I know this rant is out of the blue (publicly speaking of course), but I just had nothing better to do hehehe.<\/p>\n
I’ve always had to debate with myself the proper way to “interpret” music for performance\/recording. While I understand the need to be in a “comfort-zone” because of time constraints (and oftentimes simple narrow-mindedness), I can’t help but be frustrated with how some people deal with their “music.” – especially if its something I’m a part of.<\/p>\n
Sometimes you want to contribute your ideas, but know beyond a doubt<\/strong> (in fact it was already proven once or twice) that they are too “aged” to listen to your input… I guess the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” (unless the dog is a “hip” and “updated” fellow)<\/p>\n I would just want to set my mind at ease – by claiming that I definitely<\/strong> can make things better… if allowed to.<\/em> And all my friends who really<\/em> know me [musically] had constantly been on my case saying “why don’t you exert yourself?,”<\/em> or “you’re right… why don’t you speak up?”<\/em><\/p>\n While I do appreciate their sentiments and support, I just can’t<\/em> because I’m not the type who’d “force the issue.” For something to work, everyone must agree with it. If I do something better, but people don’t appreciate the methods I used to achieve them (if it gets political for example) – I consider that a waste of time.<\/strong> What’s important for me is growth for everyone… not<\/em> a chance to be condescending and say “I told you so!”<\/p>\n If my help is not asked for (‘cuz I remember offering it already ages ago<\/em>), then I simply won’t go out of my way to give it to the unappreciative.<\/p>\n A friend of mine who’s definitely has influence in the music whole scene (or at least cannot be denied that he knows what he’s talking about) share my sentiments. Which is great since I never studied music – so I never knew if it was just a personal thing in my part or a real valid argument.<\/p>\n\n Basta if ang defense ko sa opinion ko in context of my The Holy Grail<\/em> of recording technology nowadays<\/strong> is to enable us to prefectly document<\/em> a performance and only then<\/strong> enable us to refine\/improve it should the need arise.<\/strong><\/p>\n So if you are singing rounder,<\/em> you are essentially trying to EQ yourselves… which is stupid. Because the whole first half of the equation is precisely the equipment trying to pick up whatever you deem to be beautiful per se.<\/em><\/p>\n ‘wa nang “in the context-in the context of”<\/p>\n So kung sa studio pa lang eh tunog kweba na ang tunog ng singing tunog kweba pa rin yon sa loob ng mix at sakit lang sa ulo sa engineer who’d TRY to save it by bringing back the normal human singing voice – if that makes sense.<\/p>\n Kung galing naman sa choral experience ko ang aking defense for my opinion:<\/p>\n It is insulting to the whole choral tradition for one to believe that, by singing rounder,<\/em> you will have achieved the choral sound already.<\/strong><\/p>\n My sentiments exactly… the song<\/strong> or arrangement defines a song\/genre, the sound<\/em> is just secondary (and never should’ve been the case in the first place).<\/p>\n To sing a Kundiman,<\/em> you don’t need a low deep voice (though it does help). You’d be retarded to even think that the singing style is what defines those types of songs.<\/p>\n Don’t believe me? How about Sting’s take on standards? He sings them with his natural singing voice – the same way he would sing his own Pop\/Jazz songs… the same way he sung during his rock days with The Police. Same goes with the former boyband member Robbie Williams, same with any other artist who’s ever tried “crossing over.”<\/p>\n So obviously, the music<\/strong> makes a song\/genre… and in addition to that: the interpretation<\/em> makes it successful\/lousy.<\/p>\n That’s where all this We should sound like this<\/em> crap is coming from. If you’re trying to copy a sound, then you’re taking the easy way out… plus you’re not being true to yourselves. Cowardice<\/em> is what I would call it. As if the world hasn’t had enough of the same sound everyone keeps on doing. What people don’t realize is the very reason why Sting et all were successful is because they sang well and their interpretation was good – and of course the songs themselves<\/em> were good. Them having\/lacking a “crooner” voice had nothing to do with it.<\/p>\n If anyone can’t<\/strong> understand that, then I’ll respect their opinion… I just hope they also respect me thinking they’re not worth discussing Music with.<\/p>\n PS. Though most of the post was about singing, my actual beef is with the instrumentation. I can’t do better per se,<\/em> but I can certainly make them sound better.<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I know this rant is out of the blue (publicly speaking of course), but I just had nothing better to do hehehe. I’ve always had to debate with myself the proper way to “interpret” music for performance\/recording. While I understand the need to be in a “comfort-zone” because of time constraints (and oftentimes simple narrow-mindedness), … \n
<insert prominent music school here><\/code> education – this is how id say it:<\/p>\nwebmasters note: The more articulate term would probably be to FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE the source. A also emphasized \"nowadays\" since, like any other sure thing in the world; things CHANGE. It would be wise to at least be open to change.<\/code><\/p>\nwebmaster's note: this is simply him confirming that NOBODY needs to CHANGE their voice DRASTICALLY to fit a song\/genre (more proof on this later). Which has been the bane of choral singing nowadays; you should DEVELOP your voice to be the best it can be (if it changes in the process, so be it) but you should never INTENTIONALLY ALTER it.<\/code><\/p>\nwebmaster's note: Indeed it does.<\/code><\/p>\nwebmaster's note: These are the words of an influential member of a REALLY respectable CHORAL group<\/code><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n