Jump to content

Perspective and criticism


ronws

Recommended Posts

Slstone, technical help as a means to an end is fine, I agree. We agree on this, and if we are helping people achieve a means to their artistic ends this is good.

But let me specify what I mean. Technique can become mechanical when it exceeds the purpose of the art by either becoming clinical in precision/function, over complicating, or by filling people's heads with intellectual baggage that makes connecting emotionally difficult. This is true for all instruments, but especially voice, which is intuitive to your body.

If a drummer is told he must 'play on the beat' and he trains so religiously that he sounds like a metronome. That can be bad. Drumming is supposed to 'feel' good, it's not about perfection. If someone tells a singer he should sing on pitch with a proper technique, and then he sings so cleanly and proficiently and reliably it sounds flawless, rather than colored by emotion. That can be bad too.

People aren't perfect, emotions aren't perfect, art isn't perfect. When music breaths a little bit, it feels alive and free, raw, less rigid, passionate, and invigorating to me. I find this exhilarating, and when I look at it, it's often the human flaws, unique tones, or slight inconsistencies in a singer that make them my favorites.

Focusing overly much on technique can lead to bad things, like wank guitar solos, metronomic rhythms, music that is meant to be physically or mentally challenging/fun to create rather than something that expresses something. I should know this, because I kept practicing my guitar faster and faster and faster, until I realized the Beatles made better music than I ever did. Period. It wasn't even close.

In that sense, people need as much technique as gets the job done. I believe ignorance and education are equally valuable in music. There's a reason why Dream Theater doesn't craft songs like Strawberry Fields. It's just too tempting to complicate things when you are that educated and technically proficient. I get the same urge, and sometimes wish I knew less so I could rely more on feeling and listening rather than theory or fingers that can move faster than either.

I'm not saying being Dream Theater is bad, I've seen Dream Theater in concert and my brother was a huge fan. I'm a casual fan, myself. I am saying if everyone was Dream Theater that would be awful and I'd stop listening to music. With current knowledge, everyone 'could' be DreamTheater, if they focus on technical and education skills religiously enough. But I believe it's very important to have ignorant people with slower fingers, pitchier voices with less range and notes, exploring music in a raw, emotional, and more primal way too.

And to be clear with John Lennon, he worked, very hard for what he got in an extremely ignorant way. I'm pretty sure he was like me, talentless and had a switch go off in his head that he was going to get good through sheer willpower and practice. People who knew him, said he didn't 'seem' talented when he started, but they played and sang thousands, upon thousands of hours of music before and after clubbing. Part of what sped up the process for him, was he didn't know so many scales, tabs, and finger exercises, so he had to learn to use his ears more rather than his fingers.

Thing is, he didn't get injured by bad advice like me so I'll probably never be able to live up to my hero. But honestly, I still think of him as a shining example of how far someone can go with determination and ignorant passion for making music. He's my biggest hero for teaching me this lesson and I wish I could have just kept going. I made it so much further with this line of thinking than anything else I've ever done musically. Listen for sounds, feel them, express them. Communicate them. Don't just mechanically do things precisely in patterns. If your feelings and ears limit your ultimate speed on a guitar or your total voice pitch range or control, oh well. It's enough that it sounds good and makes people cry. It really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

killer, i enjoy reading your posts, but i don't write as much or as well.

but i have to chime in here...i'm not mad or wanting to come of rude, just going to write hopefully succintly.

i.m.h.o., in no way does technique detract from feeling and raw emotion.

i sang with no technique all the way up to a cancelled recording contract. then i continued without technique, no injury, nothing, till about 3 years ago. now with some technique and training behind me, and an injury that scared the hell out of me, i'm back to singing passionate, raw, power ballads.

my technique and training has enhanced my singing.

i still sing my guts out on mostly challenging songs but the technique and training only helped the creative side.

you seem to feel that technique can stiffle the singer, but respectfully thats simply not true.

also, i feel for you and this elusive injury of yours, but im not quite sure it was caused only by vocal exercising incorrectly.

vocal exercising incorrectly should have left you with nodes, polyps or some evidence of abuse. dont you agree?

i have really been thinking about this injury you have and either i dont understand it or i really have to say im starting to not believe it.

what could you possibly have done so forcefully in the course of a vocal exercise that did this much damage?

forgive me if im wrong, but i just dont get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Bob, I can't make anyone believe me. All I know is it's ruined my life and if it can't be fixed within the next year or so, I'm probably going to give up.

