In the "other thread" mentioned above, I came out in favor of "man of the soil" in preference to "voice lessons," but I wasn't happy with my explanation. Especially after I read some of the responses that expressed disagreement with what I said, and I found myself agreeing with them! So, let me try again:

What I dislike or distrust about "trained" singing is that the process often seems to eliminate everything about an individual's voice that is distinctive and personal. I think folk singing -- most forms, anyway; it's impossible to generalize about such a broad and loosely defined field -- benefits greatly from a personal approach by the singer.

Now, I agree with the proponents of vocal training that hitting the correct notes is absolutely essential, along with maintaining a consistent tone and coming across with a strong delivery. But I can do without the operatic approach, which tries so hard to make every singer emulate the same "ideal" vocal sound, at the expense of expressing any unique vocal personality.

Many great singers in various different non-classical fields (folk, blues, rock, even jazz) make an asset out of what some might consider a flaw, and incorporate it into an identifiable (and hopefully endearing) personal style. For example, if a singer can't reach above a certain pitch without shifting into falsetto, and if that singer can't make the shift from normal to falsetto voice without some sort of "hitch" or yodel, he/she can capitalize upon that unique vocal ideosyncracy [sp?] and make it part of the interpretation of a song.

In the other thread, I had said something about the non-classically-trained voice serving as a better vehicle for conveying emotion, and caught a lot of well-deserved flak for endorsing emotionalism as a desirable quality in folksinging. I was wrong -- the best singing in most folk genres is deliberately understated, not "emotional" at all in the sense of being theatrical. But that same understated style usually provides a fairly intimate glimpse of the performer's personality, and that's what I find to be most valuable in folk vocals. Whether it should also convey emotion depends upon the song, the singer, and the tradition from which the song is taken.

Back in the 60s "folk scare" in the US, there was a popular phrase, "RAGGED BUT RIGHT." Someone even used it as an album title, if I'm not mistaken, but that title was not by any means the only place I ran into this expression. I never heard or read anyone's explanation of exactly what *they* meant by it, but to *me* the phrase expressed that a given performance might well feature a raspy or otherwise imperfect voice -- and perhaps some fair-to-poor intrumental technique as well -- while still being absolutely "right" because it does a good job of presenting the song's essential story and/or feeling.