Jump to content

Some advice on style


neptune1bond

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I am training as a pianist and composer in the classical tradition and as a vocalist in the musical theater tradition, but I would also like to learn to sing, play, and write in pop and rock styles as well. I love the music that I am learning and want to continue in it, but I also want to be a little more versatile. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could learn to pull off these styles without sounding like a total suck-wad? The piano might be easier to pull off, but the vocals are a little more difficult. I've heard singers try to cross from more classically oriented styles to more popular kinds of music and pop/rock singers try to sing classical songs and it kinda blows both ways around. In fact, I've rarely heard anything more horrible than these pathetic attempts and I REALLY don't want to be THAT guy. I am really hoping that the reason these failed attempts were so absolutely horrible is because of a lack of training and practice in those styles, but I don't know. What do you think?

 

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this? Everything that I sing sounds like it belongs in a musical and I don't know if it's my tone, vibrato, over-pronunciation, or maybe a combination? Please no comments that are too vague. I've listened to pop and rock my whole life and I've tried to imitate them, but it just comes across as a bad imitation and nothing more. So the suggestion of,"just listen to your favorite singers and try to sound like them....do what they do" doesn't really help me much. There's something that I just don't seem to grasp. Some nuance or consideration that I'm not aware of and I don't know were to find the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[i just realized that even though you're relating it to your composition and songwriting efforts, it might be a better fit in the Singer's Forum -- but I already wrote a bunch of paragraphs below... and I suspect others in this forum might have some thoughts, as well. I hope some of our edgier forum members will keep their edginess in check a bit. :D ]

 

Actually, it sounds like you've already put a fair amount of thought into the subject.

 

I've long shared your observation about so many of those who attempt to cross over from one of the mentioned uber-genres to the other. I'm not a big fan of either classical or operatic singing, but I have heard (a preciously small handful of) classically trained singers who could do show tunes (and I'll make distinction between show tunes and light opera for reasons that are probably already obvious to you) and even pop, blues, and rock. (Offhand, I can think of... Kristin Chenoweth. ;) )

 

Of course, there can be enormous stylistic gulfs between the three genres. The training that goes into operatic and classical singing seems to be extremely hard for those folks to shake. Like glancing sideways at freeway wrecks as one crawls past, I've often listened furtively -- and almost always painfully and briefly -- to more than a few opera stars trying to tackle pop and show standards. Usually it is simply jaw-droppingly bad.

 

But the traditions of show singing (some of which you listed above) typically don't translate well to pop -- and certainly not to rock -- despite the fact that so many pop standards in eras past have come from stage and film musicals. What sounds right in the context of a stage musical or show cast recording typically sounds strained or affected in a pop or jazz standards context.

 

Of course, there is no one approach to stage singing. While most female leads have typically been selected for a modicum of singing ability, character parts often emphasize that aspect of singing. And male leads can be all over the map. As mainstream singing fashions have shifted away from 'straight' singing, traditional baritones and tenors have increasingly sounded 'corny' and affected. What can play OK on stage in a work like Oklahoma or Carousel often sounds dated and weird to mainstream audiences. A glorious and skillful bari like Howard Keel or Richard Kiley is a fish out of water off the stage, for the most part. So, at a certain point, we found Hollywood and even Broadway casting pop singers (like Bob Goulet) or actors (like Rex Harrison or Richard Harris or :eek: Richard burton!) in singing roles, to varying degrees of success.

 

None of this, of course, is the kind of specific advice you were looking for...

 

Frankly, I found myself vamping, writing that preamble to prime my mind for what I had hoped would be some good points of advice for you.

 

Unfortunately, the best one I could think of, heartfelt, unashamed imitation is one you've already apparently tried. But just because it hasn't got you where you want to go in the past doesn't really mean you should abandon the effort. (If I'd quit trying to learn music just because it took me months to learn how to tune a guitar, the world would be a poorer place. OK... maybe not the whole world. But my world. :D )

 

So, we find ourselves winding around to the notion that perhaps part of the problem is the standard(s) you're trying to hold yourself to.

 

One of the problems of being adept in one field and trying to move into another that seems closely related is simple frustration that those skills don't easily translate.

 

But I wouldn't beat myself up too badly if I couldn't effortlessly switch from "You'll Never Walk Alone" to "Dock of the Bay" or "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction."

 

And, for that matter, today's broader pop is all over the map. For every Tom Waits, there's a Jeff Buckley. For every Britney Spears, a Diana Krall. (Well... maybe not for every... there are a lot of Britney types... poor example. :D )

 

 

How about an example of your singing? One audio clip is often worth many thousands of words. (Or you might just want to take this to the aforementioned Singer's Forum. I'm the Songwriting forum mod and can move this thread there for you, if you'd like, or you can simply leave this one here and start a similar one in the Singer's Forum. [sometimes folks object to 'double-posting' but in this case, I'm sure it would be OK.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can't think of any examples of where it's convincing. I recently I heard Renee Fleming doing some jazz standards, and she's about as close as it gets -- but I'd rather hear her use her pipes for opera or art song.

