By Isaiah (152.163.253.70) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 09:18 am:

For some time, now, I have wanted to bring this particular subject to the board, but negelected to do so until now... I once heard this phrase being used in relation to Alicia Keys, as a means of explaining her success, and potential rise to superstardom, and thought, "oh, I didn't know that Barry, Marvin, Sam, and Jackie were classically-trained musicians..." In fact, I didn't even think these guys could read music based on their own statements to that effect... I know Ray and Stevie can't read music, and I don't think that either has been hampered by that fact...

In point of fact, I would say that these musicians and singers were, more, Church-trained than Classically-trained, and that is what gives/gave them their unique sound... I know that there will be musicians who say that their classical training enabled them to chart and arrange the music, but is that SOUL music??? As I have heard a zillion vocalists sing without the accompaniement of instrumentals, I have determined that the essence of SOUL is the vocal, the essence of Blues is the Vocal, and yes, the essence of Jazz is the Vocal - as in "hearing" oneself "talking" through their instrument, or making an instrument "talk."(smile!)

Its a transcendental question, and I know you all have your take on it, so I've posed the question, and look forward to your answers...

PEACE!~
Isaiah

By BankHouseDave (195.93.34.12) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 09:46 am:

All 'classical' training might do for an artist is to take some technical resistance off what they're trying to do. Trained singers often have fewer problems with their voices and musicians are maybe more on top of their instruments. But classically trained musicians and arrangers play a big part in a lot of great music. George Martin with the Beatles, for example, was able to create what McCartney and Lennon were no able to do themselves. The juxtaposition of written parts with the work of the artists - David Van De Pitte's strings with Marvin on WGO - often creates something more than either of them. The unique vibe of Motown to my mind is largely due to the disciplined chart-playing of the readers in the Funks set against the improvising (or stylising) vocalist and the few musicians - lead guitar, bass and sax soloist, say - who were allowed to escape from the box. That was what caused the tension that made it sound like it was about to blow. When Motown acts toured in the early days, the scratch musicians were often talented but they never understood that they had to stay put and play the thing as written. The genius of the Funks was that they could improvise until the cows came home, but they never broke ranks. Every dot on the paper came out the end like a pianola. Too much classical training in a soloist and they come out singing scales instead of emotion.

By ~medusa~ (68.248.74.225) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:01 am:

I think church trained, maybe as class training, I mean it is a certain class, isn't it?...that's exactly why most if not all of the vocalists that started or came out of the church and changed to secular music, tends to have that churchy sound, which is actually a soul sound in their voice.
If you think about it, what other powerful expression would eminate from the church but 'soul'? when in church, and you're singing to or about your God, it's very serious and most of all with gratitude and appreciation of how your God brought you out, from a mighty long way, how good this God is to you. This is why I've stated before and I'll say it again, there's soul, raw straight from the body soul, and then there's soul style. In order to sing about it, you had to have been through it, been about it, to make your feeling about it expressed to the highest power of emotions.
If we were at a Resturaunt and I saw and smelled steak & onions, but never tasted it, and you actually ate it, I think you could express more about that steak & onions than I could, because you actually tasted that steak & onions, the texture, the seasonings etc.
Church training, classical training, when you have soul, you have soul,it's deep inbedded in the being and no one can take it away,no matter if it's classical, opera, or whatever, they can imitate it...check out how Aretha did that song for Paviorotti, when she stepped in for him after only 1/2 hour of training...it was in there in that opera song. and

By dvdmike (68.253.213.250) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:26 am:

Ask Thom Bell that question

By Isaiah (152.163.253.70) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:47 am:

DVDMIKE, guess what, I don't consider what Thom Bell did SOUL, brother...(smile!) You do, then that is your thing...

SOUL is about the VOCAL for me, not all of the strings and arrangements, and syrupy stuff... I aint NEVAH heard no strings and horns backing those vocalists in church, brother, and I maintain that SOUL, as initially and roughly defined by the artists who coined the term, was never meant to be about french horns, oboes, and harps, feel me?(smile!) When we start to attribute SOUL to music written down on a piece of paper, and played over and over again the same way, then I would suggest that it has lost it's soul, because the SOUL in the music is what one is FEELING NOW, on the spontaneous tip...

