Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:58
rogerthat wrote:
^^ I have never actually heard Annie sing anything that's in baritone range, let alone bass. The lowest is E3. Maybe she can vocalize over C7 like Mariah Carey but chose not to do so in recordings. If she has 5 octaves, she doesn't use them all, more like 3 1/2.
She is often quoted as having 5-octaves but I agree, it's more like 3 1/2.
Star_Song_Age_Less wrote:
Yes, thank you though for the specifics. :) I've just never heard Tarja sing high at all. It's most likely that I'm just not interested in her solo stuff so I haven't heard when she's done it. In the live Nightwish performances I've heard, she's taken the bottom part. But that may have more to do with what the band as a whole wanted than where her range ends.
rogerthat wrote:
I don't think her control up high is great anyway. Don't they have a song Stargazer? I have heard live performances where she sang the chorus in a wobbly way. Annie hits her B5s very confidently and with astounding power.
I was unimpressed by Tarja singing live - there is far too much wobbly vibrato in her voice even in the upper mezzo range. I don't like her diction much either.
Joined: December 08 2014
Location: MA
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:54
rogerthat wrote:
^^ I have never actually heard Annie sing anything that's in baritone range, let alone bass. The lowest is E3. Maybe she can vocalize over C7 like Mariah Carey but chose not to do so in recordings. If she has 5 octaves, she doesn't use them all, more like 3 1/2.
@Star Song Age Less I have heard worse. When Still Life was sent to CBS for distribution in USA, it came back with a note from their executive that it was out-of-tune. Ahem, given what garbage is deemed worthy of mainstream release, such a harsh and mostly baseless critique just reeks of prejudice. The industry doesn't want certain artists to succeed and thereby upset the apple cart.
Didn't see this before - but my blood is boiling again! Yes, it's true that Annie Haslam doesn't have perfect pitch, but she isn't out of tune, either. I can hear it just like I hear it on many, many releases before the existence of autotune - most singers are off just a wee tiny bit sometimes. But we're talking way less than the 10% that the average person hears as "off." A little explanation here - I teach a class in the physics of music, so I actually have to research and learn about some of this stuff - a practiced musician generally can only discern 1% or more difference in the frequency of a tone. An average person tends to notice something is wrong when it's about 10% off. This does vary with pitch, but it's a good rule of thumb. Annie Haslam is not outside that 10%. And most of the time, she's right around that 1%.
Sigh. Annie didn't get my vote for queen of prog, but I have a great deal of respect for her as a singer. This is why I detest autotune. It's like bread. Autotune makes music into sliced white bread. But real bread is all lumpy and crusty and it has more character and flavor.
rogerthat - about Stargazer - yes, she has tended to be wobbly on that one and on many others as well, but her control has improved with time and practice. I never considered her to be a fantastic singer, though. Good, yes, not fantastic.
Edited by Star_Song_Age_Less - December 15 2014 at 01:59
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:51
I don't think her control up high is great anyway. Don't they have a song Stargazer? I have heard live performances where she sang the chorus in a wobbly way. Annie hits her B5s very confidently and with astounding power.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:41
TradeMark0 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Interesting point about disowning cultural roots. That is very much the case in India too. Our current most celebrated composer A R Rahman is completely sold on the concept of 'one global music'. And if that involves streamlining sounds to the point where the only Indian element left in the music is the language, so be it, apparently. Even the pronunciation of Indian words is done in an anglicized, 'modern' way to fit these global hues. Colour me cynical but to me, this just amounts to a boring uniformity and homogeneity in mainstream music.
I decided to listen to A R Rahman and I don't think I have heard more "corporate" sounding music. Sure there were different influences, but it all came together in a bland formulaic way with absolutely no creativity.
Yeah. While he always fell a bit short of the hype, it's nevertheless sad to see what he has become. But it is what he is hellbent on doing.
