A Personal Pet Peeve

[Onesound]

OK, so maybe I'm in a bad mood or something, but it really irks me when I put down my hard earned cash for an album by a really great instrumentalist only to discover that he/she has decided, rather, to focus on their (often limited) vocal talents. I'm wondering if I am alone or have others felt similarly?

This has happened to me several times... I've bought albums wanting and expecting to hear great instrumental music only to be subjected to mediocure vocals. For example, I just picked up a new album by a renouned mandolinist (whose instrumental talents I greatly admire)which is dominated by his so-so vocals and with precious little mandolin. For personal expressions sake, I would tolerate one or two vocal tracks if the arrangements are good, but I really want to hear them pick not pucker.

There are perhaps thousands of "decent" vocalists, but very few have a voice that is worth repeated listenings. It often isn't just having a "good" voice, but also the ability to express passion, emotion and creative personal interpertation. Bill Monroe, Mark Knopfler, Bob Dylan, Johny Cash (as examples) are/were, as vocalists, exceptional, not because of great voices, but because of their special abilities to reach deep into the hearts and souls of their fans. There is certainly no rule that a genius instrumentalist will automatically be able to translate that ability into vocalization.

I really wish that, unless they really do have an exceptional voice, that the great instrumentalists would stick to their instruments, and leave the vocals to those who's special talants lead in that direction. I'm tired of being dissapointed and unsatisfied and waisting my hard earned bucks!

[John Flynn]

I just finished a vacation with my wife and my two young adult daughters. When we were on a two hour car trip, I was playing some of my favorite Old-time CDs, featuring some of my all-time favorite fiddlers and mando players. My oldest daughter has a very wide taste in music, from opera to bluegrass to hip-hop to the Grateful Dead. At one point she said, "Dad, I like your music, except when they sing." I had to admit she was right. For some reason, there are a lot of OT musicians who either think they can sing and can't, or who think "high and lonesome" means "high and strained with a phony hick accent."

[DryBones]

Brian,
I hear you. I was about to buy a certain CD but listening to the samples on the internet I decided against it based on the vocals.We are probably talking about the same CD. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[Bill Snyder]

I believe most people can relate to the idea of getting a CD you are not happy with and it is definitely your right to be disappointed in a CD. Likewise I think the artisit(s) in question have just as much right to put down their instrument and sing if they choose. There may be someone that really likes artist X's singing that is not particularly fond of mandolin music. Your tastes and mine are different as evidenced by the singers you listed above, I don't particularly want to hear Bill Monroe sing and absolutely WON'T listen to Bob Dylan but as they say "Different strokes for different folks".
I would suggest that in order to spend your money on CD's you like that you do as Jason does and search out samples and also read reviews of the CD's. Several music stores (including the CD section of WalMart) have the resources to let you listen to samples from most of the CD's they sell. You will have a better idea of what you are getting and therefore be happier with your music collection.

[Got8Strings]

Ah yes.... had that same feeling years ago when I bought a Leo Kottke album. The man is a guitar wizard - as a singer...not so much. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[musical mama]

I feel the same way, especially about bluegrass. #I love the music......until they open their mouths to sing! #If it's not too nasally I can handle it for a while.
But I also look at it this way: we're all created with different tastes and some love that sound. #I guess the world would be pretty boring if we all thought alike and had identical tastes! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sleepy.gif

[red7flag]

There is a certain guitar player known for his contest (Winfield) flat picking and his teaching. When he sings, mediocrity hits the fan. I told him this over a meal, he was very taken back, like it was the first time he heard this. Many of the fans in the crowd said the same thing, obviously not to him. Then there are people like Doc, who can do both.
Tony

[Ken Sager]

I'd put Leo Kottke with the earlier list of guitarists who sing OK but reach deep into their audience. If you've never seen him live, or listened to songs like Driver, you're missing half of his genius. He's a terrific story teller and hearing him sing is just part of his story. It's a coincidence he's a fantastic guitarist, since he's an even more gifted performer with an amazing stage presence.

A lot of instrumentalists are made to feel they're only half a musician if they don't sing. There have been threads on this message board about disappointment in albums that were all instrumental.

You can't please everybody all the time, but you sure can irritate everybody without trying very hard.

Love to all,
Ken

[allenhopkins]

Rolling Stone said of Kottke many years ago, "His singing is what his guitar playing would be, if guitars were made of porcelain and strung with bicycle spokes," or words to that effect.

Don't agree, but I loved the metaphor...

