Karaoke Forums

How practical/useful is such a *broad* definition "the lowest to highest note a person can emit from their mouth while singing" in terms of what is a useable and practical singing range assuming realistically the person can utilize or make smooth transitions between a two to three (reasonably strong) octave range in a particular register, with a weak area (or non-existent area) between what becomes a more noticeably limited 'falsetto' range (of perhaps half an octave to an octave or a bit more) ? How is lowest to highest note (they can somehow seem to make) useful as anything beyond the broadest (and essentially useless) definition of their singing range if between the lowest and highest notes there are loads of gaps in useable range, intervals they can't sing, and noticeable signs to MOST the larynx CAN'T realistically sound that great when they are singing ?  What criteria are people using here enabling what most are saying is "singing range" dfferentiating it from very rough broad range ?  Maybe things have REALLY changed,  but I never recall a time when the response to "She's singing out've her range" could be "What are you crazy?  that is ALL her range" !! in a noncomedic non-rhetorical setting.

IS the singers *full* spectrum of notes between lowest to highest sound their useful range ? Is it all useable ?  Can they hit *EVERY* note and jump all intervals between their lowest and highest interval in a practical fashion that honestly or realistically would allow them to boast title to "8 octave" strong, consecutive range, OR money making range, or as the terms *were* called consecutive TRUE range as opposed to broad definition of lowest to highest sound ?  Such a broad generality of "8 octave range" means little to me personally, if it does to some of you, fine.  That aside, definitions change.. theory changes over 30 years in some ways..but heck, if folks wish to argue that using broadest definitions and outside generalities is always less complicated and more accurate than establishing certain foundation principles (that require some theory EITHER way) sobeit. Also, To some here it's Just Karaoke, but get into *useful singing range* and the establishing of this in any given individual are you going to trash SINGING quality ?  You bring it into a different realm where SOME foundation principles and understood definitions are a must IMHO otherwise we speak 10 different languages, and terms become MISLEADING and easily crafted to suit ones OWN purpose.. To some it's Karaoke, to me it'll ALWAYS be singing and music when it gets into aspects of *useful singing range* or "actual" aspects of music, and this is MY opinion.  Whether piano, elementary school theory (that presumably ALL in here can grasp), if it's Music I'm ALWAYS going to try to explain some very rudimentary foundation principles that always do apply because sometimes over-simplification ends up to be MORE confusing.  Especially during this type discussion because without foundation principles there's no discussion or debate in any topic, just this game or mosh that took place.  I'm also not pontificating theory to complete beginners in the "Singing Forum", nor have I ever gotten into ANYTHING beyond basic elementary school music theory in these threads..  People always have had the option of disagreeing.  Terminology changes, what we called consecutive range, useful range, practical range, true register, it doesn't matter, it was understood. Today folks might equate this with money making range,  or useful consecutive range;  Never said thought and terminology of days gone by is anybodies fact TODAY. In fact my last posts in the pulled thread were in agreement with areas at least grounded in what I believe individuals of ALL levels could understand, a sound foundation I could agree with.