Joined: December 08 2014
Location: MA
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:38
Dean wrote:
Star_Song_Age_Less wrote:
Dean wrote:
I should point out that when I referred to high-octave
singers I was meaning mezzo-soprano where there is naturally overlap
between male and female vocal range (Tori Amos, Sharon den Adel, Simone
Simons, Matt Bellamy, Robert Plant etc.) not soprano's like Sally
Oldfield, Liv Kristine or Tarja Turunen - Kate Bush and Annie Haslam can
hit the notes but they don't live there, male singers only enter the
soprano range in falsetto.
I agree with rogerthat on Annie for sure - she hits some astoundingly high notes, she just has a very long range at her disposal. I'm confused about Tarja, though. She never hits anything even approaching something that would be a high note for me to sing, whereas Annie hits things that I can't without sounding like a dying cat. Am I missing something in Tarja's repertoire?
Each vocal-range classification spans two-octaves and is shifted by roughly half an octave from the preceding one, such that a soprano can sing six semitones higher than a mezzo and a mezzo can sing five semitones lower than a soprano. So when a singer has a wider vocal range of say three octaves then it means that they can span two or more vocal-range classifications (it is possible for a 3-octave singer to sing soprano, mezzo and alto). Not every soprano can hit a G6
To clarify: Annie Haslam's five-octave vocal range spans from bass to soprano - she can sing soprano but she is not solely a soprano singer with much of her singing in the mezzo range (ie> "she can hit the notes but she doesn't live there")
According to wikipedia Tarja Turunen is termed a "lyric soprano" (ie warm tones), with a three to four octave range can also span from alto to soprano, but again most of her singing is in the mezzo range, unless singing live where she hits the really high notes.
Yes, thank you though for the specifics. :) I've just never heard Tarja sing high at all. It's most likely that I'm just not interested in her solo stuff so I haven't heard when she's done it. In the live Nightwish performances I've heard, she's taken the bottom part. But that may have more to do with what the band as a whole wanted than where her range ends.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:38
^^ I have never actually heard Annie sing anything that's in baritone range, let alone bass. The lowest is E3. Maybe she can vocalize over C7 like Mariah Carey but chose not to do so in recordings. If she has 5 octaves, she doesn't use them all, more like 3 1/2.
@Star Song Age Less I have heard worse. When Still Life was sent to CBS for distribution in USA, it came back with a note from their executive that it was out-of-tune. Ahem, given what garbage is deemed worthy of mainstream release, such a harsh and mostly baseless critique just reeks of prejudice. The industry doesn't want certain artists to succeed and thereby upset the apple cart.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 15 2014 at 01:09
Star_Song_Age_Less wrote:
Dean wrote:
I should point out that when I referred to high-octave
singers I was meaning mezzo-soprano where there is naturally overlap
between male and female vocal range (Tori Amos, Sharon den Adel, Simone
Simons, Matt Bellamy, Robert Plant etc.) not soprano's like Sally
Oldfield, Liv Kristine or Tarja Turunen - Kate Bush and Annie Haslam can
hit the notes but they don't live there, male singers only enter the
soprano range in falsetto.
I agree with rogerthat on Annie for sure - she hits some astoundingly high notes, she just has a very long range at her disposal. I'm confused about Tarja, though. She never hits anything even approaching something that would be a high note for me to sing, whereas Annie hits things that I can't without sounding like a dying cat. Am I missing something in Tarja's repertoire?
Each vocal-range classification spans two-octaves and is shifted by roughly half an octave from the preceding one, such that a soprano can sing six semitones higher than a mezzo and a mezzo can sing five semitones lower than a soprano. So when a singer has a wider vocal range of say three octaves then it means that they can span two or more vocal-range classifications (it is possible for a 3-octave singer to sing soprano, mezzo and alto). Not every soprano can hit a G6
To clarify: Annie Haslam's five-octave vocal range spans from bass to soprano - she can sing soprano but she is not solely a soprano singer with much of her singing in the mezzo range (ie> "she can hit the notes but she doesn't live there")
According to wikipedia Tarja Turunen is termed a "lyric soprano" (ie warm tones), with a three to four octave range can also span from alto to soprano, but again most of her singing is in the mezzo range, unless singing live where she hits the really high notes.