Clearly, folk have their take on what is SOUL music, but for me it has a lineage and a tradition, and when one deviates from that tradition - ooops, they done done somethin' else, but it aint SOUL... BTW, I apply that standard across the board, as in you aint doing Jazz when you're doing what, say, Grover Washington and Kenny G. did, which is completely watering down the tradition for popular consumption... The THING is what it is, like arena football aint the National Football League(smile!) That's why they call it the Arena League...

PEACE!~
Isaiah

By LadyMystique (216.108.206.177) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:49 am:

I am a jazz and classically trained vocalist in addition to being brought up in the church and I sing R&B/funk/soul songs. What it has done for me is control my vocals and tone more, but the emotion is there. From experience, I put the emotional with the technique together; I don't feel winded or strained during or after a show.

By BankHouseDave (195.93.34.12) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:57 am:

I'm not disagreeing with you about that, Isaiah. Soul is never going to come from being classically trained. If you've got both, you can write all those instruments the way Quincy does. Just like a jazz musician improvises on a strict rhythmic background, so a 'soul singer' can have full sway if the track is solid. If it's every man for himself, you don't get soul, you get Shorty Sharrock or Albert Ayler. The short answer to your original question is that classical training has nothing to do with soul, but you didn't expect a short answer from the likes of me.

By Lynn Bruce (68.41.110.49) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:56 pm:

A classical singer or musician has been taught not to do certain things as it would be musically incorrect. This causes them to be slightly inibited so as to not go out of the boundries. Sort of stilted in their approach. (not to say that some can't still kick ass and take names)

A soul singer can just go with the flow and let their emotion carry them. (although there are still SOME boundries)

I would compare it to car racing.

A Daytona 500 racer can go as fast and as crazy as his car will take him but has to stay on the course.--Classical car racing!.

Four wheel off road racing in the desert--You can drive as fast and crzy as you want and have a sense of freedom to go where ever you want---Soul car racing!

By ~medusa~ (155.139.50.14) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 01:24 pm:

The instruments usualy compliment the vocals. If you listen closely, certain instruments are used to compliment certain vocals...afterall, isn't the voice an instrument within itself?
That's why it's all good to attend Live Concerts and hear for yourself.
When I hear a vocalist sing acapella, or with a very small amount of musical back up, then they have proved themselves.
I would like to ask Aretha, Gladys, Chaka, Vanessa Bell Armstrong, Karen Clark Sheard, Dorothy Moore Ali Woodson, Dennis Edwards, Spyder, R Kelly, Gerald LeVert, etc. a question about singing with soul, and ask Joe Hunter, Ureil Jones, Brothers Johnson, Stevie Wonder, Billy Preston etc, about playing soul music, 'cause the answer aint blowin' in the wind, it's all in the bones, the core of the being, and the sound is the testimony of it's existance...and again, it can be immitated.

By DyvaNaye (152.163.253.70) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 06:08 pm:

Isaiah,
In the case of Alicia Keyes...well...I can give you a few description as to why that is a 'noted set of wording' for her...but it is used to SELL her. It is socially acceptable to have a young classically trained artist cross over into R&B because of her background (ethnically) and where she comes from (the hood), because she can set an example on how the 'young ethnic progression in music' can happen. I am still puzzled as to her classical training...becaue quite frankly so is my daughter. Her training came from other 'classicly in the form of music perfoming artists'...but I believe A.K. has had home training the way my kid did, at home and at the training center where the teacher taught class. I think it has become common place to place words as a selling point in the world of music...such as Gladys Knight. She too was 'classically trained' but we hear 'the gospel' all of the time...it was cool to promote her that way for a while to help her career...but she pretty much established her self where she wanted to be, and they record media had to accept. She is a breadwinner for any record company. It is her background, but at the time Gladys' career peaked she had nothing to prove about perfoming good music. There are other examples, think and do your comparisions as to whom is classically trained and think 'promotion' in comparision to 'todays soul', and our classic soul.

