NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, they might just not know (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/07/why_we_cant_all_be_divas_1.php).

So an aspect of music which musicians find critically important and (often painfully) obvious is simply unnoticed by most listeners. Wolpert's study may be at least a partial explanation of why thousands of aspiring singers believe they are talented enough to become an "American Idol"—and even have friends and family encourage them to do so—when professional judges like Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson find their shabby attempts at vocalization so laughable that their friends' encouragment seems like a cruel joke.

As a creative artist myself I've always had a problem, a fear, that I've called "The American Idol Effect," that maybe I am one of those godawful singers (I don't sing, I'm a playwright and filmmaker) whose friends where too noodly to tell me I suck. That's why I always covet those times when I've had an audience of strangers, especially when they don't know I'm there. That reaction is always weighted more than anyone who knows me.

But maybe this is a bit of relief, maybe the friends aren't being mean when they're trying to be nice, maybe they just can't hear it.

Or maybe it's just both.

Do you buy this? Or do you think that "The American Idol Effect" has more to do with peoples willingness for self deception? Or do people really assume that all it takes is will and that natural ability and talent don't really factor into things like singing and writing and such?

Maybe I'll make a poll, maybe I'll just go for a walk. We'll see...

Apparently, they might just not know (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/07/why_we_cant_all_be_divas_1.php).



As a creative artist myself I've always had a problem, a fear, that I've called "The American Idol Effect," that maybe I am one of those godawful singers (I don't sing, I'm a playwright and filmmaker) whose friends where too noodly to tell me I suck. That's why I always covet those times when I've had an audience of strangers, especially when they don't know I'm there. That reaction is always weighted more than anyone who knows me.

But maybe this is a bit of relief, maybe the friends aren't being mean when they're trying to be nice, maybe they just can't hear it.

Or maybe it's just both.

Do you buy this? Or do you think that "The American Idol Effect" has more to do with peoples willingness for self deception? Or do people really assume that all it takes is will and that natural ability and talent don't really factor into things like singing and writing and such?

Maybe I'll make a poll, maybe I'll just go for a walk. We'll see...


Hehe yeah it is certianly true that if you are engaeged in artisic endevours then you should not take the prasie of your friends to have any bearing on your actulau artistic merits.

i'm not a musician but i clearly noticed a difference between the two samples... the second one kinda hurt my ears and sounded like it was being played in a metal tunnel or something weird. however i'd have had no idea they were in different keys, nor do i have much of a clue as to what that really means...


...That's why I always covet those times when I've had an audience of strangers, especially when they don't know I'm there. That reaction is always weighted more than anyone who knows me.

same thing with me and showing my photography, dude. though showing it to strangers makes me shake like a leaf with nervousness too :-S

I totally bank on people not knowing what good music sounds like. When I was living in Tucson the American Idol judges came through, I waited in line for 4 hours, got in and Simon said "don't ever sing in public again"

nice.

I guess I wasn't bad enough to get on the show though.

Still 4 years later, people pay to come hear me sing, I make money doing it, I haven't ever had anyone else tell me that I suck.

Simon may know that I really do, but as long as other people like it I don't care.

i'm not a musician but i clearly noticed a difference between the two samples... the second one kinda hurt my ears and sounded like it was being played in a metal tunnel or something weird. however i'd have had no idea they were in different keys, nor do i have much of a clue as to what that really means...

I was going to try and explain this, but decided against it. It's not really important.


same thing with me and showing my photography, dude. though showing it to strangers makes me shake like a leaf with nervousness too :-S
I have the same problem, no doubt. The first time I looked at an audience and asked "Who are all these people?" and it was met with shrugs, I was a wreck. I don't think I breathed until the first laugh.

I should have added photography to that list of things that people just assume they can do.

I totally bank on people not knowing what good music sounds like. When I was living in Tucson the American Idol judges came through, I waited in line for 4 hours, got in and Simon said "don't ever sing in public again"

nice.

I guess I wasn't bad enough to get on the show though.

Still 4 years later, people pay to come hear me sing, I make money doing it, I haven't ever had anyone else tell me that I suck.

Simon may know that I really do, but as long as other people like it I don't care.

You probably took it gracefully. That'll never get you on television.

That second clip totally hurt my head. Interesting article though.

