Any Michael Buble fans?
 

On 4 Apr 2006 09:11:31 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:30:34 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:03:01 GMT, Don White
wrote:

You're not alone. He did well in Halifax last night.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/494400.html

YAY!!!

Who?

He's a Harry Conick Jr. clone.

Why, because he sings ballads like Sinatra?

No, because they *both* sing in Sinatra's style, but Conick did it
first. Therefore, it appears that Buble copied Conick.

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

Jack Goff wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 09:11:31 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:30:34 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:03:01 GMT, Don White
wrote:

You're not alone. He did well in Halifax last night.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/494400.html

YAY!!!

Who?

He's a Harry Conick Jr. clone.

Why, because he sings ballads like Sinatra?

No, because they *both* sing in Sinatra's style, but Conick did it
first. Therefore, it appears that Buble copied Conick.

Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

basskisser wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:

On 4 Apr 2006 09:11:31 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:30:34 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:


On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:03:01 GMT, Don White
wrote:


You're not alone. He did well in Halifax last night.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/494400.html

YAY!!!

Who?

He's a Harry Conick Jr. clone.

Why, because he sings ballads like Sinatra?

No, because they *both* sing in Sinatra's style, but Conick did it
first. Therefore, it appears that Buble copied Conick.


Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:

On 4 Apr 2006 09:11:31 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:30:34 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:


On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:03:01 GMT, Don White
wrote:


You're not alone. He did well in Halifax last night.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/494400.html

YAY!!!

Who?

He's a Harry Conick Jr. clone.

Why, because he sings ballads like Sinatra?

No, because they *both* sing in Sinatra's style, but Conick did it
first. Therefore, it appears that Buble copied Conick.


Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

On 5 Apr 2006 11:22:15 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Wrong again, Bassy. Sinatra didn’t start it, he is simply one of the
most popular of the crooners. It’s a complex concept, and I realize
you and Don prefer the simple ones, but try to follow along…

Rudy Vallee is considered to be the first crooner, starting the style
10 years before Sinatra ever came on the scene. Bing Crosby is
considered the “king” of the crooners, and is who Sinatra copied when
he got his start. Sinatra was one of the last and best known today.

Now fast-forward to 1989, and Harry Connick, Jr. Connick revives the
style of crooning and introduces it to a whole new generation of fans.
He builds quite a career out of it over the last 17 years. Buble is a
johnny-come-lately who is riding Connick’s coattails. Without
Connick, you’d never have heard of Buble. Therefore, a “Connick
clone”. Can you think of a quicker, more succinct way to describe him
to someone who’s never heard of him?

Besides, I never said Buble was bad, or had no talent. In fact, I
have one of his CD’s; it’s pretty good “dinner music”. It’s you guys
who are getting your panties in a wad over this. Why are you guys so
full of bile? The rest of the NG has grown up, so when are you guys
going to join us?

Anyway, it’s been pretty entertaining. Thanks for the laughs.
Consider yourselves educated... on at least this *one* thing.

Jack

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:02:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 11:22:15 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:

Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!

That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Wrong again, Bassy. Sinatra didn’t start it, he is simply one of the
most popular of the crooners. It’s a complex concept, and I realize
you and Don prefer the simple ones, but try to follow along…


And thus, Jackoff once again proves he is still...a jackoff.

Need a hanky for that snotty comment, Jackoff?

When I said that the NG had grown up, I didn't mean you, Harry.

Have a good day.

Jack

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

Jack Goff wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 11:22:15 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Wrong again, Bassy. Sinatra didn't start it, he is simply one of the
most popular of the crooners. It's a complex concept, and I realize
you and Don prefer the simple ones, but try to follow along...

Sorry, but YOU are wrong. Sinatra's style was unique.

Rudy Vallee is considered to be the first crooner, starting the style
10 years before Sinatra ever came on the scene. Bing Crosby is
considered the "king" of the crooners, and is who Sinatra copied when
he got his start. Sinatra was one of the last and best known today.

Sinatra's style, tempos, pitch, and vocal range were not copied nor
sound anything like either Vallee, or Crosby.

Now fast-forward to 1989, and Harry Connick, Jr. Connick revives the
style of crooning and introduces it to a whole new generation of fans.
He builds quite a career out of it over the last 17 years. Buble is a
johnny-come-lately who is riding Connick's coattails. Without
Connick, you'd never have heard of Buble. Therefore, a "Connick
clone". Can you think of a quicker, more succinct way to describe him
to someone who's never heard of him?

