Joe Naab

Joe,your site and course have been known to coaches for a while. Long before your post. Remember, its OUR business so we are constantly seeking out any and all new competition. I just helped Robert squash a coach in Singapore for saying they could teach his TVS methodology when they had no permission to do so. If coaches are out there online, I find them. I'm quite good at it being that I was in IT for close to 10 years before teaching voice.

Ron... oh ya... add to that, a Mastered degree in music from the University of Miami & over 12 years of private study with 5 different, coaches.... I forgot some stuff on my resume. Anyways...

@Joe Naab

Please don't lump me into Kevin's sentiments. I believe he makes very honest, tough love insights and I won't argue with him either... but if you read my posts, I never directed them at you. You can infer and imply that I was, but the fact remains, I never did. My comments were in general terms, in regards to the industry, not you personally with the exception of my feedback on your recording, which is solid. 

Yes, you make a good point. Nobody knows you well enough to be too presumptuous about what they think they know about you. Sure, you can hang your hat on that. Fine. I will also point out, you seem to be patient and cool headed.

Don't forget, I deleted comments from Kevin's initial post for reasons that I felt were the right thing to do, so let that stand as my disposition toward you personally. But do NOT infer that my comments about the industry in general are directed toward you, because they were not. 

In the meantime, let's hear that Silent Lucidity again, with better rhythm and pitch.

Joe - "Methinks thou protest too much". Your VERY long answer is a perfect indication you're not as sure footed as you'd want us to all believe. Your long list of supposed accomplishments

You see Joe, I DO know what you teach as I bought your course under another name. I have every vocal course on the market. Why? No the competition. I have a pretty good idea what you know in terms of depth of knowledge on the subject. How you sing is also a glaring indication of your overall abilities. The choices you made artistically show me a lot.

Understand that this is our livelihood and we are constantly having to answer for people like yourself who feel they can just put out product because they can. If you're going to step in our ballpark, be prepared to play against heavy hitters.

Robert and I were both teachers for many years before deciding to create courses for the public. We spent a long time learning the craft of teaching, creating a methodology and gaining experience with people. I don't see that from you.

So you took a couple of courses and have read some books. And...? How many students have you taught consistently for at least 2-3 years? What is your methodology? Your pedagogy on voice?

You see, Robert and I are trying to raise the bar on training singers but someone with your inexperience trying to step into our profession raises huge red flags. You don't understand the business, and it is a business. You're not comprehending what you're doing to the profession overall.

Robert and myself commenting the way we are is not personal. It's business. Our business. Any new kind on the block is going to scrutinized and forced to prove they have the muster. Frankly, I don't see it. Yet.

You should stay below the radar, teaching students regularly for a few years, gaining experience, gaining insight - before going anywhere near trying to teach the public. Having taken a few courses and having read some books simply isn't enough. Myself and Robert were students of voice for at least 20 years before putting out product. You're jumping in water way over your head at this point

Take a step back and reassess.

    Joe, The vocals sound great. I just want to make a quick comment on the "singing vs Training/Coaching " thing.

    There are a lot of choices in the singing aspect that have nothing to do with Training/Coaching. Prosody, Rhythm, vocal punctuation, inflection, choice of vocal weight, diction, To scream/distort, woofy growl or fry, Soft voice, full voice, staccato, legato ..........   All of these are artistic choices. A guide for making these decisions are not usually a part of training. Maybe they should be if one is going to call themselves a "Singing" coach. But it is not necessary for a "Vocal" coach.

    These choices are up to the singer. A singer can make bad choices on these things and still have perfect control of their instrument and the ability to train and Teach others to make Healthy, Solid, Beautiful Sounds.

    Training to have the ability to sound like Janis Joplin or Celine Dion does not mean that everyone is going to accept the choice that you made between the two on a given song.

Yes, which has become a huge problem in our industry in the last 2-3 years. So many "me-too" voice coaches that honestly, simply don't know hardly anything about how the singing voice works, let alone how to train it and demonstrate it. We have entered into a new era of over saturation of under and unqualified internet teachers looking to make a buck. And the people that are hurt the most are the students, first and foremost, and good quality professionals that are losing the incentive to even continue with all this "noise" going on.

I am disappointed that Robert deleted that portion of my comment that dealt with you having a vocal course because it's an important point that I made.

Your intentions to offer a lower priced alternative to more expensive courses may be noble, but in the end you hurt the business overall by offering a sort of "Made in China" knockoff. It lessens the market value for more qualified teachers and more comprehensive courses. It also makes people less likely to buy courses from myself, Robert, Ken, Brett etc. because they see a lower price. They get the course, realize it's not out together by a professional teacher and they become disillusioned about buying vocal courses from anyone else. Cheaper doesn't equal better - just as more expensive doesn't equal quality. To offer a course for money, one MUST be an expert in that chosen field - be good at it and able to demonstrate it effectively.