I don't get it either, I just know it exists for 100 percent certainty and that it seems physically impossible for myself to fix. I'm honestly probably going to leave this forum soon since it only reminds me of what I've lost, to sit here in pain and think and talk about singing so much is not healthy for me, because it makes me obsessively think about what I will likely never have again. But I've tried to do something positive here and encourage people and their dreams. It's just not healthy for me to be here.

On the dangers of pursuing technique for the sake of technique, we'll have to disagree. Ignorance creates incredible art, giving John Lennon operatic singing technique lessons and classical musical theory education in his youth would have resulted in a completely different person with different songs and a different voice. It was the ignorance combined with his passion and hard work that created who he was.

It's a give/take thing. You always lose something raw whenever you replace it with something foreign and intellectual. What people find intuitively is not what they find through professional training. Neither is wrong, but neither are the same.

Something to consider, if you had been given operatic singing lessons throughout your youth, would you have a different singing style than you do now? You say you didn't lose anything, but that's after spending a lifetime already singing intuitively, building your own style. If someone made sure you sung like Pavarotti first, would you sing like Bob now? Probably not. That was self discovery that got you there, it's already part of your identity, but if you came from somewhere else, in the first place, you'd be a different person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I would also like to chime in,

Killer - This portion, "If a drummer is told he must 'play on the beat' and he trains so religiously that he sounds like a metronome. That can be bad. Drumming is supposed to 'feel' good, it's not about perfection" .. May I ask why you feel this ?

Drummers are the timekeepers in band situations and guitarists especially get cheesed off when drummer's timing goes. Also with most of the sheet music (Vocal / drumming / guitar) I own (which stands about 4 foot high!!) there is a "Quarter note = 120" (or defined number). Drummers learn technique from (and I will start from the early grades), so from Grade 1 - Technique Eighth noted, R, L, R, L ... onto Triplet eighth notes, on to double stroke and standard Paradiddles, Standard Triplets.

Grade 2 expands on this Eighth to sixteenth notes, R, L, R, L ... and as above with sixteenth notes and to add to new technique learnt in grade 2, Flams ... Extra grades add to this. Sight reading Temp early grades = 60 and upward from there.

In exam situations, the adjudicator writes the issues down and it is presented with certificate - From one of my students, I read the following, "Your Ryhthms were accurate although try to keep the fills more even" ... "Your 8th notes hits were evenly played" ... "Just a couple of slips" ... "Good sync with the backing music except for a couple of minor re-adjustments" ... etc ... etc

In an orchestra situation - there is a conductor who keeps time, and if you ever watched the early "soap star to orchestra star" series, the early series shows just how difficult that (what seems simple) can be.

Watch Epica - The Phantom Agony and you'll see timekeeper (although no one in strings actually watches him)

However from the drumming - technique is learned, timing must be good - once that is a learned process then the drummer has freedom to add flams, triplet changes as required, rolls as required, paradiddles round the toms .. this is what freedom of expression to a drummer becomes. However .. as a drummer, the extra tom paradiddles must still meet Quarter note = 60.

DISCLAIMER from this point - There is a note in this portion of what NOT to do ... so DO NOT DO IT!!

anyway ... Injury. Just for info - This type of injury can be caused by note totally out of range!!, (a common one like this is ... trying to copy a kid squeel!!)), then likely you would immediately strain stylopharyngeus, stylohyoid .. etc.

That type of injury symptoms are a painful knot in the throat feeling, one side along with feeling of shredded folds. Folds may feel better soon, but symptoms of Ribbony sounding voice (even on sirens), knot in throat are common, unable to sing for long periods. Singing must stop, voice rest (20 mins per day), ibuprofen and a visit to the Doctors. Docs referral to ENT if req. Now even this type of strain may take 6 or so weeks to heal.

Disclaimer over.

Dante posted a pic of a face to one side asking for pointer where the issue was, he also advised several recommended docs.

Have you had MRI / CT of vocal process (inc. said muscles / ligaments) as well as MRI / CT / ultrasound of Hyoid ?, because that would be a step.

Also - there is a forum on Medhelp with other people who have the same issues, some whom have been through surgery, some who had bad experiences of ENT and SOME who have passed on details of the best doctors out there to deal with these types of issues .. You are not alone with this issue.

I hope you do find an answer for this one - if medhelp or Dante's list gives you answers, then it's a step in the right direction.

