What if I can't sing?

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by mchalebk

I cannot recommend voice lessons highly enough. Almost anyone, with proper instruction, can learn to sing at least decently.

This.

It boggles me. I don't believe anybody would ever pick up a guitar, not knowing a thing about how to play it, strum a few attempts at chords and say, "I guess I'm not a guitar player."

We all recognize that a guitar is an instrument that you have to learn to play.

Well, guess what. So is your voice. We would consider it absurd if someone declared that they weren't capable of learning to play guitar well after the first couple of minutes holding one, with no instruction - and yet this is what people do with their voices all the time.

You have to learn the instrument of your voice just as much, if not more, than you have to learn the instrument of the guitar. Heck, it some ways it's harder because the technique involves proprioception - we can't look to see if our fingers are in the right place, like we can with a guitar.

You probably can't sing if you haven't had any instruction. But you couldn't play guitar before you spend some time figuring out how to do that properly either, could you? And that didn't stop you from learning.

[macmanmatty]

my best advice for learning to sing is hear yourself sing!! Sing into a mic that both records and also goes to headphones cranked as lout as you can stand it the same time. That way you can hear the way you sound singing recorded as you are singing. That improved my singing greatly. Once I cranked up the vocal in the headphone mix on my recording I could actually hear what other people were hearing as my singing problems and had ideas of what I was doing wrong and could then correct them.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

This.

It boggles me. I don't believe anybody would ever pick up a guitar, not knowing a thing about how to play it, strum a few attempts at chords and say, "I guess I'm not a guitar player."

We all recognize that a guitar is an instrument that you have to learn to play.

Well, guess what. So is your voice. We would consider it absurd if someone declared that they weren't capable of learning to play guitar well after the first couple of minutes holding one, with no instruction - and yet this is what people do with their voices all the time.

You have to learn the instrument of your voice just as much, if not more, than you have to learn the instrument of the guitar. Heck, it some ways it's harder because the technique involves proprioception - we can't look to see if our fingers are in the right place, like we can with a guitar.

You probably can't sing if you haven't had any instruction. But you couldn't play guitar before you spend some time figuring out how to do that properly either, could you? And that didn't stop you from learning.

This.
The problem with singing is that our voices are so personal, so much part of who we are. With a musical instrument, it's detached, a piece of machinery with rules on how to operate it. We accept that when we start it will sound crap, everyone knows that, but there's a clear learning curve, a well-understood series of practices to get us there, if we can just apply ourselves.
But if we start trying to sing and we can't do it straightaway, it's just too embarrassing to continue. We immediately assume we just don't have the "talent".

But many other cultures accept singing as natural. Everyone can do it. In some African societies, eg, to say one can't sing would be a very weird thing to say. Rather like saying you can't play soccer because you don't know how to kick a ball. You've got feet: kick the **** thing! You've got a voice; therefore you can sing.
But that's because singing is a part of normal life for everyone in that culture, right from early childhood.

In the west, the professionalisation of music makes it seem as if musical skill of all kinds is the preserve of an elite, the ones with this mysterious gift called "talent". We look at (and listen to) professional singers and players, and they're hopelessly ahead of anything we can do, and they make it look easy too.

But once upon a time in our culture, too, music was a normal part of everyone's life. And before the era of recording, naturally that meant singing first and foremost, for anyone that couldn't afford instruments. Nursery rhymes, lullabies, children's games, work songs, church hymns, etc., as well as folk ballads. Everybody sang, at different times, for various reasons.
Now, when we all have iPods and CD collections, we've got used to our music (for whatever occasion or purpose) being provided by seasoned professionals. We don't need to do it ourselves; we've lost the habit. And comparing our feeble efforts with pro recordings only deters us all the more (and we see how less-than-perfect singers are ridiculed on talent shows). It may be only in church or at football games where any of us sing as a matter of course (hiding in the crowd); and if we're atheist and not into sport...? (protest marches??)

