Simon Cowell - Speechless [well, almost]

[Feralpenchant]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:08:35 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:05:41 AM

Author: Feralpenchant

She''s alright. I''m not super impressed. I know a few people that could blow it out better than that. Maybe it''s her tone I''m averse to.. -shrug-


I''ve took voice lessons from ages 6-18, and I''ve been in many choirs and shows, and I''ve heard this song sung COUNTLESS times. I even sang it once myself, but Susan Boyle is better suited to it than I am.

AAAAAAAND then I started smoking and I can''t sing classically anymore. Well, maybe as an alto with average voice control, but not as a soprano 1 with great voice control.


BAH! Now that I''ve quit smoking I''m hoping I can train my voice back up to where it was.

Hope so Feralpenchant...if you have a voice to be able to sing that song, it''s a gift indeed. I could clear the mold in my shower if I attempted it!

Haha. Aw, Tgal, No one''s THAT BAD!

Psh, I can''t sing it anymore, and even when I could, the bridge was a little low for me in that song.

Just to be clear, I''m not trying to rag on Miss Boyle.. she''s definitely better than I am, and has talent indeed. But having been exposed to so much musically over the years, I was just pointing out that compared to what I myself have heard, she''s definitely not at the top of my list, and I just wasn''t uber impressed like the judges seemed to be.

I guess it''s all about what you''ve heard before and how trained your ear is when critiquing a performance like that.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:17:18 AM
Author: Feralpenchant

Date: 4/14/2009 2:08:35 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:05:41 AM

Author: Feralpenchant

She''s alright. I''m not super impressed. I know a few people that could blow it out better than that. Maybe it''s her tone I''m averse to.. -shrug-


I''ve took voice lessons from ages 6-18, and I''ve been in many choirs and shows, and I''ve heard this song sung COUNTLESS times. I even sang it once myself, but Susan Boyle is better suited to it than I am.

AAAAAAAND then I started smoking and I can''t sing classically anymore. Well, maybe as an alto with average voice control, but not as a soprano 1 with great voice control.


BAH! Now that I''ve quit smoking I''m hoping I can train my voice back up to where it was.

Hope so Feralpenchant...if you have a voice to be able to sing that song, it''s a gift indeed. I could clear the mold in my shower if I attempted it!

Haha. Aw, Tgal, No one''s THAT BAD!

Psh, I can''t sing it anymore, and even when I could, the bridge was a little low for me in that song.

Just to be clear, I''m not trying to rag on Miss Boyle.. she''s definitely better than I am, and has talent indeed. But having been exposed to so much musically over the years, I was just pointing out that compared to what I myself have heard, she''s definitely not at the top of my list, and I just wasn''t uber impressed like the judges seemed to be.

I guess it''s all about what you''ve heard before and how trained your ear is when critiquing a performance like that.

I am. Amelia''s first words will be "Stop singing!"

I think I''m judging her with the idea that this woman is a simple woman who lives in a "collection of villages." Not sure how accurate my little "rags to riches" picture is. She did say she sang since she was 12 so it could be that she has been singing in some way, shape or form (like in a church or something) for a long time. The way she came across though, you''d think she just sang in the shower and was this hidden gem all these years!

I am a bad singer, but I''m not tone deaf (hence how I know how bad I am) and I would agree that she wouldn''t be at the top of my list of professional and wanna be pro singers. But as a woman who''s never been kissed, unemployed, has a great potential story and could sing...well, she''s definitely at the top of that list and them some.

 

[Feralpenchant]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:22:58 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:17:18 AM

Author: Feralpenchant

Date: 4/14/2009 2:08:35 AM

Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:05:41 AM


Author: Feralpenchant


She's alright. I'm not super impressed. I know a few people that could blow it out better than that. Maybe it's her tone I'm averse to.. -shrug-



I've took voice lessons from ages 6-18, and I've been in many choirs and shows, and I've heard this song sung COUNTLESS times. I even sang it once myself, but Susan Boyle is better suited to it than I am.

AAAAAAAND then I started smoking and I can't sing classically anymore. Well, maybe as an alto with average voice control, but not as a soprano 1 with great voice control.



