smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Brian Curtis <brioohs@sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject | Re: Vocals, anyone? |
| Date | Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:31:21 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (4.0 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
on 2/6/04 7:00 AM, audities-owner@smoe.org at audities-owner@smoe.org wrote:
Mike (et al),
A lot of vocalists today don't try (as in the anyone-can-do-it-aesthetic)
because they don't understand that singing is a combination of important
elements. It's not just reciting the lyrics in a semi-melodic rhythm, but
equal parts emoting, presenting a melody, and hopefully being clear in
diction, amongst other things.
The quality singers possess those attributes plus one over-riding trait: a
personality. One that shines thru musically, not invented by the industry
thru music-video and idiot stunts (like Boobgate). TV programs like
"American Idol" have propagated the idea that ANYONE can do it, and
obviously (if you waste your waste watching the show) the show proves that
that's not true, especially during the audition phase. And, golly, pitch is
no longer a problem if you use Autotune or you're a rapper. As long as he
fits the suit, Johnny Bravo has a career.
There's nothing wrong with any particular style of music for vocalists, just
a dearth of bad singers, many of whom sound alike because that's what the
beancounters and the sheep think they need. Where are the song-stylists
now? Face it, society has changed, therefore our entertainment values have
done so also. It's up to the listener to find what's pleasing, and
unfortunately a vast majority of those listening either don't have the time
or don't care as much about that quality. Apparently there are those of us
that still care, but we ain't da majority no mo.
My two cents (inflated),
Brioohs
> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:19:26 -0600
> From: "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Vocals, anyone?
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F85zCHdXcQw8q00043d34@hotmail.com>
>
> Mark --
>
> I would agree with you wholeheartedly about vocals. The biggest thing with
> '60s vocalists, is that so many of them were inspired by blues and R & B.
> So folks like Steve Marriott and Colin Blunstone aspired to the lofty goal
> of having tons of soul. And as the British Invasion took root, so many
> tried to sound like Paul McCartney and other leading lights.
>
> As punk broke, the 'quality' of the vocalists may not have been so high, but
> folks like Joe Strummer, Pete Shelley and Feargal Sharkey had very
> distinctive voices. When I was in college I could listen to folks from
> Peter Garrett to Jason Ringenberg to Morrissey. All had great personalities
> (and Jason does have a great instrument IMHO).
>
> I think that as rock has moved toward an anyone can do it aesthetic, that
> too often anyone thinks they can do it, and apparently no one tells them
> otherwise. Whether it's lame singers during the hair metal era (think Brett
> Michaels and Vince Neil), all the pop-punk bands (Blink 182, Good Charlotte,
> etc., all who adopt that nasal tone that is two parts Milo, three parts
> Billy Joe and two parts valley dude, and never sounds good) or even emo-pop
> (I dig Beulah and Death Cab and others, but most of them aren't much in the
> vocal department). Frankly, a lot singers don't try. And the music can
> suffer, because if you're writing to a lame voice, well, it limits the type
> of songs you can do.
>
> Insofar as the latter point -- this would take days to go over. I think
> that we are in a media age where things happen so often and so quickly, that
> every trend has a half-life of a year. Welcome New Garage, See You Later
> New Garage, The Hives, Who Are They Again? So the development of rock and
> pop music is so accelerated -- from innovation to bandwagon hopping to can't
> get arrested takes so little time. Therefore, a lot of developments
> nowadays are much more incremental. There will always be new things, but
> it's much harder to be radically different.
>
> I wonder if it is much different for scientists -- you can only discovery
> gravity or relativity once -- the rest is just testing and refining the
> theories...
>
> Mike Bennett
>
> NP: Shoes -- BLACK VINYL SHOES
>
> Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.