kickingtone

TMV World Legacy Member
  • Content Count

    488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by kickingtone

  1. Although this video is about mastering, I am looking at the concepts it mentions from the perspective of singing. It has long been obvious to me that "loudness" is partly perceptual. This video discusses "loudness", how it is different from "level", and how effects like compression and distortion are involved. A singer needs to understand how to embellish dynamic range to give it a sense of depth. (At some point the speaker talks about "real loudness" and "fake loudness") Some months ago, a member by the name of PCastagner (?) talked about how artificial distortion can be used (to "cheat" ?) to make an opera singer's voice sound bigger and louder. A very long time ago, I posted a thread on "perceived loudness" (don't know if it was on these forums). I observed that "REAL" loud (loud level) sounds are often accompanied by certain effects (like echo, reverb or distortion -- which exaggerates non-linearity of sound propagation and perception.) We detect these effects and may learn to associate them with loudness. If you then artificially introduce these effects, you may be able to fool people into thinking that a lower level sound is loud. Singers can and do use this to exaggerate their perceived dynamic range. But it doesn't always work for everyone with everything. The distortion example he gave didn't work for me. All I perceive is the distortion, NOT more loudness -- which may explain why certain genres of music that rely on distortion don't work for me, either. In fact, distorted vocals often sound smaller to me. I get the opposite effect, because the distortion serves to highlight the absence of "real" loudness, rather than fake its presence. (I also completely disagree with the speaker that music is all about the loudness, anyway. For me, emphasis is key, but can be achieved in several different ways -- sometimes even by quietness.) He labours a few points and tends to repeat himself at the beginning, but after about 19:00 it gets interesting, and he gives his examples.
  2. 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 slightly different words to the words that you used. In some contemporary vocal methodologies, you learn to sing with different registers separately, and later "blend" them together. I don't know that methodology, so I can't definitely answer from that perspective.
  3. 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
  4. Describe what you mean by "mixed voice".
  5. Can I hear "head tones" and "chest tones" at the same time? Yes. It is more evident towards the end of the clip.
  6. 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, involving very short phrases. Playing it by ear, which I am all for, the birdsong I am more familiar with comes from the blackbird, robin, wren, and chaffinch. All of them sound "off" to me, if I listen with human bias. The blackbird has a great timbre, imo, but I definitely remember having to "get used" to its "singing", probably because I had first to subconsciously dismantle the expectations I had. Actually, I now liken the blackbird to an orator, more than a songster, although that may also have to do with the way it imperiously sticks its yellow beak in the air, and pauses between phrases and looks around, as if for effect.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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 with me. Easily by the end, my ears had tuned in with the F#.
  13. But these are not rules. You can speak and produce all those things. Syncopation is even the opposite of a rule.
  14. 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.
  15. (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 at the same time. Despite all those fickle measurements like "cool factor" and "aura", what mattered actually stood the test of time, and that was generation-proof music. Yeah... that "uncool" clean image didn't change the music. It only changed the experience for those who were into fandom. The music pretty much remains what it is.
  16. Hearing a difference, interpreting a difference and saying whether the difference is good or bad are three different things. for example, someone into heavy rock could ask, "can you hear a difference", and even if I am not into heavy rock, I could say, "yes" or "no". I may then describe the physical quality of the difference as I perceive it, e.g "it's more gravelly/it's shriller/it's more distorted". That could still be useful information to the rock singer even though kickingtone hasn't a clue what the difference is supposed to signify, or whether it represents an improvement. Or, in some situations, someone may want to be reassured that there is NO significant audible difference in a change of placement -- that they can make the same sound two different ways, each being useful in the dynamics of different situations.
  17. My last placement thread, all I asked really was can you HEAR a difference. I didn't ask if it was better. Yes, I had a goal in mind, but it was MY goal of what I thought the song needed. I am prepared for my opinion to be idiosyncratic. To my knowledge, I was not following any rule of any genre. If I do ask if something sounds "better", I am asking for individual opinions. I don't really pay much attention to genre norms.
  18. A baby can cry for 12 hours flat. Now, that's good technique for you.
  19. The art of PRODUCING is not the same as the art of SINGING, though. And the fact that you put "good" in quotes signifies that the whole concept is pretty meaningless when you try to make things objective. You could ask a thousand people and you may get a wide split of answers regarding whether a singer sounded good/bad before autotuning, and better/worse after it.
  20. How important things are is very subjective. What is more important to you is less important to someone else, or even discordant (and vice versa). One person likes rap music, another person says it is "not music". The only sure thing is that people have different musical taste. I don't like rap, but I am not going to deny that it is a musical art form that can deliver a very powerful message to those who are into it. I've seen people seemingly possessed by its effect. I don't have to like it personally to appreciate its legitimacy as an art form. No. It is preventing me from knowing how "well I think he can sing". You are the one equating that with "following autotune rules". Nowhere have I said that a review is about knowing how well a singer is following whatever rules autotune uses.
  21. For a lot of people, their "group" is their universe, and it is pointless arguing the toss. There has always been an undercurrent of fascination with extremes, but that may be more to do with freakishness value than music. Personally, I can't stand the sound of 99 per cent of classical sopranos, and most rock singers in the upper 4th octave, and 5th octave. That's just the way my ears and psychology works, and nothing to do with some argument that they "sound bad". On the 'Who Sang The "Nessun Dorma" Climax The Best?' thread, where various singers sing "All''alba vincero! Vincero! Vincero!" (At dawn I will win! I will win! I will win!)... ....the critical part for me was the first bit, "All''alba vincero". It wasn't the highest note. For me, it is about the expression. Most of them sing All''alba with a neutral energy, and then attack the vincero. They use that contrast to emphasize the "I will win!" and by using punch and conviction. I think that Park Gi-Cheon sounds relatively lame in this regard. He seems to be only hitting the notes, without conveying the message strongly (my idea of the message, anyway). Pavarotti, on the other hand, doesn't even need the contrast from neutral to energetic. He is already in forte on the All''alba, and spits out the vincero with great vim! Gigli does it differently again. He dispenses with the physical emphasis, and goes for more of a "you'll see!" vibe -- more confident than punchy. But it works perfectly. With classical music, of course, they keep quiet and cheer the whole thing at the end. What we see with contemporary singing on TV (especially in those contest shows) is the use of cheerleaders. The only way that can work is by cheering things that are obvious or are cheap and cheerful. Cheerleading a subtlety won't work. You can't force a consensus around subtlety. So what gets reinforced are high notes, very low notes, length of note. That's my general take.
  22. btw... The translation of the part they are singing is.. At dawn I will win! I will win! I will win! (All''alba vincero! Vincero! Vincero!)
  23. There is no implication that you are reviewing to autotune standards. The implication is that you cannot accurately review what has been altered. For example, you could use autotune to make you sound like a robotic chipmunk. That would make a mockery of reviewing your actual vocals. It would not imply that the reviewer is holding you to the standards of a robotic chipmunk. Yes, I don't like a lot of what autotuning does, and often how it is used. Regardless of that, it disguises what needs reviewing. Most singers want improve their pitch. If you disguise your pitch, how is it going to get reviewed?
  24. Robert, this is not about production. It's about training -- someone practising. Pitch correcting your vocals and then asking people to listen and advise you on how to improve, makes very little sense. He for sure was not asking people how to tune his vocals better, so why the pitch correction?