Peace,
DyvaNaye

By ZeKe (205.188.116.195) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 07:30 am:

Lady Medusa, no doubt, SOUL music comes from a place within, whether with or without musical accompaniement... In point of fact, singing without the musical accompaniement is the true test of whether one can do something with musical accompaniement... I used to really enjoy those folk who would come from outta town just visiting my church, and be asked to just shang a lil' something...(smile!) Boy, did they - and no instrumental accompaniement...

DyvaNaye, I guess it is about marketing, because when I think of all of those artists who learned voice control from their mentors, and on the fly, managed to sing for years and years without the training received in school, I cannot buy that classical training is all it is cracked up to be... Nice to put on your resume, but beyond that it appears just a lame way of saying, perhaps, an artist is lost without it... Nonsense...

Lynn, I like your description, because it is just such an explanation as I've heard before, but without the very creative analysis(smile!) In that way, I can see the practical benefits of classical training, as opposed to the implication of saying that one who does not receive it is lost, and cannot sing...

Peace!
Isaiah

By ~medusa~ (68.79.122.190) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:25 am:

Good point Zeke...Voice training is voice training...and aint nothing wrong with having voice training, especially if you're already equipped to sing in the first place.
Aint no Soul traing classes yet, is there? (LOL)

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 01:33 pm:

Isaiah:
I agree with Lynn Bruce's assessment - classical training is about reading music and what to do (and not to do) in a performance. Soul is about expression and feeling without bounderies.

However, I must say that I've heard some pretty soulful-sounding arrangements coming from strings and horns. The work of arranger/producer Arif Mardin comes to mind - he was classically trained yet when it came to R&B music there are certain passages & lines he writes and arranges that sound pretty soulful and funky.

For example, Arif's arrangements of the following tunes certainly complimented the artists' soulfulness in many ways -
"Until You Come Back To Me (That's What I'm Gonna Do)" - Aretha Franklin
"Fanny (Be Tender With My Love)" - Bee Gees
"My Love's Leavin'" - Steve Winwood (album track from his "Back In The High Life" album)
"I'm Every Woman" - Chaka Khan
"A Love Of Your Own" - Average White Band

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By BankHouseDave (195.93.34.12) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 04:58 pm:

Dead right, Kevin. I have to say that it was the arranging that brought me to soul music, because I'm first and foremost a musician - though not clasically, or any other, trained. I love the singers but they are wailing in the dark without the right backing. This may come on some early stuff from harmony singing, but the real soul/Memphis/Philly/Motown depends to some extent on fine musicianship. Every gig I ever saw, no matter how big the singer, without the right musicians was a disappointment.

How you doing by the way?

DAVE

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 05:04 pm:

Dave,
Doing fine, thanks! I'll email you later on.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Bob Olhsson (209.247.222.94) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:46 pm:

Those at Motown who weren't formally trained had utter respect for those who were. The "church-trained" choir I worked with in San Francisco lost one of our sopranos to the Metropolitan Opera so at the very least she was trained more than well enough for classical!

Music education in the public schools was way better in the '20s-'70s than it is today and this is a real problem.

By ~medusa~ (68.79.98.26) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:51 pm:

Hey Bob, some of the public schools have no music education of any kind at all,,,and I agree, it's terrible

By zeke (205.188.116.195) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 07:17 am:

Big Money, Kev, and Bob, I am not saying that classically-trained musicians have no place in Soul music... I am saying that classical training in the history of this sub-genre of bluesgospelr&b only began to play a major role long after it had been created... It's just historically inaccurate to say that the classical academy is of such import, when it is plain to everyone that the church was the academy that turned out all of those great singers and musicians... Let's just keep things accurate...

In these forms the singers, as well as the musicians, actually did all of the "wrong" things according to classical training, and that is what revolutionized the sound, made it sound so unique...

As Lynn, and you, Kev and Big Money, intimated in your posts, too much of that kind of training stifles the free emotional expression in Soul or Gospel... As for singers being lost without the arrangements, or the musicians backing them Dave, you would have to be more specific... Certainly, those Gospel and DooWop groups that sang A Capella were not lost without the arrangements or instrumental accompaniement...

