Lloyd wrote:
> The biggest difference that is appearant in spectographs of pops singers
> verses classical singers is in the amount of non-harmonic overtones which
> are present in pops singers. Consequently their spectographs appear very
> dense and smeared or blurry. These non-harmonic overtones are also of the
> kind that we hear in basic speech.
I think it depends on the style. Progressive rock and European heavy metal
singers generally have operatic training and care a lot about their voice
quality. No one wants to hear a virtuoso guitar player with a terrible voice
on the same band, since most people who listen to that kind of music are
musicians too.
Also, when my speech pathologist analyzed my speaking voice electronically
it showed very good resonance ( better than hers, by the way ), so I don't
think singing with a 'speech-like delivery' has bad resonance necessarily.
Maybe Mike is pleased by GOOD pop voices only ( be that naturally or
artificially resonant ).
Regarding differences between pop and classical singers, one of the
pathologists in her clinic ran a research on vibrato, concerning regularity
of oscillations, and found out that classical singers have a more regular
vibrato, followed by what we call 'sertanejos' ( Brazilian pop country
singers ) and then by rock singers ( I don't know what they define as
'rock' - Madonna, Michael Jackson, Aguillera and the like are pop to me, not
rock. And within rock there are completely different styles and voices, from
Kurt Cobain to Sebatian Bach ).
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