[Onesound]

I suspect that in some cases there is a lot of commerical or egotistical pressure to set the insturment aside to croon. As an instrumentalist you will often take a secondary role in a band context to the vocalist. If you want to be a REALLY big name (in fame and monetary draw) you've pretty much have to be a vocalist as well as a band leader. Course there are exceptions, like Chet Atkins and Les Paul and a number of instrumentalists in the jazz world. I can understand the artistic desire to grow and the need to musically express onself vocally, but, hey, if you've got a mediocure voice - accept what the Good Lord has, or has not given you. Don't let your egotistical desire and ambition overshadow your natural gifts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "From now on, I'm gonna listen to the whole album before I plunk down my money!".

Cheers

[J. Mark Lane]

I would have to weigh in with a slightly different angle on this.

I buy most of the CD's that get talked about in this community, and I like most of them. Some more than others, but that's to be expected. I have an idea of a few that may be the subject of this discussion.

I agree with Johnny -- I can't stand it when people have phony sounding Southern accents. That just drives me crazy. At least one candidate for this discussion has that problem. But I don't feel that a musical artist should hold back on singing just because they don't have Tim O'Brien's voice. I like to hear people sing, frequently even when they don't have a great voice.

Another thing about it is, I like to hear the songs done. I like to hear new (or new to me) songs, revivals of old songs, different renditions of songs, etc. Even if the vocals aren't great, the interpretations are interesting. Ever listen to those Lomax field recordings? <g>

[brunello97]

Rolling Stone said of Kottke many years ago, "His singing is what his guitar playing would be, if guitars were made of porcelain and strung with bicycle spokes," or words to that effect.


On an early Kottke record I had long ago, I believe he described his voice (in words of warning) as sounding like
"geese ##### on a muggy day."

Now with a hot little shower accompaniment, my morning rendition of "Yellow Roses"......

Mick

[fishdawg40]

I feel the same way, especially about bluegrass. I love the music......until they open their mouths to sing!
I second that. There are comparatively very few bluegrass vocalists that I enjoy. I like the old stuff, Monroe, Allen, Flatt and Scruggs. However, some of the new stuff sounds way to polished and that even sometimes blends into there instrumentation. Like someone else mentioned above, I can appreciate all voices but to an extent. The Dawg is funny because he doesn't think he has a good voice and will not use it often...a man has got to know his limitations.

But yeah Dylan and Cash...'nuff said (even when they recorded together...)

Thankfully musicians feel the need to push the envelope with their instruments and their voices and don't take the safe route it appears many here want them to take. Leo Kottke's voice on Louise was without a doubt the best vocal performance that song ever had, bar none. It was great because it wasn't the polished instrument that his guitar playing was. I will take a singers real voice any day over the polished and electronically modified stuff you hear on todays records any day. It's the small nuances, the differences that come out in live performances that make them great. I had a choir director one time that told me not to listen with my ears but to listen with my heart. You'all are missing some good music here.

[AlanN]

Yes, agree to the topic title. If you buy a CD of an artist known primarily for instrumental skill, then that is what shouls be featured.

To the very subjective "Is so-and-so a good vocalist?" Boy o boy, you'll get every answer under the sun. I personally don't care for Emmy Lou Harris' voice, or Dudley Conell's voice, or John Cowan's voice. I do care for John Starling's voice, Linda Rondstadt's voice, Ronnie Bowman's voice.

And many will disagree with my tastes. And that's a good thing http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[mrbook]

Why not tell the instrumentalist what notes you want him to play, too? There are a lot of musicians I would rather hear play than sing, or whose singing is not at the same level as their playing, but I go to a concert or buy an album to hear what the musician (I think the word "artist" is getting overused) wants to do. I may like it or not like it, and I may or may not buy another album, but I also don't want to keep hearing them doing the same thing every time, no matter how well they do it.

[musical mama]

It is true that what works for one does not work for another. #I like a lot of different singing and musical styles but there are a few that make me want to cringe when I hear them (kinda like chalk on a chalkboard). #I do not expect them to quit singing since that is the voices God gave them, and He must like them. #But for me personally, I just wish that bluegrass and nasally singing didn't seem to go hand in hand. #I'll put up with it, though, for the sake of the instruments! #Singing is what I do best, but I know not everyone likes my voice, and that's ok with me. #I expect that, and I'm sure every other singer out there does, too. # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Big Joe]

Chet Atkins was not a great vocalist by any means. He was a great guitar player. He even wrote a few pretty good songs. Still, there are two albums that have made my life better because he was not afraid to leave the comfort of his greatest talent and express himself in a different way. His vocals on his albums with Doc Watson and the one with Les Paul are not great vocals, but they certainly are great albums. Art is art. You may not like my interpretation of a song or a painting or a photo or http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif, still the art is in the expression not the appreciation. I don't care too much for opera, but it is still a wonderful art form. My lack of appreciation does not diminish the art in any way. It only shows the limits of my mind and heart. Just my opinions thank you.

