|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Mar 25, 2009 19:59:19 GMT
Peter, what's in a voice the most for me is its sheer beauty -- something easiest to hear in vocalise. Other considerations like intelligibility, power, technique and versatility don't matter as much in wowing me. An awesome timbre will always beat out diction, emotion, stage presence, clarity, etc.
I would rate the following singers in order of best timbre as follows:
1. Becky Taylor -- nothing can touch her first album's vocals for immense tonal beauty.
2. Hayley Westenra -- as a fan on Amazon once put it, "I didn't know they had voices like this!"
3. Renee Olstead -- easily the best American singer of her generation
4. Charlotte Church -- unmistakably great (if a little froggy) on "Dream a Dream" CD
5. Imogen Heap -- sweet voice that always touches the soul
Just five on my list today. Those are the best of the best. What's in their voices is a staggering amount of magical timbre in addition to their overall musicality. Beauty will always trump technique with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Mar 25, 2009 23:06:24 GMT
Well, I don't really have a problem with Hayley's diction, mostly it's fine, there is just the odd word or two in some songs that I struggle to catch. Thinking about it, is is usually in the quieter more delicate passages where I have that problem, there is never a problem when she sings with power. There are several quiet passages on HSJS2, and it is good that Hayley can sing in that more subtle way, instead of just belting songs out all the time like some do. I would hate her to lose that delicacy, if that were the price of improved diction. After all, once you have worked out what the words of a song are, there is no problem anymore.
And HSJS2 is such a fine album, I am reduced to nit-picking.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 26, 2009 0:58:36 GMT
Well, I don't really have a problem with Hayley's diction, mostly it's fine, there is just the odd word or two in some songs that I struggle to catch. Thinking about it, is is usually in the quieter more delicate passages where I have that problem, there is never a problem when she sings with power. There are several quiet passages on HSJS2, and it is good that Hayley can sing in that more subtle way, instead of just belting songs out all the time like some do. I would hate her to lose that delicacy, if that were the price of improved diction. After all, once you have worked out what the words of a song are, there is no problem anymore. When I first saw your criticism of Hayley's diction, I really wondered how come I hadn't noticed myself. On second thoughts, I wonder is it Hayley's accent (and her different pronunciations of certain words) that is causing your difficulty in catching her (quieter) words. Strangely, I've found it much easier to catch Hayley's words (both when she's singing and in conversation) than the various English dialects I've heard in the UK (and in Dublin and Cork). When I first heard Hayley live (singing with the RTE Concert Orchestra in June 2007), I was impressed - by her (naturally expressive) Diction (capital 'D'), particularly in songs that were musically demanding. Even when singing 'difficult' songs, Hayley seems to me to have a real sense of the appropriate register and tone that suit each song she is singing. Also, the crystal clarity of her articulation/ enunciation I find particularly noticeable in some of her songs. Yet Hayley doesn't seem to adopt a 'stage voice'. Like Comet, I find the Kiwi accent and pronunciations 'charming and lovely', but I also admire the naturalness and expressiveness I see in her 'pure' voice. Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by Dean McCarten on Mar 26, 2009 11:31:46 GMT
Like Comet, I find the Kiwi accent and pronunciations 'charming and lovely', but I also admire the naturalness and expressiveness I see in her 'pure' voice. Nicely said Paddy, I couldn't have said it better myself |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 26, 2009 18:18:51 GMT
Where Hayley is sometimes bettered is in her diction, which I think is something she needs to work on. Martin I am delighted to hear someone else express this. I have been more silent than I am usually inclined as i doubt my hearing and still haven't got round to having it checked out. I think she has slipped back on this having made some improvement some while back. Now that i have heard Faryl I realise how bad Hayley's diction can be. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 26, 2009 18:23:23 GMT
... Where Hayley is sometimes bettered is in her diction, which I think is something she needs to work on.... Really? I find her enunciation to be outstanding. Just listen to the combined crispness and subtlety of her last "t" sound in Dark Waltz, or notice how expertly she tackles the consonant clusters in Wiegenlied. Every language has its diction issues but Hayley makes easy work of them in Italian, Maori, Japanese and German. Her Kiwi accent sneaks into some English songs, but hey, that's all part of the charm. It is good to hear a firm contradiction. You are right, there are indeed exceptions but that implies inconsistency, may be with foreign languages she pays more attention and with English is a little too casual? Certainly I have much praised her German in Wiegenlied where I think her enunciation is exemplerary. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 26, 2009 22:10:22 GMT
Especially for you, Peter:
Who would know aught of art must act, learn and then take his ease.
