Singer prejudice

[BDR]

Rather than hijacking another thread where this discussion began, I figured I'd start a new one.

The following is what spurred the creation of this thread:

(David Lee Roth) also seemed to know the tunes inside and out. For example, at one point in one of Ed's solos, Ed turned the beat around (see HFT as an example) and Alex looked a little confused. Dave went back and moved his arm on the downbeat until Alex adjusted. Pretty sweet and not to shabby for a singer.

Yes, because singers know nothing about down beat, let alone back beat, song structure, cadence, tempo or anything else music related. We all just make sound out our effing mouths. We're just singers.

I love this mentality.

r:>)

Easy BDR! You're missing the context of my comment on DLR's actions. Don't assume.

1.) DLR is routinely slagged for being the flamboyant and flaky frontman unconcerned with the music so long as he gets his time on the mic. I was merely defending Dave by illustrating his obvious care, concern, and professionalism for ALL parts of their performance.

2.) In many bands where the singer is not also an instrumentalist, he(she) is often the band member least likely to have any formal training and/or lessons. There are probably some exceptions to this rule, but they're in the minority. It's not a "mentality". My opinion is based on fact.

3.) I understand your sensitivity. I'm a drummer who actually knows music theory. Trust me, I've heard enough drummer jokes to aggravate me so I generally think twice before I blast other musicians. My intent here was not to blast singers but to defend and praise DLR.

So, take a breath. I understand your sensitivity but you assume a "mentality" that doesn't exist. At least not with me.

1.) DLR is routinely slagged for being the flamboyant and flaky frontman unconcerned with the music so long as he gets his time on the mic. I was merely defending Dave by illustrating his obvious care, concern, and professionalism for ALL parts of their performance.

Then maybe, "not too shabby for DLR" would have been a better way to say it rather than clump all singers in with his level of musical knowledge and work ethic.

2.) In many bands where the singer is not also an instrumentalist ...

This is the mentality I'm speaking of. Vocalists are instrumentalists. Voice is my instrument as I have to manipulate that instrument to create the notes and sounds, just as perceived "real instrumentalists" do with their guitars or their clarinets or their pianos.

If you hand somebody a cello and tell them to play it, just about everyone could make some type of noise with it, but few could make music with it. Same goes with voice. Most people have one, few can actually make music with theirs.

r:>)

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

Why is it that such a thick line is drawn by some between people who make music with their voice and people who do it with their hands? Why are there misconceptions out there such as this:

... (the singer) is often the band member least likely to have any formal training and/or lessons. There are probably some exceptions to this rule, but they're in the minority. It's not a "mentality". My opinion is based on fact.

This statement is ridiculous and is not based on any data, only perception. Throughout my school career, beginning in grade school and all the way up, there were equal opportunities to learn "instrument," "voice" and/or "music theory" (the latter applies to all "instruments," including voice). Vocal training is just as prevelant in our society as instrumental training. Hell, vocalists even have their own highly rated TV show, which happens to be one of the most popular shows going.

To say that people who hold instruments in their hands are more educated or better trained in music is simply opinion. Rest his soul, but would anyone have said this to Pavarotti? Does anyone have any idea how many "real instrumentalists" on Earth play and learn by ear but have no formal training whatsoever? No, no one does, nor do I, so none of us could even begin to speak intelligently about the topic without doing the research and producing the data.

Now, I'd put a month's pay on the fact that a large number people in this particular scene (or any other scene, anywhere you go, for that matter) didn't go to Berklee or didn't have any other type of formal training, but rather either learned from books or from a friend or a brother or a mom or somebody, or they simply just "figured it out." Doesn't mean they're bad players, it just means they did it on their own without an instructor.

This mentality that singers don't know music (and it does exist whether or not people admit to it), to me, is reminiscent and parallel to the "covers vs. originals" debate that crops up here every few months, in that some make attempts to validate their instruments of choice as being more legitimate than others (voice). What's anybody think?