Ultimately, the bulk of the credit for creation of this music must go to the church as its training ground, and there is no need on anyone's part to put classical training on their resume when it comes to this music... The church is not only good enough, it is the best institution to this day for turning out great artists... The difference between today and yesterday being that Gospel has gone pop to the extent that Gospel artists can, now, make as much, if not more, money than a pop artist... That was not true 50 years ago, hence, you do not see the great influx of Gospel artists into R&B...

Peace!
Isaiah

By ~medusa~ (68.79.86.251) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 08:23 am:

...and I gotta Amen 2 that Zeke.

By ~medusa~ (68.79.86.251) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 09:46 am:

alrighty then Isaiah & Lynn Bruce, I think both of you summed everything up and I agree.

By passing by (63.88.160.101) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 05:34 pm:

other than singers,what better training ground for strings, horns. ect than classical.Ian Anderson Jethro Tull,Billy Joel ect.Playing R@B music to a classical player is like playing scales.

By bigdaddyg2k4 (205.138.54.1) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 06:01 pm:

If classical composition can effectively compliment (meaning all of the pieces fit together like a puzzle) the song, whether soul or not, then so be it. I have alot of respect of those individuals who take the time to write out charts for certain songs. That's why the Thom Bell compositions fit so well in the songs he produced and arranged (being he was classically trained in piano since he was a child), and they all sound so beautifully from end to end. I listen to classical music also and the songs are beautiful, even though the arrangements are way more complex than your average top 10 song from today utiilized by synthesizers and Pro-Tools. I appreciate the work and planning involved when it comes to horns, strings and percusssion in an orchestra, so grandiose, so wonderful!

p.s.: wasn't Bobby Martin classically trained, or street trained? His arrangements are quite similar to Thom Bell's (if you don't believe me, read Thom's essay in the box set "The Philly Sound: The Story Of Kenny Gamble, Leon Huff & The City Of Brotherly Love 1966-1976).

By Sudi Kamau (66.117.198.35) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 12:21 pm:

You get it where you can. The "classical" academy, the church, the bandstand and the street are all worthwhile training grounds. The point is to get whatever you can to help get your point accross and not get in your own way.

That's what I think.

By Eli (68.236.60.21) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 01:39 pm:

Big Daddy,

Bobby Martin was trained in the be bop era with the Birds and the Tranes.
That was his school!
No formal lessons, just life's lessons applied to music.
Same with yours truly, although I dont go back as far as B.M. but I sure did learn a lot from him and Thom by just watching and figuring out stuff on my own.

By Livonia Ken (136.2.1.101) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 02:15 pm:

Classical training is another tool in the toolbox for a musician. For vocalists in particular, it can introduce them to some techniques which can protect their instrument and prolong their career. For some people, it may seem stifling, but there's no reason it has to be. Knowing the rules in no way mandates following them.

That being said, not everybody who knows how to mix paint well is a Picasso.

Regards,
Ken

By Lynn Bruce (68.41.110.49) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 05:02 pm:

One classically trained singer that would come in to sing on the weekends with us was an Irish tenor. He would sing things like Danny Boy and other standards. Well,one night he asked us to do Ray Charles "What I Say". He sang it "tell me what did I say,tell me what did I say right now. LOL-- He just couldn't break the habit of enunciating his words correctly.There lies the problem. If Jimmy Reed tuned all his strings perfect like a classical guitarit would, it would lose that down home flavor.

By passing by (63.88.160.101) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 05:15 pm:

a classicaly trained musician can play r&b with ease,can the same be said ofan r&b musician who tries to play classical? I don:t think so.the skill level, the reach, all the things it takes to play classical music are of the highest level,not so with r&b. put out the sheet music and watch it happen

By Lynn Bruce (68.41.110.49) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 07:12 pm:

Another thing,We've had jazz guitar players sit in that just did not have the feel.They knew about three million chords and were great but just didn't have"da funk".We've had exellent jazz drummers sit in and we had the same problem---absolutly no drive.I would be out there wanting to cut my hands off they were so good.When I got back up there the guys would be saying "it's about time".

