Karaoke Forums

When we sing we reveal or expose more of "us", we let a part of ourselves out.  When I sing, I feel more vulnerable than when I play a musical instrument that his it's own characteristics and tone do to it's physical properties.

I've also mentioned that I can tune a musical instrument, and by properly placing my fingers in a correct area know I'll be playing a pitch that's in tune..  By time I hear the pitch I've sung,  it's too late to tune it   Those of us that spend most of our lifelearning musical instruments often don't always have the easiest time learning how to sing, because a lot is very different about the process.  We can hear the tonal properties of our instrument.  We can't really hear our voice as others do.

Isn't our voice as heard by us just vibration in our throat and cranium that becomes sound but what we feel is vibrating but we don't hear actual accurate tone ?

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

You got me.  :dontknow: I haven't played a lot of musical instruments, but I used to attempt to play acoustic guitar some. Hmm....by the way...maybe I should go pick up that guitar (in the closet) and start learning to play it again - many, many years later.

You said you feel more vulnerable but maybe you'd feel the same way with an instrument when you were just beginning and people were watching you make mistakes during a 'performance'. I suspect that could be high tensions.

I don't know how I sing exactly. Like I said, I haven't ever had lessons or training. Maybe it shows.  LMAO It's the same way when I whistle. I was wondering about that a month or so ago. I was wondering how I knew how to make the different sounds in proper tone just like a flute, or musical instrument. I suppose it is something to do with familiarity of the tune or song I am attempting to whistle and familiarity with how to make certain notes (sounds) when whistling. Combined I can easily play a song I've never practiced. There is also a lot of paying attention and controlling the sound (whistle) AS you make it and altering it very quickly if wrong. When mistakes are made repetition is done until mistakes are no longer made.

I think this is also how I sing pretty much. You have to have a good ear for being on key and realizing when you are hitting that key versus not. If you aren't you have to change whatever you can to make it properly.

I suppose you are also more sensitive about your voice because it IS you personal sound that expresses you. Perhaps you feel a bad note on an instrument is no big deal but screwed up vocal sounds are very embarassing.

If that is true you just have to get over it and not worry about it. You have to take charge and be master over your voice and control it - not let it control you. [Well, perhaps this is easier said than done, but it sounds good in concept.  LMAO ]

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

Thats when I need a stage monitor heavy on the vocal no FX so I can hear what I sound like over the PA and can compensate in microseconds.. A song Ive done 40 million times im not even listening to it. Some need to hear their voice others need to hear the PA,

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

That's what monitor speakers are for. I couldn't sing without monitor feedback. It is essential that you be able to really hear what you sound like as you sing it IMMEDIATELY. When I sing - even at home I have the sound system typically up loud enough to hear me at least a block or two down the street. I've found the better I can hear myself, the easier it is to control my voice and reproduce it in a way that mimics the sound backing notes. However I must admit, based on the way I record like this some times I pick up feedback from the system that can make the recording a bit 'murky'. It may give me a bit of a surround effect, but it also tends to drown me out a bit. Initially on SS I had all sorts of complaints from people telling me to turn my vocals up. I still have problems sometimes. I never know until after I've finished recording and have decrypted it on my upstairs desktop computer whether or note the volume balances were correct or not - so it is a bit hit or miss.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

So according to your logic it's monitor speakers and amplification that enables the vocalist to ear train, recognise interval accuracy and train for relative pitch, or aspects of pitch matching ?

NOT

I've worked with singers regarding interval training, meaning while sitting at the piano in a school practice room -no electronic devices while they learn to sing perhaps a pitchpipe. ( Piano often isn't even accurate for many vocalist because it's a tempered instrument - meaning compromised pitch, the voice is not) they drilled in aspects of interval ear training.  Amplification and monitor speakers ARE NOT how singers ear train. "Singer" means somebody who can sing. By the time a person in a musicianship setting performs or exposes the public to what they are doing, THEY HAVE developed at least a reasonable basic understanding of what it takes to be a singer..  Seems the cart is being put before the horse again in the Karaoke setting where dignity of performance matters so little..  Amplification and monitor speakers come AFTER a person can sing and match pitch..  (True, it's not that way in karaoke -I know ) unless of course the singer as the musician wishes to participate, which is the preference of some but granted "learn and than perform it",  but not most in this day and age in a bar.  But in musicianship and the performing arts it certainly is !  

