VideoHere Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 folks, i thought it be fun to contruct a list of rock songs with typically difficult notes, the kind that really require skill, major support or just plain balls....lol!! i'll start it off with a few of my favorites: belting power note "rock steady" by bad company. gorgeous blues high note by robert plant in "since i've been lovin' you." all the raw, bluesey, peaks in "juke box hero." and this particular series of highs by steve walsh in kansas' "journey to maria braum" starting at 6:50 are mezmerizing!! feel free to tell us your's!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gno Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Your example of Steve Walsh - really amazing. How does he get that tone? It's like he's pushing way up there, and getting the extra high frequencies along with the push. It's probably rough on the voice and I know he has had issues troughout the years - but it sounds so great! Steve Walsh again: Carry On My Waward Son - "Surely Heaven Waits For You" 3:40 - The last "you" sounds so cool and has just a touch of grit. Something I aspire to being able to do sometime in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshual Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 lol great topic, there so many songs just for start cause 'm in a hurry richie kotzen in you can't save me The real deal start at 0:40... Amazing, this guy sing on a really strong B before high C. the tone is so strong and so natural. If you know how he can do that, feel free to explain lol. Check out other songs of this guy, It seems is a Cornell on steroids.... See you later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpall Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What makes a difficult song, vocally? For tenors, or guys that can sing high notes on a regular basis, I personally think that it's hardest to sing songs that have high, powerful notes throughout the song, i.e. not just a high note every now and then. An example of this is "I still haven't found where I'm looking for". It has tons of powerful B4 notes throughout the entire song. Today, U2 lowers the key for that song so that the high notes are now G4s. Now look at U2's song "Pride". That song also has a few B4s, but only in the chorus, so Bono gets a chance to breath and rest a bit in between choruses. I think U2 still does this song in the original key. I used to think this was a paradox but now I think it's because Bono feels that he still has the endurence to power out some high notes, as long as it's not all that he does. I heard that Pavarotti once sung a song with nine high Cs (close to each other, I think) in it and that it was considered an incredible feat. I didn't quite understand it until now. I thought that if you could sing a high C, you should be able to do it all day. Now that I personally seem to finally be able to sing tenor songs with melodies up to about Eb5 or so, I'm finding that if you STAY up in the high range for a long time, it really tests your endurance and might actually not be a great idea if you want to last long as a singer Thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Robert Lunte Posted December 12, 2009 Administrator Share Posted December 12, 2009 Steve Perry - "Lights" Graham Bonnett - "Hiroshima Mon Amour" Freddie Mercury - the "We..." on "We Are The Champions"... belty closed vowel up there, always gets me. Tony Harnell - "Tell No Tales"... This could go on forever Bob... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgrubb@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 richie kotzen in you can't save me Wow, great voice. Mr Big and Poison. Comparing this track at :40 and :42, a lot more than the pitch changed. I think the reason he doesn't loose enunciation, it doesn't sound strained, it sounds like he is applying effort but not strain, and it sounds very spoken and forward / present is to do with the inhale sensation and using as little air as possible. I am not sure, but I find using a lot of air takes me away from this sound and the more I can decrease air and visualize inhaling the sound / the more I get support balanced the closer to the result moves to this production (and vice versa). I am new at listening to voice and figuring out what they are doing (nice belt versus head voice). I think he bridged the passaggio to head resonance, due to the thinning of the tone. 1:41 - 1:42 reminded me of a song by Motley Crue (I think it is scream that a lot of compression was used on then the take truncated via editing). I have seen you reference Richie Kotzen before...I'm now a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What makes a difficult song, vocally? I heard that Pavarotti once sung a song with nine high Cs (close to each other, I think) in it and that it was considered an incredible feat. I didn't quite understand it until now. I thought that if you could sing a high C, you should be able to do it all day. Now that I personally seem to finally be able to sing tenor songs with melodies up to about Eb5 or so, I'm finding that if you STAY up in the high range for a long time, it really tests your endurance and might actually not be a great idea if you want to last long as a singer Thoughts on this? Jonpall: That song you allude to is the famous aria from Donizetti's opera 'La Fille du Regiment'. Pavarotti got his moniker "King of the high 'C's" from his spectacular performance of the opera. He's not the only one. There are many other tenors that have recorded it, and performed it onstage. As to whether one should or can sing it alot... depends on the technique. The important key is picking the _exact_ right vowel to sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpall Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Thanks for a good and an interesting response, Steven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 guitartrek, i totally agree with that particular kansas note...here's another beauty at 5:40 to the end..incomparable steve walsh and another starting at 3:57 to the end then i'm cheating a little here...it's not rock...but besides wanting to marry this gal she can bring me to tears (literally) with this set of notes from 3:07 to 3:30 what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshual Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 As to whether one should or can sing it alot... depends on the technique. The important key is picking the _exact_ right vowel to sing. One thing i don't understand, i can regconize some vowels modification on some singers, but in the link of Richie Kotzen i post on this topic, i don't hear any modifications, it's like he's speaking with a robust voice on a B . Can you explain how can he