Oversimplify by leaving out fundamentals, define nothing,  set no criteria as to whether or not aesthetic quality of notes hit even matters and there's no discussion with substance, How can there be ?  Broadest singing range given extremes isn't practical to me if theres little control, what is the ability besides an outside interval ? Assuming the person has control, unless measured (and by whom) this still needs to be determined and to me ALL that matters is calculating useable singing range of a person in a genre, OR helping a new singer in terms of what YOU believe sounds good subjectively requires calculation, so reverting to "but it's just Karaoke" makes no sense.. Two different areas.. It involves actual singing and calcuation, and if not a practical measurement of the persons ability as a *singer* what's the point ?  What Criteria constitutes "singing range" ?  Extreme interval a person can hit on a particular day ?  Or what conventionally is tolerable for the listener making such a determination of the singers range ?   Going for quality in a more limited range is where *I'd* start !  I have NO idea what anybody elses useful range is in here. This is the internet it's whatever you want it to be AFAIC ! If I've never worked with you, I can't know. Mine is almost 1 1/2 octaves and some other stuff.. My lowest to highest note interval is over 4 octaves. That's NOT useful range.
Again this is the Internet, if people want to insist their singing or the useful human singing range REALLY spans (8 octaves) *exceeding* the number of keys and octaves on a piano by ROUGHLY one half an Octave THATS GREAT !!  :shock:  I won't add to such confusion by explaining that a standard piano only has SLIGHTLY under a 7 1/2 octave range (88 keys consisting of 12 keys WITHIN each one octave range) !  Personally, I believe actual documentation I can reference that makes sense to me, by those that HAVE proven themselves to me.. YOU ALL have the same right, nobody ever said differently ! I do not believe urban legend in a field I've been around most of my life.  Show me factual representation.  ALL can believe whatever they wish !!!!!!!!!!   Factor in all the fancy terms and show me how the female voice has a useful singing range that spans and exceeds the range of a piano ?  I have to head over to Ebay,  I'm bidding on a professional bloodline championship pair of ripe and ready-to-breed Unicorns !

HOPING to establish SOME basics for conversation sake among adults in an area of music does not cofuse an issue, nor is it superfluous UNLESS the foundation of the conversation is sensational claims and ambiguity.

.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

At the risk or of losing some people here by introducing some terms only die-hard musicologists would use, I propose the following argument regarding breaks in one's range and whether it should be considered part of one's singing range. If a segement of one's vocal "range" is considered weaker than the rest, or somehow considered discontinuous, consider the following: most musical instruments have what is considered at least one break, yet it is universally agreed that the instrument's range encompasses these breaks.

A perfect example is the clarinet which can be considered to have four distinctive ranges (each of which  have a unique characteristic). The clarinet's lowest range, chaleameau (sp?) is very rich and full; the clarion range (the intermediate-high range which sounds a bit trumpet-like, hence its name);  the altissimo range (which is characterized by being quite shrill- think dixieland Jazz); and a throat range which is the transitional range between chaleameau and clarion range. And here is the kicker- the throat range is akin to falsetto in the human voice as this particular range is not particularly strong relative to the other ranges; and this particular range suffers the most regarding intonation. And anyone who has played clarinet will state that a break exists between B-flat to B-Natural (hence the term "playing across the break"). Despite this, the clarinet is rgarded to have an almost 4 octave range.

Not sure where this will lead, but hope this offers some food for thought.

I assume you are talking about the Bb Sop clarinet which has quite a range !! True,  ABOUT a 4 octave range and some interesting methods can be used by the musician to utilize the range best.  Not many woodwinds have that kind of range, in fact I'm not sure ANY other single-reed woodwinds do.   Since the clarinet can also get tricky regarding tones, and methodology regarding its HIGHEST ranges (as can many of the higher ranged instruments for that matter) *I* certainly WOULD wish to break it down for definition as you have, reason being, it helps the musician learn how to play the instrument. Not ALL agree it's a must to get technical of course, this does depend !  and  I don't believe you *have to* assuming the musician can achieve results and figure out technique without understanding the WHYS enabling him to play his genre to his liking.  In the case of Bb sop clarinet *I feel* to say it can generally get quite a range as you stated of about 4 octaves under certain conditions assuming the player knows how to do this is accepted as realistic as I recall ! The instrument while capable of hitting certain areas not unlike the singer using their vocal chords (and body) STILL requires ability to achieve such results which means technique, and I don't believe much usually happens with any instrument that falls outside the realm of *REASON*, there ARE set characteristics, and some tricks to work within and around this..  As a brass player that plays some sax and flute as well as MANY instruments, I know my embouchure as well as other aspects regarding my ability AND the instruments tonal possibilities/characteristics ALL must be taken into consideration. To make a ridiculous noise and hurt myself isn't something I'd consider in MY range.. Someone elses perhaps... It's just never so cut and dry enabling one to give simplistic factual responses for any one individual I don't believe yet their ARE limitations,  and this is my point.. Instruments have a generally accepted range that the musician works within and around, what the musician does within, and beyond this ALSO is explanatory.  I always prefer a general understanding which I believe you gave above...meaning considerable range, however technique varies as do perhaps tonal nuances when achieving this.  There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand how and what is really going on IMHO..

