Is Singing Something People Are Born With?

[KillerKu]

That's why I wrote "or as good as you want to be you" not grammatically correct but saying as good as you yourself and your own style can be.   The thing is though we all didn't get into singing because we wanted to sound like or become the singer we are.(some rock star flicked our switch and made us want to be singers) We had to have influences and strive to be as good as them . And try to sing countless hours in the bathroom or bedroom trying our hardest to get better. If you just strived to be you technically you have already succeeded. 

I have wanted to be a countless number of singers and guitar players in my life and that's what has made me a better musician. I have more tools to choose from. And we are talking about singing technique here. We are not talking about artistry and songwriting.  Singing will get easier for you if you put down any ego and ask questions and take lessons if it doesn't come from sticking your ear to a speaker and trying to sound like that artist. Which many great singers will tell you that's how they got better. 

 

Yes, technically Mariah Carey succeeded at being herself when she likely sang terribly at 3 years old. Sang slightly better at 4 and so on and became Mariah at a much later date. If you keep doing that you'll get better technically most likely as you'll change along with your voice.

If you always sing as yourself, that doesn't mean you don't improve or fail at improvement but it can keep people on track for whatever identity they are looking for. Copy other people too much, we can lose ourselves and what we were striving for in the first place. More tools to choose from isn't always the best either. Sometimes a limited palette can define an artist as unique. Do you really think Sinatra would be better with 5 octaves? The right limitations can sometimes be very good for keeping an artist on track.

Once someone can imitate 500 people, it is a lot harder to develop a cohesive identity. If you can sound like 500 people what do you sound like? It's too late for me to be an iconic singer with a very strong singular identity like many of my heroes, but the more skilled I get with voice the more I feel like it's constantly give and take. I gain flexibility, but at the same time, I definitely felt a stronger identity back in the day with less skill. I knew who I was and exactly what I was trying to express. 

Maybe it's just easier and more efficient to develop an identity naturally? Whether it be Joe Strummer, Freddie Mercury, Lou Reed, or Rob Halford. I think it might be  easier to become someone like that by singing as yourself your entire life and letting whatever develops develop. Rather than perfecting 500 different imitations, and trying to piece it all back together into something cohesive later. Maybe not everyone should be able to do everything and a world where everyone does everything results in a cluster of mishmashed junk? It's definitely a successful way to coordinate a voice, but I'm not sure if it's the best way to create an iconic vocal identity.

[KillerKu]

      I still say those "Natural" singers worked their butt off behind the scenes Just like everyone else. As you said your friend John Sang in church and loved Beatles and Motown. Singing those types of songs will definately give you a workout especially Motown.......Giving yourself the chance to screw up a little helps also. I am also over 50. My whole family sang.......... One big problem with that is that there is always someone better. My problem started with the one "Big" break for friends to hear me with a real band......... The song was not only out of my range but one that I did not know other than the Main chorus line. A big slap in the ego of a 10 year old boy. I still sang but kept to Country/Folk songs while I wanted to sing Aerosmith and Bad Company......... NOW I can sing Bad Company and sound Halfway decent ...... Aerosmith may take a little longer......... BUT had I known then that my biggest setback was BECAUSE of not being loud enough and confident enough......... I would have worked on those songs instead of sticking to country/Folk where I could sound good enough and not get my ego crushed some more.

    And it does not take Boring scales........... It takes making noises that are NOT your typical soulful, smooth vibrato laden sounds. ........ More like Going from One extreme to the other and NOT CARING what it sounds like because you are learning and building strength and listening to what coordination helps in what area of the voice and to control the sound to do what you want when you want to do it..

This is kind of my school of thought at the moment. Search for 'your sounds.' They will belong to you. It won't be X singers sounds. When they sound good, their yours, and when they suck they will still be your sounds. The sounds you discover that you identify with, that feel important to you, that feel expressive, keep those in mind as sounds you identify with.

