|
Post by michael on Jul 1, 2006 1:03:38 GMT
Well, I'm new here, but I have opinions . First the ones from your list Al: Kate Bush (of course! 4 octaves, come on) Peter Gabriel (don't forget his Genesis stuff) Loreena McKennitt (you people amaze me) Billie Holiday (good going Al) Sara Brightman Frank Sinatra (got to see him once) Tony Bennet Ray Orbison (one of the purest voices we've had) and Joni Mitchell Now, being old, I have a few that might not make the final but I feel compelled to mention them: Leadbelly (totally original) Bobby Darren (Kevin Spacey wasn't bad) Judy Garland (she wore Red Shoes too) Bill Medley (and Bobby Hatfield) Brian Wilson/Mike Love (harmonies from God) Jack Bruce (great pipes) Janis Joplin!!! Nat King Cole Lou Rawls Curtis Mayfield and Chris Isaak Adey mentioned Bill Nelson and I agree . There's more, but that should give you something to think about. Michael
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 1, 2006 1:37:26 GMT
Well, I'm new here, but I have opinions . First the ones from your list Al: Kate Bush (of course! 4 octaves, come on) Peter Gabriel (don't forget his Genesis stuff) Loreena McKennitt (you people amaze me) Billie Holiday (good going Al) Sara Brightman Frank Sinatra (got to see him once) Tony Bennet Ray Orbison (one of the purest voices we've had) and Joni Mitchell These are all such wonderfully gifted artists that, along with all the other candidates, will make us hard pressed to narrow the field to ten. What it may come down to is separating the 'good and talented' from the 'unique and original'. If that is the criteria then perhaps ones such Sarah, Tony and Frank will not make the final, whilst not diminishing their prestige in this more narrow competition. I can't argue against the quality of any of these choices. Of course Janis Joplin is unique and original. And along with Leadbelly you gotta mention Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters. Bill Medley and Lou Rawls remind me a bit of the talent displayed by Roger Whitaker - mellow deep and wonderful - but maybe not as unique as some of the others. My daughter loves Chris Isaak, but his personality detracts from his appeal for me. 'Still a great voice. 'Good considerations all.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 1, 2006 2:38:36 GMT
P.S. Tori Amos (how could I forget her?) and Ian Gillan (the best scream). How do you do that quote thing? Michael
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 1, 2006 14:16:26 GMT
Kate Bush (of course! 4 octaves, come on) Are you sure about this? If you are, then for how long did she have a 4-octave range? Kate's voice changed considerably by Never for Ever and I doubt she's had a 4 octave range (assuming for the moment she ever did) at any time after the release of the first two albums. I had considered including Kate on my list but since I consider her voice to have become less unique after the initial releases I didn't. And I want to say - I'm not saying her voice became less interesting, or am in any way making a negative remark about her singing other than for commenting that she couldn't (didn't anyway) hit the girlish high notes of TKI and Lionheart on any of the subsequent albums - or did she? First, before I forget - michael, you asked somewhere about what "Under Ice" means - it is simply is a representation of the number of posts you've made on the board. When you reach a certain amount (50 I believe, though perhaps it's a hundred,) your "under ice" label will change to a different Kate inspired label, and so on.) ha well now I notice I have it appearing last... There is a "quote" tab at the top of all messages. If you want to include the message you're responding to in the body of your message then click the Quote tab rather than the Reply tab.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 1, 2006 15:22:08 GMT
Kate Bush (of course! 4 octaves, come on) Are you sure about this? If you are, then for how long did she have a 4-octave range? Kate's voice changed considerably by Never for Ever and I doubt she's had a 4 octave range (assuming for the moment she ever did) at any time after the release of the first two albums. I've read from more than one source ('will try to find a couple) that Kate indeed has (had?) a 4 octave vocal range. Granted she would sometimes drink milk before recording the lower range notes (a technique to coat the vocal chords for achieving lower notes). But whether she does now or not doesn't really matter to me. It is her writing and delivery that count. I think she abandoned the high notes as a progression of sounding more mature. Why else would she re-record "Wuthering Heights" and shun the existence of the 'Cathy Demos'? I think she wanted to be taken seriously. The 'where's the mouse' comparisons did not help. Also if you wish to comment on portions of the quote - insert this code to stop a quote [ (bracket) / (backslash) quote ] (bracket)...leaving out the words that are parenthetical. To start the quote again use the same code at the beginning of the other person's text except without the / backslash. Again leaving out what I listed in (parenthesis). I can't type in the code verbatim as it will actually 'quote' the previous text that I have posted. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 1, 2006 17:48:36 GMT
