logo
 Username:  Password:  
Remember me ( ?)

sir_quirky_k ([info]sir_quirky_k) wrote,
@ 2008-02-05 23:32:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry

Current mood: hopeful
Current music:Kelly Clarkson - Since You've Been Gone
Entry tags:singing

Longing for love and the logical. Mostly the logical.
Various emails were exchanged between me and Helen at the weekend. Highly promising signs as Helen says she understands my concerns about pigeonholing (she's generally classified as a mezzo-soprano - as, indeed, would Gemma - but said she continues to work on range expansion beyond the regular confines of that pigeonhole). In that same email, a statement that sounded deceptively innocent.

'Would you be able to bring something along to sing with you so I can hear you sing something you are comfortable with?'

Of course, I thought. Then ah, all my sheet music is for choirs, that's no bloody good. Then right, to the music shop on Tuesday when it next opens then.

On Monday, I was close to deciding upon something from Wicked, almost certainly I Couldn't Be Happier (read: Elphaba's solo verses from Thank Goodness, cut-and-pasted into a new song for the purposes of the piano-and-voice score so that it stands alone as a solo piece). Whaddya know, the Wicked score has been purchased.

Start looking for alternatives. These seem to fall under four categories.

1. Scores for musical theatre productions I am almost totally unfamiliar with. No bloody good here, though of value when it comes to my own composition perhaps?
2. Audition books aimed at male voices. The median highest note in these appears to be about A4. Recall that this is even above what I produced on January 16.
3. Audition books aimed at female voices. The median highest note in these appears to be about D5, and one in three go down to E3. The songs also seem to be insufferably clichéd and/or not suited to me singing them an octave down.
4. Various album songbooks and compilations of hits recent and otherwise. The same rules about male and female voices apply.

If I'd only nabbed the Breathe In songbook in Weymouth at a knockdown price... oh well.

Ended up gathering thoughts, eventually revisiting after a later lecture (yes, I needed that much time to try and decide), and eventually made the call - it was always going to be an album songbook, it came down to a choice between Let Go and Breakaway. Clarkson won out over Lavigne.

Checking through the book on the bus back... this could not be better. Remember, I presently quote my range as F2-E4 - subject to update tomorrow morning - and will be singing these songs precisely an octave below written pitch.

* Breakaway: G3-D5
* Since You've Been Gone: G3-G5
* Behind These Hazel Eyes: G3-F#5
* Because Of You: G3-E5+
* Gone: A3-C5
* Addicted: F#3-E5-
* Where Is Your Heart: C4-F5
* Walk Away: Bb3-G5
* You Found Me: Bb3-F5-
* I Hate Myself For Losing You: G3-G5
* Hear Me: G3-Eb5^
* Beautiful Disaster: C4-D5^^

^ There is an F5 written in the book, during the final chorus - but it can be ignored as it is effectively backing vocals. Also, the second verse is sung very differently originally, but written as identical to the first in the book. The latter is probably preferable, there might be room for change, and it wouldn't be the first time I've changed the second verse of a Clarkson record. See also: the Clarkson-Lewis method.
^^ As written. Clarkson extrapolates some higher notes in the final chorus on the recording, but these are not written in the book. A bizarre omission, but a welcome one. And now I know why they were missing when this song was performed at the choral concert by Amanda - who is now taking the lead soprano line in the SSAA acapella piece I have written for the next concert.
+ Recorded a semitone higher than written
- Recorded a semitone lower than written

Edited February 7, 2008: in the songbook, three songs are transposed a semitone from the recording, and these are now noted. This'd make a tiny amount of sense if it served to reduce the range required of the album at all - and the change to Addicted does precisely that, turning the F3 into F#3. But... the changes put Because Of You in my range and You Found Me out of it, and there are four songs on the album that go higher than either. Nonsensical, at least on the face of it.

Well, that looks good, doesn't it. Extrapolating my best-case scenario from last month, I can sing every note on the album an octave down. Even being more realistic, there's nothing too low here, and precious little too high - and there's plenty of wiggle room for downward transposition in a couple of cases. (Where Is Your Heart could usefully be transposed a major third down, ditto Walk Away.)

In case I end up acquiring books like this on a regular basis, and I might - the difference in cost between Helen and Shylo for an hourly lesson is roughly the cost of one audition book, and while I won't be buying that many I'm sure this won't be the last - a summary.

Kelly Clarkson - Breakaway
Lowest note: F3
Highest note: G5
Largest range in one song: two octaves
Smallest range in one song: compound major second

Back to Helen. There's value in working through the break. Possibly. Helen's background is in classical training, so expect her to treat this with disdain. Indeed, I was terrified for a while of opting for something so overtly pop, and may defensively insist this is simply for illustrative purposes. Only defensively. Quite honestly, there's only so much of significance here; I'm down to 30-minute lessons for the first time, most of my priority is quantifiable improvement probably best served by technical exercises, Helen knows this, there won't be nearly as much singing-of-songs as I'm used to. That's something now very clearly in my hands. And that is where possessing a deceptively appropriate pop songbook will come in very handy.

Not to mention the idea of a slightly unexpected piano cover of Behind These Hazel Eyes...

The post on Helen's lesson has been added February 7, 2008.