Discuss.

r:>)

[bassist_25]

For me personally, I just want to work with people whom I can communicate with on a semi-musical level. I don't need someone to be a Berklee professor, but when I say, "Hey, what key is that song in?" or "Could you do a hi-hat click on the one and three?" they know what I'm talking about. It's why I truly believe that guitar players and bass players should never have tabs put in front of them until at least two years have passed since they begin playing their instruments. You need to have a basic understanding of your instrument so you can work with other musicians, and you need a knowledge base of music from which to build upon. The fact that you're playing "1, 5, 7" doesn't mean shit to a keyboard player, and it especially doesn't mean shit to a horn player.

I have honestly heard very few "natural" singers. Most of the ones I know have had to spend countless hours honing their craft and technique. Still, there's just some intangible thing that I hear in some singers that makes them sound like "professional" vocalists to me, whereas other singers don't have it. It's the thing that seperates the pros from the people who sang solos in their high school chorus concerts. Both singers may be hitting all of the technical stuff correctly, but there's just something about the former that makes me say, "This person is a professional vocalist. The other person would kill in a kareoke bar, and that's about it." I still can't figure out what that one thing is.

[mjb]

i think what diavolo was saying that in the old days diamond dave was a douche-bag and cared omly about himself as apposed to the music they were making as a whole and it was cool now to see dave working more for the band and being a leader. you are passionate about your instrument as we all are rob and i know how you feel and its that passion that set you apart from the hacks just like all of us who play or sing. if somebody doesn't recognize the human voice as an insrument, they don't really get it then, do they. and not really worth the effort it takes to try to explain it to them cuz they are cluless, although i don't think that was diavolos intension at all. once again, i love when this kind of thing comes up and you get fired up about it cuz it shows how passionate you are about your particular instrument like i am about mine cuz thats what i'm always looking for, cuz that is truly what it is all about. to me anyway.

[PanzerFaust]

I thought the singer was always just the guy with enough $$ to buy the PA??

What? that's not true???

hehe....

Just being a dick.... Carry on with a real topic...

end:sarcasm

[brokenstrings]

I think that in a rock band situation the vocalist is at least 60% of what the common person is paying attention to. IMHO the vocalist plays the biggest role in whether the band is a success or failure. I can stand it when a guitar player hits a few clams, but out of key vocals will clear a room.

As far as vocalist being musicians, I believe they are. The same rules apply to vocals whether it be timing and using the correct tones. Don't forget adding the element of correct lyrics to the total equation. I’m no singer, but I imagine there is just as much going through their heads as mine while im playing guitar.

A bad singer can train wreck a song with the best of em.

[old Skool]

I'm musically retarded so when Paul asks what key I'm using I just reach in my pocket and say "Well it's either EZ Set or Schlage".

[metalchurch]

I think it would be easier to play Bass or Guitar, those are more or less learned skills.

Singing could also be taught, but I think that some people just have to have the Voice to begin with.

Can't polish a turd right?

And Drummers, shit man I couldn't drum if my life depended on it.
Much props to all who can!
There's a certain coordination between the hands and feet that I could never get.

If I could sing, I would seriously quit playing guitar and never think twice about it.

Don Dokken
Geoff Tate
Tim 'The Ripper' Owens
Rob Halford

Damn I'd kill for anyone of their voices.

[songsmith]

I actually welcome the singer bias. If you're gonna surprise someone with your ability (which is quite impactful, I think), it helps to have the bar set low to begin with, in terms of what they expect. Then, when "Mr. Attitude" grabs everybody by the short & curlies on the first line of the first verse, I see them grin out of the corner of my eye, and I can practically skate from there on out. If I blow it, hey, I'm just living up to their expectations, but I wouldn't be there if I thought I'd blow it.
Be a jerk, and everybody wins. Cool concept. ------>JMS

[VENTGtr]

"Why is it that such a thick line is drawn by some between people who
make music with their voice and people who do it with their hands?"

Well, let me first say that I'm far from having a singer prejudice. Far from
it and further every...single...week.

I agree that the singer is the focal point. Although, them being a good
front person can help make up for not being perfectly on pitch every
second and, conversely, someone singing in perfect pitch who is boring
up there can be almost equally detrimental (Lack both and you're screwed...
Believe me).

