Sign in to follow this  
Ramon

Eddie Vedder technique

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Woah. Didn't expect this to turn into a Vedder bashing contest. I LIKE his voice, his tone and the raw energy, therefore I could care less about the technique and if it's good or bad. His pitchiness doesn't bother me at all, on the contrary, I think it suits him.

I was just curious if he improved his technique over the years and the thoughts of you guys on it. Now it just looks like some people are flinging shit at Eddie Vedder while others try to counter it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah. Didn't expect this to turn into a Vedder bashing contest. I LIKE his voice, his tone and the raw energy, therefore I could care less about the technique and if it's good or bad. His pitchiness doesn't bother me at all, on the contrary, I think it suits him.

I was just curious if he improved his technique over the years and the thoughts of you guys on it. Now it just looks like some people are flinging shit at Eddie Vedder while others try to counter it.

Eddie's cool, don't worry about it man. Someone could tell me he sings plain wrong notes in falsetto and wears grannie panties underneath the flannel and I wouldn't be scared off. That guy from Creed though, I dunno he always felt like a rip off so don't copy him dude it could be bad. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that is essentially my point... and I totally agree with you on Cobain... he is awful. I'm sorry... he may be a great song writer and very "sincere"... yes, but my god... he sings like ass and other then "smells like team spirit" which was kinda trendy cool for about four weeks... I just don't get the appeal with Nirvana, other then song writing I suppose, but even then... to be honest... Its lame for me... if I want to listen to song writing, Ill dial into Jim Croce or Rush or Metallica... Nirvana has little merit for me and I would most certainly take Vedder over Cobain, but even then, you still can't polish a turd when your choices are bad or real bad?

yup. I'd much rather hear Foo Fighters than Nirvana and quite frankly, I get pi**ed when I hear Cobain compared to John Lennon. Are you freakin' kidding me??

Never got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie's cool, don't worry about it man. Someone could tell me he sings plain wrong notes in falsetto and wears grannie panties underneath the flannel and I wouldn't be scared off. That guy from Creed though, I dunno he always felt like a rip off so don't copy him dude it could be bad. :D

I agree haha. Yeah and I always thought that guy sounded like a more tame version of Eddie. Though he also seems to rip off of Axl Rose:

lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree haha. Yeah and I always thought that guy sounded like a more tame version of Eddie. Though he also seems to rip off of Axl Rose:

lol!

Lol man, you're getting your Nu Metal bands in the era confused, not that I blame you, as that's a badge of honor.

Hey, I'll be friendly and show the only Creed song I find listenable as he does his Vedder impression.

That Aaron Lewis guy was one of the 'bald band' brigade in Staind when it seemed like every single frontman forgot their rogaine. Say what you will about Grunge, guys, but Nu Metal was on a whole different level. I can't believe I've never seen anyone mention Fred Durst here with so many jabs at vocal technique.

yup. I'd much rather hear Foo Fighters than Nirvana and quite frankly, I get pi**ed when I hear Cobain compared to John Lennon. Are you freakin' kidding me??

Never got it.

Nirvana is small doses for me. I actually don't often listen to grunge, to be honest. I'll drum to Alice and Chains Dirt sometimes, but most anything else I hear is just whatever I come across. I don't seek it out very often but like a lot of it when it comes my way.

Cobain was definitely no John Lennon, but I believe what he did for music was better than what I've heard from popular music lately. I found a lot more bands in that era that I like, not as much as 60s/70s, which is where the majority of my favorite artists came from (thanks to soul, Motown and Beatles influence), but I did find the music overall better than current rock bands I'm hearing (NIN, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Green Day I was a fan of in my youth, etc)

Problem is, between the Creed guy (Vedder Lite) and the Seether guy (Cobain Lite), it's like we kept the grunge, without the hmmm... I believe there was an authentic passion in the grunge era and artists were getting a bit more control in the studio to express themselves in a raw way without as much producer interferences, whether people like what they did with it or not, there was some good songwriting and melody in the era that I haven't really heard since the rise of Limp Bizkit. Even though I was a teen and supposed to think this was all good stuff, to me that was when popular music shot itself in the head and I just zoned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it in a very simple way:

If you want to learn technique, learn it.

If you don't, don't.

If you prefer "non-technical" singers, cool.

If you prefer techniqucal singers, cool.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is going to MAKE anyone learn technique.

