retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
I was talking with a friend last week about "vocal gymnastics" (of the ilk of Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, but even opera singers too) and I told him that whilst I agree it's a certain rare talent (I know I couldn't do it), it wasn't something I personally gained enjoyment from. We had a talk about the voice as a musical instrument, and I was prompted to look further into why it did not appeal to me.
One reason that came to me, which I'd never really thought about before was that it is expressing "false emotion". A significant percentage of songs that get recorded are about love, many of those about very real and personal experiences... but what happens when that love is gone, or the way you feel about something evolves and changes? If the highly emotive lyrics which seemed appropriate at the time are no longer relevant, because you've fallen out of love, is it appropriate to keep singing them? And if those vocal acrobatics were intended to convey that true emotion, is it sincere to keep singing them in the same way as you did before? And if you sing them the same way as they did before, did they ever really represent true emotion?
Some singers or musicians stop playing songs live at a certain point in their career because they no longer feel it valid to be singing that song any more. Such examples are rare and hard to come by, but I find I have more respect for the integrity behind these choices, than to go on singing these songs, performing the vocal acrobatics, and go on "entertaining" others with words and tones that are now so shallow and false.
What are your thoughts on emotions and vocal acrobatics in the name of entertainment?
Metta,
Retro.
Hello, Retro,
I was actually wondering, after you expressed dislike for Michael Jackson's music, if you are a classical music fan, because those often have a distinct aversion against "jungle music".
It doesn't seem that way, though, if you say you don't gain enjoyment (pleasure) from "Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, but even opera singers too".
I was prompted to look further into why it did not appeal to me.
It appears to me as if you are still trying to come to grips with "aversion", and also with enjoyment= pleasure.
I compliment you, and let me assure you that I have my things to work on just as well, so I'm by no means trying to put myself above you, or anybody, my words are intended as a support, a benevolent pointing a dhamma friend to something, as I hope you will also gently point me to things.
No disrespect or anything negative intended.
Anyhow, the question of (a lack of) synchronicity you ask about is highly interesting.
Allow me a question:
Are you a practising artist?
Do you sing, dance, play an instrument, paint, sculpture, work with metal, wood, clay, landscape parks, sow cloth, make jewelry, or write books or poems?
Art is not your livelihood, right?
Because that is the crucial point.
A painter like Picasso paints a picture, sells it, and moves on to the next one.
But he will continue to produce .
A
reproducing artist, like a singer, will sing a song 100 or 1000 times to the audience, - but never in the exact same way.
Plus, he cannot afford the luxury, to sing a song that feeds his belly only for one summer.
People love it, and when they fall in love, it speaks to them. Or they are broken-hearted, or cheerful, whatever.
So, the artist is a servant to those people he speaks to with his art.
He gives his special gift and talent to people.
No matter how tired he may be of the song, he will give it, if possible.
And if he is a spiritual person,- which most artists are-, with joy, to those who are touched in their hearts by his art.
Their applause makes him more happy than the money, many say.
They also modify tours.
When Michael Jackson knew that Diana, Princess of Wales, was in the audience, he couldn't sing: "Dirty Diana", because it didn't feel right.
As long as it feels right, artists will sing what they created, (ballett dancers will dance "Swanlake",) because it is a part of their art, is part of their history, and why deny that?
hey love the feedback and I am so sure, because I am an artist myself, and positive feedback is great.
I may not personally like a particular style anymore, because I moved on to something else, but if a customer wants something from an earlier time, I will be more than happy to produce it again.
Don't forget, artists have no other means of income, no unemployment money, and so each dollar is wonderful.
No work, no food.
Same for celebs.
PS: Mariah and Whitney don't sing anything that I would want to buy either. ...
But Maria Callas, yes.
) And yet these timeless melodies evoke profound emotion.