BAH! Now that I've quit smoking I'm hoping I can train my voice back up to where it was.

Hope so Feralpenchant...if you have a voice to be able to sing that song, it's a gift indeed. I could clear the mold in my shower if I attempted it!

Haha. Aw, Tgal, No one's THAT BAD!

Psh, I can't sing it anymore, and even when I could, the bridge was a little low for me in that song.


Just to be clear, I'm not trying to rag on Miss Boyle.. she's definitely better than I am, and has talent indeed. But having been exposed to so much musically over the years, I was just pointing out that compared to what I myself have heard, she's definitely not at the top of my list, and I just wasn't uber impressed like the judges seemed to be.


I guess it's all about what you've heard before and how trained your ear is when critiquing a performance like that.

I am. Amelia's first words will be 'Stop singing!'


I think I'm judging her with the idea that this woman is a simple woman who lives in a 'collection of villages.' Not sure how accurate my little 'rags to riches' picture is. She did say she sang since she was 12 so it could be that she has been singing in some way, shape or form (like in a church or something) for a long time. The way she came across though, you'd think she just sang in the shower and was this hidden gem all these years!


I am a bad singer, but I'm not tone deaf (hence how I know how bad I am) and I would agree that she wouldn't be at the top of my list of professional and wanna be pro singers. But as a woman who's never been kissed, unemployed, has a great potential story and could sing...well, she's definitely at the top of that list and them some.

Not sure how to highlight.. I think it has something to do with Mozilla, I don't think it gives you all the text options like IE..

Anyway..

"I think I'm judging her with the idea that this woman is a simple woman who lives in a 'collection of villages.' I would agree that she wouldn't be at the top of my list of professional and wanna be pro singers. But as a woman who's never been kissed, unemployed, has a great potential story and could sing...well, she's definitely at the top of that list and them some."

I definitely agree with you there. I guess Musey and I, by nature, having had training, are quick to look at it from a "professional" standpoint, whereas others see it more like you described.

But reading your post gave me another view, and I do agree with what you said!

EDIT: It's actually funny, my mother and I used to watch American Idol together, and I would just critique the crap out of those people, to the point where sometimes I would get so frustrated I had to point something out and my mother would go "Can't you just enjoy the show?"

Haha. I guess not! I feel more like a judge on the show than an audience member!

 

[Regular Guy]

DiamondBlue,

Thanks for this.

I''m sorry to read the bickering here...

but a tearful performance for me.

I loved the look of the woman as she heard the music coming up, and readied herself to sing.

A great start to the day for me.

And a penny for your thoughts, to those on Pricescope, including it''s founders, and newer owners, that make these little things possible for us to share with each other.

Regards to all,

 

[AGBF]

I just watched (and listened) to the video clip for a second time. I saw it for the first time last night. First, I do not like the music from, "Les Miserables" at all. I saw it on Broadway and disliked it. I thought it was overproduced and that the singing was, as is much Broadway singing nowadays, nasal and terrible. I just do not like the style of song Miss Boyle sang.

Given all of that, the second time I saw the video clip, I cried. I think that the performance was incredibly moving, for whatever the combination of reasons. I loved watched Miss Boyle sing. I loved her expressive face and the way it matched her voice; it gave me chills. Even if she is not Joan Sutherland, she is better than many of the nasal singers currently using microphones on Broadway and failing to open their mouths or compress their tongues when they sing. And she is a whole lot better than Britney Spears and Fergie and Gwen Stefani, too. In my opinion, of course!

AGBF

 

[MonkeyPie]

I haven''t seen the clip since I''m at work, but the way the posts are going make me think of Will Ferrell singing at the end of Step Brothers. LOL. The song is good and he isn''t bad, and you''re kind of shocked that it could come out of him. If this woman is a little on the frumpy side and comes off as ackward, then I can see why everyone was so impressed. She wasn''t especially great, maybe, but she was surprising.

 

[ladypirate]

Ditto Musey--she''s not bad, but I think the story is why she got on that stage at all.

Still, good for her.

