" style, rat pack worshipping etc puts me off anyway - Tubridy-tastic. Covering standards in a lounge style with a fairly mediocre voice - just horrible. Something a bit smug about it too.

His Christmas compilation is bellowing out all over the place - it's punchably bad.

I agree with the rat pack thing being off-putting. I don't have any problem with anyone singing those old American classics - Feelin' Good, Cry Me A River, Summertime, etc. - as it's not as though the people who sang them originally wrote them or that the originals are always best (Billie Holiday's version of Summertime was and is the best in my opinion, but it was sang by other people before and since her). They are old standards that are open to interpretation, that's what makes them great songs. The problem is, Buble doesn't really pick songs that mean anything to him, he just sings what his idols sang without bringing anything new to it. And that's the key to bringing that type of music to life - the songs have been around forever, but it's the singer that has to make them sound fresh. Buble doesn't really do that. He just sounds like he's acting the role of Sinatra. He hasn't lived the kind of life Nina Simone lived, so his interpretation of Feelin' Good feels a bit empty or something. He also doesn't have a particularly distinctive voice. Sinatra was great because he had that wonderfully expressive and effortless style, and he sang songs that he could bring something new to.

The old jazz classics are all great songs, but they need to be in the right hands so they don't sound cheap or meaningless. I don't think that Buble has the voice or the personality to pull it off. That said, there are far, far worse people out there that offend me more. For example, I'd much rather listen to Buble than listen to Christina Aguilera's screaming. She's a truly horrible singer, in my opinion.

Joe10000

He sells a lot of records so I assume a lot of people enjoy listening to him, live and let live.

"Artists" that bug me are the ones where the music is the by product of the marketing, I don't think booblay is in the bracket.

Sinfonia

El Pr0n wrote: »

Popular music is wider than just pop songs though. I looked up 'Popular Music' in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, it said;

A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite.

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

Auvers

This thread needs more Cheese

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSeNpqRoJ20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0wmYJ3yj0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLAbAp5tbU0

Dudess

Joe10000 wrote: »

booblay

Michael Titfu*k it is. :pac:

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.