Yes, and quite easily. Big band genre.

Besides, I never said Buble was bad, or had no talent. In fact, I
have one of his CD's; it's pretty good "dinner music". It's you guys
who are getting your panties in a wad over this. Why are you guys so
full of bile? The rest of the NG has grown up, so when are you guys
going to join us?

What makes you think I'm all upset over this? I could really care less
if you are wrong. Perhaps you should follow your own advice to grow up.

Anyway, it's been pretty entertaining. Thanks for the laughs.
Consider yourselves educated... on at least this *one* thing.

Jack

Jack, with your narrow minded thinking, I seriously doubt that you
could educate anybody on anything, unless it's how to be narrow minded!

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

On 6 Apr 2006 04:24:40 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 11:22:15 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Wrong again, Bassy. Sinatra didn't start it, he is simply one of the
most popular of the crooners. It's a complex concept, and I realize
you and Don prefer the simple ones, but try to follow along...

Sorry, but YOU are wrong. Sinatra's style was unique.

You said "Sinatra did it first", and he did not. Besides, everyone's
unique in their own way. But you are the only person who doesn't
think that Sinatra belongs to the crooner genre. Look it up.


Rudy Vallee is considered to be the first crooner, starting the style
10 years before Sinatra ever came on the scene. Bing Crosby is
considered the "king" of the crooners, and is who Sinatra copied when
he got his start. Sinatra was one of the last and best known today.

Sinatra's style, tempos, pitch, and vocal range were not copied nor
sound anything like either Vallee, or Crosby.

He copied the popular style of the time, and the king of that style is
Crosby. Look it up.


Now fast-forward to 1989, and Harry Connick, Jr. Connick revives the
style of crooning and introduces it to a whole new generation of fans.
He builds quite a career out of it over the last 17 years. Buble is a
johnny-come-lately who is riding Connick's coattails. Without
Connick, you'd never have heard of Buble. Therefore, a "Connick
clone". Can you think of a quicker, more succinct way to describe him
to someone who's never heard of him?

Yes, and quite easily. Big band genre.

Buble would be quite amused, as you just called him a band leader or
musician. Big Bands are just that... big jazz bands headed up by a
band leader. Think Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington.

Crooner is the genre that Sinatra, Connick and Buble belong to. That
style originated in the big band era, and the crooners were typically
backed up by a big band, but not always. In the end, Buble is
definitely not "big band", he's a crooner. From Wikipedia:

"However, crooners have not completely disappeared, with contemporary
performers such as Tony Bennett, Harry Connick Jr., Michael Bublé, and
Rod Stewart keeping the form alive."

And about big bands:

"A big band is a large musical ensemble that plays jazz music."
Nowhere do they even mention a singer.


Jack, with your narrow minded thinking, I seriously doubt that you
could educate anybody on anything, unless it's how to be narrow minded!

Maybe, but I just broadened your horizons. You're welcome.

Jack

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

Jack Goff wrote:
On 6 Apr 2006 04:24:40 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 11:22:15 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Uh, no, Sinatra did it first, therefore, it appears that Conick copied
Sinatra!


That makes sense.....to everyone but jackoff.
Besides... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Yes, it SHOULD make sense, it's relatively simple........for most,
anyway.

Wrong again, Bassy. Sinatra didn't start it, he is simply one of the
most popular of the crooners. It's a complex concept, and I realize
you and Don prefer the simple ones, but try to follow along...

Sorry, but YOU are wrong. Sinatra's style was unique.

You said "Sinatra did it first", and he did not. Besides, everyone's
unique in their own way. But you are the only person who doesn't
think that Sinatra belongs to the crooner genre. Look it up.


Rudy Vallee is considered to be the first crooner, starting the style
10 years before Sinatra ever came on the scene. Bing Crosby is
considered the "king" of the crooners, and is who Sinatra copied when
he got his start. Sinatra was one of the last and best known today.

Sinatra's style, tempos, pitch, and vocal range were not copied nor
sound anything like either Vallee, or Crosby.

He copied the popular style of the time, and the king of that style is
Crosby. Look it up.