MANY of the musical instruments that are in the higher registers can get some interesting sounds using harmonics, overtones, and interesting technique,  violinists do this, trumpet players do this too... Is it conventional all the time ?  No.  Nor must the human voice be.. BUT.. "Within reason" given physical characteristics and ability MATTERS IMHO and is very individual in all musicians, singers too.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

No, you CANNOT enunciate that high.  YES, it is still considered singing if you cannot enunciate.  If you look at classical pieces with extreme highs, the higher notes are on open vowels (Queen of the Night is Ah).  High notes are generally in cadenzas and vocal runs, not on lyrics - because  having to enunciate on those notes would close off the flow of air that sustains them.



No, in conventional singing, these notes are not useful.  Being able to sing these is all parlour trick and bragging rights.  Seriously.  The highest note I have ever sung in performance is a G#7....and at the end of Glitter and be Gay have VOCALIZED to the A above that.  It's not all that pretty but is effective for that piece.  These extreme highs are not generally pleasant to the human ear - no matter how accurately executed.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

I was referring to the B-flat soprano clarinet; however this would apply to all other  clarinets as well (E-flat sopranino, E-flat Alto, B-flat Bass, EE-flat contra-alto, BB-flat contra-bass, A, C, G, and any other obscure key which the clarinet may be pitched in).

And thanks Kitty, I believe that we share the same opinion regarding the extremely high registers.

OK, thank you for sharing this.  I wasn't aware the lower registered clarinets had a generally accepted extended range that the musician could really work with like the sop had,  IOW,  I figured the sop was somewhat more open-ended due to characteristics and greater ease of application.  This is interesting.  Thank you.  I wish I could do that with sop sax...... clarinet is hard IMHO (side note)

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

OK, Kappy...let me see if I can explain this...
A singers range IS defined by the lowest to highest notes capable of being sung.  That's just how it is.  That is the standard everywhere.  It does NOT distinguish between breaks in chest, mix, head, falsetto, etc.

Yes, a singer may have a weaker area in their voice.  This is why you STUDY and have (hopefully) a good voice teacher who can teach you how to improve/utilize these parts of your voice.  Rarely will a singer ever use every note they can possibly sing in a performance/practical setting.

You are trying to distinguish between vocal compass and performance range here.  Vocal compass is not a term used very often - most singers do not get THIS technical in the intricacies of determining their vocal range.  Vocal compass is what you can sing, lowest highest - this may also vary.  Some days for me are better than others and I'll be able to hit a note or two lower or higher than at another time.  PERFORMANCE range is the range lowest to highest that you sing when working material.  This will generally be several notes higher on the low end and several notes lower on the high end than your vocal compass.  It will also generally not vary. When you go in for an audition and they ask what your range is, this is generally what you would tell them.  When it comes to material, the lowest note I sing is the E below middle C, and the top is a G7.  I can sing comfortably a little lower and higher, but nothing I sing is WRITTEN or me lower or higher

Kappy, I do not question that you have some amazing knowledge when it comes to music theory. However, you - by your own admission - are not a singer.  You have given some information that simply does not apply to voice.  Paula and I have both gone cross-eyed trying to make sense of your posts.  We have also both researched points both online and by calling voice teachers.  If we have trouble with it, people who have only ever sung "just for fun" are going to have even more of a difficult time with this.

