ronws

Bond, James Bond. And yes, Miss Moneypenny, shaken, not stirred.
 
Good stuff, George.

Really well done and as good as the original. And this is where your voice and style really shines. Melodic ballads about romantic themes because you have that crying sound in your voice. For example, it might sound odd if Ronnie James Dio tried this. Just as an r&b singer might sound odd doing "Man on the Silver Mountain."
 
I was listening to this and remembered a movie I watched last Sunday. I rented for the wife and myself "Begin Again" with Mark Ruffalo, Keira Knightley, and Adam Levine (yes, the singer from Maroon 5 can act.) And this is the kind of music that movie celebrates. Watch that movie, not just to see and hear Adam, but to gain inspiration and guidance to what you should do, next. It's fairly new, so I don't know if it is on Netflix or Hulu.

I don't necessarily mean the technique of cry, I mean the emotional content. Your interpretation can make people cry with you. Sometimes, that makes people separate themselves from their hard-earned cash to buy your recordings.

I liked it, Chapman. I have a vision different than Killer's.
 
I see this take, exactly as is, no fancier sonic treatments in a movie. Or even an episode of Bones or Scorpion. That is called synchronous license, for music that is synchronized with moving pictures (whether film, videotape, or digital format such as DVD or blu ray.)
 
So, the vision I have for you is that you have this copyrighted. First means of copyright is first version audible to others beside yourself. Normally, it would be the date stamp on the file on your computer. Here, it would be the date stamp on the file sharing site when you posted it. That becomes the first time anyone in the world could hear it. But still, you want it registered with the copyright office.
 
And you shop it around to music managers at studios. Ken Tamplin once had a thread here with all the actual names of people in the business, not just a&r people at record labels. Let's say you want to pitch this to the music collecting guy at ABC. He had that info, that guys name and contact info.
 
The next part of the vision is where ASCAP or SESAC, depending on where you are, is sending you, Chapman, a royalty check for each time the episode is aired. If in a movie, each run in the movie house, whether premiere run or second run in a dollar movie house (which are nearly extinct.) Each unit sold on a DVD. Each unit rented for however many days on a DVD.
 
And then some advertising firm wants to use at least part of it in an 30 second or 60 second spot they are are developing for half-time at the Super Bowl, the most expensive advertisement time slot in the business.
 
So, you should probably also get a lawyer.
 
Which is my vision for you, however nightmarish it may be,
 
Jon Bon Jovi said it best. You have your whole young life to write your first album or song. And considerably less time to do the next one following it up.

I also wrote a punk song that was certainly bound to upset more people than the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen ('cause she ain't no human being)." Mine went a few steps farther down a dark road. But at least the Pistols got banned from the BBC and all they did was make a silly comment about a member of the Royalty.

Luss gave a really good answer.
 
The main thing about being a professional singer is getting paid to sing. That is root difference between amateur and pro. I am an amateur. No one has ever paid me for singing but thankfully no on has ever paid me to STOP singing. 
 
Then, again, I am tall and scary-looking and they may just be waiting for me to get tired and go away with no confrontation necessary. 
 
I will try to condense this, having studied several sources on the music biz.
 
Luss asked if you write your own songs. If you do, this is what you must do. Create a copy of it, either on paper or some recording, whether audio tape or a burned CD. If you burn a CD, choose audio cd or if the software offers, choose "Redbook" format. If you don't, then the music will only play on a computer. Redbook format plays on any CD player. Send it and a form and a small fee (yes, you can pay one fee for a collection of songs on one CD) to the US copyright office. This makes it official, although the informal and first copyright is the date stamp on your file. Copyright is also established the first time you publish the title in public or on the internet with the copyright date. 
 
For example, I have a song called "Gimme Some Time," copyright 1990. That is when I wrote it, regardless of when I made a digital file. After you have copyrighted it, get yourself listed with ASCAP. They are an org that watches over and collects copyright fees. You write a song called "I don't grow potatos" and copyright it. Then, you list it with ASCAP. Then, let's say, you pitch the song to Miranda Lambert or Carrie Underwood. They like it and want to put it on their next album, entitled, From the Heartland, or something equally corny.
 
Their record label pays a yearly fee to ASCAP to record anything in the ASCAP catalog, which includes "I Don't Grow Potatos" by Hazel, copyright 2015, all rights reserved (by author.) They record the album and it is distributed and people buy it. You get a fee for every album sold containing your song. The record company decides to make it a single. You get a fee every time the single is played on the radio, or if it is sold as a single, you get a fee on every sale. This works by ASCAP using a monitoring service and they write a check to Hazel, not a record company or anyone else but Hazel but I think it is quarterly (every 3 months.)
 
If you record it, you get mechanical rights in a deal with a record company and you get a fee for every unit sold.
 
But you don't have a record deal, just now, or a record company to back you. "Just" a country girl singing art songs and arias.
 
Basically, you sing anywhere they will let you. The best way for people to hear you sing is for them to hear you sing. And yes, you can do the pub and bar scene and learn a lot of things there, including how it helps to have an assistant who looks like me and has my skills in hand-to-hand to make sure that you get paid. (think Richard Grant when he was tour manager for Led Zeppelin.)
 
But for your style of singing, you might be better starting in local and community theater. A place where it doesn't matter if you have academic creds, or not. Just being able to show up and sing on key makes you golden. The pay, if any, is miserable but the experience wins out in the end. That is something that goes in your "story", the evolution of Hazel. Just to be able to say that you sang a part in "Oklahoma" in Iblinkedandmissedit, Idaho is better than nothing. (I don't know if there is a town with that name there, but there are countless small towns, everywhere.)
 
