If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
A vocalist is permanently wired up to a microphone. A singer isn't.
That fact is indeed included in the OED definition of 'crooner' and the word 'permanently' is significant: though 'singer' is often used also as a distinction from soprano, baritone, tenor etc., the latter may use a microphone but have voices trained not to need it.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
I hadn't realised that, though altus, tenor, bassus were names originally applied to lines of music rather than the voices of those who sang them.
Your quote there is earlier than the first listed by the OED - you should send it to them! But they do have an earlier one which doesn't involve attempts to sing, amplified or not:
1613 T. Jackson Eternall Truth Script. ii. iv. ยง6 The ciuill Magistrates facilitie to countenance euery prating Discontent, or forthputting Vocalist.
It's an odd formation though, isn't it? In other cases the -ist is added to the name of the instrument played, so it ought to be voiceist.
What I want to know is why one would choose one term rather than the other - and for that I need to know what the distinction is.
Jean, an intriguing question. Unlike yourself, I never tried to find out an answer but relied on my own observations and FWIW I came to the conclusion that it was a shorthand way of distinguishing between singers - if it was Wagner, you were SATB, if it was Jazz, you were a vocalist. In classical, the parts are sung by named sopranos etc, whilst in Jazz it's Billie Holiday(vocals). Incidentally, a programme I heard revealed the interesting suggestion that many of the women Jazz and Pop singers that we all know and love were contraltos - my favourite vocalist.
Bryn Terfel is doing a stint as Artist in Residence in Liverpool next month.
The first concert he's involved in is called A Night at the Musicals and he's a vocalist.
Two days later he's singing Bach, and he's turned into a baritone.
Is that just marketing? If a soloist was billed as a vocalist it would people off going to hear a recital of Bach; whereas if he was billed as a baritone it would put people off going to A Night at the Musicals (many people would consider Michael Ball had a 'better' voice than an operatic baritone for such a concert).
I discovered recently that not everyone has heard of Bryn Terfel, though in operatic circles it wouldn't be absolutely essential to add any sort of description to his voice.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment