Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No, it's the truth. Maybe aptitude would be a better word. some people will be able to play well with little training, others will never play well no matter how hard they try. And what are you basing this truth on? Singing is no different than talking in a certain tone. What makes a good voice? Well, first off, singing the right key, tone and pitch. And any person who isn't totally tone deaf(which is very rare) can learn to tell the difference between these things. I myself have a very bad ear for pitch and tone when it comes to my own voice. I had an awful voice a year ago, but have improved a lot. But, what else is there about singing? Technique. Vibrato=very possible for every person to learn. And there, right tone and pitch, and then some vibrato, and you have an acceptable singing voice. I could go in on breath support, runs, blending and all kinds of techniques, but fact is, nothing stops a person from becoming good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 That's not the same as training. He has a very nice tone to his voice, and he can sing in tune. He's also got an unusual aspect to his voice which allows him to sing very high. That's all accidental, therefore natural. But yeah I'm sure it has improved because he has used it a lot though apparently with some people that amount of singing, if they don't use it properly, ruins the voice. Yes it is. Without proper vocal exercises, Matts voice wouldn't survive the first year of playing in a band with that many gigs. And there is no better way of training your voice than to sing. Just curious, what do you actually know about singing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Well yeah, not everyone is the same, but the idea that someone is born to make music is absolute bollocks. I never said anything about being 'born to make music'. obviously no-one's going to play like a virtuoso the first time they pick up a guitar. But some have the ability to learn to play well, quickly without a monumental effort. That's what I meant by natural talent, or aptitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And what are you basing this truth on? Singing is no different than talking in a certain tone. What makes a good voice? Well, first off, singing the right key, tone and pitch. And any person who isn't totally tone deaf(which is very rare) can learn to tell the difference between these things. I myself have a very bad ear for pitch and tone when it comes to my own voice. I had an awful voice a year ago, but have improved a lot. But, what else is there about singing? Technique. Vibrato=very possible for every person to learn. And there, right tone and pitch, and then some vibrato, and you have an acceptable singing voice. I could go in on breath support, runs, blending and all kinds of techniques, but fact is, nothing stops a person from becoming good at it. Acceptable and good are not the same thing. A person with no aptitude might be trained to a level where their singing voice is acceptable. So what? that doesn't mean anyone's going to enjoy hearing them sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I never said anything about being 'born to make music'. obviously no-one's going to play like a virtuoso the first time they pick up a guitar. But some have the ability to learn to play well, quickly without a monumental effort. That's what I meant by natural talent, or aptitude. How quickly you learn is irrelevant though. Some musicians could learn quickly, but plateau very quickly and never improve. Whereas it could take a while for some, but they'll keep learning and improving all the time. And to be a truly great guitar player doesn't happen quickly, but sadly what most people think is great guitar playing, well, isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Acceptable and good are not the same thing. A person with no aptitude might be trained to a level where their singing voice is acceptable. So what? that doesn't mean anyone's going to enjoy hearing them sing. I'm not saying "acceptable" is the limit, I'm saying that all it takes. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I can promise you that most singers sounded terrible at first. Just look at Matt, he could sing the correct notes. But what else? Singing is nothing other than making sounds with your vocal chords. Unless you have deformed vocal chords, they can move in the exact same way as any other great singer. I am a terrible singer, but I can learn to do ALL the things that Matt does, and I could probably learn to imitate him really well. It's nothing else than changing the tone of your voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 How quickly you learn is irrelevant though. Some musicians could learn quickly, but plateau very quickly and never improve. Whereas it could take a while for some, but they'll keep learning and improving all the time. And to be a truly great guitar player doesn't happen quickly, but sadly what most people think is good guitar playing, well, isn't. I actually feel sad for the musicians who get named as "natural talents" who doesn't have to work hard for what they do. I would like you to name me ONE guitarist who hasn't worked incredibly hard, probably every day, to become a great guitarist. While a lot of people play guitar for a few hours and then say "I wasn't meant to play guitar". Such bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I'm not saying "acceptable" is the limit, I'm saying that all it takes. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I can promise you that most singers sounded terrible at first. Just look at Matt, he could sing the correct notes. But what else? Singing is nothing other than making sounds with your vocal chords. Unless you have deformed vocal chords, they can move in the exact same way as any other great singer. I am a terrible singer, but I can learn to do ALL the things that Matt does, and I could probably learn to imitate him really well. It's nothing else than changing the tone of your voice. Ok, I'm no expert on this subject, so it's difficult to argue. But i know someone who literally cannot sing a note in tune and has the most appalling voice. It's hard to believe that he could ever sound good, no matter how much training he had On the other hand, I'm a naturally decent singer and I've had zero training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ok, I'm no expert on this subject, so it's difficult to argue. But i know someone who literally cannot sing a note in tune and has the most appalling voice. It's hard to believe that he could ever sound good, no matter how much training he had On the other hand, I'm a naturally decent singer and I've had zero training So you are basically basing your "it's the truth" on the fact that you know many horrible