Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???

Subject: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Pogo
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 02:07 PM

Someone mentioned something related to this in another thread and it got me pondering...which do you prefer in folk music? Someone who's had years of voice/music lessons and sings like a lark? Or someone who's self-taught, the naive' folk musician (naive' in this case referring to no professional training)?

For example I have a CD called the Bowed? Dulcimer, really beautiful stuff, the artist is named Ken Bloom. He plays the dulcimer as you would a chello and it just has this wonderful mellow quality to it. However his singing...ahem {O)...leaves a bit to be desired. He himself even admitted he was no singer. The first few times I listened to the tunes on the CD where he sings along I admit I winced a little. But then as I listened more and more I really grew to enjoy his voice, particularly when he sang " Over The Hills And Far Away " There's such a open, honest quality about that I realized was just wonderful. I can't rightly explain why and I doubt anyone else would hear it in quite the same way. But you know he loves the music, that he's aware that yes, he's not the best singer in the world but he does put his heart in it.

I just wondered what other's people's views were on this...any takers from the folkie set?

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 02:17 PM

I guess if the poetry is amazing, the voice is less important; if not, then the voice takes primacy. IMHO.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Bassic
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 02:23 PM

Interesting point Pogo and one I have debated with myself. I think the conclusion I have come to is that both ways can work. Bottom line is that its wether the performer manages to communicate with the listener that matters. Some listeners cannot get past the lack of "technique" in some performers and so cannot access the "soul" of the performance, and for other listeners the technique "gets in the way" of the performance and the "soul". I suppose there is a performance style somewhere in the middle that appeals to the majority of listeners but you aint gonna please all of the people, all of the time!!

I suppose, as a listener to other traditional performers, I am in the process of trying to see past technical limitations to hear the "soul" and making new discoveries of music and performers that, in the past, I have tended to dismiss. A classic example of this, for me, being Bob Dylan.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 03:01 PM

One thing is for sure, if you have what it takes to captivate an audience on stage, you don't need no steenking voice lessons.

Anybody who has been fortunate enough to see David Bromberg in his heyday will vouch for this.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: mg
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM

I admit to being shallow. I like pretty voices singing pretty songs. The emotion is less important to me, the message is less important to me, the story line is less important to me. I don't care if they have voice lessons or not but I would not go out of my way, or God forbid, actually pay money, to hear someone who doesn't sound good to me. If I want the other stuff I would rather read it in print form. I get sound through my ears and content through my eyes I guess. An example I guess is Dougie MacLean..probably misspelling him..I just can not listen to him. In fact, I have a hard time listening to others sing his songs. I do not know why. Other people really like him. I wish him well and hope he sells a million cds.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 04:14 PM

For me the song is what matters, and if I find myself listening to the voice rather than the song, it's getting in the way. I find that happens more often because the voice is too pretty rather than the reverse, though I suppose it can work that way as well, as mary indicates it does for her.

That's why classical concert-style performances of folk songs very rarely work for me. I can enjoy them, but only in a relatively detached and superficial way. The sound is pretty, even beautiful, but the songs aren't really there.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 05:23 PM

I don't much care if a voice is conventionally "pretty" or classically trained, and I am strongly prejudiced in favor of vocalists who can deliver an emotional "soulful" performance. Many singers who I greatly admire probably would not measure up to the standards of classicists who have no taste or understanding for folk/blues/soul music.

On the other hand, however, I certainly prefer a strong singer who hits the intended notes to a weak and/or unskilled singer. And there are plenty of prominent artists who don't measure up to my standards for a singer, regardless of how outstanding they may be as songwriters -- David Byrne, to give just one example. When I try to enjoy listening to such a performer's effort, I find myself distracted by the constant nagging thought that "I could do better than that!"

So I suppose I do care very much how talented a singer is, but my criteria are different from those of, say, an opera critic.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 05:44 PM

" I am strongly prejudiced in favor of vocalists who can deliver an emotional "soulful" performance. "

Well, horses for courses - that sounds like just the kind of singing that makes me turn away rapidly, most especially when its in the context of British or Irish songs, where ut seems to me that emotion is best implied rather than stated. Of coursde this is a matter of individual preference - tastes differ, and they are entitled to differ.

But the question of emotion as such is a different matter from the question of rough or smooth, pretty or harsh.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 06:13 PM

In his book, The Incompleate Folksinger Pete Seeger tells of having given a concert in London. One of the critics was dismmissive, saying something like, "Mr. Seeger is not a professional. He's only a talented amateur."