[Jim MacDaniel]

Bill Monroe, Mark Knopfler, Bob Dylan, Johny Cash (as examples) are/were, as vocalists, exceptional, not because of great voices, but because of their special abilities to reach deep into the hearts and souls of their fans...
I agree, and you can also add Jeff Tweedy (Wilco), Jay Farrar (Son Volt), Joey Burns (Calexico), & Jack White (White Stripes) to this list of poor-to-average vocalists who sing well within the context of their music.

Note: my pet peeve are people who think it is OK to play harmonica on their albums by simply blowing in and out of it. (I think we have Bob Dylan to thank for popularizing this persistent misuse of an instrument. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

[Flowerpot]

I think if a picker is in the upper tier of musicians and wants to put out a solo album, he ought to stick with the hired guns for vocals unless he's got some serious pipes. Or at least limit things to one song that fits their voice. But music should never be an exercise in ego, and instrumentalists should remember what got them their fan base in the first place, and it probably wasn't their singing.

One notable exception for me: I remember getting Rob Ickes' first solo album "Hard Times" and hearing the vocals on Tom Dooley. I immediately thought, "Wow, who's that guy he got to sing on that tune? Never heard the voice before, but he sounds great." Of course, it was Rob himself singing, a wonderful job, and I still have to wonder why they let him (or make him) keep his mouth closed on stage with Blue Highway, when I like his voice even better than Tim Stafford's...

[Mace]

Anyone recall early Alison Krauss? Known for her fiddle, grew into her voice. I still love her early stuff. Tim O'Brien also comes to mind.

[Elliot Luber]

Many a great guitarist -- Elliott "Reelin' In The Years" Randall comes to mind -- failed as a solo artist because their voice didn't measure up to the unique axmanship. Elvin Bishop was smart enough to find Mickey Thomas.

[Mark Walker]

Brunello97 - you beat me to the punch. I HAVE that (vinyl) album of Leo Kottke's - "6 & 12 String Guitars." It's got an armadillo on the front, and on the back, he indeed does describe his voice as 'geese ##### on a muggy day' and the liner notes mention 'His guitars appear on this album; his voice does not.' (Or something to that effect.) I bought that album for the instrumental quality, and was just as happy not to hear him sing on it - though I don't cringe at the sound of his voice.

(I can't sing any better than I play, and I don't play worth a toot!)

Cheers! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Elliot Luber]

Dylan's the exception. His voice was literary, and this was helped by his actual voice -- "and it came from you and me," according to Don McLean.

[Lee]

We could discuss Dave van Ronk, and/or Jorma Kaukonen here too.
As long as the artist lets it be known on the CD/album cover what's inside, it's OK by me.
Too bad these new-fangled CD's don't have much room on the outside for much of anything. And the sales-sticker always seems to be hiding something I want to read.

[Michael H Geimer]

Certainly, it's true that some people sing better than others, but there are very few people who truly cannot sing. Rather, a lot of listeners are just plain 'picky' about other people's singing.

I'm not saying Brian should like vocals that he doesn't like, but putting it out there as a pet peeve almost blames the singer just for singing.

I wanted to sing ever since I was a little kid, but often got teased about my voice as a teenager. Plus, there were friends around me with great, exceptional voices ... so I bought into the whole foolish idea that no one should sing unless they have the throat of an angel. I kept my mouth shut for far too long.

I missed out on almost a decades worth of growth and musical enjoyment beacuse I believed other people didn't consider my voice 'good enough' for public display. My issue. My choice. My mistake. But now I see how all this sensitivity can keep people from singing in public, and that's not a good result IMHO.

Like what you like. Dislike what you dislike. But all singing should be acceptable, and at the very least can be enjoyed as a unique expression of just that person. There are no mass produced vocalists.

RE: Mass production ... I'd rather hear a flat note here or there, than the digitized, falsified, pitch-corrected stuff on the radio these days. That crud is a direct result of wanting a perfect, homogenized, flawless vocal on each track.

JMO ... Cheers. Sing Out!