The sounds you don't identify with you can toss out of the identity box, but you might keep awareness of the coordinations used in making those sounds, as they may come in handy later when expressing different identity sounds. All the while you will gain various coordinations, without the identity crisis of literally trying to clone someone else (or hundreds of people). The trick is:

1. If it hurts, goes hoarse, or strains. Toss it, rethink. Revert to stable voice asap. 

2. Always revert back to a 'your' stable voice after singing. Never stay permanently on any experimental coordination.

This is my current theory of how to personally train vocal coordination without as much of an identity crisis. Since these are your sounds, you are deciding personally with no other reference whether you believe in these sounds as an individual artist. You're deciding how expressive they sound to you, irrelevant of comparing to X singer or how efficiently you are cloning them.

Ideally, your sounds will be more cohesive to you than having 500 different imitations to piece together retrospectively into some kind of cohesive identity. The sounds that survive this process, will hopefully result in a unique vocal identity that works for you, that you believe in, gives you confidence. Whether other people believe in the same sounds too, maybe that's talent, or luck, or marketing, who knows?

[ronws]

As someone, Lien, in the same age bracket as you, I can offer some insight or perspective or at least hurt your feelings. 

First choice, go ahead and believe what you want to believe regardless of what others say, including those who specialize in voice more than you have or friend has. Maybe you are right, maybe not, you take your chances. Let us pretend for a moment that you are right, there are some people who sing amazing without lessons or any of the practices of these accomplished singers. So what? Who cares? Enjoy singing for yourself. But I know you will respond. It's internetitis. "Someone on the internet is wrong and I need to fix that with my fingers."

Second thing, you again mention your friend's voice "placement." Does he have a naturally higher voice? It doesn't really have much to do with anything.

Jens, in his video, speaks at a pitch lower on average than I do and he can admit that part of it his culture. But he can sing everything I can and some higher range even though I speak a little higher. Who cares? And is he the better singer? And, like Killer is saying, first you have to define better, though you have, already. But that definition can shift, from culture to culture.

3rd, your friend might indeed be a guy who doesn't "warm up" through any particular program but he is cooking by song number three? Well, then, he did warm, it just happened to be in songs. Has he been singing all of his life? I bet he made some bad notes when he was a child.

[MDEW]

      I would agree that some people have the ability to match pitch, Regulate vocal coordinations to give a pleasing sound. Then why all the opposition to this theory? Because there are many more people who Would have that ability if not stifled in some way. Even the very thought that SOME people are born with a natural ability can keep others from even trying to sing.

And that fact that a lot of people that are given as examples Worked their but off....... And they are being done a disservice by saying they came about it "Naturally". Maybe the love of singing was the catalyst for their starting at an early age when they were first learning everything. Singing while laughing or crying or being happy or sad will bring you more different sounds and make more differences than you realise. Maybe they paid more attention to the changes in their voice while on the playground. You can learn a lot about your voice if you pay attention to what happens when you are very emotional. Happy, sad, angry, frightened, surprised, The things that happen naturally are the things you use to control your voice to bring about not only the sound of voice that you want but also to affect the emotion that you wish to project. Maybe the Natural ability that they have was to discern which of these sounds would help when singing.

[MDEW]

      I do agree that there are physical attributes that can be helpful or harmfull........... I know some people who absolutely cannot curl their tongue(lift the sides of their tongue to form a tube) or cannot make their tong Fat and round............ The tongue sits absolutely flat in their mouth. They can lift it up and down but cannot control it lateraly. It seems that this would be an advantage because keeping the togue out of the way and flat is one of the things we are taught when looking for "Singing" tips. Then again by being able to change the size of the tongue and the thickness of it can give you more colors and sounds to choose from.

   You may also have a natural coordination for the Blues or Rock and be trying to sing gospell, Opera or Musical theater............In that case you are going to think your voice sucks and you cannot sing because the sound is not what you want and the coordination is different................Greg Allman Rocks and can sing his but off but if he was trying to sing Queensryche he would suck rocks.................and it is not that he could not do it with the proper amount of Recoordinating .......... But it would take time and training just like the rest of us.

