2 people have an unfortunate cardiac condition that prevents any 'zing' sound whatsoever from successfully emanating from their proverbial heart strings . . .
Love how the tone (or whatever it's called) of this tag descends to that final tone where they bring it to a close. That is so beautiful to listen to:)
On another subject, now that you're so buddy-buddies with Tim Waurick, how about talking him into uploading his own MultiTrack videos of him doing the One-Man Sweet Adeline Quartet tags from his TimTracks website, e.g. "Puttin' On the Ritz" and the even more astoundingly impressive "Smile medley" tag (the latter of which is no longer LINKED on his site, but you can still play it if you know the URL)?
Those are currently audio-only. We wanna SEE him do those! And others!
I've had several windows open for awhile, skipping back and forth to listen to the options. Of the 3, I can easily say Option 3 is my least favorite. I think Option 1 is the most pleasing to my middle-aged ears, but the tuning in Option 2 sounds really good, as well. Option 1 sounds a very tiny bit brighter to me.
Until seeing Big-O's initial comment about the original tag, I didn't really notice Simon's penultimate note in isolation, because the chord itself seemed to lock well enough.
I need to make this clear too, it sounds like a great tag, I'm not knocking anyone, and I'm not willing to get nit-picky anymore. Let's lay off the criticism and calm down. Everyone.
I'm pretty sure we're having a pretty involved academic discussion, that I don't often get to have with anyone, thanks to the dilemma of tuning the minor-seventh in a bVII9 penultimate chord. And from what I can tell we're all enjoying it. Yes, the tag is fantastic, sorry I didn't say that first. If you don't feel like joining in our discussion, you don't have to.
@LoungeSinger23: I've been reading the comments and enjoying the discussion very much. IMO, it isn't a fight, and it isn't hyper-criticism of anyone's singing abilities or multi-tracking skills. It's a chat about various tuning approaches, which depend somewhat upon personal taste.
Actually, I'm glad that Big-O's question about Simon's penultimate note has prompted this conversation. I've learned SO MUCH from reading these types of comments on YouTube. Thanks to all who've contributed.
It should be noted that you DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANY of this to sing Barbershop! Just let your ear and brain do the work: the laws of physics are on your side!
Do you need to know that red light is about an octave "deeper" than blue light to know that a USA flag looks good? No? Same principle.
All this techie stuff about harmonics and ¢ and such is only needed by people trying to teach computers how to tune MIDI and music tracks to Barbershop-style J.I.
Good lord you guys fight a lot over one b6. Personally, I think the note sounds flat, and I'm familiar with many tuning systems, they will all say different things and can be interpreted differently. A wise recording engineer once told me "Make sure you mix with your ears and not with your eyes." If it sounds flat, it's flat, no matter how the math works out.
The only problem with that, Kyle, is that it doesn't sound flat to everyone. I'm used to that kind of tuning, so to me it sounds good. I know for a fact that most of the people that think this note is flat won't be happy until I sharp it, hence make the chord out of tune. I'm not mixing with my eyes nor my ears, I'm mixing with my brain =)
just out of curiosity when yall sang that one did you hear a fifth note. I just love when harmony goes so well a fifth note that no one is singing at all can be heard listen to it again and see if you hear it, and no one is singing it but it is there
Actually, I sang it very sharp, and had to pitch correct it to what it is. Do you know anything about harmony theory? Sevenths are supposed to be 31 cents of a semitone flat compared to the even-tempered scale for the chord to lock properly (as you can hear, the chord is locked even though it sounds like I'm flat), so no, I'm simply just =)
and when I say "piano tuning", I mean that you're simply used to the "Do Re Mi" that we all learned from the beginning, which is the even-tempered scale we know from the piano.
Here's a question for you, COMALiteJ (what's your name anyway?):
Do you think it sounds like I'm flat on the pinultimate chord? Or are you used to that kind of tuning?
I've been in contact with several people with your knowledge regarding this matter, and they all seem to have different opinions. Some people say it's a matter of getting used to it, others say they don't think it's pretty this way, and should be faked (singing the 7th +18 cents instead of -31). What's your opinion?