- Benig

[Elliot Luber]

IMHO at least, Jorma's handicap was never his singing, but his electric guitar playing. If I was a hundredth as fantastic on acoustic, I'd NEVER plug in!

[Mark Walker]

I guess my final thought on this would be that if someone has made a name as an instrumentalist, and is marketed as an instrumentalist, consumers purchase that artist's CD with a certain expectation: #A CD with instrumental music on it. #

That being said, if someone wants to broaden their horizons and expand into vocal realms - more power to them. #If the label will promote them as a 'vocalist/instrumentalist' and alert said consumer to that fact, I'm fine with that. #

Finally, in this world of 'instant information' with audio/video clips available via the Internet, as well as reviews of an artist's recent efforts, I guess there is no reason (especially if one is fond of a particular performer) one can't find some insight into that artist's most recent efforts. # #(e.g. - Alison Krauss' later CD's are more 'cutting edge' rather than 'traditional' bluegrass, and that fact was conveyed with reviews prior to those being released.)

Listen and enjoy! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[pickinNgrinnin]

My Guitar teacher once told me that singing in key will help compensate for an average voice. The rest is up to personal taste. I like the gritty vocal sound to Bluegrass and Folk music. Hazel Dickens comes to mind. When you hear her singing, you know she is the real deal. Ralph Stanley does not have a great singing voice but I like it anyway. It's real. Same with Big Mon.

YMMV

[first string]

I love Ralph Stanley's singing. Not a big fan of Big Mon's. It all comes down to personal taste. And while I have had the same experience as Onesound, I don't fault any musician for wanting to branch out. As with anything else, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

[howbahmando]

I never felt I was being cheated out of a couple minutes' guitar picking when ol' Leo sang "Pamela Brown" ...

[LaVonne]

It’s interesting to hear the various opinions on this topic. I’m definitely in the group who would much prefer to hear a great instrumentalist play their instrument. In most cases the better the player the more mediocre the vocals will seem in contrast. The above mentioned player known for his Windfield success and teaching is a great example. A person should know when their singing is an embarrassment.

The people whose music I listen to as much for their singing as their playing, Doc, Norman Blake and Tony Rice. In the mando world maybe Ricky Skaggs.

[mrbook]

Kenny Baker did a couple albums with Josh Graves years ago where he played guitar rather than fiddle. His ability surprised me and probably many other people. Should he have stuck to playing fiddle because that's what he is known for? I bought the records to hear his guitar playing.

When someone makes a recording under their name I like to hear that person sing - to me, hiring a singer is not like getting a bass player or rhythm guitarist to back you up. Singing tastes vary, and I even like certain people better some days than others, but I'll give anyone a try. Some of the names mentioned above surprised me - many people here spend a lot of time thinking about Bill Monroe as a mandolin player, but I will bet that he thought of himself equally as a singer and an instrumentalist.

[lkb3rd]

I like hearing singing as much as instrumentals, and i decide based on my mood. I am not super picky about perfect voices. When i want to hear singing i want to hear what that person has to say. If i want to hear beautiful tone, technique, intonation, i go instrumental.

I never felt I was being cheated out of a couple minutes' guitar picking when ol' Leo sang "Pamela Brown" ...
I'm with you on that Frank.

[Flowerpot]

I missed out on almost a decades worth of growth and musical enjoyment beacuse I believed other people didn't consider my voice 'good enough' for public display. My issue. My choice. My mistake. But now I see how all this sensitivity can keep people from singing in public, and that's not a good result IMHO.


Well, growth as a musician is one thing, recording a CD and charging money for it is another. We're talking about plunking down cash for a product only to find instead of world-class fiddling, mando pickin', or whatever, you're getting sub-standard singing.



When someone makes a recording under their name I like to hear that person sing - to me, hiring a singer is not like getting a bass player or rhythm guitarist to back you up.

Interesting take on it, and I can't argue with your opinion. But I like it when people know their limitations and try to express themselves the way that they do best -- if they're a picker, then through picking, and if they're a singer, through singing. When Dan Tyminski needs a fiddler for his solo album, he gets Aubrey Haney cause he'll do the job better than Dan could himself. When Aubrey records his solo album, he calls on Dan Tyminski, Alan O'Brien, and Don Rigsby for lead vocals. To me it's the same thing. I would bet money that Aubrey Hanie can probably sing decent and in tune, heck he might even be great, but the point is, he doesn't NEED to sing to express himself musically (cause he lets his fiddle do the talkin' so well), and he knows people don't pay money expecting to hear him sing.

