What, To You, Constitutes As As As A Good Singing Voice?

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 2:57am

For some people, it's Kristin Chenoweth, for others it's Bob Dylan. For others, it's Jerry Seinfeld. What do you think?
Updated On: 11/17/07 at 02:57 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 2:59am

It's "constitutes a good singing voice." The "as" is unnecessary.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 3:02am

Rosanne singing the National Anthem

[StageManager2]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 4:41am

It's "Roseanne." The first E is necessary.

[Jazzmyne]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 11:12am

I have a pretty open mind when it comes to music. I can appreciate different styles of voices. They have to have basic control of their voice, a non grating/annoying tone, and the basics. (good rhythm, intonation, etc.). In my view, once a singer reaches a certain level of proficiency and mastery in their craft, it all becomes a matter of personal taste. I may not like the style a certain person sings with, but I may still admire thier voice and am able to appreciate their level of talent and good technique. And then there are the "entertainers".. People who may not have a voice in particular that I appreciate, but who are able to overcome that with their stage presence and delivery to still be entertaining and help you overlook their vocal deficiencies.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 11:17am

I like the new thread title cruel, someone touch a nerve?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 11:23am

A healthy ample rack.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 10:08am

Having a good voice and being a good singer are two different things in my book.

Just like you can own a Stradivarius violin, but not know how to play it very well.

I prefer great singers, even with so-so voices, over people with great voices who can't sing (and by that I mean interpret, "act" and sell) a song to save their lives... aka, just about everyone who's ever appeared on American Idol. Back in the '80s, I used to call it Star Search Singing. It sucks.

And if you're lucky, you'll find a great singer with a great voice. Those are very rare.

But given the choice... I'll pick a great singer, even with a limited voice, every time.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 10:16am

Best, could you provide some examples? I'm not entirely clear what you mean.

[artscallion]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 10:59am

I completely agree with you on this, Best. It's really one of my pet peeves. The shows of the 70s and 80s were filled with great singers. Now it's all about the big money notes.


Compare the casts of the original Broadway Into The Woods and the cast of the recent revival. The original cast, for the most part, did not have great voices. But they were all great singers. The revival cast (once you eliminate the folks who had both bad voices and couldn't sing, like Jack and his mother) had some good voices (Benanti, D'Rosa and O'Mally) but were utterly uninteresting singers.

Or, compare the three versions of Sondheim's Company. The original was filled with people who did not have great voices but could really sing a song. The 90s revival, on the other hand, had many good voices, but few that could really sing/sell a song. They came across as good but uninteresting. The Doyle revival lives somewhere in the middle.

Updated On: 11/18/07 at 10:59 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 11:24am

Nowadays, I find it hard to determine who can sing. To my ear, the current style of pop singing sounds mostly off pitch and focuses on riffs, yelling, screaming, etc.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 11:42am

I absolutely agree with the argument made for a not-so-fabulous voice but great interpretative/performance skills over a beautiful voice with nothing else going for it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 11:48am

Roscoe, I'm sure I'd garner a lot of flack for my examples, but why not?

The first time I recall someone becoming a superstar that had an excellent voice but WASN'T a good singer? Whitney Houston.

Savin' All My Love For You (and everything that followed it) showed how powerful a set of pipes she had. People focused on her style and range. But she had NO emotion in her voice or in the song. Pop culture was too busy admiring the instrument, but not the art.

And Whitney's success opened a flood of these "Star Search/American Idol" singers. Many with excellent instruments. None with any artistic interpretation of a song. Mariah Carey is another one. Of late? Kelly Clarkson.

It's boring to me to hear someone sell themselves above the interpretation.

GREAT VOICES/BAD SINGERS:
Whitney Houston
Mariah Carey
Kelly Clarkson
every other star-search-idol-wannabe


AVERAGE OR SO-SO VOICES/GREAT SINGERS:
Bob Dylan
Judy Collins
Tom Waits
Joni Mitchell

GOOD VOICES/GREAT SINGERS:
Dionne Warwick
Mama Cass
Peggy Lee

GREAT VOICES/GREAT SINGERS:
Judy Garland
Ella Fitzgerald
Barbra Streisand (pre-1977)
Luciano Pavarotti
Mel Torme
Frank Sinatra
Sarah Vaughan

You'll notice a lot of it has to do with the era and the pop culture. The '40s and '50s wanted BOTH great singers and great voices.

The '60s were more concerned with great singers, and didn't care if the people had good voices or not.

The '90s and today? All they want is impressive voices. Like that Japanese girl singing "And I'm Telling You," who has NO idea what she's singing about. AT. ALL. She SUCKS! But she has an impressive voice. And I couldn't care less about that.

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 12:19pm

A quick question for you Best; of today's Broadway performers who would you put under each of the four categories you listed (either male of female)?

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 1:02pm

Best - In my opinion, Tom Waits has a GREAT voice.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 4:55pm

If the voice is comining out of Karen Carpenter, Steve Lawrence or Julie Andrews, then it's a good voice to me.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 5:18pm

Nothing's coming out of Julie Andrews anymore.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 5:51pm

Don't forget Barbara Cook. She's got a great voice and knows how to tell a story with each song.

It's always about the lyrics and telling a story. The problem with a lot of pop music is that there isn't always much story in the song...

[LaurenB]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 6:07pm

Re Frank Sinatra. I had never been a fan, but I wanted to see him in concert while he was still alive, just to see a "legend." Well I got the chance in LA, at the Universal Ampitheatre (before they put the roof on), and he knocked my socks off.

Re Streisand - I prefer her earlier work too.

When I go to a Broadway show, what grates on my nerves is when I hear a "thin" voice coming out of the females, like they are singing from the neck up. I prefer a full-bodied voice. And like others have said, interpretation is important to me.

(Speaking of Dylan - does anyone remember when he sang Like a Rolling Stone on the David Letterman 10-year anniversary show special that was aired from Radio City? Now that was a great moment!)

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 6:21pm

Obviously, it depends on what genre they're singing in, and even then it's a very subjective evaluation, but for me there's one thing that has to be present, consistently, and that's (for lack of a better word) personality. Uniqueness. A singular quality to the voice where you know instantly who you're hearing. I mean, you turn on the radio and everyone sounds alike. It's the ones who jump out at you that I tend to put in the "good singing voice" category. Sometimes that personal quality trumps less than stellar vocal abilities. The best voices are not always the best singers.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 10:24pm

To me, Julie Andrews was always in the lovely, technically proficient, boring-as-crap, passionless voice category.

Updated On: 11/18/07 at 10:24 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/18/07 at 10:36pm

Do you want hear what good singing is? How a person can put pure emotion in a song that reaches deep in you?


Check This Out!