So you're saying that if Victor Borge took dancing lessons, and was really disciplined and focused really hard, he can be just as good or better than Mike. If you say so. What about people like Mozart, who started playing at 3?
What I'm saying is that an INSTRUMENT can be taught while being able to emot and interprate a song to the point where you take your audience on an emotional journey that stays with them for YEARS can't be.
Some people say this about John Coltrane, Ravi Shankar, Miles Davis, Carlos Santana, Lonnie Liston Smith, and many other instrumentalists. How to sing can be taught just like an instrument can, but it doesn't mean they will sound good or have any talent.
Yes. Thank you. I did know that.
Finally!!!!! Welcome back wannabestartinsomthin21
Very good post
I'm a professional Piano player and i can assure you it is not an easy instrument, Singers have the easiest Job in the World theres alot more pressure on Band Members performing than say the main act, say if the Guitarist or Drummers misses a beat, the Singer ends up going out of time because of the mistake, not everything gets centred around a Singer that's just very naiveThat's not true. Raul Midon, Esperanza Spalding, Debra Killings, Eric Benet, Stevie Wonder, Prince, Oumou Sangare, Candy Dulfer, Ani DiFranco, Sting, George Michael, Wendy & Lisa, and many others recording today do their own stuff.
Raul & Esperanza are new. They came out within the last 4 or 5 years. There's also Lizz Wright, Donnie, Chrisette Michele, & Kem.
Playing an instrument takes alot more Skill than to Sing a Song
But to me, the topic isn't really about who's mainstream or popular, but if it makes a difference if an act writes their own material or not. Acts like Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, or Bob Dylan were never mainstream or had any hit songs, but were held in high esteem with certain audiences and their stuff still sells today. But back on the main topic, I don't think self-writing is anything that important. An act can make more money in some cases if they write their own stuff, but as far as quality, it doesn't matter. The Supremes were very popular and they didn't write anything.
Actually, it can. Listen to the original version of Respect by Otis Redding (who wrote it), and listen to Aretha Franklin's cover. She took the song and did something totally different with it. Aretha wrote some of her songs, but she also did a lot of covers. Isaac Hayes was famous in the early 70s for covering pop hits and making them 15 minutes long. It was like they were a totally different song when he did them. Also theres the Isley Bothers's remake of Todd Rundgren's song Hello It's Me. Ronald Isley does something different as well as with other songs like Seals & Crofts' Summer Breeze. Many people say the J5's "Who's Loving You" is better than the earlier versions by The Miracles or The Temptations. Several Motown writers during the 1960s have said that Marvin Gaye would do something that was different from how the songs were written. Smokey Robinson said that he "Marvinized" the songs, lol. On the other hand, just because someone writes a song doesn't mean it has a special meaning or that they are creative. Look at the average K.C. and the Sunshine Band song. They usually had very simple lyrics that were about parties and fun and 'shaking your booty', lol. But they had somewhat complex musical arrangements however. Or look at an act like 2 Live Crew. They wrote their lyrics, but it's all smut. So it can go both ways.
