Mike> i would compare geoff tate more to someone like ian bostridge (in
terms of mechanism). to me, they both sound as if they gained their high
ranges by beginning with falsetto and adding weight to it (similar to
'what's his face?' in angra).<
André Matos, now on Shaman/ Virgo.
I'm reproducing excerpts from Mike's and Lloyd's posts below and using bold
letters to call your attention to what I think is most meaningful in their
posts. My comments follow them:
Mike:> in the case of steve perry, i think steve perry uses the same
mechanism for his high range that pavarotti uses and, there are occasional
notes perry sings that are remarkably similar but generally, the timbre and
articulation are completely different.<
Mike>if you compare frank sinatra's singing of 'my way' to sid vicious'
singing of the same song and ask "which one is closer to classical
singing?", the answer would obviously be sinatra's. to make the comparison
complete, it would probably be a good idea to include pavarotti and bocelli
singing that same song.
Mike> while i think that singers like sergio franchi, alessandro
safina,>andrea bocelli, sarah brightman and charlotte church sing in a way
that is>much closer to the classical model, particularly the operatic model,
there is>still a difference between these singers and classical singers.
the singers>lloyd mentioned (sinatra, bennett, fitzgerald, etc.) are all
great singers>but, they exhibit a use of the voice that is distinctly
different from the>classical model.
Lloyd:>I would, respectfully, disagree with your last sentence. The pop
singers I mentioned exhibit a use of the voice, in terms of vocal technique,
that distinctly the same as the technical use of the voice by classical
singers. Matters such as use of vibrato, conversation voice or non-singing
voice, tone color changes, etc which are a part of the 30's to 50's voice
stylings were expression choices, not the
sign of a different vocal technique.
Lloyd:>...With amplification it is now possible to simulate even the
classical model (Boccelli) such that the
classically trained are ofen unable to tell the difference until the
amplification is removed.
Lloyd>...Some forms of rock music have placed such demands on performers
with disastrous results
because a necessary technique of achieving the realistic sustained scream
form of singing was not addressed nor even considered.
Those pop singers of the 30's to the 50's Lloyd mentioned used vibrato,
sustained vowels and tones, "trimmings" in general that come to mind when
one thinks of opera singers, but, as Mike put it, they're definitely two
different singing styles and are perceived as such. Boccelli and the other
"pseudo/pop" opera singers, on the other hand, use those same "trimmings" in
a fashion much more similar to that in real opera and that makes people
perceive them as "operatic". Mike and Lloyd disagree on which traits to
consider as distinctive: effortless and rather uniform production throughout
the range seems to be Lloyd's criterium, while Mike takes the "trimmings"
articulation, etc ) much more into consideration. Lloyd calls them
"expression choices, not the sign of a different technique" and says those
pop singers used classical technique itself, while Mike ranks Sinatra and
his contemporaries as comparatively closer and Bocceli and the like as only
"much closer" to it.
Here's my point of view: those pop singers mentioned by Lloyd have an
effortless voice production with a MILD timbre, but that constitutes
healthy, not necessarily classical technique. What makes their voices sound
different from those of opera singers is not exactly the "expression
choices", but HARSHNESS ( now people are going to eat me alive! ): in other
words, opera singers BELT WITHIN AN ESTHETIC LIMIT ( a.k.a "proper breath
support" ). That limit is GENERALLY healthy, EFFORTLESS, at least to those
who survive it and make a career ( that brings to mind that interview by
Kiri-Te-Kanawa I mentioned here a long time ago, where she said she used to
cut singing classes a lot and became successful, while her more dedicated
colleagues ruined their voices before they started a career. That's
Darwinian selection ).
Let me try to put it more clearly: in order to produce all the necessary
overtones to project their voices, opera singers have to get the most
harmonic vibrations out of their cords. A "mild" voice production won't do
the job, while "improper belting" will tip the scale. They've got to stand
on the fine line between cozy and histerical. That's why Mike's teenage
friends used to say opera singers YELL. Let's say Sinatra's cords would
resist the operatic demands: if he were to sing "My Way" operatically, his
cords would have to keep the heavy mechanism more active in order to
represent greater resistance to the enhanced breath support. That would
produce more sound, more overtones, or a "yell" to some. And even if he were
able to do, he still might be unable to produce all the overtones necessary
if he didn't have a voice "big" enough, although he'd still have good,
healthy, classical-like technique.
If we were to rank singing styles in term of healthy production, I believe
we'd have this order:
1. 30's to 50's pop singers: expect for the extremely problematic voices,
any vocal cords would resist the effort required;
2. Opera singers: you have to be born with a "big voice" ( even if it's
there but you and your teacher will still have to find it ) or you'll be
wasting your time and risking to ruin your cords. That is, not dangerous...
for the lucky ones;
3. Overbooked "pop/pseudo" opera singers: living on the edge;
4. Musical theater performers: living beyond the edge;
5. Gospel singers: you'd better have faith;
6. hard rock singers, like Steve Tyler: and the worst, they're all sinners!
Regarding the rock singers we mentioned before, like Perry, LaBrie, Tate,
etc, and even Stevie Wonder: if there's no such a thing like "turbo
falsetto" and they use plain head voice, most of their ballads would place
them in 1 up above. Their heavier songs, though, would place them in 6.
Ok, I'm ready, but please be "mild"!
Caio
|