^ Regarding her vocal range; Gaffaweb has the most definitive case, with both opinion and source material. Go to "The Dreaming" section (E-2) and read "Her Vocal Range" The link was a bit long. So if you don't look it up I'll assume you don't care anyway. ;D
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 1, 2006 18:47:45 GMT
Also, the title below mentions her 4 octaves in a review of The Red Shoes: Gordon, Bonnie. "Kate Bush's subversive shoes.(Emma Goldman)(Sound Recording Review)." Women & Music 9 (Annual 2005): 37(14). InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale I had heard about the 4 octave range before in other reviews or articles (the few we get over here, perhaps in Rolling Stone) but I had just read this one because I'm doing a term paper on Michael Powell's movie The Red Shoes and I'll be writing about Kate's album. She considers it and Powell himself inspirations. Regardless, it is of course her delivery and style that sets her apart and I was really doing her a disservice by only mentioning that. You just know it's Kate when you hear her, but that also has to do with context...nobody writes like her. ;D. Sorry Al, I was on my way somewhere when I posted my P.S. and couldn't repond. You're right, of course, Medley is smooth (Hatfield is more unique) but I think Rawls' sound is just as recognizable as Whitaker if not more (I love Roger, by the way). As far as the blues, I mentioned Leadbelly because he straddled the fence between folk and blues; his stuff wasn't the typical 1-4-5 progressions. And anyone who spent 20 in prison--part of it at Parchman Farm--and then wound up singing at Carnegie Hall needed to be mentioned. Thanks all Michael
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 1, 2006 22:14:48 GMT
^ Regarding her vocal range; Gaffaweb has the most definitive case, with both opinion and source material. Go to "The Dreaming" section (E-2) and read "Her Vocal Range" The link was a bit long. So if you don't look it up I'll assume you don't care anyway. ;D Did you read the material? It concludes that Kate does not have a 4 octave range - and never did.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 1, 2006 22:27:08 GMT
Are you sure about this? If you are, then for how long did she have a 4-octave range? Kate's voice changed considerably by Never for Ever and I doubt she's had a 4 octave range (assuming for the moment she ever did) at any time after the release of the first two albums. I've read from more than one source ('will try to find a couple) that Kate indeed has (had?) a 4 octave vocal range. Granted she would sometimes drink milk before recording the lower range notes (a technique to coat the vocal chords for achieving lower notes). But whether she does now or not doesn't really matter to me. It is her writing and delivery that count. What does writing and delivery have to do with "most unique voice?" If you're saying here that her voice changed, I agree with you. I've never thought of Kate as being one to go out of her way in an effort (sustained effort in this scenario) to change her music in an attempt to win public approval. I'm not sure though that this is actually what you're saying... As for the "where's the mouse" - Wuthering Heights was never a screaching song. EDIT: and if she did want to suddenly be taken "seriously" she should have recorded a new version of WH that was actually superior to the original.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 1, 2006 23:05:12 GMT
^ Regarding her vocal range; Gaffaweb has the most definitive case, with both opinion and source material. Go to "The Dreaming" section (E-2) and read "Her Vocal Range" The link was a bit long. So if you don't look it up I'll assume you don't care anyway. ;D Did you read the material? It concludes that Kate does not have a 4 octave range - and never did. Yes I had read it before and had remembered the 'milk reference' It was only concluded that she could reach four octives with 'falsetto' (if includes as part of her normal voice - which it is not) and recording technique. I don't remember claiming that she did after I posted the link. The conclusions and reading are up to the viewer.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 1, 2006 23:19:16 GMT
I've read from more than one source ('will try to find a couple) that Kate indeed has (had?) a 4 octave vocal range. Granted she would sometimes drink milk before recording the lower range notes (a technique to coat the vocal chords for achieving lower notes). But whether she does now or not doesn't really matter to me. It is her writing and delivery that count. What does writing and delivery have to do with "most unique voice?" Nothing. I wasn't trying to tie those points together. It was only an observation. (even though delivery could make an artist unique) Moreover, I had my doubts about the range of octives to some degree anyway. As has been pointed out, several sources do make the claim - however erroneous they may be. My only point was whether she does or not I don't really care. I just like her music and all the elements that enhance it. Not to win public approval - to please herself. She has discouraged distribution or release of the 'Demos' and she did re record 'Wuthering Heights' So I'm assuming she wanted to change her style to a more mature sound. The mouse comment was from Tori Amos. It was echoed by others. Wheter or not it had an impact - only Kate knows. Her smoking probably would not affect her voice so early in her career. So I think she wanted to tone down her delivery. (IMHO) and BTW I think the new WH is superior.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 2, 2006 0:56:58 GMT