I think what's happening here is that the chord is ringing properly, but since your 7th note is on the melody, the -31¢ is an audible difference even to an untrained ear (almost a third of a semitone!), so the MELODY sounds out-of-tune.
You should probably sing that note in a Pythagorean 7th (-4¢) pitch, and have the OTHER three parts tune to YOU. They'd have to sing ~ a third of a tone SHARPER than they'd normally be used to in such a chord.
Are you suggesting that the post should actually go up 27 cents? Normally, I just put the post on the even-tempered +-0 and tune all the other parts around it.
@CJ, concerning your comment about the step in the melody: Yeah, that makes sense.
At first glance tuning Barbershop chords seems to be no more than just simple fractional arithmetic. But things like unpleasantly small/big steps in the melody can make it much more complex. That's why it's probably very difficult to find an algorithm for automatically find the optimal tuning for each note in a Barbershop sing. Trying to develop such an algorithm might be a nice theme for a thesis.
PartyBurner, there's a group of us trying to do precisely that. Join "bbshoptech" YahooGroup!
I and others are experimenting with the MyrScript language (a Lua dialect) built into Myriad Bros. Harmony Assistant (and how's THAT for the perfect name of a music notation program that would be Barbershop-savvy!?) with its Virtual Singer (FineyLeee, remember us meeting on the Virtual Barbershop video thread, which we both found because we thought it might be the OTHER kind of Virtual Barbershop?).
@CJ: That Yahoo group sounds great! I just joined the group, using the nick "Patrick_von_Massow" but it's pending for approval. And I found that "Virtual Barbershop" video, too a while ago, expecting something different from it ... But that binaural audio thing is an interesting topic, too.
@Simon: Does piano tuning mean a major 7th equals 1:2^(11/12) and just intonation means a major 7th equals 15:8? Because - if I checked correctly - that would mean a justly 7th is only supposed to be about 12 cents flat compared to a equally intonated 7th (and not 31 cents).
Well, in any case I think a 7th should be 15:8 for maximum ring, because this way n*15 times the root's frequency equals the (n*8)th harmonic of the 7th.
You are absolutely correct. However, we are talking about the minor seventh here (ie 2^(10/12):1 compared to 7:4, which you will discover differs with 31 cents).
Oops, my bad! Well in this case I think tuning it 31 cents flat is the right thing to do and it should lead to maximum ringing. So I agree with the ones telling you that people who feel it's too flat are probably just too much used to equal-tempered intervals.
This "fake minor 7th" with +18 cents compared to 2^(10/12) has a ratio of 9:5, right? Well, it should ring, too. But the smallest common multiple of the root and the note is higher than it is for the 7:4 minor 7th, leading to less hearable common harmonics and therefore less ring.
So it may indeed be a matter of taste. I can recommend you the Wikpedia article "Harmonic seventh", which contains a lot of info about the different types of minor 7ths and also about it's use for Barbershop.
A Barbershop Seventh chord in root position should be tuned to Root: 4/4 (1/1), Third: 5/4 (-14¢), Fifth: 6/4 (3/2: +2¢), and Seventh: 7/4 (-31¢). This produces a 4:5:6:7 progression: four full sine waves of the Root's fundamental pass the ear in the exact same time as five waves of the Third's, six of the Fifth's, and seven of the Seventh's. This produces the lock and ring, and the reinforcement of overtones.
True Minor Seventh is 9/5 or +18¢. Pythagorean Minor Seventh is 16/9 or -4¢.
Simon, it does sound like you're flat on the penultimate chord. Now from a barbershop standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to suddenly make the post (the 9th of this chord) move for that one chord, so obviously you have to tune everything around the post. I agree with you about the tuning of the minor 7th usually needing to be low, however it may be something to do with it being a 9th chord, or there may be other factors, that make it ring much better when it's a littler higher (b6 in the bVII9).
