How would you rate your singing voice?

[madelise]

I rate myself a 9. I sound fantastic to myself. However, others will not agree

 

[kenny]

5 would be average, so wouldn't you expect a peak at 5 ... instead of a dip?



Hey, shouldn't there be a peak at 5, which is average?

Any guesses why most of us rate ourselves as worse or better than average at singing?
I have a guess, but wonder whether someone else will post it first.

 

[iLander]

5 would be average, so wouldn't you expect a peak at 5 ... instead of a dip?



Hey, shouldn't there be a peak at 5, which is average?

Any guesses why most of us rate ourselves as worse or better than average at singing?
I have a guess, but wonder whether someone else will post it first.

Okay, I give up, why, Kenny?

I voted a 3. I have a great voice, it just can't follow the tune worth a damn.

I think I actually have a deficiency in that part of my brain (maybe from one of my head injuries?), I can't remember tunes at all. I decided to take flute lessons ("all these other people can read music, why can't I?") in my mid-30's, and I had to record the teacher's playing because I couldn't remember how it was supposed to sound. Oddly, I can whistle a tune somewhat better than I can sing. I've tried to figure out what the issue is. Maybe it's because this is a second language for me?

You obviously know about this stuff, Kenny. Do you have any ideas?

 

[Smith1942]

I cannot sing a single note. I play the piano, but I read the music. I can't play without it.

It must be nice to be a really good singer.

 

[kenny]

5 would be average, so wouldn't you expect a peak at 5 ... instead of a dip?



Hey, shouldn't there be a peak at 5, which is average?

Any guesses why most of us rate ourselves as worse or better than average at singing?
I have a guess, but wonder whether someone else will post it first.

Okay, I give up, why, Kenny?

I voted a 3. I have a great voice, it just can't follow the tune worth a damn.

I think I actually have a deficiency in that part of my brain (maybe from one of my head injuries?), I can't remember tunes at all. I decided to take flute lessons ("all these other people can read music, why can't I?") in my mid-30's, and I had to record the teacher's playing because I couldn't remember how it was supposed to sound. Oddly, I can whistle a tune somewhat better than I can sing. I've tried to figure out what the issue is. Maybe it's because this is a second language for me?

You obviously know about this stuff, Kenny. Do you have any ideas?

Interesting.
So, you are a play-by-ear kind of person.

I'm going to wait to see if others come up with it.
Doesn't mean I'm right, just wonder if some others also came up with what my guess is.

 

[iLander]

5 would be average, so wouldn't you expect a peak at 5 ... instead of a dip?



Hey, shouldn't there be a peak at 5, which is average?

Any guesses why most of us rate ourselves as worse or better than average at singing?
I have a guess, but wonder whether someone else will post it first.

Okay, I give up, why, Kenny?

Interesting.
So, you are a play-by-ear kind of person.

I'm going to wait to see if others come up with it.
Doesn't mean I'm right, just wonder if some others also came up with what my guess is.

Oo! Oo! Oo! Mr. Kotter!

Is it because we can't hear worth a damn?

 

[AGBF]

I knew ksinger could sing, so I didn't find it at all strange that she rated herself a 9. What I did find interesting (especially in light of the thread on intelligence) is that a lot of people who had sung in church choirs and were obviously fairly accomplished singers rated themselves only 4's and 5's! It makes me think that some truly good singers are thinking that they are not wonderful singers because they are comparing themselves to great singers!

In other words, if one is good enough to sing in a church choir or other chorus, he is probably good enough to be hard on himself! The disciplined church choir singer is probably comparing himself to someone at the Metropolitan Opera!

Deb/AGBF

 

[HollyS]

I chose 7 on this.

My voice is good enough for choirs and ensembles. I don't have any talent for solo performing (or the ego that allows some folks to kid themselves about their level of talent). I did audition for, and get into, the top choirs when I was in Jr. High and HS. I knew how to sight read because I had taken piano lessons, and I could hit the notes. I can still hit the notes. But I'm technically good only; I don't have whatever it is that the truly talented singers possess.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

My singing voice is terrible! I cannot sing at all. I'm that Cameron Diaz character in the movie My Best Friend's Wedding, except people would be running for cover rather than clapping along to my horrible attempts.

When my first son was a baby, I signed us up for a Kindermusik program and I didn't realize that the parents had to sing along to the music for the babies...I moved my lips to the words, but NEVER sang out loud...the other moms had nice singing voices. Nobody commented that I wasn't actually singing like they were!