do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpall Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Steven, I also find it interesting that, in order to reach high notes, some people advocate support, others twang, others placement/open throat and yet others vowel modification. I realize that all of these are important but you for one seem to place the most importance on the last one. I could be misunderstanding you so in that case, I'm sorry. But perhaps you have a link to some article that explains vowel modification fairly well for mortal readers such as myself (i.e. aren't TOO difficult to understand)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analog Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 joshual, Mark's got it right. Think of "holding your breath" and then talking like a pot smoker(if you get that reference.) He's twanging a lot and allowing very little air to escape. He's also using distortion. I guarantee you the ACOUSTIC VOLUME is not that loud...but when mic'd...sounds cool as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 That was yesterday by Foreigner is extremely demanding...it really takes a singers singer to pull that one off nicely...Juke box hero is a joke in comparasion. And it does not have to do with range, there is just something about that song and how Lou delivers it. IMO..one can pull it off quite easily but to actually sound good - that is the challenge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Haha that exact wayward son kansas note has been a favorite for years. I didnt even have to go click the video to know which one you meant lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoHere Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 matt, walsh hit it again in the new dvd. but honestly, these guys just sang their balls off i think...probably few of them have had formal training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I dont think you *necessarily* (*edit) need formal training to sing or play correctly though. For some people, the better they get, the more they suss out whats good and whats bad on their own, IMO. If youre sitting practicing scales on the guitar and getting better at them, you'll likely start to work out that it works better if youre relaxed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Steven, I also find it interesting that, in order to reach high notes, some people advocate support, others twang, others placement/open throat and yet others vowel modification. I realize that all of these are important but you for one seem to place the most importance on the last one. I could be misunderstanding you so in that case, I'm sorry. But perhaps you have a link to some article that explains vowel modification fairly well for mortal readers such as myself (i.e. aren't TOO difficult to understand)? Jonpall: To be clear, i think all of those things are important in order to have really impressive top notes, I just don't write too much about them, because there are other writers on those topics in this forum. Whatever I might write would just reiterate most of what they say, using my own approach to the principles involved. I write about vowel modification (or formant tuning) because not many others are, and I think its an important aspect of the successful singing of top notes. The core ideas are not difficult, and if I don't geek out too much, I should be able to communicate them. You be the judge as to whether I succeed. A bit on resonance in general is good background to the discussion. The vocal tract has resonance frequencies which are the result of its particular length and shape. When a resonance aligns perfectly, or is just slightly above a harmonic in the sung tone, that harmonic is emphasized greatly, adding to the overall tone quality, power and 'ring' of the voice. Of the five resonances that are usually considered important, the lowest two (the ones that are most involved in making vowels) are easily tunable by the singer. The upper three, when clustered together, create a very-high frequency ring. To get maximum resonance, the singer can make subtle changes to the vowel being sung, tuning the resonances to the harmonics of the particular fundamental. Vowel modification is used by acoustic singers throughout their range, not just in the top, to get ease and vocal power. When done well, the modifications are not obvious... they just sound like good, resonant singing. In the 'chest' voice of male voices, the lowest 2 to 4 of the harmonics receive amplification from the lowest resonance, called for convenience, R1. This resonance covers a fairly wide freguency range. But, on an upward scale, as the sung fundamental passes the note 1 octave below R1, the resonance of the 2nd harmonic weakens rapidly. To avoid this, for at least a while, the male singer can do some things to raise the frequency of R1 so that it remains above the 2nd harmonic, keeping it loud. The most commonly used of these techniques is dropping the jaw. Acoustically, this raises the frequency of R1, so that it can help the upper part of the chest voice be resonant. However, R1 can be raised only so far... there is a limit. So, within the passaggio another strategy can be employed, a general darkening of the vowels in the weakest zone, to prevent stridency of tone, until a pitch range is reached where the 2nd resonance (R2) can be aligned to harmonic 3 or 4, depending on the vowel. This subtle darkening, called (by some) 'covering' is a vowel modification. When harmonic 3 or 4 aligns with R2, the voice takes on a different kind of ring, characteristic of the robust head voice in the range from F to high Bb, depending on the voice. Beyond that point, even F2 cannot be aligned beneficially, so the male singer gets the most resonance from the vowels which approach an 'uh' or schwa pronunciation. The specific vowels which are 'best' or most resonant on a given note are somewhat varied voice-to-voice, based on the vocal-tract dimensions of the individual. Even subtle vowel shading differences can have noticable benefit. To discover the 'best' for an individual voice, sometimes a little experimentation is beneficial. I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gno Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Jonpall: That song you allude to is the famous aria from Donizetti's opera 'La Fille du Regiment'. Pavarotti got his moniker "King of the high 'C's" from his spectacular performance of the opera. He's not the only one. There are many other tenors that have recorded it, and performed it onstage. As to whether one should or can sing it alot... depends on the technique. The important key is picking the _exact_ right vowel to sing. Steven - I know what you are saying is true from my own experience - but I