Joined: October 26 2014
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 109
Posted: December 14 2014 at 23:50
rogerthat wrote:
Interesting point about disowning cultural roots. That is very much the case in India too. Our current most celebrated composer A R Rahman is completely sold on the concept of 'one global music'. And if that involves streamlining sounds to the point where the only Indian element left in the music is the language, so be it, apparently. Even the pronunciation of Indian words is done in an anglicized, 'modern' way to fit these global hues. Colour me cynical but to me, this just amounts to a boring uniformity and homogeneity in mainstream music.
I decided to listen to A R Rahman and I don't think I have heard more "corporate" sounding music. Sure there were different influences, but it all came together in a bland formulaic way with absolutely no creativity.
Joined: December 08 2014
Location: MA
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Posted: December 14 2014 at 23:23
Dellinger wrote:
This drum machine thing is perhaps the main reason I like many of the 80's Genesis songs better live. They sound less plastic, more alive, and the drumming is perhaps the main reason for that (actually I also often like 70's live Genesis better than studio, but that's not because of the drum machine, certainly).
Agreed, on both counts! I feel the same way about Yes' studio albums vs. live performances particularly in the '70s, there's just no contest (though no drum machine issue there). The studio albums are so slow and methodical compared to the energetic and passionate live shows.
Dean wrote:
I should point out that when I referred to high-octave
singers I was meaning mezzo-soprano where there is naturally overlap
between male and female vocal range (Tori Amos, Sharon den Adel, Simone
Simons, Matt Bellamy, Robert Plant etc.) not soprano's like Sally
Oldfield, Liv Kristine or Tarja Turunen - Kate Bush and Annie Haslam can
hit the notes but they don't live there, male singers only enter the
soprano range in falsetto.
I agree with rogerthat on Annie for sure - she hits some astoundingly high notes, she just has a very long range at her disposal. I'm confused about Tarja, though. She never hits anything even approaching something that would be a high note for me to sing, whereas Annie hits things that I can't without sounding like a dying cat. Am I missing something in Tarja's repertoire?
rogerthat wrote:
I think for sometime, the emphasis has been on keeping
out mistakes and this seems to include even minor imperfections that
were left on record earlier...
But
something has changed about just the way vocals are treated in the
studio with a result that is not particularly agreeable to my taste.
Often times, the vocals sound better in the live performance of the
same track so I wonder if it's just over compression, cutting out the
subtle dynamic variations that make a performance lively and human.
Very true. The industry-wide obsession with eliminating any irregularities removes so much of the personality... we're not even really talking about mistakes in many cases, just variations. Over-compression is very often a problem on recordings I hear. Not every part of a song should be at the same volume level (well, for most songs, sometimes that might be the intent - a wall of sound).
I might get slammed for this, but this is one of the reasons why I enjoy Korn. Jonathan Davis' voice is *weird*. Beautiful? No. But memorable, yes. And contrary to the high-voice preference discussion, my favorite male singer in any sort of rock genre was definitely Peter Steele from Type O Negative. RIP
The talk about the overly-polished, uniformly-accented singing in music got me thinking about a review or perhaps article I read a long time ago... I remember just about nothing of it except that it made my blood boil because it called Annie Haslam an "over-enunciating" amateur or hack or something like that. She does enunciate with extraordinary clarity but never seems robotic to me like a lot of other vocalists do. Also, Dean is absolutely right about classical training removing accents from singers, at least in western music. You are taught to move your mouth quite differently compared to how you normally would when you speak - so that's not something new or restricted to pop music.
Dean wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Yes, it seems as if they have to weed out
the mavericks so that the remaining contestants can be easily
assimilated by a mainstream audience.
Ah, I have a different take on that - it is not what can be easily
assimilated by a mainstream audience, but what the producers believe a
mainstream audience can assimilate.
