Talent is subjective, but technical ability is not. You are either a technically able vocalist or you aren't, and it's plain to see that Cheryl is severely lacking in this area.
I did say talent.
What is a technically abled vocalist?
Like Cheryl doesn't have a powerful or loud voice but does it incorporate the tone of her voice?
Vocals. Spend a year (I'm surprised she hasn't considering she, like Katy and Rih can afford it) off and work for 3 hours a day with a classical voice trainer. Then they will be flawless with their craft. It's bad when cheryl is schooled by all her xf mentees and they just walked off the street.
I did say talent.
What is a technically abled vocalist?
Like Cheryl doesn't have a powerful or loud voice but does it incorporate the tone of her voice?
In terms of range she's a mezzo soprano
No way is she a mezzo soprano lmao, and even if she was, her head voice range must be awful. I will say she does have something in the tone of her voice, but there are far more negatives than positives. She is in desperate need of vocal lessons, but she still smokes and obviously doesn't care enough to improve.
She has a weak voice, which is why when she sings live her mic is always so low or she is obscured by backing singers or other vocalists.
No way is she a mezzo soprano lmao, and even if she was, her head voice range must be awful. I will say she does have something in the tone of her voice, but there are far more negatives than positives. She is in desperate need of vocal lessons, but she still smokes and obviously doesn't care enough to improve.
She has a weak voice, which is why when she sings live her mic is always so low or she is obscured by backing singers or other vocalists.
Talent is subjective, but technical ability is not. You are either a technically able vocalist or you aren't, and it's plain to see that Cheryl is severely lacking in this area.
You said she was miming on Graham Norton when he confirmed she was singing live (see post on the previous page) so obviously she is better then you assume.
Not necessarily. Some people can have a nice sound to their voice but be all out of tune, while others may hit all the notes but may sound not great, that is subjective. But hitting the notes is an ability which Cheryl doesn't really possess.
You said she was miming on Graham Norton when he confirmed she was singing live (see post on the previous page) so obviously she is better then you assume.
Yeah 'low in the mix' i.e. drowned out by backing vocals, Graham even said that it was so low that they had to isolate the sound to hear her voice....so what's the point of even singing live if no-one can hear her or she's layered by loud backing vocals.
Not necessarily. Some people can have a nice sound to their voice but be all out of tune, while others may hit all the notes but may sound not great, that is subjective. But hitting the notes is an ability which Cheryl doesn't really possess.
Give her credit, she hits the £ notes everytime, certainly while her "fans" are willing to cough up the money. Ability and talent are not required to make money, its who you know and how much "front" you have to stand up there (or jig up and down) miming.
Not necessarily. Some people can have a nice sound to their voice but be all out of tune, while others may hit all the notes but may sound not great, that is subjective. But hitting the notes is an ability which Cheryl doesn't really possess.
Yeah 'low in the mix' i.e. drowned out by backing vocals, Graham even said that it was so low that they had to isolate the sound to hear her voice....so what's the point of even singing live if no-one can hear her or she's layered by loud backing vocals.
He said she sounded low in the studio.
And they isolated her sound going into her microphone to see how she sounded live without the backing track and he was surprised as she was in tune and hitting the notes.
And you were saying not long ago she should sing with a backing track i.e. what Rihanna does.
And they isolated her sound going into her microphone to see how she sounded live without the backing track and he was surprised as she was in tune and hitting the notes.
And you were saying not long ago she should sing with a backing track i.e. what Rihanna does.
But you can actually hear Rihanna and her vocals, she is never totally drowned out by backing vocals. If she's going to be singing live, why is she 'low in the mix' it was the same for the Jubilee performance. If she was as in tune as Graham claims she was, then why hasn't she made more attempts to prove herself when it's clear that the public have no faith in her singing ability.
I don't know why we're always arguing over Cheryl's singing abilities tbh. 99% of the public don't care. The entire country watched her performance on Need You Now last week, and now she's having the fastest-selling single of the year.
Going around telling everybody that she's a bad singer won't make people hate her. Everybody has known for years she's not good at singing.