The other option is to start writing and recording your own stuff. The more pro you can make the recording, the better. You can release without a label through cdbaby.com. They will place your stuff with itunes and amazon. Eventually leading to hard media pressing and distribution. Or, you could record all yourself and press your own copies and sell at your own performances.
 
Judging from the sound quality of your recording, either you or someone you know has skills and a good set-up, for it does sound radio ready. So, you already have the recording thingy nailed down.
 
If you are going to release on your own, then you should start your own music publishing company. For probably 10 to 15 dollars, you can register a business name in your county and it is good for 10 years. Have copyright fees payable to your publishing company and then cut yourself a paycheck. Keep receipts for everything. As a company, you are more likely to be audited than you would as a only a person. The other advantage of being a company is that the company could be sued but not you.
 
You can release your own and its possible, later, that a big label will notice how people are buying your CD and paying to see you sing. And they will bring contracts to you.
 
So, rule number one in the music biz, get a lawyer, one who specializes in the music biz. You won't have enough for a retainer, so you will have to cut him a percentage, payable by your publishing company, not you.
 
Think about where you can advertise your music, besides itunes and amazon.
 
M Shadows, the singer of Avenged Sevenfold is a geeky gamer in his personal life. And decided to marry the two. So, he wrote a game app for phones that will develope into a game station platform. "Hail to the King Deathbat" game will include the music from their latest album. I think, later, a game package will include the album in CD. He is targeting the exact market that listens to heavy metal music.
 
You could do something similar. For example, if I were to write country music, I might get links to my music in websites that deal with hunting and fishing, since there are a number of hunters and fishermen who like country music.
 
How do you perform in public? Well, do you play an instrument like guitar or piano? You would play in public with that. If not, do you have a friend that plays? If not, can you go to karaoke events? Point being, get out there and sing.
 
Is it possible that someone who could help your career will be in the audience some night? Yes, the world is a crazy and serendipitous place. Luck happens to those who are prepared.
 
Aynslee Dunbar from Journey was surfing through youtube one day and saw this phillipino named Arnel Pineda doing a Journey song in a club, somewhere. And now, Arnel is the singer for Journey. Not a guest singer, THE singer.

Luss gave a really good answer.
 
The main thing about being a professional singer is getting paid to sing. That is root difference between amateur and pro. I am an amateur. No one has ever paid me for singing but thankfully no on has ever paid me to STOP singing. 
 
Then, again, I am tall and scary-looking and they may just be waiting for me to get tired and go away with no confrontation necessary. 
 
I will try to condense this, having studied several sources on the music biz.
 
Luss asked if you write your own songs. If you do, this is what you must do. Create a copy of it, either on paper or some recording, whether audio tape or a burned CD. If you burn a CD, choose audio cd or if the software offers, choose "Redbook" format. If you don't, then the music will only play on a computer. Redbook format plays on any CD player. Send it and a form and a small fee (yes, you can pay one fee for a collection of songs on one CD) to the US copyright office. This makes it official, although the informal and first copyright is the date stamp on your file. Copyright is also established the first time you publish the title in public or on the internet with the copyright date. 
 
For example, I have a song called "Gimme Some Time," copyright 1990. That is when I wrote it, regardless of when I made a digital file. After you have copyrighted it, get yourself listed with ASCAP. They are an org that watches over and collects copyright fees. You write a song called "I don't grow potatos" and copyright it. Then, you list it with ASCAP. Then, let's say, you pitch the song to Miranda Lambert or Carrie Underwood. They like it and want to put it on their next album, entitled, From the Heartland, or something equally corny.
 
Their record label pays a yearly fee to ASCAP to record anything in the ASCAP catalog, which includes "I Don't Grow Potatos" by Hazel, copyright 2015, all rights reserved (by author.) They record the album and it is distributed and people buy it. You get a fee for every album sold containing your song. The record company decides to make it a single. You get a fee every time the single is played on the radio, or if it is sold as a single, you get a fee on every sale. This works by ASCAP using a monitoring service and they write a check to Hazel, not a record company or anyone else but Hazel but I think it is quarterly (every 3 months.)
 
If you record it, you get mechanical rights in a deal with a record company and you get a fee for every unit sold.
 
But you don't have a record deal, just now, or a record company to back you. "Just" a country girl singing art songs and arias.
 
Basically, you sing anywhere they will let you. The best way for people to hear you sing is for them to hear you sing. And yes, you can do the pub and bar scene and learn a lot of things there, including how it helps to have an assistant who looks like me and has my skills in hand-to-hand to make sure that you get paid. (think Richard Grant when he was tour manager for Led Zeppelin.)
 
But for your style of singing, you might be better starting in local and community theater. A place where it doesn't matter if you have academic creds, or not. Just being able to show up and sing on key makes you golden. The pay, if any, is miserable but the experience wins out in the end. That is something that goes in your "story", the evolution of Hazel. Just to be able to say that you sang a part in "Oklahoma" in Iblinkedandmissedit, Idaho is better than nothing. (I don't know if there is a town with that name there, but there are countless small towns, everywhere.)
 
The other option is to start writing and recording your own stuff. The more pro you can make the recording, the better. You can release without a label through cdbaby.com. They will place your stuff with itunes and amazon. Eventually leading to hard media pressing and distribution. Or, you could record all yourself and press your own copies and sell at your own performances.
 
Judging from the sound quality of your recording, either you or someone you know has skills and a good set-up, for it does sound radio ready. So, you already have the recording thingy nailed down.
 
If you are going to release on your own, then you should start your own music publishing company. For probably 10 to 15 dollars, you can register a business name in your county and it is good for 10 years. Have copyright fees payable to your publishing company and then cut yourself a paycheck. Keep receipts for everything. As a company, you are more likely to be audited than you would as a only a person. The other advantage of being a company is that the company could be sued but not you.
 