 

Even going from rock to standards can be tough as heard in Rod Stewart. His rock stuff is classic, but his interpretation of jazz standards can be all over the map in terms of quality and listenability.

 

I'd still write in those genres that aren't suited to your voice, but I'd just get comfortable with your voice and accept its strengths and limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

his interpretation of jazz standards can be all over the map in terms of quality and listenability.

I haven't heard all his efforts in the standards vein, but I'd say you're being awfully generous. ;)

 

One gal who I think who has crossed over several genre lines with considerable grace is Linda Rondstadt. She went from folk to rock (not too hard, of course, many others have), to Mexican standards, to pop standards. And she'd done a little light opera and such, too.

 

Another guy who seems to be able to shift gears quite radically is Andy Bey. He's no household name, of course, but having been familiar with his jazz standards work I was pretty shocked to hear some of his R&B pop stuff. Not only did he cross genre lines, he switched (convincingly) from a jazz baritone to a falsetto R&B voice not stylistically far from Marvin Gaye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Apparently classical sort of singer Sarah Brightman went from pure pop to musicals like Phantom of the Opera etc, and I think did some more pop after that too...but I must admit I've never heard her pop voice and can't really imagine what it must sound like.

 

I can think of more women than men in terms of a classical-professionally-trained-sounding voice suiting popular music...there was some song ages ago (like the mid 90s I think) from some girl...can't even remember her name as I think it was a one hit wonder...but her voice had a quite classical quality to it...at the end of the song she did this singing that could've belonged in an opera or classical type musical. (I think the song was called Pray...she was blonde. That's all I know. lol)

 

Charlotte Church, didn't she do pop stuff?

 

Also there's this Australian singer who is classically trained in opera and she's moved into sort of mainstream...but I don't like it actually. I was very disappointed in the album I bought of her's. I'd heard a few songs from her and liked them (live performances) and she seemed to combine her more breathy, meek pop voice with her more classically trained very different opera voice, which was cool. But on her pop album it was ALL that pop voice, and it didn't have any interest to me. BORING. You'd assume she wasn't that good a singer based on that voice...light, pop fluff, breathy, blegh.

 

In my eyes (or ears), the classical voices have more of a head-based tone, are more resonant in terms of getting their full sound up higher in the note spectrum, they tend to have a very balanced or maybe too-prominent vibrato, and they pronounce their words clearer and more precise, and they also sing the notes precisely...no sliding up or down to them...no affectations as such...

 

Whereas for pop singing, it's less about the technical abilities and more the tone and sound and effects. Most pop singers slide up and down to various notes, some use rapid-fire vibrato and others don't ever use vibrato at all...the pronounciation of words can be anywhere and everywhere...there's way more room for the singer's own personality than in more classical singing I think. But having said that, and as I said above, this type of singing (the classical type I mean) can fit in with pop or even maybe rock...just cause someone's voice sounds pretty or classical doesn't mean they CAN'T do pop singing or their classical voice can't fit really well with a pop or rock background or song.

 

In terms of guys...I dunno much about that. I can't think of anyone like Pavarotti or what's his name, the other guys...doing rock songs! I just can't hear it. They'd have to sing in a totally different way somehow...and you probably wouldn't even recognise their voices if they did.''

 

The jazzy, swingy type singers can do it, like Michael Buble, or the other one...Jamie Cullen or something? They're mainstream but they're still not pop or rock at all...well, not rock anyway.

 

I've forgotten what I was saying now. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for the replies guys and gals, I think that you're right. A good portion of this probably belongs on the singers forum. But maybe I could get some suggestions on rock and pop piano and the songwriting aspect for this thread then. I know what 9th, 11th, 13th, and sus chords are, but I still don't know what creates that "contemporary" sound (by contemporary, I probably mean 70's, 80's, and 90's, like Billy Joel, Rush, Journey, Foreigner,REO Speedwagon, Kansas, Michael Mcdonald, etc. I'm not too crazy about a lot of the stuff I've been hearing on the radio lately). I also know that modern music isn't too concerned with voice leading or "forbidden parallels!" (oh my goodness!) like classical music.

 

But then again, a lot of stuff that I write comes out sounding too classical or like it came straight out of a musical....Has anyone looked into those rock keyboard books? Are they any good? I've gotten a hold of some of the pop/rock sheet music from my favorite bands, but it sounds corny and forced. Maybe it's because the original music is for rhythm and lead guitar a lot of the time and doesn't translate well to piano. I've had more success with the likes of Billy Joel and Elton John. Maybe I'm just picking up the wrong sheet music for the wrong people more often than not. But even the sheet music for Billy and Elton tends to seem like a "simplified for normal people" type version of the original. I have the technique, I just need to know how to create the sound. I've also had more success with the transcribed scores, and have just gotten one for Billy Joel, Queen, and an anthology that has a score of all the Beatles songs, but I haven't looked into them too much. Any other suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I am training as a pianist and composer in the classical tradition and as a vocalist in the musical theater tradition, but I would also like to learn to sing, play, and write in pop and rock styles as well. I love the music that I am learning and want to continue in it, but I also want to be a little more versatile. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could learn to pull off these styles without sounding like a total suck-wad? The piano might be easier to pull off, but the vocals are a little more difficult. I've heard singers try to cross from more classically oriented styles to more popular kinds of music and pop/rock singers try to sing classical songs and it kinda blows both ways around. In fact, I've rarely heard anything more horrible than these pathetic attempts and I REALLY don't want to be THAT guy. I am really hoping that the reason these failed attempts were so absolutely horrible is because of a lack of training and practice in those styles, but I don't know. What do you think?


Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this? Everything that I sing sounds like it belongs in a musical and I don't know if it's my tone, vibrato, over-pronunciation, or maybe a combination? Please no comments that are too vague. I've listened to pop and rock my whole life and I've tried to imitate them, but it just comes across as a bad imitation and nothing more. So the suggestion of,"just listen to your favorite singers and try to sound like them....do what they do" doesn't really help me much. There's something that I just don't seem to grasp. Some nuance or consideration that I'm not aware of and I don't know were to find the answer.

 

 

Rufus Wainwright? Josh Groban? Meatloaf? Are those guys "THAT GUY"?

 

Not a singing expert, but yeah, less vibrato, less careful pronunciation, looser phrasing should get you closer to a rock sound.

 

As far as piano, it is tough to get good solo piano arrangements of popular rock songs because, well, most of them aren't written for piano. Maybe try a Coldplay song with just a head voice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So...yeah, what differentiates a classical piano piece from a modern / rock piano piece...?

 

What jumps to mind is in a classical piece, it tends to be either very twinkly / twiddly / complicated dancing over the keys...very light...and very pretty...or it's sort of forceful but still tending towards the twiddly...

 

On rock piano songs...I notice it's more about a strong beat or rhythm. There's some sort of beat going on that's not there in the classical so much (or not to me anyway)...the piano can be its own rhythm or it goes along with other things like a bassline, drums, etc. And also I notice 3 other things. One, rock piano pieces are much more repetitive than classical ones. They're catchy. Two, sometimes or usually the piano isn't playing the melody - the singer or another main instrument like a guitar is doing that. The piano may lead the song in terms of being the main or only instrument, but generally the vocal and lyrics either totally complement it (and also continue to steer it more in the rock / modern way by singing in a rocky way) or support it or whatever you want to call it. And three, I notice a lot of modern people use block chords. They seem to be sort of almost bashing at the keyboard in this cool kinda almost bluesy / rocky way. Using block chords as a method of playing leads to the piano sounding more its own rhythm and beat too I think...

 

I really don't know if this makes any sense at all though.

 

And I just realised my thumb is bleeding all over the keyboard. How delightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's some really good advice? Listen to my stuff? Emulate it? And you'll be in like Flint... Don't copy it exactly mind you? I have the whole pop-rock thing "down cold..." Welcome and good luck. I envy people who have careers in music... My career is in Engineering. I would give my left nut, hell my right one too? For a career in music...

 

HOT NUTS! GET YOUR HOT NUTS RIGHT HERE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for the replies guys and gals, I think that you're right. A good portion of this probably belongs on the singers forum. But maybe I could get some suggestions on rock and pop piano and the songwriting aspect for this thread then. I know what 9th, 11th, 13th, and sus chords are, but I still don't know what creates that "contemporary" sound (by contemporary, I probably mean 70's, 80's, and 90's, like Billy Joel, Rush, Journey, Foreigner,REO Speedwagon, Kansas, Michael Mcdonald, etc. I'm not too crazy about a lot of the stuff I've been hearing on the radio lately). I also know that modern music isn't too concerned with voice leading or "forbidden parallels!" (oh my goodness!) like classical music.


But then again, a lot of stuff that I write comes out sounding too classical or like it came straight out of a musical....Has anyone looked into those rock keyboard books? Are they any good? I've gotten a hold of some of the pop/rock sheet music from my favorite bands, but it sounds corny and forced. Maybe it's because the original music is for rhythm and lead guitar a lot of the time and doesn't translate well to piano. I've had more success with the likes of Billy Joel and Elton John. Maybe I'm just picking up the wrong sheet music for the wrong people more often than not. But even the sheet music for Billy and Elton tends to seem like a "simplified for normal people" type version of the original. I have the technique, I just need to know how to create the sound. I've also had more success with the transcribed scores, and have just gotten one for Billy Joel, Queen, and an anthology that has a score of all the Beatles songs, but I haven't looked into them too much. Any other suggestions?

The folks you're citing as contemporary did their key work in the 1970's. 1970 was forty years ago. That would have been like me saying that Rudy Vallee singing through a cone megaphone was contemporary back when I was just starting out (in 1970). [strangely enough, Rudy Vallee and his wife used to come visit our next door neighbors (in our solidly middle class neighborhood) every once in a while back then. At the time I knew him mostly from his representation in creaky old black and white cartoon parodies. I never met him, unfortunately -- I really appreciate his comic acting now -- but I remember seeing his car, with vanity plates phonetically spelling his name in the driveway next door. Uh... where was I...? :D ]

 

Now, there's nothing wrong with going back to that music. And there are still plenty of fans of that music, although they tend, of course, to be older. But it's my thinking you should make the music you love and feel, not what you think is 'commercial.'

