Singing

[djchase7]

Things have been said about peoples singing on this forum that were not very encouraging to the person who is singing. I don

[storm_in_heaven]

right on brudda, i mean, some of the greatest songs of the world have been sung by people who "can't sing", i mean, take bob dylan, he sounds as rough as a hussie on sunday. Billy Corgan sounds pernamently in pain, and Lou Reed just sounds really bored.

However there are people out there who, bless em, genuinely can't sing, and should never sing ever ever ever. Singing is a musical activity, so if you can sing the notes, you can sing, but if you have no musical ability (no pitching etc) then you really shouldn't be singin'. unless you're some uber-kind or summat.

 

SiH

[red_riviera]

I think a lot of people are hung up on perfect pitch, etc, when other things such as rhythm, phrasing, assonance and even regional accents all help to make a vocal more distinctive. I'd rather listen to Mark E Smith (harshly atonal, Mancunian, grumbles a lot) than Celine Dion.

[Cyprus]

If someone posts something and asks "how is my singing", are we all supposed to say "it sounds wonderful, you're the next Steven Tyler!"????

 

People "judge" because they ask us to "judge"! If people are afraid of what other people think then they just shouldn't post their material. I think as long as someone just doesn't say it sucks, but says what's wrong with their singing and how to improve it, then it's all good.

 

And I would hardly call Bill Corgan or Lou Reed bad singers, they have their style but now HOW to sing. I don't think anybody would be critical of someone with a voice like one of those two.

[LTS]

 

Originally posted by djchase7 If you don

[djchase7]

Cyprus & LTS

 

I don

[nonreglA]

People judge because that's what they do. We all do it. We all have prejudices whether we are in denial about it or not. You learn that in school when you study Psych by the way. Take a class. People all judge other people, either openly and verbally or behind their backs with snickers. The first thing you do when you see a pretty girl walking towards you is to judge her and decide whether or not you'd hit it. That's how they pick female news anchors and weather girls. The producers sit around and see if she gives good enouch TV for the male audience to want to {censored} her. To not judge requires a great deal of discipline most people simply lack. Don't judge people for judging.

 

Judging is OK. It's normal. It's human. If I listen to music I want it to be good, and I know the difference. I don't want to hear a song sung by a person without a clue that they can't sing. Someone should tell them, put them out of their misery. I am very discriminating. I just don't listen to things I don't like or that aren't done well. There's nothing worse than sitting in church and hearing someone in the choir solo who can't sing. Sure their heart is in the right place but when they open their mouth and sound comes out it's like cat's fighting in the alley, not music. They are flat or sharp or don't articulate. It's OK to judge. You can do it with a razor or be helpful and constructive about it. The way someone presents criticism tells you more about the person giving the criticism than it does what they are criticizing.

 

Many bad performers don't know just how bad they suck because no one has ever had the balls to tell them. Eventually they will run into someone who will.

[LanRover]

It's all based on genre.

 

If they're singing rock or country, there's no such thing as a bad voice. But there is room for good voices in those genres.

 

If they're singing classical, there is obvious criteria by which people will be judged.

 

If they're singing jazz. I may be persuaded to say that the person's voice may not fit the style, if that be the case.

 

Modern pop/hip-hop is full of talentless ass-clowns who rely on realtime vocal modification hardware (or worse, pre-recorded tracks) to keep people from fleeing stadiums.

 

In summary: If your success depends upon your vocal quality and it isn't there.. someone should tell you. Otherwise opinions should surface only when requested.

 

Lan

[rickenvox]

Look, I'm not for people knocking other peoples' work or anything but . . .

 

The idea that people who don't sing can't judge other people's singing is ludicrous. Music is for listeners, isn't it? Not for musicians. Musicians and singers make music and enjoy making it - but have no edge over a discriminating listener (although they may also be a discriminating listener of other people's music) at determining what they like or don't like AND what simply sounds bad or undeveloped.

