Why the nasal singing?

[FrDNicholas]

This is not meant as criticism, just don't understand it: Why do some bluegrassers, not from the Southeast necessarily, sing with that kind of nasal voice? I noticed this at the local bluegrass jam I am able to go to. Is it trying to keep in the tradition of Bill Monroe and others from the Appalachian area? Even Chris Thile and Michael Davies sing that way on their recent CD. When I listen to bluegrass radio I don't necessarily hear all the modern musicians singing that way. Some sing with their natural voices. What am I missing here?

[Jim Garber]

Same thing with blues singers and even rock and rollers putting on some sort of southern accent. Hey, they even did that in the UK (see Rolling Stones and Beatles). Sort of what some folks see as part of the genre.

I played in a band many years ago with an excellent singer whose advice to all was sing in your own true voice. She did and it was awesome.

[AlanN]

That aspect is precisely what turns off many folks from the classic bluegrass. Some bands deliberately tried to get away from that (Seldom Scene comes to mind). Even the CG had some of that vibe going on. It is part of the High Lonesome, and as a student and picker, I can understand both sides of the coin. It's just part of one part of the genre.

[sunburst]

Here's my hypothesis:
Bluegrass music, as we know it today, came about in Bill Monroe's band. Bill was a competitive sort of fellow, and being able to sing higher than others was a source of pride, so when Bill's band sang, they sang near the top of their singing ranges, especially on harmonies.
So, the sound of bluegrass came to be bass, guitar, fiddle, banjo, mandolin and three white guys singing as high as they can (with variations, of coarse). The way I figure it, three white guys singing as high as they can is nasal enough without any further effort toward nasality, but some folks didn't get the memo and feel like they have to deliberately sing in a nasal voice to sound like authentic bluegrass singers.

[Marty Henrickson]

Agreed, Alan and John. Some performers can do this very tastefully, other times it just sounds phony and bad. Even the genuine "high lonesome" sound can be an acquired taste, for some.

I have lived in the South all of my life, yet my dad was born & raised in Wisconsin. As a result, I have had Southerners tell me in the past that I sounded like a Yankee, and when we visited up North, they all wanted to hear my southern drawl - "Say, 'y'all'!" Now, the older I get, the more Southern I sound, but I still might affect a bit more "twang" when singing certain songs.

[Bertram Henze]

I too have often wondered why singing like your gun went off in your pocket is supposed to be authentic. I have two theories:

1 - practical. With a high voice, you are more easily heard above the range of guitar and banjo.
2 - mimicking: Old age gives you the image of wise authentity, and old men have high, hoarse voices; so, if you want to sound like you were born during the civil war...

I may be imagining all that, of course.

[Fred Keller]

I also believe that pushing one's voice--especially the male voice--to the top of or slightly beyond one's range is part of the tension of the music. By tension I mean, the feeling of riding the edge of the beat, pushing, and straining. It's one of the things I love about bluegrass, that sense of every bit of the music being ratcheted in some way and not necessarily just with speed. I also confess I miss hearing that struggle when women sing bluegrass. It's not the quality of their voices which is wonderful; I miss the feeling of "pushing." On the other hand, women like Rose Maddux or Hazel Dickens...love me some of that!

It's not necessarily right or wrong and it gets way overused (another obnoxious version of "Ruby" anyone?) but it's there I think.

[AlanN]

also believe that pushing one's voice--especially the male voice--to the top of or slightly beyond one's range is part of the tension of the music. By tension I mean, the feeling of riding the edge of the beat, pushing, and straining.

And can be dangerous, see one Tony Rice.

[mandopete]

1 - practical. With a high voice, you are more easily heard above the range of guitar and banjo.

My thoughts exactly.

[mandopete]

And can be dangerous, see one Tony Rice.

My thoughts exactly.

[mandopete]

Nasal singing? It's an acquired taste, sorta like sauerkraut.

[Marty Henrickson]

Fred & Alan, you are on the right track there, I think.

[AlanN]

Ruby, or Rubeeeeeeeeeee

Omg, ain't it the truth. Just looking at the word hurts. There's a guy around here, Eddie Gill, who sings this and does it right (if that can be said in polite circles...). For those in the know, that song gets a 'Son'. For all others, it's head for the hills time.