I totally bank on people not knowing what good music sounds like. When I was living in Tucson the American Idol judges came through, I waited in line for 4 hours, got in and Simon said "don't ever sing in public again"

nice.

I guess I wasn't bad enough to get on the show though.

Still 4 years later, people pay to come hear me sing, I make money doing it, I haven't ever had anyone else tell me that I suck.

Simon may know that I really do, but as long as other people like it I don't care.
Exactly.

I have a friend who is a classically trained soprano who went to audition for American Idol. They were slightly nicer to her than they were to you; she was told that she had a beautiful voice for opera and musical theater, but to never sing pop again. She was fine with that, since musical theater is what she wants to do anyway. :p

You probably took it gracefully. That'll never get you on television.

I think I said something like "Thanks for the feedback" and smiled.

Paula said she liked it but she didn't think it was pop, that maybe I should start a band (duh)

Oy what a musical choice there. The "good" copy is high pitched and annoying, the other one is even higher and ear splitting. How could someone not notice that?

I'm amazed how often I agree with Simon and I know squat about music and have zero musical talent...but I do know what sounds good and who looks the part of a "pop idol"...interesting thing I've noticed is those who are good are generally the most modest, those that talk the most are generally shit...

I find it disturbing that the Idol judges can be very cruel, some people are really awful but they live in a fantasy world and are doing their best...but I suppose being nice wouldn't be good TV...

i'm not a musician but i clearly noticed a difference between the two samples... the second one kinda hurt my ears and sounded like it was being played in a metal tunnel or something weird. however i'd have had no idea they were in different keys, nor do i have much of a clue as to what that really means...That I'll buy. But the conclusion of the article? Not a chance.

To be blunt, I think the article's a fuck up. Seeing as not a single one of the non-musicians pointed out the noise they were subjected to was out of key, I can only assume that they really weren't kidding about the non-musician bit. And in that case, why should it surprise anyone they didn't know music-technobabble? It's like expecting the illiterate to spot typos.

Further, by asking a bunch of people who apparently got picked for having no clue what so ever about music, it seems highly likely they'be hopelessly undermined their own survey. How often will people opine on a topic they know they're ignorant of, in front of people they know aren't? I'd say ignoring career politicians, most people would rather chew off their own arm, than deliberately place themselves in a situation where they have every reason to believe they'll make themselves look foolish.

Still, I have a friend who can't tell the difference. We actually recorded her & played it back to her, just to make her realise why everyone was telling her to quit being a terror. And she couldn't hear. To our collective amazement. Thankfully the fact that we took it that far, was enough to make her stop.

I totally bank on people not knowing what good music sounds like. When I was living in Tucson the American Idol judges came through, I waited in line for 4 hours, got in and Simon said "don't ever sing in public again"

nice.

I guess I wasn't bad enough to get on the show though.

Still 4 years later, people pay to come hear me sing, I make money doing it, I haven't ever had anyone else tell me that I suck.

Simon may know that I really do, but as long as other people like it I don't care.

Simon's an asshole. You should have made some comment about Milli Vanilli.

If someone is awful on American Idol then it's obvious to us sat at home that they are bad. It's not that we can't hear it. After all, if everyone liked bad vocals the 'talentless' would shoot to the top of the charts and thus cease to be talentless.

In Smunkeeville's case I'd venture Simon was just trying to get a rise out of you. If he didn't think you were going to have any impact on the competition (which is very much different from thinking you are a bad singer) then he thought he might as well try and get some entertainment value.

It's a case of something being personal and people losing their objectivity. You want your friend or daughter to be talented and enjoy success so you lose your objectivity.

In terms of the OP I have many more examples closer to your field of expertise. I used to read spec screenplays that were sent in and a lot of them suffered from one very obvious problem - they were too personal. People wrote about break ups and job interviews that were clearly based on their own experiences and struck them as moving and effective because their writing spoke to them.
If they were objective they would take a step back and realise that maybe they knew the feeling because it was their own feeling. The trick with writing, any writing, is to hit upon something that is universal. Something that people recognise but can't articulate. Something that strikes a whole bunch of people as personal and unique to them.

That's why half the people you know are considering being in stand up, or writing a novel or becoming a singer. It's good to them because it's personal to them and therefore hits them on that level. Unfortunately, the friends and family who should be stopping them from wasting their time and effort are also caught up in this whole personal sphere of influence.