Recognise it?
Paddy
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Mar 27, 2009 0:02:07 GMT
... Who would know ought of art must learn and then take his ease.That sorta coincides with my thinking about Hayley's singing. Where others find fault in her diction I see only artistic license. Of course Hayley could deliver a diction-perfect rendition of all her songs each time, but it fits her voice better to be less obsessed about it. Good for her as an artist not to submit to the tyranny of proper diction. |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Mar 27, 2009 0:33:01 GMT
Hi Steve I'm with you on this! In that it is the "sound" that is important for me. The sound in this case being Hayley's voice. Peter commented earlier that he thought Hayley's diction could improve. Well. I'm far from being an expert in this area, (although I did take elocution lessons as a very small boy  ) but it strikes me that (and I use HSJS2 as a prime example) to fit Hayley's lyrics, diction perfect, into many of the melodies would be nigh on impossible. There just has to be some poetic licence in those cases. Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 27, 2009 2:53:08 GMT
... Who would know aught of art must act, learn and then take his ease.That sorta coincides with my thinking about Hayley's singing. Where others find fault in her diction I see only artistic license. Of course Hayley could deliver a diction-perfect rendition of all her songs each time, but it fits her voice better to be less obsessed about it. Good for her as an artist not to submit to the tyranny of proper diction. Hi Steve I'm with you on this! In that it is the "sound" that is important for me. The sound in this case being Hayley's voice. Peter commented earlier that he thought Hayley's diction could improve. Well. I'm far from being an expert in this area, (although I did take elocution lessons as a very small boy ) but it strikes me that (and I use HSJS2 as a prime example) to fit Hayley's lyrics, diction perfect, into many of the melodies would be nigh on impossible. There just has to be some poetic licence in those cases. Hi Steve and Grant, I'm glad someone understood my quote. There's actually something more to the quote though than meets the eye - over to Peter's expertise?  'Good also to see that someone else besides me appreciates Hayley's Diction (in the wider sense), as I tried to justify in another post in this thread. Even in its narrower sense ( articulation, enunciation), I rate Hayley's diction highly. An attentive listen to 'Hayley Sings Japanese Songs 2' can clearly illustrates that, I believe. But, best of all for me, the naturally expressive qualities of her voice seem to express and dramatise the 'spirit' or 'essence' of songs, even when, like Nemunoki, in a language I don't understand at all. Raises a good question: Do You Hear What I Hear?Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 27, 2009 8:26:39 GMT
That sorta coincides with my thinking about Hayley's singing. Where others find fault in her diction I see only artistic license. Of course Hayley could deliver a diction-perfect rendition of all her songs each time, but it fits her voice better to be less obsessed about it. Good for her as an artist not to submit to the tyranny of proper diction. Hi Steve I'm with you on this! In that it is the "sound" that is important for me. The sound in this case being Hayley's voice. Peter commented earlier that he thought Hayley's diction could improve. Well. I'm far from being an expert in this area, (although I did take elocution lessons as a very small boy ) but it strikes me that (and I use HSJS2 as a prime example) to fit Hayley's lyrics, diction perfect, into many of the melodies would be nigh on impossible. There just has to be some poetic licence in those cases. Hi Steve and Grant, I'm glad someone understood my quote. There's actually something more to the quote though than meets the eye - over to Peter's expertise? 'Good also to see that someone else besides me appreciates Hayley's Diction (in the wider sense), as I tried to justify in another post in this thread. Even in its narrower sense ( articulation, enunciation), I rate Hayley's diction highly. An attentive listen to 'Hayley Sings Japanese Songs 2' can clearly illustrates that, I believe. But, best of all for me, the naturally expressive qualities of her voice seem to express and dramatise the 'spirit' or 'essence' of songs, even when, like Nemunoki, in a language I don't understand at all. Raises a good question: Do You Hear What I Hear?Paddy Some interesting juxtapositions here. As for my 'expertise', what encouraged me to express a view in this thread that I once held sufficiently strongly as to mention to Hayley personally (way back in the early days when she was still doing church tours) was that someone else made the