IOW, if you "can't sing" - and there are many of us who feel that - it's just because you're out of practice. You didn't as a child (or not much). You never felt the need to as you grew up. (And if you ever tried, you immediately stopped because it wasn't perfect.) So the natural skill atrophies, dries up. Use it or lose it.
But it can be (re)awakened and strengthened through lessons. It's about finding your own natural range and tone.
Eg, maybe you can't sing Neil Young because you're a bass or baritone, and he's a tenor? (His voice is abnormally high for a man, as are most classic rock vocals). Most male voices are in the bass-baritone ranges, rarely reaching easily above middle C (fret 1 on B string). Training will extend your range, and beef up its central area, but you still have a natural register.
It doesn't mean you have to give up singing Neil Young tunes; it just means you need to transpose them, or lower the octave. Don't try and sing like Neil Young. Sing like you.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

This.
The problem with singing is that our voices are so personal, so much part of who we are. With a musical instrument, it's detached, a piece of machinery with rules on how to operate it. We accept that when we start it will sound crap, everyone knows that, but there's a clear learning curve, a well-understood series of practices to get us there, if we can just apply ourselves.
But if we start trying to sing and we can't do it straightaway, it's just too embarrassing to continue. We immediately assume we just don't have the "talent".

But many other cultures accept singing as natural. Everyone can do it. In some African societies, eg, to say one can't sing would be a very weird thing to say. Rather like saying you can't play soccer because you don't know how to kick a ball. You've got feet: kick the **** thing! You've got a voice; therefore you can sing.
But that's because singing is a part of normal life for everyone in that culture, right from early childhood.

In the west, the professionalisation of music makes it seem as if musical skill of all kinds is the preserve of an elite, the ones with this mysterious gift called "talent". We look at (and listen to) professional singers and players, and they're hopelessly ahead of anything we can do, and they make it look easy too.

But once upon a time in our culture, too, music was a normal part of everyone's life. And before the era of recording, naturally that meant singing first and foremost, for anyone that couldn't afford instruments. Nursery rhymes, lullabies, children's games, work songs, church hymns, etc., as well as folk ballads. Everybody sang, at different times, for various reasons.
Now, when we all have iPods and CD collections, we've got used to our music (for whatever occasion or purpose) being provided by seasoned professionals. We don't need to do it ourselves; we've lost the habit. And comparing our feeble efforts with pro recordings only deters us all the more (and we see how less-than-perfect singers are ridiculed on talent shows). It may be only in church or at football games where any of us sing as a matter of course (hiding in the crowd); and if we're atheist and not into sport...? (protest marches??)

IOW, if you "can't sing" - and there are many of us who feel that - it's just because you're out of practice. You didn't as a child (or not much). You never felt the need to as you grew up. (And if you ever tried, you immediately stopped because it wasn't perfect.) So the natural skill atrophies, dries up. Use it or lose it.
But it can be (re)awakened and strengthened through lessons. It's about finding your own natural range and tone.
Eg, maybe you can't sing Neil Young because you're a bass or baritone, and he's a tenor? (His voice is abnormally high for a man, as are most classic rock vocals). Most male voices are in the bass-baritone ranges, rarely reaching easily above middle C (fret 1 on B string). Training will extend your range, and beef up its central area, but you still have a natural register.
It doesn't mean you have to give up singing Neil Young tunes; it just means you need to transpose them, or lower the octave. Don't try and sing like Neil Young. Sing like you.

I agree with you guys. The difficulty with singing, to me, was figuring out what you were supposed to do. It is hard to convey the proper sensation, and what muscles one should be using and stuff like that. So, it takes practice, and then you're like, oh, I get what it should feel like.

Which is of course different for different people with different voices.

I won't say that anyone can sing though, and there most definitely is talent involved.

If you don't have a good ear, then forget it. If you can't hear whether or not you're on pitch, then it's a lost cause.

That's one part of talent for singing. The other part, is just the shape of the body. Everybody has a different shape, a different timbre, a different range and all that. You can't choose that. It's like a guitar, they are made of different woods, and different body sizes and shapes. Every guitar can make sound, and you could make music with any one, but you might only sound like a bad ukulele, or you might sound like a beautiful full sized guitar. You might have tremendous range for your voice, or you might have a small range and need to go into head voice much quicker. You might have a raspy voice, or a clean one, whatever. That could be called talent. I mean, no matter how hard they practice, not every girl can sing like beyonce. Beyonce does have a gift.

But, if you have a good ear, you can learn to sing. You can learn what your voice is, and what it can do, and it will sound good. I think anyone can sing and it is good if they have a good ear. But to be able to sing and really be mind blowing, or have a really cool sound, that's talent. Even if you had to work at it.