[brianf]

There are certain songs which are made famous by highly identifiable voices. #Even though the voices may leave much to be desired, all other performers who try to do the same songs just don't seem to "make" it. #Who can do "Way Back In the Hills" like Roy Acuff? #A new song, out on a recent album, is, "The Shape Of a Tear", sung by Lynn Morris. #The words obviously were written as a poem, then forced into the rythm of the melody. #Lynn does a wonderful job of catching the mood and message of the song, while smoothly working the awkward timing of the words into the rythm.

[Michael H Geimer]

" We're talking about plunking down cash for a product only to find instead of world-class fiddling, mando pickin', or whatever, you're getting sub-standard singing. "

OK then ... what exactly is the measure of 'good enough to charge money'? ( rhet. )

All I'm really trying to say is, it's no good to expect a performer to self-censor thier own work based on anyone's likes or dislikes. Everyone is different to begin with, and everyone changes over time, too.

There is simply no way for an artist to work around everyone's tastes. Given the amount of work it takes to produce a CD, I'm guessing everyone who makes one tries their hardest to produce the very best album they can. There is no time or energy left to spend 'second guessing' the tastes of the purchasing public. You keep the best takes of the day, and clean up what you can given the time allotted.

In the end, some will buy it and love it. Others will complain it isn't good enough.

DIY and see if you can take the heat come Monday morning.

[J. Mark Lane]

Sheesh. When we are talking about real artists, rather than garbage produced by the industry for mass sales, I think we owe the artists a measure of respect for what they do. There's way too much "expectation" going on here. I consider it a privilege to acquire music recorded by an artist I respect, even if I don't necessarily like all of it.

And since we are on the subject -- in all seriousness, my very favorite singers include:

Hazel Dickens
Ralph Stanley
Bill Monroe
Bob Dylan
Johnny Cash
Jerry Garcia
Leo Kottke

and others mentioned here. In fact, I think singing was Big Mon's greatest talent.

And to think! Someone actually doesn't like Emmylou's singing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? My GOD! Emmylou is a Goddess!

Shows we all have different opinions.

Mark

[cooper4205]

the band would be a good example of guys that don't have "pretty" singing voices, but have made some of the most lyrically beautiful music around. (ok, manuel could "really" sing, but that was about it)

[stevem]

If half the musicians sang as good as as their picking most of the time and if the good crooners could pick a decent tune at least half of the time then all of us listeners would only have to gripe about a fourth of the time. As it is, we're forced to gripe about two fourths of the time (give or take a fourth).

[SternART]

I like Kaukonen's electric guitar playing.........quite a bit actually.......saw the JA & Hot Tuna numerous times.

[mando bandage]

Best description I've heard of Jorma's voice is what my son came up with while studying cloud formations in science class. He calls it a "cirrus voice".

R

[Gribs]

One thing that kept me away from listening to bluegrass recordings is the singing. For some reason, when I hear it live it is really fun but on recording for me it is just not the same.

As fer myself, my wife tells me that I play guitar pretty well, my mando playing is improving to the point where it sounds good, and I should go out and try to get a gig somewhere, but please just don't sing. She says I can sing all I want at home but don't try it in front of an audience. Then when I play and sing at home she says "don't give up your daytime job." ...nineteen years together, sixteen of them married, and sometimes honesty is the best policy http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I like to sing. I like to make up silly songs for my kids and "naughty" songs for my wife, but darn-it my singing voice is worse than a porcelin guitar strung with bicycle spokes.

[fishdawg40]

Sheesh. When we are talking about real artists, rather than garbage produced by the industry for mass sales, I think we owe the artists a measure of respect for what they do. There's way too much "expectation" going on here. I consider it a privilege to acquire music recorded by an artist I respect, even if I don't necessarily like all of it.
Well said. I'm with you on that.

I'm going to see Hot Tuna Saturday w/mandolinist Barry Mitterhoff, if I were a fool I'd expect to see an all acoustic concert, heavy on the mando, majority of old blues covers, and a special appearance by Grace Slick for an acoustic version of White Rabbit. I hope my point came across. If it were up to me (the fool in me) to control the artists output I wouldn't be exposed to such a wide array of music and would thus be less musically learned. I'm happy I took the leap with many bands and artists as they took their own leaps. But I think I'm getting off the topic.

Back to the original post. I understand your plight but alls I have to say is research before you buy. That has happened to me many times...