I have removed a section as I know both Killer and Bob have seen it now and it was those whom I wanted to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i sang inituitively for many years and i am (i guess) we'll call it gifted because i can emulate others. i emulated elvis, robert plant, mercury, ....all these woman singers i love (call me a weird ass, but i still love singing like a woman in private) and frisells exercises are similar sounding.

all of those motown singers you mentioned (male and female) i loved them all.

i wanted to much to sound like them, i willed myself to sound like them, and not for any particular reason.

i sought vocal study for only one reason (i hoped for) a key to fixing "incapabilities" physical incapabilities.

i don't wish to sound arrogant, but had i studied years ago when i was younger?

i believe if john lennon or any other singer had studied voice it's quite possible he still could have turned out like john lennon.

tom jones had years of vocal study, did it take anything away from him?

also, i believe these top recording artists (no one is going to let out the secret) once they get signed and are making money for these recording companies, they're assigned vocal teachers and coaches, some multiple teachers.

i think the recording industry hid this fact from the public for years and still does to foster an image of "one-of-a-kind-ness."

there is no way on earth lou gramm did not have any vocal training. if you listen to him when he was younger versus how he sounded on the "4" album he went places with his voice he never touched before.

no way on earth chris cornell

no way on earth freddie mercury

no way on earth marvin gaye

even john lennon i'll bet dabbled in voice to some extent.

maybe not initially, but somewhere along the line they all have (in my opinion).

i truly believe you can only go so far without it.

some vocal skills simply cannot be discovered on your own.

like any sport, there's tricks and skills you need to be taught.

of course, it all depends on where you want to go with your voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stew, I prefer music from the 60s and 70s, when drummers were good enough to not consciously notice a problem, but if you test them on a metronome they fail. Motown is a good example, or the Beatles. Good enough to be cohesive, groove like no other, tap your foot to and not consciously notice it's off, but not completely perfect. Classical music isn't played to a metronome either, neither was Elvin Jones. "Pulse" is better than a computational perfection. One has 'feeling' the other is just an algorithm. Perfection sucks.

I can play to a metronome, but I don't want to be metronomic. I also like a lot of times when music is recorded to a metronome, but it isn't 100 percent precise. Like it has slight pulls, slight pushes. Stevie Wonder is one of my favorite drummers, but he's a bit sloppy. I like that.

On health. I'm just ready to give up. They tried a CT scan back when the 24 hour spasm happened 3 years ago, the doctor laughed at me and said he couldn't see anything. Never tried again. Honestly, they just don't care.

I'm going to write a farewell post here and take off. I can't keep thinking about singing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, it depends on 'what' you mean by voice training. Vague tips here and there, everyone gets those. But singing 'properly,' I dunno. I think a lot of these people just sang how they sang, and came up with what they got. Most of the information back then was to sing opera anyway. Brian May has explicitly said he met Freddie Mercury and he was extremely raw and untrained, and he just practiced like a mofo.

I personally think Freddie was more achievable for me than Lou Gramm or Geoff Tate. Those are foreign sounds to me, but Freddie, I actually recorded Somebody to Love and felt it was something that would be achievable for me in the future, as I was pretty close to being able to hit those notes with decent tone. For some reason this is the one recording I can't find. I just needed to further polish and lighten up on the chest on the last two notes, but with no training, I had 2 octaves full voice that sounded pretty good (top two notes were pushed and hit and miss, I had two more notes below that were hit and miss), and another octave or two power falsetto that sounded pretty good. If you work really, really hard, you can achieve some pretty impressive things.

I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. People find their own techniques, they have a lifetime to do this and if they listen very carefully to their body and intuition and steer towards 'free' and sustainable sounds, in my experience it can work out, assuming you don't radically change things at the last minute. "Then" you need training in a bad way, because you already created the foundation, and it's dangerous to mess with. If you self taught to push your voice to the limits, any change there is dangerous, because what works 'your way' might not work 'their way.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think Freddie was more achievable for me than Lou Gramm or Geoff Tate. Those are foreign sounds to me.'

i went from virtual inability to sing foreigner songs. it wasn't just the note heights, or the high tessitura it was physical incapability, to getting 6 of them under my belt, albeit some a half step down. there are still some i cannot do and may never be able to do well enough for me to e happy with them.

something or things i did made this a reality for me...i realized a goal and succeeded. they have gotten somewhat easier but remain challenging.

what... but vocal exercise, willpower, desire, and practise got me there? i am convinced the breath work, and the vocal exercises are primarily responsible. i lacked development.

i strenghened my voice and my lower core and learned how to vowel modify.

had i not studied and trained i am convinced i would never have unlocked the keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean? Some sounds come naturally to some and some don't. Now that I know more about technique, Geoff Tate's twang configuration makes sense to me, but Lou Gramm, just never been my voice and I wouldn't know how to do that. It's the same way Lennon fails to impersonate Elvis. That's not my voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol!!! i posted without a reply...see 2 posts above...

