Jump to content


TMV World Legacy Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kickingtone last won the day on January 30

kickingtone had the most liked content!

About kickingtone

  • Rank
    Top Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The expression, "mixed voice", really relates to a method of teaching vocals. With classical singing, for example, and some other teaching methods, you are NOT taught separate "head voice" and "chest voice". You DON'T start with different voices and then learn to "mix" them. Instead, you start with a small range of balanced notes, and learn to extend your balanced range. In a balanced note, you will hear resonances that are associated with the head (head tones) and chest (chest tones). But they are not called "voices". They are part of one balanced voice. That is why I used
  2. head tones ---> "head voice" chest tones ---> "chest voice" at the same time ---> blend more evident ---> more obvious towards end of clip --> second half of your video
  3. Describe what you mean by "mixed voice".
  4. Can I hear "head tones" and "chest tones" at the same time? Yes. It is more evident towards the end of the clip.
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334721200214X Isn't this the point? Although we may be able to pick out the odd short phrase of birdsong here and there out of the hundreds that exist, and match them to some phrase in the hundreds of well-known musical compositions, that does not mean that the bird is using harmonic intervals. You would have expected someone by now to have written a "whole" (up to 95 per cent) birdsong by now. Even a dictionary of birdsong in musical notation would probably exist. But all we seem to have is a random collection of coincidences,
  6. That's really stretching it, I think. (The opening of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is an example of stretching things to the limit!) Birds don't sing in human scales. Musicians may adjust and incorporate the odd couple of characteristic notes, or leave the whole thing "out of tune", as with some nightingale accompaniments. Even the cuckoo's "two notes" are approximated/adjusted in examples that I recall. But if you do have a good source demonstrating a bird singing "in tune" from any known human perspective, that would be very interesting.
  7. They say so -- "trust me, I am a musician..." -- "as a qualified sound engineer, trust me..." -- "trust me, I do this for a living"... There doesn't appear to be a "don't trust me" option.
  8. Which rule? State the rule or rules, so that we can be clear what you are saying. Sorry, It was on reddit some while ago.
  9. Different? Very probably. Odd? Not necessarily. I certainly doubt I would be describing it as torture. I like traditional sounds from around the world. The first time I hear a new genre, my most usual impression is that it sounds different or has a new quality. I am rarely cringing. Organizing music into genres is fine. I just find extreme reactions (like the ones in the comment section of the video) to be a sign of narrow-mindedness, not musicality. Being able to hear the difference is one thing. Becoming nauseous over it is another.
  10. Yes. Didn't say he wasn't. Just read the comments -- "cringe", "torture", "hilarious", "tone deaf" etc. etc. + a heap of analysis about the keys. That suggests that a lot of "musicians" think it is more than normal "dissonance". Are you saying that this particular dissonance is common in some forms of music? Why then all the extreme reactions?
  11. In the comments section you have a bunch of self-professed musicians boasting about how they are so "musically" aware, that this makes them cringe. And others saying how "hilarious" it is. Right. That reminds me of folk who say they find Shakespeare funny. "A trade, sir, that, I hope, I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles." --- wooahahahahaha-ha! A handful of people didn't hear anything particularly amiss. (Why should they? They didn't buy the rule!) A couple of people said that "after a while" it sounded fine! <---- basically what happened wit
  12. But these are not rules. You can speak and produce all those things. Syncopation is even the opposite of a rule.
  13. Sounds like fewer rules/boundaries. From what I have read, ABBA, wrote songs "by ear", neither Benny nor Bjorn being able to write musical notation. They jammed backward and forward on a guitar and "out-of-tune piano (as Bjorn put it)" until something sounded good to them. Benny was the "keyboard wizard", and I get the impression that he didn't stick to rules. When they transcribed his keyboard music for the ABBA musicals, that was a problem they had to overcome.
  14. (People can produce their own music these days, so the influence of record companies is not so strong). Even so, it all depends on the cachet of the artist as to how much of his original idea gets through. The listener will also gravitate towards what he likes. He is not totally at the mercy of the whim of marketeers. There are artists of all kinds who don't even care about maximizing the size of their listener base. Some are quite happy to be niche artists. And then you get groups like ABBA who were able to do both. They only published what they liked, and they were successful
  • Create New...