Well said!
Thanks for all the great inputs and insights. I will share them with the kids.
Excellent insight. You’ve changed my mind.
I think it’s similar for both. You have to have a talent, but then you have to work really hard if you want be good at it.
I can play couple of instruments (fairly), but have zero talent for singing. Cannot carry a tune in a bucket, voice-wise.
So did the Honky Tonk Man.
I’ve done both, and I can say that it definitely takes less work to be a “good singer” than a “good guitarist”. Some people simply ARE born phenomenal singers, with no more training than singing along to the radio, and some people aren’t. Nobody’s going to pick up a guitar and sound like Jimi Hendrix without some serious time into it though.
Conversely, you see and hear plenty of really good instrumentalists, even busking or playing places with sequenced accompaniment, very rarely do you hear a really good singer.
When I was working with bands I recall auditioning for drummers, bass players, guitarists, and singers. With each of the instrumentalists, we would end up with a choice between competing talents however with singers we were lucky to find a single good one.
I think it is far easier to become a mediocre singer than to become a mediocre instrumentalist but in either case, you need a lot of coaching and even more practice to become more than adequate.
This is what I lean to. I can’t sing worth shit. No amount of lessons will get me to sing worth shit. But I can play a number of instruments. I also don’t think it’s particularly hard to sing and play at the same time (but, like I said, my singing sucks. But there’s no musical disconnect between trying to sing and play at the same time–it’s all a single process to me. Having a natural-sounding conversation while playing is much tougher, as conversation doesn’t follow what the music you’re playing is doing.)
That said, I feel some people can just sing with no instruction whatsoever, in a way you can’t really do with guitar or piano. They’re just natural singers. In that sense, I think you can get by with less work at being a singer than an instrumentalist. That said, to excel in either obviously takes a lot of work and practice.
Yeah, I think the debate yields different answers depending on final skill level.
At the novice level, singing is vastly easier than playing an instrument. Witness the lack of “guitar-aoke” nights at the local watering hole. But any drunk fool with printed lyrics can sing a song.
At the intermediate level, an instrumentalist has probably put in way more time and effort than a singer has to get to this point. Naturally gifted singers may not have put much work in at all; they may have started here. Most instruments require lots of work to get here.
At the professional level, I honestly don’t know. You can be pretty darn mediocre and still becomes monstrously succesful. Britney Spears doesn’t sing all that well, but the thread about the worst rock guitarists demonstrates that it’s not just singers. How about grinders? Who puts in more work: Session singers or session instrumentalists? On average I don’t know, but I’ll bet the variance for instrumentalists is much smaller than singers. As in, most (all?) session instrumentalists probably put in tons of work to get there, but the singers may range from a similar “tons of work” to a much lower “lots of work.”
At the top level it’s probably about even; I’m thinking of something like the top guitar players vs the top opera singers. Who spent more time on their craft? I dunno, but I’d guess “a shitload of time, day after day, forever” might describe both pretty accurately. (Even when a top singer has to rest their voice, that counts as time and effort they’re spending on their craft in my book.) I might actually give the edge to the singers at this level, if only because if they aren’t careful their instrument can be damaged in a way instrumentalists simply don’t have to worry about.
Here’s an interesting quora answer from an opera singer:
Why are vocalists rarely described as virtuosi? Who are some virtuoso singers today?
In addition to varying for different levels, it varies from one instrument to another. Harmonica is one of the easiest instruments to get to the first rung on. But getting beyond the first rung is surprisingly difficult.
Compare this with the violin, which I’ve never played, but I understand is very hard at all levels.
I would put the guitar somewhere in the middle. It’s a little harder than the harmonica to get the basics down (e.g., playing “Oh Susanna” on harmonica vs. strumming three chords on guitar) but the difficulty improving increases more or less linearly.
People who are really skilled at something sometimes downplay how hard they worked to achieve that skill. It’s a combination of ego and PR. Jazz composer Sun Ra claimed he could read music the first time he saw it, and Eddie Van Halen used to claim that he had put very little time into learning. And whereas you have to obtain an instrument to start learning it, a singer can practice secretly anywhere there’s privacy.