At least with American Idol it's a swift dismissal, it can take years of poverty before some people realise they aren't going to make it as an author. Of course there's usually someone that makes it after years of poverty and that just encourages them to think that success is around the corner for them too. Fortunately, most people don't want it enough to persue it actively and so the thought just lingers in the back of their mind. Everyone wants to believe that they're special and it sucks if and when we find out we're not. Every boy thought he was going to be a sports star and the creative artist game is just an adult version of that. Artist, actor, singer, writer, comedian - we all believe we could be something and I think part of the reason that more people talk about it than go for it is that deep down we suspect we're not all that talented and we don't want to be stung like we were when it first dawned upon us we weren't going to win the World Cup/Superbowl/ International Strip Tiddlywinks Championship.

In conclusion, what was the question again?

I agree with Similization, the article is written confusingly and brings up more questions than it answers. Maybe the study it's describing is, too, or maybe it's really just the article.


Only 5 of the "nonmusicians"—which actually included 7 people with over 6 years of musical training—could conclusively tell that two of the arrangements were sung in a different key from the accompaniment. Meanwhile, the musicians uniformly reacted with disgust, easily identifying the problem with the flawed arrangements.

While 42 percent of the nonmusicians did mention the key as potentially a problem, the remainder didn't mention it at all, and none of the nonmusicians indicated that the bitonal arrangements were at all unpleasant.

Are they trying to say that the nonmusicians couldn't tell at all that there was something off with the sample?

Or are they just saying the nonmusicians didn't go "Oh, of course, the accompaniment is played in the wrong key"?

:confused:

In the article, it sounds like the latter - which would simply be stupid and make no sense at all. When someone has no idea about music except that it's there when you switch on the radio, how would they know about keys and stuff?

If it's the former, of course, that would make for an actually interesting finding that could indeed explain why so many people don't seem to find fault with off-key wannabe singers: they simply can't hear it.

I will agree that even though 'off key' and 'out of tune' are phrases that are common even for non-musicians, it doesn't seem that much of a shocker that non-musicians would not be able to neccisarly be able to correctly identify that to be the specific case, however-
While 42 percent of the nonmusicians did mention the key as potentially a problem, the remainder didn't mention it at all, and none of the nonmusicians indicated that the bitonal arrangements were at all unpleasant.

even with that close to half of them at least got close. The telling factor, and what the author is using as his conclusion, is that last part, that the non-musicians didn't seem to think it was unpleasant. Now, that may not be entirely true, they may have thought it went without saying or wasn't worth mentioning, or whatever. I didn't see the study but the way it's phrased it doesn't sound like the pleasingness of the sounds was a direct question and rather just something the musicians mentioned all on their own (as we are wont to do...I was a musician for a while, too...)

I don't think that this would apply to the worst of the worst of the caterwailers that can be seen in the American Idol auditions-no matter how tin your ear is, I don't know how some can possibly miss that, but the others...perhaps....

-snip-
I was a playwright in residence at a community college (yeah, I know...big time...) where part of my exchange was to dramaturg other new playwrights. Every time a playwright would start to defend a scene with, "But that's actually what happened," we always had to say, "That doesn't matter. It has to be dramatically relevant.

I had some friends who where readers and would complain about the trainwreck scripts they would get. I blame all those "You can write a screenplay" books out there...

The reason I chose the ones I did (I just lumped screenwriting into writing) was because they are the ones that people just assume they can do because they have a voice or know how to use a word processor, or snap a picture.

I knew there was obviously going to be a difference between the two, but I could only hear it after a few attempts with real effort and concentration. Didn't find the second unpleasant at all (though my ears do hurt now...) Hmmm, those years of playing the flute obviously didn't do much :p
Well, I was pretty good at playing the instrument and theory on paper, but I was always awful at listening and singing back, recognising things, singing in general etc...

I was a playwright in residence at a community college (yeah, I know...big time...) where part of my exchange was to dramaturg other new playwrights. Every time a playwright would start to defend a scene with, "But that's actually what happened," we always had to say, "That doesn't matter. It has to be dramatically relevant.

I had some friends who where readers and would complain about the trainwreck scripts they would get. I blame all those "You can write a screenplay" books out there...

