Michael Ball vs. Anthnony Warlow
Posted by spiderdj82 2004-06-27 17:50:24.0

Out of these two singers which do you think is the best? For those who are not good at names here is what they are known for.

Michael Ball (marius in Les Miserables)
Anthony Warlow (Jekyll and Hyde in JEKYLL AND HYDE COMPLETE SCORE).

My personal favorite is Anthony Warlow. While I think Michael Ball is a great singer, Anthony Warlow is a GOD. He is classified as a baritone but can hit unbelievably high. He also puts so much passion into his singing and his voice is so clear. If I wasn't straight, I would so stalk him.

Warlow. Ball is a great actor and everything, but the lack of training in his voice just bugs. I could listen to Warlow sing all day, I'm nuts about him--like you said, his voice is so clear and SO powerful.

Of course, you're talking to a former Les Mis obsesee who still pops the CSR in and goes straight to Warlow's solo in One Day More. Gives me chills every time.

I believe that Anthony was in the Complete Symphonic Recording for Les Miz as well. He played Enjolras (I could be wrong though)

hmmmmm...thats a tougie. But I'd have to say Micheal although I haven;t heard the full version of J&H. Must go out and buy it first.

I think both are fantastic. But they have a common bond also. They are both not as recognized as they they both probably deserve. Like BSM here. Considering their respective talents they should both be major players everywhere. I know some people don't like Warlow and some don't like Ball but I feel that they both have yet to hit their peaks vocally or dramatically. I feel that either would have made a terrific Phantom in the film, or would be great in any of the upcoming musicals being planned. They both perform to great reviews in concerts. Sure I have a favorite. I just don't think they are as fully appreciated as they should be.

Michael and Anthony have sung identical songs in some of their albums - so it is a little easier to make a comparison. Michael happens to be my favourite singer. While Anthony is classically trained, Michael has a natural gift in his golden voice. Michael's repertoire is also wider as he has sang a number of songs in different musical genres. I also think that Michael is one of the best "acting" singers in musical theatre - his interpretation is lyrics-driven and he uses his voice to heighten the emotions in a song. I have seen him perform onstage in concerts as well and he is electric - with his powerhouse voice and lively stage presence. I think Anthony, another of my favourite musical theatre singers, and whom I have seen only in The Main Event concert on DVD does not exude the same appeal on the concert stage. I have not seen him perform in musical theatre though, while I have seen Michael in ASPECTS OF LOVE, PASSION, and CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG.

Both are extremely talented and a joy to listen to.

I think Warlow has a great voice and I'd love to see him onstage but I think his albums of showtunes are downright dull. Everything's perfect and precise and he takes some nice notes but, in the end, I think his recordings are sort of cold and uninteresting. I don't get that feeling from his 'Jekyll and Hyde' recording where I think he brings life to a bunch of completely lifeless songs. I like Ball's voice but he hasn't done an album that's especially impressed me either. Again, it's all perfectly well done, I'm just not that interested in it other than to listen to some basically satisfactory renditions of some pretty good songs.

Have you listened to ASPECTS OF LOVE, JohnPopa?

That is my favourite album of Michael, whether solo or cast recording.

I agree with you in a few things and completely repsect your opinion, but I need to correct you on one thing. You said, "repertoire is also wider as he has sang a number of songs in different musical genres." If you listen to his cd's, Anthony sings, Opera (in which is was trained), musical theatre, Big Band, Operetta, Pop, Old standards. I mean, the only thing this man hasn't done is rap........which by the way would be very interesting to hear. But, I completely understand where you are coming from. If it wasn't for Anthony I would be praising Michael Ball until I die.

JohnPopa, I agree that their cd's are not as "full of life" as they should be, but the thrill is to hear them live. OMG. Anthony Warlow in "The Main Event" is nothing close to BRILLIANT. and Michael Ball is SPECTACULAR in his live concert show. I think Both men need to be in an actual show together (and not just a recording) and show the world what real talent is.

Without the long jibber jabber, i like Warlow better.