I am not attacking you or trying to take anything away from your knowledge and experience.  I am merely trying to point out that, in matters of voice, some of what you say is incorrect, and more confusing/complicated than it needs to be.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

and in brief my thoughts are that THERE IS an important difference between what some are describing as BROAD range vs useable range (in lay terms) and sure it MATTERS.   Measurements can be deceptive.  I'm not telling you about trained vocalists, I might however be saying I disagree with your thoughts on this or some  newer conventional philosophy that I've yet to hear of. I believe I'm stating something quite reasonable that's been stated by others HERE as well. I *don't buy* the whole philosophy that ALL the singer is concerned with is *broad* range, that THAT is all range consists of. How is that productive at ALL levels of singing ?  I know what broad range means,  I never denied it's used.  I don't feel it's useful much of the time for MANY of us compared to our useable range.. 
"Range" not unlike the term "average" IMHO needs to be further defined, isn't it INDIVIDUAL ?  You are saying "range is range"  I disagree.  This isn't a statement about YOU or anybody as a "trained singer" It's a concept that differs from your own apparently that I do not believe should not be given consideration. I believe its important to deliniate Useable range from broad range MUCH of the time ! One is a subset of the other in this case and, IMHO one term is MUCH more practical to understand, considering the other MIGHT consist of "parlour tricks" which at YOUR level MIGHT matter much more than somebody such as me who's just trying to get established... Not a singer... true... However professional accompanist, Director,  Ex 9 year touring Multinstrumentalist, person who can read musical scores and has studied conducting, person that plays 12 musical instruments, person who's written complex choral arrangements by ear, has advanced theory and comp knowledge,  tunes pianos... BUT NO,  not a "singer", more of a musicologist.. Again,  our credentials mean little here. we CAN agree to disagree this is how I feel.. I understand you feel differently.


I don't believe my thoughts here are complex... You seem to be saying "It's JUST range", I am saying I believe you are discussing broad range vs useable range.. I have nothing further to add. JMHO,  let people believe as they wish.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Here's the thing, without a voice teacher or background in voice, you need a VERY basic - and in this case that does mean broad - way of determining your range.  

If you start at mid C and can sing down and up an octave...maybe some of those notes aren't great, maybe some cause you to flip in or out of head voice, but can still COMFORTABLY sing these notes, that IS your range.

Most non-trained singers are not going to have a concept of chest, head, mix, etc.  If they can sing the note in a way which is acceptable to them, for the purposes of singing "just for fun" that is their range.  That is what they will consider their range to be.

In the case of someone without any background simply running scales at home to determine their range, there isn't going to be a "defined" term for range or average.  It's going to be "Can I hit this note?"  "If I can hit this note, can I hit the one above it?"  Generally, once they get to a note they cannot hit in a manner acceptable to them, they will simply stop.  



And I have gone over that - my terms were "vocal compass" and "performance range."  But, any non-singer I have ever spoken to who has run scales at home has NEVER made any such distinction to me.  They speak in terms of lowest and highest notes they believe they can sing.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

I AGREED with you on this in the pulled thread.  This IS in fact giving a reference point that IMHO *is* very practical, IS concise, and enables one to find useable range for starters.. I stated THIS is the example I was looking for personally and AGREED COMPLETELY WITH THIS..Plain basic.. Middle C..White notes ascending, descending.. THAT'S ALL I asked for !!!.. I agreed with Rising Phoenix too about her points as well.. and that was where I ended my posts in the pulled thread.  ALL I asked for was being in agreement that establishing a starting point some can use to reference useable range be acknowledged as opposed to slapping "you have a 4 octave singing range beginner who I never heard on the internet because you can play X number of notes giving a total range of",  I AGREE, ALL I wanted is a reference point. YOU GAVE IT.. we agreed.

I suppose what confuses me is the notes BETWEEN *the lowest and highest notes they can sing* being of so much more importance to me than extremes.. If I don't agree with you folks, you don't deem me to have sufficient qualifications to disagree, BUT if I agree with you I STILL don't know what I'm talking about.. Well, that's an UNASKED for Critique and a character bash and THAT was my point regarding ad hom response..