 

(And, unless you're prepared to tour, it's my thinking that keep the day job is good advice for most musicians these days, young or old. The alternative is cover bands, and, in some markets, that can work out for a while, but it's a life style and career choice that often leaves musicians high and dry in their 40s or 50s, often with few prospects. Of course, the same can certainly be said of the touring life style -- unless it's killed you off first.)

 

So, my advice is open your eyes wide, let all that reality sink in, and then be who you are and make the music you love and don't be ashamed about it.

 

If you do, it will be genuine and you will enjoy it. People respond to those qualities.

 

We're fortunate in many ways today that there is more respect for the music of the past in the broader audience. When I was a kid, virtually no young people listened to big band swing or hot jazz. I was pretty much the only person I knew who loved scratchy old 78's. (I'll admit, it was often the corniness and the time-machine aspects to it all, but the more I heard, the more I learned how to separate the Ellingtons and Goodmans from the Glenn Millers and Freddy Martins. Er, not that there's anything wrong with Glenn Miller or Freddy Martin. It's all good.)

 

But today's musically aware young people (I'm not talking about your Britney and Ashley fans, of course) often do have a grasp on the 'classic' pop of the past.

 

 

It's funny, just last night in the 3DW I was talking to a friend who grew up singing in church and sang in a lot of stage musicals when he was young. He's in his 40s now but he was initially drawn to the vocal harmony pop bands of the 70s and 80s like Journey and such [not my thing by a couple million miles, but, hey] and later ended up in rap rock bands when that was hot in the early 90s. So it's not like one can't make almost any transition he really feels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, there's ZERO market now for new music that resembles 70s and 80s softer rock. The only market is the ones who already made their name back then. Baby boomers love that {censored}, but they don't like someone "new" who sounds like their favorite artists from 40 years ago. The world moves forward. Don't look back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know that the music that I'm referring to was done many years ago, but when you spend the majority of your time working in the world of classical music (that was written centuries ago) it can be quite contemporary in comparison. I can see how most pop and rock musicians that spend their time working with music that was made this year or last year would find that kinda strange. Sorry if my word choice is a little weird.

 

Also, I don't want to sound like a carbon copy of some singer from the 80's, but it really is the music that I love as far as rock/pop goes. The stuff I hear recently I can't get into and don't know that I ever really will. Some of it is O.K. in my opinion, but nothing that I really care for all that much. I want to learn to sing in a style closer to the 70's/80's/90's rock and pop, and then when I've gotten somewhat comfortable with the style and can sound fairly authentic, then I'd like to incorporate my classical/musical theater training and create a style of my own. I know it may not be as popular and marketable, but I don't really care because it's the stuff that I really love. I kinda want to learn how to do what they do and incorporate it into what I do. I also personally feel that in order to appreciate where we are, you really have to appreciate where we came from (maybe it's from many of my classical teachers pounding that point in again and again, but I do find it to be very true). Besides, I've heard many singers that are the movers and shakers of the music world say that most of their inspiration came from their favorite singer from decades before whose music they grew up listening to and singing along to before they developed a style all of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I know that the music that I'm referring to was done many years ago, but when you spend the majority of your time working in the world of classical music (that was written centuries ago) it can be quite contemporary in comparison. I can see how most pop and rock musicians that spend their time working with music that was made this year or last year would find that kinda strange. Sorry if my word choice is a little weird.


Also, I don't want to sound like a carbon copy of some singer from the 80's, but it really is the music that I love as far as rock/pop goes. The stuff I hear recently I can't get into and don't know that I ever really will. Some of it is
O.K.
in my opinion
, but nothing that I really care for all that much. I want to learn to sing in a style closer to the 70's/80's/90's rock and pop, and then when I've gotten somewhat comfortable with the style and can sound fairly authentic, then I'd like to incorporate my classical/musical theater training and create a style of my own. I know it may not be as popular and marketable, but I don't really care because it's the stuff that I really love. I kinda want to learn how to do what they do and incorporate it into what I do. I also personally feel that in order to appreciate where we are, you really have to appreciate where we came from (maybe it's from many of my classical teachers pounding that point in again and again, but I do find it to be very true). Besides, I've heard many singers that are the movers and shakers of the music world say that most of their inspiration came from their favorite singer from decades before whose music they grew up listening to and singing along to before they developed a style all of their own.

 

 

ok that's cool, so do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

ok that's cool, so do it.

 

 

XD That's what I'm trying to do and that's why I created this thread. But I want some advice on how to write in those rock/pop styles because I'm having a hard time overcoming my previous training and adjusting to the other styles.