You can release your own and its possible, later, that a big label will notice how people are buying your CD and paying to see you sing. And they will bring contracts to you.
 
So, rule number one in the music biz, get a lawyer, one who specializes in the music biz. You won't have enough for a retainer, so you will have to cut him a percentage, payable by your publishing company, not you.
 
Think about where you can advertise your music, besides itunes and amazon.
 
M Shadows, the singer of Avenged Sevenfold is a geeky gamer in his personal life. And decided to marry the two. So, he wrote a game app for phones that will develope into a game station platform. "Hail to the King Deathbat" game will include the music from their latest album. I think, later, a game package will include the album in CD. He is targeting the exact market that listens to heavy metal music.
 
You could do something similar. For example, if I were to write country music, I might get links to my music in websites that deal with hunting and fishing, since there are a number of hunters and fishermen who like country music.
 
How do you perform in public? Well, do you play an instrument like guitar or piano? You would play in public with that. If not, do you have a friend that plays? If not, can you go to karaoke events? Point being, get out there and sing.
 
Is it possible that someone who could help your career will be in the audience some night? Yes, the world is a crazy and serendipitous place. Luck happens to those who are prepared.
 
Aynslee Dunbar from Journey was surfing through youtube one day and saw this phillipino named Arnel Pineda doing a Journey song in a club, somewhere. And now, Arnel is the singer for Journey. Not a guest singer, THE singer.

I liked it. But then, I have liked everything you have done. I don't know why aren't out there, singing in public, recording albums, being the next big thing.

I think you need to be on the radio. I was listening to this at work on my desktop with the really good speakers and it sounded like something I would hear on the radio.
 
As glamorous as living on a ranch can be, you might consider a professional singing career.

I think you need to be on the radio. I was listening to this at work on my desktop with the really good speakers and it sounded like something I would hear on the radio.
 
As glamorous as living on a ranch can be, you might consider a professional singing career.

Actually, too, there have been a few times I posted a song and where people thought I was pitchy, I was not and where I was pitchy totally got missed.
 
Another time, I sang a song with true pitch, more pitch accurate than the original singer, in spite of the guitar going out of tune and other environmental issues and was round critiqued in negative direction for that, as well. I am not complaining, just saying that perceptions can sometimes differ.

Actually, too, there have been a few times I posted a song and where people thought I was pitchy, I was not and where I was pitchy totally got missed.
 
Another time, I sang a song with true pitch, more pitch accurate than the original singer, in spite of the guitar going out of tune and other environmental issues and was round critiqued in negative direction for that, as well. I am not complaining, just saying that perceptions can sometimes differ.

Moving keys works wonders. There are some cases you you can raise the key of the song and sing a lower vocal melody because of the new note value, etc.
 
As far as resonance, you already have a richness of tone that shines through here and there. It's a matter of your speaking accent and singing habits. Use ng sound only for training and warm-ups, don't spend a lot of time singing the n sound. The only reason for you to do the n or ng sound is a calibration, to make sure you sympathetic vibrations in the right places.
 
Your location and sound mean you are american. Watch your vowels, unless you were born italian or a polynesian from Hawaii. Otherwise, you butcher vowels as we all do. Stay away from the uh sound in love. Say loove or lahve. Also, a big problem in american english, especially southern dialects is the short a sound, like in cat. It involves a tongue too high and a horrendous nasal bleat, unless that is the sound you going for, and it could be useful some cases. Ronnie James Dio would use it to create distorted sounds.

Good effort and it's nice to hear the warmth in the lower end of your voice. I think you could raise the key 1/2 to 1 whole step and put this right in your sweet spot.

Happy Holidays Everyone!  Its great to have our community here in our new home and to have you all here.  I did about two passes on this tonight.  Enjoy.
 
 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11616972/White%20Christmas_Robert%20Lunte.mp3
 

 
 

 
 
FYI... I just pasted a basic dropbox link in here and the system automatically embedded this cool media player... very cool!

Well done. I think you have the right tone of voice for this. And it's one of the few songs I don't mind hearing a lot. And I wish I had written it.

