Soul vs Technique

[datura800.livejournal.com]

I hope he won't mind me quoting him, but I read an interesting assertion in Alex's review of the new Mariah album (today's Guardian):

"Carey's voice has been mocked, bizarrely, as being a triumph of technique over soul - an argument that fails to comprehend that technique and soul are intertwined, that technique primarily exists as a means to convey emotion".

I thought this would be a good discussion to have here - it's a point I quite strongly disagree with (generally, not specifically with relation to Mariah), but I'll wait to see if anyone is interested in commenting before launching into it.

Comments

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Alas Lex is on a long-haul flight to Japan today - but yes it's an interesting question. My eyebrows raised slightly because I wonder if Lex would apply that judgement to anything other than vocal technique - no fan of the extended guitar solo he!

Soul is a bit of a weasel word because it's hard to agree on what it means, but technique is deceptively like that too. One reason soul and technique are seen as a binary is that people can easily define technique as 'all the bits of a singer they don't like' and assume the stuff they do respond to is soul. But most great soul singers have also had amazing technique, even if that technique hasn't involved Carey-esque range and control: I was listening to an Al Green song last night ("I Didn't Know") - it was about 7 minutes long, not much tune, but the way he used timing to build tension and keep your attention throughout was incredible.

So I'd agree that soul and technique are intertwined. Is "technique" in the Mariah sense primarily a means to convey emotion? I think yes that's the intention - whether it succeeds or not is down to the individual listener.

(One interesting argument I read is that the vocal feats of Whitney (and the post-Whitney school of soul technique) are quite Churchy, Gospelly - if God's given you this amazing voice you should use it to the max to praise him - so high-technique soul voices originate as literal "sonic cathedrals"! I dunno if I buy this exactly but it's an interesting angle.)

[datura800.livejournal.com]

Oh I certainly wouldn't question that technique and soul ARE intertwined (taking soul as 'conveying emotion' rather than soul music) but I think that where the point falls for me is that tecnique at some point became an end in itself, not a means of conveying emotion well. Mariah is a prime example of this, as are the reams of singers you hear on 'X-Factor/American Idol' who are brilliant singers but could be singing the phone book.

I think of people like Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen - I don't think anyone could claim that these people are technically great singers, but they are undoubtedly great singers. I recall Q Magazine making the same point in their review of Madonna's ballad collection, 'Something To Remember', saying something along the lines of 'this collection demonstrates that while she is by no means a great singer, she is undoubtedly a great singer'. Except not as clumsily as that.

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

Yeah that line doesn't really make any sense - "technique and soul are intertwined" may be true to an extent but using it as a defence in itself suggests the Lex doesn't believe in the concept of empty virtuosity, or is conveniently ignoring its existence.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Yes his using it as a defence doesn't work - technique COULD only 'triumph over soul' if the two were related surely.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

(lex is on hols of course)

i have a messy attitude to vocals. on the one hand i find it hard to admire technique and could care less about whether someone is a good/powerful/varied singer, on the other i am often put off music i would otherwise love by vocals and also like the voice as an instrument.

(lyrics i'm similarly messed up on. most time i'm not listening to them)

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Most of the time I don't listen to the lyrics either. Some people think this is odd.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i think the point lex is making -- in ref the gospel side of the R&B tradition -- is fairly uncontroversial (though it's rather compressed there, and a bit obscured under his use of the word "soul"): within the gospel aesthetic, to unfold yr awesome technique in its virtuosity is to give appropriate thanks for it, to your maker who blessed you with it... in other words, the key emotion in gospel being religious, your revelling in it in itsd fullness is precisely appropriate

this is an aesthetic very sharply at odds with rock's come-as-you-are vocal aesthetic -- which derives primarily from dylan's refiguring of folk styles, and somewhat from white euro misgrasp of blues technique

it's also more complicated by the shift from religious to secular (gospel --> soul) where i think tensions and contradictions flood in (but they are also part of the point: the expressive excitement, if you like) (this tension is probably most obvious with gay disco passion divas, where the submissiveness to the lord has become a submissive to sexual desire)

[datura800.livejournal.com]

I think the word 'soul' certainly confused the point, but he clarifies it with 'conveying emotion' and the criticisms which he is referring to are in the vein of 'she is a brilliant technical singer but utterly bland in terms of conveying the emotions of the song'. Your latter paragraph is quite interesting in terms of the Mariah album, as she is at many times on it a 'gay disco passion diva'.

[anthonyeaston.livejournal.com]

it's not submissive--the scandal of soul, and the gay divas, is that its the exact opposite, what was once a tool for the lord, is now a work into and unto itself--the pleasure unmoored, unsubmissive, is where the shift occured.