 

[Ally T]

I voted 3 because I personally think I'm OK. The reality is I have a very gravelly voice & could potentially make your ears bleed

 

[shihtzulover]

I say about a 5. My singing voice is pretty average.

 

[House Cat]

I gave myself an 8.

From the 4th grade through high school, I sang in choirs that required try-outs and sight reading of music. I dropped out of the singing world but I haven't lost my voice. I still have a piano in my living room. I still sing in the shower live a diva!

Sometimes, I think I might sing again... le sigh.


BUT... Being exposed to many voices and knowing the training it takes to make great voices, there is no WAY I am a ten. Sure, I have perfect pitch and an amazing range, but I don't have Adele's control. There's just so much that goes into singing...

Ok, I'm rambling now...

Let's just say, I'd tear up some karaoke...after a glass of wine, of course!

 

[ksinger]

I knew ksinger could sing, so I didn't find it at all strange that she rated herself a 9. What I did find interesting (especially in light of the thread on intelligence) is that a lot of people who had sung in church choirs and were obviously fairly accomplished singers rated themselves only 4's and 5's! It makes me think that some truly good singers are thinking that they are not wonderful singers because they are comparing themselves to great singers!

In other words, if one is good enough to sing in a church choir or other chorus, he is probably good enough to be hard on himself! The disciplined church choir singer is probably comparing himself to someone at the Metropolitan Opera!

Deb/AGBF

Well, how you would rate yourself would probably depend on how you define "good singing". If you think good singing is only being able to convincingly sing everything by Bonnie Raitt, Celine Dionne, AND Renee Fleming, combined with an oversized stage charisma, yeah, you probably won't rate yourself very highly. But if you realize that no one can really do that (except maybe Kristin Chenoweth), you can rate yourself a bit higher. The trick is to know how you define good singing, and and rate yourself in that light. Sticking strictly to vocal quality, I can give you (but won't: boring) a complete and detailed analysis of my own voice - size, timbre, quality, strengths and weaknesses, what genres I can sing convincingly and those I can't. Most people who have not had training - and I included myself in that category at one time - can't unflinchingly and honestly rate their own voice's quality. As Kenny points out, most people haven't even heard themselves except through the bones of their own heads. Recordings of oneself are VERY instructive. (Notice I'm still not addressing "performance" skills, which is a topic unto itself.)

Most people here are, I think, rating themselves as if solo singing is the best of "good singing". Maybe, maybe not.

There are lots of wonderful ensemble singers who really should not be solo singers. On the other hand, I've sung in several choirs where almost every voice was fully trained and solo quality (and a few where they only THOUGHT they were solo quality), and that has it's own problems - soloists don't always play nice in an ensemble setting. It usually takes a very strong director to ride herd on them and get them to throttle back to teammate status. Good ensemble singers are so often underrated, when that is a pretty amazing skill that not even a good soloist is guaranteed to have.

Good to better than average singing is actually lots of things. Obviously, first and foremost you have to be able to pitch match and stay in tempo. Pretty basic. After that, you have to be able to access the full range of your voice, and untrained singers generally can't. There is that indefinable "musicality" aspect too. After that, then it becomes the innate quality and timbre of the voice itself. That part is pretty non-negotiable. But that aspect is also what makes the voice distinctive. Think Rod Stewart. Bad voice, narrowly speaking - limited range and gravelly as all get out, but he found a niche in a genre that is pretty welcoming to a wide range of vocal qualities, and values uniqueness and delivery much more than vocal proficiency, and made serious hay with it. EVERYONE knows that voice. Certain other genres of music are very specific about the quality of the voices that can convincingly sing them. Rod won't be doing Nessun Dorma anytime soon. (And you really don't want to get me started on him doing the American Songbook. Sorry but )

It's been my experience that most people who say they can't sing CAN, but are uninterested in it, or are so married to their limitations that they won't try to stretch. For instance, I have a friend who insists she's an alto (because she is an alto in the church choir), when she is (like most women) an untrained (post-menopausal) soprano of some kind. She tries to argue with me on this. ME of all people! But she is a bit scared of, and isn't willing to do the work it would take to get her voice into that part of the range she's capable of, even now. It does however, provide fodder for an ongoing mock battle between us.

