|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 2, 2006 8:05:28 GMT
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) A unique singer - yes. A unique voice - absolutely not. Then again, we were addressing different things, and still probably are. Well, I also like her music. My question however was clearly, and simply, addressing the four octave range claim. The material you pointed me to does not claim she has a four octave range. These are two distinct statements. I agree with the second one. EDIT: oh shoot, I mean this current statement "to please herself" is distinct from the "to be taken seriously" statement you previously made. I think that's a rash assumption. Kate is a perfectionist - I don't find it surprising that she would be less than enthusiastic about demos being released. I don't see any need to move to secondary assumptions. Hey, any word yet on when the Areial demos are to be released? OK, two comments: 1. The new vocals version of Wuthering Heights was released in 1986. Who was interviewing Tori in 1986? 2. A 'mouse' reference is commonly used to denote a singer who screeches rather than one who simply sings in a high pitch. I have not heard any of these comments that have been directed toward Kate so really I'm just guessing as to their intent - I too assume it refers to the "tone down" aspect you mention. The original WH, and TKI as a whole, are most decidedly non-screeching productions. OTOH, the Kate album that contains the highest content of screeching is also the one that is the most highly acclaimed - Hounds of Love. no, there is actually a third: The original WH is better.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 2, 2006 9:21:46 GMT
This was written in the following article: Gordon, Bonnie. "Kate Bush's subversive shoes.(Emma Goldman)(Sound Recording Review)." Women & Music 9 (Annual 2005): 37(14). InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale. A key part of Bush's performance is her eerily versatile voice, which has an almost superhuman four-octave range spanning from a deep tenor to an ultrahigh shriek. Craig Tomashoff of People Magazine writes, "The one constant that will both appease the Kate cult and entice new fans is Bush's voice. She coos. She sighs. She seduces. Her soft and sensual vocals have always cast a siren-like spell, and on this outing the magic feels too good to resist." (10) Her recording engineer, Del Palmer, describes her "unique vocal style with its breathy delivery and haunting presence as being in a constant state of flux, changing and developing with each album so that she is especially hard to pin down." (11) She consistently uses voice ranges that stand outside the norms of pop music, embracing the discordant noise usually reserved for punk sounds, and she uses technology to accentuate the sounds of making that voice--breathing, shifts in vocal range, and grunting. Bush's especially versatile voice, coupled with her facility with technology, aligns her at least loosely with avant-garde performers such as Cathy Berberian and Diamanda Galas, who do striking things both with their vocal cords and with machines. Berberian's stutters, grunts, cries, and gasps were captured by Luciano Berio in his electronic piece Visage, and more recently Galas has worked extensively with real-time transformations of her own voice. While this is not "proof," it does illustrate that there is a perception that Kate is blessed with a range not available to us mere mortals. And this passage and others argues--which I agree with-- that her technique is only important in how it affects her art (I have the full article on my computer if anyone wants it: mianj@cox.net). It's not her range or her timbre but how she employs it that makes her original. It's not just her sound that makes her distinctive; it's her artistry. And it's never contrived. That's what makes me join a group like this. I hope I haven't overcomplicated things, but Ars Gratia Artis is my motto too. Michael
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 2, 2006 15:00:15 GMT
Nothing. I wasn't trying to tie those points together. It was only an observation. (even though delivery could make an artist unique) A unique singer - yes. A unique voice - absolutely not. Then again, we were addressing different things, and still probably are. Apparently we are. However the 1st (preferred) definition of voice according to Webster is "Sound produced by vertebrates through lungs and larynx; especially by human beings" Not that your definition is lost on my concept for this thread, because I surely will lean toward candidates that have the voice you mean - that is 'something to say that has had influence' But this whole thread started by me listening to "Steam" by Gabriel. It was his remarkable voice that made me ask the question. It does however address the controversy of the legendary - oft quoted "4-octave range" They dance around and go from 2-octave assertions to close to four - to praising her adventurous melodies etc. Andrew Marvick, a reliable source on Kate Bush, makes the most lenient assessment of Ms Bush's range. Also some of the testing that had Kate limited to a 2 octave range was , later in the thread, dismissed as incomplete in it's analysis of Kate Bush's entire catalog. To be fair, and also to put this to bed, there have been lofty claims about her vocal athletics, and the source I quote addresses them. They do not support a full 4-octave range yet they dance around it and praise her fearless melodies and abilities nonetheless. I suggest you read it again, as I just have : HEREJesus, Kevin. Cut me some slack. As I've said, it is only my opinion that she scaled back the high notes - and may be I don't even mean 'high notes; per se. More the 'girlish delivery' that would have to become affectation to continue as her style.... I'm sure she could have continued the falsetto and lilting much further into her career than she did. But she didn't did she? I don't believe her voice changed to the point that she was no longer able to fly as high. But remember, much of her work based on the Cathy demos were written when she was very young. Not only did her voice mature some, her approach to writing (IMO) probably matured as well. She may have felt that she sounded like a little girl. Her style of delivery on live performances of "Feel It" and "Under the Ivy" for examples lowered in tone only by delivery not for lack of being able to reproduce the pitch in the original recorded versions. Oh, BTW - she IS a perfectionist. AND the new version of WH IS better. ;D EDIT: And thanks Michael for the other sources you posted.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Jul 4, 2006 8:12:40 GMT
Al wrote:
You said you considered this material to be the most definitive statement on Kate's vocal range. The only definitive statement the material reached (and did so on numerous occassions) is that she does not have a four octave range. If I have missed the deinitive statement(s) that Kate does have a four octave range please copy it here for me. I have read through the material numerous times (including just now) so it's not like I'm being lazy; it's like I'm saying it's simply not to be found there.
The recent inclusion of the two octave range comment is irrelevant since I haven't been arguing that she is limited to two octaves.
Ok fine and I'm tired of this as well. My point, just to mention it, is not that Kate does not have a four octave range (she doesn't, but that's not my point) but that the material you pointed me to clearly says that after study it was determined (rightly or wrongly) that Kate does not have a four octave range.
Is not. ;D
I'll reply to it here rather than in a separate post: Is it a "source" or is it more speculation? Kate's "deep tenor" is quite the remark. I didn't notice in the presented material the songs that are said to display this claimed four octave range.
|
|