That's cool. But wouldn't you agree not everyone has to sing Lou Gramm's songs with his voice style? It's out of my range, I mean, I'm a high baritone, sure, but more importantly just the 'sound' I can't do that. If I lowered the key in my own style, maybe. I honestly think that sound is just not me, as in never a sound I would naturally make. I'm ok with that though.

There's nothing wrong with you wanting it and I've told you before I'm glad you're getting it. Some people are just happy with what their voice naturally wants to do cause they don't have to be like someone else.

I was actually pretty happy with what I was achieving, but then I stumbled across something somehow, that took it all away. I don't know why, exactly how, but that's the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, but let's say you can't do that and you wanted to, what would you do?

yes, you may not sound like someone exactly, but lets say you wanted what that singer represents which to me is a powerful, resonant, chick magnet voice that really gets into a song?

lol!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, but let's say you can't do that and you wanted to, what would you do?

yes, you may not sound like someone exactly, but lets say you wanted what that singer represents which to me is a powerful, resonant, chick magnet voice that really gets into a song?

lol!!!!

Well, if I was desperate for that and wanted that specifically, sure, I'd get specialized training for that. But I didn't want that. I wanted a really unique voice and vocal style so I sought one out. In fact, my number one goal was to sing like myself. A unique 'character' and the one thing I didn't want was technical perfection.

Its' different goals, and it's ok for people to have different goals. It's good for people to have different goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't you agree not everyone has to sing Lou Gramm's songs with his voice style? It's out of my range, I mean, I'm a high baritone, sure, but more importantly just the 'sound' I can't do that.

Killer, that's why one of the systems I like is Complete Vocal Technique (notice I said "one"). If you use the same mode, sound colour and vocal effect as some other singer (Lou Gramm in this case), you'll not sound EXACTLY like him, but you'll get somewhat close and, what's more important, you get the same VIBE. (And according to cvt AND my own experience, everyone is capabable of using all the modes, sound colours and vocal effects, i.e. capable of MUCH more variety of sounds than they realize.)

Then you can take that vibe, mix it with something else from another singer and something just from yourself, and take it wherever you want to go.

Bob, are you in good enough health now and got good enough skills to finally be able to sing those tough Foreigner songs - like Urgent and Jukebox hero? Has you dream finally come true? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Jonpall for helping to make my point made eariler that I think got lost in translation, lol. Copying another singer's style is a great way to increase one's skill, even if you can't copy it exactly. You will learn things whilst trying that will increase abilities. I sincerely doubt someone like Bruce Dickinson was able to belt out Aces High the first time he ever sang.

I also agree with what someone else said. When most singers become professional or in this case, famous, they work with vocal coaches all the time.

American Idol contestants work with them constantly during the competition. And I have read countless articles and watched many videos that interview some

of these coaches. Of course not everyone does. I think sometimes producers act like coaches as well. Look at Metallica for example. They were already extremely famous when they met Bob Rock, they wrote their own music etc... but others will push and push to get the best performance out of them.

I know in the old days they didn't do all that. But we need to realize a cold, hard truth. The old days are gone. The business itself has completely changed.

Nothing is done the way it used to be. That goes for discovering new talent to promotion to skill levels.

If you pay attention the the news, that is why many labels have either shut down or merged. They didn't want to face the trend that the business went and were a little late on keeping up at that point. They made a lot of bad decisions(the old school ways), that ended up causing their demise.

It's unfortunate but that is the way it is. In reference to Robert Lunte's current legal deal, we can see that the music business is tough in all aspects. whether its competition or in his case, someone trying to make money riding his coat tails.

In the old days, the labels sought out talent and developed them, no experience necessary.

Today, the labels won't even look at you if you haven't already made some fame on your own.

Nowdays you have to do it all yourself if you want any kind of success. It's a whole new music world out there.

Raw is fine for the sake of artistic integrity, but if you want any kind of success or attention, you need somewhat of a polished sound.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but it kind of fits together. Like the idea of the contract that didn't happen, the career that didn't happen.

After all, which one of us would not be happy making a comfortable living doing our music?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll stop by for one more thing then. Slstone, cold hard truth:

Here is me completely ignorant and very healthily and happily singing long before my injury:

http://soundcloud.com/killerku/driveinsaturdayfx

Take a listen to pure, passion hard work and ignorance, all one take. If I had continued to practice healthily and ignorantly, without lessons, gathering a band of like minded people, writing my own songs and recording them more professionally, attempting any gig I could get to gain a fanbase, eventually touring with a band, and having an online presence. Give me the most honest, brutal criticism. My dream, of being a flawed hero, kind of an inspiring story of someone who can succeed through hard work and through mental illness?

