It\u2019s a persuasive argument, and upon finishing the introduction I felt compelled to take a deeper dive into Michael\u2019s back catalogue. Prior to this, I\u2019d only been a casual listener, appreciating his vocal chops and enjoying the singles when they came on the radio or TV. But, as with all the most talented artists, I find that the gold lies in the albums. <\/p>\n As Sanghera points out, many of his songs were \u201cwritten, produced, arranged and performed\u201d by Michael, who demonstrates an extraordinary range and depth of artistry and innovation across his studio output. To me, at least, this is revelatory information. <\/p>\n I don\u2019t imagine I\u2019m alone. I surmise this is largely due to how Michael has been presented to us through the mass media over the years, with British tabloids often ignoring his status as bona fide auteur and instead labelling him simply as \u201cThe Wham! singer\u201d, \u201cLast Christmas singer\u201d or \u201cpopstar\u201d. Perhaps such labels have occurred simply because it\u2019s easier than writing singer\/ songwriter\/ producer\/ arranger\/ multi-instrumentalist. Or perhaps, as Sanghera says, it\u2019s because of the \u201cendless salacious headlines\u201d. But, whatever the reason, Michael\u2019s talents have certainly been undersold. <\/p>\n Now suitably appreciative of the need to take George Michael and his music seriously, I return to the book, eager to educate myself beyond the simple \u201csoap opera\u201d information Sanghera rightly rails against.<\/p>\n I read about Michael\u2019s Greek Cypriot heritage. I read about the cultural impact that Wham! gigs had on China in the early 80s. I read about his sexuality, charity work, political activism, relationship with fame and his drug addictions. Occasionally, most notably in the chapter \u201cGenius Na\u00eff\u201d (referencing Michael\u2019s musical naivety), I read about his songs and the creative processes behind them. <\/p>\n Upon finishing the book, I couldn\u2019t help but feel that Sanghera\u2019s intention to focus on the music rather than the man was somewhat at odds with what was actually delivered. Of its 263 pages, only 40 are spent analysing music, lyrics and creative processes. This means 85% of the book is dedicated to precisely what it was supposed to be avoiding: \u201cthe biography that continues to blind people to his talent.\u201d<\/p>\nThe music v the man<\/h2>\n
\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/284222\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n