I have a gosh awful voice

[pg60]

This is a funny thread for me but also offers some great suggestions.

I was outed as a bad singer singing "Happy Birthday" as a kid, people would stare...

As an adult my wife used to tell the kids that you can tell Dad's been drinking when he starts to sing.

I've been working the 'be a great instrumentalist' thing for years and made tons of progress but it's hard.

As I get older strumming is becoming more appealing and am thinking about trying the singing again with my old man voice.

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by raysachs

Neil Young is one of the people who I consider to be a great singer without a particularly pretty voice. There are quite a few of them. Combining a great voice with great singing can be a really nice thing, but some of my favorite singers are great because of how they’re able to adapt their art within the limits of their instrument. Neil’s a great example of that...

You have a point there. Also the fascinating thing IMHO is having a voice that is so unique, and probably not something a that would be considered outstanding in rigid standards -- is what makes them great. When I was taking voice lessons I was warned by some that doing so could impede my uniqueness and not necessarily be a good thing. (Of course I am nowhere near anything to write home about.)

Case in point: Willie Nelson is very nasally but that sound is unique to Willy and is quite pleasurable to listen to. A classically trained singer would frown singing through one's nose. But conversely many of the trained voices I hear all sound alike. Classically trained sopranos all sound the same to me and bore me to tears. Probably why I am not a big opera fan.

[FrankHudson]

I touched on this another thread you started when you asked about how long it takes to strum and sing, the ability to easily sing well with a beautiful timbre is not evenly distributed. Practice and focus helps. Coordination between the two tasks is greatly aided by practice. But some of us don't get to the same level others do, even after putting in the same time.

I'm one of those "some of us." Years of singing and playing, and yet not a good singer by my lights or others. I'm also lousy pronouncing foreign languages and have a pitch sense that made tuning a guitar before electric tuners difficult.

Note that in this thread, and in many others scattered around here, a number of famous, successful, and beloved performers are knocked as "not having good voices." How can this be? Thousands of people paid to hear Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and Johnny Cash sing, bought their records voluntarily, and are glad for that. Did someone bribe them? Are they so magnetically attractive with chiseled bods and Greek god faces that just being able to look at the record cover and swoon was enough?

Some explain this by saying that the listeners who can't hear the badness in the above singers have a deficiency compared to some others hearing. There's likely at least a bit of truth in that. Some of us hear and object to issues of pitch that I don't find a big deal. With the sense of taste, we know scientifically that there are "supertasters" who can sense taste sensations more intensely and specifically.

But it's more than that I think. There's something else you can bring to a song that can attract listeners, compel them to listen. Bob Dylan tells the story of Sam Cooke (whose voice few would think has any deficiency):

“Sam Cooke said this when told he had a beautiful voice: He said, 'Well that’s very kind of you, but voices ought not to be measured by how pretty they are. Instead they matter only if they convince you that they are telling the truth.' Think about that the next time you are listening to a singer.”

Now I'm not there with that factor in my singing either, but if you can get to the point that someone thinks you've been there, been road-tired and so ready to be welcomed by a lover that you can't help but break into song about it, then you've become a singer regardless of pitch or timbre issues.

That's the journey you start on when you play and sing. Yes, there are mechanical skills to master to the degree you can. But once you get so that can balance and travel on that road, even a bit, you can have that experience of human experience as you perform songs for yourself and maybe for others too.

[Cecil6243]

I remember lamenting that my range was not is much as I would like and was floored hearing a singer, Minnie Riperton, (sadly passed early in her life from cancer) had a range of five octaves!

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Note that in this thread, and in many others scattered around here, a number of famous, successful, and beloved performers are knocked as "not having good voices." How can this be? Thousands of people paid to hear Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and Johnny Cash sing, bought their records voluntarily, and are glad for that. Did someone bribe them? Are they so magnetically attractive with chiseled bods and Greek god faces that just being able to look at the record cover and swoon was enough?

Some explain this by saying that the listeners who can't hear the badness in the above singers have a deficiency compared to some others hearing. There's likely at least a bit of truth in that. Some of us hear and object to issues of pitch that I don't find a big deal. With the sense of taste, we know scientifically that there are "supertasters" who can sense taste sensations more intensely and specifically.

But it's more than that I think. There's something else you can bring to a song that can attract listeners, compel them to listen.

I think this is the heart of the matter. Someone with a great voice AND who's a great singer is a real treat. I think of Ella Fitzgerald, Bonnie Raitt, Steve Winwood among these people. But a whole lot more people we consider fine singers really don't have a really gorgeous natural vocal instrument - they just have an artistic vision they're trying to get across and are particularly good at it. Bob Dylan has nobody's idea of a great voice but I love his singing - his phrasing is incredible.

I look at a great voice much as I look at a great guitar - it's a fine instrument and I'd rather have a better one than a worse one. But some of my favorite guitar music ever was played by old bluesmen on exceedingly cheap acoustic guitars 80-100 years ago. They didn't have the best instruments but they had the taste and vision to adapt their instruments to what they wanted to play and hear. To the point that those cheap old instruments are associated with a whole amazing genre of music.

A lot of guitarists have amazing high end guitars and really don't play them all that well. A lot of great artists have basically "good enough" guitars but make amazing music with them. I'd rather listen to a great player on an average guitar than an average player on a great guitar every day of the week. Similarly, I'd rather listen to a great singer with an average (or worse) voice than an average or worse singer with an amazing voice every day of the week.

I used to be a pretty good photographer - probably still am but it's largely dormant at the moment. Way better photographer than I'll ever be a musician. People have admired my work and say stuff like, "that's a great photo - you must have a really nice camera". Usually I'd let it go, but if it was someone I knew well enough to be invited to their place for dinner, I'd hold the thought and then after a fine meal, I'd say something like - 'that was a great dinner, you must have really nice pots and pans'. And then if their feelings were hurt I would explain that I was just using the same logic they had in commenting on my photography. It was a good conversation starter. The instrument is the tool. What you do with the instrument is what ultimately matters...

-Ray

[Mr. Jelly]

Then become a stylist instead of a singer. Just a thought. Adapt and over come.