Trust your ear. I plan on sitting down one day in a couple of months and figure out the math on this puzzling chord, though from reading CJs post, I suspect I'm going to come up with one of the other two (-4¢ or +18¢).
VBeck, this has been a hobby of mine for quite some time now. I used to program Just Intonation (J.I.) microtuned music on the SID chip of the Commodore 64 back in the day, before MIDI (let alone General MIDI) was popular (if it even existed then).
To get you started, just consider this: you probably know that harmonics are formed by a vibrating string or similar item (e.g. human vocal folds) vibrating as a whole AND in fractional parts (halves, thirds, fourths, etc.), right?
Say a plucked or bowed string is vibrating at 100Hz (a low bass note). If you placed a fulcrum at the exact middle of the string (say, lightly touching it with your fingernail) and plucked or bowed it again, it would vibrate in two parts (halves), at twice the frequency (200Hz in this case), producing a note exactly an octave higher. That's technically the First Harmonic, but to make things easier to understand, we call it the 2nd Harmonic, and the Fundamental (100Hz) the First Harmonic.
If you placed a fulcrum at the ½way place on the string, and two more ½way between the first fulcrum and each end of the vibrating portion of the string (thus at the ¼, ½, and ¾ spots), it would vibrate in fourths, 4× the base frequency (400Hz in our case), or two octaves above the fundamental. We call this the Fourth Harmonic.
As it turns out, you don't need three fulcrii. One fulcrum will do. Place it at exactly ¼ (or ¾), and the string will vibrate in fourths as with all three!
You see the pattern: each time you move the fulcrum up to the ½way point between its prior position and an end of the string, the number of vibrating sections doubles, as does the frequency at which they vibrate, thus going up yet another octave!
Pythgagoras discovered this millennia ago, and calculated it without aid of computers, calculators, or even a digital place value numeral system! He was VERY SMART!
He also discovered what happens if you place the fulcrum a THIRD of the way!
Placing the fulcrum a third of the way produces NOT an OCTAVE, but the PERFECT FIFTH (actually, an octave PLUS a Perfect Fifth)! This is the Third Harmonic. In this case, the string whose fundamental is 100Hz would be vibrating in thirds, each part at 3× that speed, or 300Hz. If we go down an octave from there, we cut it in ½, for 150Hz.
So, we say in Barbershop that the Perfect Fifth is the Third Harmonic (numerator 3) down an octave (denominator 2), or a 3/2 ratio, which = 1½×.
Anyway, Pythagoras was ecstatic! He figured that he'd discovered the secret by which the gods created the universe and everything in it: harmonics! He also determined that any melodically useful interval could be formed SOLELY by octaves and Perfect Fifths, or reciprocals thereof (octaves down and Perfect Fourths). For instance, to get a Major Third, you simply go up four Perfect Fifths, then down two octaves back into the same octave you started from: e.g. from C, to G, to D, to A, to E.
What happens exactly when you do that? Starting at C (let's say 100Hz — its not really [not even close], but this is to make the math easier), you go up 3/2 (1½×) to G (150Hz). From there you go up another 3/2 to D (150 × 1.5 = 225Hz — drop down an octave [÷2] = 112.5Hz), then up 3/2 from there to A (168.75Hz), then up another 3/2 from there to E (253.125Hz, ÷2 down an octave for 126.5625Hz).
Despite the decimals, these are all Just Intonation, but NOT what Barbershop chords use.
What I just described in the PYTHAGOREAN Major Third. It IS used in Barbershop, but ONLY for the MELODY or Chord ROOTS, NOT for WITHIN a chord!
Going up 3/2 four times means multiplying the 3/2 itself by itself four times: both numerator and denominator. 3×3×3×3 = 3²×3² = 3⁴ = 81. 2×2×2×2 = 2²×2² = 2⁴ = 64 (your computer's web fonts may not be able to show the superscripted 4). So, the Pythagorean Major Third is 81/64 times the fundamental, and that works out:
81/64 = 1.265625, so 100Hz × 81/64 = 100×1.265625 = 126.5625Hz, which is what we caulcated before!
