Mirko
You quoted and wrote:
>Well, most of the singers that Denis mentioned do carry tessituras higher
>than your normal operatic role.
>Guys like bruce dickinson, in his early days, sustain tessituras around the
>A4 in a legit sounding voice.
>
>But...and this is the important but...
>
>the tone is not quite the same, and demands less support and opening in the
>throat. I obviously can't speak for all of these singers, but the fact that
>they sing into a microphone also gives them a 'second diaphragm' so to
>speak. Placement is thrown out the window, as resonance is not needed (just
>bring the mic closer to your mouth). Some of these singers constrict
>(robert plant), and using part of their false vocal cords, get a really high
>tessitura happening- it's like you 'lock' the voice into a different
>position, and believe me, it's not healthy- I used to do it, and still
>sometimes do it as a joke, when we have Led Zep singalongs.
COMMENT: Quite the contrary, the singers you mentions and yourself,
do NOT use the false vocal folds. The false vocal folds are not
capable of phonation but only of creating the raspy quality that is
found the in the singing (if you can call it that) of Louis
Armstrong. What male rock singers are doing when they sing high is
using their falsetto voice but under extreme strain. Typically they
sing these higher notes with the chin raised substantially (it is the
reason they place the microphone so high in relation to their mouth)
which displaces the normal level of the larynx, places extreme stress
on the function of the vocal mechanism, and creates the stressful,
strained, painful tone quality which they seek. The foundations of
this kind of singing can best be described by such terms as strain,
constriction, discomfort, tension, stress, yelling, and, in general.
everything that classical singing attempts to avoid. It is a choice.
Not my choice, but a valid choice. However, it is choice that is
destructive to the human voice.
>
>Some of these singers (usually the better ones, such as the ones that Denis
>mentions) also work on their 'wail' - the same wail that tenors develop on
>their register above their passagio- If you dwell on this area and learn to
>sing in it, providing your voice handles it, you can sing in an unbelievably
>high tessitura. but it won't sound very operatic- it'll sound thinner-
>which technically it needs to in order to stay up there.
COMMENT: The wail of which you speak is merel the same technique
mentioned above but with better support. It is only slightly less
healthy.
>When you listen to freddy mercury, you basically have a high-ish tenor, with
>'rock' support (that is, very erratic- listen to him breaking up the
>ascending phrase support-wise in 'we are the champions' -
>
>Also, there isn't as much pressure on these sort of singers- their audience
>isn't as discriminating- they'll mosh at the front of the stage and get into
>the vibe, and they won't pick the singers technique apart. Also, rock
>singers can transpose easier (there are no scores), they can improvise some
>of the higher sections into lower areas, and of course, (an old favourite of
>mine), they can get the crowd to sing bits of the songs! (the really hard
>bits if necessary). Imagine if during 'che gelida', the tenor gestured to
>the crowd and said "Now YOU sing it!" during the phrase with the high C in
>it. I'd love to see that. Or during 'Nessun dorma' at the end high B!
"OK, your turn people!"
>
>How cheesy would that be! In rock, these sings are almost expected.
>
COMMENT" Above two paragraphs. Good point! I would agree.
>I was listening to a live recording of Steve perry the other day, I was
>dissapointed at his tone in his high register- it was quite forced, and
>thin. If you took one of these guys next to a working operatic tenor,
>singing in the same room, everyone would be amazed at the operatic tenor's
>sound and power, and not the rock guy's high wail/schreech, which is based
>more on impact, rather than beauty or size of sound.
COMMENT: Exactly correct. Well put.
>In music, voices usually imitate instruments (even though the voice did come
>first historically): the classical voice imitates the violin, in jazz, the
>voice imitates the trumpet, and in rock and metal, the voice imitates the
>guitar, which usually has distortion on it, and wails away. So you can see
>why these guys have to sing so high- its a stylistic necessity in many
>ways- and metal bands with baritones as singers usually don't have the same
>impact. Metallica may be an exception, but I think that guy is really a
>heavier tenor- he carries quite a high tessitura as well. Not as high as
>the others though.
COMMENT: Not sure I agree completely. Actually the violin imitates
the classical voice. All violin effects (tremelo, trills, etc.) were
copied from the singers of that perios. The trumpet imitates the
singing of the blues singer in traditional jazz. The background of
Jazz is the sung blues, among other forms of sung black music, and
all of the trumpets effects (trill, grow, slide, wa-wa mute, etc) are
copies of the singing style of the blues singer. Even in rock, the
stringed instruments needed to be attached to forms of amplification
before they were capable of imitating the freedom exhibited by the
voice singing the rhythm and blues style which is the foundation of
rock and roll and, eventually, rock.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
Flagstaff, Arizona
|
|  |
