Questions about singing

D

D-Sect

Veteran XX
Do you feel that singing is a natural talent? Are "born singers" are always better than people that couldn't sing and then later developed it?

Can you be a good singer with an awful voice? Meaning - you have the technical know-how to hit the notes you want, but the tone or timbre of you voice just sucks?

Is the melody that the singer composes, or sings, more important than the tone of the voice and their technical prowess?

Just something I was thinking about.. What's ur opinions?
 
like almost everything else, there are people who have a natural talent for it. and just like everything else, you can become good at it by practicing. and some of those people who practice will be better than those with the natural talent, and others won't. and bob dylan sounds like shit but is one of the best singers IMO.
 
I think there's people who are natural born great singers - Sass for example is a phenomenal singer and can rip your ears off with volume and precision. Famous examples are people like Geoff Tate, Billy Joel, Celine Dion (Yeah, I said it - so what?), amongst others.

Then there's a whole other class of singers - who aren't naturally blessed with perfect tone or pitch - but they have oodles of melody. Kurt Cobain, Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan come to mind. Um, Serj Tankian from SOAD comes to mind, but he's a pretty good singer in his own right too.

Then there's people who just blow you away with intensity. Phil Anselmo from Pantera, Joey Belladonna from Anthrax, all those screamo guys.

There's a natural talent there that's shared amonst all of them, and that's the will to perform and express. They all share the ability to connect with the listener. Some people do it with wonderful pitch and tone, others with melody and lyric, others with intensity - most with a mix of all three.
 
D-Sect said:
Do you feel that singing is a natural talent? Are "born singers" are always better than people that couldn't sing and then later developed it?

Can you be a good singer with an awful voice? Meaning - you have the technical know-how to hit the notes you want, but the tone or timbre of you voice just sucks?

Is the melody that the singer composes, or sings, more important than the tone of the voice and their technical prowess?

Just something I was thinking about.. What's ur opinions?
Click to expand...

'Horrible' voice - great vocalist:
Janis Joplin
Bob Dylan
Jimi Hendrix
Ben Lee
 
Disclaimer: all this is from an opera point of view.

IMO singing can be divided into three main inter-related facets: voice, technique and musicianship.

Voice refers to the 'god-given' ability. Size and timbre flow directly from this heading. Range, dynamics and flexibility rely somewhat on this, but (from my limited understanding) mostly technique. The elements of the second section aren't merely absolute, but vary depending on the first (e.g. a large voice is generally less flexible and lower range; a voice with a 'traditionally' beautiful timbre can't be as flexible if it wants to preserve the timbre). This is mostly talent, though bad technique will ruin a voice no matter how beautiful (e.g. Carreras, di Stefano).

Technique refers to things like the quality of the legato, coloratura ability, tone production, vocal evenness, dynamic ability etc. Again, it's interrelated with the other two sections. E.g. large voices = less flexibility = harder coloratura proficiency; poor musicianship = crap phrasing = legato is useless. Technique comes from hard work and having a good teacher/doing research.

The last section, musicianship, can include phrasing, repetory, dramatic ability, tastefulness, and so forth. This is talent (intelligence) as well as researching etc.

While a very small number of the greatest singers ever are near the top in all three categories (Caruso and Bjorling come to mind), plenty of singers fall well short.

Pavarotti I would consider great in terms of natural voice and technique, but third-rate musicianship. Domingo has a less than great voice (compared to the world-class), technique that seems to have lasted for him if nothing else, but a much much more interesting interpreter. You can see in the following clip how incredibly boring Pavarotti is, in spite of his voice, compared to Domingo (this is a very simplistic and biased comparison).
YouTube - Luciano Pavarotti "No, pagliaccio non son" Pagliacci (start about 2 minutes in)

YouTube - Domingo, Cotrubas - I Pagliacci - "No, pagliaccio non son"
 
Back
Top