Never? No chance? A physical impossibility? I know how I feel about it, but here's your chance.

Edit:

I'll say one other thing, before I'm on full break. I really, really wanted to succeed, not because I care much to be famous, or care much about being rich. I wanted to succeed to prove many points, artistically and socially. Commercial success would be the nail in the coffin of proving this point, that no matter how plastic, disingenuous, and sickly fake the world gets, there is ALWAYS room for authentic people who work hard to share something with other people. Room for people that aren't polished to a disgusting sheen in every conceivable way until what you get is no longer human. That WAS my singing identity, many of my songs were to be written with themes of this, and I refuse to ever give up on this dream, just because it's hard or takes a lot of balls and dedication. I was honestly prepared to prove this point, but now that I can't, I only hope someone else will deliver this message to the public and potentially open the door for others.

People need heroes that aren't airbrushed, computerized, and trained into some kind of semi human perfection. The recording industry may not realize this yet, but they do and the right person could inspire a lot of people who feel fed up with being fed the same garbage every day, from all angles of media. People have very low self esteem and no belief in themselves, partly because what they are being fed, it says if they are not perfect, they will never be good enough. I could have possibly offered something, that could say otherwise in a very powerful way, and helped break people out of this cycle... Why? Because when you are good enough that kind of option is open to you, even if you'd had a lifetime of media, marketing, and advertising designed to tear down your self esteem to sell you things. People want this, even if they don't know they want this. They want a dream, they want hope, and they want it to be ok if they are not completely perfect. This is an innate human desire, and my talent, if anything it's in the unique way I could inspire this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll stop by for one more thing then. Slstone, cold hard truth:

Here is me completely ignorant and very healthily and happily singing long before my injury:

http://soundcloud.com/killerku/driveinsaturdayfx

Take a listen to pure, passion hard work and ignorance, all one take. If I had continued to practice healthily and ignorantly, without lessons, gathering a band of like minded people, writing my own songs and recording them more professionally, attempting any gig I could get to gain a fanbase, eventually touring with a band, and having an online presence. Give me the most honest, brutal criticism. My dream, of being a flawed hero, kind of an inspiring story of someone who can succeed through hard work and through mental illness?

Never? No chance? A physical impossibility? I know how I feel about it, but here's your chance.

Edit:

I'll say one other thing, before I'm on full break. I really, really wanted to succeed, not because I care much to be famous, or care much about being rich. I wanted to succeed to prove many points, artistically and socially. Commercial success would be the nail in the coffin of proving this point, that no matter how plastic, disingenuous, and sickly fake the world gets, there is ALWAYS room for authentic people who work hard to share something with other people. Room for people that aren't polished to a disgusting sheen in every conceivable way until what you get is no longer human. That WAS my singing identity, many of my songs were to be written with themes of this, and I refuse to ever give up on this dream, just because it's hard or takes a lot of balls and dedication. I was honestly prepared to prove this point, but now that I can't, I only hope someone else will deliver this message to the public and potentially open the door for others.

People need heroes that aren't airbrushed, computerized, and trained into some kind of semi human perfection. The recording industry may not realize this yet, but they do and the right person could inspire a lot of people who feel fed up with being fed the same garbage every day, from all angles of media. People have very low self esteem and no belief in themselves, partly because what they are being fed, it says if they are not perfect, they will never be good enough. I could have possibly offered something, that could say otherwise in a very powerful way, and helped break people out of this cycle... Why? Because when you are good enough that kind of option is open to you, even if you'd had a lifetime of media, marketing, and advertising designed to tear down your self esteem to sell you things. People want this, even if they don't know they want this. They want a dream, they want hope, and they want it to be ok if they are not completely perfect. This is an innate human desire, and my talent, if anything it's in the unique way I could inspire this.

On the technical aspect: Sounds like a young light voice, a somewhat depressed larynx (common on light untrainned voices, trying to emulate a somewhat darker tone) with a good emission and a higher resonance focus (which is not common and is a good thing), a little too high (nasal). Otherwise, I dont hear anything that could cause this ammount of damage you report, although it was not as healthy as you believe it was.

