Steven Fraser

Jens: I think he put them over on his page at http://www.themodernvocalist.com/profile/DonWilson431 I'm going to take a listen tonight.

Kalapoka: Small inhalations. For many musical phrases, only a small amount of breath is required. Just take what you need for the phrase at hand.

Wooferine: You have a distinctive, very individual style, which naturally draws the attention of the listener. This is a very good aspect to have in a performing voice. What was very distracting for me was the variation in pitch... sometimes sharp, sometimes flat. If I could give you one thing to work on first, it would be that. I hope this is the kind of feed-back that you were seeking.

Jolanda: I listened to 'Crazy', and liked the rendition overall. You have the feel/style of the song down very well, and vocally you do fine. There are a couple places to slightly improve the tone consistency. After the modulation, in the final section, there are a couple notes that are pitchy. Check those out. Also, the last note is suddenly softer. Make sure that it is as clear as the rest of that section. For the benefit of your 'open mic' nights, I think there are two things, aspects of overall performance, that you can improve quite a bit, but they are not about your vocal rendition. They are about your two most prominient movements during the song. First, I found the continuous motion of your left hand and arm to be not expressive at all of the song lyric... just a distraction. My recommendation would be to only move that hand when the particular motion reinforces the communication of the lyric or the emotion being sung. As an approach/exercise to work on this, try singing the song with your left hand holding on to the mic cord at your side the entire time. Just let it be still, except for the one place that has the most intense emotion in the song... wherever that is. There, and just there for this time, let go of the mic cord, let the hand rise, hold it somewhere out in front of you, and shape it/move it in a manner that is expressive of the emotion you wish to convey at that moment... pleading, hope, 'go away', pain, rejection ... what ever that emotion might be, and then let it return to your side or to holding the mic cord. Repeat the exercise for the 2nd and 3rd most intense places in the song. After a while, you will get comfortable to moving that hand and arm in a manner that amplifies your meaning. You can go another step further with this idea if you get a mic stand, and sing the song hands-free. The other aspect of performance that I believe you can re-think a bit is the dancing, though you look just fine doing it. If you were singing this song in front of a band while people were dancing, what you are doing is just fine. However, when you are singing it for people who are only listening and watching, as in a concert, karaoke, or whatever, the dancing will be a distraction at the current level of motion. As a way to approach this, try 'dancing on the inside', that is, move with simple weight shifts in time to the music, rather than by taking actual steps/footwork as you are now. I hope this is the kind of feedback that you were seeking.

Fahim: Well, gee. Since you asked... I can give you lots of feedback on multiple levels. However, first a question: Who does your PA work? Your guitar is way too loud for the rest of the mix, covering both of your voices, and overshadowing the rhythm section, too. Now, to your singing. Overall, pretty effective. I can understand most of the words, even with the balance issues in the recording. You've got the notes, reasonable range, and you don't sound or look to me like you are straining. Good so far. Since you start out this song for the band, I think you should, at a minimum, start it standing up, and only use your stool when you are not singing. Preferably, not sitting at all thoughout. Your voice will automatically work better. (worst position to sing is crunched over a guitar). This may mean that you need to learn to play your axe more by feel than sight... deal with it. Its what the pro's do almost always. The only singing guitarists that I know who play sitting for long periods are the blues players... BB King (ancient), Buddy Guy, sometimes Clapton. So, stand up, learn to sing to a mic on a stand without craning your neck out, and engage your audience from the front of the band. I think your audiences will pay better attention to the good things you are doing. If you want additional feed-back, I think you'll want to record something fresh, with minimum accompanyment, or even without it. Ever hear 'House of the Rising sun', as recorded by Eric Burton and the Animals? It has simple guitar accompanyment, and really shows off the male voice expressive contrasts. If you don't like that song, record something else, and I will be happy to tell you what I hear, and make recommendations for changes. I hope this is the sort of thing you were asking me to do .

majestyvengeance: I listened to 20 seconds of the first song. The answer is YES. You already have a lot going for you, and training will help you go to the next step. You have natural musicality, sense of rhythm, pretty good pitch and an open, easygoing style. GO FOR IT.

aldertate: If you ever have an interest to know how an operatic tenor makes those sounds... post a query here. We have some folks that could tell you.

Don: These other posters are right... you have this tunes down very well. Its enjoyable to listen to. Nice swing style. I'd be surprised if anyone here would be cruel with the pipes you've got. There are some things that I'd like to hear you add to these recordings... a little bit more presence in the mix. They are just a leeeetle bit too mellow. It may be that your amp EQ is just a shade soft in the 2800 to 3200 range, but 6 or 9 dB boost there would bring some sparkle to the mix, and also would bring your voice just a bit forward from the accompanyment. Alternatively, you could accomplish the same thing by adding just a smidgen of twang. Not much, just a touch will add the boost that I think would be benficial. At any rate, this is good stuff. I know the original recordings (David Clayton Thomas, Sinatra, et al) and you sing them at a very professional level. Congrats, and welcome to TMV. Post some more, would you?

