Danny's comparison with marketing music performances is a key insight. Take a look at this video (at least the first 10 minutes):

https://youtu.be/pbL9F7CF800?si=eivoB2tmhDU9DR2a


Regardless of your taste in music, I think you will see the connections. I'll wait to give my comments so you can go into it fresh.

Thanks for the link. I had a hard time understanding the introduction, but it sounded like one, so that's good. Other than that, Gene did have some audience interaction and a little humor, so I thought that was good too; it went over well. I think he came across as personable and nice. The other three guys were pretty much focused on their own jobs.

I'd love to see your comments.

Thanks for the feedback. I want to give the other participants an opportunity to respond (maybe one more day) if they are interested.

I watched some of it. First thing that comes to mind is he is a very competent vocalist. He also has pretty good stage presence. Decent energy too for an 80 year old guy.

I have no idea who Gene Watson is. But it would seem, at least by what he presented, he's a big shot. Went on about dozens of top singles. He also casually mentioned being rebooked and special requests.

He doesn't seem to be in the country hall of fame as far as I can find, he also didn't join the Opry until a few years ago, well into his 70s. Are you bringing him up because he's presenting himself as a big guy in the country music space?

Anyway, good concert overall.

Why would you say he is an accomplished vocalist?

Because I think more the point is he isn’t that great at all, but man people love him. He has an undefinable “it” and knows how to use it.

There was, quite a few years ago, a musical; "Dance of the Vampires." https://youtu.be/1xAzHES20g8?si=43hBt0t4rHN7w8k5 (The show was based on a 1960's film called "Fearless Vampire Killers or Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are In My Neck!") https://youtu.be/LK46jK_6YsI?si=3RLsAzDCiEoAfjMn When the show closed, Max Von Essen, who played the "romantic lead," Alfred, would put together a nightclub show where he'd be introduced as; "The guy who starred in the original company of "Les Miserables." No! Wait, that show closed! Well, he also starred in "Dance of the Vampires." No, shoot! He closed that show too!"

(Wow. I apparently have been pulling myself in too many directions. I seem to have dropped the ball on this thread. Let me see how well I can reconstruct my thinking.)

First, I have no doubt that Gene Watson will be in the Country Music Hall of Fame.

I also believe that it is undeniable that he is an accomplished vocalist, so I'm assuming Danny isn't actually denying that but trying to focus on the more relevant points. As Fedora pointed out, especially being in his 80s, and constantly touring, his vocal control, tone, and range are nothing short of amazing.

Gene could have had a Hall of Fame career just on the basis of his music, selling millions of records, but as Danny pointed out, his "it" factor and connection to the audience are what keeps fans coming to his concerts.

So why did I share this particular video on this thread? Gene is a great guy, but there is more than just his natural charisma at play. Although his interactions with the band are played as ad libs, his "patter" has been crafted and refined over years of touring.

Gene is an example of what Danny what said about was missing from so many (maybe most) magic performances.

This kind of audience interaction is a strong part of the Southern music tradition, and I see it especially among successful touring gospel quartets. To some degree it is an adaptation of elements of vaudeville as performers transitioned more toward individual touring acts.

I'm not claiming that it is unique to, for example, Southern and country music, but it seems that the echoes of vaudeville branched into what I would call the Southern style and the night club style.

But that's mostly academic. Others may have different experiences. The real point is that magicians too often believe they can just show up and mechanically execute tricks, and believe that they are being performers.

Successful performers connect to their audience. I used a mostly verbal example (though you should pay attention to Gene's body language as well), but in many cases non-verbal connections can be at least as powerful in projecting an identity.

And being a successful performer requires work. Again, it may even be more instinctual than explicitly planned, but it does require an awareness that being a good band is not about how long you can sustain a note.

I could have chosen other examples to share, but I chose the Gene Watson video for a couple of specific personal reasons.

I suspect my delay may have set expectations that this post failed to satisfy, but I hope it was still a positive contribution to this discussion.

Is there a difference in an accomplished vocalist and a popular one? (See Bob Dylan for your answer.)

What makes you believe Gene is an accomplished vocalist?

Heh. Your response reminds me of the classic quote from Bill Clinton:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

I mistakenly mentally attributed the phrase to Fedora, but he only said that Gene was "competent"; you were the first to introduce the term "accomplished."

But I adopted your term, so I'm willing to own it.

Bob Dylan's popularity is largely because of his songwriting, his messaging, and his persona. He is definitely accomplished in those areas, but the fact that he is a vocalist is almost incidental.

I have assumed based on some of your other posts that you would understand what the term "accomplished vocalist" normally means in this context. I don't see anything in any of the posts in this thread that would lead anyone to search out a more esoteric meaning. And I gave specific examples of why, in that context, the term applied to Gene Watson.

So my best guess is that you're trying to make some kind of rhetorical point that either (a) I'm missing or (b) you haven't made yet.

My point is that as far as actual vocal technique he is not great. Yet he is quite popular.