But being mind blowing is not necessary. Lots of famous artists are famous not because their voice is so awesome, but just because it is good enough, and the music is good.

[jimmybcool]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

This.

It boggles me. I don't believe anybody would ever pick up a guitar, not knowing a thing about how to play it, strum a few attempts at chords and say, "I guess I'm not a guitar player."

We all recognize that a guitar is an instrument that you have to learn to play.

Well, guess what. So is your voice. We would consider it absurd if someone declared that they weren't capable of learning to play guitar well after the first couple of minutes holding one, with no instruction - and yet this is what people do with their voices all the time.

You have to learn the instrument of your voice just as much, if not more, than you have to learn the instrument of the guitar. Heck, it some ways it's harder because the technique involves proprioception - we can't look to see if our fingers are in the right place, like we can with a guitar.

You probably can't sing if you haven't had any instruction. But you couldn't play guitar before you spend some time figuring out how to do that properly either, could you? And that didn't stop you from learning.

And it takes practice like playing. And not breathy strumming the guitar and singing along in a small voice either. You need to practice SINGING. Preferably into a mic to hear yourself and letting it OUT.

I used to think I could sing. Then I started singing lessons. I am 100% better singer now and I'm not so sure I'm a great singer.

[mchalebk]

"I won't say that anyone can sing though, and there most definitely is talent involved."
"If you don't have a good ear, then forget it. If you can't hear whether or not you're on pitch, then it's a lost cause."

I don't agree. Almost everyone has enough innate talent to be an okay singer. And almost anyone can develop a decent ear.

I'll state it again: almost everyone can become a decent (or better) singer with proper instruction. You don't have to be born with a lot of talent and you don't have to have a naturally good ear. However, if you don't have those things, odds are you will never be a decent singer... without competent instruction.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I won't say that anyone can sing though, and there most definitely is talent involved.

If you don't have a good ear, then forget it. If you can't hear whether or not you're on pitch, then it's a lost cause.

I disagree. You're right it's a mix of voice control and aural judgement. But both can be trained.
The only people for whom it's a lost cause are those with some kind of brain damage, who can't hear differences in pitch at all. (It's called "amusia".)
Provided you can hear whether one note is higher or lower than another one, then there is a basis for improving and training that sense.

Of course, some people will still find it easier than others - whether we argue about whether that's down to nature or nurture.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

That's one part of talent for singing. The other part, is just the shape of the body. Everybody has a different shape, a different timbre, a different range and all that. You can't choose that. It's like a guitar, they are made of different woods, and different body sizes and shapes. Every guitar can make sound, and you could make music with any one, but you might only sound like a bad ukulele, or you might sound like a beautiful full sized guitar. You might have tremendous range for your voice, or you might have a small range and need to go into head voice much quicker. You might have a raspy voice, or a clean one, whatever. That could be called talent.

If you like, but that's only a matter of degree. A narrow range is not a problem, unless you want to sing songs with a big range.
I don't suppose Leonard Cohen loses much sleep over not being able to sing in Neil Young's register...(or vice versa)

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

I mean, no matter how hard they practice, not every girl can sing like beyonce. Beyonce does have a gift.

Debatable, and not a lot of use in the argument.

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But, if you have a good ear, you can learn to sing. You can learn what your voice is, and what it can do, and it will sound good. I think anyone can sing and it is good if they have a good ear. But to be able to sing and really be mind blowing, or have a really cool sound, that's talent. Even if you had to work at it.

OK, now you're qualifying "talent" in a way I can agree with!
No one would deny that - as in any creative sphere - there is a huge spectrum of ability, originality, etc. Likewise, whatever you start off with, you have to work at it long and hard to develop a supreme, world-beating level.
If "talent" exists, IMO, it's that dogged determination, the single-minded self-belief - and the love and enthusiasm for the activity - that makes a person stick with it long enough to "make it". As long as it's fun, it's easy to put the hours of practice in every day. Most people give up, because they get bored or distracted. The most successful people may not be born with any different skillset than the rest of us; but they distinguish themselves by focussing and never giving up.

I'd agree you have to start with something: some sense that music is what you want to do, that it means something to you. But it only has to be a small thing, some early success at something quite easy; a spark you can fan into a forest fire. Too many people allow themselves to get rained on .

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

But being mind blowing is not necessary. Lots of famous artists are famous not because their voice is so awesome, but just because it is good enough, and the music is good.