 

I understand how to write and read TAB and I hope to start learning some guitar soon. But how do I write rock and pop (albeit the softer type of rock) without sounding like some classically trained dork that's trying WAY too hard. I've made a number of attempts, but I end up scrapping the ideas because they kinda suck and come out sounding all wrong. Some of the best song writers (IMO) came from a classical background and/or have a degree from a reputable college or university, but how in the crap do they make the transition? I guess I'll just have to keep studying and trying to understand it. I think that part of the problem is that I play the piano, so maybe it's the timbral difference that's holding me up. Maybe my songs will sound a little more rock when I've learned some guitar. I mean, that's really a big part of what makes rock what it is, right? Things probably naturally sound a little more musical/classical when played on the piano.

 

In your experience, has the rock/pop music that you buy from the store been pretty good when it's written for guitar? Maybe if I start my guitar playing with some music from that style right as I'm starting out, it will help me really get a feel for how it works. I also ordered one of those rock piano instructional books from amazon. Does anyone know if they're any good or are they just a complete waste of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm a big believe in the old saw, to thine own self be true.

 

And, let's face reality: almost no one is making much money now in pop music. Keep the day job has never been better advice.

 

But, on the up side, there are lots and lots of tools for ambitious self-starters to make their own music and to get it out to others who might like that music.

 

Yes, it's true that -- commercially -- adults past 30 (not just boomers by a stretch -- and while I'm comfortably in that age bracket, I know a lot of folks down into their 20s, many musicians, but many others not) tend to give more financial support to old faves -- to the extent they spend money at all on music.

 

But that does not mean that people are automatically closed off to new music.

 

And it certainly doesn't mean that tastes don't cycle back around.

 

Hell, just look at the rock world -- there has not been a single new idea since the 80s. (Go ahead: name one. [Auto-tune as effect doesn't count, I shouldn't think, particularly since it came over from R&B pop.] Cookie monster vocals? 80s. Necrophila love songs? 80s. Rap-rock [yawn]? 80s. Look at Duke's avatar... glory spikes? Late 70s. I was there. I know.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With regard to picking up guitar as a writing tool, I don't know that one has to write rock on a guitar. I'm not much of a keyboardist but I wrote my

on keyboards and it ended up being a sort of Exiles on Main Street type Stones thing (it was Hallowe'en, I wanted to 'dress up'). Certainly not cutting edge, but definitely rock.

 

But, nonetheless, I'm thinking that getting enough guitar chops to add some rhythm guitar to your recordings (because, in this new world of ours, a lot of times it's just the musician and his tools, including robots like drum machines and such) and to augment your songwriting would be a good thing.

 

If, when you write on the piano, your efforts seem to drift off to cabaret land,* you might do well switching to guitar for some writing, where you will probably only have basic chord chunking abilities at first (which is the way I recommend starting, don't buy into some old-fashioned Mel Bay type pedagogy where the instructional system is trying to teach you to play "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" on the guitar. Just learn some basic chords and start thrashing. Well... maybe not thrashing. :D)

 

The limits of your guitar ability might prove to be just the thing at channeling you into a more rock/pop frame of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You should find a pop singer who's voice and style you like? That you believe you could emulate? And use that as a template, and start tracing... I can remember in school when I was young, they had a device called "an Opaque Projector..." You could place an image in there, and it would project it on the wall, where you could trace the outline? I would use a similar approach, only musically. Heck, even load an MP3 in track one, and do your own voice on track two? And then listen to see how it sounds and how it might be improved.

 

Oh, and here's a shot I snapped of blue "dressed up" for Halloween.

drag-queen-wig-in-blonde-black-or-light-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

? 80s. Look at Duke's avatar... glory spikes? Late 70s. I was there. I know.)

 

Don't worry, I have no intentions on quitting my job. If I happen to be able to make enough money to substitute my income, then that's another thing, but I'm not planning on it (one in a billion chance right? I know that's gonna be me! ;) j/k). I do music for the love, not because I have any delusions about being the next "big thing." Heck, I'm fully aware that most things I do right now suck crap. I'd be absolutely surprised if anyone was willing to listen, much less send me money for it.

 

Maybe I'll just keep pluggin' away and see where it gets me. I'm gonna give the guitar thing a go and see where that takes me as well. In the meanwhile, maybe I'll right some more of my "cabaret" (Lol! XD ) sounding crap and post it on here and see what advice I can get. I think that my stuff is gonna be really soft for most people's taste, but it probably couldn't hurt to get advice from anyone who'll give it. I'm already working on singing a couple pop songs with a basic piano accompaniment so that I can see what some people think about my (crappy) vocals. I think I'll keep trying with the imitation thing too. If I keep at it, I'm sure it will give me more tools to have at my disposal at worst.

 

But what do you think about getting some sheet music for my favorite bands to start learning on the guitar? Even if I forget all about instructional rock methods, what about just the sheet music for the songs that I like? Does anyone have any experience with these? Do they suck or are they pretty true to the original? I'm not talking about the "easy book for beginners" stuff. (I shudder to remember the "big note piano" books my parents got me when I was really young and first learning piano. *cringe*.) I mean, if imitating the people I like can be a great learning tool, then shouldn't getting the sheet music be a good place to start? Especially if I learn it while listening to the original recording and trying to play it "as they do"?

