Felipe Carvalho Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 This is an expression that I come around quite often, and everyone seems to understand the meaning, although I never saw it being defined. What does it mean to you? What is a high level performer/singer? Is it the same as "being famous", or do you know high level performers that are not that well known. What defines it in your opinion? Subjectivity is totally fine! All opinions and views are more than welcome! Felipe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future Vocalist Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 For me a high level singer must be able to have good tone and on pitch. Range is a bonus but if the tonality and pitch is there then a singer is a high level singer for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Excellent question Felipe. To me, fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. These people could be our next door neighbor and play in local coffee houses. The reality is a good singer is a dime a dozen. You have to be a real good, and develop you own unique signature. Here's my perception/belief of what I would consider the components of a high level vocalist (not in any particular order) .. Ablility to sing with multiple vocal colors and tone qualities...singing bright as well as dark as everywhere in between Ability to sing multiple genres consistently well Ability to swell and taper anywhere in their range (sing softly to loudly & and loudly to softly) Ability to ride demanding tessituras Ability to sing songs with demanding intervals Ability to improvise and emulate Ability to experiment and explore with the extremes of vocal range and step out of their comfort zone Ability to sing both stacacco and legato Ability to capture and hold the attention of the listener Ability to deliver a message to the audience with honesty, conviction, and lack of pretense Ability to integrate both the mind and body in the production of very accurate notes anywhere in their range Ability to and wilingness to define areas that need improvement and a committment to continual growth and development 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Carvalho Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 28 minutes ago, The Future Vocalist said: For me a high level singer must be able to have good tone and on pitch. Range is a bonus but if the tonality and pitch is there then a singer is a high level singer for me. Thank you for your reply! I think I understand what you mean. Do you believe however that just a good tone and pitch is enough? Aren't there other aspects of a performance that could contribute and even be central to the experience of the audience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Carvalho Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 @VideoHere Thank you Bob! I understand what you mean, but what about the material being sang. For example, when I think of a high level performer, I think of the kind of person that you would need if you had material such as Journey, or Foreigner to be sang (where virtuose and vocals are part of the deal). Also there is one point in what you said that I find very interesting: "lack of pretence" Can you explain that a little more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Carvalho Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 @Lienthank you for your detailed reply man. I understand what you mean, and indeed when I think of high level singing Russell Allen is one of my references too. Do you believe that its really about "perfection"? Because I am sure that Russell does some mistakes at times, as did guys like Dio, still it does not take away from their game. I like what you said in there about psychological make up. What would that be in your opinion? Just "believing" in the self, or is it a broader meaning which translates in a better craftsmaship in the end of the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future Vocalist Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Felipe Carvalho said: Thank you for your reply! I think I understand what you mean. Do you believe however that just a good tone and pitch is enough? Aren't there other aspects of a performance that could contribute and even be central to the experience of the audience? For me it doesn't matter if the performance is flashy or just a straight up go out there and sing and don't worry about all of the details performance as long as the singer has good tone and pitch. I can go to a Trans Siberian Orchestra concert and be amazed with all of the flashy stuff they do and be turned off of the entire concert if any of their singers aren't good enough to be on stage(good thing they do have good singers though)and then go to another concert with a good singer with high quality tone and perfect pitch and the concert isn't flashy or has a high performance and still walk out satisfied because the singer was right on cue as far as his singing is concerned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 On 9/28/2016 at 2:22 PM, Felipe Carvalho said: @VideoHere Thank you Bob! I understand what you mean, but what about the material being sang. For example, when I think of a high level performer, I think of the kind of person that you would need if you had material such as Journey, or Foreigner to be sang (where virtuose and vocals are part of the deal). Also there is one point in what you said that I find very interesting: "lack of pretence" Can you explain that a little more? Well, I'm trying to not always bring in Lou LOL. Yes, I believe at least for the majority of us, there is a requisite competency needed before you go and try to do justice to a Foreigner, Journey, plus many others, Micheal Bolton, Bobby Kimball, Steve Walsh, Stevie Wonder, Burton Cummings, John Farnham, Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury, Paul McCartney, ...