[red7flag]

I really enjoy some of the voices with character, Joe Cocker (with or without the air guitar), Bob Dylan, Bonnie Raitt, BB King, Dave Van Ronk and the like. Much of the modern bluegrass has very little character and feels stamped out, but that is not the issue here. Whether you like particular singers is a matter of taste. Some just shouldn't sing. I am one of those, unless hidden in harmony. I think there is a difference between someone who sings with character and one that sings with lack of talent and to me that is the issue of this thread.
Tony

[Givson]

Re: Steve Goodman's guitar playing. I saw Steve perform with Jethro at the Bottom Line in NYC. By no means would I consider him an "average" guitar player. In my opinion he was an excellent guitarist and quite a capable accompanist for Jethro. I don't think Jethro ever performed with a mediocre guitar player. All of his guitar-playing partners, from Henry Haynes (Homer) to Chet to Don Stiernberg, were top-notch.

I missed anyone calling Steve Goodman an average guitar player. They might want to check out some of his live albums, CD's, whatever. I first saw him play in about 1975 and I can attest the guy could pick. The man was totally comfortable on stage by himself with no backup what-so-ever and he created a wall of sound that complimented his voice and his amazing songwriting abilities.

[Givson]

Sorry, wrong thread. I was referring to a comment on the "For all you Jethro fans" thread by AlanN. Someone had not liked Steve's vocal on his tune "City of New Orleans", and that's why I thought the comment had been on this thread.

Alan said:

Steve was just an average joe, kind of like John Prine, maybe Prine has more twang. Possessed of an average voice, average to good guitar skills, he definitely was a fine songwriter with charisma. And he was respected by musicians and writers alike. Plus he helped introduce The Legendary One to a whole new crowd.

[AlanN]

Goodness.

I wrote 'Average to Good'. My perspective - nothing less, nothing more.

And I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Steve would, were he here today, characterize his guitar playing similarly.

And I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Steve would, were he here today, #charactarize his guitar playing similarly.
I can agree with that but it doesn't make it true. Most honest people characterize themselves as being less talented than they are unless one happens to be a heavyweight contender.

[Tom Smart]

What many people don't realize is that singing takes practice. It's not just a matter of "having a good voice" or "not having a good voice." It's practicing what to do with it.

Same with instruments: having a good mandolin doesn't make you a good player, but if you've put in the practice hours you can probably make even a bad one sound pretty good.

[Bob DeVellis]

It seems to me there are more instrumentalists that think they can sing than singers who think they can play. Even some really good singer/players who are known primarily for their singing don't release CDs where 2/3 of the cuts are instrumental. Joan Baez and Bonnie Raitt are really good guitar players but I don't recall their releasing anything that was 2/3 instrumental and 1/3 vocal. Seems like players whose singing is considerably worse than Bonnie or Joan's playing have little reluctance in releasing CDs that are 2/3 singing (which they're not known for) and 1/3 playing. Frankly, even some singers who use(d) guitars primarily as props (Elvis? Orbison?) could play as well as or better than some instrumentalists can sing. I suspect part of the reason may be that singing is more accessible and generates more sales than purely instrumental music. I remember as teenagers, my buddies and I used to get really angry at the DJs who only played instrumentals right before the news or weather (I was beginning to think that all Ventures cuts ended with, "and now, from our newsroom..."), figuring they could fade out an instrumental pretty much anywhere without anybody caring. We cared.

[jmcgann]

What many people don't realize is that singing takes practice. It's not just a matter of "having a good voice" or "not having a good voice." It's practicing what to do with it.

I know several very good singers who never "worked" at it in the sense you or I have worked at our instruments- they are gifted with good sounding voices and the ability to sing in tune. Then they "just sang" at parties or whatever... They may not be singing technically difficult operatic stuff, but they can nail stuff with emotion and style, without ever having had a day in the practice room other than collecting lyrics... No grueling scales, chord shapes, metronome, or any of that...

...and singers get ALL the attention from "lay" people...Yes, I'm jealous! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I always loved the quality and character in Sam Bush's voice, though he is known more as an instrumentalist I think...

[Tom Smart]

...without ever having had a day in the practice room other than collecting lyrics...No grueling scales, chord shapes, metronome, or any of that...
You're right, of course, and I don't necessarily mean "practice" in that sense. But a couple of things that almost no one can do well without practicing it are projecting the voice and putting the words over in a way that conveys the story, rather than just conveying the fact that you've memorized the words.

I'm guessing that Jerry Garcia, Bob Dylan, and several others mentioned here rarely if ever practiced vocal scales. They rarely sang "in tune" by any kind of strict standards. But they knew how to put a song across to an audience. That takes practice, like anything else.