Exactly right. In popular music, character matters more than skill. If your voice is distinctive and expressive, that's more useful than being able to hit top C, or whatever.

[stanron]

From a different perspective,
When you hear someone else sing, or play an instrument, you hear the vibrations in the air through your ears. That is not the only way you hear yourself sing. A certain component of what you hear when you sing is transmitted from your throat to your ears via the structure of your body. For some people, me for one, the internal hearing is selective and overpowers the external or air hearing. What sounded in tune when I listend internally was out of tune when I heard a recording.

I found that singing into a microphone and listening through earphones enabled me to hear the true sound I was making. On top of that, practicing singing into a tuner helped me control my pitch. I practiced singing single notes, intervals and arpeggios. I'd play a note, interval or arpeggio watching what happened on the tuner and then I would sing those notes, intervals or arpeggios also watching the tuner. The results, to start with, were frightening. Using the mic and earphones got better results. You can't hope to train your 'pitch assessment' if you can't accurately hear your voice. A singing teacher will tell you when you are sharp or flat but if you can't actually hear that yourself you won't be able to correct it properly. I use a small home recording setup to practice singing, you could get adequate results using a cheap mic and earphones into a computer.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by stanron

From a different perspective,
When you hear someone else sing, or play an instrument, you hear the vibrations in the air through your ears. That is not the only way you hear yourself sing. A certain component of what you hear when you sing is transmitted from your throat to your ears via the structure of your body. For some people, me for one, the internal hearing is selective and overpowers the external or air hearing. What sounded in tune when I listend internally was out of tune when I heard a recording.

Important point!

Originally Posted by stanron

I found that singing into a microphone and listening through earphones enabled me to hear the true sound I was making.

You can also do this - to some extent - by singing into the corner of a room, so that your voice reflects back to your ears.

Originally Posted by stanron

On top of that, practicing singing into a tuner helped me control my pitch. I practiced singing single notes, intervals and arpeggios. I'd play a note, interval or arpeggio watching what happened on the tuner and then I would sing those notes, intervals or arpeggios also watching the tuner. The results, to start with, were frightening. Using the mic and earphones got better results. You can't hope to train your 'pitch assessment' if you can't accurately hear your voice. A singing teacher will tell you when you are sharp or flat but if you can't actually hear that yourself you won't be able to correct it properly. I use a small home recording setup to practice singing, you could get adequate results using a cheap mic and earphones into a computer.

Great advice.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by mchalebk

"I won't say that anyone can sing though, and there most definitely is talent involved."
"If you don't have a good ear, then forget it. If you can't hear whether or not you're on pitch, then it's a lost cause."

I don't agree. Almost everyone has enough innate talent to be an okay singer. And almost anyone can develop a decent ear.

I'll state it again: almost everyone can become a decent (or better) singer with proper instruction. You don't have to be born with a lot of talent and you don't have to have a naturally good ear. However, if you don't have those things, odds are you will never be a decent singer... without competent instruction.

well, I've never perceived sound as anyone else does, but there are people that can't tell if they are on pitch or not. It is one thing, to not have proper control on your body to produce the pitch you want, and it is another not to know whether or not you've reached the right pitch.

Anyone can learn to use a pencil, but if you can't see, then colouring within the lines will be tough.

I'm not sure what is different between people that find hearing that they hitting the right pitch is very easy, and people that have to train hard to do it, but that sounds very difficult to me.

Originally Posted by JonPR

I disagree. You're right it's a mix of voice control and aural judgement. But both can be trained.
The only people for whom it's a lost cause are those with some kind of brain damage, who can't hear differences in pitch at all. (It's called "amusia".)
Provided you can hear whether one note is higher or lower than another one, then there is a basis for improving and training that sense.

Of course, some people will still find it easier than others - whether we argue about whether that's down to nature or nurture.
If you like, but that's only a matter of degree. A narrow range is not a problem, unless you want to sing songs with a big range.
I don't suppose Leonard Cohen loses much sleep over not being able to sing in Neil Young's register...(or vice versa)
Debatable, and not a lot of use in the argument.
OK, now you're qualifying "talent" in a way I can agree with!
No one would deny that - as in any creative sphere - there is a huge spectrum of ability, originality, etc. Likewise, whatever you start off with, you have to work at it long and hard to develop a supreme, world-beating level.
If "talent" exists, IMO, it's that dogged determination, the single-minded self-belief - and the love and enthusiasm for the activity - that makes a person stick with it long enough to "make it". As long as it's fun, it's easy to put the hours of practice in every day. Most people give up, because they get bored or distracted. The most successful people may not be born with any different skillset than the rest of us; but they distinguish themselves by focussing and never giving up.