 

I also have another question. I'm writing a rock type lead/rhythm/base/drums/keyboards group into an orchestral piece that I'm trying to compose. TAB is going to be the most preferred method of notation for most guitarists, right? (That is, of course, if they read some form of notation. I know that a lot of guitarists never learn.) In addition, I can pretty safely assume that most guitarists who can play electric can easily transition to acoustic, right? Or would I have to write a separate part for a second musician?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like the idea of keeping up trying to learn from some of the vocalists you like, as others have suggested. It's probably obvious, but listen to their phrasing, the way they let texture into their voice (don't trash yourself trying to sound like Tom Waits of course :D ), their rhythm emphases, etc.

 

Actually, for learning guitar, sheet music is fine -- as long as it has simple chord charts above the staff... that brings the 'chord instruction' right to where you need it and keeps you from having to look up chords, etc. You're going to want to strum. (Although some very basic fingerpicking might also be an early thing to look into. But baby steps first... learn to strum with basic chords.)

 

Tab is more about writing guitar melodies -- and it's inadequate for the job unless it's accompanied by rhythmic information -- and that pretty much means a standard notation staff along with it. Chords are typically called by name among guitarists; it's sort of expected that you can call a G7 or Am6 to a journeyman guitarist and he'll be able to take it from there. So, unless there's a lead to communicate, a fake book might be as over-simple as a staff template with bar lines and chord names over them. (Regular guitar oriented fake books do typically have the melody written in them in standard notation, with the chord name over.)

 

Speaking of chords... keys. On the guitar, the capo is your friend. It will allow you to transpose (to some extent, since putting the capo way up on the 10th fret may not be convenient ;) ) without going through the mental gymnastics. (It's like using a MIDI keyboard's transpose function in that sense.)

 

With regard to beginner books, honestly, I think you can mostly skip that, since you already understand your musical fundamentals. Learn the basic chords, learn how to use a capo to transpose when you find yourself confronted with a guitar-unfriendly key. (And do learn to do basic barre chords; they don't feel natural at first, which is precisely why they give tyros such a hard time. Take it easy, no sense stressing your fingers (some finger warm ups before practice or just some simple guitar warm up exercises may help get your fingers loosened up), but keep at it in a slow, steady fashion; take it easy, and you'll slowly get your left (assuming you're right handed) index finger used to laying down flat as a barre. The 'E' shape chord is easiest. The "A" shape barre is harder, since you have to get your ring finger flattened across three strings... give it plenty of time. You'll probably need the E shape barre first, since it's hard to get a full F with a low bass any other way. (You can 'cheat' when you need to -- Fmaj7 (what you get when you lift the barre on a barred F) is a pretty chord :D -- but just don't give up. You'll get there.)

 

 

BTW, I was just listening to big, randomized Rhapsody (my on-demand subscription music service) playlist and I heard this slightly awkward, 'classical' style vocalist doing the Beatles "Yesterday" (on a whim one day, I collected like 20 versions of "Yesterday and 20 versions of "Yesterdays" and through them in there)... I didn't recognize the vocalist but I immediately flashed back to this ongoing conversation and flipped to Rhap to see who it was. I was pretty drop-jawed to find it was 60's model/chanteuse Marianne Faithful, probably from back in the 60s. Someone had obviously put her through singing lessons and the seams were definitely showing. Like I said, awkward. Neither fish nor fowl. But if you flash forward to 1979 and her breakthrough 'comeback' album (lots of folks would suggest she didn't really have anywhere to come back from -- the song Mick Jagger wrote for her in the mid-60s, "As Tears Go By" had been a flash in the pan in her career)... it really shocked a lot of people -- not just because of her extremely mature song writing (and I mean that in many ways) but because her voice was just raw, sounding like a million cigarettes washed down by way too much whiskey. People who had completely written her off were riveted by the transformations that a decade plus out of the spotlight had wrought. Overnight she gained credibility as a serious artist and writer.

 

Not sure what the point of that observation is, except that significant change can be accomplished. (I do not recommend trashing your voice to do so, mind you. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I am really hoping that the reason these failed attempts were so absolutely horrible is because of a lack of training and practice in those styles, but I don't know. What do you think?


Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this? Everything that I sing sounds like it belongs in a musical and I don't know if it's my tone, vibrato, over-pronunciation, or maybe a combination? Please no comments that are too vague. I've listened to pop and rock my whole life and I've tried to imitate them, but it just comes across as a bad imitation and nothing more. So the suggestion of,"just listen to your favorite singers and try to sound like them....do what they do" doesn't really help me much. There's something that I just don't seem to grasp. Some nuance or consideration that I'm not aware of and I don't know were to find the answer.

 

 

If you're a trained musician than you should no better than to try and change your voice to do a poor imitation of a thing. What is wrong with singing pop the way you are: a highly-skilled vocalist with a background in classical music and musical theatre?

 

One thing that drives me nuts is the lack of skilled vocalists that rely on artificial and faulty styling affectations to put a song across in pop. Where the hell are all the god-damn singers that, you know, know how to sing?