I think what may cause some people to see things the way you mean is
that OFTEN (Though certainly not always) the person looking to sing/front
comes at it from a different idea of WHY they're doing it. Sometimes it's
just because they "always wanted to try it", because it "looks like fun",
because they "just love music so much".

It's been my experience that quite often these are people have no idea
the time, effort and work that goes into it and usually they don't last long
(However, even this can cause damage to everyone else involved because
you rely on each other getting it done). Actually, I think one of the things
that can make them STOP putting in the time as they're learning most easily
is some early successes (Ya...it's all hitting close to home nowadays).

It also used to be that finding people who were capable, had the mindset
you'd hope to find, the work ethic, etc. was much easier than it is now.
Believe me. Why...I dunno.

I'd also point out though is that often the singer, even if they're good, not
great, is seen as the "talent" of a band from the general public. Back with
our previous singer we heard many times that he was "great", a "genius",
etc. Now, he was a good singer, great front guy and an incredible bassist
(He didn't play bass with us so no one most places had the slightest idea
of this). But geez, I wish the little putz would move back.

I think you're prolly also different from many singers in that often they're a
pain in the keisterhoven about helping load in/out, etc. Most have probably
had the guy who takes Shure off the stand, puts it in the case and says "I'm
torn down", even if he only lasted one show.

I'm talking to a guy that we had auditioned who didn't work out because
of scheduling issues about a project. I have as much musical regard for
him as anyone else. He has great musical ideas, etc. and I'm really looking
forward to it.

[Possessed]

I can definitely say the a singer's instrument is their voice.
I know for a fact that it is not easier to sing than to play an instrument.
I played guitar for years before singing. I could play and remember a ton of songs on guitar without even trying that hard.
When I started singing lead it was a whole new ball game.
I believe my musical education and trained ear that I acquired by playing guitar gave me jump start on singing but...
The thing is there is more to it than just singing the notes. You have to learn control of your voice. You may know what note you want to hit but without good voice control it can be tough to hit that note. Also you have to learn to really hear and feel the notes in your chest to be on key.
We all know that it's a tough thing to sing or play an instrument when you can't hear yourself. That is why my vocal coach taught me to feel the note in my chest. You can always feel the bass and as long as he/she is in key you should be able to feel your voice resonate with the correct or incorrect note.
The thing that I think makes it a little harder is that you can't visually see the note like you would on an instrument. There are no finger postions or patterns to follow.
You just have to hear and feel it in your head chest and throat.
On top of that you still have to memorize a friggin book to sing 40+ songs per night.
Props to all the singers.

[bassist4life2004]

With Echo Chamber being my first full rock band, i can honestly say that its a completely different experience than what I expected. I was in an acoustic band Falling Higher for almost 2 years before joining up with echo chamber, and it was a big transition, going from reading lyrics from 70 pages of songs, to flat out HAVING to memorize 70 songs worth of lyrics. (I was one of those people who loved music, and wanted to try it, thought it would be easy being a singer....I was wrong.

When people say that lead vocalists aren't the same kind of musician that a guitarist or a drummer is, i say thats BULLSHIT. Guitarists and drummers have to remember timing, but so do lead singers. I cant come in 3 beats late on a verse or everyone looks at me and adopts the "What The Fuck?" look on their faces. My screw ups are just as, if not more noticeable than my band members, thats why i have to either A: Really really try to not mess up, or B: Get good at covering mistakes. To say that a lead singer isn't a musician because we don't physically hold a stringed or skinned instrument is outrageous.

Anyone that participates in the creation of music (weather creating your own, or re-creating someone else's) is a musician, in my eyes.


And btw, Broken Strings is my lead guitarist, and he constantly tells me im not a musician, im just a good impressionist. Haha

[witchhunt]

Ya wanna know what I think about rock singers? They make me wanna puke.
Frank Sinatra

aka Joe Piscopo

[rickw]

Singing is actually more of a challenge than playing an instrument. The crowd's watching and singing along with the vocalist the "frontman-girl). Not only do you have to be good at your craft you have to be visually appealing cos you know who the crowd is watching! The frontperson has to think of those cool witty things to say to the crowd. That said, there's more pressure on the singer. I've always felt that a good singer can bring out the best in the band as well.