     Even for natural singers they are singing the way their voice works...........Some of us have to find what works and what style fits best and when we find it present that instead of trying to sound a way that fits with someone else..

[Felipe Carvalho]

Lien, how did you learn to speak?

Please describe me the technique you use when you are talking with people. How did you learn to walk? How did you learn to eat with knife and fork?

Perhaps that's kinda of what you were asking Toby all this time... A traditional japanese person may think you use the knife and fork *naturally*, while you may think they have a natural thing going on with the hashi perhaps.

There are people that have more affinity with the craft of course, but to state its physiological does not make much sense in the light of what is currently known. And coordination can be trained.

[Danielformica]

Yes, technically Mariah Carey succeeded at being herself when she likely sang terribly at 3 years old. Sang slightly better at 4 and so on and became Mariah at a much later date. If you keep doing that you'll get better technically most likely as you'll change along with your voice.

If you always sing as yourself, that doesn't mean you don't improve or fail at improvement but it can keep people on track for whatever identity they are looking for. Copy other people too much, we can lose ourselves and what we were striving for in the first place. More tools to choose from isn't always the best either. Sometimes a limited palette can define an artist as unique. Do you really think Sinatra would be better with 5 octaves? The right limitations can sometimes be very good for keeping an artist on track.

Once someone can imitate 500 people, it is a lot harder to develop a cohesive identity. If you can sound like 500 people what do you sound like? It's too late for me to be an iconic singer with a very strong singular identity like many of my heroes, but the more skilled I get with voice the more I feel like it's constantly give and take. I gain flexibility, but at the same time, I definitely felt a stronger identity back in the day with less skill. I knew who I was and exactly what I was trying to express. 

Maybe it's just easier and more efficient to develop an identity naturally? Whether it be Joe Strummer, Freddie Mercury, Lou Reed, or Rob Halford. I think it might be  easier to become someone like that by singing as yourself your entire life and letting whatever develops develop. Rather than perfecting 500 different imitations, and trying to piece it all back together into something cohesive later. Maybe not everyone should be able to do everything and a world where everyone does everything results in a cluster of mishmashed junk? It's definitely a successful way to coordinate a voice, but I'm not sure if it's the best way to create an iconic vocal identity.

what I'm saying is you don't just create a style out of thin air everything comes from an influence. Frank Sinatra would not have been frank Sinatra without Bing Crosby.  Bon jovi wouldn't have been been Bon jovi without Bruce Springsteen, Steve perry wouldn't have been Steve perry without Sam Cooke. When these people were young they heard these singers and said " hey I connect with that maybe I could do it" and then they practiced trying to sound like that person. Why do little kids say " I wanna be like Michael Jordan" because they see greatness and strive to be great as well as their idol.  you don't just wake up never hearing anyone sing and say I want to make melody with my speech. If you did you invented the stuff;) all the great singers I have met said they would sit in their rooms pretending to be their favorite rock star or opera star or Broadway star etc. the not so great singers have always said to me " I got my own style I don t wanna sound like anyone"  you can still be a great songwriter and have technically great voice or a voice that masses agree is special.  Technique aside  I saw Seal 2 feet in front of me (not a huge fan)and the moment he opened his mouth I knew why he made millions. I called him the million dollar throat. It was undeniably great and cool sounding. No effects just right there and I knew I did not have a voice like this.;)

[Danielformica]

Felipe, I agree, it can be trained.  That is not my point.  It seems to me and I have purposely watched this for years with people I meet, how is their voice functioning.  It makes no difference what country you are from for the most part.  When some people speak they have a natural connection with the diaphragm and the larynx.  I don't know why that is other than physiological and early environment.   I do believe it can be trained in people who don't have it but it is an advantage if you talk in a way that is conducive to good vocal technique; and for some people it just happens to develop that way naturally.  