The reason I chose the ones I did (I just lumped screenwriting into writing) was because they are the ones that people just assume they can do because they have a voice or know how to use a word processor, or snap a picture.

The books are certainly a problem because it's not a skill that can be taught. It's very much a case of those who can do, those who can't teach - I've read a screenplay by perhaps the most famous screenwriting "guru" and it was well formatted with all the beats in the right place. It also happened to be hilariously awful. Really shocking.

If anyone asks me about books or courses or learning the craft I send them off to wordplayer.com (written by someone who can actually sell a screenplay) and tell them to read and write screenplays like hell. This technique was developed after I noticed people had the annoying tendancy to ring me up and ask what to do because their first act lasted five pages too long. Readers are swamped by dull unoriginal low concept scripts that consider structure to mean forcing plot points to specific pages whether they fit there or not.

Since the community college gig how are you getting on with the theatre game?

And yes, I believe this thread is being hijacked. But don't worry, this is far more interesting.

Anyone who wants to perform for a life's work should watch a tape of themselves and then decide. I can't believe that even a tenth of the contestants for Idol would have decided to humiliate themselves after watching themselves perform.

The books are certainly a problem because it's not a skill that can be taught. It's very much a case of those who can do, those who can't teach - I've read a screenplay by perhaps the most famous screenwriting "guru" and it was well formatted with all the beats in the right place. It also happened to be hilariously awful. Really shocking.
It wouldn't be that 'Story' guy, would it? The reader I knew was from Kaufman's company and said he would rant about that guy all the time.

If anyone asks me about books or courses or learning the craft I send them off to wordplayer.com (written by someone who can actually sell a screenplay) and tell them to read and write screenplays like hell. This technique was developed after I noticed people had the annoying tendancy to ring me up and ask what to do because their first act lasted five pages too long. Readers are swamped by dull unoriginal low concept scripts that consider structure to mean forcing plot points to specific pages whether they fit there or not.
My senior thesis screenwriting teacher was like that, formula over substance. And no faith. She would write "irrelevant" over things I was setting up for later without waiting to see if I was going anywhere with it...that last part is a just a pet peeve. But she was all about formula.

Then Alexander Payne came by and she tried to get him to validate all the crap she said and instead he, without prompting, backed up everything I had said. Yeah, I was unendurable for the rest of that day.

OH! And as far as she could tell 'ensemble pieces' didn't exist. If you flesh out a minor character or know what s/he wants, suddenly you have to give them mathmaticly the same amount of screen time-two characters never accomplish something in the same scene in her world...

You know, I could go on for days and days about that woman...

Since the community college gig how are you getting on with the theatre game?

And yes, I believe this thread is being hijacked. But don't worry, this is far more interesting.
I went on to a degree in Film & Digital Media (BA) with a concentration in production, focus in screenwriting, and then a graduate degree in Playwrighting. I've won a couple of award, had a little over a dozen productions and one of those directors is trying to mount a large production here in the City (San Francisco) of an older play that she more or less made possible. I had a screenplay read at FOX but they where looking for something girlier (long story) and we're (I work with a collaborator) working on new material while the old material floats around and does its thang. A short (10 minute play) I wrote as an exercise gets requested now and then and I'm trying to shore up enough money to film it as a short movie, but since I work as an entry level set crew worker in Northern instead of southern California, that's slow going. I would 'raise' the money, but shorts don't make money so I don't know who would give me money to essentially throw away.

Anyone who wants to perform for a life's work should watch a tape of themselves and then decide. I can't believe that even a tenth of the contestants for Idol would have decided to humiliate themselves after watching themselves perform.

Self deception is one thing, but I'm always disturbed by the friends that console the horrible singer afterwards, assuring them that Simon is crazy...is that really having your friend's back if they really do suck out loud?

It wouldn't be that 'Story' guy, would it? The reader I knew was from Kaufman's company and said he would rant about that guy all the time.

I couldn't possibly tell you :) ;)

My senior thesis screenwriting teacher was like that, formula over substance. And no faith. She would write "irrelevant" over things I was setting up for later without waiting to see if I was going anywhere with it...that last part is a just a pet peeve. But she was all about formula.


