halloweenjack95
Vocal Expert
Offline
Posts: 293
Likes: 214
Join Date: October 2019
Favourite singer: David Bowie
|
Post by halloweenjack95 on Jun 11, 2024 19:47:56 GMT
I'm new here but have been here before. But is that B1 really solid? The lowest melodic note I thought I'd heard was the C#2 in I Feel Free, that sounds like it was recorded in the morning (after years of smoking 60 a day). Bowie always defaulted to baseline D2s before. In speaking before song vocals. In interviews throughout the 70s-80s, I can hear frequently landing onto D2 tone wise... I really just don't see this guy singing a melodic B1 without any vocal fry whatsoever, he's a mid-high baritone. I think the C2 in Sweet Thing is more countable. Then, anything's possible if the tenor Paul Mccartney can sing a solid A1. But if I'm mistaken oh well. If this post offends please delete. salutations. Well that Paul McCartney A1 is definitely one kind of studio thing. With enough prep time etc. While Bowie's B1 isn't the best low note you'll ever hear from a baritone he was still capable of singing in that area tho. |
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Jun 12, 2024 18:30:07 GMT
I don't doubt he could sing down there. I thought I hear him speak a solid A1 from a 2002 'Heathen' era interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Homelander on Jun 12, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
It's pretty audible to me. Ok, listening again, I do hear it. It's a very heavy low note, so I actually wouldn't mind it being bolded. The timestamp started way too early, so maybe that's what threw me off the first time, lol. |
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Jun 19, 2024 16:20:38 GMT
To be honest. I still think the 'Right' D5s are Bowie; but I suppose it could be the backing singers. Those D5s sound like him reaching, high on coke, of course.
|
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Jul 1, 2024 17:46:01 GMT
I think there is a spoken D2 in 'Future Legend'. youtu.be/y9fbbMkYF8k?t=25 Countable or not though? Idk, sounds strong but it isn't singing so obviously ain't melodic. |
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Jul 7, 2024 12:23:14 GMT
|
|
hillaryh
Vocal Beginner
Offline
Posts: 2
Likes: 2
Join Date: September 2023
|
Post by hillaryh on Sept 26, 2024 20:32:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Sept 27, 2024 1:45:31 GMT
Hi Hilary! The Gemini Spaceship note/s are listed in the first Spoiler under the list in the OP (this Spoiler is 'Questionable Notes' and there's a legend as to how to read the list). There is both G1 and C#1 counted there, from that track, as too short to be counted. It is the case that hte use of hte word Anacrusis is completely incorrect there, however. |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Sept 27, 2024 18:52:58 GMT
It is the case that hte use of hte word Anacrusis is completely incorrect there, however. The notes are labeled as [1] which states: [1] marks yelps and short trills in high range or anacrusis and short dips in low range. I assume [1] refers to "short dips in low range" in this case, though [5] might be better as it seems uncountable due to the fry quality rather than length (I'm not sure about it getting as low as the listed C#1 though). I think the label for [1] would be better worded with "insignificant anacrusis" as anacrusis isn't always (or even typically?) uncountable, which might have been what you were referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Sept 29, 2024 19:38:13 GMT
It is the case that hte use of hte word Anacrusis is completely incorrect there, however. The notes are labeled as [1] which states: [1] marks yelps and short trills in high range or anacrusis and short dips in low range. I assume [1] refers to "short dips in low range" in this case, though [5] might be better as it seems uncountable due to the fry quality rather than length (I'm not sure about it getting as low as the listed C#1 though). I think the label for [1] would be better worded with "insignificant anacrusis" as anacrusis isn't always (or even typically?) uncountable, which might have been what you were referring to. No, not at all. The of 'anacrusis' here is completely erroneous and makes no sense. An anacrusis is a one, or two beat precedent phrase essentially relaying the final beat or two of a phrase, prior to actually introducing the phrase. It is not some stand alone "short note" or something. It's a fairly specific musical tool which, the use on this forum does not come close to. It has nothing to do with countability of vocals. It's something written on stave music. |
|
|
|
Post by avi on Sept 30, 2024 2:53:57 GMT
It.. kinda does? I agree that we kinda use an approximation of the word anacrusis, but I do think we've broadly agreed that anacrusis is generally uncountable simply due to insignificance to the overall melody. There are always exceptions, but I do think that a lot of the time, at least by our forum's understanding, listing something as anacrusis is good enough shorthand for why it shouldn't be counted.
