Up and running!

[Craazyforadam]

Would like to drop a few discussion points into the vocal thread that I have come across over the last few weeks, and see where the discussion leads us:

a) Identification of Adam as a Tenore Leggiero. Obviously, this has been stated and repeated since 2009, so it seems like a bit of a sacrilege to question it, but I have to say that I was never quite at ease with this classification. Adam does not sound like Caruso, and not only because he has left his classical training roots behind, but he never did. He did not sound like Caruso when he sang Brigadoon, imo. He never did.

I always felt that Adam was vocally outside of all the boxes that have so heavy-handedly been thrown over what is the multitude of male tenor voices. None of the boxes seemed to fit, and given that Adam very much wants to be outside of boxes in more ways than one, I have not dug further, but rather left it at that.

What brings me back around to looking at this topic, is that all of a sudden we have so many singers, especially in Asia, who display vocal qualities that can very much be compared to Adams, and who all seem to have a few things in common: They are all well trained but lighter tenor voices, they have solid breath control, can sing very high, but can produce a few warm baritone sounding notes as well. They firmly stay in the pop world, where they are allowed to explore their chest head mix voices more generously, and they have a marked desire to take their voices up (without pushing), and use both a more icy sounding mix voice, as well as a clear and pearly and beautiful type head voice. They are also known to not employ too much falsetto, which is what other tenors will employ to sing high.

None of this fits with the classical Caruso style singing of the tenore leggiero in my opinion. Yet it clearly exists, and it is not just Adam. There are so many flocking into this music style now that I am inclined to say that Adam may have opened the flood gates and allowed many younger artists to explore this style of vocals, if they are naturally inclined in that direction, whereas in former generations, pre-Adam, they were systemically trained out of that vocal sound and turned into other forms of tenor voices with obviously harmful results for their vocal careers.

We are just lacking a term for this vocal type, so far. Now I recently came across the following article in Wikipeda, and now I want to know more. The article is clearly written by a non-native speaker and so you have to read some of the sentences a few times to understand what he/she is saying, but I have never heard the term tenore contraltino used before, and none of the other terms from this article either, but I find the article fascinating, especially in its message that there was an additional tenor type, which just got out of fashion in the romantic era and the knowledge got lost. Obviously, Adam's type of tenor is rare, and without the communication and recording means of today, where you can get music from Korea at an instant, such comparison would not be possible. So everybody tends to describe their unique experience in a slightly different way, using the vocabulary available in music circles. And the fact that this is its own style seems to have gotten lost in the mix.

Question, reading this article, do you think that what is described here fits Adam?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenore_contraltino

b)I had mentioned that so many young artists, especially in Asia are coming forward and demonstrating examples for this vocal style, as if a taboo were finally lifted.

I am dropping just a few examples here, but there are tons more where this comes from. But I want to rather end this here, and hear what you guys think about all this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CSUay0Tl0Y

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6zWBZQAq-c

And for a non-Asian one: He still a kid, but he even looks like Adam, lol:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=syGwoFVixQM

Alright, hitting the 'send' button now. Will see what peeps here think about all this.

[csquared]

I know absolutely nothing and can't listen to the videos at the moment, and I skimmed the article... But I do know that to me, Adam's high notes in a "head voice" sure beat any of his falsetto that we've heard, by miles (i.e., in strength and pitch). Does this have anything to do with what you're suggesting about his vocal classification?

[Craazyforadam]

well, the observation that his head voice and his mix voice is what is interesting, and what he most heavily uses, is one part of that observation, like one of many puzzle pieces, which are ultimately revealing a more complete picture.

But I think there are enough puzzle pieces available now, that I am drawn into a different direction than just joining the generally perceived notion of tenore leggiere. Obviously, I am aware that I am saying something different than many much more informed people before me, so I am just throwing it out there for discussion.

But occasionally people tend to use available concepts to explain something, until multiple observations of a certain kind lead you to believe that there is a missing category, and that is a bit where I am.