 

You got vocal chops? I say use em full-throttle and and Rock a Kings of Leon joint or Lil Wayne jam or Lada Gaga bubbly goodness and god knows what else with all the the classical musical theater swinging gusto you can muster...

 

And are you crazy? Hello? There's a market for that stuff like nobody's business today. Glee? Hello? Heard of it???

 

You're probably sitting on a freaking Goldmine - stop thinking so hard.

 

It might come off campy and weird... but it could also come off as an interesting different thing...

 

ANd I got two words for you: Roy. Orbison.

 

Try and define that guy's sound. And he had to actually be talked into going as high as he could go - on "Running Scared" cause he wasn't sure if he could do it or if he should. That guy's voice is scary unique and powerful... imagine if he was like... Gee, Maybe I should pretend to not be able to sing as well as I can... you know, not use the full range of my natural voice...

 

About 40 years ago everybody tried to stop singing like Roy Orbison and started to try and sing like Bob Dylan - drives me freaking nuts.

 

You pretty much had two choices in Rock/Pop: Try and be Bob Dylan with a flat, tilted blues-type delivery or be Mariah Carey with those sickening melismo-type runs.

 

I'm actually heartily cheered by the Glee thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Methinks Max hasn't heard a lot of show singers. Most are a very long way from Roy Orbison and pretty far from most of the of the folks on Glee as they sing on the show -- many of them are quite adept at pop and, to some extent, rock singing styles, -- despite the fact that more than a couple have stage musical backgrounds.

 

I know what Neptune's worried about. Maybe, in his case, it's not going to be a problem -- and I do like the general tenor (no pun intended) of Max's be yourself comments. But just as there's much training and discipline that goes into getting those more traditional chops, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to stretch oneself in new directions. Neptune just wants to make sure the stretching is graceful, rather than awkward or forced, I think.

 

 

I enjoy Glee, but I can't say I'm heartened by it. A) I hate many of the songs [especially the older ones, because in addition to thinking their banal and treacly, I'm still sick to death of them from the 70s before I stopped listening to mainstream rock/pop radio] and B) I really, really, really hate all the Auto-Tune (and Melodyne).

 

I can intellectually handle the A-T-as effect on the R&B numbers (although it makes me want to pull my ears off my head and shove them under my mattress) but what drives me utterly batty is how clumsy the tuning is on many of the ballads where they're 'supposed' to be actually singing, yet you can hear the clumsy vocal editor slathering on the tuning in the tricky spots.

 

Or perhaps simply where the editor thinks there's an issue; A-T defaults to the equal temperament grid but people who came up singing in harmony ensembles tend to sing purely harmonic intervals instead of the split-the-diff approximations imposed by equal temperament and that can lead to 'misunderstandings' by the editor, many of whom seem unaware of this issue -- or just do not care; of course, if the arrangement is poorly done and there are conflicting ET instruments (mostly keyboards) that conflict with a singer's just-pitching choices, it can be a trainwreck...

 

The ballads have fewer glaring tuning artifacts now that they seem to have switched mostly to Melodyne for tuning ballads -- but Melodyne seems to lay a sort of veil on the sound that also seems problematic.

 

It's been suggested that the vocal editors on Glee, having to race through a number of songs for every episode simply don't have time to do a transparent job of correcting singers' pitches but, for gosh sake, this is one of the top rated shows around, it's a highly profitable franchise where they release a bunch of records spun out from the show and, for gosh sake, aren't they supposed to be professionals? Just because the tin-ears in Nashville think it's OK for all their singers to sound like chipmunks doesn't mean it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I read through all of the comments and then went back and read your OP.

 

It sounds to me as though you have a good natural voice and you are wondering just how to best use it to find a style that you are comfortable with and, therefore are able to project to a potential audience. I will frame my comments within those assumptions.

 

The vast majority of us here have average or less than average natural singing abilities. I count myself in the latter category. Yet we have all soldiered on with our musical aspirations knowing that (a) we have a song to sing and (2) we are going to sing it no matter what. In the process of that Quixotic quest some of us have developed a style that some folks find interesting and listenable.

 

 

"just listen to your favorite singers and try to sound like them....do what they do"

 

 

So.......I suggest that you instead just listen to your favorite singers, do what they do.....and try to sound like you. The only real way to avoid sounding like a suck wad in this venture is to somehow develop your own style....even if you are trying to get a spot on Glee. Especially if you are trying to get a spot on Glee.

 

Sing everything that you can and apply your talents broadly. Eventually you will be singing your own songs in your own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

and B) I really, really,
really
hate all the Auto-Tune (and Melodyne).



It's been suggested that the vocal editors on Glee, having to race through a number of songs for every episode simply don't have time to do a transparent job of correcting singers' pitches but, for gosh sake, this is one of the top rated shows around, it's a highly profitable franchise where they release a bunch of records spun out from the show and, for gosh sake, aren't they supposed to be professionals? Just because the tin-ears in Nashville think it's OK for all their singers to sound like chipmunks doesn't mean it actually is.

 

 

I see what you mean - what I meant is not sing in a theatery type manner - but be a full-throated disciplined singer that strives to express yourself with the fullest power of your natural voice. Roy Orbison had an unbelievable voice from god - it wasn't theatery, but it was willowy and stern and bone-chillingly nimble and pretty. But he was SINGING.

