How Many Songs Could the Original Members Perform Without Backing from Jeff etc?

[filledeplage]

If they were trying to play and sing the original parts on their own, very few songs would make it. Not one of them sings with his original range and clarity, and aside from David, the instrumental side of things wouldn't exactly be stellar from the survivors. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but a) I am, and b) it's true.

They could perform any number of songs, of course. But if they want to stick to original arrangements and you want to hear them as they were, well, it wouldn't go well.

Maybe someone could be a sweetie and answer a question, who has some fairly recent music education training...back in the day, all teachers were required to take music education methodology, because there were no music specialist in the classrooms.  I was training for Kindegarten where all the classrooms had pianos, and you needed to "fake it till you made it," to pass the test...

At that time, the professors told us that each age group had a particular set of key signatures that was appropriate for their vocal range, and which would not frustrate them, so they would enjoy singing with their classmates.  For example, the younger kids could sing in F, Bb, Eb, D, G (easier for a fraud like myself  )

Is that what they teach now in the Music schools, and would the theory of switching keys as one ages, be one that is practiced.  In other words, is the original music transposed to protect the voice as it "matures?" 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and expertise!

[the captain]

If they were trying to play and sing the original parts on their own, very few songs would make it. Not one of them sings with his original range and clarity, and aside from David, the instrumental side of things wouldn't exactly be stellar from the survivors. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but a) I am, and b) it's true.

They could perform any number of songs, of course. But if they want to stick to original arrangements and you want to hear them as they were, well, it wouldn't go well.

Maybe someone could be a sweetie and answer a question, who has some fairly recent music education training...back in the day, all teachers were required to take music education methodology, because there were no music specialist in the classrooms.  I was training for Kindegarten where all the classrooms had pianos, and you needed to "fake it till you made it," to pass the test...

At that time, the professors told us that each age group had a particular set of key signatures that was appropriate for their vocal range, and which would not frustrate them, so they would enjoy singing with their classmates.  For example, the younger kids could sing in F, Bb, Eb, D, G (easier for a fraud like myself  )

Is that what they teach now in the Music schools, and would the theory of switching keys as one ages, be one that is practiced.  In other words, is the original music transposed to protect the voice as it "matures?" 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and expertise!

Interesting question.

The shortest answer is, for some songs, yes, they could transpose downward to accommodate their more limited voices, which are especially lacking on the high end.

The longer answer is that whether that works depends on the melody in question. Regardless of the key, a melody might span just a few notes, or it could theoretically span several octaves. The less the range of a melody, the more likely that teacher's method would be to work. For example, if a melody only spans from the root to the fifth of a key (in C major, that would be C, D, E, F, G; in E major, it would be E, F#, G#, A, B; and so on), you can easily switch keys to make it more easily fit a person's range, with the assumption that everyone has a range that would span some perfect fifth.

But a more challenging melody could be of such a range that if you transpose it down a key, the low notes are too low; and if you transpose it up, the high notes are too high; or it may simply be both low and high regardless of key. The Star Spangled Banner, for example, covers not a fifth, but an octave and a fifth. (In the key of C major, it would go as low as a C and as high not as a G, but the octave above that G.) If a voice has limitations on both ends, songs with that kind of range can challenge regardless.

[Wirestone]

There's another response, too, which goes in a different direction.

It is not "natural" or "normal" for a maturing voice to dramatically change range or tone. Those things are the result of abuse of some sort.

Properly trained singers (or simply singers who have taken care of their instruments) keep most of the voices. Look at someone like Aretha Franklin or Paul McCartney. Each of them is nearly 70. Yet each of them is able to perform their original songs in the original key and style. They have lost a note here or there, sure, and I'm sure you lose a bit of sheer power as your body ages.

But the fact is, there is nothing inherent about being a performer that leads to your voice being ruined. Most of the time people either abuse their throats with smoke or drugs, or they simply oversing. That is most likely Mike's problem, for example. The man has sung from his throat -- not his chest -- from the beginning, and you can see the payoff now, which is that it's hard for him to even talk sometimes because he's so hoarse. Bruce likewise seems to have blown his voice out, although his range isn't that different -- just frailer. Al has kept much of his voice, but he clearly hasn't continued serious vocal exercises or training that would retain flexibility, which means he's left with his midrange. He probably can still sing some falsetto / head voice, but the ability to "bridge" those ranges is gone.

Although everyone hates him, apparently, Jeff Foskett is an amazing example here. He is in his 50s, yet his voice has remained astonishingly flexible and capable. And I bet he really takes care of it.

So the end point is that yes, there are some changes that happen due to age (apparently women tend to have lower registers after menopause, although their range doesn't necessarily change). But not as many as you would think, and with proper training and vocal rest, everyone does not end up singing several steps lower.