Just like the radio. I agree with Dean. The fact that songs by "oddball" artists can and do hit the billboard top 10 shows that a mainstream audience is capable of appreciating unique things... and perhaps even that they eventually get bored with hearing the same thing over and over again. Though I suspect most people wouldn't appreciate many of our favorites no matter how hard we tried.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 14 2014 at 02:58
rogerthat wrote:
Yes, it seems as if they have to weed out the mavericks so that the remaining contestants can be easily assimilated by a mainstream audience.
Ah, I have a different take on that - it is not what can be easily assimilated by a mainstream audience, but what the producers believe a mainstream audience can assimilate.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 14 2014 at 02:47
I have to admit that if I ever watch those programmes it is only during the first few episodes - once they've eliminated the idiosyncratic and characterful singers my interest wanes. Certainly on The Voice I'm more interested in those singers who don't get chosen, such as Harriet Whitehead whose version of 4 Non Blondes' What's Up was a highlight for me.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: December 14 2014 at 02:30
Absolutely, production cannot change an accent. I was referring more to over-compression and removing even slight mistakes from a recording, which, when combined with homogenised accents, can create a very polished but unnatural effect.
I agree that classical music itself emphasises uniformity of accent. However, classical music did (and probably still does, though I have read articles to the contrary) emphasise bringing out the pure tone of the singer rather than pushing it into a certain zone of acceptability. So Maria Callas sounded very different from Renata Tebaldi even though they were contemporaries. What we are seeing in popular music is a certain range (namely the tenor to mezzo) is already established as the preferred range in which singers ought to sing. If to this are added uniform accents and recording techniques that emphasise perfection, it makes the product even more uniform. One can experience the actual dynamics of a classical singer's voice in the recital because it is not further amplified and only relies on the acoustics of the room. That is not the case in rock/pop singing. Even so, as I said, one can experience a more 'alive' reproduction of the song in live concerts but no room is left for that apparently in the studio.
I agree with your citing programes like Voice as compounding the issue. It was interesting to watch singers like Danica Shirey and Luke Wade, who were both technically quite accomplished, struggle with songs that did not allow them to indulge in flamboyant pyrotechnics and demanded them to project more vulnerability. They couldn't really handle that, imo (which is probably why they got eliminated as their coach continued to push songs that didn't play to their strengths). It was quite painful to listen to Danica take a sledgehammer to Joni Mitchell's Help Me. Luke likewise completely missed the point of Holding Back The Years.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 14 2014 at 02:16
rogerthat wrote:
Interesting point about disowning cultural roots. That is very much the case in India too. Our current most celebrated composer A R Rahman is completely sold on the concept of 'one global music'. And if that involves streamlining sounds to the point where the only Indian element left in the music is the language, so be it, apparently. Even the pronunciation of Indian words is done in an anglicized, 'modern' way to fit these global hues. Colour me cynical but to me, this just amounts to a boring uniformity and homogeneity in mainstream music.
In western music this is not a modern thing. Trained singers are taught the vocal elocution of diction, phrasing and projection and that results in a standardisation of vocal style that is devoid of any regional accent - for example both Katherine Jenkins and Charlotte Church speak with a strong Welsh brogue but sing without an accent. Uniformity in classical music is by design. This homogenisation of classical singing extended to popular singing well into the 20th century until the advent of Rock'n'Roll. British regional accents started to appear in popular music but were seen more as a novelty (George Formby, Gracie Fields, Tommy Steel, etc), most British pop singers would ape an America accent for Rock'n'Roll and R&B (while the Beatles maintained British pronunciation for some words, their spoken Liverpudlian accents were Americanised when they sang - Mick Jagger's singing accent is a bizarre blend of Southern American accents, none of them natural). The opposite was true in folk-music where rationality was emphasised and often exaggerated to the point of caricature - in folk clubs of the 1970s it was not unusual to hear a song sung in a heavy Northumberland accent to then hear the singer speak in a posh Public School accent. [Which is not quite as weird as hearing a Black Metal singer introduce a song in a thick Birmingham accent... though that is nowhere near as funny as having the singer do the introductions in his shrieking demon voice]. I believe that it is the infusion of Folk music into Pop that led to the acceptance of non-American accents (Syd Barrett, David Bowie, Peter Gabriel, Ian Anderson, etc.) and I suspect that late-60s singers like Roger Chapman that led the way.