singers? Singing isn't magic, it's a muscle that you learn to use in a pleasant way. It comes easier to some, but that doesn't make it impossible for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ok, I'm no expert on this subject, so it's difficult to argue. But i know someone who literally cannot sing a note in tune and has the most appalling voice. It's hard to believe that he could ever sound good, no matter how much training he had On the other hand, I'm a naturally decent singer and I've had zero training There are ways to teach people how to hear the notes, once you've learnt how to hit that note and what it sounds and feels like, just got to then practise it until it becomes natural. What I've sometimes done with singers is record it, then back it back to them through autotune, so they can see where it is working to get them in tune and closer to how they should sound. Same with playing chords on guitar, it's not a natural thing for your fingers to do and it hurts, a lot, at first, but practise away and it becomes second nature, to the point you don't actually think much about what you are doing. The less you're putting in mentally & physically, the better you are at an instrument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 So you are basically basing your "it's the truth" on the fact that you know many horrible singers? Singing isn't magic, it's a muscle that you learn to use in a pleasant way. It comes easier to some, but that doesn't make it impossible for anyone. No, you're twisting my words That fact that it comes easier to some suggests that some have a natural aptitude for it, yes? Which was my point all along (I think ) I'm too tired to argue anymore. My warm bed awaits. Adios amigos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No, you're twisting my words That fact that it comes easier to some suggests that some have a natural aptitude for it, yes? Which was my point all along (I think ) I'm too tired to argue anymore. My warm bed awaits. Adios amigos. "A natural talent can be enhanced by training. Someone with no natural ability at all can never be trained to sound good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes it is. Without proper vocal exercises, Matts voice wouldn't survive the first year of playing in a band with that many gigs. And there is no better way of training your voice than to sing. Just curious, what do you actually know about singing? Okay I'm not a singer, so I know what I've read and heard. And I know that Matt has said he hasn't had any vocal training. I don't know whether he is being truthful, but I know that training is different to just practicing as there are particular exercises. He could have taught himself of course. But not every singer is going to sound the same just because they train or practice. You can hear that it is Matt singing because his singing voice is similar to his speaking voice. Chris sings too but doesn't sound the same as Matt obviously. Thus you can't say that everything is down to practice or training and that everyone will be the same as each other with training. You don't need to be an expert on singing to know that a lot of the way a person's voice sounds is down to natural factors. I do think he may have had some professional vocal training recently though. Also I don't know, but people talk about Matt's falsetto. I'm not so sure it is falsetto, because that requires learning a technique as far as I know. I wonder whether it's his head voice which again would be a natural aspect to his voice that not everyone could learn. I am sure you will pull everything I've said apart, being an expert on all things, at the tender age of 19, but I'm tired now and need to go to bed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mizutsu Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't think there's such thing as a natural talent; there's just talent and that's it. I mean, humans weren't born to distort their vocal chords and make it sound nice, it has to take practice and perfection. The most natural it gets is if you have small vocal chords, you're more inclined to sing higher. And if you have crapped up vocal chords, you probably shouldn't sing. Matt has done practice, probably not with the help of a professional, but it came easy to him as he's rather intelligent. He's a talented singer, but not naturally talented, unless he came out of the womb singing Showbiz or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Okay I'm not a singer, so I know what I've read and heard. And I know that Matt has said he hasn't had any vocal training. I don't know whether he is being truthful, but I know that training is different to just practicing as there are particular exercises. He could have taught himself of course. But not every singer is going to sound the same just because they train or practice. You can hear that it is Matt singing because his singing voice is similar to his speaking voice. Chris sings too but doesn't sound the same as Matt obviously. Thus you can't say that everything is down to practice or training and that everyone will be the same as each other with training. You don't need to be an expert on singing to know that a lot of the way a person's voice sounds is down to natural factors. I do think he may have had some professional vocal training recently though. Also I don't know, but people talk about Matt's falsetto. I'm not so sure it is falsetto, because that requires learning a technique as far as I know. I wonder whether it's his head voice which again would be a natural aspect to his voice that not everyone could learn. I am sure you will pull everything I've said apart, being an expert on all things, at the tender age of 19, but I'm tired now and need to go to bed! With vocal training he's referring to lessons with a vocal coach. That doesn't mean you aren't training your voice by using it and figuring it out yourself. Erm...so your point is basically "Two singers doesn't sound alike, therefore it's not possible for them to sound alike"? I'm saying that you can imitate tone, way of speech and pretty much everything. Ever heard an impersonator? There are some really good ones out there. What makes people's voices different isn't a total restriction. It all lies in training. It is not possible to get a natural voice just like Matts(by natural I mean that comes naturally to you, you just speak and it is exactly in the right place), but it is possibly to IMITATE it. EDIT: Oh and the part about falsetto...you should probably keep that to yourself Most people can do falsetto without getting to learn the technique. I mean, how did we get teachers for it in the first place? It's all about discovering your own voice, and unless you hurt yourself in the process, it is very possiblr to learn all these things, head voice and falsetto included. EDIT2: I am