I'm guessing the people you mention have done more than just "collect" the lyrics. They've learned how to "inhabit" them, like a poet learns how to read a poem. I've been known to practice the same song over and over in my living room, looking for just the right nuance to put it across the way I want.

Tom (who would never claim to be a good singer)

[Elliot Luber]

The first time I went to see George Benson play, I was so angry because he doubled every note on guitar with his voice. I found that really annoying because he's a great guitar player if you get a chance to hear that. Frank Zappa had it right, he knew folks were tiring of his act when he came out with his album "Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar." You can be a great artist on one instrument and a finger painter on another -- though a good many have talents that crossover. I think a musician should go where their heart tells them, but if the audience doesn't follow there's likely a reason.

[AlanN]

The first time I went to see George Benson play, I was so angry because he doubled every note on guitar with his voice. I found that really annoying because he's a great guitar player if you get a chance to hear that.
I felt the same. I remember seeing Benson in Central Park around the time of "Down Here On The Ground" and his show was basically lavish songs, him singing, and doing that scat singing to the *few* solos he took. Slam Stewart is one thing, but it was a let down, cuase he is a fine guitarist.

I have an early Benson record called "The Uptown Sound of George Benson". Does he swing, and plays bop. He sings a couple, one being an up-tempo Stormy Weather, but it's a guitar-led session. His Creed Taylor years were good - Body Talk is a great record - but that sound was more orchestrated and 'lush' - electric piano, elec. bass.

[Kid Charlemagne]

This has happened to me several times... I've bought albums wanting and expecting to hear great instrumental music only to be subjected to mediocure vocals. For example, I just picked up a new album by a renouned mandolinist (whose instrumental talents I greatly admire)which is dominated by his so-so vocals and with precious little mandolin. For personal expressions sake, I would tolerate one or two vocal tracks if the arrangements are good, but I really want to hear them pick not pucker.
Well, from a purely practice aspect, I imagine it would be hard to come up with a whole album of quality instrumentals, even if you're a fantastic instrumentalist.

I used to feel the same way as you. I was first exposed to Chris Thile by "Not All Who Wander Are Lost", on which there are no vocal tracks. I thought the album was fantastic, and was a bit peeved when I listened to the first Nickel Creek album and heard singing. "What? Where are my smokin' instrumentals?" I thought. Then I listened to the vocals, and although they're not the absolute most stellar singers, the Watkinses and Thile are pretty decent.

I don't know if you're referring to "Deceiver" when you made the reference to the "renowned mandolinist" with the new album, but Thile is the first one that comes to mind. Personally, I think that if a musician wants to sing, as long as his producer thinks it's good enough to put on tape, he/she should do it. Why pigeonhole yourself when you can stretch out your creativity?

As an example of differences in taste, I personally dislike Bill Monroe's singing and playing. Proof positive that not all of us have the same taste, and might even violently disagree over what's good.

That's the great thing about this genre: there's something for everyone!

[Uncle Choppy]

I don't know if you're referring to "Deceiver" when you made the reference to the "renowned mandolinist" with the new album, but Thile is the first one that comes to mind. #Personally, I think that if a musician wants to sing, as long as his producer thinks it's good enough to put on tape, he/she should do it. #Why pigeonhole yourself when you can stretch out your creativity?
Agreed. Funnily enough, I just picked up a copy of "Deceiver". I'd read a few comments about the lack of mandolin but thought I'd give it a go. I'm glad I did. I love the songs, the vocals and the great production and sound textures.

Sometimes, I think that it's not always healthy to get exactly what we expect when buying music. As a teenager, I remember being initially unsure of some the "folky" bits on my Led Zeppelin and Jethro Tull LPs but it soon got me interested in Fairport, Planxty and the whole celtic music thing. Likewise, I've become a fan of jazz and electronic music through hearing these sounds accidentally on LPs where I was probably expecting something a little different.

I can however sympathise with that feeling when the anticipated instrumental chopfest turns out to be a bland selection of FM friendly ballads. On balance though, I'd prefer it if artists try and experiment (risking the odd disgruntled fan) rather than consistently delivering slight variations on a tried and tested theme.

[mandopete]

My personal pet peeve is all of these negative reviews. If you don't like the recording, don't buy it! It's not worth your time to write about how much you don't like something.

What I have learned in the last 4 years here on the Cafe is there is an audience and perhaps even a "fan" for any and all performances.

[mandroid]

Those Vocal Elimator effects devises may do some of the singer suppression on recordings , from what they claim.
Duct tape will do wonders for live singing offenses. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[rhetoric]

Forgive me the lecture...