I'd agree you have to start with something: some sense that music is what you want to do, that it means something to you. But it only has to be a small thing, some early success at something quite easy; a spark you can fan into a forest fire. Too many people allow themselves to get rained on .
Exactly right. In popular music, character matters more than skill. If your voice is distinctive and expressive, that's more useful than being able to hit top C, or whatever.

Anyone can learn to sing if they can hear whether or not they are on pitch, but that is not to say that talent does not exist.

Some people have a much easier time with rhythm it's more innate. Some people have a much easier time hearing how pitches interact. Some people are much more creative and smarter than others.

The difference between one artist and another is not just how much time they spend practising, or what they practised, or how they practised, or even how young they started.

Some people are much more talented than others, this makes them learn at an accelerated rate, things are much easier for them to learn. It's like having more senses. I mean someone with vision will have more of an innate talent for doing stuff like drawing, obviously. But there are other talents of perception that are not so obvious as vision, and that help with music.

A lot of the time these people with talent will love music a lot, and will work hard at it as a consequence also. People that lack a lot of the talent, will give up more easily.

If mozart had never touched an instrument, he would still be talented, but also useless at playing the harpsichord. Or, not useless, because it is easy to just press the buttons, but he wouldn't be as amazingly incredible. He could immediately pick out some simple tunes though, I'm sure.

People that are mind blowing at instruments have to spend a lot of time practising them. It's just a complicated thing to learn. There is generally a lot of physical training that takes time, no matter what your brain is like.

Right? Lots of people work very hard at practising Soccer/football all over the world. And still, some rise above the rest. But there are the same hours in everyone's day.

Talent exists. It's not the be all end all, it is not sufficient to be a great musician, it is not necessary to make a living playing music, or it is to a degree, but it is not necessary to be incredibly talented, I mean look at ringo

Not having amusia is talent.

We have genes, they give us abilities. We call some of them gifts, and some of them deficiencies, or even disabilities. But the only difference between them is the percentage of people that have the ability, and whether it is helpful in our society or makes things more difficult.

Right? if most humans had amusia, the few that had great ears, would be ultra talented, and those with amusia would just be normal.

If everybody had a great natural sense of rhythm, then it would not be considered a gift, and those without it would be considered to have a mental disability.


Talent exists. It's not easy to define, but people perceive differently. They do. Just like intelligence is difficult to define, but there are all kinds of levels of intelligence. But what does that mean perception wise? Idk, but sometimes we call it talent, because that way some perceive, lets them do things easily, that most other people have difficulty doing.

I know I am missing something when it comes to drawing that some other people have. I got pretty good, and I know I could train myself to be quite a lot better. But I also know that some other people must be able to visualize things in their minds much better and more clearly than I can. They have an advantage over me. I would have to train and work hard to be able to do things that they find is easy.

[jimmybcool]

Originally Posted by Monk of Funk

well, I've never perceived sound as anyone else does, but there are people that can't tell if they are on pitch or not. It is one thing, to not have proper control on your body to produce the pitch you want, and it is another not to know whether or not you've reached the right pitch.

.

I am confused. You re posting on a forum for musicians. Ergo, in order to play music you need to hear pitch. Or do you just play the notes in the music and assume it sounds good I don't get it.

BTW not being sarcastic I really don't understand.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by jimmybcool

I am confused. You re posting on a forum for musicians. Ergo, in order to play music you need to hear pitch. Or do you just play the notes in the music and assume it sounds good I don't get it.

BTW not being sarcastic I really don't understand.

Some people don't hear pitch very well. It's sort of a subliminal thing. I don't understand what it is like to hear for other people, but I notice that some other people have issues hearing pitch.

There are workarounds for anything. Sometimes someone will play a guitar and you hear it is out of tune, and they don't notice.

People can use tuners and stuff like that to tune their guitars. then they follow instructions on what to play, and if it is close enough, then they don't really notice it is off.