About the style, personaly its not my thing. Overall there was a great deal of notes that were out of tunning, that really compromises the listenning, could be much better just doing other takes and comping them. Still, it does shows a lot of potential, you found your way to make the voice homogeneous without compromising too much your health and you are very, very musical, way more than I am for example.

Now, there is a lot more on this post of yours, about passion and about art. But please do not assume that technical trainning equals a mechanical performance, or that a passionate artist does not fit with technical background, or even that aquiring technique does not require hard work. Just as I believe that you put your heart on what you record, do not be so quick to assume that others do not, based solely on how the material was produced, or how technical it sounds to you.

Also pay very close attention to the "sounds" part. La Brie for example, is poor at best when it comes to technique, still he is on Dream Theater, which I believe would fall under the mechanical tag (and I can relate to it). Dio, which does sound technical, stated more than once that he never had any trainning, that he just openned his mouth and the voice "was there". Geoff Tate, who has a VERY strong technical background, stated more than once that he doesnt even think about it when actually singing, only when practicing. Many singers who began without any trainning, had to train later to be able to keep their voices in one piece and continue to perform, and Im yet to see one who lost his passion due to it, ex: check mr Mike Patton latest live gigs.

Lets not mix our personal tastes with how others feel about their work. While you may define passion in singing as what Lennon did, or what Bowie did, I may define it as what Dio did, or what Bruce Dickinson did.

But I think we can both agree that one way to demonstrate passion for art, is doing it the best as you can, as all of them, technical or not, surelly did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Killer's song and precisely for the point he was trying to illustrate. Are there a few pitchy spots? Sure. But what I also heard was some vocal tones similar to David Bowie from the Space Oddity days. Lyrics reminiscent of Bob Dylan. And phrasing and pitchiness not too far from Lou Reed.

Is it technically perfect? Of course not.

My wife did not like the sound of Macy Gray. But Ms. Gray sold a ton of records.

That being said, technique is also good. If it were not for learning some technique here and there, I would not have the power up top that I do. That was something I learned how to do. Even though I could falsetto before, technique even improved that.

I'm all for finding your own sound. And let the learning of technique serve that. For example, learn some classical technique. Not so you can sound like Pavarotti, but because the technique might strengthen you in ways, which I think is jonpall's point.

I have never liked Springsteen's voice and often wished he would take up the sax and let Clarence (RIP) do the singing because that man had a beautiful voice. But man, could Bruce write a song. And even with a voice that was not to my liking, I could imagine no one else but Bruce singing "Born to Run" or "Thunder Road." Though I am sure there are people who could sing the songs well and possibly technically more accurate than he can.

Interesting how this thread has drifted, which I think is cool, because even tangents can result in good things.

By the way, Killer, I really liked the idea of singing a note first, and then playing it on an instrument, rather than the other way around. Except that one needs to know the note first to attempt it, leading to a "chicken or the egg" zen koan.

I don't think a technique would have ruined your song. Or made it less moving as a piece of art. The only downside is when one is so focused on technique that there is hesitancy and tension from worrying about it. However, practicing the technique long enough to have it be second nature would remove most of that tension. Though there is nothing wrong with singing by ear, so to speak. Not everyone, though, can just sing well naturally without some attention to technique. Otherwise, karaoke night at the local pub would not yield such pain and merriment, simultaneously. :o (Why is it that people who don't sing too well to begin with drink alcohol, known to be a detriment to singing, and then get up and sing? :) )

Sorry, enough Jeff Foxworthy style jokes.

I am certainly not a perfect singer. But I constantly evolve, believe it or not. And I do learn some things.

Jonpall spoke wisely. Critiques are meant to help, aesthetic preferences aside. And one can either take the advice, or not.

Just the same, a well done performance also deserves applause. The title of that section has two important words in it. "Critique" and "Review." The latter may or may not imply critiquing. And critiquing may not always objectively require criticism or finding something that "needs" improvement. There's that slippery slope of semantics, again.

I do work on improving things that I can, even if I don't live up to the expectations and standards of others. And I am okay with that. Our mother once told me, "You have no shame. Will always do whatever you do in front of God and everyone." Evidently, she was right. Which doesn't mean I am arrogant. It just means I learn the hard way. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I might be misunderstood, FelipeCarvalho. I am not saying I was good enough at that precise moment to be successful at the highest level, but were you after maybe a year after singing for the first time?

To be clear that song was a cover too, this is the first song I ever wrote here if anyone wants to hear more about the artistic direction I'm talking about:

http://soundcloud.com/killerku/tramplethelittlepeople

No it's not professionally recorded and the vocals could be improved as I was a beginner. I hear pitch and control problems, but for my first song, ever, someone who was deep in the process of developing their own style as a singer songwriter, it's pretty good. This person, if he worked hard enough and followed his comfortable intuition, could succeed if he got lucky enough. That's my point.