 

[softly softly]

Having watched that clip I agree the power of her performance rests in the very fact that her ability to sing that song at that level shocks us because of the inevitable assumptions her appearance and demeanor invite. As the female judge intimates, it exposes how conditioned the average (untrained) listener is to assume that a performer who is not pleasing to the eye will not be pleasing to the ear.

It is easy to view a show such as this very cynically, and while I have no doubt that the producers are especially keen to showcase performances that 'surprise and delight' I'm with Tgal and Deco - if it gives people such as Susan Boyle the chance to be heard and appreciated in a way that they otherwise would not have been because of their age or their looks then I'm all for it. The best part of that clip for me was knowing that the audience members who could not contain their contempt were being so loudly and deliciously shown up.

 

[bee*]

Date: 4/14/2009 10:10:13 AM
Author: ladypirate
Ditto Musey--she''s not bad, but I think the story is why she got on that stage at all.


Still, good for her.

I agree. Everytime I see something like this though I do wish that I could sing

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

As a fellow trained singer, I have to say that while I''m impressed, I''m not wow''d. I think she did a fine job with the song, but as many car singers and high school musical auditioners know, Broadway songs are often hard to screw up. That''s what makes them appealing to the mass public. The songs are SO over the top that you can often excuse dropped notes or a wavering voice as the singer expressing emotion. I think it''s admirable that this woman went on national television with little-to-no training, but I do 100% believe the public''s reaction has to do with her appearance and the element of surprise.

 

[Diamond*Dana]

Wow, good for her. She truely has a gift!

 

[decodelighted]

At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of "great singer" is technical proficiency. All that talk is "inside baseball" ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can''t learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of ''great singer'' is technical proficiency. All that talk is ''inside baseball'' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can''t learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

Can people really "learn" to sing if they are hopeless? I''ve always wondered. I can''t imagine myself ever getting anything more than one octave range...which is fine for nursery songs anyway.

 

[risingsun]

This type of contestant is put on the show for sport. They tend to be homely, socially awkward and a trainwreck waiting to happen. I don''t expect her to be trained singer, but when she is able to sing well it makes me feel very good. Another victory for the good guys

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:14:04 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of ''great singer'' is technical proficiency. All that talk is ''inside baseball'' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can''t learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

Can people really ''learn'' to sing if they are hopeless? I''ve always wondered. I can''t imagine myself ever getting anything more than one octave range...which is fine for nursery songs anyway.

People can always improve! And it depends what the definition of hopeless'' is. If a person literally cannot match pitch, their chances of learning to sing are not high

but if their only problems are pitch control and breath support, for example, that stuff can largely be learned!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:35:31 PM
Author: musey

Date: 4/14/2009 2:14:04 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of ''great singer'' is technical proficiency. All that talk is ''inside baseball'' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can''t learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

Can people really ''learn'' to sing if they are hopeless? I''ve always wondered. I can''t imagine myself ever getting anything more than one octave range...which is fine for nursery songs anyway.

People can always improve! And it depends what the definition of hopeless'' is. If a person literally cannot match pitch, their chances of learning to sing are not high

but if their only problems are pitch control and breath support, for example, that stuff can largely be learned!

Yup, hopeless.

 

[MonkeyPie]

I watched it on my lunch break, and I rather embarassed myself - when the first line came out of her mouth, I teared up. I think it had a lot to do with the surprise (That came out of HER?!), but it also had to do with the song itsself. Pretty shocking, and now I feel like a doofus for crying at my desk. I must be pregnant.

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of 'great singer' is technical proficiency. All that talk is 'inside baseball' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can't learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

I suppose it's a bit like being frustrated at the suggestion that the single definition of a "beautiful diamond" is superior technical specifications

some people are more picky than others, and there are exceptions to the rule.

I don't think someone has to exhibit remarkable technical proficiency to be considered a 'great singer,' but for my ear at least, the basics must be there. They must they must maintain even pitch (or I find my face wincing and my neck twisting up and to the right), not need to drop notes throughout a song because they are outside of their range (or else I find myself bothered that they didn't find a more suitable song/key), they must exhibit a balance of free artistry and control (or else it seems sloppy OR robotic to my ear/eye, depending on that balance). This is just my reaction and what I notice. Everyone notices different things.