It's not that classicaly trained people can't get low down and dirty,it's just that it's hard to throw all that training away and play it simple!!

By BassLand (64.169.106.149) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 07:15 pm:

As a youngster I was training for classical piano by age 8 and stopped by 11 (at which time I took up Clarinet for less than a year) and finally settled on bass at 13. I purposely ignored my classical training (reading etc.) for almost 20 years before deciding to go to school and get trained as a musician. By this time I was already a player but wanted to read and understand the language of music.

I look back with sadness that I didn't take advantage of my classical training and build upon the R&B sesibilities that I got (mostly from Motown) which would have allowed me to arrange written music 20 years before I actually had that skill. I threw away more musical ideas that I expect to have for the rest of my life (a lot) because I could not write them down or convey (through notation) my ideas to other musicians.

Now enter the computer, I can only guess how far I could have gone with computer music if I had the 20 years wasted time not developing my piano skills. I even stayed away from computer music for a long time thinking that it had to sound like other computer music that I was hearing at the time. When I actually did get into it, I found that I could make the music sound like I wanted it to not what I had heard from others.

Long story short(er), any regimented study of music (now jazz can be added to classical as a discipline) will teach a musican all there is to know about that study thru notation. If your head is into R&B you will bring that (classical) virtuosity with you. A good think..

BassLand

By John (140.215.154.24) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 07:33 pm:

Just a thought, is the phrase "classiclly trained" a buzz word and therefore a selling point to the majority community? (white) Does it somehow imply that the artist is a step above the run of the mill performer? As several of you have mentioned, training can certainly take place without it being a classical setting. Does informal training/mentoring from a qualified person not carry the same weight as formal/classical training? I have heard some musicians with formal training that don't seem to have "it". Is it just that particular person? Is it my perception of them? Certainly people of any particular background can be good at what they do, or not. Do we tend to give the classicly trained person a pass because they are classicly trained. Bassland, I'm a bass player that is self taught. I've been able to make it because I have a good ear, but I recognize that I could benefit from "some" formal training. (natural ability can only take you so far) I'll use the formal training to add to what I already have.

By bassland (64.169.106.149) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:43 pm:

To me classical training means only that you aquire that musical training (as opposed to, say Jazz). Classical music has a library that is hundreds of years old. Holland-Dozier-Holland of Motown took from (studied, I am told) the classical world to orchestrate for their R&B hits with great success.

I am sure that what you say about it being a buzzword may be true to some but I still take the grey matter that god has given me to build upon what the chassical world has to offer. If I audition for a classical gig they have you do it behind a screen so only the music you make is "supposed" to matter.

Ron Carter was a classical musician and when he came to Jazz he brought that classical training with him. Some say that he played jazz BECAUSE he was shunned by the classical world...

I believe you can get a quality education in Jazz these days to compare with that available in the classical world. It was not available to me in 1957 as the music really was not deemed ligitimate (especially for an 8 year old).

I was self taught on bass for almost 20 years. When I picked up bass I ran like a banchee from that classical training that I previously had done. In effect, I think that was a mistake for me that's all. It would not have changed what/who I am to have had and used that knowlege.


PS I don't think I can say "I wish I had it to do over..." but I should have taken the opportunity that was there then to build upon.

BL

By DyvaNaye (152.163.253.70) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:56 pm:

..Big shout out to Jesus and 'CHUCH' for my classical training...best training ground EVER.

By Tony B. (212.56.114.168) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 01:49 pm:

Bernie Worrell was classically trained, but it didn't hold him back! :-)

By bigdaddyg2k4 (205.138.54.125) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 04:18 pm:

I wish I had the skills and the wherewithal to get classical training. I took up drums and percussion in my junior high and high school bands, but I don't know if that qualifies as being "Classically trained". I know that people who are students at Berklee, Juilliard and these other what they call "Performing Arts" high schools do have strict reginmental disciplines in the training for classical music, especially Berklee and Juiliard, where you have to be CHOSEN to attend, I understand, based on your natural or previously trained skills in whatever instrument you play and the ability to read sheet music. When I get the opportunity, I want to devote the mininum of 2 years to be trained in the basics, not classically trained, but trained in piano, drums and guitar (I was going to try bass first, but I was told that being trained to play six strings, gives me a better advantage to play bass effectively later, being of course, more strings meaning more chord progressions). If I could get in touch with a trainer who is proficient and dedicated in those particular instruments and reasonably priced by the hour to study. At a later time, I will ask members of SDF who are musicians (Eli, Babbitt, etc.) for some helpful advice in seeking the best training for my budget and how to play the instrument(s) efficiently and effectively.

p.s.: Do I necessarily have to read sheet music as part of my training, or use it some as a road map of sorts for melody and feel as the core musicians of MFSB and the Funk Bros. did back in the day?

By johneflat (152.163.253.70) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 04:59 pm:

I feel ya DyvaNaye!

By Sudi Kamau (66.117.198.35) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 06:09 pm:

The "classical" idiom has developed through the discovery of practices that derive from the actual physics of sound and the ergonomics of sound production. Composers and performers have followed and departed from those practices to achieve their desired artistic effects. It won't hurt anybody to develop at least a passing knowledge of some of these techniques.

Whatever idiom you try to deal with, you have to respect it enough to embrace whatever emphasis it involves. Each idiom has it's own cliches, harmonic, melodic and rhythmic approaches, timbral considerations, etc. The hardest part in moving from idiom to idiom seems to me to be adjusting to embrace each one's specific priorities.

I can't stand working with classically trained bass players who try to make gut-bucket cute. It's embarassing to try to play a Funk piece with Jazz players who push the time until the pocket falls apart. If you're playing Chopin and try to swing it, you're not going to be received by enthusiasts of the idiom as soulful, you're going to be considered uncouth and corny. Play a thirteen-sharp-eleven chord on a Motown gig, and you're subject to getting some funny looks.

I find that anything you learn musically can feed anything else you play IF you have enough respect for the idiom that you're attempting to play to internalize its cultural and performance standards. The keener your appreciation, the more successful you stand to be. One caveat is that it generally takes more time and dedication than is humanly possible for most people to successfully delve too deeply in directions that dissimilar directions. That's especially true of singers, I think.

I also think that it is important to train in something other than the more commercial idioms. It may be classical, jazz, blues, church music, traditional African, Cuban or Brazillian forms, Blue Grass, or whatever, but the more it is artistically and culturally driven rather than commercially driven, the more developmental I think it will tend to be. The Funk Brothers, for instance, displayed that they were bad asses playing Motown, but they largely developed into bad asses playing something else. It's like football players running, lifting weights, wrestling, playing basketball, even taking ballet in addition to practicing football.

By MagyarEd (209.163.98.133) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 08:45 pm:

If you got it, you got it!
Soul music obviously doesn't depend on being classically trained. But being classically trained, somewhere along the journey, doesn't mean you can't be soulful too.

By ChuckK (12.10.219.37) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 08:56 pm:

Hey MagyarEd, Bob Babbitt is proof of what you just said. The bass funkmaster was classically trained. Sudi Kamau, he was no where near "gut-bucket cute."

By Isaiah (205.188.117.14) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:19 pm:

MagyarEd, what is "got it"??? Explain that phrase to the board... Man, sometimes you think you "got It", and just when you think ya do, you aint(smile!)

The gist of my statements up above are about firstly, the origins of the music, and secondly, whether classical training was necessary to create it... This is not about whether someone can "learn" through hearing it to play it, or whether being classically-trained puts one at an advantage or disadvantage... Those are interesting discussions, but that was not my point... I think we know, at this point, that classical-training is not necessary to create the music, and do that very well... Thus, one's saying, "I am classically-trained" does not put him or her at some great advantage in this genre... If anything, that training received in those churches has to look a lot better on the resume, as that is the academy from whence the music was brought into being... Now, do you agree or disagree???