Here's a fabulous blog post on the topic, from a professional vocal coach. It's starting point is Whitney Houston, but you could apply it to our favorite band: http://aapproach.com/what-happened-to-whitney-houstons-voice-a-vocal-coachs-analysis/

[the captain]

There absolutely is something natural and normal about singers losing range and tone over time. Abuse or neglect obviously worsen the condition, abut even your examples of McCartney, Aretha, and Al all show wear and tear. They just have worn down at a slower rate than those who didn't take as much care of their voices. Conversely, it is probably that maintaining the majority of one's voice over so many years is the more unnatural, the more abnormal condition, the result of either brilliant genes or atypical coaching and attention (in addition to good lifestyle choices).

To take the response to another different direction, maybe the question should be why we expect the superhuman from old men, and what is the shame in (for example) performing in a different key, or letting more capable aides handle the problematic parts?

[Wirestone]

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with what the group sounds like. The past is what it is. That's not my point. And I love me some ruined voices -- they're my favorite in pop.

I just think there's too much acceptance of rampant vocal abuse being "part of the rock lifestyle" and people killing their future livelihoods that way. Why should it be abnormal or strange that someone who makes a living with their voice gets "atypical coaching and attention" for it? Isn't that the most logical way to respond if that's, you know, your life's work?

Two examples: Elton John and Bob Dylan. Each did bad things to their voices. In the 80s, EJ did a lot of coke and sang through throat nodules. He voice went down a lot. Likewise, Dylan kept smoking and got a neat warm raspiness to his voice. And I loved both of them! Loved Songs from the West Coast Elton and Time Our of Mind Dylan. But then the two kept touring with hundreds of shows a year (and how is that normal for a voice, anyway?).  And their voices are now practically unlistenable. They can find ways around it, and I still love them as writers, but the live vocal performances can be grim.

Don't tell me that's normal or natural. They are people with gifts abusing themselves. And it's ultimately sad.

[the captain]

I'm not saying that a ravaged voice from abuse is normal. I am saying dramatic changes over time with age are normal. Sure, we can point to "abusers," but I can point to any number of relatives of mine who never abused anything and who, in their later years, lost some tone, lost the top end. That is normal. And, compared to a person's prime, it is a dramatic change. Not as dramatic or rapid as someone who smoked or did coke, but dramatic nonetheless.

(My topic redirection wasn't to say you were finding fault with the changes, either. It was a general comment.)

[filledeplage]

If they were trying to play and sing the original parts on their own, very few songs would make it. Not one of them sings with his original range and clarity, and aside from David, the instrumental side of things wouldn't exactly be stellar from the survivors. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but a) I am, and b) it's true.

They could perform any number of songs, of course. But if they want to stick to original arrangements and you want to hear them as they were, well, it wouldn't go well.

Maybe someone could be a sweetie and answer a question, who has some fairly recent music education training...back in the day, all teachers were required to take music education methodology, because there were no music specialist in the classrooms.  I was training for Kindegarten where all the classrooms had pianos, and you needed to "fake it till you made it," to pass the test...

At that time, the professors told us that each age group had a particular set of key signatures that was appropriate for their vocal range, and which would not frustrate them, so they would enjoy singing with their classmates.  For example, the younger kids could sing in F, Bb, Eb, D, G (easier for a fraud like myself  )

Is that what they teach now in the Music schools, and would the theory of switching keys as one ages, be one that is practiced.  In other words, is the original music transposed to protect the voice as it "matures?" 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and expertise!

Interesting question.

The shortest answer is, for some songs, yes, they could transpose downward to accommodate their more limited voices, which are especially lacking on the high end.

The longer answer is that whether that works depends on the melody in question. Regardless of the key, a melody might span just a few notes, or it could theoretically span several octaves. The less the range of a melody, the more likely that teacher's method would be to work. For example, if a melody only spans from the root to the fifth of a key (in C major, that would be C, D, E, F, G; in E major, it would be E, F#, G#, A, B; and so on), you can easily switch keys to make it more easily fit a person's range, with the assumption that everyone has a range that would span some perfect fifth.

But a more challenging melody could be of such a range that if you transpose it down a key, the low notes are too low; and if you transpose it up, the high notes are too high; or it may simply be both low and high regardless of key. The Star Spangled Banner, for example, covers not a fifth, but an octave and a fifth. (In the key of C major, it would go as low as a C and as high not as a G, but the octave above that G.) If a voice has limitations on both ends, songs with that kind of range can challenge regardless.

You cracked me up with the mention of the Star Spangled Banner, which is almost impossible for a young kid to sing, because of the "stretch" and I got around singing something patriotic with America the Beautiful, which is so much easier for them.  The kids wanted to sing it because they would call it the "baseball" song or the "hockey" song because they play that at the opening of the games on TV and they love showing off for their families...but they can't carry that tune in a bucket!