That's for my ear. I never suggested that she was unworthy of appearing on a talent competition, or unworthy of landing a record deal - because such things are not up to me. I just said that to me, I don't listen to her performance and think "she is a great singer." And that's okay. There are plenty of people who enjoy her, and it makes no difference what a single person does or doesn't like about her voice. It's simply my opinion

And really, the only reason I brought it up at all was that I thought the whole 'element of surprise' factor has been an interesting phenomenon in the recent years of talent competitions. Our society, for whatever reason, is really enjoying the feeling of being proven wrong after their snap judgment, and perhaps exaggerating the experience in search of that feeling in many cases. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it (who's to say we can't use another singer in the world, whether they are of spectacular quality or not?), it's just an interesting thing to take note of.

 

[Gypsy]

I was in chior for years, formal voice coach, and I got solo parts for our performances. But I was not someone who enjoyed performing and frequently had huge panic episodes before I had to. I had a very strong nice, 1st soprano. One of the other girls in my choir was an alto when she first joined. And she had a nice voice but didn't get solos and so forth. I don't recall how it came about, but I gave her the name for my vocal coach and ... after a few lessons. OMFG. Our coach 'uncovered' her true voice. And it was the voice of an angel. Literally. So pure, so strong, and so humbling and her range... crimney. I have chills just remembering her performances-- not just her first one... but everyone thereafter as well. She went to Julliard. And honestly, I quit taking solos. She had something god given, a talent that was so amazing and wonderful. And no, she didn't have the training I did, or the years invested but she had 'it' and everyone who heard her sing knew it. I faded gratefully into the choir and never felt the need to perform solos or be put on the spot like that again.

Some people have 'it' some people 'don't' ... more years of training wouldn't have given me what she had. And all my years of training were irrelevant to her amazing talent. I think that if I hadn't hated to perform so much it would have been hard for me to be eclipsed (completely, totally and utterly) by a woman who hadn't even started formal lessions 2 months before because I had so much time invested. And I know that many of the other people in our choir were very snide and sometimes mean about her being an 'upstart'... and when she was the only singer in our class to get accepted to Julliard there were a lot of hard feelings, because of the time some others had invested, but I guess I never saw it. I think people who find the 'right' path for themselves should be encouraged. I hope this lady has finally found hers.

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:37:10 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:35:31 PM
Author: musey

Date: 4/14/2009 2:14:04 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of 'great singer' is technical proficiency. All that talk is 'inside baseball' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.

You can learn to sing. But you can't learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

Can people really 'learn' to sing if they are hopeless? I've always wondered. I can't imagine myself ever getting anything more than one octave range...which is fine for nursery songs anyway.

People can always improve! And it depends what the definition of hopeless' is. If a person literally cannot match pitch, their chances of learning to sing are not high

but if their only problems are pitch control and breath support, for example, that stuff can largely be learned!

Yup, hopeless.

Which means you'd be my favorite kind of person to drunk karaoke with

Karaoke is only GOOD if it's BAD!

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:10:36 PM
Author: decodelighted
At the risk of seeming pedantic....it frustrates me that professionally trained singers seem to think the single definition of ''great singer'' is technical proficiency. All that talk is ''inside baseball'' ... and a little besides the point when it comes to talent competitions. Maybe those with training wish for a world where technical proficiency is king (looks, story, personality, charisma, facial expressions, soul, resonance, etc --be damned). But its simply NOT that important ... when it comes to performance as a business & sales & *real life*.


You can learn to sing. But you can''t learn to *be remarkable*. It must be maddening.

true, you can''t learn to be remarkable. However, I don''t know any trained or professional singers that were not already naturally gifted. Some people are born with perfect pitch and others are not. I know singers who have not one lick of formal training other than HS chorus who could sing circles around others I know who''ve spent years training with former opera singers.

Training or voice lessons are just like practice for sports. It just improves on what you already have. You can be naturally gifted, but you need training to hone that talent and make yourself the strongest and best athlete you can be. Similarly, someone with no athletic ability can practice day-in and day-out but will rarely be an Olympian.