Now I think we've gone full-circle - but it is vocal training and coaching that is responsible for "rounding the edges" of regional accents, (this is very evident on tv reality programmes like The Voice and X-Factor), not modern production techniques.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: December 14 2014 at 01:09
Interesting point about disowning cultural roots. That is very much the case in India too. Our current most celebrated composer A R Rahman is completely sold on the concept of 'one global music'. And if that involves streamlining sounds to the point where the only Indian element left in the music is the language, so be it, apparently. Even the pronunciation of Indian words is done in an anglicized, 'modern' way to fit these global hues. Colour me cynical but to me, this just amounts to a boring uniformity and homogeneity in mainstream music.
Joined: November 29 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 557
Posted: December 13 2014 at 23:17
rogerthat wrote:
I think for sometime, the emphasis has been on keeping out mistakes and this seems to include even minor imperfections that were left on record earlier. To be sure, the constraints of analog made it difficult to airbrush recordings to the same extent earlier; else singers may have gotten their recordings cleaned up even then.
The other sweeping trend is in the delivery of the words itself in a very flat and flavourless (but polished and flawless) accent. This is across the board. It's the same in my country. Either artists have forgotten the importance of cultural nuances in endearing their work to the audience and giving it personality or they do it because they are afraid of how the audience would react. In the 70s, you had such a wide variety of English accents. Lake almost seemed to imitate American accents. Gabriel was very English. So was Jon Anderson but he brought a different accent and likewise Ian Anderson. Ozzy sounded absolutely nothing like Gillan. These folks were all experimenting and trying to arrive at what each perhaps thought would be the perfect vocal style. Over a period of time, it seems as if artists have already made up their mind about what would be a perfect style and just reproduce it. Many of them with assembly line uniformity. You have an interesting point that maybe with so many female singers in pop, this uniformity breeds a general dislike of female singers. A parallel I can immediately think of is women's tennis. They all seem to play from the same coaching manual. Well, not all, but only discerning fans today would be aware of which ones play differently whereas earlier the difference between Graf, Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis was more readily apparent.
Another point is time tends to cast a shroud over unremarkable artists or unremarkable works of art and spotlights the more unique ones for future generations. Maybe our time will look very different with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to tell. I remember sampling non-Carpenters versions of Won't Last A Day Without You. Man, they sounded annoyingly uniform and I could totally see why the Carpenters cover has stood the test of time.
But something has changed about just the way vocals are treated in the studio with a result that is not particularly agreeable to my taste. Often times, the vocals sound better in the live performance of the same track so I wonder if it's just over compression, cutting out the subtle dynamic variations that make a performance lively and human.
The polished voice seems to be more or less American in sound, you're right about the cultural nuances or introduction of accents. Certainly here in Australia, the majority of bands and singers sing with an American accent, or at least somewhere in the mid-Pacific. Of course, that's as much a part of the tendency of modern Australian musicians not wanting to have any kind of association with their country, rather seeing the local scene as a way to get overseas so they can disown their Australianness... well, except in hip hop.
On the last point, the treatment at the mixing desk, unifying with eq, compression, autotune and so on, certainly is part and parcel of this whole 'polished voice' deal, enhancing these qualities even more, but I'd still argue it's a consistent and real thing outside of the recording booth.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 13 2014 at 06:57
rogerthat wrote:
Yeah, I do love that track. I have always wanted to find out more about what all she sang but she seems to have sung more often for Oldfield and I never really got into his work for some reason.
A track from one of her solo albums that displays her vocal range is also one of my favourites by her:
She also vocalised on Pekka Pohjola's third solo album, Keesojen Lehto (aka Mathematician's Air Display) - Mike also contribute a lot of guitar to that album but not in his typical style of playing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.148 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.