I believe and have dealt with this as well. Good observation something I speak about constantly 

[Jens]

I have heard Robert talk about the "call register".  Our natural bodily response to danger.  If evolution gives some people superior leg strength, length, etc it works for them naturally.  If nature's gives a person a more evolved brain- faster processing speed, etc superior eye sight, smell, etc. It will give the person who possess  it a certain advantage.  Then why would the voice be any different?  If it is all about survival/procreation evolution favors those with superior physiological advantages, then why would the voice be exempt? I argue it would not be.  A superior vocal production ie volume, range, endurance, etc could all better serve the survival of a person and his tribe.  His voice could  carry much further during times of danger when others need to be warned.  It could be used in hunting, mating rituals, etc. Most great singers today are found to be very attractive and desirable because of the attractiveness of their voices. Evolution affects everything including the voice. Can a voice be trained? Sure.  However, there still remains the physical components that are different for all of us, even if these difference are small.  Size of larynx, length and muscular potential of vocal folds, etc. 

the problem is our voices are extremly similar, and work the same way. I would never state anything about a physiological advantage. You cant look down in a throat and spot who's a great singer and who is not.

more likely is the advantage these natural singers have, in the brain, and not in their throats.

[MDEW]

  Lien, Yes some people naturally use their voices in a more efficient mannor.........and some of us through whatever mental barrier or choice use the voice less efficient Purposely for speaking and therefore need to reconnect for singing.......... My own story is an example ................grew up in a big family and many of them sang......... but at the same time being many of them if you were speaking to one only, everyone would hear it and use it to either their advantage or to hurt you for some reason.........For myself I started speaking so ONLY the person I was speaking to would hear it. I pretty much disconnected from the diaphagm and resonant amplification...... on Purpose............... Other members of my family took the other approach.......... They would make full use of the diaphagm and resonance BECAUSE they wanted to be the loudest in the room. The physical ability is there.......... Some of us need to retrain how the voice would naturally work if we did not misuse it.

   I grew up listening to Eagles, Molly hatchet, Blackfoot, Doobie Brothers.........(I may make some enemies here ).......Deep Purple, Queensryche, Dio, and Black Sabbath was noise to me ...........(Not so much now).................. Had I listed to them singing while I was younger I would have a totally different approach to singing and maybe I would have had an easier time with the Passaggio....................The sounds are totally different and it takes different coordinations to get there.

    With Queensryche you can really hear the thinning out of the vocal folds and there is a tight, focussed sound, Molly Hatchet and Blackfoot use an open and wide sound.............You may have a natural affinity to one or the other and not even know it..........while fighting for the expected sound of the other genre.

[KillerKu]

what I'm saying is you don't just create a style out of thin air everything comes from an influence. Frank Sinatra would not have been frank Sinatra without Bing Crosby.  Bon jovi wouldn't have been been Bon jovi without Bruce Springsteen, Steve perry wouldn't have been Steve perry without Sam Cooke. When these people were young they heard these singers and said " hey I connect with that maybe I could do it" and then they practiced trying to sound like that person. Why do little kids say " I wanna be like Michael Jordan" because they see greatness and strive to be great as well as their idol.  you don't just wake up never hearing anyone sing and say I want to make melody with my speech. If you did you invented the stuff;) all the great singers I have met said they would sit in their rooms pretending to be their favorite rock star or opera star or Broadway star etc. the not so great singers have always said to me " I got my own style I don t wanna sound like anyone"  you can still be a great songwriter and have technically great voice or a voice that masses agree is special.  Technique aside  I saw Seal 2 feet in front of me (not a huge fan)and the moment he opened his mouth I knew why he made millions. I called him the million dollar throat. It was undeniably great and cool sounding. No effects just right there and I knew I did not have a voice like this.;)

I never aspired to be Michael Jordan because I thought putting a ball into a hoop endlessly was creative and a waste of time. The idea in general of taking a ball, and moving it in circles over and over again seemed incredibly meaningless and robotic. I disliked running circles in track, for the same reasons. There was no destination. 

I recall reading that Frank made an intentional decision not to clone Bing and differentiated himself out of respect for Bing's art and himself. His vocal style is quite different, with a harsher, louder, and more abrasive quality and intricate timing. Bing is lilting and softer.