Was I healthily and happily working towards this goal so one day I could be good enough? YES. I could sing for hours comfortably without hoarseness. As soon as I took other people's advice of what I'm supposed to do to sing 'properly' I was injured within a month for the rest of my life. Listening back, it sounds like when I got loud, I was using Overdrive from CVT. People said if I got loud on my high notes like that, it was extremely damaging, and that scared me into trying to completely redo my voice. They said I needed to 'zip up my vocal cords' to hit high notes, which made me constrict and worry and is scientifically false. They gave me all of these weird sound effects that were supposed to make me sing properly, that just made things much worse.

My belief is if I didn't get injured by bad advice on the 'proper' way to sing I had a chance of polishing this persona and succeeding at my goals. By the end of this process, I was pretty close to discovering and perfecting my artistic identity and singing voice.

These were recorded like 5 years ago, people, and if I had spent the same 5 years healthily practicing, honing, and perfecting my skills in my own style, I'd be SO much better off than trying to use someone else's idea of perfection in ignorance and changing gears completely at the last minute.

If this was about 'technique first' I would have never gone down the same paths as an artist. If I used Geoff Tate's or James Labrie's techniques, I'd sound more like Geoff Tate or James Labrie and have none of the identity. Nothing wrong with that, but this was a completely different path to take. Just like John Lennon, Johny Rotten, Kurt Cobain, and a whole slew of other people, I was taking the time to first discover exactly who I was, rather than finding someone else's 'perfect mechanical technique' to execute flawlessly. Who I was, in the end was going to be 'good enough,' by my and my fan's standards. And I was good enough to achieve this goal, without bad advice on the 'perfect' way to sing.

That's why you people should be careful with your criticism. A lot of people need to find their own way and just because you have some idea of what singing is to you, it doesn't necessarily mean you are right. I know exactly what it's like to be able to sing comfortably for an hour, and never go hoarse unless I screw up grit. I know what it's like to hear flaws that I know will be corrected in due time, but in the meantime giving it the best effort possible for me in a live situation, so I 'will' be able to play live and not just fake perfection in a studio with endless takes.

I'm not sure if it's really understood what I'm saying, but probably the majority of people who will go down into history as the best rock singers are people who found their own voice, their identity. They did not do this overnight or have their technique handed to them. They didn't start by trying to achieve a theoretically perfect technique and then try to match an identity to the technique. They started with an identity and tried to find a workable technique for this identity. That's not the same path, and I've tried to express the value in this path to people here, even if it falls on deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this is also why I agree CVT is very good and probably my favorite 'voice program' I've researched, even though I think it's risky to an absolute beginner who has no voice control to mess with their voice that much. Back when I was training, what I found was classical or nothing (and there were NO teachers in my area, I looked to see if I could find someone who was interested in developing my own style), so I was forced to search for my own sound alone. This was actually a good thing in many ways.

What I will say though, is giving someone a box of theoretically perfect techniques to choose from, and letting them choose an identity from the toolbox, is a very, very different process than what I was doing of developing an identity from extremely hard work and trying to form a technique that works for it. I'm not demonizing the mechanical technique itself as 'bad' but they shouldn't replace each other. There is 'value' in this sort of self discovery.

That's why I try to help people with what I think they might 'need' rather than give them theoretical perfection. If I think they need a wrench, I'll give them a wrench, rather than a whole toolbox with mechanical instructions on how to achieve something that is only perfect in theory.

It is honestly, just different. VERY different. I'm not saying either is 'bad', but I absolutely believe we need both. Technical perfection is a mechanical/subjective thing, it's not necessary for art, and when it replaces the identity, it's a tradeoff that I think is really damaging music on many levels. I believe there is a place for things that are not theoretically perfect and people still can succeed with this. It may be harder, but it's much more important for the arts, especially given the current climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Raphaels, I think you understand me. This is kind of what I'm getting at. It's really ok for everyone to not start with mechanical ideal of perfection in what they do, and work towards mechanics that are good enough to suit their purposes.

I don't believe I was quite there, but I believe I could have been there by now. It's been three to five years since I recorded a lot of this and during that time, I believe I could have made it because I made enormous progress in my search and was learning new things about singing all of the time.

You get it too Ronsw. I'm glad the idea of the guitar thing is helping with pitch, you just need to train your brain to hear the pitch first which might take some rote learning.