I went on to a degree in Film & Digital Media (BA) with a concentration in production, focus in screenwriting, and then a graduate degree in Playwrighting. I've won a couple of award, had a little over a dozen productions and one of those directors is trying to mount a large production here in the City (San Francisco) of an older play that she more or less made possible. I had a screenplay read at FOX but they where looking for something girlier (long story) and we're (I work with a collaborator) working on new material while the old material floats around and does its thang. A short (10 minute play) I wrote as an exercise gets requested now and then and I'm trying to shore up enough money to film it as a short movie, but since I work as an entry level set crew worker in Northern instead of southern California, that's slow going. I would 'raise' the money, but shorts don't make money so I don't know who would give me money to essentially throw away.

Shorts are a great calling card so it's a good idea that you're persuing them but, like you say, they don't make money. If it's not something you can finance yourself (anything mockumentary style is cheap and the rubbishy production values suddenly become intentional) then try and pick a route. Do you want to direct/write/produce films/plays/television? Pick one and find out how to market yourself and make you and your product desirable.
Sorry if I've just stormed into your life and taken it upon myself to boss you around so read all of the above with an "if you like" or something.

Shorts are a great calling card so it's a good idea that you're persuing them but, like you say, they don't make money. If it's not something you can finance yourself (anything mockumentary style is cheap and the rubbishy production values suddenly become intentional) then try and pick a route. Do you want to direct/write/produce films/plays/television? Pick one and find out how to market yourself and make you and your product desirable.
Sorry if I've just stormed into your life and taken it upon myself to boss you around so read all of the above with an "if you like" or something.
I have documentaries I made in college already.

I know all the ups and downs, I do work in the industry and have my contacts (thats' how I got a script read by the head of development at Fox just being a graduate, after all). I know the grind and I make my headway as it comes. Having Kennedy Center awards does help. I also know the whole 'selling' thing, which as you can see I'll launch into at the slightest provocation, but here I like to play more than sell.

I have documentaries I made in college already.

I know all the ups and downs, I do work in the industry and have my contacts (thats' how I got a script read by the head of development at Fox just being a graduate, after all). I know the grind and I make my headway as it comes. Having Kennedy Center awards does help. I also know the whole 'selling' thing, which as you can see I'll launch into at the slightest provocation, but here I like to play more than sell.

Yeah, whatever works for you I guess. Sorry if that came across as patronising. I've never been in your situation and I have no idea why I'm dispensing nuggets of obvious advice like some omniscient being. I just remember that when I had my entry level job (a reader - probably a hell of a lot worse job than the one you have) and I couldn't wait to start climbing that ladder.

You seem to know what you're doing even if I (you?) don't know what you want at the end of it. If you keep writing and ever want any advice on something I actually know something about, I'd be happy to oblige.

Note: the above only applies to screenwriting. Any grown-up stuff like plays will have me running for the hills

I totally bank on people not knowing what good music sounds like. When I was living in Tucson the American Idol judges came through, I waited in line for 4 hours, got in and Simon said "don't ever sing in public again"

nice.

I guess I wasn't bad enough to get on the show though.

Still 4 years later, people pay to come hear me sing, I make money doing it, I haven't ever had anyone else tell me that I suck.

Simon may know that I really do, but as long as other people like it I don't care.

The AI judges suck. They have very little qualification whatsoever (especially Paula), and most of the people they put through are very limited when it comes to talent. I'm a trained singer, and I can't even tell the difference between the "good" ones and the "bad" ones. Alot of the ones the judges love have exceptionally poor technique.

Yeah, whatever works for you I guess. Sorry if that came across as patronising. I've never been in your situation and I have no idea why I'm dispensing nuggets of obvious advice like some omniscient being. I just remember that when I had my entry level job (a reader - probably a hell of a lot worse job than the one you have) and I couldn't wait to start climbing that ladder.

You seem to know what you're doing even if I (you?) don't know what you want at the end of it. If you keep writing and ever want any advice on something I actually know something about, I'd be happy to oblige.

Note: the above only applies to screenwriting. Any grown-up stuff like plays will have me running for the hills
It's cool-I have a lot of readers at various levels for my material. It's just that when I start to 'sell' myself here I start to feel more like a tool than anything else (that whole 'it's the internet' thing where I could say I'm nine feet tall and build working models of cities with toothpicks in my front yard and who is to know. And I have to sell myself constantly as I try to climb that ladder, so to do it here, too, makes me feel hollow inside. I don't mind people knowing thats what I do, but spending time convincing people about the extent is something I try (unsuccessfully sometimes) to avoid.

