not logged in
| re: Que?! | |
Posted by:  |
Markus 07:26 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| In reply to: | Que?! - samurai7 01:07 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| See what I mean? A total waste of time and lettes. She´s a professional in every way. Just read what she has to say and learn from it. A reply is totally unnecessary. Markus. > 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! > > 2. I am a professional singer. I perform a Meat Loaf > tribute, so you could arguably say that my range is the > same, or very similar to that of he. Meat Loaf has only > recently had ANY formal voice training, and that was out > of necessity. Some people are born with talent, others > have to work hard to perfect what they have. 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. 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. Before you challenge my lack of formal > training, 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. It > is quite acceptable that virtuosity can be achieved > through experience. 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. 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. 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? > 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. 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? > > 3. This is the last time I'll respond to any of your > posts. Your stubborness is only topped by your pedantry > and pretentiousness. I find your attitude patronising, and > your use of language incredibly self-important. Your > flowery diatribes are wasted here. > > 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. > > Please, kindly leave the subject alone. You are both > outclassed, and outgunned. You really think now that I > should 'know better'? > > Nite nite. > > > > > > > > > I am a professional singer. You are talking complete and > > > utter shit. Stop it. > > > > > > > Usually debates include areas of disagreement that address > > certain specific points. That is a conversation. If you > > just want to piss on my head, the way you are handling > > yourself is just about right for that. I've been writing > > about singing training for eons in proportion to these > > topics, and you have had as many opportunities to converse > > on the topic. I am really not, all other's malicious > > "misunderstandings" aside, not here for a monologue, not > > here to be the declarer of my position of a particular > > technical topic, but not being given any data from others > > as to the company of peers. If you are a professional > > singer, then I could assume you are trained in singing and > > have a wide range, capable of handling a diversity of > > tunes. If you don't then you are a professional singer by > > virtue of being paid, not by virtue of virtuosity. Why > > don't you just get humanly serious and state your case? > > How wide is your range? How many sub-ranges to you carry? > > Have you ever sung acapella? What is your vocal > > classification? What is the most difficult song you have > > ever successfully sang, in and out of performance? How > > long was your training? How many coaches did you have? > > When did you begin to sing? Where have you sung > > professionally? > > > > You don't have a right to call my statement what you call > > it, because you should know better. > > > > > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Que?! - samurai7 01:07 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| Next: | re: Que?! - pidunk 05:21 am UTC 05/27/07 |
| Thread: | |