[marionm]

Apr 25, 2016 20:14:44 GMT -5 cassie said:

(Copying this over from the daily thread for archive purposes.)

Regarding the YT comparing vocal ranges:

FYI, a few of the pitch identifications are wrong. Not that it matters overall.

The point of the video is...... what? Who can groan, fry, sing, squeal the highest and lowest pitch, regardless of how it sounds, how controlled it is, whether it is full voice, head voice, or falsetto?

The fact is that in the classical genre, the scope of one's vocal range is not a criterion for how good the singer is. The range of one's modal voice (chest, mixed and head) helps to determine what type of voice one has, and what repertoire one can sing convincingly and well. Classical voice aficionados consider "usable range", which is the notes one can reliably, confidently, and repeatedly sing in performance, usually without relying on amplification. But, a singer with a greater usable range is not automatically the better singer.

In classical singing, a "great" voice is judged by
*the quality of its tone (purity, richness, roundness, resonance, fullness),
*the flexibility and agility in singing complicated, fast, ranging runs and riffs,
*the consistency of the tone from low to high, loud to soft, chest to head (no breaks in between, or weak spots),
*the sustainability,
*the ability to change the tone, weight and vibrato to fit the song and style,
*the ability to project the voice
*the consistency of the performances from night to night, venue to venue, repertoire to repertoire

Additionally, a "great" singer is one who is able to artistically portray emotional content thru their voice and evoke emotions from the audience, with their phrasing, use of appropriate tone/register, articulation, color, weight, volume, tempo and overall interpretation.

A singer with a two octave range who demonstrates the above things consistently would be considered "greater" than a singer with a three octave range who cannot. This video is a curiosity to me, but not in anyway a measure of the singers.

I don't have any idea how pop singers evaluate "great" pop singers.


PART 2: I forgot to mention that comparing ranges between singers with different types of voices makes no more sense than comparing how fast sprinters can run vs. marathon runners. Or how far. It is similar to comparing a baritone to a soprano.

I'm surprised that intonation isn't (first) on the list, or is that such a given that there is no need to mention it?

As you've pointed out it's hard to determine a great singer. There are too many criteria and tastes. Some more measurable than others, others completely a matter of taste.

I've always wondered what about a voice can be trained, and what is a given? (If that has already been discussed in the previous almost 100 pages point me to it)
as I take it: the color/sound of the voice is given and so is the range, both only trainable to a certain degree.
intonation can be practiced (with more or less amount of exercise needed)

but what about the power of the voice? Isn't that also a given? (to a certain degree again) One can train their support-muscles (I'm sure there a more professional term for what I mean) but it just won't sound as strong as another singer with more of a voice.

[cassie]

Sept 22, 2017 21:29:25 GMT -5 marionm said:

Apr 25, 2016 20:14:44 GMT -5 cassie said:

(Copying this over from the daily thread for archive purposes.)

Regarding the YT comparing vocal ranges:

FYI, a few of the pitch identifications are wrong. Not that it matters overall.

The point of the video is...... what? Who can groan, fry, sing, squeal the highest and lowest pitch, regardless of how it sounds, how controlled it is, whether it is full voice, head voice, or falsetto?

The fact is that in the classical genre, the scope of one's vocal range is not a criterion for how good the singer is. The range of one's modal voice (chest, mixed and head) helps to determine what type of voice one has, and what repertoire one can sing convincingly and well. Classical voice aficionados consider "usable range", which is the notes one can reliably, confidently, and repeatedly sing in performance, usually without relying on amplification. But, a singer with a greater usable range is not automatically the better singer.

In classical singing, a "great" voice is judged by
*the quality of its tone (purity, richness, roundness, resonance, fullness),
*the flexibility and agility in singing complicated, fast, ranging runs and riffs,
*the consistency of the tone from low to high, loud to soft, chest to head (no breaks in between, or weak spots),
*the sustainability,
*the ability to change the tone, weight and vibrato to fit the song and style,
*the ability to project the voice
*the consistency of the performances from night to night, venue to venue, repertoire to repertoire

Additionally, a "great" singer is one who is able to artistically portray emotional content thru their voice and evoke emotions from the audience, with their phrasing, use of appropriate tone/register, articulation, color, weight, volume, tempo and overall interpretation.