EDIT: I should have said, "readers that I trust" which is to say people, among other qualifications, have not been afraid to tell me I suck when I do.

Yeah, I find I like outside opinions on my poetry. I don't get many, but most are positive.

Nothing like reading a nice long poem to a bunch of strangers!

Yeah, I find I like outside opinions on my poetry. I don't get many, but most are positive.

Nothing like reading a nice long poem to a bunch of strangers!

God, I don't! Especially not from other high school students, who all appear to be complete morons. They try to fix my grammar, but they don't realise that what they're trying to correct is usually already perfect (not saying I have perfect internet foruming grammar, though, but that's casual). And then they complain about my metaphors or any stylistic tricks I use that are outside the norm, etc. Truth be told, I'd rather have a piece with a strong voice and original tone, as well as emotional worth to me, that people totally don't get than a horribly formulaic piece of crap that most teenagers comprehend. I'm arrogant in sense, but I only write for me, not for anybody else.

God, I don't! Especially not from other high school students, who all appear to be complete morons. They try to fix my grammar, but they don't realise that what they're trying to correct is usually already perfect (not saying I have perfect internet foruming grammar, though, but that's casual). And then they complain about my metaphors or any stylistic tricks I use that are outside the norm, etc. Truth be told, I'd rather have a piece with a strong voice and original tone, as well as emotional worth to me, that people totally don't get than a horribly formulaic piece of crap that most teenagers comprehend. I'm arrogant in sense, but I only write for me, not for anybody else.

Correction: I bunch of equally artistic strangers. And crappy band groupies. :D


Who would be that uppity to correct grammar in a freakin poem?

God, I don't! Especially not from other high school students, who all appear to be complete morons. They try to fix my grammar, but they don't realise that what they're trying to correct is usually already perfect (not saying I have perfect internet foruming grammar, though, but that's casual). And then they complain about my metaphors or any stylistic tricks I use that are outside the norm, etc. Truth be told, I'd rather have a piece with a strong voice and original tone, as well as emotional worth to me, that people totally don't get than a horribly formulaic piece of crap that most teenagers comprehend. I'm arrogant in sense, but I only write for me, not for anybody else.
When a screenwriter tells another screenwriter a story the first thing they always say, almost without fail, is "You know what you should do..." Was I asking? Write your own story, sluggo...But we can't help it. As much as it bugs me, I do it too. Every once in while the idea is okay, but you don't tell them that...(actually, you always tell them that even if it's crap and you're going to ignore them...ah, such is life...)

My boyfriend knows a lot about music and when he sings to me I think he sounds fabulous. But according to him he is a terrible singer. Some people know what to listen for.

people dont notice that other people arent singing in key?

it does make them sound bad.

i can see not realizing that there IS a key and that you should be singing in it. i used to change keys (unconsciously) when i sang so i could hit the high or low notes better. a friend pointed it out to me.

not that i can sing well.

or maybe its that your friends dont hear you sing with music or when you sing with music you are singing along with someone else's singing. singing along with brittney spears. and then you keep in key.

I agree with Similization, the article is written confusingly and brings up more questions than it answers. Maybe the study it's describing is, too, or maybe it's really just the article.



Are they trying to say that the nonmusicians couldn't tell at all that there was something off with the sample?

Or are they just saying the nonmusicians didn't go "Oh, of course, the accompaniment is played in the wrong key"?

:confused:

In the article, it sounds like the latter - which would simply be stupid and make no sense at all. When someone has no idea about music except that it's there when you switch on the radio, how would they know about keys and stuff?

