Members Bajazz Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 And for those in "limbo"....practice and lessons can help but you can't take a bad singer and make them a good singer if their voice doesn't have the timbre, pitch, range or genetic make-up to sound PLEASING to the masses. ~~~~~~~ 1. There are lot's of different timbres, pitches and ranges. Many timbres I think and (others) sound bad ARE pleasing the masses. It's simply a matter of taste. 2. timbre, pitch and range can be developed and controlled. I am a cover-soloact, and it's important that I vary the delivery in terms of tone and range. I play Johnny Cash and AC/DC and simply needs the difference in tone and a range wise good voice. So I started to practice a few years back, having the voice of a hyeana and the pitch of a horse. Now my voice puts $1000 in my pocket a gig. That would be impossible if BigVoiceTenor was anywhere near the truth! So people: Practice = skill!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigVoiceTenor Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 I still just simply disagree. Perhaps I'm speaking in black and white terms and others are thinking in gray? You cannot take a tone-deaf, off pitched person who sings poorly and make them be a "good singer". You can make them a better singer, but a good singer...NO. Practice all you want, but it's not gonna happen. Let me ask you this Bajazz....with enough practice could you become an outstanding Opera Singer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OldMattB Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 What was the question? My opinion of what makes him sound good: 1. He is singing in a nasal style which is very popular now. He would sound very thin compared to an opera-type singer 2. He is obviously confident, which makes the singing mechanism more reliable and pleasing to the ear 3. He is completely relaxed. The song is well within his range, he knows the lyrics, he knows when to breathe. There is no hint of strain, no corrugated pipes on the neck, no scowling, no stretching the neck. The voice is smooth, on pitch and confident oldMattB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OldMattB Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Big Voice Tenor, I read the tail of your post. Damn! I'll bet you are one of those people who really CAN sing, not a hack like the rest of us!!! I was a bit embarassed to have my opinion come after yours. I mean all of this without a hint of sarcasm. I hope that is coming through. Through the internet, I offer my hand for a shake of congratulations on your achievement. Respectfully, oldMattB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SevenString Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 ... Oddly your voice is eerily similar to his 7Strings. If only I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one over the past several years. A few years ago, I released a progressive metal CD, and at the time, I had never heard of Khan either, until everyone started telling me I sounded like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 Who are gonna decide if you are a great or outstanding singer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ratroast Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 How many times do we have to go over this?PEOPLE..........Practice will NOT make you sing well or sound good (to those who know a well sounding singer voice) if you simply do NOT have a well sounding singing voice!!!!!!!!!PLEAZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEE......Those folks who get kicked off American Idol and "think" they sound better than Mariah Carey or whoever....just:DONOT HAVE THE TRAITS...to be a good singer!!!!!!!!!!!OMG, you got it or you don't. And for those in "limbo"....practice and lessons can help but you can't take a bad singer and make them a good singer if their voice doesn't have the timbre, pitch, range or genetic make-up to sound PLEASING to the masses.~~~~~~~ Hey bro, are you saying all this chicken {censored} in spite of the video the OP posted, or are you trying to discourage him from learning to sing? Judging from your avatar, you're a full grown man, I don't see why you're stuck in the maturity stage of a 14 year old:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigVoiceTenor Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 1. Nothing is genetics. When he was born all that his genes had programmed him for was crying. He had no singing abilities at that point just like you and me. Here is where we disagree Bajazz. We do NOT all start out with the SAME basis for a singing voice! We don't!!!! It IS GENETCIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! People are different in literally a million different ways, tall, short, black, white, blue eyes.....yada yada yada... What don't you get here????? No Ratroast I'm not discouraging him from lessons to sing. He only wants to be a "tenth" as good as Roy Khan of Kamelot, and I'm sure he can do that. And maybe I was too strong in my original post? But chicken {censored} calls and personal zingers aren't welcome here. Good thing this is a web based forum and not in a coffee-house huh? Bro!? Well I'm done here on this thread. Bajazz if someone is a bad singer and they're singing to other bad singer/listeners then they all think all is fine and dandy and they think they can sing well. It happens all day long on American Idol and the show is BUILT around the failures for the first phase. I love American Idol because you get to see people who THINK they can sing, and their family who THINK they can sing and you have a panel of 4 outstanding judges (well minus Paula) who know what a GOOD SINGER sounds like, and