Personally I think entertainment/music is more subjective than sports. It doesn''t have a quantitative element to judge talent against (such as goals, RBI, etc). It''s often based on personal taste and an element of aesthetics or that intangible "star" quality. Does the woman we''re talking about have that "star" quality? Probably not, nor does she have the aesthetic qualities one usually sees. However, she has another rare quality that typical stars don''t have, and that''s her real-world appeal. She''s just a normal gal with a natural gift. The fact that this average-joe appeal is so rare makes her a spectacle. For example, find someone with the same level of talent (you can be the judge) who is more attractive or conventionally appealing and put them up against her. Who''s going to get the attention? The mousy unassuming woman who has a nice voice of course, because pretty girls with nice voices are a dime a dozen. We see this phenomenon with every season of AI. There''s always a wild card who you never imagine will get through auditions. Usually these people are (and I don''t mean to be rude here) overweight, funny looking, have bad hygiene, are geeks, are unusually annoying (think bikini girl) or are disabled (like Scott). These people don''t need the star quality because they''ve got other stuff going for them...

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:48:09 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Who's going to get the attention? The mousy unassuming woman who has a nice voice of course, because pretty girls with nice voices are a dime a dozen. We see this phenomenon with every season of AI. There's always a wild card who you never imagine will get through auditions. Usually these people are (and I don't mean to be rude here) overweight, funny looking, have bad hygiene, are geeks, are unusually annoying (think bikini girl) or are disabled (like Scott). These people don't need the star quality because they've got other stuff going for them...

Or ANOOP!!!

Hudson, we gotta have our a cappella brother's back, here

eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O1O06m14s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy4INPDVlQw&feature=related
Ah, he makes me miss it...

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:48:09 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Personally I think entertainment/music is more subjective than sports. It doesn't have a quantitative element to judge talent against (such as goals, RBI, etc). It's often based on personal taste and an element of aesthetics or that intangible 'star' quality. Does the woman we're talking about have that 'star' quality? Probably not, nor does she have the aesthetic qualities one usually sees. However, she has another rare quality that typical stars don't have, and that's her real-world appeal. She's just a normal gal with a natural gift. The fact that this average-joe appeal is so rare makes her a spectacle. For example, find someone with the same level of talent (you can be the judge) who is more attractive or conventionally appealing and put them up against her. Who's going to get the attention? The mousy unassuming woman who has a nice voice of course, because pretty girls with nice voices are a dime a dozen.

Exactly! I don't buy the technical hooey about diamonds either ... I'm an asscher girl! I *want* a stumpy, bottom-heavy speck of bling to stare into intently. I'm for the underdogs, the misfits, the clumsy foot-in-mouth misspeakers with bad teeth & a mischievious glint in their eye (right beside their odd hairy eyelid mole).

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:56:56 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 4/14/2009 2:48:09 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Personally I think entertainment/music is more subjective than sports. It doesn''t have a quantitative element to judge talent against (such as goals, RBI, etc). It''s often based on personal taste and an element of aesthetics or that intangible ''star'' quality. Does the woman we''re talking about have that ''star'' quality? Probably not, nor does she have the aesthetic qualities one usually sees. However, she has another rare quality that typical stars don''t have, and that''s her real-world appeal. She''s just a normal gal with a natural gift. The fact that this average-joe appeal is so rare makes her a spectacle. For example, find someone with the same level of talent (you can be the judge) who is more attractive or conventionally appealing and put them up against her. Who''s going to get the attention? The mousy unassuming woman who has a nice voice of course, because pretty girls with nice voices are a dime a dozen.

Exactly! I don''t buy the technical hooey about diamonds either ... I''m an asscher girl! I *want* a stumpy, bottom-heavy speck of bling to stare into intently. I''m for the underdogs, the misfits, the clumsy foot-in-mouth misspeakers with bad teeth & a mischievious glint in their eye (right beside their odd hairy eyelid mole).

And that''s fine

Almost everyone has their thing that they''re picky on, and it''s practically inevitable if you spend the better part of your life being trained (professionally or otherwise) on this stuff (and in my case, having to audition/judge others on it as well) that you''ll be pickier than most. I don''t think there''s anything wrong with that, it''s not hurting anyone. It''s just the sharing of opinions, and since none of us are Miss Boyle or her family/friend, there shouldn''t really be any offense taken.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/14/2009 3:01:30 PM
Author: musey
it''s practically inevitable if you spend the better part of your life being trained (professionally or otherwise) on this stuff (and in my case, having to audition/judge others on it as well) that you''ll be pickier than most. I don''t think there''s anything wrong with that, it''s not hurting anyone.