There's a difference between being inspired to sing by someone and trying to become the other singer. Who was Bruce Springsteen impersonating? Who was Sam Cooke impersonating? Most of these singers do not to my ears sound alike. I could mimic them more successfully if that was the intended goal.

When you say the not so great singers strive to sound like themselves that involves tastes. I'd listen to Bruce Springsteen over Bon Jovi 99/100 times. Who was Joe Strummer, Lou Reed, and John Lennon copying? These are probably among my favorite covers:

 

All of these artists were better at interpreting songs than I am as cover artists. And it has absolutely nothing to do with sounding like the original. The more different, ultimately the better at creating something of unique value. Talent isn't being able to sing a Ronettes song like Ronnie Spector, a Maytals song like  Toots Hibbert, or a Drifters song like Ben E King, it's being able to interpret or write a song, sound exactly like yourself, and 'connect.' All of these vocal artists were great at that. Vocal technicians often miss the mark (including myself) as it is just too easy to imitate. Why would people want a cheap knock off of another artist's work? Why would you want a traced drawing? Even if they polish a few lines here and there. Why not something original? Mimicry is like tracing the original sound painting the original artist made. At some point, you've gotta free hand your own paintings unless you want to trace people's work for the rest of your life.

[Danielformica]

All of the artists you speak of had mentors and idols. Springsteen like gospel preachers Sam like other gospel singers and heard another gospel singer do the famous ohwo that Sam does he then made it his own. I don't want to Michael Jordan either I wanted to be a singer but I don't think I invented it and I don't hide behind the excuse of " I don't wAnt to sound like a or anyone" and for some it is an excuse other not so much. Frank wanted to be bing no doubt then he just shaped it his own. But he was already mimicking bing. Is mimicking easy . I think not or we could all sing like whoever we wanted however learn technique don't just talk about it and you could get closer to mimicking if you chose or just have more tools range distortion rasp colors to work with. 

 

Ps john Lennon said many times he tried to mimic soul singers. When Lenny kravitz  covered one of johns tunes yoko said john always wanted to sing it like that

[KillerKu]

Trying to create a sound and failing is one of the best things that can happen. Lennon tried lots of sounds, but he failed at so many, in the end, he sounded like John Lennon and unmistakably so. That's the point.

If someone grabbed Lennon as a child and taught him the technique to sing like Lenny Kravitz, what good would that have done his artistry? We'd probably have another Kravitz clone and lose one of the most iconic voices in music. Failures define people just as much as successes. Not everyone should be able to sing everything. He found 'his sounds' and used the ones he could believe in most. Other people could share the belief and an identity was born.

[Danielformica]

Correct fail because you try and keep trying is the only way to grow but some hide behind an excuse of "I want to sound original" we all do have an original voice it's like a fingerprint it  can't go away all you can do is enhance it and make it better to your liking not anybody else's. So by using scales by practicing singing to other artists by trying to make sounds that other artist make like James Brown screams Chris Cornell growls is all beneficial does not hinder you it only makes you better. Then you write your own song or re-create a song that's been done and it becomes your own

[Danielformica]

I forget who the author is but I was Reading a book about mastery and a book writing author spoke about how he would take the greatest novels ever written and rewrite them by hand from top to bottom so he could learn a style of writing not that he was going to write like that but he wanted to learn what was making these writers so special.   He did this many times and then was writing his own books and became a great writer himself.  

[Jens]

jens, u and I both have hands.  However, if you got down to the details of our hands and fingers there would most likely be many difference because of our DNA.  U may have fingers that could play piano some what better than myself and do stretches I could never do. I may be better suited for drums or some other pursuit. I could do what u do to a certain point but u would have an advantage.  The vocal system is no different.  Just a small difference can make all the difference in the world.  That is what my makes life so interesting and diverse.  And I agree with ur statement that the brain plays a large part, too.  Some brains are more evolved than others and I have stressed this point,  too.  

