"You're singing flat"--are singers more likely to sing flat than sharp?

Cafe Society
1

I’m not entirely musically clueless–I play guitar and can read music (slowly), but I can’t sing to save my life, and my sense of intonation is not exactly amazing, so, I was wondering…

I notice that people are a lot, lot, lot more likely to say someone is singing flat than sharp. Now, I can think, off the top of my head, for two explanations for this, though I suppose there could be others. The first would be that singers are much more likely, for some reason, to miss a note by being too flat than by being too sharp. The second explanation would be that, if a singer is out of tune, he is probably going to miss notes either too sharp or too flat in about equal proportion, but since “sharp” has positive connotations (“you look sharp,” etc) saying they’re singing flat is a more effective way of emphasizing that they’re out of tune.

So, am I thinking straight? Why “you’re singing flat,” instead of “you’re singing sharp”?

2

I find it easier to slide up and get in tune. Ideally I hit the note, but since I’m still learning I don’t. If I’m holding the note then I can adjust my pitch slightly.

Funny how that works. Even with scales. I’m more comfortable with Do Re Mi than Mi Re Do. Probably because I’m not very experienced.

3

Based on singing in small groups and choirs, I’d say there is a tendency to sing flat vs. sharp. The most noticeable example for me is singing a capella. You can start with a given note from a piano (or other instrument). At the end of the a capella portion, you can test the last note you actually sang with the note you should have sung from the piano. I’ve never experienced the group singing higher than what the instrument says, but often the group ended flat compared to where they should have been.

4

I was told that listeners are more likely to notice flatness than sharpness, so observer bias could be another explanation.

5

Because vibrato is the use of subtle variations in pitch, and untrained singers don’t know to compensate by slightly raising the base pitch.

Also, being a little flat is more pleasing to the ear than being a little sharp, imho.

6

I don’t think this makes sense. A note can never be flat in itself. It can only be flat compared to some other note (perhaps one being played as accompaniment, or perhaps one sung before or after). In which case, surely one could just as well say that that other note is sharp.

7

I would say it has to do with breath support - sing weak, sing flat. I know I’d heard that singers tend to be flat so often (I was in school choir but hadn’t taken any proper lessons yet) that I tended to be sharp, or rather, I could tell I was wrong, assume I was flat, and so pushed the note higher.

8

One could say that, but describing a pitch as “sharp or flat” is inherently making a reference to the accompaniment.

For example, if you’re performing a violin concerto and the soloist is really sharp in comparison to the entire orchestra accompanying her, it would be foolish to suggest the entire orchestra alter their pitch (though really, really good orchestral players could do that on the spot).

You would simply say the soloist was sharp and needs to let out some string in the neck.

9

Sorry if I’m telling you something you already know, but from the sound of it, you need some clarification: If someone is singing flat, it means they’re singing below the note, and if someone is singing sharp, it means they’re singing above it. So the terms aren’t interchangeable as in, “We’ll say you’re flat because I don’t want to accidentally compliment you by saying you sound sharp.” It’s either one or the other. So your second explanation would not be rational.

The reason you (correctly) noted that more people sing flat than sharp is because singing is like flexing a muscle. And just like when you flex your bicep for too long, those muscles get tired. So it’s much easier to produce a flat note because the higher you need to sing, the more you need to flex the muscle. If someone is singing sharp, it usually means they’re overcompensating for singing flat; pushing with too much air, squeezing the vocal cord muscles too tight, or just plain guessing at what the note should sound like and overshooting it.

10

This is true for me, at least in the sense that I find anyone singing sharp to be painful, while flat singing is just annoying.

11

When I’m playing violin or viola, my intonation is spot on. Always has been, even as a child. And also when I’m singing.

But when I’m tired, “gravity” takes over. Unlike the instruments, it takes somewhat of an effort to maintain pitch in the voice, and in my case, fatigue can bring it down. I’ve noticed in others, they pretty much begin flat, which I attribute to an inability to critically hear and adjust one’s own voice. I have very rarely heard anyone singing sharp; you’d have to be overcompensating for singing flat.

12

Yip, it’s an effort thing. It just takes more effort to sing sharp than to sing flat. The only time I encounter people who regularly sing sharp is with sopranos when they are trying to sing really high (or contraltos trying to be sopranos), putting in so much effort and tightening up so much that they go sharp. Sopranos have to learn to use their lighter head voice.

You’d think tenors (or baritones trying to be tenors) would do it even more often, since they often muscle up to the pitch, but I think that it is just so tiring for them that they go flat instead.

13

A baritone in our choir, who regularly sings solos, is often critiqued for singing sharp. I agree it is overcompensation, stretching at the top of his range.