(I know I'm leaving some out.) These guys to me are on a higher level. There songs are demanding because they wanted them to be. Lou set the bar higher and higher on each record. It's obvious he sought to outdo himself year after year. I was very fortunate to experience near complete inability to sing Foreigner when I first tried. I mean it really was a wake up call for me, just knocked me on my ass the difficulty and my inability. Key changes didn't even help! They still remain a challenge each and every time I sing them. But singing them I believe, made me a better, stronger singer. To me, if you can sing these songs well, (especially the Foreigner) you are well on your way to becoming a great singer. "Lack of pretense" is when a singer gets up there's no trace of arrogance, or showing off. There's a sincerity and a desire to connect that the audience is taken by. There is vulnerablity combined with the competency. Take a guy like Adam Lambert and put him next to Elvis...Both way up in the looks department, both "showmen" yet IMHO Adam comes off as a little too cocky and self assured vs. Elvis' vulnerablity and honesty. I think had Adam toned things down instead off trying too hard to win all of us over overnight, his career would be further ahead by now. I'd rather watch a singer less than perfect busting his ass on stage, than a flamboyant, sex figure with a stratosheric range he is just too concerned you get to hear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blahblah86 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 All of the above. To me, it's also the ability to just go out there and sing songs how they are meant to be sung. There's no weirdness. The technique is hidden by the artistry. Doesn't matter how easy or how hard the song is in terms of range/dynamics/timbres... Just sing it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonJon Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 6 hours ago, VideoHere said: Excellent question Felipe. To me, fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. These people could be our next door neighbor and play in local coffee houses. The reality is a good singer is a dime a dozen. You have to be a real good, and develop you own unique signature. Here's my perception/belief of what I would consider the components of a high level vocalist (not in any particular order) .. Ablility to sing with multiple vocal colors and tone qualities...singing bright as well as dark as everywhere in between Ability to sing multiple genres consistently well Ability to swell and taper anywhere in their range (sing softly to loudly & and loudly to softly) Ability to ride demanding tessituras Ability to sing songs with demanding intervals Ability to improvise and emulate Ability to experiment and explore with the extremes of vocal range and step out of their comfort zone Ability to sing both stacacco and legato Ability to capture and hold the attention of the listener Ability to deliver a message to the audience with honesty, conviction, and lack of pretense Ability to integrate both the mind and body in the production of very accurate notes anywhere in their range Ability to and wilingness to define areas that need improvement and a committment to continual growth and development lol thats more like a laundry list of every POSSIBLE quality that can be achieved. We can name ALL of our fave singers and none of them can live up to that list I doubt even your boy can do most of that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 To me, singing at a high level is where the technique is already worked out and it is not always max volume .But it is expression, a sense of power from the singing, unlike any other and it grabs the listener. Anyone can make a high note. Anyone can learn to sing consistently. But to sing in a way that moves people, that is high performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonJon Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 6 hours ago, VideoHere said: Excellent question Felipe. To me, fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. These people could be our next door neighbor and play in local coffee houses. The reality is a good singer is a dime a dozen. You have to be a real good, and develop you own unique signature. Here's my perception/belief of what I would consider the components of a high level vocalist (not in any particular order) .. Ablility to sing with multiple vocal colors and tone qualities...singing bright as well as dark as everywhere in between Ability to sing multiple genres consistently well Ability to swell and taper anywhere in their range (sing softly to loudly & and loudly to softly) Ability to ride demanding tessituras Ability to sing songs with demanding intervals Ability to improvise and emulate Ability to experiment and explore with the extremes of vocal range and step out of their comfort zone Ability to sing both stacacco and legato Ability to capture and hold the attention of the listener Ability to deliver