But, you may be thinking, if the C is 100Hz and the G is 150Hz, shouldn't the E be a perfect 125Hz instead of 126.5625Hz? You're right! It should, and it IS for a Barbershop Major, Seventh, etc. chord!
THAT frequency is 5/4, NOT 81/64. Pythagoras never discovered that, because he never tried moving the fulcrum 1/5th of the way. He felt no need, because of the Circle of Fifths.
As I said before, using just Octaves and Perfect Fifths, any melodically useful interval could be achieved. In fact, the entire scale could be built from Fifths alone, or so he thought at first!
The Circle of Fifths is the very basis of all Western Civilization music — but it DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK! Theoretically, if you start at C and go up 12 Perfect Fifths, you wind up with a C seven octaves up! If you keep backing down octaves as needed, you wind up exactly where you started. NOT SO!
Pythagoras DID discover this much, and it drove him batty. He calculated the exact amount by which the twelve Fifths OVERSHOOTS the seven Octaves: by nearly a quarter of a tone (about 24¢, where ¢ = 1/100th of a 12-tone Even Tempered [12tET] semitone).
Why doesn't it work? Well, when you go up by octaves, you're multiplying by powers of 2: 2×, 4×, 8×, and so on. Go up by Perfect Fifths and you're multiplying by powers of three: 3×, 9×, 27×, and so on.
See the problem? The powers of two are all EVEN numbers, and the powers of three are all ODD numbers, and no matter HOW far you extend both sequences, you'll NEVER find an ODD number that equals an EVEN number! NEVER, EVER, EVER!!
So why does music work, if it's based on such a flaw? Well, we compromised the tuning system. It's a long story, but what we finally wound up with is the 12tET scale. It has NO pure intervals except for octaves and kinda-sorta the tritones (√2×).
Without a tempered scale, you'd pretty much have to stop and retune your piano nearly every time you changed chords, BECAUSE OF the failed "Circle" of Fifths! Could you imagine doing that with a PIPE ORGAN!?
Anyway, if Pythagoras had tried dividing the string into fifths, he would've discovered a third that was FLATTER than the Pythagorean Major Third. The string vibrates at 5× the fundamental, or 500Hz in our example. Drop down two octaves (÷4) and you get — 125Hz!! 5/4!
It's a weird quirk of the math that the THIRD Harmonic gives us the Perfect FIFTH, while the FIFTH Harmonic gives us the Just or Harmonic Major THIRD. But once past that, the odd harmonics match up with their intervals: Seventh Harmonic = Barbershop Seventh interval, Ninth Harmonic = Harmonic Ninth interval (not a prime number and so can be derived from the Perfect Fifth in this case), Eleventh Harmonic = Harmonic Eleventh Interval, and so on.
@CJ Well I read all of this expecting an answer to our question at the end, but it turns out it was all pythagoras and harmonic series theory, which is fine, 'cause I hope everyone who doesn't know about it reads your posts, it's really important for everyone...at least I think so, but I think I'm biased. :p
Well the answer is the following: The Pythagorean tuning is based on perfect fifths, and the equal-tempered tuning is based on perfect octaves. However, the just tuning is based on all perfect intervals at the same time. The downside with this? It comes with no scale whatsoever. And since all music of today is based on some kind of scale, this becomes a problem.
Here's the solution I present to you. This solution works VERY good with me, and I think no other can match this solution.
All sung chords have a root. Keep the root even-tempered. The even tempered scale is the only scale that is complete. Tune all the other notes perfectly around the root. Do this for all chords except for chord progressions where there's a post. Then tune the other parts around the post until the post is over, and then go back to tuning around the root.
FineyLeee, the problem with that is that human beings cannot sing in E.T. without instrumental accompaniment. Close, but not exactly. E.T. is an artificial and compromised tuning system, based on exponential math too complex for our brains to subconsciously calculate on the fly, rather than on simple ratios and laws-of-physics harmonics.