Identifying Technique

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

On ILX any time this topic came up we would all be regularly schooled by Dan Perry, who is a choral singer and whose wife is a voice coach: it was interesting reading him to learn that what yr average music buff sees as 'technique' isn't really, or is just the most obvious elements, and the really good stuff is happening behind the scenes, to be picked up on largely by the trained ear.

I think it's very interesting the sort of techniques that get free passes and the sort that don't, in various sectors: math rockers and metallers who would despite Mariah but who adore virtuosic drumming, pop mavens who idolise state-of-the-art production but frown on guitar soloing, indie kids who love grainy, grimy productions almost as much as they love hyper-literate lyrical technique, reality TV judges who can calibrate a voice exactly but have no appreciation of complex song structures, etc etc.

Re: Identifying Technique

[infov0re.livejournal.com]

On ILX any time this topic came up we would all be regularly schooled by Dan Perry, who is a choral singer and whose wife is a voice coach: it was interesting reading him to learn that what yr average music buff sees as 'technique' isn't really, or is just the most obvious elements, and the really good stuff is happening behind the scenes, to be picked up on largely by the trained ear.

Totally. A lot of what passes for "technique" in supposedly technique-obsessed circles - eg, Metal - is just a kind of technique, and it's a notably obvious one; there's an awful lot of "technique" that is ignored by the untrained ear, even though it may be the thing that makes a record. (For instance: a lot of people praise "production" but mean songwriting; few people ever praise "engineering" despite its impact on certain genres, notably dance and pop).

The reality-TV comment is good; a lot of your points are the kind of things that are emphasised by a media that focuses on praising more obvious "technique", pointing out the things that can be seen and heard, and if not, then explained very easily.

I'd be interested to know if there was any degree of subediting in the quotation we're referring to, simply because Lex's opinion on other kinds of "technique" (guitar solos in particular) are pretty much known to this community.

A thought: a lot of what we call "technique" is perhaps better called "virtuosity", in that a degree of showmanship is implied; the technique we're all pointing out as being less obvious could never be called virtuoso, and yet is just as much a hallmark of a skilled musician.

Re: Identifying Technique

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

Dan hates Mariah, unless I'm mistaken - I'd be interested to see if he had any input on this.

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

I'm now wondering whether its a straightforward case of 'technique' vs 'soul' or whether the debate really centres around 'drama' vs 'melodrama'. Do the criticisms boil down to "you have a technically fantastic voice but I don't really believe you*".

I'm also trying to crystallise why this criticism seems to get thrown at Mariah, and maybe sticks, more than it does with, for example, Beyonce.

[datura800.livejournal.com]

Well i think it has been aimed at Beyonce many times, but perhaps one of the reasons for it is that Beyonce has largely made her name with quite cutting-edge songs that crossover into pop and don't really allow her too much room to cut loose vocally, whereas Mariah made her name with big, histrionic power ballads where she turns each syllable into 10 notes?

I mean, Beyonce's vocal on 'Emotions' is painful in terms of the bombastic over-singing, but it's just not something she's really identified with in the main.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

the weirdly excessive kneejerk unthinking dismissiveness mariah gets -- a sort of pathological inability to connect generously with some thing so blatantly obviously generous in its spirit aned content -- has always fascinated me

[sbp.livejournal.com]

I dunno, but all the wibbling about with the voice instead of maybe actually singing the tune is one of the things that turns me off (modern) R&B.

OTOH I like jazz and long guitar solos, so who am I to judge? ;-)

[sbp.livejournal.com]

So does anybody have any examples of Mariah songs that are worth listening to, pro or con?

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

'Vision Of Love', 'Dream Lover', the remix of 'Heartbreaker' ft. Missy and Da Brat and 'It's Like That' are probably my favourites by her. The first two get the balance right in terms of vocal skills showcase and emotional tug without upstaging the production (either equally bombastic or groovy enough to rein her in) - the latter two are just nice jams but could be by anybody I guess.

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

Tom's opening comments here echo what I said about Al Green, soul and technique in an article for Freaky Trigger a few years back. I think technique is a really useful thing, and it's all but impossible to make a worthwhile recording without at least some of it. Dylan has LOTS of technique, but that technique doesn't include being able to sing in tune - that's far from being all that contributes to vocal technique. My problem with Mariah is the flipside of what Tom and I say about Al Green - Mariah has more of a range than Al, and you can't fault her pitch and so on, but I don't hear the same kind of intelligence in her songs, and I don't feel she does a good job of conveying the emotions, beyond just doing the customary vocal tricks to signal "THIS IS AN EMOTIVE BIT", without making the emotion at all specific.

I was also thinking about this while watching the recent American Idol episode where they all had to sing Dolly Parton songs. The one who did 'Jolene' had a nice and technically good voice and did nothing wrong, but she failed completely to recognise the (outstanding) acting elements of Dolly's performance of that great song, and so lost most of its value, just giving us a pleasant tune instead.

