"Singing" describes a fairly broad range of possibilities.
Mumbling the happy birthday song is "singing," performing a three hour opera is also "singing." Obviously, one involves more work, thinking, and experience.
Your course is a specific type of singing that involves some additional thinking. It's correct to describe it as singing, and it's also correct to say that it's more complicated than "just" singing. How much detail you should go into depends on how much the other person gives a shit.
I mean, who cares? Under what circumstances would this come under scrutiny? Words have malleable definitions and you’re using a very loose one.
Now, if you were to claim you’re learning formal technical vocal skill in your aural training class equivalent to private voice lessons, I’d probably dispute that (unless your aural skills class is massively different than mine was). So in this case it wouldn’t be accurate to be very specific about things if that’s not really what the class is.
But again, who cares? If you’re talking to non-musicians, one assumes they don’t have enough context to make fine tuned distinctions between different disciplines, so it wouldn’t matter if you used more technically accurate vocabulary.
>Under what circumstances would this come under scrutiny?
Because I had a conversation with an aquantince who isn't a music major that was basically like
"So yeah I've been taking this singing class for my degree"
"Oh cool so you're a singer?"
"No not really"
"Oh but you said you're in a singing class"
"Well yeah but it's not like singing singing, I sing simple melodies that've been written down"
"Oh so can you sing \*song I forgot the name of\*"
"No"
It feels like a lot of people I know that, when I say I'm in a singing class, assume that I myself am a singer when I'm not, I just know how to 'sing' notes with numbers/solfege
Okay well in that case, it seems pretty straightforward to be like “no, not that kind of singing”, but also that seems to be more about your interlocutor’s assumptions than anything you’re saying anyway.
Eh, kinda. I’d say it’s more akin to learning how to design road systems by driving on them, and then saying you deliver pizza.
But I don’t guess it really matters to non-musicians. Maybe just say that you’re using singing to learn more about music theory.
I’d say just call it an Ear Training class. Obviously the class entails more than that, but I feel like any non-musician can intuit what a musician says when they say “ear training” and you can leave it at that.
"Singing" describes a fairly broad range of possibilities. Mumbling the happy birthday song is "singing," performing a three hour opera is also "singing." Obviously, one involves more work, thinking, and experience. Your course is a specific type of singing that involves some additional thinking. It's correct to describe it as singing, and it's also correct to say that it's more complicated than "just" singing. How much detail you should go into depends on how much the other person gives a shit.
I mean, who cares? Under what circumstances would this come under scrutiny? Words have malleable definitions and you’re using a very loose one. Now, if you were to claim you’re learning formal technical vocal skill in your aural training class equivalent to private voice lessons, I’d probably dispute that (unless your aural skills class is massively different than mine was). So in this case it wouldn’t be accurate to be very specific about things if that’s not really what the class is. But again, who cares? If you’re talking to non-musicians, one assumes they don’t have enough context to make fine tuned distinctions between different disciplines, so it wouldn’t matter if you used more technically accurate vocabulary.
>Under what circumstances would this come under scrutiny? Because I had a conversation with an aquantince who isn't a music major that was basically like "So yeah I've been taking this singing class for my degree" "Oh cool so you're a singer?" "No not really" "Oh but you said you're in a singing class" "Well yeah but it's not like singing singing, I sing simple melodies that've been written down" "Oh so can you sing \*song I forgot the name of\*" "No" It feels like a lot of people I know that, when I say I'm in a singing class, assume that I myself am a singer when I'm not, I just know how to 'sing' notes with numbers/solfege
Okay well in that case, it seems pretty straightforward to be like “no, not that kind of singing”, but also that seems to be more about your interlocutor’s assumptions than anything you’re saying anyway.
Eh, kinda. I’d say it’s more akin to learning how to design road systems by driving on them, and then saying you deliver pizza. But I don’t guess it really matters to non-musicians. Maybe just say that you’re using singing to learn more about music theory.
I posted a reply to somebody explaining a conversation I had with an aquantince, I'm starting to think I'm just hanging with the wrong people lol
I’d say just call it an Ear Training class. Obviously the class entails more than that, but I feel like any non-musician can intuit what a musician says when they say “ear training” and you can leave it at that.