Now for those of us that WANT to learn how to sing, what do we do to practice ?
Solfege ?  Scales (blech),  sing into tape recorder and torcher ourselves until what we hear is tolerable ? How do we develop our voice timbre ? Must we learn about facial tension, mouf positioning ? etc ? BUT... either way,  What is the singer doing to familiar themselves with pitch matching areas ? Where is the reference point established ?  Is it accuracy in memory and projecting the image ?... What is the process that enables the singer to FINE TUNE their ear ?   It seems the singer has a disadvantage when compared to the pianist.. an instrument which is basically just muscle memory skill, or any other instrument that is essentially just finger placement AFTER the instrument is tuned.

There's this funny new trend introduced by the advent of Karaoke (while entertainers providing Karaoke thrive on the concept, those of us brought up in areas of etiquette regarding aesthetics learned an opposite concept), so in reality like it or not, Karaoke as a bar activity is often the antithesis of what a singer SHOULD be doing...

To me this is one of the definitions of Karaoke I have trouble with personally, as
do quite a few musicians.

Karaoke Definition of Singer:  Person standing on stage in front of microphone  
                                                amplifying imperfection with polished backing.



Karaoke gives a person exposure to singing, but the person STILL shouldn't lose site of whether they can or can not sing.. IMHO it should be incentive for some to learn to sing and improve assuming they enjoy Karaoke.  Because outside of one or two nights at a bar, in the real world "We learn to do something before we perform it", because NOT ALL is just for us.. Performance by definition means

"To present to public for entertainment".  

This is how musicians are trained !  IOW.. There are OTHERS with ears exposed to what you are doing. So monitor speakers and a PA isn't where you learn the rudiments of singing.


I'm not saying playback devices might not help, however singers traditionally don't learn to pitchmatch and ear train by using artifical amplification..  If a person has issues with tweaking their ear that LAST thing they should do is be in a setting that needs "monitor speakers"..  "Karaoke" doesn't mean being able to sing folks nor does the singer get on stage in front of amplification prior to establishing memory reference point.. What I was aluding to is that I use my fingers to pitch match on a tuned instrument.  The vocalist must actually LEARN and recognise and memorize the mechanics of relative pitch.  It's a memory process.  If you can't do it without amplification, you don't want to amplify it believe me !

We can call this "The Karaoke Paradox in singing"

Karaoke for too many= Sing on stage now, worry about pitch later
Singer as musician= Don't go near stage until pitch matching ability is developed !

Yes,  there are a few areas we musicians have a tough time agreeing with in terms of basic Karaoke principles

Karaoke=  Those that can't sing should perform anyway
Singer as musician= Those that can't sing performing on a stage is blasphemous.

In music EVEN in recital or practice session you LEARN what you can first, and expose others to it afterwards..

Similarly,  "Do unto others"  Go into bathroom alone and close the door.

I guess I was brought up in an environment where "Dignity" meant in any form of artistic expression, or any area of aesthetics YOU DO NOT perform it, until it's pleasing to the ear of others.

This is the difference and paradox so many in the Karaoke realm don't seem to realize.  Karaoke as a performance, and singing witin the Karaoke setting IS FOR YOU,  not your audience.. UNLESS you are a singer.  but backing and a microphone and monitor speakers around you DOESN"T REALLY make the person a singer, in many cases it makes them foolish. So why not compromise.  In a karaoke setting you don't have to be a "good singer", but at least be presentable, or strive to be ?

JMHO..

The Singers voice IS their musical instrument.. It can sound gorgeous, or it can sound offensive.
While Karaoke excuses the later,  I want to learn to sing,  not make offensive sounding noises with my mouth in front of an audience.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

While you don't hear your own voice the same way other people hear it, knowing whether or not your on pitch isn't going to be affected by hearing your voice through a monitor.  If you play a note on a piano and then sing it back - matching pitch - it won't sound like you've hit it sharp or flat when you have actually hit it correctly.  The moment you begin to make the sound, there should be no question whether or not you are singing the correct note.