Well the problem is or folds are so small, it's not comparable to hands. our voicebox primary function is not even making sounds, it's guarding the windpipe from food. Singing however is way way way down the line of what our voicebox was intended to do. Singing is manmade and not by nature intended.

Sure there will be diffrences im not denying that, but the impact those have are extremly small if any.  Most stuff that make impact and to a large degree is: 

1. Skill

2.ammount of training

3. Language, dialect speech habits

4. Enviroment

5. Who you mimiced as a child(Our entire speech is mimiced)

6.  Personality

 

All these make way way more impact on your voice then what two pairs of folds you was born with does.

[Danielformica]

 "They often use the excuse of being themselves to get away with being lazy." BINGO....NOT ALL BUT SOME 

[KillerKu]

Correct fail because you try and keep trying is the only way to grow but some hide behind an excuse of "I want to sound original" we all do have an original voice it's like a fingerprint it  can't go away all you can do is enhance it and make it better to your liking not anybody else's. So by using scales by practicing singing to other artists by trying to make sounds that other artist make like James Brown screams Chris Cornell growls is all beneficial does not hinder you it only makes you better. Then you write your own song or re-create a song that's been done and it becomes your own

I don't listen to James Brown or Chris Cornell. Should I listen to Pavarotti too so I can sing classical? I disagree that a unique voice print alone is enough to make out. I'd venture voice print is maybe 20 percent and the style is 80 percent of what people identify in a singer. I would only be able to identify this singer if he stuck to a particular style. If I heard each style on the radio, I'd assume a different band/singer where as with someone like Lennon who is incapable of doing this, it's pretty easy to pick up.

[Danielformica]

I don't listen to James Brown or Chris Cornell. Should I listen to Pavarotti too so I can sing classical? I disagree that a unique voice print alone is enough to make out. I'd venture voice print is maybe 20 percent and the style is 80 percent of what people identify in a singer. I would only be able to identify this singer if he stuck to a particular style. If I heard each style on the radio, I'd assume a different band/singer where as with someone like Lennon who is incapable of doing this, it's pretty easy to pick up.

i have no idea what your are getting at in your last post? if you want to sing classical you are going to have to listen to someone(pav, corelli ,schipa) that sings classical how else are you going to be able to interpret the style of classical. lennon was capable of a lot more than your giving him.

[KillerKu]

i have no idea what your are getting at in your last post? if you want to sing classical you are going to have to listen to someone(pav, corelli ,schipa) that sings classical how else are you going to be able to interpret the style of classical. lennon was capable of a lot more than your giving him.

You're saying the more things you can do, the better you get period. If Lennon could sing like Pavarotti and Dio and Lenny Kravitz would he be better artist?

I'm saying sometimes I believe the less things you can do, the better you are as a cohesive vocal artist. Successfully imitating every sound that ever existed, does not result in cohesion or identifiable sounds.

Of the singers on this forum, the most identifiable to me in a blind test: are Ronws, Rob, MDEW, and Bzean (you've probably never heard him). Do they have the most mainstream palatable voices when covering 'X' artist? Probably not. But I don't think it's a coincidence that they were less successful or maybe less interested in imitating other artists.

If they were highly successful Michael Jackson/Dio/Steve Perry impersonators, I'm not convinced their voices would survive that kind of blind test. If people were to give me a random list of 100 cover songs, I could actually pick out their voices. Some of the other singers here are good enough at sounding like the original artist and can sing in like 100 different styles, that the distinct quality, might be lost on me. 

They aren't the most skilled at impersonation and singing multiple styles, but that's part of why it's so identifiable. There's value in that. Maybe it's not that valuable in a Michael Jackson impersonation band. But as individual vocal artists, it's valuable.

[Danielformica]

'You're saying the more things you can do, the better you get period. If Lennon could sing like Pavarotti and Dio and Lenny Kravitz would he be better artist?" maybe he would definitely have more choices if he chose to.

"They aren't the most skilled at impersonation and singing multiple styles, but that's part of why it's so identifiable. There's value in that. Maybe it's not that valuable in a Michael Jackson impersonation band. But as individual vocal artists, it's valuable."