Interpretation is fine and actually necessary for a singer to grow. As an example; Frank Sinatra was the King of interpretation in terms of his phrasing, and arrangements of songs but the overall emotional intent of the song always remained.

If you wanted to really interpret "Silent Lucidity" differently, you have to use different music. Singing some wild interpretation over a karaoke track of the original song simply makes it too opposite.

That's just the thing, I've been kind of AWOL for awhile in the review and critique section and it was the uniqueness of this cover that caught my ear and brought me out of the woodwork.

It honestly sounds a bit innovative and I'm kind of picky about innovation. It's not 'pretty or traditional' or whatever, but it's refreshing to hear something different. In a way I hope as Joe refines his performs style, he will keep some of the same characteristics. 

Ronws got it right, it sounds artistic. It's not like a manufactured candy bar that rushes sugar to your brain and fills you with sugar pleasure but it gave me a different emotional response than other singers, and it wasn't bad, it was more like edgy and whoa.

For me one of the worst experience I have in music is when something is 'mildly pleasant at best, forgettable at worst.' And I honestly feel bad when I feel that way. Joe gets a response from everyone here one way or another. It's provocative.

So my advice is basically figure out what you want to do. You want to sell sugar, or you want to make something a bit crazy and push a few boundaries and press people's buttons and at what point do you want to draw the line between something generically pleasant and something uncompromisingly expressive, stimulating or challenging or whatever. It already sounded provocative to me, not unpleasant for me, but I have a higher tolerance for obscure/weird human expressions than some.

If it were me, I'd add a bit more sugar in there, but you know, not everyone can be provocative and get a strong response from people. I would be hesitant to completely abandon that quality unless you have a specific mainstream traditional genre you want to fit into. 

Sometime I wonder myself if I'm not doing it right if a certain section of the population isn't a little outrage, or butthurt hearing it. That's stimulation, it's response. I always dreamed of beig a performer where some people would be like, 'I can relate to that, wow that is expressive.' and others would be adamantly opposed, 'that is not the way to sing. You are terrible singer. Blah blah blah.' I'd prefer to be hated on than have most agree something is mildly pleasant. At least it's some kind of genuine feeling that was communicated.

Test.

Im not getting that issue Joe. Logout and then log back in.

Hi Joe, I have listened to your track and read the comments by our forum members. Lots of great advice here and I can tell you from my band experience etc when you are doing any cover material from ICONIC singers lol people always expect it to sound just like the original artist. In some cases that may be kind of possible. There are certain singers with timbers and basic range similarities that make it easier to sing very close to the original artist. I agree with Roberts posts about striving and improving. There are songs I spent many years building the basic instrument up to a point where the execution was finally right. If you look through past pages I have many songs on here from very iconic singers and you can see on some I succeed more than others but I am always trying to improve as a vocalist and that shows in my own Original material maybe better than singing covers although even there I can see improvement on songs I tried to sing as a newbie etc. Never be discouraged, there was very little in my early singing that would have made other people think I should stick with it haha.

Hi Robert,

What's happening is that, even when I'm not quoting, but simply choose to add to post, I see dozens of quotes in the text box. When I click "submit", they seem to all go away. If I click on "quote", the same thing happens. For example, I didn't click "quote" for this reply, only the "add to post", and there are 16 nested quotes above where I'm typing right now. I'll click submit now, not sure if they'll stay or disappear.

 That's such a great story! Down here (Florianópolis), it's the rock cover bands that draw the biggest crowds. The audiences gets into it, even when the singers are so-so, which is common, as long as the band plays tight as a whole. And they aren't at all turned off when the singer is a male late-40's, early 50's, which is another one of my insecurities.

Weird. I don't know anything about classic rock and have no idea who this artist is and have never heard the song. I personally thought it was one of the better covers posted here...

Yeah a few pitch issues here and there.. I think they should be very easy for this singer to fix.  If I were to hear this at 99% of the shows I've gone to I would think it was a great performance... Emotion, unique (not in a bad way) vocal timbre, skill with high notes.. 

Different tastes?

Hi Joe, I have listened to your track and read the comments by our forum members. Lots of great advice here and I can tell you from my band experience etc when you are doing any cover material from ICONIC singers lol people always expect it to sound just like the original artist. In some cases that may be kind of possible. There are certain singers with timbers and basic range similarities that make it easier to sing very close to the original artist. I agree with Roberts posts about striving and improving. There are songs I spent many years building the basic instrument up to a point where the execution was finally right. If you look through past pages I have many songs on here from very iconic singers and you can see on some I succeed more than others but I am always trying to improve as a vocalist and that shows in my own Original material maybe better than singing covers although even there I can see improvement on songs I tried to sing as a newbie etc. Never be discouraged, there was very little in my early singing that would have made other people think I should stick with it haha.