 

In fact, artists are at a distinct disadvantage in judging their own music because they cannot be fully objective. I find that songs I have written are so engrained in my mind that I can no longer tell whether they sound good or bad or whether I need to change certain sections - because I'm over-familiar with the material. I hum along with it because of familiarity, not because it's catchy or pleasant. I need other people who are removed from the process of creating that song to hear it fresh and give me a first impression. I trust non-musicians opinions much higher because they are the majority of music consumers and don't think about stupid things like technical difficulty and what other songs have the same chord progression.

 

The sad truth is that there are many of us musicians, songwriters who really don't sound good and will never catch on the what all of our friends are saying when we're not around anyways - because everyone is afraid to give "negative" feedback. I had a friend that was a phenomenal multi-instrumentalist, songwriter, and recording guru with tons of professional experience on his instruments. He insisted on doing the vocals on his own demo CD and ruined the whole thing. He ultimately blamed the lack of interest by people in the business he had worked with before on a number of (pick your own) multiple choice excuses for why artists don't get "lucky". The real shame is that is was a great set of songs, polished production for a demo, and commerically viable - just his voice was awful. Some people need the truth sometimes. Did I give it to him? Hell no. He wouldn't have received it at all.

 

Now if your goal is to make music only for yourself - it doesn't matter. But if your goal is for other people to hear and possibly buy your music - then feedback from your "targetted audience" is the only place to get it. If you want to sell CDs to singers only, then by all means get feedback from singers.

[Fat_Sachel]

Hmm...Im on the other side of the fence. I have no illusions about the quality of my singing...it sucks. But that doesnt stop me from doing it when I need a vocal track to flesh out a song.

 

I also dont take offence when someone like say....my 11 yr old daughter starts laughing at the opening lines to something Ive done (man kids can be cruel heheh. No better critic IMO)

 

If you are going to post a song with yourself singing, you better have thick skin and you better be objective towards your singing.

 

Of course, if you preface your song posts with "I know the vocals aren't the greatest" the person responding shouldnt state the obvious and dump on it, the poster is probably looking for overall song comments and not "tell me my voice rules!!"

 

just my 2c

[djchase7]

rickenvox-

 

You

[billsworld]

Approaching this from the viewpoint of a long time voice teacher, I must say that I have in fact heard people who I thought just shouldn't try to sing, but they have been very few and very far inbetween. I have always approached teaching singing from the standpoint that, whatever the quality of your voice, there are technical things you can learn to improve your performance, like learning how to phrase by controlling breathing, practicing pitch recognition and matching, and so forth.

 

Sometimes all this negativity when commenting on others' singing abilities or lack thereof reminds me of a phenomena that's very common amongst college freshman music majors. They've learned just enough to start being able to judge performances intelligently, but haven't learned enough to know what not to judge, and as a result tend to be overly harsh when commenting on the performances of others. Kind of like the old sayings that goes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

 

As I have said before, learning breathing techniques can help anyone's singing sound more musical, even if the tone of thier voice sounds a little like fingernails on a blackboard. Think of it like this...nobody will ever confuse Bruce Springsteen, voice with Celine Dion's, but they'bve both sold a lot of records because they both know how to communicate emotion with their voices. And lest we forget, that's all singing really is.

[rickenvox]

 

Originally posted by djchase7 rickenvox-   You

[rickenvox]

 

Originally posted by billsworld As I have said before, learning breathing techniques can help anyone's singing sound more musical, even if the tone of thier voice sounds a little like fingernails on a blackboard. Think of it like this...nobody will ever confuse Bruce Springsteen, voice with Celine Dion's, but they'bve both sold a lot of records because they both know how to communicate emotion with their voices. And lest we forget, that's all singing really is.

 

 

I think there are genres of rock music where your type of training and expertise in singing just wouldn't apply - as the example you gave of Springsteen. Probably better examples are Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins or Kurt Cobain. There voices have/had no quality to speak of, except transparently and efficiently transmitting the emotion and mood of their songs. Even though their voices are outside the realm of traditional techniques - there are criteria for judging whether their singing has an impact or is "good". Most rock listeners can easily hear attempts by other artists at imitating Cobain's voice for example, or overly affected or contrived snarls and rock posturing that communicate insincerity. The punk rock movement of the seventies created a new set of aesthetic standards for expressive music. Blues had already explored these aesthetics almost a century earlier - and other forms of world music(s) ions before that. The lack of traditional "western" standards in music doesn't mean there aren't rules and processes going on there.

