Do you think Michael Jackson was a terrible singer?

[jamartheg]

Yes

No

[jshm2]

Don't be stupid. He's won more awards than most singers alive today have lost!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Michael_Jackson

[DaySpring]

I think he was a great singer. As he became an adult he stopped using the healthiest technique but there is no denying he is one of the greatest male voice in commercial pop music.

[SaoirseS]

I think Michael Jackson was to pop what John Wayne was to movies, more of a presence than talent (though he was arguably quite a talented performer, but not the greatest singer).

[Curiosity2006]

Maybe a terrible parent? XDD

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fugEr7EJVfg

[Keyboardkat]

Michael was a great dancer! But as a singer, he could not make himself heard without holding the microphone a quarter-inch in front of his mouth! He had absolutely no vocal power or projection on his own. All singers who have been considered great have had this power. He did not. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great entertainer!

[RolandCuthbert]

Wow. . . I would have thought the poll here would be the opposite.

Maybe he wasn't the same singer when he died.

But that was the one thing Michael had over his competitors. Besides all the things he could do with dancing, choreography, etc., he could flat out sing.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/jZpoDbFHwE4

[Anonymous]

the only people that think that are the people who don't know shit about singing. :)

The only people who would say that are the people trying to be "cool and edgy" by disliking something that millions of other people loved for so long. For some dumb reason, that's a thing in today's society of sheep.

[ArrowheadSW]

Good point.

[misfittoy]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3r2IlhTwE3g

no..

[andreasderjuengere]

I don't remember him well enough to make an informed statement here.

All I can say is, that back then I felt no interest to pay attention to his... ''arts''.

[nspencer]

He had a very good voice I wouldn’t say the best ever. However, he’s one of the greatest performers that ever lived

[HippieVeganJewslim]

The King of Pop is definitely not a terrible singer. Although He ain’t my favourite, I do enjoy Heal the World, We Are the World, Earth Song, Remember the Time, etc. He may’ve died, but He’s still beating it!

[Bethany22]

I don't like his style music but he's not a bad singer

[lauraanne02]

He was the greatest singer of his time, from a child until his death

[loveslongnails]

"the greatest of his time"? Who are you comparing him to, and what criteria are you using? Obviously you're a fan, but explain why you think this.

[lauraanne02]

Haven't you heard him singing who's lovin you?

[loveslongnails]

How is that relevant? One song? Who are you comparing him to, and what is your criteria, other than you're a fan and emotionally invested?

[lauraanne02]

Well you're either a fan or not a fan. That's what the question is. Don't cry about it lol

[loveslongnails]

Now you're just being silly. I AM a fan of Michael Jackson, but being a fan doesn't make me suddenly blind to everything I know about music. I'm also a musician and a singer, and I know he wasn't "the greatest singer of his time" by a long shot, based on any criteria. He'd be the first to tell you that Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles were far better singers! I was just asking you to tell me why you think so, based on anything but the fact that you're a "fan". Have a nice day.

[lauraanne02]

Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles' times were way before Michael Jackson lmao. Do you need a history lesson? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[loveslongnails]

Obviously, Aretha was 15 years older than Michael. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you base your opinion on, besides fandom. Stevie Wonder is only 8 years older, and he's a far better singer. Prince was a month older than Michael - also a far better vocalist. Both had more powerful voices. Michael was a great entertainer and wrote many beautiful songs, as did the aforementioned, but he couldn't out sing them.

[lauraanne02]

You saying Stevie wonder is better is a matter of your opinion and your own fandom (not objective fact) 😂😂 are you really that stupid?

[loveslongnails]

Stupid? Really? You're just proving you don't really know much about vocalists.

I'm a fan of all the people I mentioned, including Michael, and I know something about vocal quality. Try and understand this girl - QUALITATIVELY, if you were to ask any singing coach which of those singers had the better voice based on vocal range, timbre, chest voice, frequency, structure, harmonics and basic range, they're not going to say Michael was the greatest. He had a light, thin, airy, somewhat high pitched but pleasing voice. Vocal depth was not his greatest attribute, whether you acknowledge that or not.

He was a master of rhythm and timing, a great dancer and was an extremely likeable performer. Had you said he was one of the greatest "entertainers" of his time, I'd agree whole heartedly, but greatest singer, no, not based on things you can measure, other than what you like or your fandom.