 

What has happened in the rock vein is the allure of putting a flattish, or nasely blues-influenced grit into your vocals has done away with the tradition of the great, deep male vocalist with flourish in rock/pop. Cause singing like that cribs your range and destroys your voice - so anybody that knows how to sing well and cares about their voice drifts toward R&B, Country, or Top 40 pop.

 

Who is the best, technical, singer in rock right now? That dude from Train? That Maroon Five dude? These guys got pipes. But come on - they're candyasses. And don't even get me started on the vocal stylings of in so-called "indie rock" those nasally wet-blanker twerps... ..

 

Yes - those 90s grunge cats had some pipes: Eddie Vedder's great. But he couldn't hang with Roger Daltry in his prime. Scott Weiland ain't got {censored} on Bowie.

 

Blood would spew from Kurt Cobain's lips were he to open his mouth and sing the damage he wrought on his voice in those breif few years before he flamed out...

 

Go put a Dion record on. That cat could BLOW - and he didn't have to get all -rock stylized to rock.

 

That's what I was talkign about with Glee. Theater people know how to sing properly, albiet in a stylized manner of their own, but they know about not using their throat to project their voice; It's about projecting from your abdomen and using the natural stereo cabinet that is your skull to get the sound across.

 

99% of rock singers rely on their throats for the power and color of their voices - which means they can't sing as well. That's what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see what you mean - what I meant is not sing in a theatery type manner - but be a full-throated disciplined singer that strives to express yourself with the fullest power of your natural voice. Roy Orbison had an unbelievable voice from god - it wasn't theatery, but it was willowy and stern and bone-chillingly nimble and pretty. But he was SINGING.


What has happened in the rock vein is the allure of putting a flattish, or nasely blues-influenced grit into your vocals has done away with the tradition of the great, deep male vocalist with flourish in rock/pop. Cause singing like that cribs your range and destroys your voice - so anybody that knows how to sing well and cares about their voice drifts toward R&B, Country, or Top 40 pop.


Who is the best, technical, singer in rock right now? That dude from Train? That Maroon Five dude? These guys got pipes. But come on - they're candyasses. And don't even get me started on the vocal stylings of in so-called "indie rock" those nasally wet-blanker twerps... ..


Yes - those 90s grunge cats had some pipes: Eddie Vedder's great. But he couldn't hang with Roger Daltry in his prime. Scott Weiland ain't got {censored} on Bowie.


Blood would spew from Kurt Cobain's lips were he to open his mouth and sing the damage he wrought on his voice in those breif few years before he flamed out...


Go put a Dion record on. That cat could BLOW - and he didn't have to get all -rock stylized to rock.


That's what I was talkign about with Glee. Theater people know how to sing properly, albiet in a stylized manner of their own, but they know about not using their throat to project their voice; It's about projecting from your abdomen and using the natural stereo cabinet that is your skull to get the sound across.


99% of rock singers rely on their throats for the power and color of their voices - which means they can't sing as well. That's what I'm talking about.

 

By reading this post and the one that you posted before, I get the idea that you think that I'm a much better vocalist than I probably really am (sorry if that's an incorrect assumption). I am training to sing musical theater, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm all that fantastic. (It might also be important to note that I'm still working on my tone, range, and dexterity in the musical theater style as well. I'm by no means a finished product on any level.) I'm glad that you might assume that, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea because they might be quite disappointed when I actually try to post a song to get some opinions.

 

I'm also not necessarily going to change everything I do to sound like a poor imitation of one of my favorite singers. I just want to learn how to sing in the pop/rock style, and after I can sound like I belong in pop/rock to a reasonable degree, then I want to incorporate my other training and create an individual sound that's completely my own (or at least try to). But right now it sounds (to me) like I just don't belong in pop/rock. It comes across as kinda strange and uncomfortable and like some bizarre mismatch of style. I really want it to sound like it fits. And I also want to find a way to be versatile to the point where I could sing a variety of songs in these various styles and make them not merely passable, but actually really good.

 

I do understand what you mean about not damaging my voice to create the "rock sound", though. And that's another thing that I'm trying to work through. I have a hard time finding a sound that's believable in rock (even though I go for the softer types of rock) and not tearing my voice up with some fake "soulful" sound that just isn't part of my voice naturally. And trying to manufacture that sound makes it sound all the more ridiculous and unnatural, not to mention that it's probably never going to end up sounding all that great no matter how much I practice it. But there are some rockers (I'm probably using that term somewhat loosely according to most people who wouldn't consider soft rock and pop rock as any type of rock at all) who do not tear their voice to shreds trying to sound "soulful" and still are extremely believable in what they do. What is it that makes their sound "work"? I just don't know.

 

I think that maybe the best thing is for me to actually post myself singing a pop or rock song (I'll do it in the singers forum, blue2blue :D ) and get some opinions on how I can improve. I think that it's gonna be hard for people to give me any more specific advice than they already have without having heard me actually sing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...