Tough love or sugar-coat?   How does one give a review? If the whole thing has problems, a reviewer has a few choices.   First option is to not respond at all. Let it go to obscurity as newer posts come along. Assuming that option is not chosen and someone chooses to comment ...   I think there is tough love without having to be rude. We can be as choosy as Simon Cowell without the acerbic wit, which was more for tv ratings than to help. "Even if you were the only one to enter this competition, you would not win" is my favorite Simon zinger.   So, someone puts up a song. And everything is out of tune. Either he is carrying a melody line that is not relating to the music or there is no good interval and the melody line would not match anything in any key. Nothing wrong with saying, "Dude, you are all over the place." Followed by advice ranging from exact procedures to the simple advice to get a coach and some lessons.   What I am saying is don't hold back on an important piece of advice but also, be as accurate as possible. Granted, we are not all singing experts and may lack enough vocabulary to express an advice, but give an idea, if possible, what can be done to help and improve.   And I am not against tough love, which I prefer to see as honesty but I think I can do so without being offensive, at least intentionally. I think, in times past, I have given advice and probably came off as pompous and that was not my intent but even I perceive that, accurate or not, when I read some of my old posts. And wonder some times, if I had hurt feelings doing so.   Personally, I am one of those people who, the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know. But anyway, so, if a person's performance is unredeemable, I think it helps to remember, for me, that not everyone will agree with my review.   And that is okay. Let it go. Everyone has an opinion. What if I give a review and the singer doesn't like it or gets defensive or says, fine, but I am still going to do this? What then?   Don't argue. You, or I, have already given an opinion. That being said, I am not a singing expert and I don't have reputation to uphold as a reviewer. Plenty of people have thought me to be right, or wrong, and still the world turns.   And if someone puts up a really good effort, it is okay to applaud that, it really is. Just because someone posts here does not mean he needs something fixed. That is, as a review, your or I don't have to post a response only if we can find something wrong that needs fixing.   As far as not responding, there are plenty of songs I have not commented on. Either I am not into the style, or I don't care for the song in any form or fashion. Or, it is so problematic and I don't know where to start and hope that the lack of response is, of itself, a critique by means of embarrassing silence, followed by the sound of chirpping crickets.   Or, I don't have the time. Something I should have included in how to receive a review is to address impatient posters who post a song and an hour later are throwing the equivalent of a fit by wondering why no one has commented?   Some, like myself, have busy lives with work and personal life and just don't have the time to listen to or read everything.   Also, and I get tripped up by this, too, try to remember that not everyone understands your words and what they meant. Maybe English is not your first language. People may not understand your use of it. English is my first language and I still can have problems with it.   So, maybe it's a fine balance. TOS would prohibit character assassination or ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is where you can't answer the question and attack the character of another as proof his point is wrong.   Some discussion was made a year or so ago that giving sugar-coated reviews was doing a disservice to singing. Telling someone they were doing fine was not helping to improve that person or to maintain standards of singing. To that, I would say, I don't think I have seen much of any sugar-coated review that was completely erroneus. That is, it is okay, I think, to mention what seemed right, as well as what seemed wrong. I won't bore peole with operant conditioning, again. That did hurt some feelings.   Point being, we learn faster not only by being told no or stop, but also what direction to go in.   If I give a review and there were some problems, the singer may ask in response for some help or ideas. Well, now, it is upon me, at least in my sense of responsibility, to to respond to that in as helpful a manner as I can manage. I gave the review, the least I can do is try to help. It beats the daylights out him, the other guy, getting defensive.   And then, let it go. Someone may disagree with my review in bits or in its entirety. That's okay, too. Let it go.

How to receive criticism.   This is more for myself than anyone else, though I hope it helps others. There are many aspects to what a criticism means. And every bit of it has to do with how you, the recipient of the review, react to it.   At times, I have reacted to a criticism by explaining things I thought may not have been apparent to the reviewer. And realized later that not only did I seem defensive but I was missing a key point. Though I may have thought it was great, others did not.    The audience only hears what he or she hears. And it doesn't matter if the "audience" doesn't have the right appreciation or attitude toward your music, or does. Which also leads to the flip side of the coin . I can very well be filtering what I hear in the present, as well as in playback, through my own mentality, imagination, what have you. What really brought this realization home is that in this year of 2014, I have spent quite a bit of time watching the failures and rejections on shows like X Factor, BGT, AGT, AI, etcetera. More than once, a judge said, "maybe they were hearing themselves differently than we hear them."   I have imagined, as maybe we all have, being there and doing our thing. I would certainly be shot down in flames.   And that could happen, even in playback of a recording. That is, even though it is said that you should record and play back, sometimes your, or maybe my own, psychology may still be influencing perception. What am I hearing? And does it bear any relation to what others are hearing? You cannot hear yourself as others hear you and it is not just because you hear yourself with bone conduction.   And what about song choice? I am more guilty than anyone of choosing songs to do that are not a match to my voice, especially if considering the original singer of a well-known song. There is no escaping comparison and to wish that others would not compare is a fool's errand. Which has not stopped me from doing so.   I have the range to do just about any song I care to do. But that does not mean that  I should, other than just the enjoyment of singing. But, joking aside, I am trying to avoid using my voice as an assault weapon. Ron - AR15 - ws. (with a 30 round mag and a 50x laser sight.)    Is there a standard of singing against which to compare everyone? Who's standard and by who's definition? Lou Reed has been on pitch a few times, probably by accident, yet he is being inducted into the RARHOF.   But for the sake of this forum and this post, let us say there are some standards of singing to be expected here. Pitch accuracy and appropriate tone. Don't be surprised if you get judged according to those. Because you don't have to be here. I don't have to be here. I don't have to post a single recording. And many valuable members here do not post recordings where as I have lost count of how many things I have posted since May 2010.   First, let's err on the side of the singer. Let us say that you sang well and still got panned, or maybe no reaction at all. Okay, doesn't mean that you won't be a success somewhere else. Consider the audience. Maybe you or I want the approval and applause of fellow nit-picky singers, a forum full of Simons, Sharons, Louises. That's good, too, though not always a predictor of success in the world of professional recording and release.   Or vice versa. I usually get applause when singing live for friends and strangers. Then, again, to be fair, they are not singing experts, many are not even musicians as I am. Probably half the time, they are in various states of inebriation, since I have played at parties, karaoke, warming up for a band who's members were friends of mine while they were setting up the rest of their gear. Or applause just because I have the chutzpah to get up and sing.   At least I didn't get run off. But, as you can see by my pic, maybe they are afraid and are waiting for me to get tired and go away, without confrontation. Or, a case of it's not amazing that a bear dances a waltz, but that the bear dances, at all.    As opposed to here. Only two people from this forum have met me in person. Former moderator Aaron. He has family here in Texas and we got to meet and make his mother think I ran over the dog! (Long story, some other time.) The rest of you do not know me and will never be able to hear me singing in the same room with you, in case I wanted to blame it on mics, my atrocious recording and mixing skills (which I am working on improving, please believe me,) and whatever else. All that you can hear is what is in the recording and whatever you are listening to for a file player.   The other person is my real brother, slstone, because we grew up together though it has been many years since we have visited and we live in different areas of the country.   And rather than blame whatever critique on the state of technology and the lossy format of mp3, I certainly need to account for that.   Someone says you are off pitch, whether you thought you were, or not. It is what they are hearing. Maybe you had good pitch but the tonality was different and the only thing they know how to say is "pitchy." Doesn't matter. They are hearing something that you have not heard. Fix it, or don't, as you see fit. Because here is the most important part.   You do not have to get defensive. And I point the finger at myself more than I would anyone else. How could someone not appreciate the awesomeness of my singing? Quite easily, apparently, from time to time. Getting defensive doesn't help. It doesn't make someone like your singing, now. It doesn't help you improve or change, assuming you need improvement or changing.   All the times someone argued with Simon Cowell, not once did it make him now appreciate their singing or noise. And to be fair, he is a good judge of talent. His odds-on favorite was Adam Lambert, who did not win, but has gone on to success with solo albums and now being the legitimate singer for Queen. And all the other winners don't have near the notoriety or are in the public eye past the end of the show's season.   Or, you take the advice of the review. Make some changes. And a lot of times, that works to your benefit. Some of my better achievements have been from taking advice and actually using it. One time, it was to raise the key and that worked out well. Another time, it was to lower the key and that also worked out well. Even though we pride ourselves as singers to sing in the original key of the song, pro production is about getting the right sound from your voice. Bzean linked in a free audit course on recording production and the award-winning producer, who has also been a judge on some of these talent shows said, right of the bat, they will try a song for an album in different keys until he hears something in the singer's voice that sounds right. It's not about getting the highest note ever by a human, unless that is what the particular song needs.   Other times, the advice has been, at least to me, to choose wisely what song and arrangment I am going to use, which can also involve key change. And that has worked out well and I continue to work on being more choosy. Just because I like singing a song does not mean that my performance is going to work for it, even to my own satisfaction, as I have been discovering with a few songs I have worked on recently.   And for that, I have been taking the advice of recording professionals. First, record as best you can and then leave it alone. Your ears have become saturated. Come back another time and mix. Let it set. Come back another time and pretend you have just turned on the radio. Does it sound right? I have done all those things and the song is still not sounding right but at least I am taking past critiques to heart.   Which will not save me from receiving poor reviews, later. But I am learning.   Third option, discard all the advice. What you or I did was just fine. Not everyone will be a fan, here or out in the big wide world.   In any case, I have found that best response in myself and others is to thank people for their review and the time they took to listen. Or more precisely, to even comment. Many is the time I posted a song and received one or two comments, usually good and be happy with that.   Other times, no comments at all. That is okay. Sometimes, "no news is good news." Nothing was so bad for someone to say, "please, for the sake of humanity, stop that."  

