now that I can read your post (no spaces between sentences and lots of dense text make it difficult to read...)
Singing is something that everyone can do with exception perhaps of mutes and those who are profoundly deaf.
Singing well is always about practice and application, learning how the whole singing mechanism from diaphragm control and breathing to resonance in the head and pitching the voice from the chest, the top of the head or the throat (not recommended unless you want to develop nodules on your vocal cords and possible throat problems later in life) works is key to developing a good singing voice.
Learning to hear pitching issues and being able to fix them as you sing is also a key part of singing well - most folks who say they can't sing have not bothered to try to actually listen to what they are singing and what they should be singing, end result, they do not sing in tune and so think that they cannot sing
So, when listening to these other exercises, you should automatically start singing along - pitch accuracy comes with attention to detail, which means listening and duplicating and correcting as needed.
I have to disagree about your claim that genetics has anything at all to do with it - yes, if born into a family of singers, there should be a reasonable expectation that someone should be able to sing.
However, it is the same as any other skill - aptitude is only part of the formula for being successful, a far more important part is the willingness of the individual to study and practice to acquire the necessary control of the skill to become outstanding: a natural athlete may be able to coast for the first 15 or so years of their life, but then, those who work hard at honing their skills will begin to show this athlete up.
A short anecdote - I was 30 something when I took up soccer (football, but most folks misinterpret what that means) and lacked some basic skills - I did it for the exercise more than anything else. At the start of one training season some new members of the club decided to test the old fat guy out and all had a comeuppance because they thought because I was fat I was stupid or inattentive - not one got the ball past me. Finally one of them asked why I wasn't falling for all the fancy moves - my reply was very simple - I wasn't watching your hips or your shoulders, I was more interested in where your feet were and how you were controlling the ball; i.e. natural ability will not beat an old hand or one that has practiced the skills to the point where they are not only mastered but are second nature, just as the natural athletes ability is.
The same is true of musicians, without practice no-one can sustain a constantly improving high level of performance and skill, at some point the natural will plateau, whilst the slogger (someone who puts in the hard work and practice to master the skills) will continue to improve and eventually outshine the natural
this could easily turn into yet another debate about nature vs nurture - innate skill vs learned skill, but it shouldn't as we are likely to come to the same cyclic debate with the end result being a variation on this:
Gift vs Talent
| Practice
| Do nothing
|
|---|
Natural ability
aka gift
| Outstanding performance
1
| Gifted performance
3
|
|---|
Regular guy
aka talent
| Talented performance
2
| p1ss poor performance
4
|
|---|
The numbers reference the quality of the performances against the gifted person who also works at mastering their skills as 1 and all others in decreasing order; there is no suggestion that we will see this particular result for all persons who are graded, but it is indicative of those who survive on gift versus those who survive by sheer hard work