Another thing: Quite often, people who diss technique are the one's who can't do it. They probably tried and gave up. And you know what? That's perfectly fine. Think about it - if you could play guitar like Yngwie Malmsteen, would you never play a fast run? I'm assuming that you woke up one morning and realized that without planning to, you could play like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, there's value in not learning how to sing in a formal way. If you want to do it that way - go for it. I'd say it's not that smart but if you feel like that, do it. In general, you MIGHT develop an interesting style that way, sure. I think that if you study at least SOMETHING about vocal technique, you'll be exposed to MUCH more possibilities of what the voice can do.

Also, many of us here have learned more from vocal programs and this forum, than from going to vocal coaches. In other words, we learned a LOT just on our own. But that's also a form of vocal technique training. It can be argued what you gain from avoiding vocal lessons. Sure, by learning it on your own and not getting spoon fed, you discover things that you otherwise might not have discovered. But then there are also some vocal coaches that WANT you to experiment and SEEK knowledge, essentially teaching you how to be your own vocal coach. For the voice, that can work to a certain degree, but just like with anything, you need to learn a few basic principles if you're ever going to get REAL good control over your voice. Most people who go that route eventually realize that even just a few lessons with a vocal coach are very valuable. Actually, I'm self taught on guitar but early on I DID take a couple of guitar lessons just to clarify a few things. After that, I felt confident that I could develop my own style on my own. In many ways the voice is the same except that if you make a mistake while training your voice and don't stop when it hurts, you might break your instrument and you can't replace it like you could with a guitar.

But the lesson to be learned here (and I credit Killer for this) is - no matter if you're training your voice or not - don't forget to MAKE MUSIC somehow. Write songs, join a band, make yourself hear (not necessarily to "make it"), have fun, enjoy life, be kind to others, brush your teeth, etc. You have one life. Make the most of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonpall, I think everyone should focus on health first. And if getting in the ballpark of a comfortable singing voice is what singing lessons is about, I agree everyone should get some help there.

Where I disagree, is that everyone should be about making every pitch, every tone, every physical thing possible with the voice or be tuned to some theoretical scientific mechanical perfection rather than having some identity which involves limitations.

People should find what works for them, and form some kind of healthy identity around their interests and what works for them. If that identity wants to expand, cool, but if this identity reflects what you want to express as is (or close to as is), or even if you want to express 'is' imperfection, that's quite alright.

There's no wrong way, except injury. And I'd highly suggest beginners looking for lessons, don't look for range, but rather a comfortable healthy singing voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day I allow my voice to go in many different places. Some of them are present in a bunch of vocal exercises. Even more are in my daily vocal improv where I just let myself loose and improvise melodies, words and sounds. You can hear an old example of this in the reviews section. In all of this, I learn more about my voice, the finer details, and also how I personally want to sound.

I agree with you that you should first try to get a good tone in your chest voice before you try to increase range.

When I was younger I WANTED to sing more similar to Axl Rose, Alice Cooper and Sammy Hagar, than Kurt Cobain f.ex. So for a guy like me, I think it's perfectly ok to try to practise and see if I can get some range and maybe rasp. For someone else who just loves Cobain, why the hell would he want to spend a lot of time learning technique? Well, ok, his voice would last longer if he did, but lets even ignore that bit. But all of these singers, Cobain included, connected to millions of listeners. It's all good.

Just realize that learning technique does NOT have to make you sterile and you CAN find your own sound by learning technique. In fact, you have more options that way. You don't sincerelly think that people with good vocal range don't sing from their hearts? I don't believe you do. I think you've said that you find value in learning technique AND not learning it. Ok, cool. Just remember, this is the technique section of this forum so the focus here will always be on technique, even though we must forget about "feel". Maybe there should be another section on this site where the focus is on the "artist" side of singing, songwriting and similar things? Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah Jonpall, it's not necessarily about technically skilled singers not singing from the heart or something cliche like that.

It's more like some people singing a little improper in an appealing way, based on the person's habits, beliefs, ignorance, and upbringing, their identity that wasn't fully trained out of them. People value this.

And people, just remember that if you give Bob Dylan a few pointers to help him out, he's not going to suddenly sound like a 10 year classical conservatory student. It's like a nature/nurture ratio, I think. 100 percent nature, 100 percent nurture, neither to me are usually ideal. People just need whatever percent nurture helps them achieve their goals.

