The Steel Guitar Forum

Which is it? Many times we will here someone say that "so&so" has a great "voice". Are they really hearing the "voice" or is what they really hear, the tone, technique,style,etc. being exercised by the vocalist. In other words can a great singer overcome a bad "voice"? Is someone with good "tone of voice" automatically a good singer? <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephen Gregory on 21 November 2006 at 12:42 PM.]</p></FONT>

Some singers have a way of communicating a lyric with a minimum of vocal prowess (Cash and Dylan spring to mind!), but I prefer to hear what I consider great technique along with 'feeling'. Ray Charles could typify the second category.

That would also include George Jones, Joe Nichols and Randy Travis, to cite some country examples.

I like to hear singers who have worked at their craft in the same way as an accomplished instrumentalist has done.

RR

I think it's a matter of personal taste. There are singers with "good" voices and strong technical chops, but have voices I don't like - for example, Barbara Streisland. This is not to say she isn't a fine singer. It's just lost on me. On the other hand, most singers in blues, country, rock, and so on, do not have great vocal chops, but great feel and inflection, which I strongly prefer.

However, compared to opera singers like Caruso and Pavarotti, or a few select jazz singers like Ella Fitzgerald or Carmen McRae, very few singers have what I call great vocal chops. Ironically, as much as I appreciate a great opera voice, I enjoy listening to only a few operas. For me, it's something else in a voice that makes me connect. I guess that's also true with instrumental playing, for me. I don't have any algorithm to determine if I consider a voice "good".

Two people come immediately to my mind as great singers who do not have a "good voice" in the conventional sense, but boy can they ever 'sell' a song to the audience and move people. And the winners are:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(the envelope please)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
JOE COCKER

and

TOM WAITS

Am I not right? Sure, I am!

'I think it's a matter of personal taste.'

Well, of course it is!!!

Many years ago, Ralph Emery was signed to a record deal with I believe, RCA. Ralph related on the old "Opry Star Spotlight" radio show on WSM, that there were some folks in Music City that were so impressed with his "voice" that they believed he "couldn't miss" as a singer. As I remember his story though,he couldn't sing, thus his recording career resulted in recitations, other than his children's stuff with "Shotgun Red" many years later. Obviously he had the instrument or "voice" but not the other inherent qualities to "play it" musically.

<SMALL>I think it's a matter of personal taste.</SMALL>

Taste? What's that?

Englebert has great chops, very smoothe, but Tom Jones gets the blood goin'. Karen Carpenter was very good technically, but Etta James.....so, there ya go!

------------------

Great question, Stephen. I see at least three pieces that deserve attention.

1. Resonance / "Tone of Voice"
2. Technique (Pitch, breath support, enunciation, etc.)
3. Feel / Ability to Communicate

I've heard people with rich, pleasant voices who can't carry a tune - like your example of Ralph Emery. In a sense, they have good voices, but it doesn't make for good singing. (A friend of mine, a trained singer, once said "Singing on pitch is part of having a good voice." I disagree, but only on definitions.)

I've heard people who are well trained in singing technique, but who don't have the rich sound that others naturally have. This might be close to a "great singer overcom[ing] a bad voice," except it's not bad - it's more a matter of excelling in one area but not another.

Then there are the great communicators - people like Waits, Cocker, Dylan, Etta James - who have a gift for making us feel what they're singing. (And why is this? IMO, that's a metaphysical discussion, so I'll let it be. ) I think most blues, country and rock singers are in this category. I'm not saying there's no technique involved, just that it takes a back seat to communicating personality and emotion. And some singers communicate brilliantly while breaking every other rule of "good singing."

Perhaps we could say there are "good singers" (i.e., good technique) and "good vocalists" (i.e., good communicators) but that's another semantic discussion.

For my part, if I have to choose between these qualities, I'll take someone in category 3 every time. And I treasure those rare singers (Eva Cassidy comes to mind) who have all three in spades.

Sorry, Dayna, but Engelbert is an indifferent singer at best. I was present at two separate sessions of his at Gordon Mills' studio in the 1970s, and he was incapable of carrying the melody with any degree of accuracy. In each case, his vocal had to be 'dropped in' a piece at a time, because his pitch was so poor.

RR

Don Henley is one who comes to mind as an example of someone who doesn't particularly have a fine voice but can really "sell" a song. For that matter, the rest of the Eagles (with the possible exception of Timothy B. Schmidt) don't have great voices either, but the blend when they sing together is an entirely different matter.

Mahalia Jackson would quite often take a breath in the middle of a word.Singing teachers will tell you this is a big no-no,but i've never met a singing teacher who could carry Mahalia's bible. In the words of the untouchable Sam Cooke "Don't fight it,Feel it". Amen Sam.
Shane.

Whatever it takes to get the song across best.

I prefer to hear some songs sung with character, such as Tom Waits or Randy Newman would do it, and others by singers who can take a song to the next level, such as Donny Hathaway. Never the twain shall meet, though. No one can do it all.

Thanks Eric and some others, for understanding the question. It's interesting how this "voice" vs. "technigue, tone, choice of notes, etc, also relates to instruments. For instance, Gibson ES 335, great voice but in the hands of an inexperienced or just plain bad player, not good music. Squier Tele, adjusted properly and in the hands of Jerry Reed would result in great music,no doubt. So, is it the instrument or the player? Hmmm! Is it the "voice" or the intellectual and technical approach of the singer? Food for thought.

