PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic ethical considerations

Obviously if you can make your own tracks and your singing with a trained voice you are a musician...The Karaoke guy is someone who can only perform with the discs...I know a couple of them ,they try to get up and sing w/a band and they simply cant do it. They cant stay in time without the words on the screen also they are continually waiting for all of the cues from the record in order to start their phrases they are unable to listen and make music with other people....I consider myself a musician and I do perform w/backing tracks just like you....either of us could go to a karaoke night for fun if we wanted to but we are musicians who know how to create music vocally and also with an instrument we can use backing tracks that someone else created if we want to , we can make our own if we want to, we can also make music with other musicians...I'm sure you know as well as I do that a lot of time and effort goes into being a musician. So just buying a machine that plays karaoke discs or showing up where there is one is not the same as actually being a musician who uses backing tracks. So clarify Mike you and I are not a karaoke guys. But they do exist and I like to see a real musician like yourself perform when I go out to hear live music...I actually enjoy listening to someone do a single with backing tracks, especially those created by the performer....Ive been to karaoke nights before and most of the time I feel like I'm watching learn how to sing while intoxicated. I hope you don't think I'm calling you a karaoke guy:)

Wow! Did we get away from “ethical considerations” or what? That never happens here!

I’ve been watching this thread, but haven’t felt compelled to comment thus far, ……………. (you’re welcome. LOL).

When the subject of “karaoke” came up, I essentially just scanned the comments. Then I noticed that “karaoke” seemed to be a sore spot for Mike when he said:

Quote:

---

Define karaoke guy

---

So my initial thought was a group of Japanese businessmen having a fun night out, or a redneck/average guy trying to belt out his best impersonation of Elvis, Merle Haggard or Bob Seger on a dare from his buddies.

After a couple of more comments, I decided to look up karaoke on Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

The concept of creating studio recordings that lack the lead vocal has been around for probably nearly as long as recording itself. Many artists, amateur and professional, perform in situations where a full band/orchestra is either logistically or financially impractical, so they use a "karaoke" recording; however, they are actually the original artists.

---

So if we take this definition on face value, if you sing to a backing track and don’t play an instrument, then it’s “karaoke”. I’ll have to admit that if I walk in somewhere and see someone singing to a backing track and they aren't playing an instrument, then I don’t think of them as “musicians”.

Now if this same person was singing and playing an instrument, then I would take time to stop and take notice of what they were doing. If they also mentioned they were playing some of the backing tracks, and/or they’d written the song, then I’d be trying to get a closer seat.

Being a singer doesn’t make you a musician, it makes you a singer. That’s not a bad thing! But don’t expect musicians to think of you as a musician unless you sing AND play while performing.

Also, being able to program backing tracks also doesn’t make you a musician.

Being able to sing is primarily an “accident” of birth, although voice lessons can improve on any level of vocal competence.

Being able to play an instrument is primarily hard work, desire to play, and lessons from anywhere you can get them. In other words, you “earn” this ability. Very few are “accidents” of birth.

That’s why there is a distinction.

So if you’re a good singer, …………be thankful. If you’re a good musician, ……… be glad you worked for it.

If you can do both, ……… do it. You’ll be recognized as a singer and musician.

But if you only do one, don’t get pissed when you aren’t recognized as the other.

G'day Bob,
to continue somewhat off topic... I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

A singer is still a musician (and no, I don't sing myself*). It's just that their instrument happens to be their voice instead of a guitar, or (as in my case) a trombone, or a piano etc.. The voice even has strings (vocal chords), a resonance chamber (chest and oral cavity), a "bow" (the breath), so one could even argue (very loosely) that it belongs to the string family

A good singer will put at least as much effort into perfecting their instrument as any other good musician, just as a poor singer will put in as little effort as they can get away with, just like any other poor musician (instrumentalist(?)).

Some will have more native talent, some will have less, again, just like any other musician, but please don't think of singers as not being musicians.

In my work with the singers at church and in the musical societies I play for I have the great privilege of working and being associated with some extremely good musicians. They all work very hard to make their performance the best they can with out differentiation to what instrument they play, be it artificial or natural.

*Actually I do sing a pretty good tenor solo:
Ten or twelve miles away, so low you can't hear me

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

A singer is still a musician (and no, I don't sing myself*). It's just that their instrument happens to be their voice instead of a guitar, or (as in my case) a trombone, or a piano etc.. The voice even has strings (vocal chords), a resonance chamber (chest and oral cavity), a "bow" (the breath), so one could even argue (very loosely) that it belongs to the string family

---

As you always do, you've made some very good points. When i was trying to make a distinction between singers and musicians, it wasn't for the purpose of putting "singers" on a level below musicians.

Allow me to explain. I've often played for people before and when I was finished, they may say something along the lines of "I wish I had that GIFT!"

While this sounds like a compliment, it makes me want to say "GIFT MY ASS!". Why? Because it wasn't a gift. It was something I've spent thousands of hours working to achieve, with callouses, sore fingers and sleepless nights to prove it.