Not *totally* inevitable though ... I''ve spent the better part of my life training in a certain area & achieved a degree of success in that endeavor ... yet don''t think there''s any one way to be "great" at it. Too subjective. Too many flavors. There''s a lot I *don''t* like & am super picky in my own way ... but I try not to pick at technique because I really appreciate oddballs & rule-breakers. So I bristle a bit at notions of "ultimate perfection" = technical proficiency + god-given talent. It pushes my buttons. But everyone has the right to their own opinion.

 

[TravelingGal]

Buttons? Deco''s got buttons?

Gypsy, cool story. I keep hoping that I will be *that* girl, but so far, no dice. I envy those with pipes...what a way to express yourself!

 

[luvthemstrawberries]

Date: 4/14/2009 2:52:58 PM
Author: musey

Or ANOOP!!!

Hudson, we gotta have our a cappella brother''s back, here

eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O1O06m14s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy4INPDVlQw&feature=related
Ah, he makes me miss it...

Mmmm, love me some a cappella!!!!

Just fills me up inside... YUM.

Hehe this video kinda makes me laugh... it''s right down the road from me, and it''s a testament to the variation of people that go to UNC. There''s Anoop, all into the song, swinging with the beat... then the 2 guys beside him join in for the chorus, and look stiff as boards. Ha. They need to loosen up!

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 3:12:23 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 4/14/2009 3:01:30 PM
Author: musey
it's practically inevitable if you spend the better part of your life being trained (professionally or otherwise) on this stuff (and in my case, having to audition/judge others on it as well) that you'll be pickier than most. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's not hurting anyone.

Not *totally* inevitable though ... I've spent the better part of my life training in a certain area & achieved a degree of success in that endeavor ... yet don't think there's any one way to be 'great' at it. Too subjective. Too many flavors. There's a lot I *don't* like & am super picky in my own way ... but I try not to pick at technique because I really appreciate oddballs & rule-breakers. So I bristle a bit at notions of 'ultimate perfection' = technical proficiency + god-given talent. It pushes my buttons. But everyone has the right to their own opinion.

I don't think we're communicating well

... this is somewhat an exaggeration of what's been said (though if people had said that, I wouldn't blame you for being perturbed). I never said anything about ultimate perfection, or nitpicking at technique. I said that there are basics that when absent, really bug me. To refresh:

Date: 4/14/2009 2:45:32 PM
Author: musey
I don't think someone has to exhibit remarkable technical proficiency to be considered a 'great singer,' but for my ear at least, the basics must be there. They must they must maintain even pitch (or I find my face wincing and my neck twisting up and to the right), not need to drop notes throughout a song because they are outside of their range (or else I find myself bothered that they didn't find a more suitable song/key), they must exhibit a balance of free artistry and control (or else it seems sloppy OR robotic to my ear/eye, depending on that balance). This is just my reaction and what I notice. Everyone notices different things.

There is a LOT more to technique than what I wrote above. SO MUCH MORE. What I wrote above would be considered the absolute bare minimum for any wannabe professional singer (in Miss Boyle's genre, I'm not talking about rasta or pop here). They cannot be going sharp or flat throughout the song, they cannot be dropping notes that are outside of their range, and they cannot be too far into either end of the "free-to-regimented" spectrum (which is a very large spectrum indeed, and it would take a lot to go "too far" with this one). Control of breath, tone, range, vibrato, dynamics... these are the nitpicky details, and I mentioned nothing of those.

I didn't say how much of that applied to Miss Boyle, I'm speaking generally at this point.

You're right, there isn't any "one way" to be a great singer. I don't think anyone ever said that. But there are a lot of universal ways to be a not great singer - and I would venture to bet that those oddballs and rule-breakers are still following the basic rules, unless they are breaking them purposefully as a stylistic choice (which is another topic entirely - and in no way applies to Miss Boyle).


