Everyone can sing.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    I really, really get tired of people saying that. Yes, most every person can carry a tune. But not every voice is a thing of beauty. So we need to be careful when we say that everyone can sing because saying someone can sing has two different meanings:

    1. Person can carry a tune.

    2. Person can sing.

    Three guys who can carry a tune and sing as proof that there is a difference and we should be cautious in how we treat this topic.

    http://www.flixxy.com/forte-americas-got-talent.htm
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I have said for years that great singing is first of all, a gift. A lot of hard work and study go into making that gift greater, but the gift was there initially. The folks I have encountered who don't sing well, may sound less bad after voice lessons, but they will never be top-notch singers. YMMV
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Barring diagnosible physical or mental handicaps...

    Everyone can run, not everyone is qualified to run races for a living.
    But everyone should run from time to time.

    Everyone can tell a joke, not everyone is qualified to be a comedian.
    But everyone should tell a good joke from time to time.

    Everyone can write a poem, not everyone should be a poet.
    But everyone should write a poem every now and then (even if it is cheezy and ridiculous).

    Everyone can pray, not everyone should be a monk, a nun, or a priest...

    -dancing
    -cooking
    -wood-working
    -letter-writing
    -baseball throwing
    -SINGING

    The obvious fact that not everyone should be a professional singer, or even sing in a choir, does not negate the fact that everyone CAN sing, and that everyone SHOULD sing (though, obviously, not ALL THE TIME).
    Thanked by 7ClergetKubisz Gavin veromary Ignoto IanW marajoy Philothea
  • Mark HuseyMark Husey
    Posts: 192
    I'm gonna take a bite at this, although I'm taking a somewhat different angle than you might intend. I am reminded of a line from Stravinsky's "The Rake's Progress," how W. H. Auden defines beauty through the protagonist, Tom Rakewell, when asked by his antogonist-cum-manservant, Nick Shaddow:

    [Beauty is] that source of pleasure to the eyes*
    Youth holds
    Wit snatches
    Money buys
    and Envy affects to scorn, but lies.
    One fatal flaw it has:
    It dies.


    *and I would add, to the ears or any of the senses.

    That being said, beauty is a subjective experience when issues of taste and propriety or even health enter in (insert Pope Benedict's admonitions about the slippery slope of relativism). *I* would rather hear a well-trained operatic voice at Mass than an out-of-tune amateur. The au courant choral sound that is sweeping the world is a bleached-white, laser-pure tone with very little if any dramatic inflection or diction. You can compare John Scott's choir at Saint Paul's Cathedral in London versus his choir at Saint Thomas Church NYC to notice that he has adapted his choral style to the current trend.

    Because I'm within shouting distance of a university school of music, I have soloists and choral scholars of a variety of vocal timbres. My preference, for choral work and chant, is for a "straight tone", pure vowels with a somewhat more dramatic and poetic inflection of the text; operatically trained singers struggle to manage their soloistic "ping" or "squillo" in addition to straightening out their soloistic vibratos. They have a chance to shine in solo passages of Mozart Masses or larger anthems, and can certainly help light a fire under the congregation during the hymns. Pope Francis' first Mass at the Lateran Basilica now comes to mind, with some wailing woman destroying a congregational vibe on a chant ordinary. Some people are harder to herd than others.

    So yes, there are parts of a liturgy that are for EVERYONE to sing, regardless of the level or type or lack of their giftedness. The hope is that our voices "blend with the angels" - those in heaven, as we imagine them, to be most specific.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Hey, there are days when I would like to send all the singers home, and go back to organ masses. Then there are time when they do well, and it all somehow comes together beautifully.
    Thanked by 3Gavin francis IanW
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    What Adam said.

    Music literacy is at an all-time low, and perhaps valuing beauty and high-effort culture, too. It's no wonder people have reverted to believing in the Talent Fairy.

    Some people have beautiful voices, others develop decent voices into stunning ones, others have voices that work best in particular styles. And some people are harder or easier to lead, as in any group.

    Barring a physical handicap, everyone can sing. There is such a thing as aptitude, but there is no Talent Fairy.
    Thanked by 5Daniel Bennett Page Gavin Jenny Ignoto Philothea
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 833
    The ability to judge one's own singing accurately is hugely difficult, and the capacity to accept critique about it is often comparable emotionally to having someone judge your newborn. Of course, folks who want some sort of preferment based on their singing must accept professional judgement, but the lay of the land remains the background to the exchange. And, still, some people's voices stand the best chance of professional employment mounted atop ambulances.
    Thanked by 6Wendi CHGiffen Jenny R J Stove noel jones, aago tomboysuze
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    There is no talent fairy. However, there is God who bestows greater or lesser gifts on those of his choice. Experience has taught me that musical gifts are not given to everyone in equal proportion. Strangely, those with the greatest gifts often tend to think everyone has them. They don't.

