David,

I am afraid that in the case of singing ability you are wrong. Being one who has studied these things as part of my profession, I can clearly say that I agree that two individuals born of equal physical and physiological structures are the function of nurture. However, there is clear evidence in the literature that nature plays its part in the make up of an individual in all things. To emphasise the discord of your argument, someone who is born with a brain disorder or developmental disorder does not have the same abilities as someone who is 'normal' so to speak in terms of ability to learn to sing.

Singing ability is the function of the physical make up of a person in terms of the structures involved such as the larynx, stomach, nasal areas and most importantly the ear (including its very specialised internal structures), the physiological abilities of a person, including their breathing ability, and the nervous system structure within a person allowing the quick execution of activities such as determining accurate pitch of what you are singing and making minute adjustments. The other part of singing ability is the learning part of it. Learning about how to stay in time, how to listen for pitch and make slight adjustments to pitch, how to listen for harmonies and be able to pitch those perfectly etc. There are many different elements in singing ability and there is no way that everyone has the same potential. I can vouch that there are many people who practice and practice and practice and attend karaoke and go to singing lessons but they will never make anything of their singing regardless of their desires.

That is the same for almost every ability! The nature versus nurture debate has never said one or the other, which is what seemingly your argument attests to (all being nurture as far as your point). Twin studies have shown that environment has a major influence in many things but that nature also plays a huge part in other things, as other social type experiments have shown.

On another note, I watched the Luke Kelly weekend sunrise thing and thought once again that all it did (and he played into their very arms) was emphasise the stereotype of karaoke being about pissheads. To let them sing with him was shameful and he should not have accepted that as it lowered the perception of his achievement. Could you see someone like Guy Sebastian, Wes Carr, or Damien Leith (as reality tv winners of singing comps) allowing others to sing on a tv spot with them, or an artist allowing someone to sing?? Personally I thought he sung very poorly, particularly completely missing the start of the song after emphasising that to be 'karaoke king' you have to practice and really know your material. He did not put an 'elite' spin on what my opinion of the KWC champion should be doing.

When those who win this competition make something of themselves and use the title seriously and with intent to become a star then perhaps the stereotype of karaoke in this country will improve and those who run the shows will see a whole new brand of singers and their friends and families attending shows to hear them sing. All it needs is one person to do the KWC and the karaoke community proud and make something of it. We have had 3 World Champions that have not had any further media or anything. If those persons were still singing on TV spots regularly and had albums out then the stereotype would change. Maybe KWC needs to look at how it runs the event effectively to get that going.

That is my 2 cents worth!
Submitted by Ray on 18-07-2011

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

Where2sing.com