So maybe Bob Dylan needs 5-10 percent nurture to keep him on the tracks away from injury while expressing himself, and Tate needs 80 percent nurture to achieve that kind of range and control and express himself how he wants to (I honestly don't know, just made up estimates). Technique is still valuable to everyone, I just don't think 100 percent is always the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe Bob Dylan needs 5-10 percent nurture to keep him on the tracks away from injury while expressing himself, and Tate needs 80 percent nurture to achieve that kind of range and control and express himself how he wants to (I honestly don't know, just made up estimates). Technique is still valuable to everyone, I just don't think 100 percent is always the solution.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer - Like I said - I totally understand what you are saying, you don't have to repeat it. My point is that promoting the merits of totally raw untrained singing, and the lack of desire to improve on a technical level, on a forum with a bunch of people that DO want to improve is going against the very essence of this forum. Yes - I think Vedder expresses himself well and is an artist. So is Dylan. I think his music is cool. He is an artist and he does represent an innate culture. But this kind of talk makes people that are putting a lot of effort in to improve, feel negative. Surely you can understand this? It's like I'm putting in all these hours in, and for what? Well the people that are putting in this effort are trying to reach an audience that appreciates those efforts. They surely aren't trying to reach an audience that only likes the raw untrained talent.

Geno, I think its ok for Killer to make this argument on this forum.... but it doesn't mean we have to necessarily agree with it. The problem here Killer is you just don't "get it". Sadly, you have bought into the rhetoric and myth that technique = no care for sponteneity. You seem to feel that with technique, the artist loses something. With technique, its not as "sincere"... I have to say, in my opinion, this is a belief system that comes from someone that needs to grow in certain areas, regarding their understanding of music.

This attitude is out there... there are some people that have bought off on this notion that technique isn't cool. It isn't sincere or what ever... they think they are being purists and pretend that they can appreciate certain artists in a deeper way then other people. They like to think they are more sensitive to the "sincerity" in music and what that means, then others. Its a form of pretended elitism, but what they don't understand is, musicians step back and shake their heads. Now I don't know if that is you Killer or not, but you seem to be hinting at it.

This is Geoff Tate, singing "Road To Maddness", Live... from "The Warning" Album...

You telling me this doesn't have sincerity? You telling me that this just showing off with technique and has not "raw" talent? This is not "felt"? Oh and btw... Vedder couldn't sing like this if his life depended on it because he has no technique.

Stop making the argument that technique means you sacrifice sincerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Cobain sings like an ass...

I just meant , I don't like it... its not interesting to me. Its nothing anyone can't do. Other than the lyrics and song writing, I see little value in the singing here. Sorry...

For example, why is this song interesting to people? I mean honestly? The melody is basically "1-3-5-3-1"... over and over again... it like a nursery rhythm you would sing with a bunch of children. It has one modulation in the song and then back to "blah, blah..... blah, blah., blah, blah, blah"...

The song is weak, the melody is basically pedaling on the root, 3rd and the 5th, the singing is terrible, the guy was a drug addict and ruined an amazing opportunity for himself, his bandmates and his fans by killing himself and his hair is all matted out pretentiously , to try to make a statement... we are suppose to believe that Kurt Cobain can't take a shower and comb his hair? This isn't sincerity, this is pretention...

Anyways, I don't like it, but I'm happy for those that do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check a few posts above, Rob. Sincerity wasn't the argument I was making in that way. Someone who sincerely wants to push technique to the level of Geoff Tate, will be a sincere person in achieving that.

But if someone tried to pressure Bob Dylan into singing like Geoff Tate, when his feelings, his culture, his identity, the way he values expressing himself is not that way, then that's the problem. Sincerity is achieving the goals you want to achieve, not seeking technical perfection for the sake of technical perfection. Does that make more sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer, that relates to what I said previously - no one can MAKE you do anything. Whatever you want with your voice is your choice. For that fact, let's rejoice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer, that relates to what I said previously - no one can MAKE you do anything. Whatever you want with your voice is your choice. For that fact, let's rejoice.

Yes, but people can help you achieve your goals instead of pushing you to achieve their's. Someone like Rob is highly qualified and educated, who has the capability of helping someone like Bob Dylan achieve his goals more healthily, without sacrificing so much of his original vision.

Say Bob Dylan needed a single tweak to sing healthily 'enough', but still would sound and be Bob Dylan. This goes back to teaching. Why do you teach? Is it to teach the most extreme mechanical perfection possible, or is it to help someone achieve their goals as safely as possible? That's a question I had for Rob that got this started.

It's the same with a Tuvan throat singer, or someone that wanted to learn anything meaningful for themselves. I guess I just wasn't sure how Rob feels about this. I only really brought it up because he's extremely competent and probably 'could' help people in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check a few posts above, Rob. Sincerity wasn't the argument I was making in that way. Someone who sincerely wants to push technique to the level of Geoff Tate, will be a sincere person in achieving that.

