The discussion centers on the technical definition of emotion in singing, highlighting that emotional expression is often perceived through exaggerations in pitch and tempo. Participants argue that while technical proficiency in singing does not guarantee emotional impact, the connection between the artist and the song can evoke strong feelings in listeners. Examples include Bob Dylan and Neil Young, whose emotional delivery outweighs their vocal limitations, contrasting with technically skilled singers like Celine Dion and Mariah Carey, who may lack emotional depth. The conversation emphasizes that music itself does not carry emotion; rather, it is the listener's hormonal response that creates the emotional experience.
PREREQUISITESVocal coaches, music educators, performers, and anyone interested in the intersection of technical skill and emotional expression in singing.
You're being clear enough. Bob Dylan had (has) a very nasal irritating voice, but his poetry, inflection, and phrasing made him a mega-star. Neil Young's voice is nothing to write home about, but he's done very well. Axl Rose and Jon Bon Jovi sing like rusty hinges, and neither one of them can keep my attention for more than a couple of seconds. I wouldn't walk across the street to see Wayne Newton or Paul Anka for free, though, despite their vocal abilities. People like Celine Dionne and Mariah Carey leave me cold, too. Technically good, but no soul. If you want to listen to a female vocalist who is technically very proficient, and sings from her heart, get "Babes in the Woods" or "No Frontiers" by Mary Black. She doesn't write her songs, but chooses those that she connects with, and the results are fantastic.Skhandelwal said:Sometimes, people can be singing pretty good, but they don't have any emotion in the song. and sometimes, people sing pretty pathetic, but they got so much emotion in it, that we still like it. I was wondering, what is emotion in singing technically?
Am I being clear?