a message to the audience with honesty, conviction, and lack of pretense Ability to integrate both the mind and body in the production of very accurate notes anywhere in their range Ability to and wilingness to define areas that need improvement and a committment to continual growth and development again, this reminds me of some of the old stuff id see in guitar magazines: ability to play ANY scale in ANY position ability to play ANY chord in ANY position ability to start a scale from any note using ANY finger blah blah endless Then you realize that NONE of the greatest players ever could actually do any of that stuff A lot of great singers and great players are one trick ponies. I mean, John Fogerty....great high level singer no doubt, but can he sing multiple genres?? multiple colors?? a dump truck does what it does and a Ferrari does what it does. They are both "great" in their own ways. and of course its not the subject of the thread, but there is an equalizer that trumps everything on these type of lists: a great song a great song is a great song is a great song is a...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny82 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 For me high level singer simply means that it is a singer that often sings material that can be called "difficult". The difficulty of that material can be various things, like level of intensity, difficult rhythm or great agility on high pitches. In general you could say that material is difficult if the average Joe needs years of training to sing it without horribly messing it up. That said, a high level singer is not neccessarily a good singer. And also, a good singer does not have to be a high level singer, like Johnny Cash was a good singer, but not neccessarily a high level singer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collin571 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 13 hours ago, VideoHere said: Excellent question Felipe. To me, fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. These people could be our next door neighbor and play in local coffee houses. The reality is a good singer is a dime a dozen. You have to be a real good, and develop you own unique signature. Here's my perception/belief of what I would consider the components of a high level vocalist (not in any particular order) .. Ablility to sing with multiple vocal colors and tone qualities...singing bright as well as dark as everywhere in between Ability to sing multiple genres consistently well Ability to swell and taper anywhere in their range (sing softly to loudly & and loudly to softly) Ability to ride demanding tessituras Ability to sing songs with demanding intervals Ability to improvise and emulate Ability to experiment and explore with the extremes of vocal range and step out of their comfort zone Ability to sing both stacacco and legato Ability to capture and hold the attention of the listener Ability to deliver a message to the audience with honesty, conviction, and lack of pretense Ability to integrate both the mind and body in the production of very accurate notes anywhere in their range Ability to and wilingness to define areas that need improvement and a committment to continual growth and development What do you mean by lack of pretense? Putting aside their doubts or inhibitions and engaging fully with the audience, not bringing their personal matters into mind besides those that are beneficial to the interpretation of the song while performing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collin571 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 A high level singer has to be a performer, has to be a risk taker. Has to connect not necessarily to the lyrics but to the feel of the song. They have to set the mood with their tone and ride their breath like a wave. I barely listen to lyrics anymore it's hard when you're preoccupied analyzing their tone, pitch, breath pressure, intensity, vowel modifications. Idk if singing is more fun to listen to or less because of having the knowledge of vocal technique and it's application. They say ignorance is bliss. Listening to music now I tend to hone in on the singing and put myself in their shoes wondering how I would replicate their vocal delivery so I can viscerally experience and imagine their coordinations and sensations as they undergo them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexy Beast Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Quote Is it the same as "being famous"? Pretty much, and this: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 14 hours ago, JonJon said: lol thats more like a laundry list of every POSSIBLE quality that can be achieved. We can name ALL of our fave singers and none of them can live up to that list I doubt even your boy can do most of that I agree and disagree Jon. Maybe they can't do all I had listed, but a lot of them could sing other genres if they wanted to and put their own special spin on it. Lou sure could. Lou said in his book on this recording he purposely undersang to get back at Mick Jones for moving too far towards ballads. This was undersung....