 

nobody is saying be an impersonator only you are saying this. i am saying learn from others so you can grow as an artist. but some people have HUGE egos and cannot do this. and will simply hide behind their weaknesses and use them as an excuse. instead of trying to dig their way out and get help from others and from learning from others whether it is a teacher or an album

[KillerKu]

'You're saying the more things you can do, the better you get period. If Lennon could sing like Pavarotti and Dio and Lenny Kravitz would he be better artist?" maybe he would definitely have more choices if he chose to.

"They aren't the most skilled at impersonation and singing multiple styles, but that's part of why it's so identifiable. There's value in that. Maybe it's not that valuable in a Michael Jackson impersonation band. But as individual vocal artists, it's valuable."

 

nobody is saying be an impersonator only you are saying this. i am saying learn from others so you can grow as an artist. but some people have HUGE egos and cannot do this. and will simply hide behind their weaknesses and use them as an excuse. instead of trying to dig their way out and get help from others and from learning from others whether it is a teacher or an album

I have learned from all of my inspirations in one way or another. Sinatra's phrasing, Freddie's femininity and tenderness (lighter phonation helps). Ruffin's anguish (can hear him almost crying), Lennon's bluntness (straight tone sounds biting). Toots Hibbert's joy, (you can actually hear the smile). Strummer's immediate barking.

Sometimes a similar sound can express a similar thing, but exactly the same sound is not necessary at all and if you get close enough, possibly detrimental to being heard as unique. You can take the sentiment of someone else and make a totally different sound.  

I've never met someone with an ego on the level you're describing that refuses to learn from anyone or anything. I just don't want to be tracing drawings or singers technique (timbre, melody, phrasing, pitching) too precisely. It's not expressive to me. It can be useful to train coordination to trace drawings or singers, but ultimately I want to do things that are more meaningful. If the lines are a little sloppier or cleaner or totally different in a drawing or a vocal line, all that matters in the end is it was my own and I believed in it.

I'd never believe in a tracing other artist's work as more artistically valuable than painting my own image, so I'd like to stop imitating/tracing and grow.

[Jens]

Jens,how about this.  Each individual DNA strand is unique.   So different that u can b identified from any other human but also similar to other humans.   It is very small,much smaller than ur vocal folds but it creates human beings of which none of us are the same.  Those small differences can make one person susceptible to cancer while totally eliminating another.  Small differences can make big difference in most anything.  We can all train and become better.  However,we all have certain limitations.  Those limitation are based in large part on our physiology.   Reach for the stars and push the limits but be realistic.

It's rather naive to think that youll ever get to the skill level where you will visit your physical limitations in regards to singing. For you to be as good as your singing friend? Thats not happening because.

1.  You have not trained your voice in a way that allows it to be

2. You have not dedicated enough time

3. The knowledge you have on how and what to train in your voice is not as strong as it needs to be

4. You probably dont have the mindset that allows your voice to get there

Then if you wanna blame DNA or bad genes, special snowflake and all that jazz sure go ahead  

 

[Danielformica]

 Exact sound is for impersonators and maybe an impersonator wants to be a great impersonators and  that is truly who they are rich little is an artist. However learning  is how we grow  putting down our egos And learning from others and experimenting is how we become a better artist

[KillerKu]

 Exact sound is for impersonators and maybe an impersonator wants to be a great impersonators and  that is truly who they are rich little is an artist. However learning  is how we grow  putting down our egos And learning from others and experimenting is how we become a better artist

To clarify I have no issue with impersonators, but don't listen to them and don't find it meaningful.

It depends on what you learn. Knowledge changes people. Even if they make a choice to discount knowledge, there is still that choice being made that would never be there and always the option to use the knowledge.

And how much art improves with socialized education depends on how you feel about this subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

I'm fond of ignorantly passionate art just as much as cultured art. I think it's a difference not a superiority issue. A lot of singers I identify with sang at least partly from that spectrum with less civilized instruction.