That said, if it's not connected to a passage, it shouldn't be considered anacrusis imo. It can be uncountable for similar reasons - insignificance to melody, lack of tone, lack of sustain, etc - but there should be some distinction or at least disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Sept 30, 2024 18:56:03 GMT
It.. kinda does? I agree that we kinda use an approximation of the word anacrusis, but I do think we've broadly agreed that anacrusis is generally uncountable simply due to insignificance to the overall melody. There are always exceptions, but I do think that a lot of the time, at least by our forum's understanding, listing something as anacrusis is good enough shorthand for why it shouldn't be counted. That said, if it's not connected to a passage, it shouldn't be considered anacrusis imo. It can be uncountable for similar reasons - insignificance to melody, lack of tone, lack of sustain, etc - but there should be some distinction or at least disclaimer. Its a completely incorrect usage, other than applying to something within music. It mainly applies to passages which are not anacrusi. And even where it does apply to an anacrusis, it's not because it's an anacrusis, but because of some other criteria invented by the forum. (its actually a really bizarre misuse, honestly, because it seems obviously someone half-understood the word and thought this was a correct usage). I agree, if everyone agrees to use the word, it has applicability in a bespoke, and ultimately incorrect manner. How it is used on this forum is incorrect. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. |
|
|
|
Post by avi on Sept 30, 2024 21:38:28 GMT
I don't want to get into a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist argument in the Davie Bowie vocal range thread, but arguing that a word's usage is objectively incorrect while admitting that it's being used in a way that is both useful and understood by its audience is probably not a hill you want to die on. Especially when you don't know the "objectively correct" plural for the word you're proclaiming superior knowledge over :P
|
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Sept 30, 2024 23:21:56 GMT
Once again, the "Gemini Spaceship" notes are not listed as anacrusis, just as [1] which has several categories, one of which is "short dips in low range" which is likely the reason it's a [1], though [5] might be more accurate for one or both as quality seems like the reason that no part of that is counted. Nearly every source I read states anacrusis is unstressed syllables placed before a verse, and in use cases it seems to have the same meaning "pick-up notes" and can happen multiple times in a song as unstressed notes placed prior to melody lines. That doesn't limit it to written music, as that's just a quality that music can have regardless if it's written down or not. But I disagree that it should be generally viewed as uncountable. "Happy Birthday" is often given as an example of anacrusis on the first two syllables, but if someone sang the song, in most cases singing the word "happy" to start would be countable anacrusis. More countable anacrusis examples would be Courtney Love's G#2 and Chris Cornell's E2s from "Storm". Uncountable anacrusis would be things with very low pitch intent to them. An example of an uncountable one might be some short notes in Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'", at 0:56, 1:02, 1:41, and 1:46. Jerry Cantrell has so many of these I decided not to list them, I can't link them though cause his stuff is blocked on youtube by SESAC currently. |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 1, 2024 0:35:50 GMT
I don't want to get into a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist argument in the Davie Bowie vocal range thread, but arguing that a word's usage is objectively incorrect while admitting that it's being used in a way that is both useful and understood by its audience is probably not a hill you want to die on. Especially when you don't know the "objectively correct" plural for the word you're proclaiming superior knowledge over :P It 100% is. That something is useful because it's being consistently used incorrectly doesn't create any issues. What is probably far more along those lines, is pretending I couldn't speak on this because I used a fun plural for a cheap shot - the etymology of this word does not lend itself to the prescribed -ses. If i took the word 'melisma' and applied to just any run of notes, whatsoever, it would be wrong, no?? Yes. It would. It is a specialised word which was created to pick out a specific feature of the world with pretty extreme precision. So is Anacrusis. The word is being used wrongly. Not sure why that causes forum users to go into a tailspin. It is wrong. As i've noted elsewhere, I really don't care. If this is how it's being used here, that's fine, but expecting anyone who isn't either ignorant, or experienced in the forum terminology to understand what's being said would be a farce so I've pointed out the fact that it is an incorrect usage. This is not a 'me' problem. motorist and that (pretty much correct) description shows that it's use here is entirely incorrect. Nice. What's worth noting here though, is that it is specifically a musical notation tool. If it's an anacrusis, it's because it would be written in X form. Not because of vibes. Additionally, I didn't intimate these notes were being called anacrusi. I was noting that the description is incorrect. It is. |
|
|
|
Post by Yojojo on Oct 1, 2024 12:28:42 GMT
yesterday i scratched my bum and it felt good
|
|
|
|
Post by Macca on Oct 1, 2024 12:40:37 GMT
yesterday i scratched my bum and it felt good bro who asked?!? |
|
|
|
Post by Yojojo on Oct 1, 2024 13:41:52 GMT
yesterday i scratched my bum and it felt good bro who asked?!? FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, CHIMOTHY! |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Oct 3, 2024 5:22:59 GMT
motorist and that (pretty much correct) description shows that it's use here is entirely incorrect. Nice. What's worth noting here though, is that it is specifically a musical notation tool. If it's an anacrusis, it's because it would be written in X form. Not because of vibes. Additionally, I didn't intimate these notes were being called anacrusi. I was noting that the description is incorrect. It is. You know what, sure. Even though anacrusis seems more likely to be uncountable than standard phrase notes, it's not the fact that it's anacrusis itself that makes it uncountable and anacrusis isn't even generally uncountable. I might remove the mention of it from threads I've posted. |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 3, 2024 19:06:03 GMT
motorist and that (pretty much correct) description shows that it's use here is entirely incorrect. Nice. What's worth noting here though, is that it is specifically a musical notation tool. If it's an anacrusis, it's because it would be written in X form. Not because of vibes. Additionally, I didn't intimate these notes were being called anacrusi. I was noting that the description is incorrect. It is. You know what, sure. Even though anacrusis seems more likely to be uncountable than standard phrase notes, it's not the fact that it's anacrusis itself that makes it uncountable and anacrusis isn't even generally uncountable. I might remove the mention of it from threads I've posted. For sure. The state of being an anacrusis is literally nothing whatosever to do with countability. It's like saying "if it's on beat 4, its questionable". Its utterly absurd, if the word is used correctly. |
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Oct 28, 2024 14:49:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
StYoseph
Vocal Novice
Offline
So proud of my F#7
Posts: 92
Likes: 42
Join Date: June 2024
Favourite singer: Billy Joel, DIO, Michael Stipe, Roger Daltrey
|
Post by StYoseph on Nov 13, 2024 16:41:06 GMT
I just thought it was a significant observation because Bowie never sang below F2 in the studio takes until 1977.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by IhateMana on Nov 17, 2024 9:21:54 GMT
HELL YEAH HE DOES BORTHER!!!!!!!! GREATEST FUCGGIN INTERVIEWEE TO EVER DO IT!!!! |
|