these folks get voted OUT and they FREAK!!! And you tell me all they need are some G**D*** singing lessons and hard work and they can be a GOOD SINGER???!!! And by "good singer" I mean someone who when singing to an audience of say at least 50 people (because you'll get the gamut of musically-poor persons to the rather well-inclined listeners) and the consensus is THE PERSON singing is a "good singer". They stay on pitch, have a nice voice....blah blah blah. Can I sing? Damn right I can, and I do it very well. I'm not on a pedestal and I'm not knocking others who enjoy singing even if they don't do it well. I'm here to tell you that if you want lessons, go for it, but if you don't have the voice to be a "good singer" (there we go again!!!!!!) lessons til you're blue in the face may not take you where you need to go. You can improve yourself, yes. Seriously you guys simply don't either get my point, are drinking the "koolaid" or whatever. Look at my picture. I'm 6'2", 265 pounds and built like a truck. I can run my ass off for a year and get in "runner shape" and yes maybe COMPLETE a marathon, but I do NOT have the genetic make-up to be a GOOD MARATHON runner. Same with the voice. Can you make it better? Yes. But can you take a poor voice and make it a nice, sweet sounding melodic tone to listen to if you don’t have the genetics? I say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members percept Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 Hi Big Voice Tenor, I can understand what you trying to explain. But the thing is you have to look forward, Determination and hard work makes one shine like a star. A person might be genital singer, but one with constant practice can even become better than genital performer. It's not that a person not having good voice can't sing well he may be having various other qualities that could help him to become a good singer. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flemtone Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 BVT,When this forum opened a few months ago, there was a thread asking if 'Anyone' could learn to sing. I said that, in my opinion, not everyone in the world could learn to sing and I was immediately cast into the fiery pits of doom by those telling me that my 'opinion' was WRONG WRONG WRONG, mostly by "voice teachers" and those with incredibly puffed egos. Apparently, anyone can be a world-class singer just by taking lessons and committing to excel. Kinda like Stephen Hawking really committing to learning how to do the Mambo. I don't have an ego and I've never taken a singing lesson in my life, but I was blessed with a strong range (almost three octaves) and a deep resonant speaking voice. How did I get it? To my way of thinking, I 'inherited' it from my father, as did both of my brothers, who also court a similar vocal range, both of whom are musicians and singers in CA. My father was a radio news announcer and had the same kind of voice along with great vocal control, making him a perfect fit for a profession where 'the voice is everything'. I take no credit for my voice except for learning over the past 35 years how to handle a mic and play my instrument(s) at the same time, but it all came from a foundation that I believe I was born with. I'm not saying I was born singing, but the predisposition was there if I chose to pursue it. I'm in your camp here, but don't expect too much support around this forum. The difference between saying 'Anyone can be Tony Bennett if they practice 23.5 hours a day' and 'If you put lipstick on a pig, it may make the pig cuter, but doesn't get him into Princeton' is too subtle for this forum. That's why I rarely post here. I believe that anyone who wants to sing can make a sound pleasing to themselves. Some of the most expressive voices in several generations had no 'formal' training, didn't breathe 'right', didn't work the technicals, just sang in an open and honest fashion, from their heart. They were underfed, poor, untrained, made raspy by weather and cheap liquor and cheaper cigarettes, more at home singing to their families or their churches than to big halls. They sang from their hearts, not from the Big Book o' Breathing Techniques. Mother Maybelle Carter, Woody Guthrie, Bob Wills, Ella, Aretha (pre-Hat), Blind Boys of Alabama, Jerry Garcia, Richard Shindell, Janis - these singers could rip your heart out and stomp on it, or could fit wings on your shoulders and soar you into another plane, but they did it with natural ability. To me, that's what can't be taught and, without that, everything else is just technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeverTheMachine Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 1. Nothing is genetics. When he was born all that his genes had programmed him for was crying. He had no singing abilities at that point just like you and me. No offense or disrespect, but {censored} you that's bull{censored}! I kid, but yeah, it is bull{censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jersey Jack Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 BVT, Mother Maybelle Carter, Woody Guthrie, Bob Wills, Ella, Aretha (pre-Hat), Blind Boys of Alabama, Jerry Garcia, Richard Shindell, Janis - these singers could rip your heart out and stomp on it, or could fit wings on your shoulders and soar you into another plane, but they did it with natural ability. To me, that's what can't be taught and, without that, everything else is just technique. Huh? I've never seen Aretha put into the same category as Mother Maybelle and Woody! Such placement illustrates, however, the problem with this thread and threads like it: All this argument about nature/nurture, genetics/training, who can and who can't