Wow! Talk about having missed the point! Seeger knows how to sell the songs he sings. And of course he doesn't have the "professional" mannerisms that evidently the critic wanted to hear. I say again: Seeger knows how to sell the song.

Carl Sandburg had about as close to no voice as any singer I've heard, and certainly didn't have a professional technique. But he could make a folk song come alive, even with all the crudity of his style and the REALLY non-beauty of his voice.

Some of us, in listening to a song, focus on the music; some on the words, the story. I am a words and story man. The musical end of things comes in as a decided second, a mere supporting role.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 06:35 PM

Well, each of us probably has his/her own unique definition (or more properly, own "feeling") for what vocal approach is appropriately heartfelt vs what is blatant, mawkish, unattractive overacting. We can *all* probably agree that we dislike the latter category (although we might have some disagreements over which singers/performances should be classified as such).

Kevin, I would suspect that -- even though I verbalized a position with which you immediately disagreed -- we might well agree with each other quite often when evaluating specific individual performances. Not in every single instance, of course, but often enough.

I do understand, and agree with, one part (at least) of what you seem to be asserting: a straightforward and consciously *musical* approach to singing, where the performer is most conscious of hitting the notes and maintaining the tone, is always best.

If some additional emotive "feeling" can somehow be conveyed without violating pure musicality, so much the better (e.g., when some of the notes consciously chosen and successfully intoned are "between-the-keys" blue notes).

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: gecko
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:01 PM

A cappella performers take this question to an new level! No music, pretty or otherwise to hide behind or disguise the fact that your voice leaves something to be desired. Not for the faint-hearted, singer or audience, but sublime when someone like June Tabor struts her stuff with songs like 'The Easter Tree'.

Mark Latham for Prime Minister!

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 24 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM

If we are talking about traditional music, I prefer renditions where it is about the song rather than the singer. Training does not preclude that, but my experience suggests that it makes it difficult. A trained singer who usually manages to get traditional music right is Custer Larue.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: freightdawg
Date: 25 Sep 04 - 12:12 AM

From reading the above threads it seems that how you approach the question depends on whether you yourself are professionally trained or not. I remember a Christmas TV special about a group of absolute beginners trying to put together a performance of Handel's "Messiah." The director they hired was a professional, and one soloist was a professional who got mad at the mistakes of the greenhorns and went stomping out, after calling them a "bunch of amateurs." The director, played wonderfully by .....Houseman (I forgot his first name, and I think his last name was House, or Houseman) stopped the practice and lectured his disciples (to paraphrase): "the word "amateur" comes from the Latin verb "to love." You are here because you love the music. You are not paid professionals, and so will make mistakes paid professionals will not make. But you are here because you love the music, and there can be no higher reason for performing as you want to perform."

In another thread I mentioned that I recently got to hear Leo Kottke perform. He is a wonderful, fabulous, tremendous, gifted professional guitarist. He is not, however, that gifted when it comes to singing. But, in the vein of some threads above, his vocals are so charming and witty that I quickly overlooked their "unprofessional" appearance, and now I could not imagine going to a Kottke performance without hearing him sing. (Besides, he can outsing me anyway.)

There is just a natural tendency of one who is schooled and polished in any profession to critique another doing the same or a similar job with a more critical (in the good sense) eye. They can see or hear things the uneducated or unpolished cannot. The flip side is they can, very often, enjoy something on a deeper level than the uneducated can (this is true in any profession, not just music.)

For one man's opinion, I vote for encouraging anyone to sing or play just for the pure love of it. Also, especially if they are young or just beginning, encourage them to improve in any way they can, and if that means professional training, then do it. Remember, even the most talented professional around was once a rank "amateur."

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Sep 04 - 09:56 AM

I've heard a lot of classically trained singers do folksongs, and though I love classical music and sing a lot of it myself in choruses, a classically trained voice singing in folk music just doesn't work for me.

I've purposely not taken any voice lessons, though about half in my group (of about 180) do,--- lest I be taught vibrato, which from witnessing my friends in choruses seems to be unavoidable when taking voice lessons. Sight-reading is essential in a classical chorus; vibrato is definitely not. There seems to be a difference between natural vibrato and taught vibrato, which seems to go way overboard---- and sure doesn't fit in folk song. Interestingly enough, I find that in choruses, (I've been in quite a few, of varying size, frequently several at once) conductors also prefer a straight tone---they feel it gives them   a clean canvas on which they can then create musical color.