[Gary Hedrick]

The high singing was in the 50's and 60's (and I think today also) is one of those macho challenge things. I just hate it when I sit in for the mandolin player with a local band made up of former Bluegrass Boys.......all the damn songs in B ......too high for me.....to odd sounding to play....just move it back to A (or for my poor voice G)

Also this reminds me of a John Duffy quip....."Let's do it in the Key of B for Bluegrass" or something to that essence ....John just couldn't leave it alone in terms of poking at the Bluegrass establishment.....(but that is for another thread)

[man dough nollij]

I think it's akin to singing rock-ish genre music with a fake British accent. That has always been annoying to me-- that singers drop the "r" and feel the need to pronounce everything like Paul McCartney would. Modern/popular country music is almost all like fingernails on a chalkboard with the hyper-annoying fake southern twang. The "High Lonesome" doesn't bother me, unless it's monotonous.

Love this lyric from the Drive By Truckers:

"Don’t call what your wearing an outfit. Don’t ever say your car is broke.
Don’t sing with a fake British accent. Don’t act like your family’s a joke.
Have fun, but stay clear of the needle, call home on your sister’s birthday.
Don’t tell them you’re bigger than Jesus, Don’t give it away."

[Fretbear]

"Effected" singing is moronic and not worthy of serious attention. Tony Rice and Lester Flatt were two of the greatest bluegrass lead singers that ever lived and neither sang nasally. As Alan noted, because of the musical style he found himself playing in, Tony sang higher than his natural range really allowed for and ultimately paid for it with his voice. The fact that he could even accomplish such a non-advisable feat is a testament to his incredible drive and talent.
Jimmy Martin, another of the great bluegrass lead singers, did sing somewhat nasally, but he did so as it was his totally natural and extremely powerful vocal style.

[allenhopkins]

I think that the tradition of "high lonesome" singing long predates Bill Monroe and bluegrass. Listening to unaccompanied Appalachian singers one hears both men and women singing at the higher end of their vocal ranges. The need to be heard before the days of amplification, the emotional content of nearly "straining" vocals sung in a piercing tone, and the influence of even earlier British Isles traditions of vocal stylings, probably had a lot to do with this. Singing over a fiddle-led string band, without a microphone, would also push vocalists to sing loud, sing high, and select the most "projecting" tone they could deliver.

Nimrod Workman



Dillard Chandler



Almeda Riddle



I do agree that contemporary bluegrass singers adopting a style that's not natural to them, and sounding "affected" and imitative, makes little sense. Bluegrass has featured its share of lower-range lead singers, from Charlie Waller to John Starling and many more, and it can seem a bit incongruous when some guy from Brooklyn or San Diego suddenly starts trying to sound like he just came out of the Appalachians. I remember a college roommate laughing at Joan Baez's adopted "Southern Ohio accent" when she sang songs like Banks of the Ohio and Little Darling, Pal of Mine on her early albums. No different from the Rolling Stones trying to sound African-American, or a whole slew of folk revivalists trying to sound English or Irish, though.

[AlanN]

Yep, it's all a matter of what you were blessed with coming into this world. Those singers that could naturally hit the 'right' notes without straining generally continue to sing well into old age. Del is a good example. Mr. High and Lonesome, he continues to get the right notes and vibe in his vocals. Truly blessed. And he ain't for everybody. Duffey was an anomaly in that he often did the falsetto (convincingly, not cartoon-ish) but it worked for him and his style. Again, not for everybody. Regrettably, he did not live well into old age.

In the rock aisle, Roger Daltry is another guy who just ruined his voice with all that early-career shouting and straining. Think the part where he comes in with that long and perfect 'YEEEAAAHHH' after the organ (?) solo on Won't Get Fooled Again. I haven't heard that number performed by The Who since that record came out in 1974 or so, but I bet he cannot/does not even try to do that these days. And Robert Plant completely changed his vocal style to account for his age and inability to do what he once did (which was sing against the grain.)

[Gary Hedrick]

Now this makes sense to me Allen.......in my "early" days we would play with bad sound systems if any sound system at all. To be heard my brother and I learned to really push out our singing. We had to be loud to be heard. Singing higher would help "pierce" the din of the people talking etc at the socials or where ever we were providing the background "noise". The same thing was true with my mandolin playing.....I learned to play in "attack" mode all the time.....it was the only way to be heard......a single mic and poor sound made you push push push....higher action....closer to the bridge etc. A Thile style would be lost in the background noise. All the delicate notes would be swallowed up.
High Lonesome just didn't start and end in Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee and the Carolinas......southern Indiana had it's share of no money, no jobs and existence farming and no hope of change. The pain was expressed in the emotion of the singing....higher, more haunting, more pain expressed. I can rememer my relatives telling me that I couldn't go to college because we just couldn't do things like that......there was no hope.....