When it comes to singing, ........... you can never be a GREAT singer unless you were born with that ability! I'm a mediocre singer, ...... and I have to practice to be that good! If I worked the rest of my life for every waking moment, ....... I'd never be a great singer. I'd still be mediocre.

If I put the same amount of time into playing guitar, I would be a great guitarist. How do I know? Because I've approached it before. I never reached it, but I approached it. All it would have taken was more time and effort.

Jackie Evancho is a great singer. She hasn't had time to "work for it". She was born with it.

While both singing and playing an instrument are all part of music, ......... they are two distinctly different things.

One is a singer. The other is a musician. Both are essential, but their roles are different. We could go into all of the other people who make music possible, but that doesn't mean they're musicians.

If you don't play an instrument, then you aren't a musician! You may be a songwriter, composer or singer, but that doesn't make you a musician. You have to "earn" that distinction!

I would think all of the great singers out there would agree. They are the singers. Those of us who play are the musicians!

(Putting on flame retardant suit now!)

G'day Bob,
no flame retardants needed mate

With respect, I think you do yourself a disservice. I know people who have worked their backsides off to learn to play well and have never succeeded. They simply don't have the native talent. They have nothing more than a wish to build on.

I know musicians who have worked hard and know their theory inside out, yet can barely play two notes one after the other. I know musicians who have serious trouble with rhythm - they just ain't got it. I know one guy who can read fly spots, but can't play swing to save his life unless it's written out as crotchet/quaver triplets or written in 12/8...

You have reached the level you have by working hard to maximise your native talent. Without the work, you could not achieve your potential. Without the talent, you have no potential to achieve.

Quote:

---

If you don't play an instrument, then you aren't a musician! You may be a songwriter, composer or singer, but that doesn't make you a musician. You have to "earn" that distinction!

---

If you change "musician" to "instrumentalist" then I agree.

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

If you change "musician" to "instrumentalist" then I agree.

---

Once again, great points.

But if you aren't an instrumentalist, how can you be a musician?

Quote:

---

But if you aren't an instrumentalist, how can you be a musician?

---

Be a singer...

I invested about 8,000 dollars in my daughter's voice. She started piano and dropped it. She couldn't sing but had an instructor with a Master's Degree in Music as a vocal coach. There were scales, exercises, breathing lessons, warm ups, tips for singing with a cold, sight reading, and tons of other stuff included. And this is at a very low level, you can go to any great music school and pay 50k a year for voice lessons.

So I TOTALLY disagree you have to be born with it. Anyone, given 2 hours a day work, a good teacher, and proper preparation, work ethic, and support can learn the instrument called voice just like they can learn the clarinet.

Our local university has a Dr. of music (and she's a good friend.wings and beverages once a week) who has written a book on singing for seniors, and runs such a program for seniors.

A voice is an instrument. Mines damaged. (Radiation burns) And I'm still trying. Very trying.

Just ask the wife.

My daughter went from a very poor singer to a passable one. At the present she's too much into other things, like trying to figure out how to leave home at 20 and still travel the world with her friends.

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

With respect, I think you do yourself a disservice. I know people who have worked their backsides off to learn to play well and have never succeeded. They simply don't have the native talent. They have nothing more than a wish to build on.

---

I'm not saying everyone can play or sing, because it isn't true.

But I've seen TONS of people who could learn to play if they were willing to put the time and effort into it. But they're not willing. They think it should just come "naturally"!

The only people I've seen who are capable of of being "good" or "great" singers were people who had that talent without any coaching or teaching. They can still sing better than most of us, ............. and they don't even have a clue what key they're singing in! But they can do it.

That is a "gift".

You're right about being able to reach certain levels of "mastering" an instrument being a "gift" or "talent".

It's just something that comes at a much higher price than being able to sing well.

For me, that means it should be seperated on a musical plane.

An analogy would be like telling someone to go into the next room and "pick up" a diamond. (That's the singer).

Then you tell the other person to walk a thousand miles and pick up one just like it! (That's the musician, or instrumentalist, if you will.)

It's just not the same thing.

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

Be a singer...

---

HEHE. But you still wouldn't be musician! LOL.

Lawrie,

I can relate. A guy I used to play with was blind. He was also a multi instrumentalist.

I'd just just began experimenting with jazz diatonic progressions. He played primarily bluegrass. So did I.

I told him to just play lead over the chords I was going to play on his mandolin. I didn't know what I was going to play, and neither did he!

I launched into a heavily syncopated diatonic progression with 2-3 chord changes per bar.

We played for about 5 mins and he "tore it up" and everything sounded perfect!

After we finished, he said "That was cool! What key was it in?"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If he hadn't been blind, ................ I'd have kicked his ass!!!!! ........ LOL.

He just knew what sounded right! And he played it off the cuff.

Richard,

Quote:

---

It's just something that comes at a much higher price than being able to sing well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



?????

Tell that to an opera singer who has turned him- or herself into an instrument and see what they think.

---

I would, ....... but I can't stand stand to be in the same room as an opera singer!

Especially if they're singing!