sing, etc., generally glosses over the fact that singing means very different things. Consider the notion that Woody, for instance, is a natural talent. True, he was untrained, but I would suspect that a sizeable number of the folks around here would not even admit that he can sing. As a fan of Dylan and Neil Young, I encounter this all the time. These guys can't sing, right? But Bob has three grammys specifically for his vocals--out of his total of 11 grammys. Neil Young is nominated this year for best rock vocal performance. If by good singer one excludes everyone without serious vocal chops along the lines of Tony Bennet or Josh Groban or Steve Perry, and any number of high-tech metal pyrotechs, then it's easy to insist that there are many, many singing wannabees who should just give up and go home. If you acknowledge that people like Bob and Neil can sing, then you can retort that anyone who has an intense desire to sing and who is willing to work to carve out a style can become a good singer. The problem is ilustrated by Flemtone's coupling of Aretha and Mother Maybelle: There seems to be more hope in achieving Aretha's kind of proficiency through training than of achieving Mother Maybelle's brand. This is counter-intuitive, no? Does the aspiring Aretha really have more hope than the aspiring Mother Maybelle? I don't think this is necessarily true, but the comparison illustrates the point that working on an effective style is another kind of work, another kind of training. I don't believe that any of the so-called natural singers would say that they never worked hard on their vocals. They simply don't necessarily focus on technical skills. They seek to break our hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Consume Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 Here is where we disagree Bajazz. We do NOT all start out with the SAME basis for a singing voice! We don't!!!! It IS GENETCIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! People are different in literally a million different ways, tall, short, black, white, blue eyes.....yada yada yada... What don't you get here????? No Ratroast I'm not discouraging him from lessons to sing. He only wants to be a "tenth" as good as Roy Khan of Kamelot, and I'm sure he can do that. And maybe I was too strong in my original post? But chicken {censored} calls and personal zingers aren't welcome here. Good thing this is a web based forum and not in a coffee-house huh? Bro!? Well I'm done here on this thread. Bajazz if someone is a bad singer and they're singing to other bad singer/listeners then they all think all is fine and dandy and they think they can sing well. It happens all day long on American Idol and the show is BUILT around the failures for the first phase. I love American Idol because you get to see people who THINK they can sing, and their family who THINK they can sing and you have a panel of 4 outstanding judges (well minus Paula) who know what a GOOD SINGER sounds like, and these folks get voted OUT and they FREAK!!! And you tell me all they need are some G**D*** singing lessons and hard work and they can be a GOOD SINGER???!!! And by "good singer" I mean someone who when singing to an audience of say at least 50 people (because you'll get the gamut of musically-poor persons to the rather well-inclined listeners) and the consensus is THE PERSON singing is a "good singer". They stay on pitch, have a nice voice....blah blah blah. Can I sing? Damn right I can, and I do it very well. I'm not on a pedestal and I'm not knocking others who enjoy singing even if they don't do it well. I'm here to tell you that if you want lessons, go for it, but if you don't have the voice to be a "good singer" (there we go again!!!!!!) lessons til you're blue in the face may not take you where you need to go. You can improve yourself, yes. Seriously you guys simply don't either get my point, are drinking the "koolaid" or whatever. Look at my picture. I'm 6'2", 265 pounds and built like a truck. I can run my ass off for a year and get in "runner shape" and yes maybe COMPLETE a marathon, but I do NOT have the genetic make-up to be a GOOD MARATHON runner. Same with the voice. Can you make it better? Yes. But can you take a poor voice and make it a nice, sweet sounding melodic tone to listen to if you don’t have the genetics? I say no. I disagree and here is WHERE I disagree with you. You keep saying good singer. Forget that. I do think that anyone with enough training can become a good singer - I've seen it happen with one of my former vocal instructors other students - he came in and could not sing two consecutive notes - literally, He could not go from a C to D. He was partially tone deaf and he had quite a few breaks in his range which I had never heard of before. My instructor took him from that to being able to sing flawlessly with a 3 octave range - but it took her several years and a lot of extra time working with him, but he was determined and put a lot of effort into his training, and that made a big difference. If I worked as hard as he did, I'd have a 6 octave range. LOL I think you need to change "Good" to GREAT. Lots of people can be good singers, but not everyone can be a GREAT singer. Some people just have that certain something about them that gives them a natural edge, and you and I both know and recognize it. It could be they have sinus cavities that allow for a more pleasing tone, or (and I'm assuming this because of your size - you and I are roughly the same size) they could be barrel chested, which would allow for a larger resonating chamber in their torso, which allows you to have a much "richer" tone (think about all those British/Welsh actors and singers who have that really rich resonance, guys like Tom Jones - even when they speak it is there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigVoiceTenor Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 I disagree and here is WHERE I disagree with you. I think you need to change "Good" to GREAT. Lots of people can be good singers, but not everyone can be a GREAT singer. Damnit I'm breaking my rule of done commenting further on this thread. Ok I'll give you the the GOOD should be changed to GREAT singer. Especially since you've seen proof. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 He is completely full of {censored}. He has had lessons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYNUXCmXLPQ This guy has an amazing voice, and he claims to have never had a singing lesson, but he's a professional songwriter so I assume that he at least knows how to professionally train and warm up his voice. Whether he uses his own intuition or not is hard to know. I'm learning to sing, (using a Brett Manning package) and would love to be able to sing even a tenth as good as this guy. His voice is obviously natural, I purposefully ignore any discussions about genetic factors or "natural voices" as it just discourages me from trying harder. I've already come a lot further than I ever thought possible. Don't want to stop now. My question is this: What is this guy doing apart from just singing "in pitch". Maybe this is a stupid question, but its hard for me to figure out. He has an amazing timbre - is there anything that can be done about that? If I sing without going offkey I sound fine, but my voice warbles a little bit, thins out as I go higher, is a little slow to respond to certain pitch changes etc. I'm confident that my voice training package will help me deal with all of those weaknesses over the next few months, but is it possible to ever have a timbre and style like his which is so varied and expressive? I don't want to imitate his voice - I know that's probably not possible, but I do want to have the same result - make people think "Wow, I LOVE your voice". (besides my girlfriend who's biased ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevesherbert Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 i agree that genetics plays a factor. not everyone can be a great opera or jazz singer. however, i disagree when you say not everyone can SING because it totally depends on the style. personally, i think pavarotti sounds terrible. i would never in a million years aspire to sound like him. he's talented, yes, but his style makes me cringe. neil young, on the other hand, is a much 'worse' singer, i.e. he could probably never sing in a grandiose operatic style. but when he sings with his own voice, he brings a style, tone, and authenticity that is 100% original and makes him a great singer. what i'm saying is that had neil listened to the armchair geneticists on this board, he wouldn't have written hundreds of songs and made a dump truck full of money over a 40 year musical career. if you want to sing, hone your craft and don't give up. don't bother aspiring to be something you're not - aspire to do YOUR thing to the best of your abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 No offense or disrespect, but {censored} you that's bull{censored}! I kid, but yeah, it is bull{censored}. Would you care to give some more insight to this? All humans are born with the ability to produce a cry. This is to call out for attention when we need food. This is the only thing our voice can do at that point. EVEREYTHING we do with our voice after that IS LEARNED. Speaking, singing etc.... Or can you point to some source of article, research or anything that proves this to be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 Here is where we disagree Bajazz. We do NOT all start out with the SAME basis for a singing voice! We don't!!!! It IS GENETCIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! People are different in literally a million different ways, tall, short, black, white, blue eyes.....yada yada yada...: Well this differencies you are talking about is nothing in the big picture. Genetics might make your vocal cords 1 mm longer or shorter than mine. or a 1/6 mm bit thinner, and maybe if your double as tall as me, you can produce a bit more resonance, BUT JUST MAYBE: i'VE NEVER MET A {censored}IN BIG GUY WHO's VOICE I CAN't DROWN. I'm a small guy, I've trained myself to sing louder, higher and deeper than anyone I know in this town, and this has nothing to do with {censored}in' genetics, as no one in my family tree ever sung!!!! So no matter what we {censored}in start with, it's what we do with it that counts. Scientific research has shown that there is one thing that is common for all great performers (in any disclipline) 10 000 hours of work. Scientific research have proven that 7000 hours is not enough to be outstanding. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND CONFIRMED SCIENTIFIC IS THAT DOING THINGS A LOT ENHANCES YOUR SKILL LEVEL AT THAT DISCIPLINE. Can you point to any scientific research that shows that any genetic variables in any way determines if you become a great singer? Can you show me any research that proves that there is any common physical attribute, DNA sequence, cromosoms or anything that good singers have that bad singers don't have? Can you show to anything at all? Didn't think so, so what you are doing is selling your own views, thus doing damage for those who'd might put in the hours but believed in your BS and chose not to. I'm so f*ing tired of this negativism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flemtone Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 ...and this is the reason I rarely post in this forum. Everybody HAS to be right and anyone with a differing opinion is attacked. Jeez, people - grow the {censored} up. No one is going to NOT pursue singing because of what some anonymous poster on a message board says. Ego, ego, ego. Take a step back and take a deep breath. Not everyone is going to go after singing with the same amount of enthusiasm or effort. For those that choose to go hard and practice for 3-20 hours a day, more power to them - for those who choose to be 'natural' untrained singers (like myself) due to whatever circumstances (mine include a job, my kids, my Lovely Wife, my house, the band, etc - basic time restrictions), more power to us. Neither choice makes the other wrong, just different. Really, you guys bicker like a pair of little old guitar wankers. "This is the way to do it! (wheedley wheedly wheedly)!" "No, it's supposed to be like this! (beedly beedly beedly)!" *knife fight ensues* How about we all just make a common forum effort to respect the opinions of the other posters and not feel the necessity to jam our own opinions (yes, bajazz, opinions) down the other posters' throats? Simple common respect, people. If you can't do something as simple as that, then your ego diagnoses you with terminal Lead Singer's Disease. God help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bad_Obsession Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 Ego, ego, ego. Egos? On a singer's forum? You don't say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SevenString Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 ...and this is the reason I rarely post in this forum. Everybody HAS to be right and anyone with a differing opinion is attacked. Jeez, people - grow the {censored} up. No one is going to NOT pursue singing because of what some anonymous poster on a message board says. Ego, ego, ego. Take a step back and take a deep breath. Not everyone is going to go after singing with the same amount of enthusiasm or effort. For those that choose to go hard and practice for 3-20 hours a day, more power to them - for those who choose to be 'natural' untrained singers (like myself) due to whatever circumstances (mine include a job, my kids, my Lovely Wife, my house, the band, etc - basic time restrictions), more power to us. Neither choice makes the other wrong, just different. Really, you guys bicker like a pair of little old guitar wankers. "This is the way to do it! (wheedley wheedly wheedly)!" "No, it's supposed to be like this! (beedly beedly beedly)!" *knife fight ensues* How about we all just make a common forum effort to respect the opinions of the other posters and not feel the necessity to jam our own opinions (yes, bajazz, opinions) down the other posters' throats? Simple common respect, people. If you can't do something as simple as that, then your ego diagnoses you with terminal Lead Singer's Disease. God help you. What, you didn't get the memo? Apparently it's "case closed", and "talent" is imaginary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kentrel Posted February 8, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 Really interesting discussion since I posted this question. In the two months since I posted this question I've continued everyday with singing practice. Mostly I've been doing focusing on pitch exercises and the standard Naynay\MumMum exercises. All my life I believed I was a terrible singer, genetically, and now I've already started to amaze myself. Already with about 3 months of practice I'm better than a lot of the lead singers of bands I used to listen to... or close to it. I'm not confident yet, and it takes a lot of preperation to warm my voice up until i sound my best, but I'm getting there, and have already come far. Now, my new goal is to sing this good one day. Possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Consume Posted February 8, 2009 Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 Would you care to give some more insight to this?All humans are born with the ability to produce a cry. This is to call out for attention when we need food. This is the only thing our voice can do at that point. EVEREYTHING we do with our voice after that IS LEARNED. Speaking, singing etc....Or can you point to some source of article, research or anything that proves this to be wrong? So you are saying that you learned your sinus cavities into existence, and through learning and training you dictate the size of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeverTheMachine Posted February 8, 2009 Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 Would you care to give some more insight to this?All humans are born with the ability to produce a cry. This is to call out for attention when we need food. This is the only thing our voice can do at that point. EVEREYTHING we do with our voice after that IS LEARNED. Speaking, singing etc....Or can you point to some source of article, research or anything that proves this to be wrong? That's fine ... do we all LEARN the same way too? Since everything is learned, I suppose there's no genetics in learning. I agree that technique is part of becoming a good or great singer, but to be able to "use what you've got" you've got to get first. You can't just say that there is absolutely no genetic basis here. Do you sing by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted February 8, 2009 Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 So you are saying that you learned your sinus cavities into existence, and through learning and training you dictate the size of them? I didn't mention the sinus cavities at all, that was you. Not sure why you brought them into question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.