I've perceived that some artists sing better with minimal accompaniment 
... while others sing better only with instrumental 'collaborations'.
IOWs, I know I can PAINT a portrait exceedingly well, but I never can DRAW a portrait of any beauty.   OTOH, Other portrait artists can't paint ... but their charcoal drawings are to-die-for.


The same with singing; I sing exceedingly well with rich instruments ... but when it comes to singing acapella or without accompaniment ... its pretty ugly, IMHO.


Also, while my sketches truly suck ... my polished productions are oft mind-blowing (IMHO, JMO).  Once the big picture starts to form, then and only then does my creative inspiration manifest any beauty.


Any of you have similar ponderings ... or vice-versa?  Thanks in advance for your relevant (and/or irrelevant thoughts)!

all i know is, i have to cinch up my leather chaps REALLY tight, to sing my high harmonies.

I'm not good at painting or drawing either one.  But there is no difference in my singing regarding the accompaniment (as long as it's not off pitch).

I sing better when strumming the guitar while singing.  I connect with the song and instrument better.  

I also notice that I sing better when I forget that the mic is on.  I find it a challenge to Engineer your self and loose yourself in the music at the same time.




I paint and draw equally well.  My wife wishes that I would paint more. 

 ...its pretty ugly...


Just noticed this very common but direct contrast!


I'm so very used to sitting at the piano & singing after years & years of Piano Lounge gigs 6 nights a week, that that's what works best for me.


I know it's often recommended to be standing straight & upright by some for proper diaphragm control & best results, but I think it's what ever you get used to & comfortable with more than anything else. 


I also do better by having the piano notes to go by vs. just acapella.

Hi Phillip,
 Your premise seems like an interesting and applicable metaphor.

 Food for thought.


 all the best,
mike

I think that what you are experiencing is a common misconception. 

After all, it's the same voice from the same person.... kill the backing musical accompaniment  in either a musical sketch or a musical painting and you have the same voice. 

In the painting situation, you have more instrumentation to hide, and cover for the voice. Hence, it tends to sound better because it's got other things running interference for it.... providing cover. 

In the sketch..... piano or guitar with a vocal track..... there is no place to hide. But essentially it is the same vocal that was in the other performance. 

So.... since the sketch situation seems to be the harder of the 2, I would suggest doing more of it. Only by working in that medium can you find and solve the issues that are bothering you. Once you get into the "zen" of the sketch project, you will find that place where it works. 

You have to think of your voice as an instrument rather than just "singing the parts" of the song.  Why do you choose a piano or a guitar? Answer: because it sounds like if fits the part in the song and supports it's weight. Same is true of the voice. 

The voice is not an "also ran" it is one of the premier stars of the show, if not THE most important one. Approach it mentally from that POV. Attitude changes everything. ( Listen to some Tom Waits) 

Such Awesome thoughts all (Bat, Beeg, Mike, Mike, Jim, Herb); I'm pretty certain there's no dogmatic right or wrong answer to the metaphor of "drawing vs. painting" as it relates to singing vs. singing with extra stuff.

Part of the issue may be EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY.  (I don't know)

A sensitive woman may sing or draw with superb excellence.  Her lines (vocal or etched) may yield an exquisite excellence that is swiftly destroyed by robust distortion guitars and choirs.

Likewise, sensitive melodic Eastern artists (Chinese, etc.) don't oft seem to fair well with expressionistic paintings, choirs and bands ... compared to Western bands.  They can draw well ... with introspective excellence.

OTOH, robust expressionistic metal warriors may exploit distortions, rhythms, and such to sing/paint ... at least at some points in their canvases.  

I wonder if Alice Cooper or Robert Plant could sing acapella without sounding plain (or ugly).  Hahahaha!  IMHO, Led Zep seemed to terminate when their drummer died.


... Western pop artists seem to thrive on bass and groove colorations to express themselves 'adequately'.  I doubt many hip-hop singers could 'last-it' without beatz as part of their rant.

Then there are you guys!  You guys all sing wonderfully; IMHO, JMO.  
And, I know you can sing solo-acapella SOMEWHAT ... hahahaha!  But many of you seem to richly paint song portraits better than you can draw them IYKWIM.  


OTOH, Reece (to my ears) seems able to sweetly deliver both solo opera-antics ... AND rich colorful blues.  So every talent here has diverse gifts that would probably violate my perceptions ... perhaps depending of genres and such.


I just 'observe' that my vox and those of many of you here 'currently' rivet well toward colorfully glazed mixes, duets, quartets, etc. ... despite years of faithful singing and song-leading.  


I know I can paint a symphonic masterpiece but I can't seem to draw elegantly ... without multi-instruments or vocs harmonizing and such.

Firstly Philip, there is singing and then there is singing.  Someone who is "trained" will undoubtly sound great whether they are in a drawing or a painting.  Then there are the rest of us, me included who are not always on the money but when you layer the vocal within the painting it sounds heavenly.  This is because you are reinforcing the sonics or the pure note.  I hope that makes sense.  

Peace Ben  

BenMMusTech


Firstly Philip, there is singing and then there is singing.  Someone who is "trained" will undoubtly sound great whether they are in a drawing or a painting.  Then there are the rest of us, me included who are not always on the money but when you layer the vocal within the painting it sounds heavenly.  This is because you are reinforcing the sonics or the pure note.  I hope that makes sense.  

Peace Ben  

Makes sense, Ben, but, I suppose some of this issue might be recapitulated as:


Euphony vs. Polyphony.  (Which others have pondered here)


A painterly painting is oft polyphonic and is concerned with orchestrating large volumes of consonant and dissonant 'hopeful' elements ... something that the euphonic country singer or euphonic soul singer doesn't always comprehend.

Are there artists that can handle euphonic country AND polyphonic rock symphonies?  I suppose King Elvis Presley was a great example of genre diversity.  OTOH, I might envision Elvis is/was more the extreme euphonic singer.  He could not handle rich Beatles psychedelia, hip-hop, metal, or similar polyphonic madness with too much credulity ... despite his awesome pop antics.  

With Elvis, the drawing takes precedence over the painting.


BatsBrew is one of the most amazing singers and artists here (to me); I'm a great fan of his polyphony ... and envy all his works.  (Though I don't always comment on them)


IIRC, I may once have suggested that his most excellent vox might be louder in a mix ... but Bat responded, IIRC, that he wanted the instruments to share more with the song.  That made sense, since his guitars are spectacular also.  His mixes blend a lot of awesome performances, techniques, and production layers.


But, I've now pondered, fwiw :):):), (for my songs and yours) that: A polished polyphonic mix itself can and should inspire re-newed singing in some if not many songs.