A singer with a two octave range who demonstrates the above things consistently would be considered "greater" than a singer with a three octave range who cannot. This video is a curiosity to me, but not in anyway a measure of the singers.

I don't have any idea how pop singers evaluate "great" pop singers.


PART 2: I forgot to mention that comparing ranges between singers with different types of voices makes no more sense than comparing how fast sprinters can run vs. marathon runners. Or how far. It is similar to comparing a baritone to a soprano.

I'm surprised that intonation isn't (first) on the list, or is that such a given that there is no need to mention it?

As you've pointed out it's hard to determine a great singer. There are too many criteria and tastes. Some more measurable than others, others completely a matter of taste.

I've always wondered what about a voice can be trained, and what is a given? (If that has already been discussed in the previous almost 100 pages point me to it)
as I take it: the color/sound of the voice is given and so is the range, both only trainable to a certain degree.
intonation can be practiced (with more or less amount of exercise needed)

but what about the power of the voice? Isn't that also a given? (to a certain degree again) One can train their support-muscles (I'm sure there a more professional term for what I mean) but it just won't sound as strong as another singer with more of a voice.

Very good points and questions. I did not include intonation because, yes, it is a given. There is no career for a classical singer who does not sing on pitch. Period. 

Can intonation be taught? Maybe. Depends. If the aspiring singer cannot hear when they are off pitch, they cannot correct it. To a certain degree a person can train to have a better, more refined sense of pitch, but it is also to a great degree, innate. 

If the singer can hear when they are off, then the error is probably due to improper technique and support, which can be corrected thru training and practice.... lots of practice. 

As to the question of what can be trained and what is a given, the singer's anatomy and physiology ultimately determine or limit the color/tone and range of the voice. However, the singer's ability to USE their body to create the sound is determined by training, technique and practice. To use a sports analogy, a man who is 5'2" may desperately want to be a professional basketball player, and may train and practice for 8 hours a day, but in all probability will never make it to a pro team. Conversely, a man who is 6'10" has a great start at becoming a pro, but still has to train and practice for many years, and study with excellent coaches in order to have a chance at a career as a pro. Then, he still has to have the intellectual understanding of the nuances of the game play, working with a team, and performing in high pressure situations. 

As for vocal power or size, that is also a combination of physiology and technique. 

Adam is an example of the perfect storm: he has a one in a million physiology that has the capability of creating tones, colors, resonance and range which are extraordinary. He has had exceptional coaches and teachers shaping and refining him for maximum growth and development. He has pursued training in a variety of genres and techniques. He has the passion and the drive to dedicate himself to studying music, performance, and interpretation, plus the single-mindedness to devote hours and years to honing his craft. And the stubbornness to persevere.

As to what in all this makes a "great" singer, I would agree that it is somewhat a matter of personal preference. What type of sound or tone do you as a listener enjoy? What style of music? But, at least in the arena of classically trained singers, I think there are definite criteria for greatness that are commonly agreed upon, separate from personal taste. As for pop or rock or metal, I wouldn't know.  

[marionm]

I'm asking because on of my vocal teachers said that some students need more time to even just get the pitch of one phrase right. My intonation has been not bad from the beginning. I still feel my hearing has gotten better. My struggle was that I could easily reproduce a note someone gave to me vocally, from the piano not so much. Luckily only 20 minutes of giving myself notes on the piano and reproducing them already improved my pitch, it got more precise.
Those two things let me put intonation in the box of trainable, for some more innate yes, it comes to them easy and for others it's hard hard work.

[mszue]

Wow...it took a bit to find this page! Not sure why it was so difficult Likely just me.

