Is It Better to Have an "Interesting" Voice or "Good" (Skillful) Voice?

[@salamandah69]

I am so glad you're back we've missed you. ❤️ I am a firm believer that we have to be genuine to ourselves and what we are capable of. Some people are born with certain voices and abilities that other people don't have. You cannot fake being original. If your idea of being original means being someone else then it beats the purpose. I think that training is good when you use it to find your own voice and yes, to possibly compensate for not having all of these qualities. But I feel like a lot of people who train also lose their sound because they want to sound a certain way. A lot of musical theatre students sound the same which is not desirable. I think people should strive for a balance as well. I think a good example is Lady Gaga. She has decent technique and with that she has still found ways to sing (unique enunciation, rock stylings, etc) that make her sound like her. I think there is a beauty to everything but you want to be yourself but also be able to sing with ease. What is the point of having a "unique voice" if you cannot sing more than one octave? But also what is the point of having perfect technique if you sound just like everyone else? I think you should do whatever works for your musical style. And always strive to learn. It doesn't be hurt to learn new ways of singing!

[@VIDEOHEREBOB]

That is one very tough question..lol. If I had to choose, I'd need to know what is meant by interesting and skillful. When you think about it, both terms can easily overlap.

[@singwisevocals]

Exactly!

[@nataliatsereteli824]

@@singwisevocals Hello Karyn, I want to thank you for your channel, the way you choose and present information for your viewers is wonderful, I've learnt so much and will try to apply this knowledge to my singing. Big thanks to you! Have you done a video specifically about belting technique? Maybe I missed it

[@hansy1305]

I am just glad you are back. I hope the chaos in your life settles soon. Take care

[@singwisevocals]

Thank you.

[@wooyulan]

Great video Karyn, so nice to see you and hear from you. Thank you for your wise and thoughtful words here, 🤗 Blessings to you. Lin.x

[@vijayshah7598]

I m happy to see you back and active. Hope the chaos in your life has been well sorted and you are happy now. You are very humble and deserve to be happy and peaceful.

[@singwisevocals]

Thank you.

[@strangeland4062]

The first person who came to mind for me was Stevie Nicks. Her sound is so unique and easily recognized. As far as I know, she was never considered to have good technique. One thing I've noticed with unique voices is that people often have strong reactions to them one way or another. I think there's space for all voices and that having skill on board can elevate and create interest in a voice that doesn't have much of a unique timbre.

[@georgependergrass9300]

I am looking forward to learning and hearing more about your musical perspectives. We can all learn if we are willing to listen.

[@FrankSteinhart]

Hail and blessing. Good to see you again. The topic reminds me of what I have read in some articles by David L. Jones. So he wrote that in opera, too, there are two extremes: on the one side singers with perfect technique but too few expression, on the other side singers who can sing very dramatically - but in an unhealthy, voice-damaging way. In some other article he wrote it's a sign of wrong and unhealthy technique if several singers - e. g. taught by the same teacher - all sound the same way. Whether "interesting" now means a unique timbre or expression, I think healthy technique is never on a wrong place. It helps to make the voice individual and recognizable - and it helps to get experssion without straining. It happens sometimes that some singers know how to form their vocal tract properly without having ever learnt this. Maybe that is what you mean when you talk about unique voices. And I think it's not humiliating to have to learn. Moreover, it's possible then to beat a born genius.:-)

[@ansleyhendrix3381]

This is great! I think that there is a fine line between a technically "correct" voice and an expressive one. I think that a singer should learn the techniques to sort of feed the expression. Then they can start playing around with different timbres to color their sound.

[@chibiloki]

It's so good to see you back with another video! I believe that an expressive singer is what truly speaks to any audience. Technical skill plays an important role in being able to express emotions freely while singing, and a unique sound may get a singer noticed, but both of these things are means to an end, and that end is expressive communication.

[@CorneliusHDybdahl]

