i've caught on this thread very very late but i assume it's about folks that make a noise while one is singing. i must confess that it bothers me tremendously when people don't pay attention while i'm singing. it has to do with the way i perform; i can never repeat my renditions. so whether it is coming out horrendously or gloriously, it is the only time in your life and in my life that we're going to hear it, especially the a cappella stuff. if i were able to do the same songs consistently i guess i would just shrug my shoulders. but the way it is with me, i am overcome by a terrible sense of loss when people are not listening and watching because i know that there will never ever be a reprise. my singing feeds on your silence. i need your attention so that i can figure out what i want to do. when i go up i don't know what i'm going to sing. i usually go some place where i can be on my own and sing a few bars of this and a few bars of that. but the rest is happening on the stage. many sides of my self that are usually dormant or hidden or lurking come out only when i sing for other people. i don't understand people that will insist and insist and insist that i sing or play a tape of my songs for them, and no sooner have i started than they begin to chat. i just don't get it. it is as if you insisted that i take my clothes off and then you started chitchatting with your next door neighbor while i'm most vulnerable and open to you. because that's what it is. when one performs one is so open and defenseless. i know that i am not a professional and that i can't make demands, but why do people ask someone to perform if they're not going to pay attention. performing is a very intimate act. one is revealing so much about oneself. tremendous visions sometimes.
another topic that is very dear to me is covering. i started singing only my own stuff. i wrote my own songs because i didn't want to owe anybody anything for my visions. i loved many musicians but my stuff was, well, better. however, two instances in my life redefined my idea of covering [which until then was basically what Karen did and what Ella did: use the beauty of their voices to sing something that someone else had written]. these two before-and-and after moments came when i heard Sarah Vaughan sing ''feelings'' [!!!] and when i heard rickie lee jones sing anything. until then to me the only interesting way to cover the music of another author was opera, more specifically, the maria callas school. i won't even attempt to go into the topic of maria callas here because it would take volumes and a total lack of prejudice against opera and un-beautiful voices, a lack of bias that i am not sure all of us share. verdi spoke of ''la parola scenica'', roughly translated: the scenic word, the performed word, the acted word. you see, singing is about the word, not the voice. the word may be the lyrics, but it can be more generally interpreted as MEANING. singing is a semantic act. when the voice is simply beautiful [and i wish i had a beautiful voice, don't get me wrong], when the voice is an instrument to the tune, you have a very nice effect. when the voice BECOMES the tune, when the voice acquires a meaning of its own, when the voice tells the story as much as do the lyrics, the voice has become the word. la parola scenica. the voice is the singer is the meaning is the act. when i heard Sarah sing ''feelings'', i knew my life as a singer would never be the same. for the first time i could see that it was possible to have parola scenica outside the realm of opera and maria callas. feelings is such a stupid song, so blah, so nothing. the chord progression is DULL. it's a piece of nothing. if by virtue of your acting skills, that is, your ability to tell somebody else's truth , you can believe in ''feelings'', then you are maria callas. and i should learn from you. i started trying other people's stuff. how did i teach myself? it is essential that you do not choose something that it is very easy to believe in. it is easy to believe in the blues and to believe in ballads. no, i'm sorry. you have to try harder. lullabies are perfect to start with. you can take them wherever you want to and that's what you should do. how sad can you get, how silly can you get, how creepy can you get, etc.. and by this i mean, can you believe in the sadness, the silliness, or the thing that crawls out of your heart and stares into the face? you have to understand a little music too. i can't read music but i like harmony, chords, the math part. it helps me in my contemplation of a song. the words don't help much. i eventually end up changing lots of the words to suit my mood. i apologize. but the harmony is more like the way of reasoning, the logical circuit that underlies the argument in the song. when i deconstruct i take enormous precautions not to destroy. after all, the song is one and only one. the song makes a point and you should make the same point. the architecture of the song will help you, believe me. find its premises, its conclusion, its assumptions. how is the point made? most importantly, do i care to make that point myself? again, i'm not talking about the words or the story in the song, nothing so obvious. that's why i recommend starting with lullabies or simple rhymes. find the flow of thought in the song itself not in your interpretation of the verbal part alone. la parola scenica, not just la parola. i really wish i could explain what i mean. it all goes back to maria callas, in the end. and it is really wrong to chat while someone is singing for you, and it is ok to chat if someone is just singing. wally