Okay, everyone, I didn't mean to start anything with my (admittedly flippant) comment. I had just read the article I mentioned and the range came to mind. What we have here, I think, is a very interesting discussion on "voice." What sets apart those artists we believe to be unique? Is it just timber? Is it timber plus phrasing (Sinatra was the master at phrasing yet singers who write can phrase things the way they feel them). Or is it part these and part vision? A lot of folks included instumentalists in this debate because they played with vision (and I would consider Hendrix and Miles Davis as those with the most unique instrumental voices); while there are others (and I believe my admiration for Kates "voice" is based partly on her artistic ambition) who believe that the writing and concept are just as important as the vocals themselves (see the discussions on Dylan; he would never be considered except for the fact that he sang his songs. However, his voice is recognizable). So, Al, we're probably going to have to continue the discussion until we define what resonates with us and what we mean by a unique voice (I just remembered that Streisand wasn't included . . .now there's a voice. But was it as unique as say . . .Satchmo?) Anyway, great discussion. You guys are making my day(s). Michael
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 2, 2006 2:10:38 GMT
Criteria: UNIQUE: Sole Unequaled Strange Unusual Peculiar Distinguished. ....'A voice that has unmistakable characteristics that are not contrived - that are not affectations or trickery - and that communicate on many levels. The tone pitch depth or soul are all factors only inasmuch as they combine to make the voice DIFFERENT yet good. Since it's my thread. then please use these considerations in your nominations, discussions and for voting.
|
|
|
Post by Adey on Jul 2, 2006 4:16:13 GMT
Timbre certainly is one important element of what makes a unique voice, as is phrasing (and particularly the use of space). Some of the most unique voices I've heard were technically very poor as far as I can see. Take Billie Holiday, who was actually out of tune a lot of the time. Bob Dylan's nasal 'head' voice is also particularly distinctive.
Voice training is undeniably important, but it can so often lead to a homogenous sound with all of the individuality ripped out. I would suggest that only another trained opera singer/devotee could consistently identify Pavrotti against Domingo and so on. It's a fine line - Sarah Brightman's exquisite voice is highly technical through training, but retains much of it's individuality..
Actually, I think it's true of instrumental musicians too. Excessive training can force a player into a box that's hard to break out of. Rick Wakeman could no doubt effortlessly knock the stuffing out of the self taught Billy (Ultravox) Currie, but the latter is immediately recognisable. Wakeman and Emerson in full flight virtuousity mode are all but indistinguishable. Or if you weren't familiar with their material, could you identify the new wonder guitar heros Steve Vai against Joe Satriani?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 2, 2006 7:32:34 GMT
Did you read the material? It concludes that Kate does not have a 4 octave range - and never did. Yes I had read it before and had remembered the 'milk reference' It was only concluded that she could reach four octives with 'falsetto' (if includes as part of her normal voice - which it is not) and recording technique. I don't remember claiming that she did after I posted the link. The conclusions and reading are up to the viewer. Where in this are you reading that Kate has ever had a four octave range? There are two refernces in the material you pointed me too, one specified and the other unspecified, that says she may have a four octave range. Here is the unspecified one: "I have read or heard (I forget from where, but believed it was a very reliable source at the time) that Kate has a 4 octave range, which is considered quite incredible." Has this swayed your opinion? Here is the specified one (actually, in good form, it's both specified and unspecified): "According to many sources, our beloved Kate has a four octave range. I believe IED once said she exhibits over four octaves on her first four albums, and over three octaves on "Hounds of Love." "IED" later says: "For the record, Kate does not, nor has she ever, had a true "four-octave range". Perhaps with difficulty she could span three octaves and go half way up a fourth--and this is actually about as far as most voices go, even the most agile and athletic. The reason for this kind of hyperbole no doubt stems from Kate's unusually high "working" vocal range, and the fact that she is able to reach a great many of her higher notes either with or without relying on her falsetto." I see no evidence in the material you pointed me to that suggests Kate has ever had a four octave vocal range. The "source material" conversely led to the conclusion that she does not have such a great range.
|
|