Me singing "Hallelujah" by Cohen

Hi!

I would really love to hear you opinions on my singing. I've produced the music as well as edited the video.

What do you think of my voice? It is not meant to be a joke. I'm at least happy about finally pulling off some brief mixed voice for the higher notes. I struggled to archive mixed voice through years and years.

The lowest note is a A2 and the highest on is an F#4 (and a brief G4 and B4).

Do you think that I sound baritone or tenor?

Thanks for taking time.

No criticism here, sounds great! A bit cheesy for my likings though

nice sound...not really my taste but as far as vocal performance

that was good!!

hmm.....voice type, i think, is baritone.

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. Most (or pretty much all) of my fellow countrymen consider me being redicilous, ugly, and the worst singer since God knows when. It is a relief however, that it seems like whenever posting on an international forum, no one seem to share that opinion.

I am a bit curious about how you find me cheesy. Not that I don't respect your view, but I would be happy if you explained it to me. It is obvious that two different people listening to the same thing do rarely hear the same thing.

To me, "cheesiness" is something associated with mainstream, cute, plastic-perfection lyric tenors and such. Like Paul McCartny, John Lennon, or the Everly Brothers, something like that. Perfect boys singing romantically about craving for love when they in fact are devoted by millions of women.

Since I'm repulsive and imperfect, I don't really see how I can be cheesy.

Please enlighten me!

Thank you. I worked pretty hard. After 5-6 years of singing, I think I have finally found the key to mixed voice. No one has told me so far that there seem to be anything fishy about my F#s, so I guess that I'm doing somewhat right..

You have a good voice and a lot of potential. But if you want my honest opinion, there's something odd about the way you sing(not your voice). Your technique needs work. You sound somewhat constipated, like you tighten up when you sing. It makes it sound a bit like you were parodying someones singing, instead of singing seriously.

Sorry if this came across as harsh, but I really like your voice and I would like to hear it without these distracting qualities. You should attempt to sing in a more relaxed manner, and not over interprate. Keep it up!

I'm guessing that Ratroast means cheesy in terms of the Renaissance painting video and the pop-metalish arrangement; your voice is also a bit operatic for a pop song. I'd imagine Domingo would sing it like this.

But this is not a criticism of your voice. The performance is a stylistic mismatch--or so it seems to some of us. You might be right, in the long run. Who knows? The song (in one of its versions, at least) has powerful religious implications.

In any case, you sing very well.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a fan of Opera music. I am, however, a fan of this song and its meaning.....and I think this was a very poor interpretation of it.

I cannot really comment on your voice as a separate entity...as I am completely out of touch with your (seeming) genre. I do agree with the straining comment though....

Perhaps try posting a song that matches your style?

I am not really surprised that some find my style, or my genre a bit strange. Strange or not, this is my way. This is the only style I ever had. It is not some kind of delibirated mistake. I however do respect your views.

I do know that I'm not exactly relaxed when I sing. At least that's what they tell me. I admit that relaxed singing is a bit of a mystery to me. Whenever I try it, I either end up hurting by using too much air, or I simply fail to hit a note. Another problem is that 'tension' and 'relaxation' are very vague words when it comes to singing. At least for me. Apart from uncomfortable straining tension (as in larynx subconsciously rising when trying to belt or larynx subconsiously droping when singing too low), I can never truely tell when I'm tense. I sometimes wonder if sounding tense and actually being tense are perhaps two different things. I speak this way too, you know.

Stillettoechoes; I sense that you reckon that my interpretation of this song is somewhat against the meaning, or the essence of the song. Why? I have tried to be very faithful to the original. I thought I had done my homework. Please explain it to me. I am pretty much dying to hear your opinion.

The introduction sounds like a joke as well? Most people say that if I skipped everything BUT the introduction is would sound more serious.

The paintings are comedic too? That was new to me. Really, how come? Some of them are from Vatican cathedrals, and I do not really imagine the Pope sitting next to them laughing all day long.

Also note that I am not trying to do any classical-crossover version. I am absolutely not a classical-crossover artist. I am much more into Dylans rock version.

To me, all of the four covers you linked to sound pretty much like Jeff Buckley copies. Almost identical styles.

Since America is the locomotive of the world, the rest of the world probably agrees. I however, do not. I edited the video with extreme and carefull caution. There are no deliberated mistakes. It is exactly the way I wanted it to be, except that I wished that the painters would have painted more paintings, but it's a little too late to tell Rembrandt to keep on working.

As painting do not move, I fugured you had to use panning and quick cutting to still create a motion picture effect.

My first idea was actually to feature relevant bible quotes throughout the entire video, but I somewhat realized it would be too blurry.

I am not trying to imitate Dylan's version. I never said that. I obviously did it my way. The Dylan version was however the one that probably influenced me the most. Maybe not in an immanent way though.

I would prefer Bob Dylan's voice over Jeff Buckley any time.

News Flash: Apparently Leonard himself is getting into the act--he's actually requesting a moritorium on cover versions of Hallelujah!

Look: http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/07/10/leonard-cohen-asks-for-brief-halt-to-new-covers-of-hallelujah/

Haha!

Still, my cover version being, appearantly, redicilously strange, it deserves more "raison d'être" than the large pack of identical ones. At least that is my opinion. A good cover is not an imitation.

No. Not at all. You saying this makes me feel like there is a larger issue that you are dealing with here....

While those operatic covers were a fabulous representation of how someone within that genre can cover the song appropriately, they still feel a bit distanced from the heart of the song. That, to me, is just the aesthetic nature of opera. It can be emotional-sounding, but not entirely...actually emotional. It's a bit sterile for my liking, but again, thank you JonPaul for showing how it CAN be done in that style.