Again, I liked it as an artistic endeavor. Is it a world class rendition on this song? Maybe not. You have a good voice and could conceivably shine well on other songs. I don't think my voice is good on every song, even ones I enjoy singing. I was working on a cover of "Jaded" by Aerosmith. I really like that song but I just don't sound like Steven and so I may never share that one.

But I could imagine you singing in public, yes, to applause, even.

 

On the subject of interpretation, have you read the lyrics and tried to figure out what you were attempting to convey with each line? This is inherently a subjective process so I'd be hesitant to say anyone can is incorrect about the meaning of a song.

But rather than worry about sounding like the original artist or not, sometimes I find it very helpful to look at the lines of a song as a story. Even then, it is possible to sing a song sarcastically, in third person, and so forth. But the further away you get from the 'generic meaning' of a song the more people won't get it, and dire hard fans might be miffed at your sacrilegious treatment. 

This is a pretty famous example of a song being treated sacrilegiously, and probably equally appreciated and hated by various camps:

 

As for the vocal training thing, I would probably just leave that alone for now. I personally have a fair amount of accumulated singing knowledge at this point from experience and the company I've kept (it's hard not to learn a bit about singing with so many singers and singing teachers here). I help a bit here and there when I can, but I wouldn't want to appear in a professional capacity or as someone with expertise. I have going on five octaves of vocal range, but for me it is not at all a measurement of my qualifications, because I consider many people more qualified. It's up to you to make the final decision what you believe on that matter.

Anyway, I probably agree with Rob most that I can't tell where your vocal abilities are at, right now from one song. What is choice, what is not choice. But amateur art is art as well. There 'are' art scenes that aren't predominately learning reproduce and demonstrate traditional techniques in each field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_it_yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

There are comparably smaller, but not non existent audiences for this kind of art. So whatever direction you choose to go, its up to you. 

I was just sent the link to this thread and have given said track a listen.

This is not about interpretation - this is flat out amateur in too manyways. I'm sorry if you expected me to coddle Joe; the truth has to be said here. The song performance of this is below average. If a singing student sent this to me for review I would say the same thing.

Your idea of pitch, melody, rhythm, emotional conveyance need  A LOT OF WORK. Its not interpretive, its being somewhat clueless in how to sing a song properly given its subject matter and emotional intent.

Needs more work Joe...

Joe, I appreciate your willingness to be critiqued and open minded. It takes a lot of courage and says a lot about your character. It also is the shortest path to getting better, when you can set the ego aside. Since you are my customer out at the 4Pillars system, I'm going to give you a straight up answer.

1). We all only heard 1 song, 1 take. It is difficult to make a sweeping judgement call and be completely fair to you, when all we have is 1 moment / sample, first try out of the gates... so I have to give you that caveat. However...

2). The tone of your voice is complete adequate, if not more the adequate to sing in a way that an audience would love. So the basic physiology and formant colors your voice produces are ever bit just fine, however, you are not maximizing your potential in this regard because of a lack of training, strength, coordination and experience. The apparatus is there Joe, but the athletic ability to make it really come to life is not yet there.

3). "The way you sing"... relevant to #1 above... Not only us... but you too... you can't judge the "way you sing" on one song, one take, one review, etc... that would be totally unfair to yourself and unrealistic. Apart from the fact that certain songs "sit" in peoples' voices better then others. We can't even determine if this is a good song for you or not because is so early and raw in your development. Frankly Joe, you don't know "the way you sing"... is this the way you sing? I hope not, because it sounds like you need a lot of work... but after you get that work done, "the way you sing"... will be a totally different thing Joe!  So... "the way you sing" today... or the "the way you sang" this song today?  NO, an audience will not jell with it Joe, to be honest.

But, after you train, build strength, coordination, and do this damn tune over and over about 50 times, the probably will!  That is what the singing experience is for ALL OF US Joe... people that are really committed to making this a lifestyle. Even the best of on here, are still striving to get better and certain songs or movements of the voice. Maestro Kyle used to say, ".. the day you think your done, your done".  The process of getting stronger, gaining more experience and getting better never ends as a singer... Just keep going Joe... in your copy of 4Pillars...

 

- Are you training The Foundation Building Routine in the program?

- master the onsets!

- Master the acoustic modes , the way TVS organizes the vowels and resonance.

- Be sure to do a set of onsets + sirens with coordination & tuning onsets for 30 minutes. (T&R, Q&R, P&R, W&R, M&R)

then...