I'll echo what the others have said. Your tone quality is easy and free, and just slightly on the breathy side, which is fine for this song. Its pleasant to listen to. I see from your pix that you may be recording while sitting. I'd like to suggest that you try this song standing up, and with the accompanyment separately mic'd. Singing while sitting, especially while playing a guitar, tends to crunch the body forward a bit, which puts a bit more air on the voice than would result if standing. Give it a try, I think you'll find that your tone quality becomes clearer automatically. When performing this song for a group of people in a larger room, when there is no amplification, I think you will want to add just a bit more energy to the consonants, and use a slightly firmer tone. Soft consonants tend to get covered up by the reverberation of vowels in a room, which will affect the clarity of the words.

Christopher: Thanks for posting this. Listening to this recording, I get the sense that you have two techniques... 1 for the lower section, and another for the higher. I'd like to see you unify your sound. Specifically, your high production has freedom and pitch accuracy that are better overall than the lower sections. While the top was occasionally riding sharp, I think that is because you have freed it (up top) from whatever restriction was holding your pitch quite flat in the lower part of your voice. To do that, slow top-down and bottom-up arpeggios and scales with attention paid to pitch accuracy will help. Don't be afraid to bring the top production down a bit farther than you are now (i.e., 'sweeten' the upper middle voice with a little of what you are using up top). The second area I would like to suggest you try to address is the vowel forms you are using in your upper voice. Right now, they are a little thinner than you can do, and I think they would benefit from a some additional jaw drop. Not much will be needed, perhaps 1/2 to 1 cm more should do the trick. I hope this helps.

Timothy: I encourage you to keep to the topic of this discussion, which is to provide a place for recordings to be posted, and for the singers to receive comments from other Forum members on those recordings. Alternatively, if you want to discuss the intelligibility challenges for singers cross-genre, start a thread on that, under Vocal Technique. There may be many out there that would be interested to hear your thoughts on how an 'operatic' pronunciation of 'ah' on a tenor high A might be different than the way Steven Tyler or Tony Bennett does it.

guitartrek: I think that is the case. In singing, anyway, its an aspect of performance practice... what the performers and listeners both expect that is the preferred way to shape them. Each genre has its own preferences and practitioners, and within the preferences, there is great latitude for individual variation/expression. The preferences are not static... they can change over time. Just think about how pop music expectations about male voice tone quality was influenced by the Bee Gees with their Saturday Night Fever album. Or, how broadway artists varied over the last 50 years. Keep up the good work.

guitartrek: Your presentation of this piece is very effective, and your recording chops are outstanding. I am delighted to hear that you've succeeded in developing the sense of vowel pronunciation for this genre. Keep up the very good work you are doing.

Olem: Question: Did you play the track through speakers and record your voice and the track at the same time with a mic? If so, a suggestion... get some earphones, plug in, and hold 1 side on an ear and leave the other ear open. This will help by allowing you to hear the accompanyment and your voice clearly at the same time. It can help smooth out some of the pitch inaccuracies.

Burt: Thanks for posting these. You have a nice sense of the style of the songs, and your delivery reminds me of the kind of direct-from-the-heart singing I've heard in some of the nicer Texas honkey-tonks... with the couples out swirling on the floor in lively dance. I heard a couple things that I want to mention. First, at the beginnings of phrases which begin with vowel sounds, you onset the notes fairly strongly and then back off into a more airy, laid-back vocalism. My ear wants to hear this equalized out a little, so that the onsets are less like 'attacks', and with the remainder of the notes in the phrase a little more substantial. For a reference of another lower voice, I think Johnny Cash did this particular thing pretty well. Someone else mentioned pitchiness, and I agree. As an aspect of your style, you often begin a note below its eventual pitch. That's up to you. However, your portamento up to the sustained pitch needs to make it. Sometimes it does not, and it just sounds a bit sour. As an exercise/recommendation, sing through the songs a bit and try to sing them 'cleanly', i.e/., beginning each note right on the note it should be. Just a little practice at this will influence the overall pitch of your singing, whether you re-employ the stylistic portamento later. Keep it up, and put some more clips out there for us to listen to. It was a treat hearing you.

