No, I'm not saying I'd rather listen to someone singing badly, even if it's to the best of their ability. What I'm saying is that I'd rather listen to someone who perhaps hasn't got the greatest voice, but who understands the meaning of the song and can get that across, rather than someone with a beautiful voice who can't do that.

I've never heard someone sing well when reading the words. I'm prepared to accept that it may happen, but in most cases it doesn't. Most singers in my experience only start to improve when they get the confidence to do without the words in front of them.

Technique is not enough by itself. At worst, someone with a degree of technique may be tempted to try something too ambitious (particularly when it comes to instrumental accompaniment) which actually detracts from the song . Jim's quote from McColl about about the singer being able to give his whole attention to the song is spot-on. A singer who can do that will be worth listening to.

The point I'm trying to make is that the best singers aren't necessarily the ones with the best voices, or the best instrumental skills. There's more to it than that.

Examples? Bob Dylan - weird nasal voice, can scarcely hold a note, but a compelling singer nevertheless. Richard Thompson - not the greatest voice, but he knows how to phrase a song perfectly. Any number of traditional singers, who by the time they were recorded were well past their best vocally, but whose singing will grip you.