George Michael vs. Morrissey

I'd take George any day.

My uncle saw George Michael a good few years after he'd done anything of note but said he's the best gig he's ever been to and he seen MJ, Elton John etc.. back when they were at or close to their peak.
 
George Michael was a better singer than nearly everyone while Morrisey has always been a worse singer than nearly everyone IMNSHO. YMMV.
 
George Michael was a better singer than nearly everyone while Morrisey has always been a worse singer than nearly everyone IMNSHO. YMMV.
I mean, vocally George Michael is better than pretty much everyone, but Morrissey was a fine vocalist too. And as he got towards the end of The Smiths and then his solo career he really became very good.



This performance bangs.
 
all you have to do is ring up Careless Whisper or his duet with EJ on Don't Let The Sun Go Down.....and it's pretty f'ing evident.
 
I just listened to them both rattle on about a book I'll never read, about a band I never cared for.

George Michael over anything Morrissey really.
 
Can I dig both? George was obviously an amazing vocalist who could cover a lot of styles. Loved the Wham! stuff as well as much of his solo work. Morrisey wrote witty lyrics back in the days, and performed them well, I think. Like Dylan, Morrisey had sort of trademark two-note style in his younger years that I guess could be annoying but was very appropriate in the context of Smith songs.
 
Sorry but I dont care who is the better singer.
As far as Im concerned they both suck and should have never been fostered upon the general public.
 
Morrissey was 100% part of creating more "interesting" music, more unique, really being a part of a new sound...obviously with a MASSIVE part of that being thanks to Johnny Marr.

George was another level singer. I have to admit that I generally liked some of the stuff he sang, with some of it being exceptional in the pop realm. But his performance at the Concert for Life elevated him to another place. If the Queen boys had been ready and George could take the spotlight being on the memory of Freddie('s music) rather than "George Michael", a tour with him singing Queen would have been phenomenal.

They do/did different things and are/were both great at it.
 
I’m a fan of neither the effervescent pop of Wham! nor the self-righteous killjoy attitude of the Smiths but to me George is more listenable. I was living in nowhere (I.e. SE Idaho) during that era and really didn’t have access to much new music other than the tapes my SIL sent me so I missed (or didn’t miss) both during their heyday.
 
Morrissey has a big mouth but has done nothing positive with it whereas George Michael had the voice of a thousand angels.
Nuff said
 
I never read the book. I saw a movie about the band that I enjoyed. While Joy Division, as a band, may have been pretentious fascists, I'm a fan of some of their minimalist music. This is an odd thing for me as I'm mostly into harder edge music. But, a few English, keyboard laden bands wormed their way into my catalog. It's nice to have some mood contrasting music. Bottom line, I think Joy Division earned their place in music history as an important band at that time.

While the Smiths were an excellent band, something about Morrissey's vocals always bothered me. His voice ruins that band for me. I'm not a fan of his singing. No insult intended to fans.

I'm not a fan of much of George's catalog of music. Most pop is not my taste. But, he certainly had a beautiful voice. And, there are at least a few of his songs that I can listen to because his voice was so excellent.

I agree with George's opinions about Joy Division in the video. Again, I never read the book, so no opinion there.

Ian Curtis certainly wrote some interesting lyrics...
 
I don't care for George Michael's music, but at least he didn't turn out to be a closeted nazi, so I'll take him over Morrisey any day of the week.
 
Morrissey is a bit of a garbage human being, but I'd much rather listen to the smiths than wham or George Michael's solo stuff.
 
Back
Top