Tough love or sugar-coat?   How does one give a review? If the whole thing has problems, a reviewer has a few choices.   First option is to not respond at all. Let it go to obscurity as newer posts come along. Assuming that option is not chosen and someone chooses to comment ...   I think there is tough love without having to be rude. We can be as choosy as Simon Cowell without the acerbic wit, which was more for tv ratings than to help. "Even if you were the only one to enter this competition, you would not win" is my favorite Simon zinger.   So, someone puts up a song. And everything is out of tune. Either he is carrying a melody line that is not relating to the music or there is no good interval and the melody line would not match anything in any key. Nothing wrong with saying, "Dude, you are all over the place." Followed by advice ranging from exact procedures to the simple advice to get a coach and some lessons.   What I am saying is don't hold back on an important piece of advice but also, be as accurate as possible. Granted, we are not all singing experts and may lack enough vocabulary to express an advice, but give an idea, if possible, what can be done to help and improve.   And I am not against tough love, which I prefer to see as honesty but I think I can do so without being offensive, at least intentionally. I think, in times past, I have given advice and probably came off as pompous and that was not my intent but even I perceive that, accurate or not, when I read some of my old posts. And wonder some times, if I had hurt feelings doing so.   Personally, I am one of those people who, the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know. But anyway, so, if a person's performance is unredeemable, I think it helps to remember, for me, that not everyone will agree with my review.   And that is okay. Let it go. Everyone has an opinion. What if I give a review and the singer doesn't like it or gets defensive or says, fine, but I am still going to do this? What then?   Don't argue. You, or I, have already given an opinion. That being said, I am not a singing expert and I don't have reputation to uphold as a reviewer. Plenty of people have thought me to be right, or wrong, and still the world turns.   And if someone puts up a really good effort, it is okay to applaud that, it really is. Just because someone posts here does not mean he needs something fixed. That is, as a review, your or I don't have to post a response only if we can find something wrong that needs fixing.   As far as not responding, there are plenty of songs I have not commented on. Either I am not into the style, or I don't care for the song in any form or fashion. Or, it is so problematic and I don't know where to start and hope that the lack of response is, of itself, a critique by means of embarrassing silence, followed by the sound of chirpping crickets.   Or, I don't have the time. Something I should have included in how to receive a review is to address impatient posters who post a song and an hour later are throwing the equivalent of a fit by wondering why no one has commented?   Some, like myself, have busy lives with work and personal life and just don't have the time to listen to or read everything.   Also, and I get tripped up by this, too, try to remember that not everyone understands your words and what they meant. Maybe English is not your first language. People may not understand your use of it. English is my first language and I still can have problems with it.   So, maybe it's a fine balance. TOS would prohibit character assassination or ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is where you can't answer the question and attack the character of another as proof his point is wrong.   Some discussion was made a year or so ago that giving sugar-coated reviews was doing a disservice to singing. Telling someone they were doing fine was not helping to improve that person or to maintain standards of singing. To that, I would say, I don't think I have seen much of any sugar-coated review that was completely erroneus. That is, it is okay, I think, to mention what seemed right, as well as what seemed wrong. I won't bore peole with operant conditioning, again. That did hurt some feelings.   Point being, we learn faster not only by being told no or stop, but also what direction to go in.   If I give a review and there were some problems, the singer may ask in response for some help or ideas. Well, now, it is upon me, at least in my sense of responsibility, to to respond to that in as helpful a manner as I can manage. I gave the review, the least I can do is try to help. It beats the daylights out him, the other guy, getting defensive.   And then, let it go. Someone may disagree with my review in bits or in its entirety. That's okay, too. Let it go.