Art consists of, and can be appreciated on (at least) 4 levels. The aesthetic dimension concerns the beauty of the work of art. I like some stuff simply because it's beautiful (Barber's Adagio). The technical dimension concerns the skill and "artistry" of the artist. I think some art is ugly, but I can appreciate the talent, training, and abilities required to produce it -- lots of modern jazz, for instance. The rhetorical dimension reflects the fact that artists are frequently trying to say something. I like a guy called Michael Kelly Blanchard, mostly because he communicates powerfully through his songs. He's always saying something profound. But the dimension of art that you guys seem to be loosing sight of is the "community" dimension. My daughter produces a work of art that is inferior aesthetically, technically, and rhetorically, but I take it to work and PROUDLY tape it to my door because she's mine and I love her. If all art is reserved for the experts, where does that leave me? Many of you, like me, play in church, or play in a coffee house, or play for your friends and family and they all love your music because the community dimension.

And now forgive me the rant...

This is the most frustrating thread I've ever read! I don't think you guys realize what your saying. You guys are in quotes:

1). "Musicians should do what I like." Really? Since when do we get off telling some musician (you happen to like) what they can and can't do? Aren't musicians artists? Artistic freedom is meaningless to you? I don't know about you, but when you and my buddies get together to sing (and record) we choose songs that WE like.

2). "Music is only for professionals." No it's not! Music is for me, even if you don't happen to like my voice. And if I happen to make a album you're welcome to buy it -- or not. I would think a bunch of guys like us (who mostly have day jobs) would appreciate that!

3). "Musicians shouldn't change." They should find a style and stick with it? Who cares if they risk becoming a cliche like the Beach Boys, damned to an eternity of surfing and drag racing songs.

4). "My musical interests should stay the same." If that were true I'd still be listening to The Lettermen and Journey. Somebody already said this, but the beauty of being alive is that your interests can change. Mine have (and I wouldn't want to deny that freedom to you).

And by the way, there are plenty of artists whose stuff I don't like -- don't get me wrong. And I really wish Shania Twain would do an album of slow stuff on the acoustic side because I love her voice and I can't stand the "pop" she passes off as country -- but who am I to be indignant about HER tastes?

You guys are like Ebert ripping a Beatles movie once because he wanted it to be a documentary and it wasn't.

[B. T. Walker]

Amen, Brother Rhetoric!

[groveland]

Rhetoric -

Great stuff you said.

A lot of this discussion is about the personal disappointment we feel when our favorite artists make changes in their product. I know when Coke changed their recipe, it wasn't an improvement, it was a misguided attempt to expand market share.

I know that's the case with a lot of artists. Like some folks have already said here, vocals tend to put the artist in a 'frontman' role, opening up marketing opportunities. That's not an artistic decision, necessarily, it's a strategy to boost sales. I believe that's usually the case - It's about sales. In the case of George Benson and Nat King Cole, the world benifits because they have actual singing talent commesurate with their other talents. For other artists, it's really like changing the Coke recipe - a really bad move.

I saw a band called Humble Pie in Chicago in the late 60's pounding out an monstrous treatment of blues through a backline of Marshalls, and over the top of this I heard this kid peeling off line after soaring line of adventurous, lyrical, almost bop-like phrases, the kind of stuff where you exclaim "He can't be playing what I think I'm hearing," the kind of playing that could influence players for decades to follow - Where you know you have just encountered a watershed, revolutionary, you are witnessing a real talent.

That kid was Peter Frampton. I think someone told him he could sing and had star potential, because a few years later you've got "Frampton Comes Alive." Now, I hear that recording is some kind of all-time best seller, so I can't speak to the wisdom of that decision or to his singing ability - But I can say that I never heard that kid play anything significant on guitar again. And that's a personal disappointment for me. Fair or not, you give me playing THAT exhilarating, I feel cheated if you give me anything less, especially if the trade was made for greater market share.

YMMV.

[J. Mark Lane]

Kind of like what happened to Jefferson Airplane.

It's an interesting discussion. But I think we've really got two topics going on here: one is the decision, by an artist acting within his/her own sense of artistic integrity, putting out something new or different (and people who liked "the old stuff" complaining about that); and the second is artists (or perhaps the people who control their output) trying to produce material that is more palatable to a popular audience, and in the process losing the qualities that made them interesting. I had the feeling we were really talking about the former here.

[kestrel]

What rhetoric said!

[mandocrucian]

"Hope you like our new direction!" - Spinal Tap