I don't mean to offend you deco, and I guess I'm a little confused at how anything I've said would manage to do so

so I'm just trying to explain what I was (and wasn't) thinking/trying to say.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 4/14/2009 3:28:49 PM
Author: musey

Date: 4/14/2009 3:12:23 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 4/14/2009 3:01:30 PM
Author: musey
it's practically inevitable if you spend the better part of your life being trained (professionally or otherwise) on this stuff (and in my case, having to audition/judge others on it as well) that you'll be pickier than most. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's not hurting anyone.

Not *totally* inevitable though ... I've spent the better part of my life training in a certain area & achieved a degree of success in that endeavor ... yet don't think there's any one way to be 'great' at it. Too subjective. Too many flavors. There's a lot I *don't* like & am super picky in my own way ... but I try not to pick at technique because I really appreciate oddballs & rule-breakers. So I bristle a bit at notions of 'ultimate perfection' = technical proficiency + god-given talent. It pushes my buttons. But everyone has the right to their own opinion.

I don't think we're communicating well

... this is somewhat an exaggeration of what's been said. I never said anything about ultimate perfection, or nitpicking at technique. I said that there are basics that when absent, really bug me. To refresh:

Date: 4/14/2009 2:45:32 PM
Author: musey
I don't think someone has to exhibit remarkable technical proficiency to be considered a 'great singer,' but for my ear at least, the basics must be there. They must they must maintain even pitch (or I find my face wincing and my neck twisting up and to the right), not need to drop notes throughout a song because they are outside of their range (or else I find myself bothered that they didn't find a more suitable song/key), they must exhibit a balance of free artistry and control (or else it seems sloppy OR robotic to my ear/eye, depending on that balance). This is just my reaction and what I notice. Everyone notices different things.

There is a LOT more to technique than what I wrote above. SO MUCH MORE. What I wrote above would be considered the absolute bare minimum for any wannabe professional singer (in Miss Boyle's genre, I'm not talking about rasta or pop here). They cannot be going sharp or flat throughout the song, they cannot be dropping notes that are outside of their range, and they cannot be too far into either end of the 'free-to-regimented' spectrum (which is a very large spectrum indeed, and it would take a lot to go 'too far' with this one). Control of breath, tone, range, vibrato, dynamics... these are the nitpicky details, and I mentioned nothing of those.

I didn't say how much of that applied to Miss Boyle, I'm speaking generally at this point.

You're right, there isn't any 'one way' to be a great singer. I don't think anyone ever said that. But there are a lot of universal ways to be a not great singer - and I would venture to bet that those oddballs and rule-breakers are still following the basic rules, unless they are breaking them purposefully as a stylistic choice (which is another topic entirely - and in no way applies to Miss Boyle).


I don't mean to offend you deco, and I guess I'm a little confused at how anything I've said would manage to do so

so I'm just trying to explain what I was (and wasn't) thinking/trying to say.

Musey - I understand what you are getting at - as I, too, enter the discussion with years of training, experience and a resume. Just about every performance I've seen on TV - I can always shrug my shoulders and say I've seen/heard better. but that kind of sucks the fun out of entertainment. Clearly, Miss Boyle "moved" people (who cares about us technical pros) - as evidenced in this here thread and all over the web for that matter. And isn't that the point of "art"? Aristotle's Poetics - why we go to the theatre. Need I say more?

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 4/14/2009 3:43:00 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Musey - I understand what you are getting at - as I, too, enter the discussion with years of training, experience and a resume. Just about every performance I''ve seen on TV - I can always shrug my shoulders and say I''ve seen/heard better. but that kind of sucks the fun out of entertainment. Clearly, Miss Boyle ''moved'' people (who cares about us technical pros) - as evidenced in this here thread and all over the web for that matter. And isn''t that the point of ''art''? Aristotle''s Poetics - why we go to the theatre. Need I say more?

Good point LAJennifer. Ms. Boyle did move many people...I think many enjoy the ugly duckling story and want to see a swan. People will cheer for her and think she is magnificent not because of the technical qualities of her voice, but because within the first few notes of that song captured the human imagination.