Listen again to those operatic covers, then listen to:

[YOUTUBE]hEKCsSlK3jg[/YOUTUBE] and

[YOUTUBE]3vDipjXXcHw[/YOUTUBE]

If you cannot tell the emotional differences between each and every one, you have a much bigger problem at hand. A problem, that if it cannot be rectified, you should probably reconsider your interactions with music.

Not at all trying to be mean or hurtful....

Then I assume I have this bigger problem. But to put it this way; Do you think Damien Rice could have done his version more like Buckley's even if he wanted to? Do you think that he would have been able to do it LESS like Buckley if he wanted to? I strongly sense that the answer to the first question is no and the second one is yes. What's this thing with Buckley anyway? I am still unable to see your point.

I'd still like to know why my version is a bad interpretation of the song and its meaning. You still have not answered that, and I'm still dying to hear it.

It took considerable effort to explain the term "cheesy" to my Japanese wife. One of the better definitions on the web is here:

(informal) of poor quality through being overdramatic, excessively emotional or clichéd

a cheesy song

a cheesy movie

I personally haven't listened to the song. I just happen to be an English teacher.

Phantom of the what?

[YOUTUBE]GSd73J6OAXA[/YOUTUBE]

No one gives two {censored}s for Bella.......

That was my impression too. Not to sound harsh, but it kinda reminds me of Operaman:

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Don't mean to sound like a jerk. I just use this clip because it's the best example I can give of that operatic type voice, and how easily it can turn into comedy. It isn't that you can't sing. Maybe just try to tone down your vocal inflections a bit; sing with more restraint. The way you sing it just sounds way too exaggerated and over-the-top, especially for that type of song.

What's all this talk about "operatic voice type". I am no opera singer. That "Operaman" does seem to be even less. He sounded more to me like using roar techniques. It reminds me more of Bruce Springsteen with a fake italian accent, or something.

I am also still awaiting why Stillettoechoes consider me clashing with the meaning of the song.

The way you pronounced some of the words with open vowels and your addition of excessive vibrato creates an impression of "operatic singing" to non-classically trained listeners. Yeah, Operman was a lousy impression of the "operatic voice".

If you want to sound more "rock," you should decrease the vibrato, sing with an American (or British, if you like the Beatles) accent, and sing in a talking/grumbling/screaming sort of way. LOL, at least that's what it seems like to me, haha.

Actually, I have....you just don't seem to understand.

The best interpretation of this song, in my opinion, is one that is: open, vulnerable, passionate, somber, hopeful and hopeless, strong and weak at various parts....and above all...honest.

This is why Jeff Buckley's version is constantly referred to with this song. He embodies all of those emotions and they each have their voice in the song. Other people can interpret it in a few of those emotional ways and disregard others or just focus on one....and it can work.....

You seem to have no consciousness of what you're saying. You're simply mouthing words and focusing on the style in which you are saying those words. A style, which especially given the context, sounds ridiculous to me. It comes off as a joke, which is not seemingly how you intended it...

Hope that helps.....and now I hope you can stop "dying" to hear what little ol' me has to say...

Well, when you put it that way, English is not my first language, you know. Swedish is. Swedish pronounciation is somewhat pretty quite similar to Italian. I never thought about my Swedish accent could really be mistaken for some kind of fake Italian. I guess that is somewhat my mistake. I do have to learn better English. Learning to speak a foreign language completely without a foreign accent is not all that easy. Arnold Schwarzenneger still speaks English with a explicit German accent after all these years in the US.

What you are discribing is, according to me, not the "meaning" of the song. You are describing Buckley's interpretation of it.

Maybe I do have a problem letting it shine through, but I do not really feel like have a problem with consciousness. Each and every word has a powerful meaning to me. I am not unfamiliar with the references of the song.

One of the reason why I chose to do this song was that I felt that there were too many covers out there simply trying to mimic Buckley. If you check out the versions of Espen Lind or James Castro, it seems to me like they sing the lines as if they were reading a phone book, focusing on imitating Buckley's every breath. They do not sound very real to me. They don't seem to me like even having a clue about who Bathsheba was.

Maybe I do not appear real to you. At least I do feel real to me. I do believe that the heart is the most important body part when singing. Sadly, it cannot be directly heard. It's a bit ironic. The same way I critized them, you critize me.

You say a good version is "open, vulnerable, passionate, somber, hopeful and hopeless, strong and weak at various parts". I disagree. Thas was Buckley's way. There are different ways. I believe this song is more about what is under the surface than what is above it.

Check out these versions of the song. I consider them way better than the glorified Buckley version;

Original version; http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3rwo0_leonard-cohen-hallelujah_music

Cohen's second version; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTiXoMCppw

Bob Dylan live; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-8Arvz8rHM

Ulf Lundell live;

Now tell me, are these versions "open, vulnerable, passionate, somber, hopeful and hopeless, strong and weak at various parts"? I say honesty is an individual thing. Buckley's version was honest to him. He did it his way. Cohen's version is most likely honest to him. He did it his way. I appearantly make believe that I am honest too. I did it the way that felt honest to me. I did it my way.

EDIT; I am still not trying to offend you or disrespect you. I hope that I'm at least not misunderstood at that point. I am neither trying to defend myself. I am trying to explain myself.

Maybe you should try singing it in Swedish? Though you'd have to get clearance from the publisher if you plan to release it as it constitutes a major modification.

Or you should try a song in your native tongue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunted_affect

EDIT: I am sure that all of your "explaining" is entirely devoid of any defense. This is my honest and humble opinion. Nothing you have said or can say will change what and how I hear. All of us, as singers, have insecurities and are putting ourselves out there with (hopefully) good intentions. Not everyone is going to enjoy it or relate to it. Not possible. All you can do is choose which criticism you feel is true and work on it or just move on.