Be forewarned, this is one of those posts where I go all Aristotelian and insist on quality in art. If you are offended by the notion that aesthetics has objective standards, this may not be for you, though somehow I envision most of the people who read this blog agreeing with me on this one.
I would like to begin this post by confessing one of my prejudices to you all: I am an unflinching "voicist"; that is to say, the sound of somebody's voice tends to predispose me to be either more or less receptive to what they have to say. I know, I know, that's how Hitler rose to power. Sorry, can't help it.
In regular life this is just a quirk and in the end doesn't really hold a large sway over my opinion of people. When you enter the realm of music, however, everything changes. Suddenly my distaste for certain voices is, I believe, perfectly validated. A quick illustration: some of my friends are into a band called Opeth, which for simplicity's sake I will label death metal (Alex, I'm sure you could point out the exact category, but that wouldn't mean much to most of my readers). Repeatedly they have insisted I listen and find quality in the music. To be honest, they really aren't that bad a group musically; in fact they strike me as quite talented. The one thing that keeps me from praising them is that the predominant style of singing is harsh, grating growling. The usual defense my friends use is "Just ignore the singing; it's really good." I think this example sets up the problem fairly well. We have ceased to view the human voice as an instrument, and see it merely as a messenger for lyrics and superfluous to the actual work of music.
Bzzt, wrong! The human voice is in fact the most basic yet significant instrument we possess. It surpasses even the cello in its lyricism and beauty. Or, at least, the best voices do. Therein lies the problem. Beautiful voices elevate us to sublime heights, but I firmly believe that everyone in Hell will speak in a New Jersey accent. It isn't as if someone can trade in their voice and get a bona fide Stradivarius model. For the most part, we are stuck with the voices God has given us. Some people therefore suggest that singers aren't to be blamed for their poor voices. No, I suppose not, but that doesn't mean they are cleared to belt in front of crowds. We wouldn't condemn a man for wearing glasses, but neither would we encourage him to become an astronaut. Surely these people are talented at something (certainly it isn't singing); let them go become sanitation engineers or middle management. [N.B. This is tangential, but I'd like to put it in anyway. Don't you find all that talk about "following your dreams" slightly ridiculous when applied to people who clearly have no talent in an area? This is the triumph of individualism over excellence.]
Of course, some troublesome people will say "How do we determine which voices are beautiful and which aren't?" For just a minute, I would like to soften a bit and admit that there is a certain range of acceptability in voices. For example, I like Randy Newman's voice, which many people find irritating. However, in my defense this stems both from a more intimate knowledge of his voice (i.e. it grows on you) and also the perfect pairing of his voice with his cynical, imperfect style. So don't think I am going around insisting that every singer be Kathleen Battle; still, there are standards. Getting back to said standards: I think that everyone will acknowledge that something in a voice is self-evidently good or bad. Postmodernism has destroyed our liking of the self-evident, but too bad. Even tone deaf listeners can tell between a lyrical voice and one that is reminiscent of chalk on blackboards. Beyond this we can once again gain wisdom from our old (some might say ancient) friend Aristotle. In our individualistic society we like to think of ourselves as the best judges of what is right. In Aristotle's model, however, excellence in an area is determined by those expert in the field. Let's all swallow some pride and admit that the professionals are just that for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, they know more than we do about what makes for good singing.
If there is one point I would like to make with this post, it is that the lead singers of every punk band ever should be systematically hunted down and execut... ahem, I mean that excellence in voices is as important as the ability to play the guitar.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
On Opeth, I'd say they're used to be death metal with random folk and/or Canterbury prog passages, but now they've learned how to actually arrange their riffs into a more coherent package, so I'd tag 'em progressive metal now.
I've been meaning to send this to you; I think you might find their voices pleasant:
http://www.adhocrecords.com/samples/Charming%20Hostess%20-%20Heaven%20Sitting%20Down.mp3
Oh, and I finished your bad music CD. It's nearly devoid of kitsch, instead focusing on artists whose serious intentions didn't turn out so well: recited poetry, obnoxiously earnest emo balladry, terrible terrible metal, post-modern nonsense, and the worst Portishead cover ever.
-Alex
omg my grammar sucks
-Alex
WHATEVER YOU DONT KNOW HOW GOOD ^^&*&^* METAL DEATH METAL IS. I BET YOU DONT EVEN HAEEV ANY GOOD MUSIC.
Wow, no matter what I try, I can't sound like that guy who was decrying Dragon Force. The Beethoven one. He has access to spectrums of idiocy that I will never be able to summon to my palette.
Also, even the best singing voice can be boring if paired with bad music, so I give some leeway to mediocre singing voices with good bands.
And also, if everyone had a voice as good as Reba McIntyre, . I can't find a way to conclude that. It can't be done.
Interesting points. I've just been noticing myself the validitiy of some of the musical categories that Aristotle and Plato (thinking mainly about Plato's "Republic") set up. Different styles of music (and I'm being more specific than just broad genres, such as Country or "death metal" or Classical) really do have the power to put people into different moods--I don't mean that people listen to different genres in different moods, but that the sort of music you listen to actually controls how you feel. For instance: on our long car trip last week, my mother requested that we listen to Josh Groban. Now, as a matter of personal taste, I don't much like Josh Groban--and one reason for this is that whenever we listen to him, my brain turns to a sort of emotional soup. But later on in the day, we listened to one of the Rachmaninoff piano concertos--and the mood of everyone in the car changed completely.
(Sorry, that was rather a rabbit trail from your original post!)
The style of singing, of course, has a lot to do with the type of music you listen to. I think I can agree with you and say that singers with bad voices are at least unpleasant to listen to--and they're probably using their talents improperly.
Thanks for the Augustine comment. :o)
Thanks, Asher. :o)
- Evelyn
Post a Comment