    I have known individuals who took voice lessons for years, and never really learned to sing well. The most you could say is they were less bad than when they started. While many can sing, fewer can do it well.
    Thanked by 2R J Stove noel jones, aago
  • Mad_Dan_EcclesMad_Dan_Eccles
    Posts: 51
    All may, some should, none must and we'd prefer that some refrain from it altogether
    Thanked by 4CharlesW ClergetKubisz Jenny francis
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Yup Dan, that about sums it up.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Sing if you must. The shower stall is a great place to start... for some, is should be the end too.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Congenital inability to carry a tune (an inability which marked Fulton Sheen, on his own account) isn't a crime, any more than congenital inability to hear is a crime. It may be unfortunate - and deafness from birth is a good deal more than just unfortunate - but the lacuna has no moral implications, whatever certain ostensibly Catholic upholders of the "active participation" mindset might suppose to the contrary.

    I have known a few people who have been tone-deaf all their lives. The more intensive the efforts of the nearest schoolmarm to cure their tone-deafness, the more totally such efforts failed. Yet the efforts would never have been made in the first place but for the bizarre assumptions that tone-deafness (a) is a temporary choice made out of sheer cussedness, (b) constitutes some profound all-pervading ethical flaw.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • Chrism
    Posts: 868
    Then there's this: Can the tone deaf learn to sing?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    There's very different issues here, which I tried to address above.

    Not everyone can/should sing when the purpose of singing is to be listened to by other people who are not singing.

    Everyone can and should sing regularly for the purpose of singing.

    cf. Chesterton on dancing and religion as being too important to be left up to the professionals.

    It is part of our heritage as HUMAN BEINGS. It is one of the great tragedies of our modern culture that there are people who are convinced they cannot sing- even for their own enjoyment. Just as it is a tragedy of our culture that so few people dance for fun (and when they do dance for fun, it is gross).
    Thanked by 3noel jones, aago Andrew Motyka francis
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "It is one of the great tragedies of our modern culture that there are people who are convinced they cannot sing"

    And that's because there are people out there who tell people that they can't sing.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood francis Ignoto marajoy ClergetKubisz
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    And I can happily count myself among those who've never said anything of that sort to one single soul in my career. Thanks to reading Richard Miller's books.
    It is a singular wonderful joy to coach a "tone-deaf" voice into not only matching pitch but to get the voice and ear of the student/chorister finally tuned into so they can "join the choir."
    Thanked by 3Gavin Ignoto tomboysuze
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Melo, I cannot say AMEN more strongly. The joy to teach people to sing well when they've been told they couldn't or shouldn't sing is wonderful and has happened to me more times than I can count. People cry, and they are often amazed and even angry at wasted years hiding their voice.

    It is the joy of reversing an injustice.

    Up with Roger Miller!! Can't say enough good things about him.

    It's always interesting when I ask, "who told you that you couldn't sing?". I've yet to hear that an actual trained singer or voice teacher (a credentialed one, not a quack) told them that.

    People who make negative, absolutist pronouncements on other's voices very often lack the competency to do so, especially if they are not singers.

    What such folks should say, in all professional honesty, is something like, "I can tell you have some vocal issues, but I don't have the know-how to fix them, even though I am a musician."
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen francis Ignoto
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    well, dissenting opinion: for a small-town children's opera production, I auditioned many, many children. Though I never said "you can't sing" to any child, still there were a large number (maybe 20-30 percent) of the kids that used monotone voice in rhythm to match a familiar song ("happy birthday to you"): no change in pitch, just the rhythm and words. Of those, probably some could be brought to hear pitch, but I believe a good number of humans just can't do it.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Statistically speaking, the more accurate thing to say would be that you are unable to work with them, or don't have the time. There's no shame in admitting that.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Copper: hat's a cultural problem, not an innate-ability problem.

    I believe a good number of humans just can't do it.


