 sj |
||
|
||
Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'?
|
|
|
Subject: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: *Laura* Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:05 PM I was wondering about this - I don't think it's how well someone can sing in folk music that matters, but how they deliver a song, or tell the story. What do you think? xLx |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:12 PM Both, I suggest. If either is lacking too much, it will distruct, or bore, and detract from the performance. A technically wonderful voice with no expression is an uncut diamond - lots of inherent value, but no beauty. A poor voice but full of passion & empathy is a carefully crafted jewellery - out of paper. Pretty, but there's not many places you can wear it. A good voice with good delivery - now, that's a jewel. (And a poor voice that sings monotonously is Bob Dylan. OK, that's a tease...) |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Mudlark Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:13 PM A very good question. And one I'm definitely of 2 minds about. I love a good story, and a love source material. But I have to say, I also appreciate both more if delivered by a good voice. 24 verses of Bonny Swans, delivered in a monotone, can be a trial, and I've come close to having songs I love sung too often by bad singers in sessions. It hurts my heart. I wish I was more of a purist, but I'm not. I'm very grateful to all who have both collected and held traditional songs in our culture, and to singer-songwriters who have added wonderful new songs to the tradition. But I'm also very grateful when someone with a great voice sings them. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:15 PM Oh, I should have said - the title of this thread bothers me. It has an air of "what's the least one can get away with?". Why not strive for perfection? Most never get it, but they do get better on the way. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: *Laura* Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:18 PM sorry - change it if you like. I agree - it's a lot better if they can sing well, and i'm not suggesting that a terrible singer who can tell a story is better, just that it perhaps doesn't matter as much as in other types of music as there is more of a storytelling element in folk music. xLx |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: *Laura* Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:23 PM Maybe the question should be 'how well does a folk singer have to sing'? xLx |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Deckman Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:42 PM 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 |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:45 PM A folk singer has to sing as well as he can. Why would anyone want a different standard than that? A |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:48 PM The better he/she sings, the more he/she will be liked or appreciated. Ditto for how well he/she expresses the song. Above all, much depends on the singer's role: a) Strictly speaking, nobody HAS to sing well. My neighbour can't hold a tune to save his life, but I find it heartening to hear him hum while tinkering in the garden. Just for wanting to sing, he gets a medal in my book, though in his case the medal is made of tin! b) As a floorsinger in a folk club/singaround, much will depend on the tolerance of the audience/club members. At the Herga club, for example, despite its being blessed with some of the finest solo voices in the UK (Johnny, Kitty, Graeme), nobody would bat an eyelid if a floorsinger had a poor voice; there would be no sniggering or even talk behind their backs later. That's because of the ethos of the club: everyone gets a fair go, everyone is appreciated for trying, though the better ones get more appreciated, of course, and might get an extra go. Other clubs may not be so forgiving, especially those that charge more than others - because with the charge comes an expectation of quality. So, judge your audience first, if you can. c) A professional or semi-pro folksinger has to have higher standards of course; after all he/she is getting paid to entertain, and the expectation of quality is understandably even higher. Market rules apply - the worse ones will get fewer/no bookings. In fact, in all of the above, you could strike the word "folk", and the statements would still apply. At professional level, folk music has to have the same standards as any other kind of music. It's just that the concepts of singarounds and participation in the folk world have no equivalent nowadays in other genres, for a decent comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:48 PM There was a thread on this subject a couple of days ago, but I can't remember the title and couldn't find the thread. Anybody recall? I sing a hell of a lot better than Kendall Morse and Sandy Paton, and I look a hell of a lot better than they do too - but for some damn reason, the women all flock to Kendall and Sandy. This makes me insanely jealous, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think the reason is that Kendall and Sandy tell the story of the song so very well, and that's what's most important in folk music. I'm just another pretty voice, but these guys convey the story and themselves in a way I don't know if I'll ever be able to match. I'm a choir singer more than a solo performer, and my way of singing works very well to help a group carry a tune. So, the church ladies think I'm wonderful. But nonetheless, it's not all character and personality and storytelling. Sandy and Kendall do sing pretty darn well. But I sing better. -Joe Offer-