The example of Ralph Emery having a fine instrument, but not being able to play it is a good illustration. Many would say that Ernest Tubb posessed few of the qualities
associated with a great vocalist, but had a
career spanning many decades. He was able to reach countless people, including me,
with his uniqueness and ability to convey
emotion in material like "Dear Judge", etc.

There are vocalists with a "great voice".....and there are vocalists who are "stylists" (who may or may not have a great voice).

Except for classical music, the stylist has always been more popular.



------------------
<img width=100 src=http://genejones.bizland.com/index.1.jpg>www.genejones.com

From the standpoint of someone having a "good voice", I don't think that the physical instrument - vocal cords, chest, pharynx, and so on - can be isolated from the knowledge to produce a sound using the equipment. To answer {edited for clarity - Stephen's} original question more directly - someone with a good "tone of voice" isn't necessarily a good singer, IMO. The tone produced depends on how the physical instrument - a vibratory system - is "driven". To me, a good singer knows how to drive their particular equipment.

As far as what is "good", as I said before, that is purely a matter of taste, IMO. There is a wide spectrum of what is considered to be a great sonority. Some people like Pavarotti, others like Emmylou Harris. There's no mathematical definition of great sonority, again IMO. I'm sure others will disagree.

I agree that all this goes for instrumental tonal quality also. As usual, it's pretty hard to get agreement on any of this, as evidenced by the current thread on "tone" in the Steel Players section.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 22 November 2006 at 12:24 PM.]</p></FONT>

IMO, Eva Cassidy, I still can't make it through one of her c/d's without stopping to clear my eyes, what a gift!

Dave, I am confused. Are you agreeing with me, or, are you taking an exception?

How many of us have worked with headliners who we are amazed that they are so popular....when there are so meny others who we have worked with who are obviously more talented?



------------------
<img width=100 src=http://genejones.bizland.com/index.1.jpg>www.genejones.com

Dave, points well taken but, why do so many folks, when describing their favorite singer say, he or she has a great voice? Is it because the casual listener doesn't take into consideration the other aspects that contribute?<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephen Gregory on 22 November 2006 at 09:45 AM.]</p></FONT>

For me, the singer who can connect emotionally with listeners trumps the technical singer most every time. When they come together in one package, look out! I agree about Eva Cassidy and Jim Cohen's examples too. One more example, on Carol King's "living room" live tour CD she covers many of her hits and her voice breaks and cracks but man, does she connect with the audience. They applaud wildly when her voice audibly strains because the feeling and humanity of the performance shines through.

Three people that come to mind who have it all( two have passed on)are Marty Robbins, Perry Como and Connie Smith.
Perry Como's version of "The Lord's Prayer"
just blows me away, and so does anything Marty Robbins and Connie Smith sang.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Andy Greatrix on 22 November 2006 at 11:32 AM.]</p></FONT>

Another great thread. I agree with everything said except about Engelbert.

Without repeating names already mentioned, in my infallible opinion,

1) Nat Cole was unsurpassed as a singer. And his playing was overlooked because of his voice

2) Steve Ray Vaughan's singing was overlooked because of his playing.

3) George Jones had both the pipes and the delivery. He doesn't have the pipes anymore, but that makes the delivery even greater because there's even more emotional engagement now that the pipes are diminishing.

4) Three examples of great singers without pipes are Leonard Cohen, Howlin' Wolf, and Dan Hicks.

5) A great singer who has been overlooked, maybe because he blew out his reed young, is Bob Shane.



------------------
My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I have no character. -- Charles Barkley

Gene - that post didn't address your points - I was actually re-addressing points in Stephen's first post. Your post came up while I was thinking and writing. {edit - I've edited my earlier post to make it more clear.} My point was that, IMO, a great natural vocal instrument can't be clinically separated from the ability to use it to sing. To me, a "great singer" must have both a pleasing sonority and extraordinary ability to use it. But I completely agree with you on the distinction between "singer with a great voice" and "stylist". If they're good, each knows how to use what they have well, but may be blessed with different natural equipment.

Stephen - I think many people tend to describe their favorite singer as having a "great voice" because i. the sonority is pleasing to them - that's where the personal taste comes into play, and ii. the singer can execute the things that connect emotionally with them.

For me, emotional connection also trumps pure sonority and technical execution in any form of music. Of course, one or both of these may be needed to make that emotional connection. It's art, not math - that's why I don't generally attempt to dissect a performance like I would a control system or an object-oriented system, unless I'm dealing with my own playing or singing. In that situation, the point is to isolate problems with my own execution. But when I'm listening, I try very hard to ignore all that and just appreciate what I'm hearing for what it is.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 22 November 2006 at 12:27 PM.]</p></FONT>

Like Dave, I think that a great singer is really a great "communicator". But I'm enough of an analytical type to try and break down what makes that possible. I tend to think of it as "soul" versus "chops", though a few singers have both (Aretha). Celine Dion and Mariah Carey strike me as great examples of chops and not much else. If you stick "voice" in there... Hmmm, chops and soul, but no voice? Van Morrison? Soul and voice but no chops? Joni Mitchell? I'd put Don Henley here. Chops and voice and no soul? Any number of "country" pop singers. Most of MTV.

Chops + soul + voice? At the pinnacle, very very few IMHO. Aretha, Otis, Dolly, Emmylou, Linda Ronstadt (Trio is one of the best vocal albums around).