I have nothing more to add... I really don't wish to post ANYTHING else in here.. It'll serve no purpose
                                                   C-ya

If people want to get angry when I agree with something they state and hang onto ME as a source of confusion, I say it's a communication gap and obstinance.... I also stated I am NOT talking to complete beginners *in here*.. I try to work with individuals but also talk with people at a level I believe they CAN understand assuming they want to try..I'm ONLY an accompanist with an extensive musical background.. This doesn't mean I'm a total blathering imbecile because "I can't sing".
I agree that at YOUR level of singing "Performance" range is likely the same term I am calling "Useable" range. I agree and agreed I don't know TODAYS terms especially in the singing area..  I believe SOME rudimentary concepts don't change THAT much however.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

This is the most accurate thing you've said (IMO) This is the "bottom line" You are correctly applying music theory as a "MUSICOLOGIST" should and will. But unless you are with other similarly educated people- these terms are just not user friendly. This is a karaoke site...yes there are differeing levels of musicians here- but *MOST* don't have the theory background needed to process what you are saying.

Thats why I said when you throw out something as borad as "range" on a site like this- it must be as broad a definition as the singers and backgrounds reading it are. Music theory is not something most pro singers I know use when talking about singing. It is musch more of a hands on thing- the exception is when we are talking to musicians about music- THEN theory is needed. You are a musician Kappy, and a very educated musicologist-and you are approaching other aspiring singers on this site as such.  You have very little hands on experience actually "singing" And because you are trying to advise other novice singers( and let's face it- IF they are coming to THIS forum to figure out what their range is- THEY ARE NOVICES!) how to determine singing range in a way that is a musicians approach to singing- not a singers.

You also have to keep in mind that because this is a karaoke site it encompasses ALL genres of music...many of which blatantly go against everything classical music teaches. I made the mistake of telling a "Rapper" he was a poet implementing a beat- rather than a singer and I realised that he- along woth MILLIONS of others buying rap music- don't agree. I also don't think that groups like my husband listens to like Godsmack or seether are using what I consider a pleasant part of their singing range- but again millions disagree. I agree with you that whistle tones are not something I want to hear outside a parlour trick as Kitty referred to it- but you only have to go to youtube to see there are MILLIONS who don't feel the same way. So the point we were tying to make is that the foundations on which you base your knowledge of singing- simply doesn't apply to many of the genres tht are all part of karaoke...THAT is why we said the definition of "singing range" has to be a simple and broad definition to be applied to everyone reading this thread. The only defnition which can do that is that range would be "the highest to the lowest note you can hit" I would also like to add specifications of - "where you like the sound of it and can hit it consistently"as well- but that may not be broad enough for a karaoke site so i won't.

_________________

*sigh* I was never angry....frustrated, but not angry...and I certainly wasn't debating the point agreed on...merely the fact that there still seemed to be an issue about "real" range, usable range, whatever you want to call it.

As stated, I was not arguing your knowledge and background, merely that a lot of what was said did not apply to singers.  This has NEVER been PERSONAL on my end, and I never TOOK any of it personally.  Some of the things said simply do not apply to singers.  No personal attack was made, nor was any character judgment made.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

I believe he was referring to ME as being the one who made the character attack when I accused him in the pulled thread of ....um....being overly verbose

Prolly shouldn't have said that- but unlike you Kitty- I WAS frutstrated...and spent WAY too much time trying to clarify something that "should" have been very straightforward and simple. For losing my "cool" I apologise but I stand by what I said...

OH- and obstinate was MY word in the pulled thread for you Kappy you're NOT allowed to use it back at us ! Frankly I'm surprised you didn't find a NEW one( wink) you know more "words" than anyone I know and THAT includes the numerous people with a masters in "English"  :dancin:

_________________

No, Paula, I WAS frustrated...I wasn't angry, though....   And I thought his character attack comment had to do with my "you - by your own admission- are not a singer" comment since he said this:

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

OK,  some of you consider it just Karaoke.  I'm trying to speak with OTHER musicians (singers) in the singer forum thread where we are comparing thoughts about "range". This also involved ANALYSIS of a professional singer brought into this thread by another pro-singer instructor..How can this suddenly and arbitrarily flipflop back and forth from just karaoke, to pro-perspective a post later ? "Trained pro-singers perspective"  precludes JUST Karaoke doesn't it ?  What perspective ARE WE IN HERE talking from ?  My OWN feeling is "The Singers range" separates the singer FROM the "just Karaoke" setting.