(are Sandy and Kendall "soiled"???) |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Deckman Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:52 PM Joe ... It's obvious that we should throw all you guys in the shower together and see who comes out alive!!!! CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:53 PM Lovely story, Bob. There are indeed times when ambience and heart and passion can make technical skill almost redundant. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Deckman Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM Joe ... another thought ... if that happened, there would probably be a LOT of people that wuld be anxious to offer you towels (sorry ... sorta!) Bob, looking for his golashes |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Lighter Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM It depends who you're singing to, and why. Traditional singers did most of their singing to small, even intimate audiences of family, friends, and new acquaintances in taverns, on the road, and elsewhere. Remember, there weren't any radios. All music and singing were "live." And virtually all folk singing other than the blues (a later development) was unaccompanied by instrumenmts. In that kind of world, the unusual beauty of a particular voice, or the entertainment value of a specially energetic delivery would be a bonus. Listen to traditional singers on recordings and elsewhere, and you'll see that few of them are "good" by pop or other standards. But they were doing something right. Otherwise, Mudcat wouldn't be happening now. Except for work songs like sea shanties, most traditional singing took place fairly spontaneously before for "audiences" who were so interested in the sogn (and often the singer personally) that matters of voice, tone, etc., didn't matter. Many in a folk "audience" were just a few minutes away from performing themselves. The modern situation, where *almost* nobody sings for other people outside of a church choir, the vast majority are afraid to sing, and virtually no one wants to listen if they do, seems like a fairly recent development. Now the audience is usually separated from the singer/songwriter/performer/recording artist, who's barely more than a name to most of them. He or she has got to be a topnotch entertainer with professional skills. That's what the audience has paid to hear! Times change. So no, a folk singer didn't have to sing "well" to be appreciated. And yes, if you're going up on stage today, you'd better be good. Very good. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:03 PM Sorry Laura, you asked what appeared to be a simple question, but there are so many angles to this... Joe's posting above made me think of another one: The choice of material. Some songs require power from the voice. Others need delicate weaving of notes. And others need a storytelling, "parlata"-like apoproach. Most songs need varying degrees of the three. And so most singers, with whatever voice limitations they have, tend to gravitate towards those songs that suit their voice best. Most, though not all - I have heard some atrocious combinations of great voice/wrong song in my time. I am told that I have a "world weary" kind of voice, which thankfully suits most of my songs. Yet, and although I adore the blues, I cannot sing them to save my life. I sound crap. Wrong kind of "world weariness", I guess... |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: *Laura* Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:04 PM very interesting. very good points |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: *Laura* Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:05 PM Well that sort of comes to the conclusion that a folk singer doesn't have to sing well, but they have to be good - if that makes sense... |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:08 PM I think the thread Mr Offer is seeking is this one. I suppose this is a slightly different question demanding slightly different answers. My first comment would be "have to" - perhaps not but I think we all should try to do things to the best of our ability and perhaps if as El Greco suggested you are to be a professional earning a living you need to sing well... The question of course is what constitutes singing well. My own comments on that side are in the other thread... |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: MartinRyan Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:09 PM I remember Frank Harte saying that in traditional singing, the best you can hope for (by which he meant the target you should be aiming at!) is that someone will come up to you afterwards and say: "jeez, that's a great song!". Not "Well sung!" nor even "You did a good job on that one..". Drawing that response involves taste in selecting songs to learn, care in deciding when and where to sing 'em and skill in interpreting them. If, in additon, you have a wonderful voice - so much the better! But it's not essential. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Deckman Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:24 PM Martin Ryan ... Yes ... that's a big part of it! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: kendall Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:29 PM No argument here, Joe. Hell, ANYONE can sing better than I can at this point! |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Dani Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:42 PM Hey, now, Joe! I'm sure as hell no church lady, and *I* think you're wonderful! And, I think you do a wonderful job with what you sing, too. I think it's because you do a good job of choosing well what you love, what suits you, your life, and your voice. I haven't heard you in church, but have in a gospel workshop, maybe even better. And to me, a 'folk' singer is someone who gets the other 'folk' singing, and you're real good at that. Someone said in the most recent Pete thread that the instrument he plays best is the audience. Now, what Kendall and Sandy are best at, in my experience of them, is presenting a song TO you. And I think this is a different, if closely related TYPE of folk-singing. I personally am terrible at singing TO people, but can do a creditable job of getting people to sing with me when it's a song I love, that suits my voice. So, perhaps we can define 'folk singers' first, then this one will be EASY ; ) Dani |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Chris Green Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM The vast majority of folk songs tell stories, so IMO the first thing to do has to be to tell the story. Vocal range/power/dynamics, if you've got it, are a plus, but generally the first thing that I listen to is the lyrics. If you can involve the audience and make them take an interest in the story that you're relating to them, then you'll be doing pretty well. The best guy I can think of in this vein is Vin Garbut, who'll tell you the story of the song that he's singing and have you in stitches - then sing the song and have you in tears. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: kendall Date: 25 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM Tell you what Joe, you can have the songs, I'll take the women! LOL (Just kidding Jacqui) |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: bbc Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:04 PM Joe, I loved your post. There's a lot of Mudcat men (& women) I'm fond of & you are certainly among them. No need for jealousy. :) best always, Barbara |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: bbc Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:10 PM P.S.--On a more serious note, though, I just heard Bill Staines again last night for the I-don't-know-how-manyith time & I certainly continue to enjoy him & his music. He has this effortless-seeming way of putting a song across that is just a pleasure. I read his book this past week & really appreciated the way he opened his life up to his audience in it. I'd recommend it. Bill's book Barbara |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: sharyn Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:18 PM I have a friend that I sing ballads with who has to work to keep in tune -- and she does that: she works at it and over the years she has improved. But what she has always had is impeccable timing and expression: when she sings "Robin Hood and the Bishop," you hear the different characters (Robin Hood, Little John, The Bishop of Hereford) and you can hear what mood they are in in each line. This makes her a fine singer in my book -- I never tire of hearing her sing. At the same time, I can't go to her to try out harmonies because it throws her off. We all have strengths and weaknesses as singers. Also tastes vary -- I like breathy singers. Some people can't stand them. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:33 PM No. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 26 Sep 04 - 01:20 AM Several factors come into this. One is essential; the expression in the voice of the singer. Another is the obvious point that no matter what quality the voice has, it MUST be suited to the song. Bothy ballads and sea shanties are hardly operatic material! In fact many of the songs in the classes mentioned can quite regularly be sung with competence and feeling by the same singing voice and style. Some contributers to the thread may remember a television series [confined to Scotland, I think--], in which Jean Redpath, Alastair MacDonald and Kenneth McKellar formed a team to deliver Scottish folk music. The first two mentioned, as most of us know, are "trad-immersed', and very talented and popular performers. Ken McKellar has a terrific voice, and was--and is---well known for his performance of Scots song---but up till then,a repertoire which was limited by "suitability. " Not that McKellar let himself down--"My Love is Like a Red Red Rose" and other Scottish material of that ilk was performed admirably. But what was very striking indeed was that in the aftermath, it became plain that Kenneth had LEARNED from his association with Jean and Alastair. He became, quite suddenly, able to use material which he had never before used. He modified his style of delivery where his "trained operatic' style would have done the song no service at all. A perfect example, I'd suggest, that there are "horses for courses", but also that we can all learn from each other. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Eric the Streetsinger Date: 26 Sep 04 - 01:53 AM When I started to lose my singing voice a few years ago, I thought that I would also lose my livelihood. The voice is such a delicate instrument- its amazing just what there is out there to throw it off. In my case, it was several things- acid reflux, for one, which stiffened my pipes. I sang around it, not really even knowing that I was doing it. Eventually, my voice changed for the worse. More recently, I have developed sinusitis, and that has closed off my resonant mechanism a bit too. Needless to say, its not nearly as easy to sing for me now as it was three years ago, and the voice I sing with now is a drastically changed one. If I hear my voice in my recent recordings, it makes me cringe! But what I am finding with audiences is that they don't care. And I've been told that the reason they don't care is that I manage to tell the story, and to make the point, and that a "beautiful" voice is not as important as a "communicative" one. This afternoon I played "And the Band Played Waltzing Mathilda" for a decent sized crowd. I was really struggling with my voice at first, but the story of that song is so clear and powerful that, well before the end of the song, I'd managed to close my eyes and see it happen- and amazingly, nobody was bothered by the stiffness of my voice. Now I'm not going to say that I'm happy with the change- I miss having song be as easy as breathing, and hope that I'll find my way into a new voice which will allow that to happen- and I've never been a "good" singer, if "good" singing is measured by people like Pavarotti! Ach- I'm waffling around. Better stop blabbering, |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 04 - 03:07 AM Eric the Streetsinger just beat me to it. The essential thing is communication. If someone understands the song and communicates that understanding to an audience, that person is a good singer/communicator/entertainer 'cos the audience will like the result. If someone with a 'trained' (and I suppose I mean classically trained) voice attempts to sing a folk song the result usually sounds horrible, the classical training results in sticking to the dots at all costs, and the cost is usually any emotion inherent in the song. It's the same with classical musicians at a diddly ay session, they just can't do it, they generally can't seem to get involved with what is essentially living music (witness the Corrs when they claim to play trad 'folk'). A 'good' singer is someone who moves the audience (preferrably not out of the door) the quality of the voice is not crucial to this. Charles Dickens had awful hand writing but was obviously a great writer. Someone else may have good handwriting (analogous to a good voice) but be a poor writer (singer). It ain't what you got it's what you do with it that determines the question of 'good'. Phil. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Bert Date: 26 Sep 04 - 03:19 AM Depends what you mean by WELL. Any singer, folk or not, needs to be able to put a song across and hold the audience. If you can't hold your audience then it doesn't matter how good a singer you think you are. It's when they stop and listen that you know you've got 'em. I don't have the best voice, I have pretty poor timing and even worse guitar technique. BUT, when I sing a song, I make sure that they listen and remember. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: kendall Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:25 AM While we are at it, let's touch on accompaniment. One thing that grinds my nerves to pulp is someone slogging through a complex melody using three chords. Something simple such as The Prisoners Song is fine with three chords, but it sounds like shit if you try it with Lorena. (The American Civil War Lorena) |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Charley Noble Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:09 AM Sometimes it's the song itself that is important at a particular time and if no one else in the song circle knows it, do the best you can to deliver it. And some folk songs would have been lost forever if they hadn't been collected from poeple who knew them that didn't necessarily have great voices, or whose voices had been worn down through years of abuse at the local tavern! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: kendall Date: 26 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM I agree, voice quality is less important than the message of the lyrics. Bob Dylan is a good example. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: MARINER Date: 26 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM If being able to "sing well" was a requirement for a folk singer many of the pros would be out of a job. Many of the singers I like, the above mentioned Vin Garbutt for instance,could never be accused of being good singers, but I suppose being a good singer and singing well are two different things? |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:27 PM Does anyone else remember Lawrence Tibbett singing "Shortnin' Bread?" It was actually popular for a while, but always ridiculous and a bit condescending. Like a saddle on a hen as the saying goes. From my point of view, anyway... clint |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Phil Cooper Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:28 PM I think if you're singing with the attitude that "this is a good song and I want you to hear it," as opposed to "look at me, I'm singing," that you're on the way to singing a song well. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Rasener Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:53 PM Yes - otherwise I might just as well sing - and that is a a fate worse than death :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST,Auldtimer Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:03 PM All singers should sing well. If they can't then they should sing in their homes/cars/garages untill they get a better grip of what they are trying to do. Unfortunately they mostly record CDs and propegate the notion that folk song is rubbish. It's not BUT 60% of the vain, deluded, overindulgers envolved are. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Rasener Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:07 PM With you there Auldtimer |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Herga Kitty Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:08 PM Laura Nice question. So's the reverse - can you be a folk singer if you sing well? The Living Tradition review of the CD I made with Mick Pearce said I'm not a folk singer but a singer who sings folk songs.... If you're trying to earn money as a performer, yes I think you have to sing well, but if you're just singing to enjoy yourself, you just sing. If you can carry a tune and the words, that's fine. Getting over the emotions and feelings beats classical musical criteria for judging whether a song works for a folk music audience. Your dad was a great singer, who had a huge influence on anyone who heard him (well, on me, when I was a teenager, anyway). But you are you and can just sing what you want to Kitty. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Bert Date: 26 Sep 04 - 09:29 PM Gawd Kendall! I only know three chords. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:16 PM Martin Ryan's comment makes me feel much better -- I have heard it said about many songs after I sang them! lol Any singer must do the best he can to make the song real. If he can't it will come across as unreal, and who wants tto spend time on that? That said, doing the best he can do is all anyone has asked of any singer. And who'd want to offer less? A |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:44 PM Each case is unique. There is no rule about this matter. If the singer sings the song in a way that is effective and compelling for the audience, then the singer is singing the song "well". And it's a matter of individual opinion whether that is happening or not. A lot of people love Tom Waites. I find him very hard to listen to. So hard that I barely do listen to him. A lot of people love Bob Dylan. Others find him very hard to listen to. I find him very easy to listen to, and love the way he sings. So it's strictly a matter of personal taste and opinion. My opinion is, Bob Dylan often sang exceedingly well until quite recently. I'm not sure about Tom Waites. I don't know his material well enough to be able to make any accurate assessment about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: mg Date: 27 Sep 04 - 01:48 AM Am I the only one here who has never heard of Tom Waites? mg |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: MartinRyan Date: 27 Sep 04 - 03:51 AM Mary You have a treat in store! Regards |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 27 Sep 04 - 03:54 AM Tom Waites does a lot of Cyril Tawney's material, and other sea-songs and shanteys. [Ithink he MAY be B.C. Canadian?] Just on the subject of Cyril--now THERE'S a guy who's lyrical product can hardly be beat, but it's the genuine warmth and expression of his voice and pleasant personality that makes him a popular performer; a "Pavarotti" he is not! |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: kendall Date: 27 Sep 04 - 06:40 AM I've noticed, Bert. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: Does a folk singer have to sing 'well'? From: PoppaGator Date: 27 Sep 04 - 07:43 PM 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. |
| Share Thread: |