The differences in what you hear when listening to your own voice, and what someone else hears has nothing to do with pitch - it's more a difference in the color of your voice.  The pitch you hear is accurate.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

Exactly,  Voice timbre isn't the same as pitch.  Now the ability to match a pitch to the nearest cent.. Not easy IMHO..  Operakitty,  Are there actually vocalists that can sustain a full note keeping the pitch within 1 cent ?  Or is that VERY tough to do ? (assuming there is orchestration changing while they try to sustain their pitch).


So my assumption might be so in the case of the vocalist.  A process that few instrumentalists resort too (with the exception of horn players, tympanists, and perhaps some woodwind players) where embouchure affects the intonation of a pitch.  The vocalist must be able to turn memory directly into exact tone thru proper ear training and familiarity.  It's an additional nuance the good vocalist must develop by practicing a lot of ear training. But the the pitch must essentially be accurate even before sound develops ?   Musicians have some concept, and string players lower the 7th and 3rd to fool the listeners ear in certain types of minor vs major scales changing ascending and descending fingering however I think the vocalist has a much TOUGHER plate to handle in real.  Exact memory and vocal control must translate to exact pitch.  There aren't second chances once the tone is produced.

At least this has been my guess,  In all my years I never asked a singer this, but few have the option to hover around the tone like bob dylan.  You can't tweak sound while singing and sound good IMHO.. You must KNOW the tone, and this comes with ear training only..  Perhaps an advantage to solfege

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I'm just saying you have to have it loud enough so that you can hear and manage what you are singing; otherwise you will have difficulty controlling your voice. Sometimes I sing at karaoke where they don't really have much of a monitor coming back at me, and I can hardly tell how well I am doing or following the music.

Have you ever listened to someone singing along with a popular song while they are listening to via a headset. Without feedback they have no clue how they sound. Teens are famous for this. Try putting on a pair of headphones with no sound or some ear muffs and sing along with something and record it and then play it back. You will sound terrible and the piece is unmanageable. Now do the same with feedback via monitor so that you can hear what you are singing. There's a big difference. You can't sing well in a vacume.

But yes, generally you don't want to blast the neighborhood unless you can somewhat carry a tune.  Then again, I suppose that could be fun too!  LMAO

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

True,  you can't sing if you can't hear yourself, however I was discussing the process of singing in it's rudimentary form, and how it differs from other external instruments we get an accurate pitch out've after tuning by finger placement, pedal use, etc.. The singer really needs to be able to make a smooth transition from memorized pitch to sung pitch.  Although we all do it when we sing something by memory.. To really tweak the human voice accurately as an instrument requires an excellent ear, and pitch needs to be established prior to hearing it's offed in the PA or monitor..  By that time,  you were already Off pitch....and I think many vocalists take forgranted that it requires an ear for music to be able to sing with accurate pitch matching ability.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Oh man,  this is a perfect example of how tricky this stuff is...  I thought I was doing quite well, until I played back a great knockoff of

"Kermit the frog sings Music of the Night"

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.  Are you asking about hitting a pitch and just maintaining it regardless of what else is going on around you?  If that is what you're asking...well, it's not something I've had an issue with.  As far as I go, no, it's not difficult at all...but someone else might find it to be difficult.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

 LMAO Ok...I just have to say...one of my best friends is a voice over actor.  I met him at the one and only Phantom of the Opera convention in LA...there was a talent show one night, and that is PRECISELY what his act was!  Well, it was a bunch of different Muppet voices doing what sounded like a radio promo for "The Phrogtom of the Opera..." and Kermit did sing Music of the Night.....