Limit it to "just karaoke" and if a person asks "What's my range" ?... I'd just assume answer it "Whatever you like to sing how does it feel?"  Don't aspects of
"singing range" separate singer from Karaoke realm ?  To me it's an area of music  however for "Just Karaoke" I don't sit at, or reference a piano for any analytical purpose what-so-ever, that within itself involves some piano and scale knowledge, and in addition we were referencing Prof dissertations for differences in our opinion....I think in cases of analysis it's tough for some of us NOT to come from our areas of experience when we are discussing something that DOES start the posts coming from perspectives regarding *actual music* experience and for most participating in here. ADVANCED level.  My thoughts are when we get into this type discussion some analysis DOES ALSO become philosophical love it or hate it..

For this reason, having some terms we ALL understand for starters REALLY does help. Foundation principles, and understanding one-anothers terminology would've nipped this at the bud I believe...


Many experienced musicians can't really easily be talking on a "just Karaoke" level I don't believe.  We are also trying to explain how we might wish to teach others in a very unconventional setting *karaoke*..
JMHO..

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Those are all valid points Kappy.. but the original thread that you had pulled was started when Murlin asked what his singing range was- he has admitted that tho he knows alot about many things-- "singing" is something he is NEW at. He told you that he "thought" he had a 3.5 octave range and said he based that on the lowest note he could sing- and counted that as one. he went up 8 steps and counted that as 2 then went up 8 more and said "3" plus 4 more. All you had to do was say nope- that's 2.5. But you started a thread about range and brought up falsetto and "real" range which to Murlin was incomprehensible from actual range- you also said that you had "heard" that 4 octaves was a rare thing. and you doubted if anyone had 4 "real" octaves. Thats when Kitty and i got involved...

You weren't talking to a musician...but you answered with music theory. Murlin was completely confused- ask HIM how useful your answer was if you don't believe me. That;s why I have been so adamant about speaking in laymans terms- I will never make the mistake of bringing classical terms into a discussion they don't belong in again. There is no escaping that this is a karaoke site. So you can't assume that you are talking to trained musicians...especially in an instance where a proclaimed non musician was asking the questions..I only answered in those terms and pointed out my background to show that I knew what I was talking about. And I wasn't referring to karaoke as "just" karaoke- but as what it is- a singing activity that is primarily utilized by those with little or no music background. It can be a FABULOUS learning tool by those that wish it to be- but as a rule laymans terms are always going to be more easily inderstood by the average karaoke singer.

There was definitely a miscommunication about terminology...but I think it ended up being a good thing. because it brought to light something that has needed to be brought up. And Steven I am seriously NOT attacking you when i say this because I think you are an incredibly intelligent man with an AMAZING scope of knowledge about an astounding array of topics- but much of what you say is not processed as fully as it should be because you do tend to talk at a level that many people find intimidating...or so "up there" that reading your long posts makes for some very "ponderous" reading. Thats not just in this particular thread. I have seen numerous comments along the lines of "you talk to much Kappy" - while these were made in jest- there *was* some foundation for them. Did you know that the average newspaper is written on an 8th grade level? The reason is so that a broader base of people can easily read and understand it. My reading level far surpasses that but I don't feel slighted that a publication would write so far beneath my level...I think thats a pretty good was to approach everything you say in the KF threads. there may be many people qualified to understand and relish what you are saying-- but they aren't going to feel slighted if you speak in laymans trms so that the majority of people can also take part in a discussion. And this is just me talking to you Kappy..I think your wit shows much more brightly when you are concise rather than verbose. It's hard to take in sometimes when it goes on and on. I sincerely hope you don't take offense at that..I honestly don't mean it in anything but a positive light.

