- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Posts
- 24,557
- Reaction score
- 55
- Location
- Mo Mansions LA
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- adelaide
- Banned
- #426
Before this devolves into a argument of semantics, let me point out that Michael Crawford uses his voice extremely well. He is very clever with his singing and knows exactly how to get the right tones (and undertones) in his voices, and from a technical point of view is nigh-perfect when it comes to singing. I'm just saying that if you gave his voice to many other really famous music theatre people, they'd never get out of it nearly what he has. It's a poor voice that's been tuned to near perfection, in much the same way Rachmaninoff would likely make the run-down out-of-tune piano at a local church club sound awesome.
I'm not sure what point there is to this.
Michael Crawford was a singer since the beginning of his career, whether it is entirely natural or not - doesn't make him much different to anyone else.
how much different is he, to say Mandy Patinkin?
lots of people work at their voice, in fact doesn't everyone in that genre?
none of which has anything to do whether Kelli Underwood is a good commentator or not.






Look, the bird wasn't bad - certainly not as bad as some of these blokes who have been "champion players" blah blah blah but who wouldn't know an original thought if it bit them in the arse. They just seem to regurgitate the same incorrect shit week in and week out. Cometti - who would be my favourite (since the passing of Clinton Grybas - did he ever play the game BTW? or Bruce? - ) - unfortunately, spends his week looking for witty reparte rather than researching the teams at hand. 