don't understand why. Why should singing a non-optimum vowel on a certain high note be stressful on the voice? What is happening to the muscles that is hurting or stressing them so that you wouldn't be able to sing like that for longer periods of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Steven - I know what you are saying is true from my own experience - but I don't understand why. Why should singing a non-optimum vowel on a certain high note be stressful on the voice? What is happening to the muscles that is hurting or stressing them so that you wouldn't be able to sing like that for longer periods of time? Guitartrek: the short answer is that a resonant vowel provides some acoustic cushioning for the vocal bands. On the less-than-optimal vowels, the cushion is not there (or is much less), and the vocal bands take more of the load directly. This particular characteristic of the vocal tract is called 'inertance'. I hope this is the kind of detail you were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.stevenbradley Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Steven, this information on Formants and Resonance is incredible. Are there more resources for it available? I would absolutely love to learn more and to more directly incorporate it into my technique. I've known about things such as dropping the jaw, etc, but I've never known why! -Steven- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Steven, this information on Formants and Resonance is incredible. Are there more resources for it available? I would absolutely love to learn more and to more directly incorporate it into my technique. I've known about things such as dropping the jaw, etc, but I've never known why! -Steven- MrStevenBradley: Yes, you can go to the same sources where I learned them... the publications of the original researchers, their websites, and some books which summarize the various research. The researchers/writers that I draw on most frequently on this are: Ingo Titze, Ph.D. Director of the national center for voice and speech., www.ncvs.org Johan Sundberg, author of 'The Science of the Singing Voice' Dr. Joe Wolfe, University of South Wales (australia), http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/ use the 'voice' link from the list Brad Story, Ph.D., Assoc Professor of Physics, University of Arizona, http://sal.shs.arizona.edu/~bstory/ Donald Miller, of the Groningen Voice Research Lab and the pioneer of vocal tract tuning, Berton Coffin, in the book 'Overtones of Bel Canto' Each year, The International Physiology and Acoustics of Singing Conference brings together teachers and researchers, including most of those I mentioned above. have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gno Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Guitartrek: the short answer is that a resonant vowel provides some acoustic cushioning for the vocal bands. On the less-than-optimal vowels, the cushion is not there (or is much less), and the vocal bands take more of the load directly. This particular characteristic of the vocal tract is called 'inertance'. I hope this is the kind of detail you were looking for. Steve - Thanks for the info - There is so much I don't know. This is truly fascinating to me because being trained many years ago at the university level, it was all imagery. We never got into the physics of the voice. The voice was always some mysterious instrument and we could only influence it by imagining certain things and trying to feel certain sensations. Maybe the teachers knew about all this, but they never wanted us to think in those terms. Sorry to be so inquisitive but... Ok..the resonant vowel providing cushioning - is this a kind of back pressure making it less strenuous for the vocal chords to vibrate? Or..to acheive the amplitude (volume) we are looking for - without the optimum resonance, the vocal chords and the musculature around them are working much harder. If we have the optimum resonance, we can acheive the the desired amplitude with the least amount of work by the chords and muscles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Steve - Thanks for the info - There is so much I don't know. This is truly fascinating to me because being trained many years ago at the university level, it was all imagery. We never got into the physics of the voice. The voice was always some mysterious instrument and we could only influence it by imagining certain things and trying to feel certain sensations. Maybe the teachers knew about all this, but they never wanted us to think in those terms. Sorry to be so inquisitive but... Ok..the resonant vowel providing cushioning - is this a kind of back pressure making it less strenuous for the vocal chords to vibrate? Or..to acheive the amplitude (volume) we are looking for - without the optimum resonance, the vocal chords and the musculature around them are working much harder. If we have the optimum resonance, we can acheive the the desired amplitude with the least amount of work by the chords and muscles? Guitartrek: Its not so much the back pressure as the 2nd item you mention, at least as far as the vowels are concerned. However, if some 'twang' configuration of the epilaryngeal tube is used, the effect is more pronounced. When singing with classical vowel structure, the result is the resonance of the 'singer's formant. When both techniques are used (vowel tuning + epilaryngeal twang) you get voices of enormous carrying power, thrilling tone quality, and high endurance, with less overall effort. More sound with less effort sounds like a winner to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Fraser Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 One thing i don't understand, i can regconize some vowels modification on some singers, but in the link of Richie Kotzen i post on this topic, i don't hear any modifications, it's like he's speaking with a robust voice on a B . Can you explain how can he do that? Joshual: He is picking a good, natural-sounding vowel, and managing his phonation accordingly. :-) A well-used voice does not have to sound contrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshual Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Thanxs for answering Steven ;-). But i don't get the 'atural-sounding vowel, and managing his phonation accordingly'. May be a lack of english language, but i thougth that choosing vowel was phonation... @Mark and analog: Awesome, yesterday i tried what you said and it seems to work well. I don't have good results for the moment because there's a lot of thing i don't master yet but you hit it rigth. Doing that you really have to put minimal breathing else i think yo can blow your voice really faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now