_________________

Ya....What Paula said

Kappy, perhaps you got mad at me calling you a "Bonehead" ...I dunno...but it was true....you were just being hard headed.....I even told you that I could be hard-headed at times.....



Now I have spoken to you Kappy, in several threads, most of which you just ignore me.  The couple times you have spoken to me on this fourm, was to tell me that I was ruining the SS and to correct me by talking around me instead of TO me, when I spawned that whole range thread in the first place.

So I don't know why you are back in this thread arguing about the very same things that we already hashed out in the thread you pulled...

Paula and the others are being too generous to you...

They all say they only got frustrated with you and not angry...

Well,  I not only got frustrated, I got a tad angry.  I felt you were rude to me, and were talking down to me.  But I didn't go crying to the Mod's about it.  And I am certainly not going to run away when someone throws down the gauntlet.

I was just trying to figure out what my RANGE was and came away feeling stupid. So I got defensive. A totally human response.  And I did not launch a personal attack on you either, I just was blunt with you...

Now I got to tell you, I just scan over your posts, they are too long for me so I only read some of it. This issue was also addressed in the deleted post in a much more colorful way....

Talk about De Jah Vooooo

This thread is a mirror of the last one just with different syntax  ROFL



Use your powers for good.... Not evil


That is all... rant over....carry on.... and have a nice day man...  :wave:


P>S>

All the comments I have made are Rhetorical and do not require a response as I am not going to respond to any more of this dribble and am moving on...so if you feel the urge to get in the last word, by all means sling some ink....err....press some keys...errrr whatever

_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Knowledge is limited.

Imagination encircles the world...

The above post is the START of what got this thread removed last time
Leave my name out've your nonsense !




Correct,  I ignore you !  WHY do you keep annoying people that wish to have nothing to do with you ?


=====================================================
Babies !

Take your clique mentality elsewhere, and address the subject matter only.  I'm not
interested in what any of you think of my character. LEAVE IT OUT OF THESE
THREADS.  I don't respect a few enough as people let alone "a clique" to care about your sidewalk "shrink" drivel so keep your egocentric thoughts I even formed a thread due to ANY reason other than *my* own interest in the subject matter (and the fact that this subject matter was taking a critique thread off-topic) to yourself.  Again, I don't care if you like me or hate me.. Take the BS elsewhere. All attempts at character attacks ARE being reported.  Moderated topic forums are not the place for such juvenile nonsense. This thread WAS NOT in ANY way formed initially to discount or refute any individual, or statement made by any person elsewhere. I DO NOT form threads to bash. The fact some believe this to be the case is absurd.
 
That aside, PM's are coming in requesting I ignore you folks which is why I have been for the most part.
=====================================================



Kappy <---WINDBAG

EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THIS !!!!  I'm trying to use this to the advantage of my singing,  Not the easiest thing !


.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I will only say this.  I have TRIED my best to explain what I know in order to help anyone who has had a question about something I am knowledgeable about.  NOTHING I have said or done has been PERSONAL in ANY way to anyone.

Singing is my first (and at the moment) only passion.  To share that with others here, to encourage them to be their BEST, to help them IMPROVE if I can is important to me.  To see mis-information about singing/voice concerns me.

I avoid critiquing anyone unless I am specifically asked.  At this point, I refrain from offering any advice of any kind to anyone unless it is sent to me in a PM, or SPECIFICALLY asked for in a thread.

I sincerely apologize if any of my well intentioned posting was taken in a way I did not mean it to be taken.  I truly think a lot of the problem comes from mis-interpretation of a post on a board where no tone of voice or visual cues are available.

_________________

"I hold the key to an open door....will I ever be free...?"

Is a persons singing range generally a higher pitch than their talking voice ?  If-so, I'm hoping I can do OK in the tenor range. My range is in the process of hopefully developing. Currently I'm just trying to make use of what works where-ever I can grab it

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".