[djchase7]

It

[rickenvox]

 

Originally posted by djchase7   I think what it comes down to is

[buckshot_plevna]

I think this is a great thread, btw...

 

Seeing how one of my songs has been criticized just lately...I'll give my two cents.

 

There are certain ways one can criticize another's work. Some people are more straight-forward than others, some people jsut like to put people down. I was quick to defend my own work because as a musician, your music is a part of you. I just find that if someone can support good arguments on why they dislike your singing/music then they have valid reasoning for posting their comments. If I say "you songs sucks" (or as some guy just posted on my thread "too bad you can't {censored} on a record and make money" at least I'm assuming he was refering to my music) then you're not helping the artist/musician. You're just putting him down. That's weak. Throw some insight into it, make specific comments regarding the singing/music. Of course there's always going to be somebody who dislikes your ablilties. They are some people on here who think the Beatles suck. (?) So whatever, {censored} them, keep doing your singing/music and take some criticism along the way because if it's insightful it's good. I mean, who's gonna buy your music? You? No, the fans are, so I suppose it's like a customer service thing. Personally though, I wouldn't write according to a fan, that's way too Tin Pan Alley for me.

[storm_in_heaven]

i think the main problem is that there is a huge difference between being able to sing and having a "good" voice .

 

On one hand you may be able to sing, ie pitch notes, phrase notes, rhythms, listening to chord changes etc etc. Thats techincal ability

 

On the other hand, you may have a good voice, and this is really up to everyone's tastes in what they want, summat powerful, or strong, or husky, or nasally, or whiney etc etc

 

As I demonstrate before, take Billy Corgan, he certainly sing, he has the ability, i just don't like his voice. So the questions you ought to be asking are either "Do i have a good voice?" or "Can I sing?", because they are certainly not the same thing

 

I think the latter is probably the most important question, bearing in mind that having a "good" voice has nothing to do with the ability to sing. A person can have a brilliant voice, but if they can't pitch a note to save their life, they aren't worth chicken {censored}. It reminds me of that South Park episode with the dude singing "Loving you". However if someone can pitch their notes etc, the "quality" of their voice is open to personal preferance. Personally, I know that I can sing, i just don't think I have a good voice, kinda nasally.

 

Selon moi, that is.

 

SiH

[Taylorman]

Though it's certainly unfair to flame a person's voice, a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone.

[billsworld]

I jumped into this thread because, since I have a fair amount of experience in the field of vocal training, I felt like it was important to share my thoughts on the subject. I hope that my comments have from time to time shed some light on the subject for someone or another. I don't like coming off as a "holier than thou" expert, and hopefully, I don't.

 

As much as anything, I think it's important to remember when you post comments about another's work that when we post something for critique, we'r ehoping for "positive" criticism, by which I think is meant that we are hoping for some commentary that might help us improve our work. there is nothing positive about simply trashing someone's work, whether the comments be directed toward lyrics, or singing ability, or whatever else might be commented upon.

 

Participation in a community like this one is fun, and can be a very positive experience for everyone who takes advantage of the opportunites afforded them through said participation. But I think we all need to remind ourselves that that participation comes with the price tag of having to take responsibility for the content we post. Comments like "that sucks" are to say the least irresponsible, and will only serve to lower others opinions of you regarding any future postings you decide to throw out into cyberspace. I don't bring this up to get down on anyone, but rather just as a reminder of our resposibility when it comes to expressing our opinions.

 

I'm not saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," but I amy urging everyone, including myself, to at least remain constructive in our criticism that we are all obviously so willing to share with the world.

 

I'm done preaching now. You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled flaming.

[djchase7]

Originally posted by billsworld I'm not saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," but I amy urging everyone, including myself, to at least remain constructive in our criticism that we are all obviously so willing to share with the world.