Anyway, summary: I don't believe I was good enough yet, but I was on the right track in my search. You want to work as hard as you can, on achieving the sound that is the right identity for the music. I only found my identity through ignorance and hard work. People who start with mechanical ideals of perfection, wouldn't have wound up at this same identity, just like someone who started that way wouldn't wind up at Billy Corgan's identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killer - your performances are good and your song is very nice. I do hear the emotion and passion in your voice - and a uniqueness. And that's what it's all about. The unique passion is what sells. What I hear is that your whole body is engaged in singing which provides for the slight vibrato we hear on your straight notes. Could you have learned to expand your range? Sure. So much of vocal training is to "undo" our bad habits so that we aren't "getting in the way" of expressing our true voices. However, expanding your range may not have been aligned with your goals.

A lot of people on this forum simply want to sing in a band that has a certain repetoire that requires an expanded range. Or we have a vision and dream of ourselves singing higher notes without straining. So we try to unlock the tenor range. For some that range came naturally. For others it seems like a road block or maybe something we simply will never be able to do. Well, thats not true - it is a myth. That's what a lot of this forum topic "Vocal Technique" is all about. People searching for answers, and people trying to help others find those answers.

For me, I don't like NOT being able to express myself, so I try to remove the technical barriers that are preventing me. That goes for my guitar playing, piano skills and voice. If I'm playing a guitar solo and I hear something in my head that I want to express, but I trip over myself trying to play, it just plain bothers me. So I work hard to remove those obstacles so I can express myself with passion and emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are good goals, Guitartrek and I practiced a lot to remove limits too. I gained at least 6 notes with my voice from when I started, through practice and I still practice my piano, guitar, drums, etc. John Lennon practiced to expand his range and improve his guitar playing too. But he did it in his own way which resulted in a unique artist. I support every single person in achieving exactly what they want to achieve. But all I wish could be seen, is the value, of ignorance, blind passion, and imperfection too. It's not because it's 'better,' it's just a really valuable way of achieving different results.

When I realized I could play guitar so much faster than I could feel and hear, I realized the only thing I could do was just start over and learn to feel and hear (and sing). That became the new speed limit, rather than a mechanical speed limit. The mechanics only needed to be as good as what I could express, and that kept me in check.

And with voice, it was kind of a similar thing. I didn't want mechanics to be better than what I was expressing, and the feeling I had to express was raw, flawed, and like an ignorant, near desperate display of emotion. I tried to make it as healthily as I could, and I did a pretty good job myself, but it didn't combine well with someone else's idea of 'voice perfection.' It was like a train wreck of two ideals with the ignorant person (me) paying the price.

That's why I try not to emphasize voice perfection. If people feel the need to achieve any voice goal of any kind, we should help them as much as possible. If we spot something that is potentially unhealthy, we can try to help the person with a new idea. But I think when criticism comes from the standpoint of like a voice perfection ideal, rather than what can best help the person achieve their goals, that's the danger zone and it should be done very carefully.

Someone else's ideal has already caused me a lot of strife, being an ignorant extremely passionate person. I want people to achieve 'their' goals, not mine, or yours and when people start talking about there being a right way to sing, it's kind of dangerous with anything past you know, 'don't hurt yourself, breath support, do whatever is possible to avoid constriction or hoarseness. Try to sing on pitch. Etc.' If it gets to the point of 'you sing wrong,' I'm sure whatever you can currently comfortably do is safer than trying to rebuild your voice from scratch without supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killer, I do understand what you mean, all Im saying is that things are not simple as that. For example, to me its quite clear that how a "rock star" sings is not nearly as important as how charismatic he/she is.

Also, please understand that when I say technical trainning, I mean finding a very good coach. In my experience it would be best if it was a classical trainned one, who can sing VERY well himself, and work slowly into getting your voice the way you want it to work and as healthy as possible.

But focusing only on the voice, and this path you propose, think about this:

School teachers only speak in the classroom, they are warned about the danger of over using their voices, still, they are the number one when it comes to voice problems. Do you think that those problems happen because they scream out or insist on speakin in a painfull way? Why does it happen?

Combine it with this information: The act of singing uses much more continuous work of the vocal folds, sustaining vowels longer, at a wider range of pitch and with a wider dynamic variation.

From this: do you really think that its safe to just do "your thing" without feeling pain? Even further, do you think that its safe to assume that people will know the threshold of damage, which is way before any pain or even unconfortable feeling appears, knowing that you were not able to detect the danger and hurt your self in the way you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...