I thought it may be of some interest to y'all that I wrote an editorial for the San Diego Union Tribune in response to the completely tasteless review of Michael's concert. I have been told by the editor that it will be published in Sunday's paper. Here is the link for the review,
http://www.signonsan...-1c27buble.html
"Hello Mr. Varga,
I would like to completely disagree with your harsh review of the Michael Bublé concert in San Diego. First off, here is a little background information on me. I am a trained opera singer who takes her taste in music and performers very seriously. I study performers, their techniques with the voice, and overall stage presence and can honestly say that Michael Bublé is the only current singer that I respect as an artist, singer/musician, and as a person of true character. His ability to transport his audiences to a different era is truly remarkable and should be commended. His voice is smoothe as silk, his stage presence is impeccable, and he has a genuine love for the music that he is trying to bring back to life after all of these years. In the very least, he deserves credit for that.
"Alas, he is almost completely lacking in musical personality, let alone the depth of exp
ression necessary to make you believe he really feels the words he is singing and the emotions they are intended to convey." In response to this quote from your review, I have to say that it is not possible that you were at a Michael Bublé concert. Could you possibly have walked into the wrong symphony hall? I'm floored by your comments here, and as a singer myself, I know that it takes effort NOT to convey musical personality and exp
ression while singing. Michael Bublé is the opitomy of musical exp
ression, which is one of the many things I love about him. His deep passion for this music is readily apparent from the first note he sings in 'Feeling Good.' He obviously enjoys being onstage and entertaining and I highly respect his ability to make a crowd scream and then drop the noise level to hear a pin drop.
"His voice is pleasant, if no more, his delivery assured. His vocal range isn't very broad, but he cleanly and crisply articulated each verse and chorus in his 16-song, two-encore set." Okay, his vocal range isn't very broad? 'Fever' and 'The More I See You' show off a range of two octaves, which is more than you can say for many other artists currently performing around the country. I won't mention names because this is not about them, this is about Michael. There are so many terrible, terrible singers with recording contracts and tours today, that cannot even sing live. I cannot fathom why you would not enjoy hearing such a well-groomed voice from a man who sings music that inspires people, makes them dance, laugh, cry, and who can sing without the help of a microphone or instruments at the end of 'Song For You'.
Please feel free to put this editorial in the paper and use it as a rebuttal. I feel that this needs to be said, because I see this as an extremely unfair review of a brilliant growing artist. May I ask a few personal questions? Do you sing? Do you know what it takes to get up there on that stage 5-6 nights a week, touring on a bus for hours to the next city, singing solo for almost 2 hours on a nightly basis? If you do, then I ask that you list your credentials so that we may better understand where you are coming from with this left-field interpretation of an excellent concert.
Many Thanks for the opportunity to rebut,
Jennifer D."