Why are there so many ho-hum vocalists in the world?

[LiquidMidnight]

I just got thinking about this. How many times have you seen a band - they can be originals, they can be playing covers - the instrumentalists are tight, but the vocals just have no personality to them? The vocals can be technically correct. The singer can be on pitch, in time, and projecting, but there's just nothing that grabs you about the vocals. They're just those bland, average bar band vocals. What is it about accomplished, professional vocalists that separates them from the people who sound like really good kareoke singers and people who sang solos in their high school chorus concerts? Is it about dynamics? Is it timbre? Is it about embellishments like vibrato and falsetto?

I've been trying to figure this out for some time.

[Staccato]

Voice training (in school) at certain times between the ages of 15 & 22 couldn't hurt. Let's face it, most of us never studied voice 'seriously' in a classroom setting, or on a theater stage, and never took private voice lessons or coaching. If a singer is interested in improving his instrument (range, pitch, exercises, and other vocal techniques), that's important, and takes work. If a singer is resting on his laurels, he's either very good, or possibly like you described.

[wonderjosh]

Soul.

Seriously, the number of vocalists that are actually feeling what they are singing, and are trying to be creative with the way they sing is getting smaller and smaller.

The singer in my band is great at staying on pitch and she has a decent range, but she isn't into rock music enough to "get it" and create something stylistically unique or interesting.

[cjmodulus]

Originally Posted by wonderjosh

Soul.

Seriously, the number of vocalists that are actually feeling what they are singing, and are trying to be creative with the way they sing is getting smaller and smaller.

The singer in my band is great at staying on pitch and she has a decent range, but she isn't into rock music enough to "get it" and create something stylistically unique or interesting.

+1000000
if there's no feeling, there's no point.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by wonderjosh

Soul.

Yes. This isn't primarily a technical issue. Some truly awful singers - from a technical standpoint (i.e. Mick Jagger anyone?) - have been able to transcend their technical limitations to succeed wildly as artists, because they communicate a very distinctive and compelling artistic voice (not necessarily a compelling vocal voice), and they do so with passion and flair.

It's really hard to teach that - although it can be learned through a combined process of professional artist coaching, consciousness-raising exercises...and intelligently-applied life experience.

MM

[Megazap63]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

I just got thinking about this. How many times have you seen a band - they can be originals, they can be playing covers - the instrumentalists are tight, but the vocals just have no personality to them? The vocals can be technically correct. The singer can be on pitch, in time, and projecting, but there's just nothing that grabs you about the vocals. They're just those bland, average bar band vocals. What is it about accomplished, professional vocalists that separates them from the people who sound like really good kareoke singers and people who sang solos in their high school chorus concerts? Is it about dynamics? Is it timbre? Is it about embellishments like vibrato and falsetto?

I've been trying to figure this out for some time.

Nowadays, the majority of musicians, excluding vocalists, have undertaken some sort of formal trainining whether it be through a conservatory, private lessons or even exchanging ideas with other musicians who play the same or other instruments. Also, learning tunes generally requires SOME rudimentary knowledge of theory, harmony etc.

I also think another factor is that while many instrumentalists take up music as a hobby, for something to do, to get chicks etc, as they progress (assuming they persist with it) the challenge and enjoyment of creating music with others becomes the real reward. The natural consequence of this is that, over time, most instrumentalists will seek to expand their knowledge and understanding of music and explore a range of genres.

However, many vocalists - at least the majority I've worked with over 30+ years - have taken up music as an ego-boosting endeavour and are more concerned with posturing and how they look as the 'focal point' of the band, rather than whether or not they're singing on key, in time and with the correct phrasing (note: IMO 'chick' singers tend to be the biggest culprits).

This is also not restricted to singers who've one day decided (often on the encourgement of their clueless friends) that they have this magnificent undiscovered talent. While undertaking a conservatory-level jazz course many years ago, I came across a number of vocalists who successfully auditioned for and somehow stumbled through a 3-year course without learning much more than the very basics of their craft.

This is part of the reason why I nowadays work mainly with ensembles without vocalists.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

I just got thinking about this. How many times have you seen a band - they can be originals, they can be playing covers - the instrumentalists are tight, but the vocals just have no personality to them? The vocals can be technically correct. The singer can be on pitch, in time, and projecting, but there's just nothing that grabs you about the vocals. They're just those bland, average bar band vocals. What is it about accomplished, professional vocalists that separates them from the people who sound like really good kareoke singers and people who sang solos in their high school chorus concerts? Is it about dynamics? Is it timbre? Is it about embellishments like vibrato and falsetto?

I've been trying to figure this out for some time.

The same reason that sometimes you hear a band, the singer is tight, and the musicians just have no personality to them. The band can be technically correct, but there's just nothing that grabs you.

It always has something to do with the taste of the listener. What I hear as rote, boring and derivative, someone else hears as "classic sounding". If I hear 12-bar blues, I turn off completely. I don't care what you do with it, I'm not interested.

The other thing is feeling. Anyone can be trained to reproduce a piece of music technically perfectly. A midi sequencer can perfectly reproduce the works of any composer, and it sounds like crap.