As far as theoretical knowledge goes, well, it always helps if all members can easily communicate musically, ya know, kinda speak the language. When someone says "go to 16ths here, or hit the Vm7b5 there", I know what they mean. That's all. Doesn't make me a damn bit better than musicians who communicate in other ways.

Very happy to not be a lead singer!

Rick

[Diavolo]

What's ridiculous is BDR's complete lack of reading comprehension. Here's what I DID NOT say:
* singers are inferior to guitarist, drummers, bassists, etc
* the ONLY way to learn music is via formal training
* there's been loads of research/data on the formal training of singers versus guitarists, drummers, bassists, etc.

If you'd park your oversensitivity for a minute, you'd see I said:
* Singers are less likely to have formal training (i.e. lessons with a professional, reading music, music theory) than other musicians. Not ridiculous. In fact, I'll do survey to collect data. Rockpagers, please PM me to let me know your method of training on your instrument (coach/teacher, videos, family members, friends, books, CDs, etc).

* Just to be clear, there are loads on musicians who are immensely talented and creative and have had NO formal training. I'm NOT saying formal training is the only way to be a good musician but rather, more training/learning (from any source) is better than less.

* bassist_25 hits the nail on the head about making band life easier when everyone speaks the same language of music. That's part of the reason I think drummers (and all musicians) ought to know music theory, scales, chords, etc.

* BDR-I think the TV show you're referring to is American Idol (I woudn't want to assume). If so, I can't see why you'd try to bolster your argument for singers with a karaoke show that has little to do with music. [Do we need another topic for the forthcoming American Idol argument?]

[PanzerFaust]

WOW..

1 point to Divola......

BDR ready to "Group Hug" yet....????

did this dude sleep with your sister or is there something we're missing...


ok end of sarcasm.....

[rickw]

Oh yeah, I forgot something about singers. The fragile nature of two little strips of tissue known as vocal chords. I can break a string, a drummer can snap a stick, but if that singer strains those chords a little too much he or she can't reach into a gig band and grab some fresh vocal chords.

[rickw]

not "gig band" gig bag, geez

[Merge]

Well, since none of you have seen or heard my band you'll have to take my word on this, so here goes. Without my lead singer, we wouldn't be the band that we are. He is one of the best singers I know, and I know quite a few. I know that 90% of the people that are at one of our shows are watching and listening to him, and I'm more than ok with that. I'm the lead guitarist, well I'm the only guitarist, and the audience is going to hear me and see if whether they like it or not. I didn't really start singing until about 3 years ago, and I learned rather quickly that it's not as easy as some make it appear. I believe that singing is much more difficult than playing guitar or drums. Anyone that can get on stage and sing, and jump around and put on a show for 4 hours, and not forget a word, has my respect.

[bassist4life2004]

Oh yeah, I forgot something about singers. The fragile nature of two little strips of tissue known as vocal chords. I can break a string, a drummer can snap a stick, but if that singer strains those chords a little too much he or she can't reach into a gig band and grab some fresh vocal chords.

Thats a great comparison dude, I like the way you think. If i could find a way to re-string my voice, I would do it before every show. Hell, I need to go buy new vocal chords now. I think I'm gonna go with 13's this time, little bit heavier and i can really hit the lows with them. I've been using 10's but it seems like ive been breaking them a lot lately. Maybe I play too hard. I dunno.

Sometimes after a show it feels like ive been playing my vocal chords with a metal guitar pick all night, which sucks, but I'm getting used to the strain now that we are playing out more, so my voice is getting more stamina than what it had in the past.

I've learned a few tricks about singing and some ways to prolong my voice, for instance, not drinking alcohol before or during a show is a big one. Every time I drink before a show i lose part of my voice early on. Happened to me at 4D's a few weeks ago. Also, Dave V. from data music gave me some sound advice about breathing exercises while singing, which i am grateful for.