tired, so I am just making sure I've covered this part: I'm not saying we all start from 0 and then can form our vocals how we want. We are still restricted by our vocal chords, obviously. And naturally we will have a tone in which we speak more comfortably, but it does not stop us from changing it. I will probably never be able to sound just like Matt, but I may very well get close if I just wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't think there's such thing as a natural talent; there's just talent and that's it. I mean, humans weren't born to distort their vocal chords and make it sound nice, it has to take practice and perfection. The most natural it gets is if you have small vocal chords, you're more inclined to sing higher. And if you have crapped up vocal chords, you probably shouldn't sing. Matt has done practice, probably not with the help of a professional, but it came easy to him as he's rather intelligent. He's a talented singer, but not naturally talented, unless he came out of the womb singing Showbiz or something. I think that the point about natural talent refers to how easy we learn. Many people agree that we are born with certain attributes, that it lies in our DNA. Like sexuality(or a talent for how easy we have to learn things that goes well together with for example guitar playing). While others say that it comes from environmental and social influences(training). No one is saying that you are born with the ability to play amazing solos, but that you are born with features that will make it easier for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mizutsu Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 ^Yes that's what it is. I mean, Matt clearly had a lot of influence from his father as well as the ability to learn quickly. Some could say that's genius or that its talent, but it's a bit of both. It took him merely 15 years from writing generic punk riffs to completing a symphony (with other bits of musical innovation in between) and that's really something nowadays. He didn't write a symphony in the first years of his musical career; no one can. Even for a person like Matt, it takes years and years of learning and training and exploration for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gohenko Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Wow, I was gone for 9 hours and there's already 6 new pages on this thread! The power of internet... But, basically, Matt writes good songs that are worth listening to, he uses various styles to make every song feel different, and he makes them sound even better live. So he's good. End of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 ^Yes that's what it is. I mean, Matt clearly had a lot of influence from his father as well as the ability to learn quickly. Some could say that's genius or that its talent, but it's a bit of both. It took him merely 15 years from writing generic punk riffs to completing a symphony (with other bits of musical innovation in between) and that's really something nowadays. He didn't write a symphony in the first years of his musical career; no one can. Even for a person like Matt, it takes years and years of learning and training and exploration for that to happen. Learning quickly isn't a sign of genius. Einstein isn't considered a genius because he was clever or learnt fast, it was because he changed the way scientists looked at the world around them. Writing a symphony is something anyone can do if they really wanted to, as a great number of people have done it in the past. Just if Matt had been through classical training and wasn't a pop musician, no one would give a shit. In fact, in modern "classical" music, writing a symphony would be considered vastly out of date as there is just as much of a forward thinking attitude there as there in the pop world. In fact, something like electronic music was first touched on by "classical" composers and slowly found it's way into the pop world where new ideas can be brushed to one side in order to sell as many records as possible as no one likes change. Matt is a great musician and has had a great deal of success and fair play to him. But there's no point in licking his arse and calling him a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxomflirter Queef Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 ^Yes that's what it is. I mean, Matt clearly had a lot of influence from his father as well as the ability to learn quickly. Some could say that's genius or that its talent, but it's a bit of both. It took him merely 15 years from writing generic punk riffs to completing a symphony (with other bits of musical innovation in between) and that's really something nowadays. He didn't write a symphony in the first years of his musical career; no one can. Even for a person like Matt, it takes years and years of learning and training and exploration for that to happen. Ever heard of a chap called Mozart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oncomingsoundstorm Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Learning quickly isn't a sign of genius. Einstein isn't considered a genius because he was clever or learnt fast, it was because he changed the way scientists looked at the world around them. Writing a symphony is something anyone can do if they really wanted to, as a great number of people have done it in the past. Just if Matt had been through classical training and wasn't a pop musician, no one would give a shit. In fact, in modern "classical" music, writing a symphony would be considered vastly out of date as there is just as much of a forward thinking attitude there as there in the pop world. In fact, something like electronic music was first touched on by "classical" composers and slowly found it's way into the pop world where new ideas can be brushed to one side in order to sell as many records as possible as no one likes change. Matt is a great musician and has had a great deal of success and fair play to him. But there's no point in licking his arse and calling him a genius. Exactly. I'm sure even Bellamy himself would never proclaim to be a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Exactly. I'm sure even Bellamy himself would never proclaim to be a genius. Who would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee3Dee Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Who would? Kanye West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Kanye West. And all the sudden the credibility of a statement from the person in question dropped to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee3Dee Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And all the sudden the credibility of a statement from the person in question dropped to zero. Well.. in Kanye's defence: he is a talentless moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.