I thihnk there's a propensity for highly technically proficient singers losing some theatricality along the way. I would say the voices I find most interesting - eg. Patti LuPone, Whitney Houston, Roberto Alagna, Dimash Kudaibergen, Daniel Heiman, etc - are all expertly skilled in terms of technical skill, and I would be hard pressed to name singers whose voices I find as interesting but who are not also highly technically skilled. At the same time, there are also many singers who are very technically skilled but who don't sing with the kind of flamboyant theatricality that brings the music to life, and compared to those, then yes I would say I tend to be keener on singers with dramatic flair over singers with technical skill. I think as an instruction, it can help, because a lot of technical problems derive from psychological insecurity. If a learning singer feels like all the sounds they make ought to be technically perfect, then that hesitation will often end up, ironically, being the very cause of the technical problems. I think if beginners interpret "unique voice" as meaning they should imitate Lorde or Billie Eilish (both of which I like - it's not a dig against them) then that can hold back their technical growth, but on the other hand, if they hear "unique voice" and figure they should be more accepting of the sounds they make when trying new things, to have less of a judgemental attitude towards their own singing, and above all to have less hesitation, then I think the instruction can be really helpful. When learning at least, it does not seem to make much sense for a student to expect to always be technically perfect and feel discouraged or ashamed whenever there's a technical problem, because if the student was already technically perfect, then what is there to learn? Along the same lines, I learn just as much by singing "incorrectly" as I do by singing "correctly", because both of these are instrumental in learning about the differences between the two. When performing in front of expectant listeners, I would prefer not to mess up, but when practising a new skill, whether it is singing or painting or something else entirely, messing up is not just an unavoidable, but also a valuable part of the process that I can learn a lot from. If I repeat the same successful strategy a thousand times, I have learned just as little as if I repeat the same failed strategy a thousand times, but if I fail in a thousand different ways and reflect on what I'm doing, then I may be far from the goal, but I am learning a lot. There's a saying that the difference between the master and the student is that the master has failed more times than the student has tried. So I think getting over the fear of messing up is one of the most important first steps for a student in singing, and I think instructions like "a unique voice is better than a perfect voice" can be helpful there, but only if they're interpreted as permitting mistakes rather than as an admonishment to never fail to have a unique voice. Another way of achieving this goal is to have the student attempt something outside of their reach (within reason - we don't want them to be screaming and injuring their vocal folds), and tell them they are allowed to have voice cracks and pitchiness, but that they are not to hesitate or be fearful of it, that you want to hear them make mistakes with confidence and fearlessness.

[@singwisevocals]

All good points! I often tell my students to do more "playing" and experimenting with their voices and to stop being so tone conscious when they do. I'll even tell them that the uglier and stranger the sounds they're making (in practice, not performance, of course), the more functionality it will unlock in their voices. They'll start finding themselves doing things with their voices that they've never been able to do before... when they were desperately trying to control it and make it "behave." I've made the most progress in my own singing when I've not taken it so seriously; when I've sung a song with a silly accent (like a cowgirl, German, Indian, etc.), taken a pop song and sung it like an opera singer, rapped through a music theatre piece, etc.. We don't "play" and experiment enough because we're too busy trying to prematurely shape our sounds. (Maybe that topic should become my next video.)

[@ghenevoejovi8964]

Funny you brought this up.. Am actually in this shoe because my timbre sounds so dark because I have a low male voice and it's not really interesting as compared to a brighter voice type.. Sometimes I think no matter the technique I apply it's like I won't be as interesting as someone with a lighter easier tone.. I guess society contributed to that but really natural talent is hard to beat.. For example I know I have low notes that can sound across an ocestra but that just power without beauty that is commercial..

[@singwisevocals]

But I think the fact that you have a low voice sets you apart. Tenors dominate pop music today. It's higher voices all the time! (Baritones tend to gravitate toward rock, it seems. We hear more lower baritones in country music.)

[@peacelove4245]

thank you very much karin your videos are so helpful :D

[@timons7446]

I like singers who use their voices in an emotional way (when it's appropiate). For me, this is a perfect example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4CkcnmfepqVgq8 I recommend listening to the whole song but especially in this part you can hear him literally fighting against the lump in his throat. After that he sings kind of angry and sad at the same time. It's like listening to a good narrator in an audiobook.

[@unicornbaby141]

Hi Karen, this is a great question! Thanks for bringing it up. I think a singer who is able to connect with the audience or listener is most powerful/effective. So for me a mix of having a skillful voice and an interesting voice is the key. Bjork, for instance, has a very unique timbre but if she didn't have the ability to connect to her audience, that uniqueness in her voice would be useless. :) - I feel as a singer, one must know their strengths whether vocally or performing-wise and know to play up those strengths in the execution of the song. :)

[@nicoleweintraub9710]

I’m going with everyone has their own unique voice and when proper technique is applied sing speaking, that unique voice is drawn out. I agree that a lot of singers myself included try to add too much like exaggerated articulation or excessive jaw movement or tension when it’s more of a relaxed touch using the the core the create an even airflow to place the lines on with a few stylistic embellishments as needed to convey emotion or the message. Like a golf swing, specific technique needs to be worked on and maintained, and typically needs an objective teacher to monitor that we met the needs of form and function and not added things that detract from fluid motion.

[@musicnotes4755]

Great topic thank you! Wish i had a magic way to memorize lyrics as reading them of an iPad while performing definitely puts a crimp in spontaneous emotion! Do you have a video on this?

[@MrShahid0072]

I would like you to send you some demos of my signing and get your opinion on how I can improve it further. Thanks!

[@stevengrantofthegiftshop1549]

I'll answer this the same way Tony Stark did when answering "Is it better to be feared or respected?" Is it too much to ask for both?

[@szyszak9424]

Hey Mam, I saw your video about muscle tension under chin and it was extremly helpful. Can you make a video how to correct forward head posture please?

[@mathiaspage6755]

Having an interesting voice will forever outweigh the “having a skillful voice” for the reason that an interesting voice is not limited to developing. Hopefully the condition of having an interesting voice was not set to “not able to develop.” But then you ask yourself, what is an “interesting voice?” That’s where you find the Hong in the Kong.