Robert: I was trying to communicate that you catch the listener right from the beginning, with the opening scream. Very effective. Since you asked, I think you could experience more vocal ease, and get more sound, if you be sure that the very beginning of the note (what we call the onset) is resonant and buzzy. When you make the beginning of a note the best way you can, then you get the best outcome later. As a practice suggestion, do a number of onsets of the note, without the slide, as if you were singing quarter notes with quarter rests, all right in a row, perhaps a total of 30-50 note starts. The purpose of the practice is to drill into habit the beginning of the note, to put yourself in the best possible situation for the whole slide. As a second suggestion, as you transition toward the very top, I think you could benefit from some playing around with the vowel, to find one that gets you the sound you want, and is easier to do. Uh and oe (like the english word 'foot') may be helpful. Keep rockin, dude!

matt: I'll say! Right from the opening scream :-)

Hey, Pete. I'll listen to this a bit later. However, I'd like to offer the idea that vocal smoothness is not inconsistent with vocal strength. In other words, IMO you do not need to sing lighter or softer to accomplish smoother, unless you also want the tone to be light and/or soft in addition to smooth. :-) Unless, of course, when you say 'smooth', you really mean soft and light. I'll have some feedback on your re-recording tomorrow morning.

Doomhead: If you want to get a smoother tone, practice it. Listening to your two songs recently posted, it feels to me as I listen that you kinda 'toss' your voice at the notes, rather than connecting them into a single phrase of energy. To address this habit, sing these songs on the syllable 'la' for each note, and let the 'el' consonants smoothly connect the 'ah' vowels. Keep the sound going all the time. The voice responds to your mental concept of how you want to express yourself. Whenever you reconceptualize it, and try to do it differently, the voice will respond. The starting point for smoother tone is your concept of your vocal tone.

Snax: I enjoyed listening to your rendition of 'Thunderball'... its very expressive, and while you are stylistically reminiscent to Tom Jones, you've made it your own with some personal touches. One of the things that I hear which are not (IMO) in the style of this particular song is the use of breathiness. I think the tone should be clear and solid all the time, even when using the dynamics to full extent. For those, I'd suggest letting the softer sections be even softer than they are, so that when you let it roar the effect is greater by comparison. When listening to Jones singing this song, especially in the upper middle part of his voice, he selects vowel pronunciations which are very resonant, which sound 'rounder' or 'darker'. He is doing that to more smoothly connect the tone there with the solid lower voice, and spectacular top. This technique, in classical terms, is vowel modification, or 'cover', which shapes the vowels into a form that will transition to the powerful, sustained top voice on the last note. If Tom were to sing that last note down an octave, you would hear it for what it really is... an 'oh', (sung with the mouth fairly open) rather than an 'ah'. In performance, because he has darkened the upper middle, this pronunciation sounds perfectly acceptable and consistent as an extension of the lower notes. As a practice aid, you can sing this note down an octave until it is very full and ringy to your own ear, and then just jump up the octave retaining the pronunciation. I think you will be pleased with the overall effect, the ring and ease of the note.

Kennda: I listened to some of three of the tunes.... very nicely done overall. My personal taste is for just a bit more tone on long sustained notes, but you float them so nicely and consistently that they balance well with your overall effect. Your sense of ballad and jazz timing is very subtle, which I liked very much. Keep up the good work.

Richardtai: Truth be told, I did not originate the idea, I simply passed it along. My friend, Dr. Lloyd Hanson, retired professor of voice from Northern Arizona University, tells the story this way: In Ware's particular case, he took the handkerchief, folded it in quarters, wrapped it around his index finger, and held the finger horizontally in front of his mouth. Its all the same principle. Dr. Hanson also uses this method to help singers smooth through the passagio, the 'bridge' in other terminologies.

Everybody: If singing softly is an issue, there is a workaround for it. Get a handkerchief, and fold it 3 or 4 times... sing the melody (without the words) with the handkerchief held firmly over your mouth. Enough air will get through the fabric for you to phonate well, but not much sound will. If the door to the hallway is closed, likely nobody will hear. You can do the same thing without a handkerchief, by singing into your palm, or into the back of your hand, and letting enough air past your lips that your voice works. FYI, this is a _fabulous_ way to warm up when you are around a bunch of other people, for example, backstage or in a green room. You can sing very strongly this way and have only a little bit of sound come out.

Jonpall: It took me a moment to get the CCR tone quality expectation out of my head, but I enjoyed the performance overall. However, I heard some vocal rawness that made me uncomfortable. Some of the onsets were rough when IMO they did not need to be for the song. Yes, they work ok for 1 tune. But (this is just me, I think) would get under my skin if used consistently in a longer set. So, one thing I would suggest working on is the _beginnings_ of some of the the notes, especially when the vowels are short (for example , eh, ih, uh...) so that the tone begins clearly and has no ragged edges... goes right to the core of the clear phonated vowel. Style-wise, I think you are singing too conservatively. This is a coastal honky-tonk song, but I cannot see the girls in jeans and cowboy hats kickin' yet to spite the storm. The 'bad moon rising' is an ominous sign for a coastal town... means their double-wide shared with cousin billy-bob may be in another county by morning. :-) Bring that sense of immediacy to the song.