What you describe works fine for Melodyne or MIDI with Pitch Bend tuning or Harmony Assistant with Virtual Singer, but not for real human beings.
What I do is tune the root (usually Bass) of each chord (some exceptions) to the Pythagorean tuning relative to the scale or key root, then tune the rest of the notes to that altered-tuning root using harmonic J.I.
This is Adaptive J.I. and requires fewer pitch shifts.
For instance, the Major Third of the Perfect Fourth (an IV chord) should be the same tuning as the Major Sixth of the Root.
IV's root is -2¢. Its Major Third is thus -2¢ + -14¢ = -16¢. Major Sixth of Scale Tonic: -16¢!
With FineyLeee's system, if, in the Key of C Major, an A were held sustained over a transition from C Major 6th (I6) to F Major (IV), its pitch would have to shift up ~2¢ (from about -16¢ to about -14¢). That's too small of a difference for any human singer to do consciously, or even hear by itself, but it sure does make a difference in the chord.
With Adaptive J.I., the A remains at ~16¢ throughout!
You're right. And when you ask most educated people what scale to follow when singing Barbershop, they'll say the Pythagorean. And sure, the math adds up better when doing it, so in theory, that's probably what you do when you sing Barbershop. However, in practise, your tuning isn't that accurate that you for instance can differ from a Pythagorean five and an even-tempered five. Therefore I stick to the even-tempered scale (like on this tag), which works better with any music software.
This basically mean that you can use the even-tempered scale when singing, with a little addition to it. If you know the approximate tuning to most notes used in Barbershop (roots, fifths, nines dead on, thirds, sixths, major sevenths a sixth flat, minor thirds, minor sevenths a sixth sharp, and barbershop sevenths a third flat), all you need to do to apply it in practise is to know what note in the chord you're on. Once you do, you apply the extra few cents as well as you can!
Yeah, I'm aware of all of the math and tuning systems, including all of the mean-tone systems (quartet-comma mean-tone, etc.). But the question is still, why does the JI flat-seven in the penultimate chord sound out of tune, but to our ears it sounds IN-tune when it's a bit sharper? Is it only in that inversion? It must have something to do with acoustical dissonance, perhaps from adding the 9th to the chord and removing the 5th.
It's because you're listening to the note, rather than the tuning. I swear to you, if you heard the version where I pitched the note up x number of cents, you'd think the lock got worse, although when listening to the note itself it'd probably sound better in your ears.
No, I promise I'm listening to the chord. But who knows, maybe it's a vowel matching issue that is making it sound funky, with the other three guys singing a much taller vowel.
Good Lord! That was a good class in theory. Thanks COMALiteJ. Although I understand the flaws in the system now, does Simon's method of tuning to the root, and then to the post encapsulate the mathematics which Pythagoras found in the first place, or is it an override to come as close to perfect in an imperfect system?
@Mike: Haha, I don't know that much about it. I just read Simon's 'The 11 Chords of Barbershop' introduction plus some Wikipedia articles about just intonation and intervals and I remember a few things from school about factional computation :).
Furthermore I experimented a little with pitch correction and "constructed" chords out of synthetically created notes by generating sine waves with harmonics in Audacity.
But CJ just showed me tuning each chord separately for max. ring isn't enough.
Just to clarify notation in the format of "Seventh: 7/4 (-31¢)": is the cent disparity supposed to be the difference between tuning the note justly and what you would expect in 12-tet?
yes, the -31¢ means the justly tuned minor-seventh is 31/100 of an equal tempered semi-tone lower than the equal tempered minor-seventh. Hope that makes sense.
Indeed it does, thanks - I had just never seen notes referred to in terms of cents from 12-tet before. That having been said, this is why I prefer b7 - 4 - 1 - 2 penultimate chords.
Not quite. That is what would be the case for a Scale Tonic-rooted Seventh chord ("I7" in Roman Numeral notation). For any chord rooted on any other note than the Scale / Key Tonic, you also have to add in the offset of the Chord Root relative to the Scale Root.