Being honest, the 8 or 9- is probably a past thing. Right NOW? a 7? As I said, I'm going to seed. I haven't tried anything too demanding in a long time. To be and STAY really good, takes time and attention and real effort, and I haven't given it in a long while. :-\ (I hear ya, Housecat!)

 

[House Cat]

I knew ksinger could sing, so I didn't find it at all strange that she rated herself a 9. What I did find interesting (especially in light of the thread on intelligence) is that a lot of people who had sung in church choirs and were obviously fairly accomplished singers rated themselves only 4's and 5's! It makes me think that some truly good singers are thinking that they are not wonderful singers because they are comparing themselves to great singers!

In other words, if one is good enough to sing in a church choir or other chorus, he is probably good enough to be hard on himself! The disciplined church choir singer is probably comparing himself to someone at the Metropolitan Opera!

Deb/AGBF

Well, how you would rate yourself would probably depend on how you define "good singing". If you think good singing is only being able to convincingly sing everything by Bonnie Raitt, Celine Dionne, AND Renee Fleming, combined with an oversized stage charisma, yeah, you probably won't rate yourself very highly. But if you realize that no one can really do that (except maybe Kristin Chenoweth), you can rate yourself a bit higher. The trick is to know how you define good singing, and and rate yourself in that light. Sticking strictly to vocal quality, I can give you (but won't: boring) a complete and detailed analysis of my own voice - size, timbre, quality, strengths and weaknesses, what genres I can sing convincingly and those I can't. Most people who have not had training - and I included myself in that category at one time - can't unflinchingly and honestly rate their own voice's quality. As Kenny points out, most people haven't even heard themselves except through the bones of their own heads. Recordings of oneself are VERY instructive. (Notice I'm still not addressing "performance" skills, which is a topic unto itself.)

Most people here are, I think, rating themselves as if solo singing is the best of "good singing". Maybe, maybe not.

There are lots of wonderful ensemble singers who really should not be solo singers. On the other hand, I've sung in several choirs where almost every voice was fully trained and solo quality (and a few where they only THOUGHT they were solo quality), and that has it's own problems - soloists don't always play nice in an ensemble setting. It usually takes a very strong director to ride herd on them and get them to throttle back to teammate status. Good ensemble singers are so often underrated, when that is a pretty amazing skill that not even a good soloist is guaranteed to have.

Good to better than average singing is actually lots of things. Obviously, first and foremost you have to be able to pitch match and stay in tempo. Pretty basic. After that, you have to be able to access the full range of your voice, and untrained singers generally can't. There is that indefinable "musicality" aspect too. After that, then it becomes the innate quality and timbre of the voice itself. That part is pretty non-negotiable. But that aspect is also what makes the voice distinctive. Think Rod Stewart. Bad voice, narrowly speaking - limited range and gravelly as all get out, but he found a niche in a genre that is pretty welcoming to a wide range of vocal qualities, and values uniqueness and delivery much more than vocal proficiency, and made serious hay with it. EVERYONE knows that voice. Certain other genres of music are very specific about the quality of the voices that can convincingly sing them. Rod won't be doing Nessun Dorma anytime soon. (And you really don't want to get me started on him doing the American Songbook. Sorry but )

It's been my experience that most people who say they can't sing CAN, but are uninterested in it, or are so married to their limitations that they won't try to stretch. For instance, I have a friend who insists she's an alto (because she is an alto in the church choir), when she is (like most women) an untrained (post-menopausal) soprano of some kind. She tries to argue with me on this. ME of all people! But she is a bit scared of, and isn't willing to do the work it would take to get her voice into that part of the range she's capable of, even now. It does however, provide fodder for an ongoing mock battle between us.

Being honest, the 8 or 9- is probably a past thing. Right NOW? a 7? As I said, I'm going to seed. I haven't tried anything too demanding in a long time. To be and STAY really good, takes time and attention and real effort, and I haven't given it in a long while. :-\ (I hear ya, Housecat!)

I LOL'd at "soloists don't always play nice in an ensemble setting." I have experienced that scenario too many times in my life. There is no room for a showboat on the choir risers!

Anywhoo....


I do believe that singing is good for the soul whether you can sing or not. Let it all out! It's much like a good cry. If you sing your heart out, surely you will feel refreshed!



Kenny, when will you post the poll on how well we think we can dance? THAT would be a fabulous poll!

 

[gemtastic]

Finally I can post a 1......was getting tiresome voting 10 for all the other polls....
Awful, awful voice, even as a child I only mouthed the words in church