not logged in
| re: Que?! | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 05:21 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| In reply to: | Que?! - samurai7 01:07 am UTC 05/27/07 |
> Okay, seeing as you asked so eloquently:- > > 1. I was correct - what you've stated is shit. From a > purely technical point of view, you understand! I was correct, you intend to piss on my head, from a purely educated point of view, you understand! > > 2. I am a professional singer. Are you a > professional singer? If not, then don't make assumptions > about how I might have become professional, and how much > training it took me to become so. Are you so illiterate or obtuse that you "mistake" a question for an assumption? I said I assume you are trained, and asked for your credentials....a request very commonly made between singers. I am professionally trained and not professionally vocated. If you think I made up a word, you know what it means. >I have been doing this > for approaching ten years. I am a tenor, with a range of > about four and a half octaves (The label "five-octave > vocal range" is a slight misnomer) and am also quite an > accomplished (although admittedly self-taught) pianist and > guitarist, so also have the technical knowledge to back up > such claims. Knowledge of either guitar or piano, or both, do not qualify one to know the very intricate and unique features of the vocal instrument. >Before you challenge my lack of formal > training, It is perfectly alright to be professionally employed as a singer without formal training. However when lacking that training, you lack the technical understandings of how to strengthen the range that you have, or how to maximize the versatility of your vocal chords. You lack, without formal training, the ability to develop sub-ranges that you recognize as sub-ranges, and work within and between them. You could have an untrained four and a half octaves, and not get out of these octaves the effectiveness of their true potential. You also lack the basic lexicon of vocal technical terms. In other words, you can't talk to trained singers in an intelligent, educated manner in which they would recognize you as an equal peer. With training, you have all of these strengths, abilities, and camaraderie. If you lack technical vocal training, you do not have the ability to know the potential of your voice, or anyone else's. >let me first point out that some of our greatest > ever composers and performers were never 'formally' > trained, for example Sir Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan. You do not need to defend your performance....only your claimed expertise of technical terms in a technical discussion about technical voice issues. You state very clearly here that you do not have the technical knowledge to make assessments of a vocal range, capabilities of vocal ranges, sub-ranges, techniques, and development procedures. I accept that you can sing on a stage, without doubt. You do not however, have the maximized ability to sing to your fullest potential. > It > is quite acceptable that virtuosity can be achieved > through experience. No it is really not. It is quite more common the case that one who is not vocally trained who sings with improper techniques because it "works for them", to get throat nodes which require surgery. It is also common for someone who is not trained to over-strain their vocal chords (such as Meatloaf did in the seventies). One cannot by practice alone without a direction for their practice provided by formal training, develop their singing strengths and avoid vocal chord and throat injuries. One is also not able to judge how to best utilize their breathing in order to improve their endurance and range, or know how to control or develop their vibratto or note change transitions. They don't know the most rudimentary things that they need to know....but functionally, they can sing. And they can sing more songs the more they sing. But the quality of the singing and the repertoire of the songs, would not and could not be, all that it could be without formal training. >Also, the phrases such as 'tenor', > 'baritone' etc do not specifically play only a part in > which register you can sing. I know of many fine > Baritones, and even Bass singers that have a highly > impressive falsetto. You lack knowledge of the terminology, the lexicon. You are referring to sub-ranges. Therefore you are making quite unwittingly the point that Jim's voice has a potential for a wide range of versatility. >Conversely, there are many tenors > that can sing the parts written for a baritone, and > vice-versa. These terms describe the timbre, or 'fach' of > the voice, not simply the 'range' of the singer. Which is my point regarding Jim's abilities. Why are you disagreeing with me, when you are stating what is a truth about singing.....of course your ears can hear. But you don't know what the words are that I am using....so do you really want to piss on my head? > Take for > instance the well-known vocalist Michael Bolton; based on > your obviously vast knowledge of such subjects, I ask you > this: How would you categorise his voice? Tenor? Baritone? I am not familiar enough with Michael Bolton to know. The reason why I could classify Jim's voice is because I know his voice....sleeping, waking, mad, happy, joking, passionate, and all the aspects of his voice....it is easy for me to place his range as tenor. Before I heard a note leave his mouth, I knew he was a tenor. It's a no-brainer. Vocal classifications are made by those who have the closeness with the subject enough to make such determination. I do not know Michael Bolton. > Answer me honestly. He can hit notes that Meat Loaf (who > coincidentally started off as a tenor, but now, due to > maturity and age, is more of a baritone) could only dream > of hitting, but is technically a BARITONE. Vocal classification is about the pitch of the voice, not necessarily the notes that can be reached. Of course, an alto tenor could reach higher notes than a baritone tenor, but they also both share overlaps of ranges. I can sing along with a baritone tenor, but I am soprano. Why can I do that? Because of training. On Pandora's Box, I reach all notes high and low, between those altos and sopranos. I have several sub-ranges. A sub-range is that which is a range of operation of a voice strength...at a certain point one must sometimes change the active sub-range in order to sing a song with numerous notes high and low. For a man's voice, listen to the song by the Righteous Brothers called "Unchained Melody" and hear a prime example of changes of one man's voice within it between sub-ranges. Are you able to sing that song? For a woman's voice one example I sometimes like to use is "Evergreen" as performed by Barbra Streisand. I have sung along with both of these songs, without flaws. I am opera trained. >I'd say a > Dramatic, or perhaps even a Baryton-Martin. > Also, How much training have YOU had to make your > judgements? Are you musically gifted? Do you play and/or > sing? Are you qualified to disagree with me? Before you > answer, ask yourself that question: ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO > DISAGREE WITH ME? I am qualified to make the statements that I am making and you do not have the qualifications to disagree with me. > > 3. This is the last time I'll respond to any of your > posts. Thank you. Your stubborness is only topped by your pedantry > and pretentiousness. Ah the two p's, they are my favorites! Oh tell me again! >I find your attitude patronising, and > your use of language incredibly self-important. Your > flowery diatribes are wasted here. I like them. > > 4. See points 1, 2 and 3. > > and finally: > > 5. Jim Steinman DID NOT SING 'TOTAL ECLIPSE', or 'SURF'S > UP', or indeed 'LOST BOYS & GOLDEN GIRLS' or even 'ROCK & > ROLL DREAMS'. Get over yourself. Why would so many of us > disagree with you if this were not the case? Do you think > we do it out of spite? Or out of jealousy that you may > posess higher knowledge? NO!!!! We do it because you are > WRONG. You don't like him very much, do you? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Que?! - Markus 07:26 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| Next: | re: The Anatomy Of Research, Or, Why Not Just Doodle? - Markus 05:28 pm UTC 05/26/07 |
| Thread: | |