So, in the case of a V7 chord (e.g. G7 in the key of C Major), its root is the Perfect Fifth (+2¢) of Scale Tonic, so its Seventh would be -31¢ (for 7/4 Barbershop Seventh) + +2¢ (for Perfect Fifth) = -29¢ (approximately).
I listened to them all carefully and I like option 1 the best for sure.
I can't argue with the theory that you all are talking about, but I think you're over complicating it in this case. It seems to me that it sounds out of tune because the second-to-last note should be the same note as the third-to-last note but you've flattened it to somewhere that isn't a standard semi-tone.
I'm a huge fan of music theory....but the bari doesn't seem quite tuned in this vid. I guess I just listen for "the sound" more than I calculate the mathematical equation for "the sound". :)
To my ears the singing of a note that is somewhere in the middle of a standard semi tone stands out more harshly than a chord that isn't completely locked. I generally don't plan on getting a complete mathematical lock on a chord that dirty anyway.
Perhaps the bari just needs to be mixed more softly than the other parts on that note since he's the odd man out?
That's exactly what I did with option 2. I sang it lighter and mixed it a bit softer in volume.
So what you just said kinda proves my point. Let me take an example: "When I calculate trigonometry, I prefer approximating pi to 3, because it's easier and I'm used to it."
And, taking it to the next step: "You said you drew a circle with radius 3, but your circle is too big. I can clearly tell that your circle has a circumference bigger than 6."
What I just did might seem like a silly comparison. But actually, it's pretty darn serious and accurate. You're saying that you prefer what you're used to, even if it goes against the laws of physics. I think this is an interesting matter though, because many seem to think the same way!
@FineyLeee I'd be more inclined to just think he has perfect pitch. Everyone I know with perfect pitch has perfect pitch to the 12-tone equal tempered scale, and find microtonal alterations to be discordant.
This tag right here, is already freakin' epic to me :) Four amazing singers in one vid. I'm not sure, but I may have shit my pants out of pure excitement :) Great job to all four!
it was cool, but your strike up the band tag was better. The bass from that is a legend! that guy can do Anything including break my heart
Oh yea, awesome strong bass on this one Kyle, and why is there so many bari tiddlies? this bari is too greedy! haha it's a great collab, though it feels like too short a tag for something so big!
2 people have an unfortunate cardiac condition that prevents any 'zing' sound whatsoever from successfully emanating from their proverbial heart strings . . .
SirFone 6 months ago
Perfection! I vote you four compete....just sayin.
fznbaritone 8 months ago
Love how the tone (or whatever it's called) of this tag descends to that final tone where they bring it to a close. That is so beautiful to listen to:)
jarbon5 10 months ago
Holy crizzap. This is the first time I have seen this clip....New fav!
warthogfixr 11 months ago
Hey, but what's the point of multitracking when all the singers are different? You can just sing all together in one single shot, right?
LabakiTurbo 1 year ago
@LabakiTurbo 3 out of 4 were shot at what looks like Simon's studio, not to be a creep or anything...
tricheyproductions 10 months ago
@tricheyproductions Yep, I was the lame one in my dorm room in Indiana :)
kitzmiller100786 7 months ago
Yep, that one gets a replay.
Drum3r541 1 year ago
Hey Simon, were Tim and Eric visiting you when you did this?
555Kestrel 1 year ago
where did the video with the alternate tunings go?
wolverineks 1 year ago
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!! Chicken skin!
johnsontodd 1 year ago
Hmmm, I wasn't the only one who thought that Bari penultimate note was just a bit under, then...
DanishCartoonist 1 year ago
dang. the guy in the top right looks just like brian wilson a la "the lost concert."
vintagedrgonzo 1 year ago
I don't get the two people who thumbed this down... How the hell can you thumb something like this down?
sgtsonny 1 year ago
What a bass!
And a tenor.
And a lead.
And a baritone.
Take 2:
What a quartet!
brockjarrett789 2 years ago 2
Isn't it supposed to be Zing WENT the strings of my heart? ;) Great Job guys!