Richard,

To quote John Conley in reference to me, I have an:

Quote:

---

ethnocentric POV

---

I must agree.

Quote:

---

Tell that to an opera singer.

---

The key word is "singer". They aren't musicians. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

I've been reading back and thinking a bit about both Bob and Richard's comments.

The thought occurred to me that what we've been talking about could be related to instrument quality.

For the sake of my point you need to consider the voice as an instrument:

Any musically talented person should be able to learn an instrument. The harder they work the better they will get at their chosen instrument, but a time will come when the limitations of the instrument will limit further improvement.

Thus you get "student", "intermediate" and "professional" grade instruments. If I may digress into the brass world for a while as what expertise I have is grounded here:

Student grade instruments are usually built to wider tolerances in order to reduce cost. They are often heavier guage brass to help them take knocks a bit better and there is less choice in options. They come with a "standard" mouthpiece and usually include a fairly robust case.

Professional grade instruments are built to much closer tolerances (price is usually much less of an object when compared to performance). The guage of the brass is often lighter, though not always - this depends on the sound you are seeking. You will have options in alloy's available (Nickel silver, yellow, gold or red brass - raw, lacquered or silver plate etc.). They won't come with a mouthpiece as you are expected to already have a preferred one. They often don't come with a case as many pro's prefer to use a gig bag (I don't, but then I don't make a living at it either).

Intermediates or "step up" horns fall somewhere in between these.

What this means is that once you reach the limits of your instrument, you have the option to (try to) purchase a better one. Sadly singers don't have this option - if their voice is ordinary, then that's what they have.

However, training and practice - work - allows one to maximise one's results. Put a poor trombone player on my nice new custom Rath and they'll still sound just as bad. Put a good trombone player on a student horn and thay'll make it sound great. But it still won't be as good as when they're on their pro. horn (though they can surprise you sometimes...). I have several 'bones of various kinds and quality. The latest (Rath R10F) is by far the easiest to play. Now, I get "my" sound no matter which horn I'm using, though on my Besson (which is closest in bore and bell specification to my Rath) I have to work much harder to get a similar result to the Rath. The Rath is easier to play... I'm sure you find a similar phenomenon with your guitars. Body shape and stiffness, pickups, angle of the neck, string selection, the action &etc.. The better the quality, the easier it is to play.

The same applies for singers. A well trained singer with a poor voice can sound pretty good, a poorly or untrained singer with a good or great voice will potentially sound pretty good too, but to actually be good or great they will still need training and practice. They just get to start with the "pro grade horn" instead of the "student model"... In other words, "It's easier to play"...

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

For the sake of my point you need to consider the voice as an instrument.

---

That’s where we’re parting.

Bird’s can sing a beautiful song, … but they’re not playing an instrument. They’re singing, … and a beautiful song it is. I’d hate to see the day that the birds didn’t sing.

None of us would label the birds as “musicians”. If we had to label them, it would be as “singers”. That wouldn’t mean they are a lower form of life.

It would mean they’re adding a form of beauty to our lives that we can’t replace or replicate. … Just as singers do.

And on the opposite side, … Just as musicians do.

They’re two opposite sides of what will eventually be combined into one. ……

Music!

(Wait a minute! This sounds like a lot of New Age BS to me! Did I actually write this sh*t? LOL. If you can play an instrument, … then you’re a musician! If you can sing, … you’re a singer! If you can do both, … then you’re damn lucky!)


Okay. I'm out of the New Age daze now!!!!!

G'day Bob,
hmmm. Is a drummer a musician? (I regularly tease my son about giving up music to play the drums )

What about other percussion? Is a percussionist still a musician if (s)he decides to experiment with other objects to hit?

I would say: "Of course they are.".

OK, what about a didgeridoo? Strictly speaking a didge. is a brass instrument (played by buzzing ones lips in a mouthpiece) but you also sing into a didge. As well as glottal stops and other vocal techniques... Is this singing or playing?

What if I use a megaphone? Like a didge. it will amplify my voice - am I still singing or am I now playing an instrument?

I guess we have a somewhat different perspective. I'm a brass player. We brass players are intimately connected to our instruments using all the vocal apparatus of our bodies (including the vocal chords for some effects) in a way that no other instrument is. We-ell OK, other wind instruments do come pretty close...

OTOH you are a string player. No part of your vocal apparatus is involved in playing your instrument. (unless, like me, you need to "hold your mouth right" when you're concentrating )

I guess point of view is really important.

Well if you have a real look on a big screen TV at your vocal chords you'd get that the voice is an instrument.

I've had that 'opportunity' 4 times in the last year.

Bob, you dragged up what I consider to be the thaw in your argument on voice.(Ethnocentric - where music is concerned in this case.)

Were you part of a faculty of music I'd suggest your POV would be 180 degrees the other way.

I think the voice is far more complex than most instruments.

But I'd defer to Matt here, he's the only person I know who taught music in a 'liberal arts' environment, who frequents the environs.

Lawrie,

Quote:

---

I guess point of view is really important.

---

You're right. It is.

Take care and Happy New Year!