Peace!
Isaiah

By Shawn1b (65.30.15.198) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:28 pm:

LadyMystique you said exactly what I was gonna say is that I am Church trained,and clasically trained in opera and even tho I don't sing Opera much these days it taught a level of control and tonality that I see lacking in a lot of singer who just have one are not training .Natural born singers are fabulous but still need some help .Shawnps Didn't Norman Connors use a lot of strings and stuff in his arrangements but the vocalist were as Soulful and Jazzy as could almost possible be I remember Eleanor Mills songs "This Is Your Life "Lord that Sista could blow !

By MagyarEd (209.163.99.77) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 09:06 pm:

I don't know Isaiah; there are a few opinions and points of view in your last paragraph and I'm not sure what you are asking I agree to or not?

Your original question, to paraphrase, is what does being classically trained have to do with soul music. My SHORT answer is that it has nothing to do with it. We all agree with that.

This discussion then morhped in many directions.
The origins of music, what is soul, what is classical, the impact of the church, the impact of classical training, what are the roots...etc. etc.
I'm not criticizing this; I'm just not addressing all of these questions.

In another thread you ask (I think it was you?) who is our favorite soul singers. The names that I gave and others gave on that thread are, in my opinion, those that "got it". And these are just the vocalists, mind you, because that's what you (or someone) asked for. Maybe some of them were classically trained along their path, and maybe not. Probably many of them had their start in the church, maybe some of them didn't. If we do another topic about the influence of classical training on the musicians and composers who made our soul music, we're going to have an entirely different conversation.

Anyway, those vocalists are what I mean and who I'm talking about when I say "got it". Do I/we start to list the musicians too?

I probably didn't answer your question, but I gotta give you credit, this was a heck of a post!

(oh yea, since I'm relatively new to the forum...like the past 3-4 months...who is the board? :-)

By passing by (63.88.160.101) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 04:36 pm:

The term soul music is many things to many people. Opera is soul music to many who live in Italy,Ps a lot older than R@B. Polka to the polish and klazmaric music to mnay eastern european groups. When people say soul music I take it to mean music from the Hart,all of the above types are very hart felt to different groups of people, Opera would be the oldest form of soul music that has remained the same for hundreds of years.

By Michael McLean (4.152.243.126) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:22 am:

If I had classical training in music, I would have joined the other folks like HDH, Smokey, Berry, Ivy/Mickey, Paul, Williams, Etc., there were vastly more, like Ashford-Simpson.

I have the imagination to use words. I never learned anything about music. I grew up in a home where music was a passion, but not on a level of performing. Only on a level of loving it.

My love of listening to classical music poisoned me from making the effort to learn "classical music."

In order to write a song, you have to have the concept, the ambition, the ability as a poet, and the ability to match the melody and the harmony to the words.

That is only the beginning. Then comes the arrangement. That was where Paul Riser always was there. Without him, doing the lead sheets, I doubt if Motown would be more interesting today then that old building down the street: The General Motors Building.

My father was 34 years old when William S. Durant ordered Alfred P. Slone to build that great building, which served well during the years when GM built such beautiful cars as the 1955 line up. This tradition lasted long enough for Berry Gordy Jr. to purchase a 1960 Cadillac (the last in the line of utterly great Cadillac cars) only to have Marv Johnson borrow it and smash it up so bad that it was history. No problem, it was a horrible metallic purple.

Paul Riser was a saint. He was there quietly, year after year, helping Motown. When it was time for him to go, he moved on with a happy, decent attitude. Check him out in the film "Standing in the Shadows of Motown."

When I sat in the theatre and looked Paul Riser in the eye (on the screen) I suddenly knew that if I ever got over being the ass that I am, I would be backed up by this reference about how to behave.

I feel that in his own way, Paul Riser set a standard, in his work at Motown, that was just as important, and just as impressive, as the standard that Edward R. Murrow set at the Columbia Broadcasting System.

By BankHouseDave (195.93.34.12) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 02:46 pm:

Good to hear from you, Mike. I've heard other people say what a gentleman Paul Riser is. The arrangers and orchestrators like Paul, Wade Marcus, Dave Van De Pitte and so on were also unsing heroes at Motown who did huge amounts of work at an amazing pace by all accounts.