lloyd wrote:
<< My poor analogy was intended to make clear the difference power
output necessary when singing acoustically rather than with a
microphone but your analogy would also work. It would just not
likely have any meaning to those who don't play golf.
>>
lloyd,
comparing putt-putt to putting on a golf course is comparing the arts
themselves not the power.
i don't wish to discuss the relative merits of golf analogies. but,
the power of modern equipment gets overlooked in its contribution to the art
of 'shotmaking'. most people assume that modern golf equipment only hits
the ball long and straight. if you are a poor golfer and have laid out some
serious money for new equipment, you already know it neither hits the ball
long nor straight. in the hands of someone like chi-chi rodriguez, a modern
day seven wood is a paint brush. the additional power of the club coupled
with the potential for hitting a modern ball higher, allows the expert
shotmaker a broader pallette. so, the making of the shot is still in the
hands of the expert and not the club of the hack.
similarly, not everyone with a microphone knows what to do with one.
ugly magnified is still UGLY. i would agree that microphones make it
possible to sing without technique but, technique makes listening to it more
bearable.
tony bennett usually steps away from the microphone to sing one song for
his show (usually 'fly me to the moon'). he can be heard as well as any
classically trained singer. what can't be heard is all the nuance that is
present when he uses a microphone.
anybody with a bad swing can score well in golf if they chip and putt
well and manage not to lose the ball before they get to the green but, nobody
with a bad swing can win a long drive competition. on the other hand, there
are people who can hit the ball a mile who can't break 90.
maybe when you retire you should hit your wife's nephew up for some
lessons.
mike
|
|
|  |