    In cultures where everyone is expected to sing, everyone can sing.
    Go find a big Church of Christ congregation some place: HUNDREDS of people who can sing in (often improvised) 4-part harmony (with just intonation, I might add). Not a single person there would say they "can't" sing. They might not want to subject anyone to their voice solo on a mic, but they can all SING.

    Do you think 20 or 30 percent of tribal Africans or Native Americans can't match pitch or keep a beat?

    And where do all those strong Baritones, Basses, and Basso Profundos come from in Orthodox churches? Some weird Russian genetics? NO. 90% of those men would never have started trying to sing in a Latin or Protestant church, and of the ones who did, most would be told they couldn't sing very well.

    If I were to express my true thoughts on the nature of how our culture (both secular and religious) treats real, authentic, AMATEUR singing, I would be banned from this forum for foul language and histrionics.
    Thanked by 2Gavin ClergetKubisz
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Didn't Mrs. Ward do something with teaching monotones to sing on pitch?
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Let's not let the discussion meander. We have the technology, the pedagogy and the research that abets the statistical reality that it is not physiology that determines proficient audiation. If there's ever an occasion where the cliche, "Where there is a will, there is a way," is a stark reality, it is in the dedication of student and mentor that will prevail over most if not all issues. And in mrcopper's defense, there are plenteous times when we can't go after the one stray sheep at the expense of the 99 that must be corralled. But if you can get passed performance event hindrances, by all means see if you can retrieve and help that one little soul fulfil the reason they showed up for the audition in the first place.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "the more accurate thing to say would be that you are unable to work with them, or don't have the time."

    Right. The problem is not with those who "can't sing". The problem is with those people who go around making it their business to decide who can and can't sing.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "If I were to express my true thoughts on the nature of how our culture (both secular and religious) treats real, authentic, AMATEUR singing, I would be banned from this forum for foul language and histrionics."

    I'd be right behind you, Adam. To me, no trained voice, no opera singer, no British choir is more beautiful that enthusiastic Sacred Harp singing.
    Thanked by 3melofluent Adam Wood Spriggo
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    There is a severe difference between the visceral reaction to Sacred Harp singing and intellectual/emotional reaction of humans to classical music such as the Allegri Miserere.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen Andrew_Malton
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Right, of course.

    And there is also a big difference between "can sing" and "can sing classical music in a choir which performs for other people to listen to."

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with this difference existing.

    There IS something wrong with the notion that only one of those is legitimate and valuable. (And there exist buckle-hatted pikers on both sides of that.)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,951
    "There is a severe difference between the visceral reaction to Sacred Harp singing and intellectual/emotional reaction of humans to classical music such as the Allegri Miserere."

    I don't experience that cleavage. I can see that some do. But let's not universalize that and turn it into an assumption.
    Thanked by 2melofluent Spriggo
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    For me:

    I like choral performances to be nuanced and polished. Like Haute cuisine.

    I like congregational singing to be rough and rugged, with everyone taking part. Like a pot-luck picnic.
    Thanked by 6Gavin CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn Andrew Motyka Philothea Mark Husey
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    True enough, Salieri. But I wouldn't dub all Sacred Harp experiences as rough and rugged. I think that SH and other American white delta lowlands styles are more akin to indigineous styles. Among those are some very refined ethos and techniques from African tribal, African multiculture (Ladysmith), Oceanic (Tahitian/Hawaiian), Southeast Asian, New Guinean and even Bulgaria, not to mention the extremes of Buddhist throat chanting.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    I don't believe that Buddhists find throat chanting extreme (it's a sort of argumentative day, isn't it)...but then I read:

    With my third ear open and my third eye in tears (what could have been taken merely as the sweat of my brow), I practiced listening and singing, seeking out recorded examples of overtone singing and imitating them, until I could somehow intuitively just do any overtone singing style I heard. I now believe, however, that I had a tool that worked in my favor.


    From an excellent blog: http://alexanderglenfield.blogspot.com
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 756
    "Everyone can sing". Would it help to consider terms? Who can sing what, in what circumstance, for what purpose? Who might sing what ...? Who ought to sing what ...? Who should or should not ...?

    These are not "merely" academic questions. There are different kinds of music and roles in the Mass (I think it safe in this place to go beyond the "all should sing everything" and "what raises the roof is right" approaches). So the singing abilities and qualities we expect of a priest will be different from those of a cantor or schola-member we ask to sing the more complex propers; and these will be different again from what we ask of a group who support the singing of the congregation's parts of the mass, and of the congregation itself.
    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Didn't Mrs. Ward do something with teaching monotones to sing on pitch?


    Maybe, but the method (at least when I took the foundation course at C.U.) calls for separating the kids into groups based on their skill level, so that the weaker singers sing a little but listen more of the time, and the stronger group is able to give them a good example.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Some days I wonder what it would be like to be a Buddhist. No nuns, no diva sopranos, no off-pitch basses, no Mass of Creation. Just sitting in a peaceful garden with a nice fountain, meditating away. Or, I could join with the United Methodists. Close enough. Om...
    Thanked by 1tomboysuze
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Some days I wonder what it would be like to be a Buddhist. No nuns, no diva sopranos, no off-pitch basses, no Mass of Creation. Just sitting in a peaceful garden with a nice fountain, meditating away. Or, I could join with the United Methodists. Close enough. Om...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    That's right: the chanting does involve some acceptance of repetition.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Grass is always greener.

    Real/actual Buddhists are just as tacky as everyone else. The idea that they sit in beautiful gardens and meditate is as much stereotype/wishful-thinking/Hollywood as the notion that Catholics sing Gregorian chant.
    Thanked by 2tomboysuze marajoy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    How that double posted, I will never know. Must be another EarthLink glitch. It's been acting up today.

    I know some actual Buddhists and you are correct. Most of them are Buddhist converts, so I don't know what the cradle Buddhists would think of them. The garden sounds nice, though.

    I did know some Sikhs once. I think they were California Sikhs since they had pastel turbans. Nice folks. As they say, Sikh and ye shall not mind. ;-)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,951
    Friends Sunday meeting....
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    How many Sikhs did you know, Charles? More than 5, less than 7....?
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I once worked with 3 or 4 when we were all with a government agency, many years ago. They were engineers of various disciplines. They were interesting folks, and were highly ethical and people of integrity.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Positively my final remarks on the whole "everyone can sing" theory: I would have thought that the "everyone can sing" theory was merely a sub-set of the "everyone is teachable" theory.

    And that particular notion, if not actually the sole prerogative of Marxist foot-soldiers afflicted with double-digit IQs (but all the more powerful in certain public school systems on that account), is at the very least a notorious constituent of the John Dewey mindset. (Um, just to clarify, this thread is meant to be Catholic, n'est-ce pas? Since when did Catholicism conclude in any sphere of life that everyone was teachable?)

    Here's the non-Catholic Albert Jay Nock recalling his own education. He has in mind literacy skills, but his observations surely apply just as well to music-making:

    "An equalitarian and democratic regime must by consequence assume, tacitly or avowedly, that everybody is educable. The theory of our regime was directly contrary to this. Our preceptors did not see that doctrines of equality and democracy had any footing in the premises. They did not pretend to believe that everyone is educable, for they knew, on the contrary, that very few are educable, very few indeed. They saw this as a fact of nature, like the fact that few are six feet tall."



  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Wow. Okay.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    RJ Stove, are you a singing teacher, one with extensive pedagogical training and years of performing experience and teaching experience? I think not. I think you are not as qualified as others, including myself, to say who is teachable and who is not when it comes to the voice.

    If you think you are, please present your qualifications as a voice teacher.

    Teaching people how to sing has nothing to do with communism- plain old red herring. Perhaps vocal pedagogy it is not your area of expertise. No need to question others faithfulness as Catholics because of that.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Everyone is teachable is one of those myths I understand. As an educator, I was quite used to enthusiastic parents telling me about the genius level behind their perfectly ordinary kids. One would have thought those children conducted the Berlin Philharmonic on weekends - at least, to hear the parents talk.

    Any trained musician can generally recognize bad or good singing upon hearing it. The same for instrumental playing. There is a common core of knowledge and awareness that getting a music degree of any stripe instills in musicians. In getting my degree in organ - and yes, vocal music believe it or not - I had to study a much wider range of music than just organ. Could I sing at the Met? Never. In fact, I rarely sing at all anymore since age and this climate have been less than kind to my voice. We won't discuss the years of smoking before I quit, but it didn't help, either. One doesn't have to teach voice or organ to have studied it. A well-educated musician also can likely recognize good and bad practices and understand how to correct them.

    Can anyone who desires succeed at music? No. Some simply have little talent or aptitude for it, and no amount of training can compensate for that. Granted, the training helps keep teachers employed, that's for sure.

    Thanked by 1R J Stove
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Teaching people how to sing has nothing to do with communism


    It does if you do it right!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Actually, I thought most singing teachers were Nazis, not communists. LOL.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Srsly, guise....