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

Each semi-tone is broken down into 100 cents.  Meaning 100 incremental pitches between C to C#,   E to F,  etc...    Tuners need to develop pretty precise ability to hear slight incremental variances between semitones, but an excellent ear will drive a person tuning a piano crazy, I've done it Grrrrr.... You can't really tune by ear because a lot of compensation takes place... So the tuner tunes just by listening for beats, and slow-waves and ideally beatless unisons. Anyway, what I was asking..  Oh yeah

 I'm just wondering HOW close to nailing a pitch, without straying from "the pitch" even a couple of cents a singer can reasonably get (3 or 4 cents waivering from pitch might be noticeable depending on volume timbre and duration), and of course the longer the pitch must remain held the tougher it gets to "nail" the pitch without straying (and I wonder how many cents in general is considered acceptable to vocalists in classical music).. I wonder if there're vocalists that have the discipline or control involved to Nail the pitch without fluctuating even 1 cent when holding a pitch for several measures.   Remember, each semi-tone is broken down into 100 increments before it's accurately considered a sharp, or flat (minor 2nd)

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

If I was exposed to this years back,  I'd have quit music.  It looks scary on paper. Too many math equations  blech !  Basket-weaving isn't so scary looking
======================================================

This explains just temperment, pythagorian tuning (circle of 5ths), twelve tone equal temperment, etc..  Semitones are really just compromised tuning.. Unless you compromise on a tempered instrument such as a piano the extremes will be extremely out've tune.. Follow the circle of 5ths  (perfect 5ths) as a tuning means, and you can't tune the extremes of a keyboard.

Equal temperament

An equal temperament is a musical temperament — that is, a system of tuning intended to approximate some form of just intonation — in which an interval, usually the octave, is divided into a series of equal steps (equal frequency ratios). For modern Western music, the most common tuning system is twelve-tone equal temperament, sometimes abbreviated as 12-TET, which divides the octave into 12 equal parts. This system is usually tuned relative to a standard pitch of 440 Hz.

Other equal temperaments exist (some music has been written in 19-TET and 31-TET for example, and Arabian music is based on 24-TET), but in western countries when people use the term equal temperament without qualification, it is usually understood that they are talking about 12-TET.

Equal temperaments may also divide some interval other than the octave, a pseudo-octave, into a whole number of equal steps. An example is an equally-tempered Bohlen-Pierce scale. To avoid ambiguity, the term equal division of the octave, or EDO is sometimes preferred. According to this naming system, 12-TET is called 12-EDO, 31-TET is called 31-EDO, and so on; however, when composers and music-theorists use "EDO" their intention is generally that a temperament (i.e., a reference to just intonation intervals) is not implied.




[edit] History
Historically, there was Seven-equal temperament or Hepta-equal temperament practice in Ancient Music of China tradition,[1][2], but whether it is real equal temperament or not is a controversial topic in academic circles. Vincenzo Galilei (father of Galileo Galilei) may have been the first person to advocate equal temperament (in a 1581 treatise), although his countryman and fellow lutenist Giacomo Gorzanis had written music based on equal temperament by 1567. The first person known to have attempted a numerical specification for equal temperament is probably Zhu Zaiyu (朱載堉) a prince of Ming court, who published a theory of the temperament in 1584. It is possible that this idea was spread to Europe by way of trade, which intensified just at the moment when Zhu Zaiyu published his new theory. Within fifty-two years of Chu's publication, the same ideas had been published by Marin Mersenne and Simon Stevin.

From 1450 to about 1800 there is evidence that musicians expected much less mistuning (than that of Equal Temperament) in the most common keys, such as C major. Instead, they used approximations that emphasized the tuning of thirds or fifths in these keys, such as meantone temperament. Some theorists, such as Giuseppe Tartini, were opposed to the adoption of Equal Temperament; they felt that degrading the purity of each chord degraded the aesthetic appeal of music. Others take issue with dissonance in the higher register, where beating between harmonics of mistuned consonances is faster, and combinational tones are more pronounced.

String ensembles and vocal groups, who have no mechanical tuning limitations, often use a tuning much closer to just intonation, as it is naturally more consonant. Other instruments, such as some wind, keyboard, and fretted-instruments, often only approximate equal temperament, where technical limitations prevent exact tunings, other wind instruments, who can easily and spontaneously bend their tone, most notably double-reeds, use tuning similar to string ensembles and vocal groups.

J. S. Bach wrote The Well-Tempered Clavier to demonstrate the musical possibilities of well temperament, where in some keys the consonances are even more degraded than in equal temperament. It is reasonable to believe that when composers and theoreticians of earlier times wrote of the moods and "colors" of the keys, they each described the subtly different dissonances made available within a particular tuning method. However, it is difficult to determine with any exactness the actual tunings used in different places at different times by any composer. (Correspondingly, there is a great deal of variety in the particular opinions of composers about the moods and colors of particular keys.)

