Karaoke Forums

You are also extremely creative (as well as talented) Jazzy... Most couldn't have pulled off what you did with that particular song.  Some musicians, although still good musicians (as in people of all walks) are basically technicians. They learn to listen, or sight read, and reproduce with the goal being to emulate the original artist. Innovative aspects of musicianship (as important as they are for any artist to develop a signature style) wasn't something we old school students were encouraged to do.. In fact, studying in the 1950's and 1960's, in the classical genre, (which was all that was really acknowledged as legit style in the US around mid century) some of us learned how to Parrot, or become playback devices. I remember when Suzuki method started to take off in this country. It was quite amazing to me how in such a rigid traditional academic venue {classical music} to learn "by ear", was even an option. It was blasphemous up until that turn of events. Even in the 1970's- theory, composition, and ear training were analytical studies that dissected what was. Few thought to use those skills to innovate. Obviously some did (they're called composers..), yet very few thought, (let alone were encouraged to think) outside the traditional box. Ironically however, in the years I studied, nowhere did an instructor ever say, "OK, now it's time to experiment"..time to create..now whether this was the way things were years back, or whether or not this is just an aspect of human nature fearing change even today, and we see this within attempts to stifle the evolution of artform- perhaps. Yet Improv styles were shunned, as was modifying existing style, and creating.

I don't know how the music curriculum is today. I hope it's less conservative, and more conducive to students creating (at some point)

I agree with what you say Jazzy. Yet I do know some of us were actually castigated during old school training for attempting to be creative. Like the adage "The nail that sticks out, get's hammered back in".  We learned to mimic. We had it drummed into us to "Pay respect to the composer by doing it their way".

I was taught that music wasn't about me attempting to compose, and play originals in a band. Like the artist (for a painting to be appreciated by most I'd need to face in the audience), the painting must be along the lines of landscape, portrait, or super-realism. something they can identify with. I was content marching within the circumscribed boundaries I suppose. I believe the music curriculum in my day taught me that the musician must mimic.

When I toured it was as a cover musician, when I did session work the objective was precision, and exactitude. Yet anything but creative. There are different types of musicians. Since the term is so ambiguous there's likely room for all... Some of us learn how to listen and then mimic. Some put less emphasis on listening, like an artist that "paints by numbers" they recreate with sheet music only, for them recreating by ear was never even an option.  Some musicians innovate.

Yet I certainly agree, It's no sin to think in terms of gender bender, jazzed up version, etc.  Yet not everyone develops such a knack.. Personally, I wouldn't know how. It's a dimension that I've never learned, something that I was discouraged from doing.

I sing Dean Martin, Andy Williams, and Elvis along with a few others, but I don't believe I come across as sounding like them, although at times I wish I could. However, with Elvis I believe it's his style of rhythm, not his voice, that can make you sound as if your trying mimic his him.  

                                                 Jackson

_________________
Singing just for you

Sometimes I try to sing a song my way but it's kind of hard to do it with karaoke on certain parts. If I want to add something I couldn't change the song. Singing in a band is a lot easier but on the song "Warm And Tender Love" I can change that with no problem on karaoke.

I tend to change things a lot. Probably more than I should .  But then I'm singing to have fun, aren't I?  I go where the music takes me.  I know what Steve means, though, because Choir was the same way, hit the notes.  You're singing with 80 other people and creativity in something like that would equal.. well. . a lot of noise...

When I''m singing in a cover band, it has to be recognizable (depending on how drunk the audience is ) but I can still have a little fun.  The only time I can see that I have to be totally true to the original is if I were in a Tribute band of some sort.  Then, of course, the goal is to sound just like the original.

It partly depends on your audience, but it also depends on your band.  There are those who feel the need to match every note, every vocal nuance, and that's fine too, nothing wrong with it, I just couldn't do it.

Steve finds it hard to do what I'm stating I do,  and for me, singing a song just like Pat Benatar sang it, well, that feels limiting.  I want Pat, I put her in my CD player and I listen to her.  (and I do often with a lot of the artists I do, cuz I like em!).   I'd have a very limited repetoire if I had to do only songs where I could sound just like the original I'm afraid.

Teri Jo

_________________
Teri Jo
...May the road rise to meet you... just, not too quickly, and not too hard!