Pink Was Somewhere Under the Rainbow

Somewhere along the line, we have lost our way with the evaluation of singers. We have come to the conclusion that having "a good voice" makes one "a good singer." Worse, we have decided that people with the ability to sing loudly have "good voices". (I blame a certain flock of singers in the eighties and nineties for this; they were both good and loud but the public in general can only really seem to remember the loud part.)

We all  need to face the fact that "a good voice" is in the ear of the beholder. I just still think that "loud" should not be the only criterion (which it often seems to be), but I am not going to try to argue that I know what a good-sounding voice is and that you don't. That would be stupid.

But, a "good singer" is a good musician. Having a good voice does not cover it. You can put a Stradivarius in the hands of a novice fiddle-player, but that won't make him a maestro. Substitute the "good voice" (often, people will refer to a singer having a "good instrument") for the Stradivarius, and you will see my point. Having a good instrument does not make one a musician.

That said, I had the misfortune of hearing Pink sing "(Somewhere) Over the Rainbow" on the Oscars last night. It was not horrible. It was worse than horrible; it was mediocre. But it sure was loud! She has a big voice (a good instrument) and she "belted it out". Problem is, that song shouldn't be belted-out. To me, Pink sounded like the proverbial bull in a china shop. But that is what we do, today -- we belt things out. It's one of our few forms of expression, it seems.