[HeadyVan Halen]

Originally Posted by wonderjosh

Soul.

Seriously, the number of vocalists that are actually feeling what they are singing, and are trying to be creative with the way they sing is getting smaller and smaller.

The singer in my band is great at staying on pitch and she has a decent range, but she isn't into rock music enough to "get it" and create something stylistically unique or interesting.

Wait, on Talkbass someone said SOUL and not music theory?!?! No way..just don't believe it.
When I see a woman in what she thinks is a 'hip' dress saying "How you guys feel tonight.." and slapping her thigh with the beat of the intro, I'm done..through. Where's my tab and debit card..

No feeling. I love it how many of these people act as if they don't like everyone looking at them..That's the point
I'll call you out at our shows..Your going to pay attention to us..were not a juke box

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

What is it about accomplished, professional vocalists that separates them from the people who sound like really good kareoke singers and people who sang solos in their high school chorus concerts?

Real talent.

[Unrepresented]

Your instrument comes with frets to show you where the notes are supposed to be. You can buy a tuner to ensure that. You can assemble the rig of any rock star you want with a few grand. The amount of variables between you sounding like a professional bassist are minimal, given a little time woodshedding.

A vocalist has no such support, markers, or gear to cop a professional sound the way we can. They're using only flesh and wind to sound like a rock star, not wood, metal, and transistors. It's sorta like the difference between a runner and a race car driver.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

Your instrument comes with frets to show you where the notes are supposed to be. You can buy a tuner to ensure that. You can assemble the rig of any rock star you want with a few grand. The amount of variables between you sounding like a professional bassist are minimal, given a little time woodshedding.

A vocalist has no such support, markers, or gear to cop a professional sound the way we can. They're using only flesh and wind to sound like a rock star, not wood, metal, and transistors. It's sorta like the difference between a runner and a race car driver.

Hmm... Interesting point...

MM

[Saxn]

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

Your instrument comes with frets to show you where the notes are supposed to be. You can buy a tuner to ensure that. You can assemble the rig of any rock star you want with a few grand. The amount of variables between you sounding like a professional bassist are minimal, given a little time woodshedding.

A vocalist has no such support, markers, or gear to cop a professional sound the way we can. They're using only flesh and wind to sound like a rock star, not wood, metal, and transistors. It's sorta like the difference between a runner and a race car driver.

Aaaaah, not so sure about that comparison, man. If you want to look at it that way then you could say that singers are born with their instrument, and have quite a few year's jump on the instrumentalist.

Sure, you can buy a rock star's rig, and it's wood metal and transistors, but let's not forget the most important pieces... the MIND and the HANDS. I don't believe for a split-second that it takes less work to make beautiful sounds come from your fingertips than from your larynx.

[James Judson]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm wondering why those that can't sing are so judgemental towards those that are trying.

[teleharmonium]

Originally Posted by James Judson

I'm wondering why those that can't sing are so judgemental towards those that are trying.

Because it's about how it strikes us as members of the audience that the music is being made for, not about what we can do in comparison to that person ?

People that go on stage are choosing to put themselves into the position of being evaluated by others relative to whatever other music they have heard. And that probably includes a lot of legendary singers.

Mediocrity on an instrument is, apparently, a lot more acceptable than mediocrity from a voice.

[colcifer]

Experience has a lot to do with it. This performance is a good example. Technically, it's ok; in spite of having mostly disintegrated his throat, Garcia sings in tune (mostly) and is still able to connect with the audience.

Grateful Dead - Built to Last (Studio Version) - YouTube

[electracoyote]

A great melody, combined with great lyrics, trumps the need for vocal proficiency. This is a standard in pop music.

[Clark Dark]

Seems the greatest vocalists were the products of the 50's and 60's doo-wop IMHO. And no matter how great they were they clung to fundamentals. Here's the Temptations singing the National Anthem and Melvin is using a pitch pipe to ensure "The Temptation's " vocals were spot on.
The Temptations sing the Star Spangled Banner at the 1984 ASG - YouTube

This kind of professionalism is lacking nowadays and then there's that vomitty auto tune.

Put up 2 dozen of todays pop artists and I'll destroy them all with 1 Levi Stubbs.

[groooooove]

Originally Posted by electracoyote

A great melody, combined with great lyrics, trumps the need for vocal proficiency. This is a standard in pop music.

i feel like it might be the opposite, no?

i havent heard much pop music lately, with ipods and ipod car adaptors and all that- im never around radios and hardly watch enough TV to hear it. but i feel like, isint most pop music lacking in both lyrics and melody?

the melody part can be argued- perhaps most pop music excels in short melodic motifs, like a two bar melody that they sing throughout the whole tune, as opposed to a longer, more involved melody (this is totally starting to sound like a compare/contrast between beethoven and mozart )

but anyway, my point is that they're riding on their over-the-top vocal tricks. pop singers are all the singing equivalent of victor wooten, i feel like.

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by groooooove

isint most pop music lacking in both lyrics and melody?

Not the pop music I listen to and purchase.

I'm sad for your plight. I hope you'll find some good pop music with good melodies and lyrics some day.

[skwee]

Because singing is hard, and all kinds of nuts think they are good enough to be effective.