Twelve tone equal temperament took hold for a variety of reasons. It conveniently fit the existing keyboard design, and was a better approximation to just intonation than the nearby alternative equal temperaments. It permitted total harmonic freedom at the expense of just a little purity in every interval. This allowed greater expression through modulation, which became extremely important in the 19th century music of composers such as Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, and others.

A precise equal temperament was not attainable until Johann Heinrich Scheibler developed a tuning fork tonometer in 1834 to accurately measure pitches. The use of this device was not widespread, and it was not until 1917 that William Braid White developed a practical aural method of tuning the piano to equal temperament.

It is in the environment of equal temperament that the new styles of symmetrical tonality and polytonality, atonal music such as that written with the twelve tone technique or serialism, and jazz (at least its piano component) developed and flourished.


[edit] General properties of equal temperament
In an equal temperament, the distance between each step of the scale is the same interval. Because the perceived identity of an interval depends on its ratio, this scale in even steps is a geometric sequence of multiplications. (An arithmetic sequence of intervals would not sound evenly-spaced, and would not permit transposition to different keys.) Specifically, the smallest interval in an equal tempered scale is the ratio:



Where the ratio r divides the ratio p (often the octave, which is 2/1) into n equal parts. (See Twelve-tone equal temperament below.)

Scales are often measured in cents, which divide the octave into 1200 equal intervals (each called a cent). This logarithmic scale makes comparison of different tuning systems easier than comparing ratios, and has considerable use in Ethnomusicology. The basic step in cents for any equal temperament can be found by taking the width of p above in cents (usually the octave, which is 1200 cents wide), called below w, and dividing it into n parts:


In musical analysis, material belonging to an equal temperament is often given an integer notation, meaning a single integer is used to represent each pitch. This simplifies and generalizes discussion of pitch material within the temperament in the same way that taking the logarithm of a multiplication reduces it to addition. Furthermore, by applying the modular arithmetic where the modulo is the number of divisions of the octave (usually 12), these integers can be reduced to pitch classes, which removes the distinction (or acknowledges the similarity) between pitches of the same name, e.g. 'C' is 0 regardless of octave register. The MIDI encoding standard uses integer note designations.


[edit] Twelve-tone equal temperament
In twelve-tone equal temperament, which divides the octave into 12 equal parts, the ratio of frequencies between two adjacent semitones is the twelfth root of two:


This interval is equal to 100 cents. (The cent is sometimes for this reason defined as one hundredth of a semitone.)


[edit] Calculating absolute frequencies
To find the frequency, , of a note in 12-TET, the following definition may be used:


In this formula  refers to the pitch, or frequency (usually in hertz), you are trying to find.  refers to the frequency of a reference pitch (usually 440Hz). n and a refer to numbers assigned to the desired pitch and the reference pitch, respectively. These two numbers are from a list of consecutive integers assigned to consecutive semitones. For example, A4 (the reference pitch) is the 49th key from the left end of a piano (tuned to 440 Hz), and C4 (middle C) is the 40th key. These numbers can be used to find the frequency of C4:


See Piano key frequencies for a list of 12-TET frequencies tuned to A-440.


[edit] Comparison to just intonation
The intervals of 12-TET closely approximate some intervals in Just intonation. In the following table the sizes of various just intervals are compared against their equal tempered counterparts, given as a ratio as well as cents.

Name Exact value in 12-TET Decimal value in 12-TET Cents Just intonation interval Cents in just intonation
Unison (C)  1.000000 0  = 1.000000 0.0000
Minor second (C♯)  1.059463 100  = 1.066667 111.73
Major second (D)  1.122462 200  = 1.125000 203.91
Minor third (D♯)  1.189207 300  = 1.200000 315.64
Major third (E)  1.259921 400  = 1.250000 386.31
Perfect fourth (F)  1.334840 500  = 1.333333 498.04
Diminished fifth (F♯)  1.414214 600  = 1.400000 582.15
Perfect fifth (G)  1.498307 700  = 1.500000 701.96
Minor sixth (G♯)  1.587401 800  = 1.600000 813.69
Major sixth (A)  1.681793 900  = 1.666667 884.36
Minor seventh (A♯)  1.781797 1000  = 1.777778 996.09
Major seventh (B)  1.887749 1100  = 1.875000 1088.3
Octave (C)  2.000000 1200  = 2.000000 1200.0

Great question.