assertion that this applied to them. Until now, as a matter of common sense as well as courtesy, I've been meaning to book an auditory assessment simply out of the principle that I need to know I am hearing correctly. Most people assume they do not have a colour receptivity problem unless, like me as a printer, they have a job that involves appreciating colour values so know that what you see and define as a colour is objectively accurate. As regards artistic licence, while the voice can be a wordless instrument (as Hayley has proved most excellently) if a song has words then the words are meant to be heard and understood. Why else write the words? This then leads us into that great inferno of opera divas (and I'm not thinking solely of Dante  )! Who on earth has ever understood an operatic aria, quite apart from the fact that they are nearly always in a nonEnglish language? One might go even further and say the whole operatic world is nothing but exaggerated artifice as an excuse for creative sound. This then leads us into 'technique'. We have no need to make singer comparisons. Within the wide range of Hayley's opus there are songs where the words are enunciated most clearly and other songs where some contributors to this thread have excused the loss of words because of the vocal difficulties demanded in musical expression... something has to give. Is there a conflict, or is there something else that explains this paradox? As one who has not yet heard HSJS1 let alone obtained 2, such comparisons are meaningless, as for the majority here but that HSJS2 represents her latest product, such comments are obviously important. Is this because she is still improving or is this because of the nature of the vocal demands enable the extra clarity? Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 27, 2009 9:00:15 GMT
Especially for you, Peter: Who would know aught of art must act, learn and then take his ease.Recognise it? Paddy Rings bells from Kipling (Rudyard not the baker  ) in a critical essay but he may have been quoting himself. Shooting for a train, will be back. Much to attend to here and need more time. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Mar 27, 2009 12:19:57 GMT
Hi Paddy, Steve, and Grant,
My knowledge of music is rudimentary at best. To discuss the technical aspects of Hayley's voice as some do is not possible.
Having said that I contend that after listening to music and participating in the children's choir at my Catholic church some sixty years ago I think I have developed a good enough ear to discern what is good and what isn't. When I first heard Hayley in 2007 I was immediately taken with her brilliance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I Hayley's taste is spectacular.
Therefore the only thing I can add to the discussion is that I would rather listen to Hayley than any other female or male vocalist on the planet.
Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 27, 2009 15:13:45 GMT
Hi Paddy, Steve, and Grant, My knowledge of music is rudimentary at best. To discuss the technical aspects of Hayley's voice as some do is not possible. Having said that I contend that after listening to music and participating in the children's choir at my Catholic church some sixty years ago I think I have developed a good enough ear to discern what is good and what isn't. When I first heard Hayley in 2007 I was immediately taken with her brilliance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I Hayley's taste is spectacular. Therefore the only thing I can add to the discussion is that I would rather listen to Hayley than any other female or male vocalist on the planet. Larry Hi, Larry, I'm biased too and agree with everything you say. But I was trying to be objective as regards the subjective comments of others on Hayley's 'poor' diction. Diction (capital D) includes many other elements besides enunciation ( diction). Unlike some comments, I rate all aspects of Hayley's Diction highly. Perhaps, as I said, it's a case of 'Do You Hear What I Hear?'. Or for you that knows Latin, 'Quidquid recipitur ad modem recipientis recipitur' (We hear what we're able to hear.) And long may we continue ..... Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 27, 2009 15:24:21 GMT
Especially for you, Peter: Who would know aught of art must act, learn and then take his ease.Recognise it? Paddy Rings bells from Kipling (Rudyard not the baker ) in a critical essay but he may have been quoting himself. Shooting for a train, will be back. Much to attend to here and need more time. Peter S. Hi, Busy Peter, No, not Rudyard. There's something special about the quote (and each word in it), especially if you add this to it: 'My loud voice clears their moors'. Anyone with the expertise to assess Diction or diction would recognise it. I like playing games, Peter.  Paddy |
|