Try not to sound like a rude, 20 year old bitch because someone disagrees with you and asks you to back up your "opinion".

[lauraanne02]

Weoh so now you're resorting to cuss words because you don't have an actual argument 😭😭

[loveslongnails]

Cuss words? You mean bitch? That's not a cuss word, it's describing you calling me stupid.

No argument? Whaaaaaaaat? Maybe you can't read because my entire previous reply IS an argument, WITH specific, qualitative examples of WHY I believe what I said. LOL I'm the only one here who HAS presented an argument based on measurably traits. You have not - you simply made a statement. I asked you to back it up, your reply was "you're either a fan or you're not", which has no relevance to the post. Geez.

[lauraanne02]

Your argument is as strong as mine, just the complete opposite point 😂😂

[loveslongnails]

You haven't MADE an argument! I told you why, qualitatively, he isn't. LOL You haven't presented any reasons other than "you're a fan and that's why". That's fine, but it's not an "argument", it's an opinion. Good enough.

[lauraanne02]

Qualitatively doesn't actually mean anything 😂😂 you've just said your opinion 😂😂

[loveslongnails]

Of course it means something - if you understand voice. Otherwise, you'll be trying to tell someone "Well, Michael had a better voice than Bocelli". Just accept that you're blinded by fandom. You sound incapable of making a non-emotional judgement on this subject.

[lauraanne02]

Bocelli sings completely different music, you can't compare them. Your must me retarded or something

[loveslongnails]

There you go again, you just can't stop talking like a 3rd grader.. I'm talking about qualitative power in the voice. There are MANY singers who were Michael's contemporaries that had more power and depth in their voices and were better vocalists, be it pop or rock. You would never acknowledge that because you're smitten, and you've already stated that "qualitative" comparisons mean nothing. They weren't necessarily better entertainer, but for the last time, he's the greatest "singer" to YOU because you like him the best. You're just not able to do able to see beyond that. Have your last words. 4th graders need that.

[lauraanne02]

He's the greatest singer to me because I like him the best. And your argument is "he isn't the greatest singer because you don't like him the best". Music is subjective, not objective. Do you know what that means? You need to go back to school

[loveslongnails]

More childish insults. Music is subjective "to a point", meaning that you like this better than that. Things like vocal ability, the precision which you play an instrument, dancing, etc., can and ARE qualitatively measured. If someone said that Yoko Ono is a better singer than Micheal Jackson, you'd just laugh, but they could say "I like her better, so she is". You're just making my point for me. Let's see, this is about the 4th time I'll say "I'm a fan of Michael Jackson". He's simply just not the best singer of his time, you just like him the best. Bye now. This is pointless.

[lauraanne02]

Music is not measured you're literally just making shit up lmao 😂😂 I don't even have to argue with you anymore because you are making 0 sense

[Paris13]

You can't BEAT IT!!! lol!!! xxoo

[DeeDeeDeVour]

MJ's incredibly talented; incredibly innovative; a delight to listen to.

[loveslongnails]

No, not at all. He had a limited range and used it well. Many singers are in the same position.

[NathanDavis]

he wasn't... so I don't have any reason to think so

[TroyDT2]

Absolutely not.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Og7u668mOX0

[exitseven]

He was really good when he was a little kid.

[Anonymous]

No, he was the blueprint to what modern day r&b is today.

[Opinion Owner]

His singing voice is literally imitated by the likes of neyo and Chris brown etc etc

[AdithyaR]

You don't earn the title of King of Pop without actual proof to back it up.
Man's a legend.

[MysticDevice]

Mediocre at worst. Just didn't care for his sounds or style.

[berwise13]

Although I'm not a Michael Jackson fan I feel he had lots of talent.

[crossdressingrihno]

Hell no he’s clearly one of the best.

[Nikki1989]

I never liked his voice.

[TheUniqueOne96]

No, I think he were great.

[WhitneySnow]

He was okay. I wouldn’t say terrible.

[Blackcupcake]

he would have become a legend if he was…

[TacosRAwesome]

He was alright.

[Rockstarrrrr]

I like some of his songs

[joeldalton]

no one could objectively select 'yes'

[GrapeApe98]

Anyone who says yes is wrong.

[AngryCarl]

He was terrible, and he was a singer.

[AddylynnNightingale]

No I like his music.

[La_isla_bonita23]

He was amazing 🤩

[Joker_]

obviously not