Steve of Camperdown & Music Addict...
With regards to hitting the notes well: So, Steve, you have a machine that can do that? Well, that's one thing. Can it pronounce words whilst doing so and/or express any emotion in the process? ...I thought not.

Piano tuners of old used tuning forks as the STANDARD for judging when a piano was hitting notes well. When the purity of the piano's notes were on a par with that which the tuning fork possessed, it was considered in tune. Same standard should go for singing - though a little less formally obviously.

It's one thing to have heart and expression of emotion, it's another to actually SING WELL. Touching as your story of the person with heart and no voice was, sounds to me like they were a lousy singer.

Hitting a note well, is to have purity of tone - and that tone can be a rough one a la Andrew Strong (of The Commitments fame) or Axl Rose (of Guns 'n' Roses) or Melissa Etheridge or it can be smooth a la Dean Martin, Julie Andrews or Judith Durham (of The Seekers).

SINGING well combines that purity of tone with expression of the song - whether of it's lyrics or music or both. If a person wishes to play with harmonies a little with a song and throw in arpeggios and other vocal gymnastics as I call them, so be it - it makes for interpretation. If however, they do that for the whole song, it doesn't make them good at singing THAT song. In fact, in my opinion (that's ironic: 'opinion' as a matter of 'fact!'), it makes them a rather poor singer / interpreter of that song. Why is it that orchestras the world over play Mozart's, Beethoven's, Tchaikowsky's (etc) music without altering it? Because there is a STRUCTURE to music and the song is not theirs to reinterpret. Contemporary music may be more liberal but if you forever change the MELODY of a song, then it's not really a song any more, is it? It's just harmonizing or ad libbing. Slight alteration is one thing. Completely reworking the melody is a whole other thing.

By your reasoning, Steve, a singer who sings a song the same way as another artist is not a good interpreter? Did it not occur to you that the reason they choose to do that song is because they AGREE with the existent interpretation themselves and thus wish to emulate that same level of emotion to the best of their own abilities? If their own voice is nothing like the other artist's, then surely THAT can count as interpretation - as they have to use their own voice to express the same tone / mood as the artist they have heard do it before them? If their voice IS similar to the person whose interpretation they are emulating, it doesn't necessarily make them an impersonator either. They're probably just picking songs that suit THEM which is where good interpretation springs from.

People seem to try to make stuff more complicated than it is. Maybe they're scared to face the simple truths of life? I don't know. I do know music though. I write it, I sing it, I play it and I PERFORM it. With both performances of my own music and that of others', I have gotten great feedback from across the entire spectrum of age, cultural background and gender, so once again, I feel justified in thinking my judgement is sound as far as what makes a good singer vs what doesn't.

The first simple truth about singing is, if it ain't in tune, it ain't good singing.
The second is, if it evokes nothing but negative emotion (in someone with a true appreciation for music), it ain't good singing.
If it's a combination of simple truths 1 and 2, then 'Houston, we have a problem!!' and guess what? THAT ain't good singing either!!

In comps or in gigs though, it's not all about the singing. There's performance value and YES good performers are easily spotted too. Don't either of you tell me that if a juggler continually drops the objects he's juggling by accident (and NOT as part of the act) that he's still a good juggler in your opinion? 'HELLO?'

However, singing and performing alike are judged by DEGREES also. If a singer does brilliantly throughout a song but stuffs the last note, sure they'll lose marks but they ought to be credited for what they did well. Likewise the juggler who drops an object occasionally. The person who doesn't stuff up at all is the one who deserves the most credit. The person who stuffs up more often than gets stuff right is unfortunately, at the bottom of the pile.

I don't care if someone is a nice person or not as far as judgement of their singing goes. Judgement of singing is not about sympathy. It's about fairness according to given criteria.

I can't really put the point across any better than that so if you still want to concentrate on the injustice of judging the abstract and insubstantial as you seem to have expressed are your views on singing, then so be it. No skin off my nose and we're all entitled to our opinions... and who knows? Some day you could be as right as I am or I could be as wrong as you... lol (that was meant in good humour btw, so don't feel insulted or think I'm attacking you. Some people here have missed humour here before, you see).

I shall end by quoting Jewish comedian Jackie Mason...
'I wish you... whatever you wish me... I'd wish you ''good luck'' but the fact of the matter is: I don't know you... I'd like to wish you ''good luck'' but for all I know, you could be planning to KILL ME!'

Submitted by Johnny B on 22-09-2005

Meet karaoke hosts and singers in the Where2sing.com forums . . .

Where2sing.com