- Start training with the resistance training onsets with sirens to build the belt musculature. (D&R, A&R, C&R, Q&R).

 

Joe, just so you know... we have all been here before, including me... Case in point... click on my Reverberation banner below in my signature... play the song, "Souls of Silence"... Joe, it took me about 3 years, before I could sing this song. And I wrote it!!!???  For three F****** years, I couldn't sing my own F****** song!? (... it could still probably be better... ), but it took me 3 years to work up to the ability to pull this off... I had to strengthen my belts (TA muscle) and get my coordination down for narrowing and learn to Edge better to get it to work... and just flat out... good old fashioned... train, train, train, train... I worked on this F***** every night and recorded it about 6 times... at some point, I didn't even like the F***** anymore , I grew sick of it... BUT... I refused to let it beat me Joe... No song, especially a song I wrote, was going to defeat me Joe... then about the beginning of this year, I finally got it to a point where it sounded decent... Like preparing for a marathon... I had to "train up" to it Joe as an athlete... Honestly, same goes for "Behind Diverted Eyes" & "Timeless Chains"...  Everyone here can tell you a similar story.

That is the lifestyle of being a serious singer... 

Hope this helps and inspires... 

It's going to depend tremendously on the audience. An artier crowd looking to connect emotionally with an original performer, there is a chance in my opinion, if your songs are composed to suit your performance style. American Idol signing contests, definitely no.

In a bar cover band, it might be iffy. It might depend on how much you were willing to sacrifice to sound 'more like the original.' In some ways, by singing covers we are amplifying the 'power of the formula' vs the power of 'individual expression,' as the musical formula has already previously worked in the past and many listeners find deviations from that formula frustrating, where as with an unfamiliar song listeners are forced to explore something as more of its own entity.

As a singer songwriter, it would be a gamble (and honestly it is for anyone, but. Broadway and opera no way unless you cleaned up a whole lot and matched their stylistic requirements in addition to technical requirements.

A great example is this, Queensryche, is known for being technically proficient and appreciated predominately for a certain sound. Even when Geoff Tate deviated from the sound he got a lot of flak from his own fans, so if this cover was to go out to Queensryche devout fans Rob is probably right.

I guess the question is how well can you replicate a pitch and keep locked into a mechanical tempo if done intentionally? That's typically the safest route, but for people like me we can find it a bit sterile and are attracted to more 'wild and untamed' human expression. 

Maybe try an open mic first. Try playing at a local park. If you have an art scene in your community check that out and see what they are up to. Maybe make some connections. Bar bands without formulaic sounds can scare of customers, so bars don't like that. Coffee shops are sometimes known for songwriter types, but if it's too edgy and loud they might spit out their coffee.

Lou Reed hung out with Andy Warhol. In general I've found strange/outsider people like unusual music more on average than the average person. The more you deviate from the norm, the more you have to rely on abnormal listeners.

If I had never heard this song I would probably hear a slight clash with backing track. Your voice sounds restless emotionally. The backing track sounds a bit tighter, polished, more controlled and subdued (which is a style Tate sung with).

The melody structure, timing eccentricities, might work if the arrangement also had restless qualities that complemented it, or on contrast maybe even something even more mechanical, so the voice sounded strangled by the track and like it needed to break free.

As is, it connected with me emotionally, but aesthetically I think either you or the track (even original) would need to give or take a bit either direction (tempo, pitch, etc).

I actually think this is going in a good direction. The emotions are very different than the original. I get like a cross betweeen Roger Waters ( Pink Floyd) and Lou Reed.

When I hear it, I feel tension, anxiety, and despair, but also a sense of repressed or depressed affection. It sounds like a love letter from someone who can't express love for some reason (horrible life circumstance, or something else), and has a lot of charm.

I do think if you pulled the pitch a little closer to equal temperament and the rhythm a bit closer to the beat, you could express these emotions while getting more approachable and accessible.

I don't however believe these are emotions that can be expressed precisely. Very few people are 'desperately precise, mechanically anxious' and so forth. These emotions tend to affect motor control and I don't think those emotions would connect with me if it didn't have some of the characteristics of being a bit stilted, trembling, and out of control.

I don't know if those are the emotions you're trying to express, but it works as a piece of art. It gets a response from me emotionally. The trick for a commercial performer would be to find the balance that works for their art between making that connection and also being approachable as a piece of music, which usually involves some degree of a formula.

For me emotions are not formulaic, controlled, meticulous experiences at all. The sound of my voice when emotional is not that either. But music which is closer to the formula has more appeal to the average person aesthetically (harmony vs dissonance, meter, etc). So a lot of what makes me connect with music is the struggle between the emotional 'loss of control' and music having some kind of formula which is emotionless, static, without that struggle.