I'm with McGrath (and most others, it appears) all the way--the song is the thing. If you ever wind up focussing on the voice, not the song, the song is dead. Having said that, I do love a lot of folk material sung for instance by Mary Black (too bad she veered away from folk in order to sell more) and the first two albums by Joan Baez. I think they did in fact put the songs across wonderfully, and that the voice served the song, not the reverse.

And of course, as several posters have noted in other threads, vibrato does increase with age. Garrison Keillor, uneven though his shows are, had a great skit on various composers being hired as church organists in a little Lutheran church, and why each didn't work out.. For John Cage he said "He talked about indeterminacy and chance elements in music. But we'd had that for years with the older sopranos." (So they let John Cage go.)

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Chris Green
Date: 25 Sep 04 - 10:55 AM

"I am strongly prejudiced in favor of vocalists who can deliver an emotional "soulful" performance."

I assume what we're talking about here is the god-awful fake-orgasm singing style of over-produced divas like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston et al. A triumph of technique over emoting!

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: mg
Date: 25 Sep 04 - 10:52 PM

I was singing along with the radio on my brother sylvest, great row of medals ribbons? on his chest...and thought..now, there is a song that does not tell a story..no great socially redeeming value, no message I can determine; so I definitely fall into the category of people ..if it has a bouncy rhythm and a catchy tune, why not. Something you can bang a beer stein down to...mg

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: sharyn
Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:34 PM

What seems to be getting lost here is that there are people who have naturally beautiful voices who may not have formal voice training, or who may have had some (tips from choir directors in church or school choirs, for example). Some "untrained" voices are clear, true and pleasant, on pitch. Some trained voices become too mannered: many opera singers have trouble singing anything other than bel canto with any credibility -- if you want to laugh, listen to one of those "Three Tenors" specials when they get to Christmas carols or American pop tunes. Other opera singers can sing other music without sounding affected, but most of them can't. If you want to sing folk music, it helps to be familiar with it, which means listening to a lot of it, especially listening to the sort of folk music you are interested in singing by singers you like. If you have a good ear, you will pick up singing styles by osmosis.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Sep 04 - 11:12 AM

A year or so back, after singing folk songs for fifty years or so, I decided it was time to get some vocal training.

I was lucky enough to find a woman teacher and singer who does (among other things) folk type songs, so I went to her and said, in effect: "I want some help on certain aspects of my singing, but I absolutely want to avoid the classical mannered approach. I want help with making the most of my range, which I think has shrunk with age. I most definitely want training in breath control.   I would like coaching on enunciation to make the words come out as clearly as possible, bearing in mind that I'm avoiding the mannered classical sound. Any suggestions you give in in other areas, even though I'm not asking for them up front, will be listened to with respect, but I don't guarantee to implement them."

She understood both my desires and my motivation, and we worked together for maybe six to eight months. This was of great help to me, especially with breath control and enunciation. I didn't extend my vocal range (which she told me was adeqate anyway), but the quality of sound at the upper end felt in better control.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: Blowzabella
Date: 26 Sep 04 - 12:01 PM

I like the voice to match the type of song - by which I suppose I mean, I don't necessarlity need to hear a perfectly pitched voice or voices singing sea shanties (in fact it's often better if they're not) but I find they do need energy and power and I generally prefer them sung by male voices.

For a ballad singer I do prefer a tuneful voice, but the foremost thing is that the singer understands the song and gives it context and integrity.

Whether a singer should have vocal training - perhaps, for someone singing a great deal, it might help in learning to use the voice as a muscle, thereby avoiding straining etc. If it's your living, you've got to look after it. I don't go for a voice which is too 'mannered; though.

Subject: RE: Voice Lessons or Man of The Soil???
From: CET
Date: 26 Sep 04 - 12:56 PM

I don't think there has to be a distinction between the trained voice and good folk music. If you want to hear how good a trained voice can be in singing folk songs, listen to three of the greatest voices ever recorded: Kenneth McKellar, Bryn Terfel, and Kathleen Ferrier. Their performances work much better than those of most classically trained singers, I suppose because they approach the songs with the same respect that the best traditional, "untrained" singers do.

Good singing of folk songs requires many of the same skills as any other kind of singing: power, breath control, flexibility, accuracy, tone, etc. Vocal training can help with all of these things. If you can find the right teacher, he or she can help you find your own voice and liberate it.

Edmund