 

I think this has by far been the most interesting thread I

[billsworld]

 

Originally posted by rickenvox I think there are genres of rock music where your type of training and expertise in singing just wouldn't apply - as the example you gave of Springsteen. Probably better examples are Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins or Kurt Cobain...The lack of traditional "western" standards in music doesn't mean there aren't rules and processes going on there.

 

 

When I speak of breathing techniques, I'm not only referring to breathing to support the tone produced, but also of phrase breathing, which is far more applicable to ANY musical form. Taking breaths in the middle of phrases gives them a disjointed feel that serves to break up the idea trying to be expressed, making it far more difficlut to communicate what is intended within the lyric. It is a pracitce that can be used to the singer's advantage if the idea is to fire a series of short, disconnected thoughts, but if the intent is to communicate a longer phrase as a complete thought, then breathing in the middle of it makes it far more difficlut to do. I used Springsteen as an example because I'm an old guy, but this applies equally to any singer, in any genre. Let me give an example of what I'm meaning.

 

Here are the first couple of lines from one of Mr. Springsteen's songs, broken into the phrases as he sings them:

 

The screen door slams, Mary's dress waves

Like a vision she dances across the porch, as the radio plays

 

As anyone who is familiar with the song knows, what I listed as the first two lines is actually one phrase, but since he breathes in the middle, the thought is broken into two seperate images. Now, if we were to take the same two lines and rearrange them so as to place breaths in unorthodox places within the phrases, then the imagery becaomes more disjointed, and the emotion that's being communicated is lost:

 

The screen door slams Mary's dress

Waves like a vision

She dances across the porch

As the radio plays

 

Now, this is a fairly silly example, but it does show how the breathing changes the phrase's meaning. So, often, when I speak about breathing in relation to singing, this is what I mean, just as much as breath support for the tone. And it is surprising how many singers with "good" voices have trouble with this concept.

 

This is the one universal concept in singing, whether you do country, or metal, or rap, or whatever. Using your breathing to shape your phrases. It even applies to general conversational speaking. Breathing in the middle of a sentence can change the meaning of what you are saying, because of the way it influences your inflection, and the flow of your speech.

 

Maybe I've clarified my meaning here.

[squidkid]

I've not participated heavily here before (usually over

in the guitar threads) but I've got lots of experience

dealing with demo evaluation and can pass on some

nuggets (most of which are in any decent book or article

on songwriting)

 

singing is arguably the most prominent part of a track so it

makes some sense that the quality of singing is analyzed

before anyhting is. with regard to the type of songwriting

wherein you are pitching songs to an artist or publishing

company it is absolutely essential that the vocals be in

tune and on target for the type of style being presented.

(i.e. having an R&B singer front a country ballad is a serious

mistake though some people have done this). I've heard some well recorded songs and quality arrangements

be overshadowed by out of tune vocals. For this type of

work get lessons or get someone to sing it for you.

 

As far as songs for yourself and your band then perhaps

it can be a bit more relaxed especially if you have a

distinctive voice (look at Neil Young or Dylan for example)

though keep in mind that most consumers still wish to hear

in tune vocals so laziness in this regard might not be

tolerated. Its amazing that bands will agonize over chord

sequences, arrangements, even cymbal hits but totally

blow it on vocals thinking that its somehow okay and that

producers won't notice but THEY WILL EVERYTIME ! This

applies as much to backing harmonies as it does leads.

If your backup singers can't hit the pitches then don't bring

them into the mix. that or be prepared to use Antares Auto-tune

lots.

 

Lastly vocal coaches are de rigeur in pop/rock music so if the

big boys get help why shouldn't you ? Think about it. No one

is saying that the untutored voice is incapableof effective

delivery but if you are dubious of your own abilities as a vocalist

then wouldn't it make sense that others might notice ? Good ear

training can improve confidence and even basic diaphraghmatic

breathing exercises prevent fatigue. If you take your music

seriously you won't let the vocal aspect of your demo slide.