Also my grandmother would sing in a style very very much like Bill Monroe......same tone....same high plaintive, painful emotion. She lived a life of a poor dirt, creek bottom farmer's wife....with egg money being the main income between harvests, selling pigs etc. The singing was loud, high, emotional and hurting.

[mandopete]

Tony Rice and Lester Flatt were two of the greatest bluegrass lead singers that ever lived and neither sang nasally.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't mind the singers that sing with an accent, whether it's natural or not, I just like the sound it makes. Personally I could care less where the singer's voice orignates.

[JeffD]

That aspect is precisely what turns off many folks from the classic bluegrass. It is part of the High Lonesome, and as a student and picker, I can understand both sides of the coin. It's just part of one part of the genre.

Bluegrass is just something you have to get.

In the beginning I had been playing mandolin for a few years and had never heard (or even heard of) bluegrass before. I went to a festival, and on first hearing said, out loud, "Oh dear God what is that!"

Years later, for some reason, all of a sudden I "got it". The way all the instrumentals and vocals work together towards the same dramatic effects. And I was addicted.

Attempts to lose the nasal whiney singing sound "less right" to my ear. Its as important as that mandolin break.

[AlanN]

Sure, Pete.

For those of us old enough to know (gawd, I use that phrase more and more these days...), Jim Nabors [Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.] turned out not to be that slack-jawed moronic local yokel with the thick drawl, but rather the fine-toned operatic singer. I remember being a bit disappointed when he 'came out' as such.

Shazam!

[Beanzy]

I think some posters have confused high with nasal. High is great to hear from a good voice. Someone pushing their vocal chords definitely gets more fine control from their voice, as long as they know how and where that control is needed. It's also way less forgiving of error on the part of thw singer. Nasal singing is ok in it's place. There's a really big tradition of it in Ireland in the 'comeallye' style.It's a way of playing with the natural resonance of that part of your skull, but many people just resonate at a few set frequencies so it's very patchy and inconsistent for most people to use unless the song is really simple. They hit their sweet spot but die-off as soon as they move from there. I should say it divides opinion there as surely as the buzz-saw it can sound like. Many of the old time records I listen to have singers pulling the sound from the throat rather than using the nasal sound, way smoother to my ear.

Don't get me started on accents, I hate hate hate people this side of the pond putting on shamerican accents.
Did I mention I hate it?

[Willie Poole]

Gary, I think John Duffey could sing ANY song in ANY key if he wanted to, what a voice range he had....I also think when talking about the best bluegrass singers out there one would have to include Charlie Waller in that group...To be a good singer in bluegrass a person don`t have to sing in that high lonesome style, just be on key and pronounce the words so everyone can understand them, something that I find that a lot of singers now don`t do, also a lot of them let their volume drop off at the end of a line in a song....

Willie

[tree]

Yep, it's all a matter of what you were blessed with coming into this world. Those singers that could naturally hit the 'right' notes without straining generally continue to sing well into old age. Del is a good example. Mr. High and Lonesome, he continues to get the right notes and vibe in his vocals. Truly blessed. And he ain't for everybody. Duffey was an anomaly in that he often did the falsetto (convincingly, not cartoon-ish) but it worked for him and his style. Again, not for everybody. Regrettably, he did not live well into old age.

In the rock aisle, Roger Daltry is another guy who just ruined his voice with all that early-career shouting and straining. Think the part where he comes in with that long and perfect 'YEEEAAAHHH' after the organ (?) solo on Won't Get Fooled Again. I haven't heard that number performed by The Who since that record came out in 1974 or so, but I bet he cannot/does not even try to do that these days. And Robert Plant completely changed his vocal style to account for his age and inability to do what he once did (which was sing against the grain.)

Ralph Stanley is another one that probably isn't for everybody but for me, his voice (and his unique choice of harmony notes) scratches a profound and primitive itch. Dan Tyminski has such a fine, natural nasal resonance that he reminds me of Tony Rice in his prime singing days. Your schnoz and sinuses definitely affect the quality of your singing voice, whether you work it that way intentionally or not.

Then there's personal taste . . . for me, the vocals of Sugarland grate so harshly on my nerves that I simply can't listen. I'll shut off the radio if I have to. As hard as it may be for me to imagine, there are likely people who feel the same way about Doc Watson, Ray Charles, George Jones or Ella Fitzgerald. Viva la difference, I reckon.