Yes, I am aware that Anthony is classically trained as an opera singer ( I have a DVD copy of Fleidermaus, the English version where he sings the lead role with the Australian Opera ) and I have all his albums ( two of FACE THE MUSIC, by accident )... Michael has dabbled in light opera when he sang some songs from MAGIC FLUTE with Lesley Garrett, but has also sung some jazz-y numbers and some really lively songs ( particularly in the " party time" part in his concerts). And if you have seen his ALONE TOGETHER show at the Donmar or its DVD -that really tells you how wide his command of musical genres can be.

But I think there is really no debate on the talents of these two extremely gifted singers. Let us enjoy both!

AMEN...HALLELUJAH

I agree Jo. Let's enjoy them both. If ever given the chance

I love Anthony Warlow, having only recently been introduced to him by a friend. I heard that he had/has throat cancer. Is that indeed true? How terrible, if so.

yeah, he had throat cancer, but beat it. Now he is better than ever. His voice has actually gotten higher since the cancer and in my opinion, better. WARLOW FOREVER!!!

Michael Ball doesn't have any balls.
Anthony Warlow will wage war on the theatre and conquer it!

How can you compair a legend to that.... THING!!!

Michael Ball...

Ditto, Faith2!

Although I do agree that Anthony Warlow as a fabulous voice as well. I enjoy the fact that Michael's voice is "untrained". It always sounds as if he is singing from the heart.

Lori, Faith2 and Jo, you all know my answer...Michael. The fact that his voice is not trained and sounds so angelic has won me over. Anthony sings well and is not to be denied credit on anything he does but, Michael will always be my favorite!

Anthony Warlow, hands down.

I would give just about anything to see that man sing live. If only he'd do something in New York. Even just a concert. Something, anything.

I think he just gave a couple of concerts down under. But I don't remember with whom. It might have been with Lesley Garrett Another fine voice. I think his were right before Michael Ball's. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong

They both have beautiful voices, but I'm voting Michael. "Golden voice" is a very good description; there's something very unique about Michael Ball's voice, it seems to "fill out" the melodies well (hard to describe what that means). Anthony Warlow's voice is more conventional in tone, but Michael Ball's is instantly recognizable and rather heavenly.

I haven't heard Anthony WArlow, so I can't really make any comparison. But I do enjoy Michael's voice.

Kec -

If you happen to have the COMPLETE SYMPHONIC RECORDING of LES MISERABLES ( one of three albums where Michael sings the role of Marius - the others are the Original London Cast Recording and the 10th Anniversary Concert) - Anthony sings the role of Enjolras.

Anthony is a classically trained singer ( he still sings the occasional opera or operetta) who crossed over to musical theatre. In his native Australia (), he was in Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera ( as the Phantom), etc., and a few others. He has released a few albums composed of musical theatre songs, swing, big band, standards - and has even sung LOVE CHANGES EVERYTHING ( heresy ) in one of them.

Jo

Anthony didn't have throat cancer, he had non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (a virulent form of cancer/leukaemia) which he has (so far, fingers crossed) successfully beaten.

My personal favourite is Anthony Warlow. I love his interpretation of J&H on the complete studio recording, he *is* that CD! He puts so much feeling, emotion, depth into those characters. It's worth coping with some totally naff lyrics to listen to Anthony.

Oh and him and Philip Quast singing 'Lilys Eyes' is terrific

For me, personally, Michael is a better singer than actor. 'Passion' sounds better on CD than it was on stage for me, he can act with his voice. Michael couldn't get rid of his 'michaelisms' - mannerisms he has on stage in his solo concerts. Also he didn't seem completely comfortable in his role in CCBB, especially interactng with the kids.

But, hey, lets enjoy them both on their own merits

Ball has much the best "theatrical" voice!

Both are great musical theatre singers. (I can never quite see the point of insulting someone by calling them "THAT THING" ???)

I cannot comment on Anthony Warlow as a live performer as I have never seen him in concert, though I love his voice on recordings.

I do know however that comparing Michael Ball's recordings (which are sometimes fabulous but also occasionally flat and mediocre) to his live concert performances is like comparing a crack in the pavement to the Grand Canyon. As a live performer he really is sensational.