Anyway, I do find Mariah bland, but that isn't because of the exceptional level of her technical singing ability at all, as lots of my favourites are strong in that kind of area, but because I don't think she applies it with enough emotional or cerebral nous to convert that skill into sufficient effect, for me.

[strange-powers.livejournal.com]

The issue for me is breaking through Mariah's patchiness. On much of her output, especially her ballads, the vocal gymnastics are unendurable. But when allied to killer songs - Heartbreaker, Fantasy, Honey, All I Want For Christmas Is You - that kind of skill really takes you places.

The best example off the top of my head is this bit in Heartbreaker:

Because you're so disarming
I'm caught up in the midst
Of you
And I
Can not
Resist

Mariah takes each little bit of line and squeezes all of the giddiness and drama she can into her delivery. It works phenomenally because it's brilliant vocal acting. But is it soul?

I think for me a definition of soul is not analogous to a definition of r'n'b or gospel... It's something else, something raw and human, an internal quality rather than anything to do with range or technique. It's not that range and technique cannot contribute hugely to a soulful performance because they can and do.

I hear it in The Four Tops' Bernadette. I hear it in Al Green. I hear it in Mick Jagger and I hear it in Snoop and I hear it in Cee-Lo. Pertinently, it is something that I just do not hear in Mariah.

my thots

[anthonyeaston.livejournal.com]

http://pinkmoose.blogspot.com/2008/04/upgrade-this-1.html

this is a long essay, that i havent found a place to put, that talks a lot about those issues.

[mcarratala.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons I think that Fantasy is by some way her best song is that her vocal trademarks act as noise rather than the-singing-of-lyrics (more like Tim Buckley maybe? Or Liz Fraser? Even though I'm no fan of either). You get something of the same effect on classic Destiny's Child songs, much less so on Beyonce stuff.

I'm largely uninterested/unmoved by the claims for intention on the part of singers – it matters little whether she means it, man. I find Mariah's big ballads deadly, but no more or less so than if the same songs were sung by Celine, Babs etc... As I've said, I love Fantasy, and have plenty of time for Heartbreaker, All I Want For Christmas and the odd other song.

The weird thing about Mariah is how much like the Am Idol kids she is – she seems so desperately to want to be liked. It's like the lack of clothes – in some weird way, I'd like to fancy her, but it's just impossible.

Old Man Sinker's arguments just come back to prog, surely.

[mcarratala.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I meant deadly as in deadly dull, not "it just kills me" [exit sobbing, etc].

Mariah v Celine

[mcarratala.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the Celine book, so forgive me if this has been pre-demolished, but it seems to me that while Celine is totally in her world and insulated against any other notions, Mariah is much more self-aware of how she is more broadly perceived, hence the new video with Kenneth from 30 Rock doing a parody of the trademark Mariah vocal bit at the beginning.

anthony

[anthonyeaston.livejournal.com]

i just finished reading it again, and all of that wanting to be liked/ego stuff seems to be the unspoken difference b/w celine and mariah.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I'm literally split on Mariah because I wasn't all that interested in her between, like, 1993 and 2005 or so -- that is, when I was a little kid and when I was starting reading Poptimists. And the nu-Mariah does nothing for me emotionally, while the old-Mariah does have a certain audacity to it that I can see as "generous in spirit in content" -- total giddiness in knowing excess, maybe (diff. between Celine and Mariah in that knowingness -- there's a self-seriousness to Celine's chops that Mariah didn't get until she stopped being so, uh, choppy...including on her new album which after the first couple of songs just sinks like a stone for me). Which I also don't expect to apply to most people.

But I guess my point here (if there is one) is that even though I think this argument is interesting, I just can't connect the common argument originating in the early 90's with what she's actually doing now. It kind of seems like a moot point to drag it back out! When she goes giddy on her new one, it sounds almost like a production trick, like Britney octave-jumping or something -- it isn't a naked swan dive off of a cliff.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Didn't read mcarratala's post above...

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Maybe this isn't the thread for it, but Anthony, could you speak to the radical critique in Carl's book a bit more? I've honed in on a few specific points that I actually found...anti-radical, for lack of a better word, in the audience it was presuming to "challenge" -- that is, it felt like a compromise rather than radical critique. And I think there's a need for such a compromise, but I was concerned with how it panned out. Anyway, I'm still interested in some ideas in the book that I may not be fully grasping and was more or less wondering if you've developed ideas about the Celine arguments, their radicalness, in any more detail.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

(Tho I guess you're referring to the sort of appropriation that most anti-Celine people ignore, the marginalized Quebecoise and status in other parts of the world, and maybe as camp via Vegas and "schmaltz," which wouldn't be the same thing I'm calling "compromise" here.)