The "I can't sing" people!

Singing as yourself is tricky when you have to sing as somebody else - which lots of people need to. Accents and pronunciation etc - US songs with the word girls, for example - in the UK it would be gurls and in the US gerls - and remembering pronunciation as well as all the other singing requirements isn't the easiest in the world to process in real time.
 
Bringing up Morrissey (a guy who's sold 5 million records, 50mil net worth, and is viewed as a great frontman by any publication that writes about music) in a HR thread about being unable to sing is just...weird.

Anyway, if you can't sing or can sing yet don't connect with people (both bad) you'll know because people won't listen to your music. Practice can help for sure but everyone is limited by genetics.
 
Nope - disagree. Singing ability has never been linked in ANY way to record sales. Some of the best selling artistes can't sing without electronic assistance. Morrisey, to me is very much like some of the can I sing posts own hear. A voice, but not particularly nice sounding, not possessing any real power or range, and maybe his persona sells the music. It's the kind of music that uses flaws as positives, making deficiencies into positives by claiming them as style.

If he went into any singing competition with a disguise on, he'd be out first round. I appreciate plenty of people love him, and buy his music, but I have always thought it totally luck he became popular. His range in terms of pitch and volume is really limited. In the studio, they probably set the eq and gain on the first track and then never touch it again. He has a built in limiter and with such a narrow range, eq only needs to look in one area - the middle. There's no bottom or top to need controlling.

I hate the music, and to be fair - he was really shitty to me trying to keep up with his requirements. Have you ever had to go to the store to buy dozens of white fluffy Barth towels to lay on the floor between his dressing room and the toilet? My first show was in 1984, and he was the most demanding 'star' I have ever had the displeasure to work for. If he was in the same league as some other real singers, perhaps I could understand it better, but I really wish we'd never had done the show. The venue was smaller than he imagined and he was not happy.
 
Well range and pitch are technical aspects, but they aren't what connect with listeners. Guitar players with great technique who can shred are all over youtube...a dime a dozen...but they're all unknowns because technique isn't what connects with other people. Morrissey wrote good lyrics, had a unique delivery, unique phrasing, and good timbre, etc. There are singers like Beck who are pretty bad, but again, the songs are good and the voice "good enough" to get the job done and connect with people. In fact, someone with a huge range like Freddy Mercury singing Beck songs would just sound weird. Everyone has their own unique voice and song. Takes all types, variety is the spice of life, etc. Just because you don't like Smiths songs doesn't make him bad. Just because someone has a huge range doesn't make them good. Because he was mean to you doesn't make him bad, either. Objectively, the guy is top 99% of anyone who's opened their mouths to sing.
 
You really mean that? I didn't;t intend to have a Morrisey bashing session, but he is perfectly OK, not bad, but there are so many people with better voices. He's the kind of singer who really needs songs specifically for his voice - you see all kinds of singers who can do stuff outside their own style - what I mean is stuff like George Martin's Gershwin album with some really swell known voices who do an amazing job with songs from before they were born - well some of them! Morrisey isn't that kind of singer. In fact, I doubt he could have sung any of them. His voice is distinctive, has a character and a style - but he is NOT a good singer by any normal definition of the term. In fact, he can sing, but isn't a singer.
Objectively, the guy is top 99% of anyone who's opened their mouths to sing.
Objectively he isn't. In the top 100 singers list, I doubt he'd get a mention at all.
 
Objectively he isn't. In the top 100 singers list, I doubt he'd get a mention at all.


I didn't say he's a top 100 singer, but he's top 99% (percentile) out of anyone who has ever tried to sing.
There's a big difference in the math.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you think it's correct/fact, but his fan base and place in music speak the reality.
 
Totally agree with you. We'll live with this one.

I've been thinking about if you can describe a singer in terms of specific elements which makes sense on the surface but falls over in practice as the ones we've mentioned would score badly, yet some classically trained singers would score highly but couldn't sing a pop our rock song to save their lives. So what exactly are we using ti say X its good, and Y is not?
 
So what exactly are we using ti say X its good, and Y is not?

Well I think the problem is people like to ascribe absolutes to things, and there's no way to quantify how someone's voice or style will make others feel, relate, react.
So, that's why many technical people never make it, and many people with poor technical skills do make it. It's a wild card that you can't really quantify. Like, I love the singers mentioned here (Dylan, Beck, Lou Reed) who are all "bad" objectively, but they have some quality (Mojo, unique style, timbre, etc) that make up for what they lack in technique. Sometimes pure singers who are objectively great don't do it for me because I don't feel the emotional connection. Sometimes they do (Freddy Mercury is a great example of someone who has both technique and the ability to emote and connect). I wouldn't want to hear Freddy sing Beck, though. Well, maybe I would...lol. Could be interesting. But I guess there's a voice for each genre. Just like a certain snare sound doesn't fill all styles of music.
 
Here's rules I set for myself when tracking, which are simple: I have to be in a pretty decent mood (harder than it looks), close to zero stress ...

Hmm, opposite for me. Otherwise, pretty good post.

I cannot perform (vocally) or write while in a happy mood. I'm not a happy-go-lucky songwriter, and my music, no matter its tone or perceived image, requires a less-than-happy state. If my song shouts desperation or longing, despair or hopelessness, then I need to feel that while I write it and track it.
 
Hmm, opposite for me. Otherwise, pretty good post.

I cannot perform (vocally) or write while in a happy mood. I'm not a happy-go-lucky songwriter, and my music, no matter its tone or perceived image, requires a less-than-happy state. If my song shouts desperation or longing, despair or hopelessness, then I need to feel that while I write it and track it.

All roads lead to Rome...happy, sad, angry, ambivalent, mischevious..Good and Bad I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow ah but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.... Yep there is no one way to do anything and when it comes to defining music what is Good, Bad or just OK is a totally subjective thing...If you grew up in a remote village with no contact from the outside world and banging on tree stumps and shaking rattles while chanting guttural sounds was the hip slick music of your tribe then you are probably not going to appreciate Gershwin or Jimi Hendrix...Now the Michael Jackson Killer or Billy Jean video...those will entertain anyone anywhere on any planet in the cosmos...He was tricky
 
Back
Top