How to receive criticism.   This is more for myself than anyone else, though I hope it helps others. There are many aspects to what a criticism means. And every bit of it has to do with how you, the recipient of the review, react to it.   At times, I have reacted to a criticism by explaining things I thought may not have been apparent to the reviewer. And realized later that not only did I seem defensive but I was missing a key point. Though I may have thought it was great, others did not.    The audience only hears what he or she hears. And it doesn't matter if the "audience" doesn't have the right appreciation or attitude toward your music, or does. Which also leads to the flip side of the coin . I can very well be filtering what I hear in the present, as well as in playback, through my own mentality, imagination, what have you. What really brought this realization home is that in this year of 2014, I have spent quite a bit of time watching the failures and rejections on shows like X Factor, BGT, AGT, AI, etcetera. More than once, a judge said, "maybe they were hearing themselves differently than we hear them."   I have imagined, as maybe we all have, being there and doing our thing. I would certainly be shot down in flames.   And that could happen, even in playback of a recording. That is, even though it is said that you should record and play back, sometimes your, or maybe my own, psychology may still be influencing perception. What am I hearing? And does it bear any relation to what others are hearing? You cannot hear yourself as others hear you and it is not just because you hear yourself with bone conduction.   And what about song choice? I am more guilty than anyone of choosing songs to do that are not a match to my voice, especially if considering the original singer of a well-known song. There is no escaping comparison and to wish that others would not compare is a fool's errand. Which has not stopped me from doing so.   I have the range to do just about any song I care to do. But that does not mean that  I should, other than just the enjoyment of singing. But, joking aside, I am trying to avoid using my voice as an assault weapon. Ron - AR15 - ws. (with a 30 round mag and a 50x laser sight.)    Is there a standard of singing against which to compare everyone? Who's standard and by who's definition? Lou Reed has been on pitch a few times, probably by accident, yet he is being inducted into the RARHOF.   But for the sake of this forum and this post, let us say there are some standards of singing to be expected here. Pitch accuracy and appropriate tone. Don't be surprised if you get judged according to those. Because you don't have to be here. I don't have to be here. I don't have to post a single recording. And many valuable members here do not post recordings where as I have lost count of how many things I have posted since May 2010.   First, let's err on the side of the singer. Let us say that you sang well and still got panned, or maybe no reaction at all. Okay, doesn't mean that you won't be a success somewhere else. Consider the audience. Maybe you or I want the approval and applause of fellow nit-picky singers, a forum full of Simons, Sharons, Louises. That's good, too, though not always a predictor of success in the world of professional recording and release.   Or vice versa. I usually get applause when singing live for friends and strangers. Then, again, to be fair, they are not singing experts, many are not even musicians as I am. Probably half the time, they are in various states of inebriation, since I have played at parties, karaoke, warming up for a band who's members were friends of mine while they were setting up the rest of their gear. Or applause just because I have the chutzpah to get up and sing.   At least I didn't get run off. But, as you can see by my pic, maybe they are afraid and are waiting for me to get tired and go away, without confrontation. Or, a case of it's not amazing that a bear dances a waltz, but that the bear dances, at all.    As opposed to here. Only two people from this forum have met me in person. Former moderator Aaron. He has family here in Texas and we got to meet and make his mother think I ran over the dog! (Long story, some other time.) The rest of you do not know me and will never be able to hear me singing in the same room with you, in case I wanted to blame it on mics, my atrocious recording and mixing skills (which I am working on improving, please believe me,) and whatever else. All that you can hear is what is in the recording and whatever you are listening to for a file player.   The other person is my real brother, slstone, because we grew up together though it has been many years since we have visited and we live in different areas of the country.   And rather than blame whatever critique on the state of technology and the lossy format of mp3, I certainly need to account for that.   Someone says you are off pitch, whether you thought you were, or not. It is what they are hearing. Maybe you had good pitch but the tonality was different and the only thing they know how to say is "pitchy." Doesn't matter. They are hearing something that you have not heard. Fix it, or don't, as you see fit. Because here is the most important part.   You do not have to get defensive. And I point the finger at myself more than I would anyone else. How could someone not appreciate the awesomeness of my singing? Quite easily, apparently, from time to time. Getting defensive doesn't help. It doesn't make someone like your singing, now. It doesn't help you improve or change, assuming you need improvement or changing.   All the times someone argued with Simon Cowell, not once did it make him now appreciate their singing or noise. And to be fair, he is a good judge of talent. His odds-on favorite was Adam Lambert, who did not win, but has gone on to success with solo albums and now being the legitimate singer for Queen. And all the other winners don't have near the notoriety or are in the public eye past the end of the show's season.   Or, you take the advice of the review. Make some changes. And a lot of times, that works to your benefit. Some of my better achievements have been from taking advice and actually using it. One time, it was to raise the key and that worked out well. Another time, it was to lower the key and that also worked out well. Even though we pride ourselves as singers to sing in the original key of the song, pro production is about getting the right sound from your voice. Bzean linked in a free audit course on recording production and the award-winning producer, who has also been a judge on some of these talent shows said, right of the bat, they will try a song for an album in different keys until he hears something in the singer's voice that sounds right. It's not about getting the highest note ever by a human, unless that is what the particular song needs.   Other times, the advice has been, at least to me, to choose wisely what song and arrangment I am going to use, which can also involve key change. And that has worked out well and I continue to work on being more choosy. Just because I like singing a song does not mean that my performance is going to work for it, even to my own satisfaction, as I have been discovering with a few songs I have worked on recently.   And for that, I have been taking the advice of recording professionals. First, record as best you can and then leave it alone. Your ears have become saturated. Come back another time and mix. Let it set. Come back another time and pretend you have just turned on the radio. Does it sound right? I have done all those things and the song is still not sounding right but at least I am taking past critiques to heart.   Which will not save me from receiving poor reviews, later. But I am learning.   Third option, discard all the advice. What you or I did was just fine. Not everyone will be a fan, here or out in the big wide world.   In any case, I have found that best response in myself and others is to thank people for their review and the time they took to listen. Or more precisely, to even comment. Many is the time I posted a song and received one or two comments, usually good and be happy with that.   Other times, no comments at all. That is okay. Sometimes, "no news is good news." Nothing was so bad for someone to say, "please, for the sake of humanity, stop that."  