    Everyone can be taught. Not everyone can be taught the same things or the same way.

    For goodness sakes- the lefty-loosey attitude that everyone can be a whatever (let's say: DOCTOR), which is passed off as egalitarian is in fact no such thing. It's elitist, because implicit in the "no one is so uneducable that they have to stoop to being a garbage collector, everyone can aspire to be a doctor" implies that some professions are INHERENTLY MORE VALUABLE to society, more fulfilling, whatever. It's insulting.

    The anti-egalitarian righty-tighty opinion (NOT everyone can be a DOCTOR), while technically correct, is infused with the same wrong spirit: that being a DOCTOR requires a better brain (or something) than being a mechanic, and (furthermore) that ones relative intelligence is somehow tied to ones worth.

    The argument that everyone can be taught to sing "correctly" (that is, classically) hinges on the notion that one mode of singing is the right one, the legitimate one, the only one that really counts as singing. This is an obnoxious form of elitism.

    The fact of the matter is that there are certain styles and types of singing which some people will be capable of doing, and other people will not be. Any value judgements about which is better are OPINIONS.

    Someone saying "not everyone can learn to sing" almost assuredly means that some people cannot learn to sing in some particular way (classical choir, or something). That form of linguistic shorthand reveals a de-legitimization of all other forms of singing on the part of the person saying it.

    Someone saying "everyone can learn to sing," who means, by that, that everyone can learn to sing in a particular way (classical choir) is wrong in what they mean, and is likewise de-legitimizing other forms of singing.

    Someone saying "everyone can learn to sing" who means, by that, that everyone can learn to sing informally, for their own edification and enjoyment, or in order to join in community singing of hymns and songs, is basically right, with one minor exception: this kind of singing does not need to be learned. Or at least- it does not need to be learned/taught as a discreet skill: like walking, talking, running, and playing- it is a natural part of what it means to be a human being.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I think when most of us say, "singing," we are referring to Church choir singing and specifically Catholic Church liturgical singing, which for the most part is what many would call, "classical." It is a style of singing and not everyone is, or will ever be, good at it.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • music123
    Posts: 100
    Forgive me for being a latecomer to this thread, but, I fully believe 95% of people have the capacity to make a contribution to a church choir if they put in the time and effort. They may not be soloists, granted, but they can make a contribution nonetheless.

    At my previous parish, a beautiful small church the rural Southern Indiana with 20+ entries in the directory for the last name "Popp," there seemed to be a strong culture against men singing, and the composition of my choir definitely reflected this. I repeatedly would hear women ridiculing how badly their husbands sang, and it made me ANGRY. It seemed to be a way these bossy women kept their husbands in line, and by doing so, they were preventing them from exploring what gifts God gave them.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Can anyone learn to sing? Yes. Do some people need to put A LOT more work into it? Yes. Are all those people WILLING to put the work required into learning? NO.

    There are lots of people who use the excuse that they've been told they "can't sing" or are "tone deaf" to avoid putting the effort into learning to sing. Those who really want to sing well will make the effort to find someone who can help them learn.

    Far more troubling to me personally are those who have an overinflated opinion of their ability and refuse hear constructive criticism, or to work on improving their sound and technique, but think they should be given solos and cantor roles so they can live out their American Idol fantasies. These are the same people that get angry and disruptive when they don't get the prominent role they believe is their due.

    @juhorton...we have that here too. Men who think they can't sing because their wives say so. My response to that has been...ok, but I bet you can chant. I have a nice little men's schola forming. We'll chant for awhile, then move on to chant-like hymns. Pretty soon...voila...you're singing and listen to how well you sound. Let's find some TTB stuff to sing and give the ladies a Sunday off.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Adam, agreed with one caveat- most everyone can be taught how to sing in a choir provided they have someone who is able to work with them.
    Will a choir of trained amateurs sound like the 16? No. Are they capable of serving the Church as a beautiful amateur parish choir? Yes. Especially if there are classically trained section leaders, as the voice is an extension of language and we all learn language through hearing.

    CharlesW, agreed entirely. My problem is when people are told they can't sing by other people. In our field, this is especially true of musicians who may be proficient or even excellent on various instruments, including voice, but have insufficient pedagogical training to help people who can't sing right away.

    This is not recognized and the blame/problem is shifted to the person wanting to sing, who most likely could with time, effort, and a good teacher's expertise.
Add a Comment