But for what it's worth, I think people are MUCH to critical of Cheryl's singing skills. She's not the best singer, but I've watched her Radio 1 Live Lounge performances, for example. She DOES actually hit most of the notes there...
But I think it's better when pop singers mime during live performances. I guess unless they're singing ballads. It doesn't sound as good if they're missing 10% of the notes, so I'd rather just them sing along to/with the studio version or a pre-recorded version.
I don't know why we're always arguing over Cheryl's singing abilities tbh. 99% of the public don't care. The entire country watched her performance on Need You Now last week, and now she's having the fastest-selling single of the year.
I think her voice always causes debate because she was accused of miming before she had the chance to launch her solo career. She didn't have a chance. Miming really became a big issue after that. Everybody who appeared on XF since Fight For This Love is accused of miming.
Also, it's her weakest trait as a popstar. She has the looks and the moves but her voice is a bit weak. I think she is below Rihanna and Katy on the vocals scale. She suits her own songs. I like the tone to her voice, but Need You Now was the worst thing I've heard from her. The chorus does not suit her voice. I don't know the technical term but her voice is slightly deep yet empty but opens up at the end of the note. She would probably suit guitar driven songs.
Comments
I did say talent.
What is a technically abled vocalist?
Like Cheryl doesn't have a powerful or loud voice but does it incorporate the tone of her voice?
In terms of range she's a mezzo soprano
No way is she a mezzo soprano lmao, and even if she was, her head voice range must be awful. I will say she does have something in the tone of her voice, but there are far more negatives than positives. She is in desperate need of vocal lessons, but she still smokes and obviously doesn't care enough to improve.
She has a weak voice, which is why when she sings live her mic is always so low or she is obscured by backing singers or other vocalists.
So is tone part of technical ability?
You said she was miming on Graham Norton when he confirmed she was singing live (see post on the previous page) so obviously she is better then you assume.
Not necessarily. Some people can have a nice sound to their voice but be all out of tune, while others may hit all the notes but may sound not great, that is subjective. But hitting the notes is an ability which Cheryl doesn't really possess.
Yeah 'low in the mix' i.e. drowned out by backing vocals, Graham even said that it was so low that they had to isolate the sound to hear her voice....so what's the point of even singing live if no-one can hear her or she's layered by loud backing vocals.
Give her credit, she hits the £ notes everytime, certainly while her "fans" are willing to cough up the money. Ability and talent are not required to make money, its who you know and how much "front" you have to stand up there (or jig up and down) miming.
I understand what u mean. Just don't agree
He said she sounded low in the studio.
And they isolated her sound going into her microphone to see how she sounded live without the backing track and he was surprised as she was in tune and hitting the notes.
And you were saying not long ago she should sing with a backing track i.e. what Rihanna does.
But you can actually hear Rihanna and her vocals, she is never totally drowned out by backing vocals. If she's going to be singing live, why is she 'low in the mix' it was the same for the Jubilee performance. If she was as in tune as Graham claims she was, then why hasn't she made more attempts to prove herself when it's clear that the public have no faith in her singing ability.
Going around telling everybody that she's a bad singer won't make people hate her. Everybody has known for years she's not good at singing.
But for what it's worth, I think people are MUCH to critical of Cheryl's singing skills. She's not the best singer, but I've watched her Radio 1 Live Lounge performances, for example. She DOES actually hit most of the notes there...
But I think it's better when pop singers mime during live performances. I guess unless they're singing ballads. It doesn't sound as good if they're missing 10% of the notes, so I'd rather just them sing along to/with the studio version or a pre-recorded version.
I think her voice always causes debate because she was accused of miming before she had the chance to launch her solo career. She didn't have a chance. Miming really became a big issue after that. Everybody who appeared on XF since Fight For This Love is accused of miming.
Also, it's her weakest trait as a popstar. She has the looks and the moves but her voice is a bit weak. I think she is below Rihanna and Katy on the vocals scale. She suits her own songs. I like the tone to her voice, but Need You Now was the worst thing I've heard from her. The chorus does not suit her voice. I don't know the technical term but her voice is slightly deep yet empty but opens up at the end of the note. She would probably suit guitar driven songs.