Tough love or sugar-coat?   How does one give a review? If the whole thing has problems, a reviewer has a few choices.   First option is to not respond at all. Let it go to obscurity as newer posts come along. Assuming that option is not chosen and someone chooses to comment ...   I think there is tough love without having to be rude. We can be as choosy as Simon Cowell without the acerbic wit, which was more for tv ratings than to help. "Even if you were the only one to enter this competition, you would not win" is my favorite Simon zinger.   So, someone puts up a song. And everything is out of tune. Either he is carrying a melody line that is not relating to the music or there is no good interval and the melody line would not match anything in any key. Nothing wrong with saying, "Dude, you are all over the place." Followed by advice ranging from exact procedures to the simple advice to get a coach and some lessons.   What I am saying is don't hold back on an important piece of advice but also, be as accurate as possible. Granted, we are not all singing experts and may lack enough vocabulary to express an advice, but give an idea, if possible, what can be done to help and improve.   And I am not against tough love, which I prefer to see as honesty but I think I can do so without being offensive, at least intentionally. I think, in times past, I have given advice and probably came off as pompous and that was not my intent but even I perceive that, accurate or not, when I read some of my old posts. And wonder some times, if I had hurt feelings doing so.   Personally, I am one of those people who, the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know. But anyway, so, if a person's performance is unredeemable, I think it helps to remember, for me, that not everyone will agree with my review.   And that is okay. Let it go. Everyone has an opinion. What if I give a review and the singer doesn't like it or gets defensive or says, fine, but I am still going to do this? What then?   Don't argue. You, or I, have already given an opinion. That being said, I am not a singing expert and I don't have reputation to uphold as a reviewer. Plenty of people have thought me to be right, or wrong, and still the world turns.   And if someone puts up a really good effort, it is okay to applaud that, it really is. Just because someone posts here does not mean he needs something fixed. That is, as a review, your or I don't have to post a response only if we can find something wrong that needs fixing.   As far as not responding, there are plenty of songs I have not commented on. Either I am not into the style, or I don't care for the song in any form or fashion. Or, it is so problematic and I don't know where to start and hope that the lack of response is, of itself, a critique by means of embarrassing silence, followed by the sound of chirpping crickets.   Or, I don't have the time. Something I should have included in how to receive a review is to address impatient posters who post a song and an hour later are throwing the equivalent of a fit by wondering why no one has commented?   Some, like myself, have busy lives with work and personal life and just don't have the time to listen to or read everything.   Also, and I get tripped up by this, too, try to remember that not everyone understands your words and what they meant. Maybe English is not your first language. People may not understand your use of it. English is my first language and I still can have problems with it.   So, maybe it's a fine balance. TOS would prohibit character assassination or ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is where you can't answer the question and attack the character of another as proof his point is wrong.   Some discussion was made a year or so ago that giving sugar-coated reviews was doing a disservice to singing. Telling someone they were doing fine was not helping to improve that person or to maintain standards of singing. To that, I would say, I don't think I have seen much of any sugar-coated review that was completely erroneus. That is, it is okay, I think, to mention what seemed right, as well as what seemed wrong. I won't bore peole with operant conditioning, again. That did hurt some feelings.   Point being, we learn faster not only by being told no or stop, but also what direction to go in.   If I give a review and there were some problems, the singer may ask in response for some help or ideas. Well, now, it is upon me, at least in my sense of responsibility, to to respond to that in as helpful a manner as I can manage. I gave the review, the least I can do is try to help. It beats the daylights out him, the other guy, getting defensive.   And then, let it go. Someone may disagree with my review in bits or in its entirety. That's okay, too. Let it go.

