This is a very, very good question that is close to my heart. I am a "trained" singer in that I have studied voice for many years. This means, to me, that I know how to get out the best tones possible, I know to pronounce and sing words well, and I usually achieve my goal of using my voice to present the song without distracting from the song. Sounds simple, but it ain't simple.

This thread reminded me of a wonderful happenning I was witness to many years ago, in Santa Cruz, California. It was evening, we were all good friends, friendship was the common bond. We were lit by kerosene lamps (we were all poorer), the wine was flowing, and Jim shared a song with us.

Jim was young, and blond, and handsome, as was his bride. He'd left a severe home at 16 to sail the world, and this he did. At 17, he landed in Jamaica and lived on the beach for a while. With the good energies of this evening, and his good memories, he started to sing "Sloop John B", as he remembered it sung when he was there ten years earlier.

As he started to sing, he was shy, and a little drunk. It was quite obvious that he was not a trained singer. And yet to this day, I still get goose bumps as I remember what I heard.

The cadence of the song was superb, VERY different from the populiar version of the time in America. And he sang it with thought and with meaning. He was telling the story as though he was there. And he WAS there, as he told the story.

There was, and still is in my memory, a verve, a spirit, a sound that I have not heard sense. And, it's a sound that I have NEVER been able to mimic, though I've tried. Would that I could.

So, does a singer have to sing well? Damned right! And NO ONE have EVER sung better than Jim that night! CHEERS, Bob