Born singer or become singer: The boy bands versus the soul

[Arenegeth]

Well I thought of starting this topic after an argument that started over at the 10 things about me you don't know thread between me and Acheron88, I thought why keep it to our selves and ask your opinions about it.

So what do you think of made bands of manufactured music and singers who are born singers like Elvis Priestley some would say?

Do you like the state of the pop industry these days and all those computer manipulated voices to get the note just right and s***, or do you think that we need true voices out here that come from the soul and not artists by comity.

For me singing comes from the inside the soul, now before wild beasts ravage me since I have said in the past that there is no soul let me show you what I mean.

Natural, I mean when I sang as I kid for the first time I didn't know about all that stuff of having your tone a certain way and whatever, and I just clicked people were like "Oh Arenegeth you have a good voice" and "what the heck that kid sings good" I wasn't a part in a choir or anything I just felt those songs and people liked hearing me to sing, what difference does it make if a few notes were off, we are not instruments we are people, so the "soul" is the adaptation the passion that comes from with in us usually due to genetic reason or just happen at a genetic level, that thing that others in other places call talent that natural immediacy to a certain thing.

Also let me continue my argument here.

[St. Ajora]

You seem to be under the impression that manufactured bands are made up of people solely for their looks. Or that if they are in a group, then they don't know how to sing.

Wellll...the Backstreet Boys were manufactured if I remember correctly. The Spice Girls were. Perfect example of boy and girl band. They all knew how to sing, regardless of the way they first met or not. True, many "bands" are put together just to make money, but many of them can still take it back to the basics- the music.

About your soul thing...eh I have to admit I did not get a word of that. Soul and genetics? Erm...

[Arenegeth]

[Acheron]

See the point where you lost your validity was when you said you knew what a good singer was and then gave me, for one, the impression that you have no experience as a concert singer. That kind of makes you sound like a anorexic food critic. Firstly, there is a difference between a singer who is classically trained and who is just publicized.

It's just like if someone is born with the natural tendency to build muscle better than someone else. Just because they can doesn't mean it necessarily happens. Either way they have to work out to build muscle, it's just that to one results are more evident, more quickly. Basically, singing is a something that comes easier to some than others but everyone can do it if they practice enough. So for you, Arenegeth, maybe singing and getting compliments for it comes easily. But you lack the vocal experience to be able to satisfy the tastes of people that are actually into singing. After you go to competetion where they judge you on things like blend, clarity, diction, posture, attidtude/stage presense, choice of music, and overall entertaining value please come back and tell me that singing well is just something that happens.

[Arenegeth]

[St. Ajora]

[Tony Stark]

[Arenegeth]

[Aurelien]

Arenegeth, the biggest problem that I see with most (if not all) of your posts is that you always think so extreme and full of exaggeration. Like in this case, it's either the "natural" singers or the "computer manipulated" singers. You easily generalize that current pop industry is full of computer manipulated singers as if no one can sing anymore. That's wrong, and you know it.

The question becomes, why can't the "natural" singers be manipulated by computers as well? As you mentioned yourself, as humans, they will make mistakes when singing. And they will sing some songs off keys. So why not use the technology to "correct" the mistakes so that it'd result in better end-product?

Would you prefer to listen to a natural singer's CD where you noticed 3 off-keys in a 3 minute song all the time? You'd be like "Crap if only those keys were not off, it would've sounded much better."

The thing is, computers are used to improve the quality, not to create the voice. If computers are used as extremely as you say, then why bother signing a singer? Just use computer and put it on a supermodel's face.
_________________



~City-States of Jowston and Tinto Republic~
06.06.2004 - 20.01.2008

[Arenegeth]

[Wataru]

This is a topic very close to my heart. I think one of the biggest problems with this discussion so far is the confusion of "singer" with "performer." Singing is a specialized skill, and performing is very different. If I pick up a sword and poke it at someone does that make me a fencer? No, it makes me a guy poking a sword at someone. It's the same with singing. People in theatre say it all the time: "I can sing, but I'm not a SINGER." There are people who are both singers and performers, mind you.

I have a lot of experience in both singing and performing. In the 20 years I have been singing I have performed in choirs, musical theatre, rock concerts, etc. I have worked with some of the best technical singers out there and some of the best showmen out there. I have worked with people who have sung for preseidents and prime ministers and even the Pope. Although I have taken lessons here and there, I have never taken voice lessons regularly. I have, however taken many workshops and seminar classes and have worked with people who have been studying all their lives. You manage to pick up a few things doing that.

Anyone can sing. Singing is just the vibration of vocal cords. Technical singing is much different. If you tell a child to sing, they will not immediately do it "the right way." Singing takes a lot of training. Otherwise you get people like Michael Bolton who just scream on pitch and blow their voices out after short careers. Singing correctly is very hard. It requires great muscle conditioning and concentration. It requires complete control over the muscles in your face, throat, neck, chest and abdomen. You cannot sing correctly if you are out of shape. You can yell on pitch and call it singing, but you can't sing correctly. Most of the people out there on the charts these days do just that: yell on pitch. They have a great sense of pitch, so people confuse it with singing since its on-key. They're not even singing, let alone worthy to be called "singers."

Using the aforementioned example, the Backstreet Boys are singers. They have technical know-how on the craft of singing and (for the most part) have been trained. The Spice Girls are not singers. One of them (Posh) doesn't even sing by herself if you watch their videos. They are performers. They are charismatic and can "sell" a humber, but it's not singing. They were chosen for style, not substance. Image, not ability. There has to be some talent and some natural tone quality there, but that was secondary to appearance and dance moves.

[Krawnik]

Goody! Another topic in which Arenegeth tries to give off the impression that he's better than us!