But if someone tried to pressure Bob Dylan into singing like Geoff Tate, when his feelings, his culture, his identity, the way he values expressing himself is not that way, then that's the problem. Sincerity is achieving the goals you want to achieve, not seeking technical perfection for the sake of technical perfection. Does that make more sense?

Guys... who is making anyone do anything? Why would anyone make Bob Dylan sing "Roads to Maddness"? Although, Im sure Geoff Tate could sing any Bob Dylan song and create a respectable tribute song out of it... but thats beside the point.. I thought the point was... no technique meant you could tap into more sincerity and that those that use technique, like Tate in the above video, just wasn't as sincere as Eddie Vedder's video because Eddie pulls chest...

To the argument that some people just like to hear that raw "push"... that primitive, shouty belty sound in some artists like Cobain and Vedder, will ok... apparently there are a lot of people like that and I wish them the best in life and no foul. It is what it is, it most certainly isn't what it isn't and if people don't care about technique, well... go watch "America's funniest videos" and laugh when the laugh track tells you to laugh... I don't understand why people find merit in mediocrity.

Part of the purpose of life.... is to achieve things while you are here on this planet. To reach for always getting better, improving yourself, making a contribution to man kind in some way... to inspire others by your achievements and efforts to create and produce something that is "hard" and takes work.

Big thinking precedes great achievement.

Wilferd A. Peterson

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/achievement.html#ixzz1iydFlJJl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guitartrek, it doesn't make someone more of an artist, but it often tends to make them a different artist. That's good, variety is the spice and it's ok for people to grow, but the innate, the unique culture, the preference, ideals, circumstance, and lack of universal knowledge is also important.

Rob, I saw Queensryche in concert, really enjoyed myself. It was on a triple bill with Dream Theater and Fates Warning, but I would have been just as happy to see Pearl Jam, Al Green, Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, McCartney, or especially David Bowie, all for different reasons but not really because of technique. It's just not why I listen to music, I like emotion and composition. Tension and release (imperfect tuning over autotune, etc), technique is only a means to an end, and not really the end. Strangely enough, neither my brother nor I like "The Warning" album from Queensryche, though he has it and we've both given it a chance. It sounds more like high pitched notes for their own sake than a composition or emotional expression that we really enjoyed.

Me, most of my favorite musicians are dead, but many of them on this list of my favorite singers as people who were good, partially because, well they were ignorant and just found 'their sounds that they expressed more intuitively by listening and feeling it out' that I relate especially too, rather than because they became extremely educated and happened to pick something from 1000s of possibilities that specifically appealed to me. Being in touch with this more primal intuitive part of things, is important to me. I think it's important that Johnny Cash couldn't sing head voice notes notes, and his guitarist couldn't sweep pick, personally. That's not to take away, from these techniques, when properly applied by artists who wish to use them. Every artist doesn't need them, and often the temptation there, is just not the same as someone feeling something out intuitively maybe in a rougher or less educated/trained manner.

I saw Queensryche, Dream Theater and Fates Warning too... loved the show... what I liked the most about it was the sincerity. There was so much raw talent and sincerity in their music and singing, loved it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't believe Dylan achieved something with his distinctive, if inefficient voice that added something just as valuable as technical proficiency? That's interesting, you don't budge an inch!

And honestly, Rob, pushing chest is hard work! I know from experience that it can take years to train a strong chest voice in ignorance. I could sing up to a G4 pretty comfortably after a lot of self training, but when I read CVT claiming, many guys can shout supposedly healthily up to a C5 with the right vowels (eh, oh) and posture I was dumbstruck.

I'd imagine that is extremely challenging and requires a great deal of breath support so there is technique in shouting apparently too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we see Killer putting words into my mouth as a tactic to argue. Did I write anywhere that "Dylan (has not) achieved something with his distinctive artistry"? NO, I didn't. There is nothing to budge Killer, because I never said that, nor implied that. Nor did I say or imply that Vedder hasn't achieved something with his "artistry"... didn't say that either... you seem to want to take me into the argument of "Rob thinks people that don't use singing technique have no artistic merit"... that is the argument you keep wanting to drag me into and your not going to be able to do that.

This is what you are choosing to hear... but its not what I am saying. Its a popular tactic when arguing to "SPIN" the context and make statements claiming that the other party meant this or meant that... when in fact, the point and context were different. If you can change my argument, you might be able to "win", but I'm not falling for it... I never said Dylan has not achieved something great with his art... All i have said is singing technique is important and if you have some, you can sing with sincerity.... when you have made the ridiculous argument that people with technique struggle with being sincere, but people with... as you call it, "raw talent" (as if someone with technique doesn't have raw talent?), can sing with more sincerity because they are not hampered by that nasty vocal technique stuff... that seems to be your argument and its absurd. I assure you, any real musicians reading this will agree with me.