[@CustomAnthemsMusicProductions]

Good video

[@johnpont2442]

Comes down to the difference between interesting timbre vs skillful singing. If the interesting timbre has no skills to back it up, it wont get the job singing 7 shows a week on Broadway 😂

[@9zhivago]

There are many components to expressiveness or musicality. I couldn't conceive of a world where timbre isn't part of that conception.

[@roxnroll8050]

Hmmm... A skilled singer could have a unique voice, but a unique voice might not be a skilled one. I'd rather listen to Tony Harnell over Bob Dylan any day. Tony's skilled AND unique. Though, it really does come down to opinion when it comes to the listener. Bob Dylan was an incredibly talented songwriter, but to my ears - his voice and style are like nails on a chalkboard. Yet, he's an icon. These days I believe to "sell records", anyone can have an audience/fans. I've heard absolute garbage become famous right along side actually talented musicians. The audience doesn't care as long as they can connect to the artist. But to have a long career - helps to be skilled and preserve that voice ;)

[@singwisevocals]

I'm unsuccessfully trying to think of a song from the 90s (maybe early 2000s). The singer's voice is thin and nasal and his pitch goes flat throughout the entire song, and yet it somehow became a radio hit. I wonder if it became a hit more on the merit of the song itself than on the singer's performance of it. And that's another part of the equation: A well-written song (catchy melody, good lyrics, interesting musical arrangement and skillful playing of the instruments, etc.) can often redeem a technically and artistically mediocre vocal performance. I don't think that band (whose name completely eludes me right now) stayed in the spotlight for very long. I suspect that the general lack of vocal talent and pitch accuracy may have had something to do with it. There are definitely some voices that are not generally considered "beautiful" that are nonetheless appealing to many fans. But i don't know if it's that their voices are so timbrally distinctive or if it's that they're expressive and their songs are well-written. I've been listening to a mix radio station whenever I'm folding laundry and some Madonna songs have come on. Back in the 80s and 90s, I never paid attention to her voice before. As a result, I never realized how much I dislike the sound of it and how uninteresting it actually is/was. Technically, she's just average. I think that she achieved fame on the merit of her songs, because they were catchy and memorable, and her outstanding stage performances. Plus the gimmicks, like the pointy bras. But I guess that "interesting" is also highly subjective. Many people would probably disagree with me about her voice.

[@roxnroll8050]

@@singwisevocals - You're SOOO right! Really it's the song (and perception of image) that's most important. Max Martin originally wrote "Hit Me Baby One More Time" for TLC, but they refused it, so it went to Britney. But, I think it would've been a hit either way. Though, things are genre based as well... In Pop, Country, R&B, etc - the person who becomes the most famous is the one with a collection of great songs/songwriters. As long as the singer has a somewhat attractive face, they're marketable. They usually have the song way before the person singing it, and the singer is not even chosen because of talent or uniqueness but by what happens to sell to the particular demographic. There are exceptions, of course - but it's pretty pathetic. It doesn't matter how much I respect a singer AND songwriter, or how much I even like them. It's really the marketing, the face, and the songs being shoved down people's throats - which, scientifically, the more a person hears a song, the more likely they'll like it because it's "familiar" - which is why every song has a chorus that repeats. Most fans are so naive, they believe most of these pop singers actually wrote the songs they sing. They cater to the fickle audience who will one day grow out of it, but for now pulls in $$$. Kinda aggravating. Unique or skilled voices don't even come into play with some genres. That's why I love Metal. Nearly all metal is the polar opposite. They write their own stuff and it's all about the music (there are some ugly faces in Metal haha). Haha - pointy bras - that was so ridiculous. Her, Lady Gaga, etc are always "reinventing themselves" trying to stay in the headlines. Hell... Even the Beatles had girls in the audience that didn't even listen to a lick and just kept screaming! Whatever connects a fan to person, when not the music, usually wears off because it has no substance. At least that's been my observations. ;) One last story to show the ridiculousness of what hits the Billboard... When glam metal was big (Crappy bands like Poison, Britny Fox, etc), I heard of an A&R guy that walked into a record store and saw what he considered a good looking dude with long hair. He asked the kid if he sang or played an instrument, and the kid replied that he didn't. The A&R guy didn't care, and signed him anyways. That may be an old story, but was repeated with Boy Bands and current "good looking" artists. The reality of it is just soooo sad :( I guess my bottom line to all this is I think unique or skilled becomes irrelevant, as long as the message and persona resounds with folks (with proper marketing) - folks will fan it up. Great post! Got me thinking LOL

[@singwisevocals]

@@roxnroll8050 This makes me think of Milli Vanilli.

[@roxnroll8050]

@@singwisevocals Haha!!! That's right - totally!!!

[@michaelpham8449]

Miss you

[@eartherskit]

Boom

[@JohnFraserFindlay]

one word: Stevie Wonder. :)