There's something about Michael's voice which hits the right spot in my soul, so I would have to vote for him! :)

I would think that any songwriter, past or present, would love to have either one of these gentlemen perform their work. Both are fantastic at interpreting lyrics and melodies.

I think they are both amazing and quite unique.

I prefer Michael for some showtunes. Whilst a lot of Anthony's work is amazing (his show albums in particular - eg Jekyll and Hyde, The Secret Garden), I think Michael has the edge on emotion and, like many others on here, I LIKE the fact that his voice has a more raw sound than Anthony's. I think that in some recordings (including some showtunes on his solo albums) Anthony can sound a little too cold. Technically he is perfect - certainly better than Michael, whose technique is actually quite bad in places - but technical brilliance cannot make up for a lack of emotion. To be fair, I know a ot of classically trained singers who concentrate a little too much on technique and tone, forgetting that sometimes little imperfections can make the difference between a coldly technical recording and one full of passion and life.

However, I think there are certain songs Anthony sings a LOT better than Michael. Whilst there are many songs on Anthony's albums that I would LOVE Michael to record, I for some reason can't see Michael singing IT'S A DANGEROUS GAME, UNEXPECTED SONG, or I AM WHAT I AM (which isn't to say I wouldn't like him to try! Lol). Nor does Michael record the individual songs in quite as much context. One of the things I alternately love and hate about Anthony's albums (depending on my mood) is that, while there are moments where you lose the emotion, the accent is always spot on for the show! This can be confusing and a little weird when you don't know the show, but if you do know the shows it's great! (Though I AM A PIRATE KING is set on dry land so the sound of the King falling into the sea at the end and the 'battle' in the instrumental make no sense - but are VERY amusing). There are some songs and genres where Anthony's technique does give him the edge, Opera being one of them. That said, I WOULD very much like to hear Michael do a lot of songs which Anthony has already recorded.

Suffice it to say that I own every album each of them has recorded and they are the most listened to out of my collection.

I really like Michael on all his cast recordings, but I don't care for his solo CDs. The orchestrations and quality are just too syrupy for me.

The same for Anthony Warlow. I love him in cast recordings, but while his solo CDs are technically spot on, they have little emotion or intent in the songs.

Considering they have completely different vocal and phsyical styles, I really can't compare the two as I don't think they share anything similar. I couldn't see Anthony as a Marius or Michael as a Jekyll. They are well-suited for opposite character types.

as i have never seen warlow perform live, it is not possible for me to comment on his live performances. but i have seen michael ball live several times, and it is hard to imagine anyone better than he! as others have pointed out , it is the untrained quality of MB's voice that make it so wonderful, so emotional. when i took a MB cd to my voice coach to listen to a song i wanted to do , she fell in love with his voice! she said that he plays with every note. that he takes every note and dances with it. well put !!

Both wonderful voices for sure but I would go in the end go for Michael Ball.It's difficult to explain why it's like trying to say why you prefer one brand of chocolate to another...you just do :) LOL!!

I personally like the untrained quality of MBs voice and because he is not worrying about the notes being technically right all the time.There is nothing getting in the way of the emotion of the song coming through.To be able to get up on stage and produce
that sound natrually is amazing and for me and it gives his voice
an extra warmth.He has sung some operatic pieces before but I think to do more and really do them justice he knows,he'd have to train (he's said as much in interviews)and I guess it's a bit like,if it aint broke don't and fix it.
It's a shame really that'Passion'didn't come along a bit later in
his career and that it didn't run for longer.I think he'd handle it better now than he did back then and given longer in the role could have made it his own.Acting wise 'Sunset Boulevard'in Cork recently showed how good he can be and 'alone together' proved he has a good dramatic performance in him,so I could see him in something like Jekyll.I disagree with the earlier Chitty comment,
I felt especially where his connection with the children was concerned that he was spot on.But this is something we could all agree and disagree about forever more,we are all going to have our favourites
As others have said there is no comparison between and cd and seeing the man live.He sings every song,as if it's the first one of the evening but as I haven't seen Anthony Warlow live it wouldn't be fair to compare them in that respect.

Yes Both wonderful singers,both deserve greater recognition,I agree let's enjoy both.......good discussion!

Very true. A thoughtful and intelligent discussion. Yea both performers