There’s a difference between training and practicing. Just because someone hasn’t had instruction doesn’t mean they haven’t spent time and effort practicing. Some genres (blues, country) lend themselves more to being self-taught than others (classical).
I have no conclusions, but I do have a few random thoughts as a guitar player who sings (kinda:p)
I can play guitar with a cold, singers have it worse.
I can smoke cigs (or worse), drink, stay out all night and still play guitar, singers have it worse.
I can get carried away (over-enthusiastic) onstage as a guitar player and not hurt my instrument, singers have it worse.
I can play four hours a night, every night. I’ve seen a lot of local rock/metal bands hit the road, going from headlining every Saturday to playing 4 nights a week, and the singer can’t belt it out every night.
Singers have it worse.
Just a few, YmmV:cool:
Hmmm, I can play several instruments from a mediocre to pretty good, and I have never known a time I couldn’t carry a tune. But playing any instrument and singing at the same time is hard for me - unless what I’m singing directly mirrors what I’m playing. I can do it, but it takes practice for the rhythm of one to not throw off the other.
I do think that vocalists do have some advantage at gaining basic competence through being born with their instrument. If I had been plinking away on a tiny guitar from the moment I was born and was expected to use it to communicate, I imagine I would have been a much better guitarist much earlier.
But, as was mentioned before, you can swap an instrument fairly easily, training a limited voice is a lot more work. If I had to make the plywood Global I started with, with its warped-neck, brass frets, and wonky tuning gears into a decent instrument through fixing it, I’m pretty sure I’d still be working at it.
So, I think it’s probably a wash.
It’s possible that learning piano reasonably early (like 8 or 9 years old) that somehow learning independence of hands made it easier to multifunction in that way, that is, think in terms of various musical lines running at the same time. It also does seem like something some people have a much easier time of than others, for whatever reason. Like in the way some people can simply sing well, whereas I cannot and will never be able to. I think at best you might be able to get me up to Billy Corgan’s level circa his early Pumpkins days. What’s always amazed me would be the church organists who’d be singing while playing a 3-part organ line (left hand, right hand, foot pedals) and sometimes these lines would have a decent amount of counterpoint to them, so not just holding notes on the beat, or anything.
Yeah, in the end, it depends on what aspect and level of instrumentalism and vocalism you’re comparing.
I’ll admit than when I started this thread I was thinking of singing basically at the high school level or maybe rock star singing levels. Some pretty good but not near what you might find as say a professional tenor.
Yup. And just like playing an instrument, if you don’t practice regularly, your ability suffers. (I’m both a singer and an instrumentalist.)
I’m not formally trained in singing, I’ve just sung a lot. My standard answer to people online who ask, “Why can’t I sing these high notes?” is, “You don’t sing enough.” I used to run into this all the time with church worship teams, and it was usually a case of the female singers complaining that songs were “too high” … when I, a natural baritone, could sing those “too high” notes (the actual pitches, not an octave lower in “baritone” range) almost effortlessly. The ultimate issue, from what I could tell, was that most of these church singers’ “practice” involved singing along with the radio at home or in the car, and showing up to sing on Sunday. That’s not enough if you want to be a “serious” singer.
You have to get good at singing what you’re comfortable with. Once you’re good at that, you need to pick stuff that’s slightly out of your range, and work at that until you’re good and comfortable with it and you can hit those slightly-higher notes. And then pick something even higher, and work at that until you can do it. Constantly experiment with technique so that you don’t hurt yourself. And you have to do this a lot. Just singing along with the radio isn’t going to do it.
Yeah, well he also claimed he came from Saturn.
And I totally wasn’t thinking of some elite opera singer.
I’m a tenor who sang in church services and along to the radio. I got into my high schools’ most prestigious Choir on the first shot (We had 3). I’d put my range and tone around near Adam Levine’s level, though he is by far* not* the best singer in the world.
I think there are many, MANY people who could be “professional singers” (money makers, not necessarily phenoms) with not much training, especially with all the magic they can do in studios nowadays. The rift in sound between studio and live performance is IMMENSE nowadays (Think: Katy Perry singingin studioto live - OUCH!!)