Yes, what is "bad"? I used to hear that Woody Guthrie was a "bad" singer before he became well-known with "This Land Is Your Land". Bob Dylan was called "Hammond's Folly" named after John Hammond, the great record producer who brought us Count Basie, Billie Holiday,Bruce Springsteen, George Benson and so many great musicians.

I played a recording of Almeda Riddle for a music business class at a local university and
they all hooted without understanding what the style was.

Then there is the notion of the trained singers associations who have their own opinions
as to what constitutes "bad singing".

There are some singers who I would consider great performers but their voices turn me off.

I find that most of the popular groups on Saturday Night Live or even on American Idol
are what I would call "bad" but obviously the public doesn't agree with me.

I think that voice training is only part of the picture. Phrasing, personality, musicianship,
image and so many other elements have to be factored in.

I have known singers who study for years but are unable to communicate effectively with the public some who would probably consider them "bad" singers.

A lot has to do with finding the right audience for what you do. This takes a lot
of exploring. I disagree with Susan that "bad" singers are relegated to churches or Senior centers. Some of the people who work these venues are great singers who have found
their audience.

Pavarotti was undoubtably a great singer until he might have decided to sing jazz.
Renee Fleming and Eileen Farrell are great singers who don't do well with the jazz repertoire (in my opinion).

Louis Armstrong was a terrible, wonderful singer. His sandpaper voice captivated
everyone. I don't know of a single voice teacher who would have the nerve to teach
people to sing like Louis.

"Bad" singers can become good when they find the audience with which they can communicate.

Frank Hamilton