How to receive criticism.   This is more for myself than anyone else, though I hope it helps others. There are many aspects to what a criticism means. And every bit of it has to do with how you, the recipient of the review, react to it.   At times, I have reacted to a criticism by explaining things I thought may not have been apparent to the reviewer. And realized later that not only did I seem defensive but I was missing a key point. Though I may have thought it was great, others did not.    The audience only hears what he or she hears. And it doesn't matter if the "audience" doesn't have the right appreciation or attitude toward your music, or does. Which also leads to the flip side of the coin . I can very well be filtering what I hear in the present, as well as in playback, through my own mentality, imagination, what have you. What really brought this realization home is that in this year of 2014, I have spent quite a bit of time watching the failures and rejections on shows like X Factor, BGT, AGT, AI, etcetera. More than once, a judge said, "maybe they were hearing themselves differently than we hear them."   I have imagined, as maybe we all have, being there and doing our thing. I would certainly be shot down in flames.   And that could happen, even in playback of a recording. That is, even though it is said that you should record and play back, sometimes your, or maybe my own, psychology may still be influencing perception. What am I hearing? And does it bear any relation to what others are hearing? You cannot hear yourself as others hear you and it is not just because you hear yourself with bone conduction.   And what about song choice? I am more guilty than anyone of choosing songs to do that are not a match to my voice, especially if considering the original singer of a well-known song. There is no escaping comparison and to wish that others would not compare is a fool's errand. Which has not stopped me from doing so.   I have the range to do just about any song I care to do. But that does not mean that  I should, other than just the enjoyment of singing. But, joking aside, I am trying to avoid using my voice as an assault weapon. Ron - AR15 - ws. (with a 30 round mag and a 50x laser sight.)    Is there a standard of singing against which to compare everyone? Who's standard and by who's definition? Lou Reed has been on pitch a few times, probably by accident, yet he is being inducted into the RARHOF.   But for the sake of this forum and this post, let us say there are some standards of singing to be expected here. Pitch accuracy and appropriate tone. Don't be surprised if you get judged according to those. Because you don't have to be here. I don't have to be here. I don't have to post a single recording. And many valuable members here do not post recordings where as I have lost count of how many things I have posted since May 2010.   First, let's err on the side of the singer. Let us say that you sang well and still got panned, or maybe no reaction at all. Okay, doesn't mean that you won't be a success somewhere else. Consider the audience. Maybe you or I want the approval and applause of fellow nit-picky singers, a forum full of Simons, Sharons, Louises. That's good, too, though not always a predictor of success in the world of professional recording and release.   Or vice versa. I usually get applause when singing live for friends and strangers. Then, again, to be fair, they are not singing experts, many are not even musicians as I am. Probably half the time, they are in various states of inebriation, since I have played at parties, karaoke, warming up for a band who's members were friends of mine while they were setting up the rest of their gear. Or applause just because I have the chutzpah to get up and sing.   At least I didn't get run off. But, as you can see by my pic, maybe they are afraid and are waiting for me to get tired and go away, without confrontation. Or, a case of it's not amazing that a bear dances a waltz, but that the bear dances, at all.    As opposed to here. Only two people from this forum have met me in person. Former moderator Aaron. He has family here in Texas and we got to meet and make his mother think I ran over the dog! (Long story, some other time.) The rest of you do not know me and will never be able to hear me singing in the same room with you, in case I wanted to blame it on mics, my atrocious recording and mixing skills (which I am working on improving, please believe me,) and whatever else. All that you can hear is what is in the recording and whatever you are listening to for a file player.   The other person is my real brother, slstone, because we grew up together though it has been many years since we have visited and we live in different areas of the country.   And rather than blame whatever critique on the state of technology and the lossy format of mp3, I certainly need to account for that.   Someone says you are off pitch, whether you thought you were, or not. It is what they are hearing. Maybe you had good pitch but the tonality was different and the only thing they know how to say is "pitchy." Doesn't matter. They are hearing something that you have not heard. Fix it, or don't, as you see fit. Because here is the most important part.   You do not have to get defensive. And I point the finger at myself more than I would anyone else. How could someone not appreciate the awesomeness of my singing? Quite easily, apparently, from time to time. Getting defensive doesn't help. It doesn't make someone like your singing, now. It doesn't help you improve or change, assuming you need improvement or changing.   All the times someone argued with Simon Cowell, not once did it make him now appreciate their singing or noise. And to be fair, he is a good judge of talent. His odds-on favorite was Adam Lambert, who did not win, but has gone on to success with solo albums and now being the legitimate singer for Queen. And all the other winners don't have near the notoriety or are in the public eye past the end of the show's season.   Or, you take the advice of the review. Make some changes. And a lot of times, that works to your benefit. Some of my better achievements have been from taking advice and actually using it. One time, it was to raise the key and that worked out well. Another time, it was to lower the key and that also worked out well. Even though we pride ourselves as singers to sing in the original key of the song, pro production is about getting the right sound from your voice. Bzean linked in a free audit course on recording production and the award-winning producer, who has also been a judge on some of these talent shows said, right of the bat, they will try a song for an album in different keys until he hears something in the singer's voice that sounds right. It's not about getting the highest note ever by a human, unless that is what the particular song needs.   Other times, the advice has been, at least to me, to choose wisely what song and arrangment I am going to use, which can also involve key change. And that has worked out well and I continue to work on being more choosy. Just because I like singing a song does not mean that my performance is going to work for it, even to my own satisfaction, as I have been discovering with a few songs I have worked on recently.   And for that, I have been taking the advice of recording professionals. First, record as best you can and then leave it alone. Your ears have become saturated. Come back another time and mix. Let it set. Come back another time and pretend you have just turned on the radio. Does it sound right? I have done all those things and the song is still not sounding right but at least I am taking past critiques to heart.   Which will not save me from receiving poor reviews, later. But I am learning.   Third option, discard all the advice. What you or I did was just fine. Not everyone will be a fan, here or out in the big wide world.   In any case, I have found that best response in myself and others is to thank people for their review and the time they took to listen. Or more precisely, to even comment. Many is the time I posted a song and received one or two comments, usually good and be happy with that.   Other times, no comments at all. That is okay. Sometimes, "no news is good news." Nothing was so bad for someone to say, "please, for the sake of humanity, stop that."