Quote:
Originally Posted by Prezzie
I'm not i'm discusiing this calmly and reasonably, you're the one trying to paint me as some sort of raving lunatic instead of trying to take on my very valid points head one.
|
You do make reasonable criticisms. Matt does struggle in sustained low notes. He hasn't found a unique sound and needs one as his natural voice quality is 'plain' as you said.
It is also true he is great with ballads but not so hot when it comes to rock and roll/pop.
The 'irrational' part seems to come along when we ask 'compared to what'?
Compared to Celine Dion?
Compared to Michael Buble?
Compared to what a flawless singer ought to sound like?
More importantly here is - compared to what other contestants?
Matt's 'flaws' were still better than most any other contestants bests.
Matt's weaker 'low note' was still a much better low note than (for example) Cher's best low note.
Matt's slight struggle with rock and roll was still sung levels beyond Katie's best Rock and Roll performance.
and so on....
Even here it becomes the overall comparison. Matt's strengths were very strong and heavily outweighed his weaknesses. This cannot be said for other performers who (for example) maybe could sustain a low note better than Matt but did not come close to him on (example) high-notes.
The question isn't whether or not Matt is the perfect singer in the UK or world today and therefore deserving of this.
The question is "was Matt the best in this competition" and yes he was.
Having said that - I still LOVE Rebecca and I don't consider there to be a huge gap between those two.
Mary is another.
But justice was served and here is the thing with Matt - he CAN improve his slightly weak areas.
(and he does not have to do rock and roll either).