* Nobody's Home (Avril Lavigne): Ab3-Eb5
* My Immortal (Evanescence): A3-C#5
* The Winner Takes It All (ABBA): Ab3-Db5 (no, really, an ABBA song in a range of a compound fourth!)
* Let Me Entertain You (Bert Bills): F3-Ab4
* Dream Catch Me (Newton Faulkner): A2-A4
* About You Now (Sugababes): F#3-G#4 (but the final chorus harmony is missing from the music. Criminal!)
* When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne): B3-D5
* With Every Heartbeat (Robyn): D4-B4 (that has to be the narrowest range a number 1 hit has ever been written in. The opposite distinction is presumably held by some male-sung rock ballad...)
* Worried About Ray (The Hoosiers): G3-C5 (not to put too fine a point on it, but that suits me after a one-octave downward transposition)



(Post a new comment)

Singing for your supper
[info]daweaver
2008-02-08 06:38 pm UTC (link)
Ended up gathering thoughts, eventually revisiting after a later lecture (yes, I needed that much time to try and decide), and eventually made the call - it was always going to be an album songbook, it came down to a choice between Let Go and Breakaway. Clarkson won out over Lavigne.

That feels like a no-lose situation, two of the best pop vocal albums of the decade (so far... do I really need to add that rider with 22½ months to go?)

The Winner Takes It All (ABBA): Ab3-Db5 (no, really, an ABBA song in a range of a compound fourth!)

They know what they're doing, these Swedes, whether working with great vocalists...

* With Every Heartbeat (Robyn): D4-B4 (that has to be the narrowest range a number 1 hit has ever been written in. The opposite distinction is presumably held by some male-sung rock ballad...)

...or ones who hide their very limited range in technical trickery. I would be interested to learn the range of Do they know it's christmas, a song that people had to learn on approximately no rehearsal, and (originally) tended towards male vocalists.

I don't propose to listen to every second of every number one single, not least because the opening minute may well provide the record. Here in my heart, in a version by Al Martino, covers slightly more than three octaves.

* About You Now (Sugababes): F#3-G#4 (but the final chorus harmony is missing from the music. Criminal!)

And, of course, without that harmony, I don't think I'd still be featuring the song. [rolls eyes]

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Singing for your supper
[info]sir_quirky_k
2008-02-08 07:53 pm UTC (link)
That feels like a no-lose situation, two of the best pop vocal albums of the decade (so far... do I really need to add that rider with 22½ months to go?)</q>

How much competition will emerge in that time? Something tells me it won't be that much. (It sure as heck isn't going to be Adele's over-hyped current effort: Chasing Pavements is pleasant, but it really should have earwormed me by now if it were that good. It hasn't.)

They know what they're doing, these Swedes...

Certainly do.

I knew of Here In My Heart as the first number one single ever, and only that. I would be most astounded if anything broke that particular record, and suspect we need only consider the selection of chart-toppers by Queen and perhaps a few other somewhat similar artists. The Darkness never had a number one, did they? (And it's fairly safe to refer to them in the past tense now, which seems slightly wrong somehow.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Singing for your supper
[info]daweaver
2008-02-10 03:31 pm UTC (link)
How much competition will emerge in that time? Something tells me it won't be that much.

On the reckoning that we get about fifteen great pop albums in a decade, probably about three more. Two of those will be people who haven't yet crossed our radar. I very much doubt that any of them will emerge from the BRIT academy, and would propose Adele as a moderately-promising young soul singer, like Lemar circa 2003. Come back after three albums and we'll pass judgement.

I knew of Here In My Heart as the first number one single ever, and only that.

Even in the 1950s, no record spends eight weeks at the top of the chart without having something of a brilliance. (With the possible exception of Shadows' Wonderful land, which I can't recall hearing.) It could be the marketing brilliance of Frankie Goes to the Bank, or the technical brilliance of Queen, or the nursery rhyme of Wings, or even the hook of Gnarls Barkley and Rihanna.

It's inevitable that the song will be re-activated when Mr. Martino passes away; I hope this isn't for many years.

I would be most astounded if anything broke that particular record

Might have to keep looking: the MIDI file suggests (merely) two octaves and six tones. In Mr. Martino's defence, he's clearly singing within his limits, and doesn't break from his rich tenor vocal.

chart-toppers by Queen and perhaps a few other somewhat similar artists.

Mika? M******* who cannot sing?

The Darkness never had a number one, did they? (And it's fairly safe to refer to them in the past tense now, which seems slightly wrong somehow.)

Nope, two number two singles and that's your lot. As for small ranges, the man's remarkable success in Germany reminds me of DJ Ötzi's treatment of Hey baby. If we only consider the chorus as singing (as opposed to speaking), then it's the half-octave or so during I wanna kno-o-ow. Though there is a key-change to consider...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Singing for your supper
[info]sir_quirky_k
2008-02-11 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Yes, one has to concede Umbrella has quite a hook, and that was enough for it to stand out in a truly dire summer for popular music.

Mariargh might be a contender, and here's another; Minnie Riperton. (Lovin' You was a number one, yes?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Singing for your supper
[info]daweaver
2008-02-12 06:38 pm UTC (link)
here's another; Minnie Riperton. (Lovin' You was a number one, yes?)

No. Number 2, kept off the top by Mud's Oh boy and a little ditty called Stand by your man.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


copyright IziBlog.Net © 2008 | View settings | Terms of service