Members Anderton Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 Comments in another thread got me thinking about this, but I didn't want to hijack that thread, so... There are a lot of singers who have become popular yet don't have what people would consider "good" voices. Some immediate examples come to mind: Bob DylanLou ReedTom WaitsJimi HendrixDavid ByrneNeil YoungMark Mothersbaugh There's a great quote from David Byrne: "The better the singer's voice is, the harder it is to believe what they're saying. So I turn my weakness into my strength." So what is it about a vocal that really matters? Obviously it's not technique. But just being "bad" isn't enough, either. Is it the lyrics? The intensity? A distinctiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philboking Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 In a vein similar to soloing: I think it is mostly about feeling. The lyric content, melodic hook (if any), and performance all matter, but feeling what you're singing does more to connect you to listeners than anything else. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 Emotion, feeling, character, interesting, honesty, originality.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 There's a great quote from David Byrne: "The better the singer's voice is, the harder it is to believe what they're saying. So I turn my weakness into my strength." I think that's maybe more true in folk especially - sometimes - but there's so many exceptions to that in rock and many other genres it's ridiculous. Rough vocals doesn't automatically equate to authenticity. Authenticity = authenticity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 26, 2015 Author Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 I think maybe what he's referring to is more about perfection being prioritized over passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 There's this old story - I hope it's true, but if it's not, it's still.....true. When Sam Cooke played Dylan for the young Bobby Womack, Womack said he didn't understand it. Cooke explained that from now on, it's not going to be about how pretty the voice is. It's going to be about believing that the voice is telling the truth. The crazy thing is that Dylan's voice is, for all it's compelling, convincing power, still a schtick he developed, part of an act, a thing of artifice. Of course Dylan knows this better than anyone and embraces it - he changes voices like other people change guitars. The old paradigm was that you develop your natural voice to be just a stronger, well-controlled, more athletic version of your own real voice. But the Dylan paradigm is that you invent and re-invent yourself, make any kind of noise, draw on any source, imitate anything and anybody you desire. It works if it works, that's all. Most of us I think fall somewhere in the middle between these opposing paradigms of style development. I for one feel just too bogus if I affect too much of some style not native to my cultural roots and my untaught, natural speaking/singing voice. But there are any number of people who adopt as exotic and non-native a version of their schtick as they can, and I have no philosophical argument with them if they can truly pull it off. There does seem to be a particular magic when someone makes great music or other art that is clearly an outgrowth from and a development of their native culture. I think in the long run this way of going about things has a better chance of carrying a lasting, more universal message, drawing from the deepest roots we have. There would be no blues if a certain culture didn't slowly develop among a relatively small people group sharing a common, difficult heritage. The old blues has that cultural authenticity....the real voices and accents, the real experiences, the real rhythms of an actual culture - that's deep magic. But there is so much good music that comes from the path of alienation and exotic imitation that...I'm not sure I know what to think a lot of the time. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onelife Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 ... The crazy thing is that Dylan's voice is, for all it's compelling, convincing power, still a schtick he developed, part of an act, a thing of artifice. Of course Dylan knows this better than anyone and embraces it - he changes voices like other people change guitars. ... We can all say what we want about Dylan's voice but it really comes down to the songs. He once said he wanted to sing these songs but they didn't exist so he had to write them. He considers himself s singer first and a writer second. He uses his voice to present the songs and he does so with integrity and humility. I think that's what makes it great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 Ian Brown from The Stone Roses springs to mind Just perfect for that band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 We can all say what we want about Dylan's voice but it really comes down to the songs. He once said he wanted to sing these songs but they didn't exist so he had to write them. He considers himself s singer first and a writer second. He uses his voice to present the songs and he does so with integrity and humility. I think that's what makes it great. Just in case you thought I had a negative take on Dylan, not so at all - I'm a huge Dylan fan. I will say I think your post is the first time I've seen Dylan accused of humilitysmiley-happy nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onelife Posted September 26, 2015 Members Share Posted September 26, 2015 Just in case you thought I had a negative take on Dylan, not so at all - I'm a huge Dylan fan. I will say I think your post is the first time I've seen Dylan accused of humilitysmiley-happy nat whilk ii I didn't take your post as negative. My comment was a generalization about the many different takes people have on Bob's vocals. The humility bit is strictly about tone of the delivery. He's not showing off or prancing about like a rock star but delivering the songs. btw did you ever see the movie "Masked and Anonymous"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 27, 2015 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 The old paradigm was that you develop your natural voice to be just a stronger, well-controlled, more athletic version of your own real voice. But the Dylan paradigm is that you invent and re-invent yourself, make any kind of noise, draw on any source, imitate anything and anybody you desire. It works if it works, that's all. David Bowie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 27, 2015 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 The humility bit is strictly about tone of the delivery. He's not showing off or prancing about like a rock star but delivering the songs. Great ponit..."What you get is what you hear." It rings true to me because my voice is not capable of showing off, so I deliver the songs as best I can...spoken word, with a melody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted September 27, 2015 Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 Craig mentioned David Bowie..That is a guy with a real ability to make his voice go a hundred different places. He's not a Megavoice, but his absolutely Chamelon like abilities are certainly not limited to the many different personas he's adapted in his long career. He can do raw and rockin', he can do low and cold, he can do emotional. Quite amazing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted September 27, 2015 Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 Here's a record I love in which the girl is really not a good singer... but she evokes a convincing emotion nevertheless... [video=youtube;ewFUAjY8nyw] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 27, 2015 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 I wonder if you would think it had the same impact if the singer had been pitch-corrected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mandolin Picker Posted September 27, 2015 Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 I believe the voice has to meet the 'needs' of the music. Walter Brennan was not exactly a singer, and his voice was not even close to being smooth. But it had an 'earthy' quality (for lack of a better term). He had a hit song back in the 1960s called "Old Rivers". He doesn't sing, but rather talks through the lyrics. But I can't think of anyone else who might have been able to pull this song off but him. This type of recording we don't hear any more, which is really a shame. It is a great way to tell a story with music. [video=youtube;zaQgfRs2T9s] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted September 27, 2015 Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 I believe the voice has to meet the 'needs' of the music. Walter Brennan was not exactly a singer, and his voice was not even close to being smooth. But it had an 'earthy' quality (for lack of a better term). He had a hit song back in the 1960s called "Old Rivers". He doesn't sing, but rather talks through the lyrics. But I can't think of anyone else who might have been able to pull this song off but him. This type of recording we don't hear any more, which is really a shame. It is a great way to tell a story with music. [video=youtube;zaQgfRs2T9s] 'Old Rivers'? Kinda describes Mike *runs away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted September 27, 2015 Members Share Posted September 27, 2015 I wonder if you would think it had the same impact if the singer had been pitch-corrected... It wouldn't even be a "song" anymore... it'd become corporate "musical wallpaper"... sung AT you, not TO you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 28, 2015 Author Members Share Posted September 28, 2015 I believe the voice has to meet the 'needs' of the music. On the surface that seems like a simple, obvious statement but I think it goes pretty deep. It implies that the music exists on its own, and has its own needs and requirements that the singer needs to fulfill. Taken further, you could almost say the singer doesn't create the music, the music creates the singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philboking Posted September 30, 2015 Members Share Posted September 30, 2015 " the singer doesn't create the music, the music creates the singer." I really really like that idea. Mind if I steal it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.