Vocal chords are like guitar strings, you have to work them a certain way to make them last a while.

[VENTGtr]

(I was one of those people who loved music, and wanted to try it, thought it would be easy being a singer....I was wrong.

Ken,

Well, you were more than JUST that because you were making the concerted effort
at making music. Something just didn't come up and you said "Ya, what the heck.".

At the same time there is a kid I know of who would prolly be the hardest worker you'd
ever seen. Just doesn't have the vocal ability to do it but keeps on trying to find something.
That's a pretty unfortunate thing. Mebbe he should take up bass? KIDDING! Sheesh.

[UNEARTHA7XMatt]

I'm musically retarded so when Paul asks what key I'm using I just reach in my pocket and say "Well it's either EZ Set or Schlage".

Dude thats funny right there! Im in the same boat you are Rob. Im somewhat musically inclined but not to a point where I know exactly what key im in. I try but I still usually dont know. James, my lead guitarist has been helpin me alot with that tho. BUT ROB THAT HAD ME ROFLMAO!

[bassist_25]

In fact, I'll do survey to collect data. Rockpagers, please PM me to let me know your method of training on your instrument (coach/teacher, videos, family members, friends, books, CDs, etc).

I think that may be a bit simplified though. I think to truly be a well-rounded musician, then one should learn in every single possible way that one can. I know that I can personally say that I've learned music through each and every single way you've mentioned. I've had classroom and private lessons on bass, piano, and trumpet. I've watched videos. My father is also a bass player, so that's what I got my start. My friends have shown me cool stuff, and I've stolen many licks from watching other local bass players. I've read books and other resources on theory, and of course, I've learned by copping the licks of my favorite players.

A lot of vocalists I know often do seek out formal vocal lessons; it's just that many of them, IME, do it went they are further along as opposed to pianists and guitar players who may decide, "Hey, I want to play an instrument," and then take lessons. I know that if I had more free time, I would be taking private lessons on bass again. Does Randy Rutherford give private lessons? Lessons from him would be like lessons from Michael Manring.

[BDR]

First of all, there’s no need to flame, Diavolo. This is a "discussion forum" where, as I understand it, any and all topics of interest are welcomed for discussion or debate, especially music-related topics. This is certainly a music-related topic, I would think.

Having said that, the statement ...

... not to shabby for a singer ...

... is what inspired this new thread. Nothing else. I know what Diavolo didn't come right out and say — my reading comprehension is just fine (even for a singer; plus, as a news reporter, I’ve had “formal training” in comprehension of the English language) but thanks for the additional insult while the rest of us attempt to discuss a legitimate topic like adults.

“Not too shabby for a singer,” as I see it, speaks volumes about a mentality that does indeed exist. Diavolo infers with this statement that he was surprised by what a “singer” did on stage to get things back on track instrumentally; as if singers are just there to sing to the musical accompaniment while the real musicians manage the nuts and bolts of the music itself. I understand that he was referring to DLR, but what he said categorized all “singers” as people who wouldn’t understand what a downbeat was — sub-musicians if you will — which is total crap. I’ve played “human metronome” more than once in my lifetime while on stage, not because the drummers were bad, but because they were human and, holy crap, I knew what was supposed to be happening, even being that I’m only a singer. Being a singer has nothing to do with whether one has the musical knowledge or ability to recognize when something is wrong and needs fixed.

Diavolo, you can keep making the claim that:

Singers are less likely to have formal training (i.e. lessons with a professional, reading music, music theory) than other musicians.

... until you’re blue in the face but it does not make it fact. This is what I’m trying to get you to comprehend. You’re insistance on repeating this proves you have a narrow view of singers as “real” musicians. You cannot back up your “facts” with any data (no matter how many scientific Rockpage polls you conduct) and you won’t be able to because it’s not true at all. As I’ve already stated (and will probably have to repeat), singers everywhere on all levels have and take the opportunities to train with professional instructors as much as guitar players or cellists or pianists can and do. Even those American Idol people who you obviously detest, after they’re recognized for their raw talent, are immediately whisked off for a heavy regimen of professional training with “real,” professional vocal instructors who teach them “music,” not to mention, they’re mentored by some of the most respected people in the biz.