(below) Steve Walsh below.... Jon, for every singer I mentioned there's a performance out of their genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 9 hours ago, Collin571 said: What do you mean by lack of pretense? I explained it above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonJon Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, VideoHere said: I agree and disagree Jon. Maybe they can't do all I had listed, but a lot of them could sing other genres if they wanted to and put their own special spin on it. Lou sure could. Lou said in his book on this recording he purposely undersang to get back at Mick Jones for moving too far towards ballads. This was undersung....(below) Steve Walsh below.... Jon, for every singer I mentioned there's a performance out of their genre. yeah, they can ALL do SOME of that stuff lol. Great singers are great because they have something great to offer etc...but they arent jacks of all trades. Dio is great and Steve Perry is great....but they couldnt switch gigs. Its sort of like I could list Mark Slaughter as one of my top 10 fave singers and that would be true. Dudes voice is just beautiful and majestic to me. BUT thats just based on TWO SONGS. "fly to the Angels" and "Love Kills" (Vinnie Vincent). So far I could care less for other Slaughter or VV songs I have heard. I mean, Mark is great but I doubt he could live up to most of that list. or this guy, Daniel MacMaster (RIP). To me this is super duper high level singing. But the rest of the album sucked lol. Somehow it all fell together on this song, production etc he and Mark have that nice clear tenor thing happening......but I dount they could do Iron Maiden any justice. By t he same token, I cant deny that Bruce Dickinson is a great singer. No doubt. But there are some styles he simply can not do. I just dont think the whole "he can do anything" should be a criterion for greatness. A gorilla is a fierce killer and so is a great white shark...but they cant switch places Joe Lynn Turner was great...on his songs, but when he tried to sing Graham Bonnets stuff it wasnt pretty lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronws Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 16 hours ago, JonJon said: again, this reminds me of some of the old stuff id see in guitar magazines: ability to play ANY scale in ANY position ability to play ANY chord in ANY position ability to start a scale from any note using ANY finger blah blah endless Then you realize that NONE of the greatest players ever could actually do any of that stuff A lot of great singers and great players are one trick ponies. I mean, John Fogerty....great high level singer no doubt, but can he sing multiple genres?? multiple colors?? a dump truck does what it does and a Ferrari does what it does. They are both "great" in their own ways. and of course its not the subject of the thread, but there is an equalizer that trumps everything on these type of lists: a great song a great song is a great song is a great song is a...... rockonwhichyabadself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 6 minutes ago, JonJon said: yeah, they can ALL do SOME of that stuff lol. Great singers are great because they have something great to offer etc...but they arent jacks of all trades. Dio is great and Steve Perry is great....but they couldnt switch gigs. Jon, I hear ya, but how can we say that for sure? We're not them. I remember reading some interview where Perry said he intentionally sought out a some raspiness in the later years. Some of these famous guys get known and marketed for one thing, but do we really know (for example) that Perry couldn't have sung Opera if he had decided to? I'll bet Dio sure as hell could have! Even the passed over Gary Puckett I'll bet could have trained to sing Opera. Bon Jovi dabbled in Country, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Thinking about Jon Bon Jovi for a minute, now that think about it, he really sings multiple styles. Even our own Daniel Formica sings well in multiple styles. Take Paul Rodgers...we only know him one way, but I'll bet he could croon his way if he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Folks, I accidentally ran into a perfect example of the difference between really good and great. Compare these two sounds. I'm not saying this isn't a good performance, but it seems to lack the punchiness, intensity, and dymamic contrast of the original Foreigner Rock sound. This is a pop oriented sound. Very polished, but yet somewhat sterile and lacking in vitality. The vocals of Lou are a cut above. There's no denying it. Even with Lou probably singing at the extremes of his range, some mistakes, ducked notes, it still moves me more than Kelly's "nice" vocal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonJon Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 1 hour ago, VideoHere said: Jon, I hear ya, but how can we say that for sure? We're not them. I remember reading some interview where Perry said he intentionally sought out a some raspiness in the later years. Some of these famous guys get known and marketed for one thing, but do we really know (for example) that Perry couldn't have sung Opera if he had decided to? I'll bet Dio sure as hell could have! Even the passed over Gary Puckett I'll bet could have trained to sing Opera. Bon Jovi dabbled in Country, "could have"?? dude, I "could have" 6 pack abs right now lol...but trust me, I dont. But I "could have" lol and Shaquille O'Neal could have been the greatest horse jockey ever, if he just put his mind to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Sometimes it's risky for them to move away from the stuff that made them famous...the perils of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now