Playing by ear is different. You are not following instructions, you are hearing to see if you are on pitch.

Your voice doesn't have frets to fret, or keys to press. It's much more fluid of a thing. So you can't have someone tell you what to do to sing the right pitch.

You have to rely solely on your ears. If you can't hear that your off pitch, singing will be real tough.

If you can't hear that your piano isn't on pitch, then that's ok, you just need to know which keys to press.

Like I said, I don't fully understand it. I know that people will like and enjoy music, but have difficulty repeating notes. I know people will have a tough time earring out even a simple melody on a piano.

I think different people have different levels of sensitivity to hearing if things are on key or not.

If I wanted to know if someone could sing or not, I would just play them a tone and ask them to match it. Some people can do this, and some people cannot. That's really all I know.

I will say that you could take note of how hard you have to push to hit a given note, and recall that when necessary, or even train that way for certain songs, with someone else telling you whether you are flat or sharp. But that seems to me really tough.

If you have trouble doing that, you can still play guitar, as long as your guitar is in tune, you're good to go, because the frets have note names. You don't need to hear pitch perfectly, you just need to hit the right fret cleanly.

Tuning your guitar though, that's another story.

It's not that you're completely deaf to pitch, like everything sounds as one pitch. But it's that you don't hear as well how the tones interact somehow. Like, basically everyone can hear if a pitch goes up or down. When they sing they won't get this wrong. But they won't hear that when they went up the right sound in the chord exists, whether it should be dissonance or not. Like maybe the chord is m7 and you have to sing a 9th over it. Some can hear whether or not that 9th is right on, and some can't.

You can get around stuff with training. But some people can just do that as easily as seeing that a fire truck is red. Everybody is different.

There seem to be degrees of this to me. I personally think that if you have trouble hearing whether or not you are on pitch, then singing is tough.

I came across someone like that on soundcloud once. I felt the need to tell them that they were tone deaf, in case nobody was telling them. idk, I felt they needed to know.

They responded to me, that they had been told that before, and that won't stop them, that they wanted to show the world their singing, and they would see what difference recording it more professionally would make.

Like, they sort of got the melody right in a way, but it was just very off still.

If they heard what I heard, they would not think that way. Some people don't hear how pitches interact like others do, I think. It is just like one pitch and another or something. idk. I don't know what his experience of hearing is like. But I know that he could hear when pitch went up and down in a general way, and I know he couldn't hear intervals the way I hear them. In a natural way, not in a training way. I never did interval training of any sort.

[stanron]

Monk of Funk

Perhaps you missed my post no 23 in this thread where I explain one reason some people cannot accurately judge pitch when they themselves are singing. They can judge pitch OK when the sound comes from elsewhere but when the sound is generated by their own body the sound that reaches their ears through their bones and muscles filters out some of the frequencies needed for accurate pitch control. If they hear a recording of the same singing they are much more likely to hear the out of tune bits because there is no internal sound to overwhelm their ears. This is my own personal experience and I solved the problem as I described in my post. It is possible I have damaged hearing or it may be a natural defect and one which others also have.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by stanron

Monk of Funk

Perhaps you missed my post no 23 in this thread where I explain one reason some people cannot accurately judge pitch when they themselves are singing. They can judge pitch OK when the sound comes from elsewhere but when the sound is generated by their own body the sound that reaches their ears through their bones and muscles filters out some of the frequencies needed for accurate pitch control. If they hear a recording of the same singing they are much more likely to hear the out of tune bits because there is no internal sound to overwhelm their ears. This is my own personal experience and I solved the problem as I described in my post. It is possible I have damaged hearing or it may be a natural defect and one which others also have.

I could see that, but I think that there are also others that have trouble hearing intervals. It's a brain thing. Just like some people need to count and develop timing, and others just feel it naturally.

[Texas Dave]

My throat is sore right now from trying to keep up with Chris Stapleton's voice.


My girlfriend "tries" to read while I practice my guitar and sing in the same room. She's helped me remember a few times by reminding me that I'm NOT the person that I'm all to often trying to mimic. When I sing with My voice and rein it in to MY capabilities I sound better.

I think all to often folks try to imitate someone else's voice rather than accept and develop their own. I'm all to guilty of that.

The thing on here I agree with most is that you have to sing to develop what you have. ...I'm so lucky to have a patient girlfriend...and vodka.

Great discussion folks.