Diavolo, you apparently confuse the singers on American Idol with regular karaoke wannabes. Granted, that show does get its share of people who “also ran” (see the bloopers shows) but whether you like it or not, the cream of the crop on that show are in fact real musicians. They just don’t hit drums with sticks or strum guitars and they produce music you probably don’t like. I hate most country music, but they’re musicians just the same, regardless of my personal taste.

I know American Idol gets blasted for its end product (prepackaged crap) and I agree that most of it is crap, but the fact is, it’s crap delivered by talented, trained vocalists/musicians. Funny thing is, I’m sure if Fox came out with a show called, “American Shredder,” it would be embraced.

My bottom line point is, the statement “not too shabby for a singer” evidences an extremely closed-minded mentality and indicates how you really feel about singers (whether you admit to it or not), as do many other people, not only here on Rockpage, but everywhere. All I’m asking you to do is open your mind a little to a new way of thinking, reread your own posts and realize and admit that this perception of vocalists really does exist.

Great discussion, everybody. I’m enjoying the input and viewpoints. Keep ’em coming.

r:>)

[Diavolo]

BDR,

A music-related discussion on Rockpage is certainly welcome. I've enjoyed the spirited debate. And now, the debate continues.

I see that you're using your journalism training when looking for the subtext of "Not too shabby for a singer." In the context I made the comment, I was defending David Lee Roth. Thanks for pointing out what I really meant: I have an obvious and irrefutable prejudice toward singers. Whether I "admit to it or not." This sounds like something from a message analysis course at the Jayson Blair School of (mis)Communications.

On the other hand, couldn't an alternative explanation exist? Maybe your own inferiority complex about being a singer affects your interpretation of my comment. Just maybe?

I intended no ill will toward singers. They are the focal point in most bands and are the primary means of communicating with the audience, all this in addition to their musical contributions. All of which are very valuable. But I stand by my comments about the difference in formal training between most vocalists and other musicians. My insistence (try spell check) on this does not prove I'm "close-minded" or have a "narrow view of singers as “real” musicians." It's merely an observation based on my own experience with vocalists.

My Rockpage poll is not scientific but if you'd like to combine your journalistic expertise with my PhD research chops, I'm sure we can come up with a viable scientific survey and study that compares singers to other musicians on level of formal training. Let me know. This way we can determine what's true and what's not.

On American Idol:
My problem is not with the singers on this show. The finalists are often very talented. However, the business machine behind the show is designed to stifle creativity, present pop crap, and screw the singers out of their fair share in contracts. The singers are often exploited (including the not-so-talented ones) for TV ratings and ad dollars.

Finally, I would hate "American Shredder."

Thoughts?

[bassist_25]

My Rockpage poll is not scientific but if you'd like to combine your journalistic expertise with my PhD research chops, I'm sure we can come up with a viable scientific survey and study that compares singers to other musicians on level of formal training. Let me know. This way we can determine what's true and what's not.

If you'd honestly like to conduct this poll, I'd be willing to help. First, you would have to operationally define formal training (e.g., private lessons, school instruction, college courses, etc.), and then choose what type of scale data you would be using. In this case, it would probably be easiest to compute using an ordinal scale. We could use a simple nominal scale, but that most likely wouldn't give a whole lot of information; and I don't see the need to classify this as interval data. I'm thinking that you could do a correlation coefficient (possibly a Spearman Rank-Order) to determine if there's a correlation between years of training and chosen instrument(s), though I'm still trying how to figure out what scale would be best for the instrument variable. In its simpliest terms, it would be nominal data. I'm wondering if a Kruskal-Walis could work in that case (i.e., define the groups, and rank how often formal training comes up). Obviously doing a simple percentage caluculation would yield some results, but it would be cool to look at how the variables relate to each other in different ways.

Hmm... There's a lot to contemplate with this study.