If it's the former, of course, that would make for an actually interesting finding that could indeed explain why so many people don't seem to find fault with off-key wannabe singers: they simply can't hear it.
good point. i didn't really pick up on that... must be because i'm illiterate :p



I should have added photography to that list of things that people just assume they can do.

yeah, basically anything creative as if you do something like that, you like to think you're quite good. its why its terrifying having people read your writing, and why often creative persuits like that are very much a private matter i guess. however singing is supposed to be heard and that makes it a little different

thankfully though, i tend to get good reviews of my photography. but it still doesn't take away the self-doubt
I knew there was obviously going to be a difference between the two, but I could only hear it after a few attempts with real effort and concentration. Didn't find the second unpleasant at all (though my ears do hurt now...) Hmmm, those years of playing the flute obviously didn't do much :p
Well, I was pretty good at playing the instrument and theory on paper, but I was always awful at listening and singing back, recognising things, singing in general etc...
awww but your singing is really sweet and pretty! :fluffle:




i still don't know WTF a key is :(
*goes to wiki*

Ok i was watching a small bit of it after the program i was watching finished, this guy Stephen H(something) from the North of America, to me he sounded like he had an accent similiar to what i know someone from Edmonton in Canada has.
Randy really got stuck into him about his Musical style of sining and how he should be ashamed of taking money.

well i don't think there's such a thing as "natural ability". but i do believe there is such an thing as intrinsic intrest and inclination. and the roll that plays is all about where so called talent comes from, and that's practice, practice, practice.

disecting every imperfection down to the subatomic level till you're "in the groove" without having to think about it. and if it's not what's in your heart, your never gonna get there, because even if it is, there's no shortcuts.

it's not something you can bullshit, although there's a lot of ways now adays you can use tecnology, but that isn't a way arround entirely because it still takes the same amount of homework to get there, however you go about it.

of course there's more to putting on a good show then just singing or playing an instrument or what have you. there's things like stage pressence and reading an audience.

but agian, i don't really see these as something anyone is "born with", but rather something that can be gained by working at. IF, and only if, you've got the kind of intrinsic inclination strong enough to keep driving yourself to overcome the inevitable obsticals and challanges. and not just beat your head against them, though i suppose there may be some who have gotten away with that, but to rationaly analyze and approach them, and then of course, all over again, practice, practice, practice, till you drive yourself crazy with it and still practice and practice and practice some more.

and when someone tries to fake it without that, yah, i think that's pretty hard to hide.

=^^=
.../\...

well i don't think there's such a thing as "natural ability".

I sing.

Been in a few bands, etc...

Singing is something unlike a physical instrument.
You can LEARN to play a guitar.
Singing is something you must have at least some natural abilty with to be any good.
Yes, you can take lessons, but that will only help you develop what natural ability for melody you already have.

If you cant carry a tune, all the vocal lessons in the world wont make a singer out of you.

I have a close friend (and former NS'er) who also sings, and has also sung lead for a few bands himself. (much more frequently than myself).

Hes simply a better singer than I am, even though we've both had roughly the same amount of vocal training.
Why?

He's simply got a better voice than I do.
I have a lower range than he does and technically would be a 2nd baritone, while he would be a tenor. (probably 2nd).

The difference is simply natural abilty.
Ive been called good.
Hes really good.

If you took a person with no talent whatsoever, and forced them to take guitar lessons everyday for a year, assuming they were practicing as well, at the end of that year, chances are that the person would be quite able to play a number of songs accurately, if not artistically.

In other words, it would be bland and soul-less, but correct.

No amount of vocal lessons can help you if you cant carry a tune.

PM, maybe this will help:

Most music is in a particular key. This means that one of the 12 notes (C, Dflat, D, etc) sounds like the “home note”. When the piece finishes it normally comes to rest on this home note (also called: the “tonic”). The piece will be built on the notes of the scale that starts on that note. There are two kinds of key (like there are two kinds of scale): major and minor. Sometimes the key of a piece is in its title: “Minuet in C”, Sonata in F sharp major. If the title does not say “major” or “minor” it is normally taken to be major.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music) (That's the simplest

Here's another simple, but more in depth explanation:
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/6444#132028

If you're still having trouble, I'll get my brother to send me an explanation or see if he can help you out (he's a music prof).




To be blunt, I think the article's a fuck up. Seeing as not a single one of the non-musicians pointed out the noise they were subjected to was out of key, I can only assume that they really weren't kidding about the non-musician bit. And in that case, why should it surprise anyone they didn't know music-technobabble? It's like expecting the illiterate to spot typos.

:confused: Am I missing something there, because that's what I read in the article.

Only 5 of the "nonmusicians"—which actually included 7 people with over 6 years of musical training—could conclusively tell that two of the arrangements were sung in a different key from the accompaniment.