LOL, pushing chest is hard work? LOL... ok, bud... go "work" on that and get back to me... and for the record, CVT makes a lot of claims that are not true, in spite of their merits. If CVT said its ok to push and pull chest and implied it was something to be admired, then they are not the school I thought they were... but I'm quite sure , they didnt say that, as I have read the book and know much about it... I don't recall any favorable commentary on "pulling chest". I think now you are SPIN'ing context on CVT and trying make CVT argue for you because you need some credibility... CVT does not advocate pulling chest bud... please, stop... your embarrassing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and getting back to the original post... we have to all apologize a bit, we often get off on tangents here at the TMV Forum... but the bottom line is... Eddie Vedder doesn't really have technique, in the true sense. He is doing what we call "Pulling chest" or simply shouting at high notes... while it might sound cool, it doesn't represent a "vocal technique"... it in fact, represents a lack of vocal technique.

Now you can study vocal technique with someone like myself for example and learn how to sing similar to that and sound like that, but not hurt yourself... because the truth is, when Eddie Vedder sings , he often is hurting... it doesn't feel good... its choking him and creating stress and discomfort for him often... vocal health is another big reason why people train vocal technique.

I hope this clarifies for you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know Rob, not trying to discredit you. Doesn't CVT claim Overdrive for men can be taken up to C5? That was my understanding, like if you twang, do the bite thing hard, and smile like the Joker from Batman, and then basically support crazy using an 'eh' or 'oh' vowel. I've read this before but it was on the forum by the users so maybe I should say the users claimed this to be more proper.

I don't have the book itself, as I can't make use of the program, do to my voice health problems, but I generally find it intriguing and interesting, because if what they say is true, it would have enabled me to probably continue something similar to my style of singing healthily upward in pitch? Rather than the SLS stuff that basically combined like a match in gasoline (pushing gugs, creaky voice, and attempts at mix voice in ignorance). From the limited amount of things I've been able to try, I've validated some of what people say about CVT to some extent, but I need to take care of my voice so shouting up to a C5 is out of the question.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth on Dylan either, I'm just trying to imagine a situation if he approached you for help in singing healthier. What would you do? Either say rebuild the whole thing or try to tweak it to healthily keep the character. Cause if I caught you earlier prior to my injury, I'd probably be in a similar situation and if I get better, I might be in a similar situation. I didn't have any teachers I knew of in my area at the time, and stumbled across exactly the wrong information (I needed at the time) with SLS.

Edit:

Ok here it is where I read this up to C2:

http://www.completevocalinstitute.com/node/49

If any of the experienced singers here can verify this is possible for me (you can even email me if you don't want to give Rob a hard time), I'd appreciate it. Cause I often sang with an 'oh' undercurrent in my loud singing and didn't really have problems at the time. I wish I could know what happened to my voice, but I don't think this was it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and getting back to the original post... we have to all apologize a bit, we often get off on tangents here at the TMV Forum... but the bottom line is... Eddie Vedder doesn't really have technique, in the true sense. He is doing what we call "Pulling chest" or simply shouting at high notes... while it might sound cool, it doesn't represent a "vocal technique"... it in fact, represents a lack of vocal technique.

Now you can study vocal technique with someone like myself for example and learn how to sing similar to that and sound like that, but not hurt yourself... because the truth is, when Eddie Vedder sings , he often is hurting... it doesn't feel good... its choking him and creating stress and discomfort for him often... vocal health is another big reason why people train vocal technique.

I hope this clarifies for you...

I'm a little skeptical that he was totally pulling chest for the B4s and C#5s in Baba O'Riley as well as the passage down from B4 in Daughter. I think it's more so short bursts of sloppy twanging. Besides, he's no tenor and I mean he doesn't exactly sound like Phil Anselmo belting when he's hitting those notes. It's nowhere near as powerful as when Layne Staley hits those same notes twanging in head voice (although if I'm paying attention to what I've heard, read, and done, chest voice volume and power can be surpassed through twanging with practice.) But with these grunge singers, the power and placement tend change kind of dramatically above A4. I think even Jim Morrison did this for his high Bs. I believe sloppy head voice twanging is how Kurt Cobain got his distinctive assish sound in songs such as Lounge act. I don't think that any of them were aware of this as they were doing it, so I guess it isn't "technique" but if I were trying to replicate it I would do it with sloppy twanging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By twanging I mean loud, bright notes placed in head voice. I don't really think about twang when I'm singing so I'm not sure if I'm using the term correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this