Okay, you're arguments have been darting about like crazy, I don't even know what you're trying to prove anymore, so I'll just address what's been mentioned so far.

Natural singers versus... whatever the argument is. Okay, I think everyone has to be born with at least a shred of talent that needs to be developed to dabble in a particular proffesion or art form. I mean, for all I know, I'm potentially the world's greatest... I dunno, surgeon. If I invested in developing this talent, I would eventually come to be the best surgeon on Earth. Goody. Problem is, I have no intention of becoming a surgeon, so I'm not going to develop my natural talents. As such, even though I'm potentially the best surgeon to ever live, any schmoe surgeon right now could surgery circles around me because they've developed their talents, and I haven't.

It's the same with singing. People are born with various levels of inherent talent, and depending on how much you practice and develop your talent, the better you will be at singing. So two people can have the same potential, but the one who practices more will be better. Similarly, someone with less potential can become a better singer than someone with greater potential by practicing more. Singing is a skill just like any other- there is a certain amount of natural ability to credit, but a lot of it is simple, nose-to-the-grindstone practice.

Man versus machine! Does using a computer to correct your voice make you a talentless hack? I don't know. I guess the easy answer is "it means you are a bad singer". Or at least, not as good as someone else. You can't hit the right notes? It means you aren't as good as someone who can, pretty much end of story. However, there are more important aspects than simple talent to being a succesful singer. Some people can sing flawlessly but have grating singing voices, while in contrast, some people can't sing properly but have glorious singing voices. Singers that use machines and programs to correct their voices are probably riding on the success of the sound of their voice (or the attractiveness of their bodies :P), rather than the quality of their singing.

And then of course, there's a certain "style" aspect to being a succesful singer.

Style versus substance. I think of Nirvana when I address this issue. Not particularly talented as musicians, Kobain's not a tremendous singer, but the style (well, anti-style) of the group catapulted them to success. In this way, traditionally speaking, Nirvana is a "bad" band, but their message and their image appealed to young, strung out types who felt like the world had, well, "somethinged" them over.

So based strictly on the argument at hand, being a bad singer still ultimately means you're a bad singer, but being a bad singer doesn't neccesarily mean you will be an unsuccesful or unpopular singer.

Profit versus spirit. If a band sings for profit, does that mean they are less "real" than someone singing from unbridled artistic integrity? I suppose, yeah. Less "real" because they were assembled by a record company to make money. Traded like a good, you know? But the same thing can be said of movies. Most movies are a commodity made by studios for profit, artistic integrity be damned. Non-Hollywood and art films are the minority. But does that mean everything to come from Hollywood, manufactured though it may be, is defaultly bad? Okay, bad example for the mosy part, but some truly great films have come straight out of Hollywood. Great films made for profit by studios. Manufactured groups aren't bad by nature, even if they often come out hackneyed. Like Ajora said, Backstreet Boys may be a cobbled together cash-grab, but they do have some sort of singing talent.

Similarly, as mentioned, singing from your heart doesn't mean you'll be better, even if it means you have more artistic merit. Sure, "real" singers are arguably of a higher calibre, but this isn't just defaultly true.

Stomach versus Heart. It's a song by Barenaked Ladies, from "Born on a Pirate Ship".

Alien Versus Predator. I haven't seen it, but I liked the Alien films, so I might check it out. I was supposed to see it with my friend, actually, but that fell through. I didn't even really want to see it with him, actually, I just said I did to humour him.

Godzilla Versus King Kong. What? King Kong has electric powers now? Come on! They made that up!!

Scorpion versus Sub-Zero. FIGHT!!!

Anyway, I've kind of lost my point. Go about your businesses! Leave the crazy man alone!!
_________________

416- friggin' racists, messing up my generalizations, also stealing my jobs, women.
RIP Ninjalicious

[Futch]

[Acheron]

So basically in sumation of what I've percieved to stated, there is a distinction between a performer and a singer. There is also a distinction between a singer and a techincally trained singer. Basically, someone with a naturally "good voice" (and Yea, I caught that Bono "poor voice" pun) can only have that voice temporarily because they don't know how to use it correctly. Fact. So when an aspiring singer takes the initiative to learn how to sing properly, thus taking the gift they had and refines it, they become a technical singer. So, I ask you, how is being a technical singer and being a good singer not the same thing? I know quite a few people who had pretty bad voices and then took voice lessons and ended up with careers in vocal music. One ended up with a range from second soprano to first bass.

The original argument was that being a good singer is a gift and not something you have to put work into. So, no that is not true. A good singer is a singer who knows what they are doing. If you knew anything about singing you would also know that reading notes off a page doesn't make you a good singer either. You have to have feeling behind what you sing just like a Violinist has to have feeling behind what they play. There is an obvious difference in a fiddle and violin by the way they're played and the feeling behind the way it's played. You can play a violin fast ut with the mentality of a dirge or requiem you won't have the proper sound when playing the notes of a song like "Bile' dem Cabbage Down".

"Being a good singer is a gift and not something you have to put work into". The fact that someone tells you that you're a good singer doesn't mean its true. Often times your the best singer in the world to someone but thats when your singing right next to 4 people who can't keep the right key signature and have are bumbling over every other word. Maybe the person who told you that thinks that you have low self-esteem or something.

[Raze]

Actually, the difference between violin and fiddle is very subtle: a violin has a 'chin rest'- a plastic piece used to place one's chin upon the violin for 'proper form'. The fiddle has no chin rest. The strings and everything else is the same fundamentally, so I believe that's the only difference between the two, I can't recall the discussion that we had at one point during my 8 years of orchestra (I played violin)
_________________

Rend. Slaughter. Devour your enemies. There is no other way to survive. You cannot escape your hunger, warriors of Purgatory.