You and Wirestone gave great explanations as to what happens at certain ages, and under certain circumstances...thanks to both and a late Happy Valentines to all!  

[Jonathan Blum]

Properly trained singers (or simply singers who have taken care of their instruments) keep most of the voices. Look at someone like Aretha Franklin or Paul McCartney. Each of them is nearly 70. Yet each of them is able to perform their original songs in the original key and style.

FWIW, even Macca has had to drop songs down a bit over the years ("Eleanor Rigby" was taken down a step a while back, and disappeared from the set list last year).  And then there are songs which he's never tried to perform live, like "Oh Darling".  He's done an impressive job keeping his voice over the years, but I do think it's still been showing wear...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[lance]

Neither one of your arguments cancel the other's out. One is saying: "People who take care of their voice preserve more of it as they age." The other is saying 'Old people sound like old people, inevitably.'

[Autotune]

I would like to add that one of the first age-related voice problems is sustain (I don't know what the English word for this is). I mean supporting one's voice using the diaphragm. It seems that with age, and lack of proper training, muscle tone becomes weaker, making it difficult to support/sustain the voice and thus being the cause for a decay in tone quality, volume and -more important- pitch. The singing tends to become flat. I think Brian is an extreme example of this... when singing in concert. And I don't think that singing whiler sitting helps him overcome this problem; or suffering severe stage fright while singing.

[AndrewHickey]

FWIW, even Macca has had to drop songs down a bit over the years ("Eleanor Rigby" was taken down a step a while back, and disappeared from the set list last year).  And then there are songs which he's never tried to perform live, like "Oh Darling".  He's done an impressive job keeping his voice over the years, but I do think it's still been showing wear...

McCartney was still doing Eleanor Rigby as of the middle of December last year. Sounded like the original key to me, too (but I've not got particularly great pitch). But yeah, his voice is definitely weakening, and has been for years. When he did She's Leaving Home in 2002, he took the low John part and left the high part he sang on the record to his backing band.

[filledeplage]

There's another response, too, which goes in a different direction.

It is not "natural" or "normal" for a maturing voice to dramatically change range or tone. Those things are the result of abuse of some sort.

Properly trained singers (or simply singers who have taken care of their instruments) keep most of the voices. Look at someone like Aretha Franklin or Paul McCartney. Each of them is nearly 70. Yet each of them is able to perform their original songs in the original key and style. They have lost a note here or there, sure, and I'm sure you lose a bit of sheer power as your body ages.

But the fact is, there is nothing inherent about being a performer that leads to your voice being ruined. Most of the time people either abuse their throats with smoke or drugs, or they simply oversing. That is most likely Mike's problem, for example. The man has sung from his throat -- not his chest -- from the beginning, and you can see the payoff now, which is that it's hard for him to even talk sometimes because he's so hoarse. Bruce likewise seems to have blown his voice out, although his range isn't that different -- just frailer. Al has kept much of his voice, but he clearly hasn't continued serious vocal exercises or training that would retain flexibility, which means he's left with his midrange. He probably can still sing some falsetto / head voice, but the ability to "bridge" those ranges is gone.

Although everyone hates him, apparently, Jeff Foskett is an amazing example here. He is in his 50s, yet his voice has remained astonishingly flexible and capable. And I bet he really takes care of it.

So the end point is that yes, there are some changes that happen due to age (apparently women tend to have lower registers after menopause, although their range doesn't necessarily change). But not as many as you would think, and with proper training and vocal rest, everyone does not end up singing several steps lower.

Here's a fabulous blog post on the topic, from a professional vocal coach. It's starting point is Whitney Houston, but you could apply it to our favorite band: http://aapproach.com/what-happened-to-whitney-houstons-voice-a-vocal-coachs-analysis/

That was a wonderful blog post, and I did not know that women's voices change with age and childbirth.  I did wonder about transposing keys.  In Music Methods, one half of the class, had to transpose down, for teaching in the upper elementary/middle school teaching, and the rest of us had to transpose up to accommodate the ages starting with 4 year olds to primary grades.  And someone mentioned singing while sitting...I get the sense that Brian has had some instruction on vocal preservation.  It must be tough to do two shows a day and keep using your voice without a rest.  I don't know how bands do it!

On The Union, (Leon Russell and Elton John ) they show Brian doing background vocals and quite capably.  No Jeff.  He sounds better, than 10 years ago. I guess it makes sense to have an expert "on deck" to advise how best to use it, as you go through life.  Even and especially classroom teachers, who use their voices all day long.  Lots of my friends developed vocal trouble, and polyps, after working to, and beyond, the 30 year mark, and, especially if not in a healthy building.  I tend to doubt that anyone is telling young teachers that they need to take care of their voices, as well.  Vocal health is often a reflection of one's overall health.

Thanks for that link and for the expertise!