In actuality, the human voice produces sound just as any musical instrument would-. In the case of woodwinds (except flute), a reed (single or doulble) is caused to vibrate setting up air molecules in motion resulting in what we perceive as sound. The characteristic of the particular instrument determines its timbre (e.g. why a trumpet sounds like a trumpet and not a flute). In the case of brass intruments, buzzing lips create vibration of the air molecules; and as for stringed instruments, well you can only guess. The human voice uses a combination of muscles and vocal folds to produce a tone, and the remaining physiological structure of the individual determines the timbre of the voice. As to how the voice differs from any other instrument, that is like asking why different instruments have so many differing tonal qualities.

Well, you said pretty much the same stuff I was going to say.

But my question is, that unlike the brass horn, or ebony english horn, or wood violin the physical properties of us as humans changes in accordance with posture, (even though other instruments can be said to have mood in accordance with environment) we are more malleable and have resonation chambers much different than that of metal or wood instruments. It's our embouchure and ability to conform that is what's needed to produce the sound of playing the tuba which isn't a natural process, but we require a skill AND the external physical properties of the instrument to create timbre.. It the instruments metal, or wood that creates the timbre we just learn how to work with it.. Like with the french horn. We have to contort part of ourselves to do the task..  

So what I was assuming is that unlike a rigid metal instrument, we can change our physical properties to altering our chambers in various ways, while you might be able to tweak a horn by adjusting various slides,  In the case of singing and the singer we are not just the individuals needing a certain technique to produce the tone but we are also the instrument and instruments characteristics and we must tweak our bodies characteristics given our materials to resonate like an instrument but we have much more flexibility which is what can make it so tough..  We create technique, and are the instrument with out own characterstics that must be tweaked as well.


This was at least my though.  I don't know

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Perhaps a better analogy is that if we were an instrument,  being part of the material it's made of or inside the instrument, how could we possibly hear the projected end result of the sound as it hits the ears in of others in front of us ?
Sound must project, but we are the cabinet or material that's projecting so we can't really hear how our cabinet projects out front.  Can we hear how an audio speaker projects sounds by opening the back and sticking our head inside the cabinet ?  Nope..  It's similar with our hears.. They are attached to our resonation chamber in such a god given way that really isn't conducive to hearing a function such as us singing....

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

True, while singing your ears do not hear what the audience is hearing. I don't get that until I playback my recording, and even then I may not hear it because I am hearing the sound of what I am trying to sing in my head and it obscures a bit what I am actually hearing back. That's why sometimes I have to listen to a composition the next day or even later in order to lose my bias and listen to it fresh for what I really sang, and not what I thought I sang.

That said, even though you can't hear how you sound as end product, you can hear yourself singing (though it sounds different) and I suppose it is learned experience just like any instrument what sound to make in order to simulate a particular note. I have to hear myself and while it is true I have to accurately make the sound constantly and consistently there is some amount of flex and adjustment going on as I do it. I know this because I have experimented with it. I don't know how much you have to hear yourself and how much I adjust....obviously if it was very much it would be very noticeable and it would be a poor sing.

Additionally, I think I can usually tell when I am on because of vibrations I feel / hear along with a certain syncronization. It's difficult to explain just like how can I whistle a tune I have just made up in my head without ever having heard it I know the right notes to make and how to make them just so....

For me there never was all the music theory and instruction, - all the steps. I've heard of many people that do this all the time and still have trouble singing. Others end up having a more formal 'choir' type voice. I just sing, and not really sure how - it is hard to explain, but I suppose that's why some instructors get paid well because being able to explain it is difficult, and being able to train someone else to do it is even harder IMO.

_________________
The Truth Is Out There

I must have a vivid imagination because when I'm getting into a song I CAN'T tell how terrible I sound until I play it back.  This bothers me.  Doesn't seem it should be this way.  I obviously have a poor ear for impersonation.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".