Now fast-forward to 1989, and Harry Connick, Jr. Connick revives the
style of crooning and introduces it to a whole new generation of fans.
He builds quite a career out of it over the last 17 years. Buble is a
johnny-come-lately who is riding Connick's coattails. Without
Connick, you'd never have heard of Buble. Therefore, a "Connick
clone". Can you think of a quicker, more succinct way to describe him
to someone who's never heard of him?

Yes, and quite easily. Big band genre.

Buble would be quite amused, as you just called him a band leader or
musician. Big Bands are just that... big jazz bands headed up by a
band leader. Think Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington.

BWAAAAHAAAAA!!!!! :
Do you think that the Big Band Genre is limited to instruments??? You
are a bit correct when you link him to the jazz stylizing, though.
Here, some education for you, CLEARLY listing Buble, and Connick in the
big band genre!:
http://www2.apra.com.au/BulletinBoar...9f821e 02294d

Which, the title says: New Release - Big Band Genre (Buble/ Harry
Connick style)

Crooner is the genre that Sinatra, Connick and Buble belong to. That
style originated in the big band era, and the crooners were typically
backed up by a big band, but not always. In the end, Buble is
definitely not "big band", he's a crooner. From Wikipedia:

"However, crooners have not completely disappeared, with contemporary
performers such as Tony Bennett, Harry Connick Jr., Michael Bublé, and
Rod Stewart keeping the form alive."

There's NO SUCH THING as a "crooner genre"!!!!

And about big bands:

"A big band is a large musical ensemble that plays jazz music."
Nowhere do they even mention a singer.

Again, the GENRE.........jeez. I can tell, although you may think you
do, that you don't know much about music!!


Jack, with your narrow minded thinking, I seriously doubt that you
could educate anybody on anything, unless it's how to be narrow minded!

Maybe, but I just broadened your horizons. You're welcome.

No, you just proved yourself ignorant of the facts.

Any Michael Buble fans?
 

On 7 Apr 2006 10:37:12 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


BWAAAAHAAAAA!!!!! :

Grow up.

Do you think that the Big Band Genre is limited to instruments??? You
are a bit correct when you link him to the jazz stylizing, though.
Here, some education for you, CLEARLY listing Buble, and Connick in the
big band genre!:
http://www2.apra.com.au/BulletinBoar...9f821e 02294d

Which, the title says: New Release - Big Band Genre (Buble/ Harry
Connick style)

Iit took you two days to find a site that had all those words
together? Did you even read the site? It's an announcement for a
release of some Big Band Genre *sheet music*, note there's no mention
of LYRICS, and it's in, parenthetically, the Connick/Buble STYLE.
Someone is peddling some sheet music arranged for a Big Band, and is
using two big names to advertise it. He's hoping people will think it
might sound similar to the music to which Connick and Buble apply
their crooning skills. Do you understand, or are you stupid?


Crooner is the genre that Sinatra, Connick and Buble belong to. That
style originated in the big band era, and the crooners were typically
backed up by a big band, but not always. In the end, Buble is
definitely not "big band", he's a crooner. From Wikipedia:

"However, crooners have not completely disappeared, with contemporary
performers such as Tony Bennett, Harry Connick Jr., Michael Bublé, and
Rod Stewart keeping the form alive."

There's NO SUCH THING as a "crooner genre"!!!!

You're kidding, right? That's a news flash for the entire music
industry! A google search for "crooner genre" returns about 364,000
hits, and scanning just a few of them shows music industry rags,
artists, newspapers, and music websites all referring to, and
describing themselves as, the "crooner genre".

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?


And about big bands:

"A big band is a large musical ensemble that plays jazz music."
Nowhere do they even mention a singer.

Again, the GENRE.........jeez. I can tell, although you may think you
do, that you don't know much about music!!

Evidently, more than you. We've now established that while there is a
Big Band genre, and there is also a Crooner genre. People do indeed
croon to big band music, but big band does not define crooning. Buble
and Connick are crooners, NOT big band. Sinatra was not first, he
came ten years after the first crooner. All these things are facts,
backed up by research, that prove wrong the things that *you* have
said in this thread. Understand?



Jack, with your narrow minded thinking, I seriously doubt that you
could educate anybody on anything, unless it's how to be narrow minded!

Maybe, but I just broadened your horizons. You're welcome.

No, you just proved yourself ignorant of the facts.

Yes, you did. And I quote:

There's NO SUCH THING as a "crooner genre"!!!!

Giggle. Indeed.