So...somewhat different topic but I do not know where else it would go...and dare not put it on the main page! Yikes!. There is a lot of discussion re Adam and why he seems not able to crack the 'upper echelon's' of the pop world and I wonder if one part of his problem is that he cannot truly write his own music because he cannot write and play music... He is an amazing singer and performer but he never had the patience and took the time to learn music theory and play the piano beyond the very basics...I have gone on a small search and cannot find a song writer who does not play keyboards/piano....though no doubt there are some guitarists who have .....even they likely had a few years of music theory thrown in there somewhere.

Do you think one can seriously write their own music if they don't know how to compose? You may come up with a partial melody line but would not be able to expand on it...or perhaps even replicate it after any amount of time....Is that not like asking an author to write a book if they do not know how to 'write'...they can verbally add a few thoughts or details, but just cannot do the whole thing. Or a singer to perform demanding music like much of Queen's without knowing how to breath properly. I checked it out....every member of Queen could/can also play keyboards...

I wonder if he ever wishes he had been more diligent at the time he took first piano lessons...and if he every considers taking them now...if he really put his mind to it, he could learn what he needs pretty quickly...he already knows a tremendous amount that would connect lots of dots...any comments? Or do I get chased out of here to hid behind the blue couch.....?

[marionm]

mszue Michael Jackson didn't play an instrument and I think he was even less of a songwriter than Adam if I my memory doesn`t fail me...and I think quite a few big mega stars don't wright their own music. I'm not very well informed about them but how much of their own music do Rihanna, Beyoncé, Britney Spears, Ariana Grande write?...
Justin Bieber didn't write his own music at first obviously. With his second album he slowly started into it.

Of course there are alot of other examples (Pink, Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga, Ed Sheeran)

I think Adam has quite some knowledge in music-theory and yes, I too think that Adam could pick up a instrument in no time, if he wanted to, given his previous experience. When he introduced his drummer I think on the We are Glamily tour, Isaac I think, he once took a drum stick and it was perfect timing.

[rihannsu]

None of the members of U2 had very much in the way of formal music training. Bono the singer was in choir in school. Edge, the guitarist didn't take lesson but he and his older brother built a guitar. Adam, the bass player, bought a bass because he thought it would look cool and help him get girls. Larry, the drummer was in a marching band but although he took some lessons he didn't really pay attention and never practiced what he was supposed to. He still to this day does not like to call himself a professional drummer but just says he likes to hit things. None of them could play other peoples music for shit so they wrote their own. Many years into their career when Edge mentioned wanting to learn to read and write music notation to a member of the famous Irish band the Chieftans the guy said "Don't you dare, I'll break both your arms." He felt that U2's music is what it is precisely because they lacked any formal music training whatsoever.

[cassie]

I would think that most people who listen to and buy pop music today have no idea if a song is written by the singer, nor do they care. That seems to be a concern only for invested fans. I don't think it is a prerequisite to becoming a mega star. However, having your name as a writer/co-writer makes the song more profitable for the singer.

The singer/songwriter tradition seems to be a trend in pop, rock and country in the past half century. Earlier, most of the great singers did not write their own songs. Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Nat King Cole, Barbra Streisand...... none were composers. And, of course, in classical music, performers and composers were almost totally separate.

As to Adam learning an instrument, he is highly musical and intelligent. He has a very fine ear. I have no doubt that if he wanted to, he could learn to play an instrument and read music. But, why would he? He is a virtuoso vocalist already. One of the best in the world. He has devoted years to his craft, and continues to hone and practice it. It would take many years and countless hours to become as proficient on an instrument as he is with his voice. What would be the point? When he can hire and work with the best instrumentalists in the business right now.

Michael Jordan is widely considered one of the best players basketball has ever produced. When he first retired, he thought he could transfer his athletic skills to baseball and become a major league star. Yeah, that didn't work out for him.

I just don't see Adam devoting his life to playing an instrument when he is so perfect as a frontman and lead vocalist.