With all due respect, having sang professionally myself, I will trust my own judgment and that of his peers.

But if you have specific critiques of his vocals, I'd be glad to hear them.

As someone who has to view hundreds of videos a week, I couldn't even get through the first 30 seconds of your video, sorry. Especially without knowing what we were looking for. The point of video is get to the goods (content) quickly.

He sings through his nose and uses his head voice instead of his chest voice. He makes poor vocal decisions.

Using an argument from authority is not relevant. Do you know my musical experience? Here is a hint. FAR more than just having sang professionally.

That wasn't my point for posting the video. I wasn't aware of your history of viewing hundreds of video a week, so I didn't specifically take that account when writing my post. I don't know if anyone else on the thread had the same reaction, but as far as I can tell, no one expressed it.

Something can be two things.

Using yourself as an authority doesn't really help make your case, since I already know your opinion, and assume you agree with your own opinion. I'm also not sure you fully understand the Argument from Authority fallacy, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort for either of us to find out.

But I appreciate the fact that you presented specific criticisms rather than take the easy way out. Since this is just a small detour from the actual topic of this thread, I'll leave this as-is unless anyone else wants to continue.

Sure let’s get into my musical background.

Played a Trombone for 18 years, still dabble but only about 7 professionally. That particular instrument has one tuning slide plus the one everyone sees move. Having an ear is essential because those two things plus embochure makes it tough to play. You develop an ear to say the least.

Moving forward I produced and directed a rhythm art group with all original music for the Resorts in the Dominican Republic. Playing 6 nights a week for 5 months. Then the next 8 years produced, directed and did all the musical arrangements for a rock style acapella group as well as helping with the sound.

Little more than “sang professionally” I’d say. In doing all these things have gone through thousands of audition tapes as well. Not to mention the decades of voice lessons to keep my speaking voice correct.

So as for the fallacy, YOU put yourself forth as an authority or expert because you “sang professionally”. You think on the basis of that alone your conclusion is correct. That is the very definition of the fallacy. You took part in it.

None of this has to do with the point of the thread. I just wanted things put in context.

It should be clear, even from my short time here at the Cafe, that I'm not here to brag on my career or accomplishments. Even my previous mention of my work in radio was really just to give minimal context to my question. I don't need that kind of validation.

I try to let my expertise (such as it is) speak for itself.

I mentioned singing professionally as a shortcut way to express that I do have relevant experience, not to compare myself to anyone else. I didn't mention any of my other related experience -- intentionally.

I don't use AI or Google to write my posts. What you see in each post is the result of any knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that I've accumulated over the course of my life.

(I do try to fact-check myself when I'm not confident in my recollections or when the topic is important enough to double-check even the things I'm sure about.)

I don't go out of my way to hide anything, but I do prefer a certain amount of limited anonymity on these forums. I suspect that people will learn more than enough about me naturally the more I continue to engage.

It will never happen when you use short cuts like that AND make invalid assumptions about the experience of others. You just want everyone to assume you are right because you say so with no context? How exactly can that work?

As for Gene let me be clear. OBVIOUSLY he is locally popular. Great there are THOUSANDS of performers who do quite well as this type of regional star that you "must see". The audience is happy with his fake jokes and his personality and that is what is needed. Good on him. I would never deny this and would argue that it is perhaps even MORE IMPORTANT than being able to do all the musical stuff perfect. I have met guys with perfect pitch who are about as engaging as a dish rag. The "it" factor that many speak of is usually not in that part which makes you sing perfect. It is usually in the personality.

As far as technique when you want to argue that somehow this guy is a competent vocalist? The goal in singing is to have as many colors in the rainbow of your voice as possible. He has shown one. Make of that what you will. The guy who should be boiled in oil and have his fat sold for soap is the sound guy.

Again all of this to say good on him. He is popular in Texas certainly. Maybe he will be in that big Hall of Fame but not yet. He has a happy following and who needs perfect pith for that? It is sort of my point. It is easier to take a personality with mid range average talent and shoot them to the moon with popularity than it is to take someone with tremendous musical talent and little to no personality and do the same. In the end (Especially in music.) it is about more than what is being done. (Which was my point.) That is what magicians don't seem to grasp and probably never really will. It is not about the tricks you do but how you do them. 99% of his audience in that video would not even KNOW if he was sharp or flat and if you told them wouldn't be able to even hear it. They know if he wrote and sang a song they liked and wanted to see live. They know how that song makes them feel inside and the memories it stirs up. They know if he is a personality on stage they enjoy. Those are the reasons people buy the tickets and the shirts and the drinks and the CD'S.

When you are going from one night gig to one night gig at people's houses doing parties and such it is REALLY hard to develop that as a magician. Impossible? I don't think so but not easy. This guy is an average singer at least in this video. Yet his response is wonderful. WAY out of proportion with what he seems to be doing in the room. He transcends his talent and connects with the people on another level. Nobody else has to see it or like it. The people in that room on that night absolutely do. This should be the goal of any performance.

Don Ho!

Oh my yes.