ChrisisBass13 2 years ago
yes it is, but who cares they still ring it.
Brotteo 2 years ago
@Brotteo I never said they didnt! They are amazing!
ChrisisBass13 2 years ago
@ChrisisBass13 agreed!
Brotteo 2 years ago
Believe it or not we did sing went. The title is with though I think.
kitztracks 2 years ago
This is amazing. Fantastic. Who arranged this piece?
Kimkong91 2 years ago
this would be the greatest quartet to ever walk the earth.
ejwalsh1234 2 years ago
Let's not forget the Westminster Fantasy Quartet :) But of course tastes differ :)
sgtsonny 2 years ago
can you say.. chillzzzz xD <3
SugarbabyLA 2 years ago
The bass really sings out on this one. I love it
AlexGhone 2 years ago 11
0:11 - 0:13...
Damn near soiled myself here. Baritone places this so crisp.
CatOfBlue 2 years ago
Tim and Eric from Vocal Spectrum?? WOW!!
bellicosejason 2 years ago
i love this tag!
wickedrocketelvispel 2 years ago
i love you..... i can sit at my computer and listen to you for literaly hours
artismylife55 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
my ears are bleeding. please swallow bleach.
SatanJesusBandana666 2 years ago
you fail! :(
brianisawesom 2 years ago 3
no I wasn't talking about simon failing, the guy who said to swallow bleach was the guy I was talking to. :) ( just makin sure)
brianisawesom 2 years ago 6
fabulous! :)
flexigurl9 2 years ago 2
Who's the arranger of this tune?
Ben10r 2 years ago
On another subject, now that you're so buddy-buddies with Tim Waurick, how about talking him into uploading his own MultiTrack videos of him doing the One-Man Sweet Adeline Quartet tags from his TimTracks website, e.g. "Puttin' On the Ritz" and the even more astoundingly impressive "Smile medley" tag (the latter of which is no longer LINKED on his site, but you can still play it if you know the URL)?
Those are currently audio-only. We wanna SEE him do those! And others!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Give me the url.
Barbershop666 2 years ago
timtracks•com/clips/Smile%20Medley%20%5BFemale%5D%20-%20Tag%20Clip•MP3
Replace bullets with periods, and take out any space that YouTube™ may have inserted.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Holy #&@^
Barbershop666 2 years ago 2
that took me ages to play. there's a cheeky little space i couldn't spot. it was worth the wait though!
timmylead 2 years ago
phantom of the opera! thats easily the best
timmylead 2 years ago
Wow, that was a treat... and the discussion that followed.... makes me realize that I don't know my Pythagorean from a hole in my penultimate.
robangus 2 years ago 4
I've had several windows open for awhile, skipping back and forth to listen to the options. Of the 3, I can easily say Option 3 is my least favorite. I think Option 1 is the most pleasing to my middle-aged ears, but the tuning in Option 2 sounds really good, as well. Option 1 sounds a very tiny bit brighter to me.
Until seeing Big-O's initial comment about the original tag, I didn't really notice Simon's penultimate note in isolation, because the chord itself seemed to lock well enough.
CarlyCarlyW 2 years ago 3
you know, Kyle looks a little like brian wilson from the beach boys!
brianisawesom 2 years ago
THAT IS SICK!! =) MOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE
TROPICO78 2 years ago
I need to make this clear too, it sounds like a great tag, I'm not knocking anyone, and I'm not willing to get nit-picky anymore. Let's lay off the criticism and calm down. Everyone.
kitztracks 2 years ago
Check out the video responses I posted, and let me know which one you like best.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
After reading the many comments on this video, I had a hunch that you might upload some alternate tunings. Thanks!
I will listen to the options you've posted.
CarlyCarlyW 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure we're having a pretty involved academic discussion, that I don't often get to have with anyone, thanks to the dilemma of tuning the minor-seventh in a bVII9 penultimate chord. And from what I can tell we're all enjoying it. Yes, the tag is fantastic, sorry I didn't say that first. If you don't feel like joining in our discussion, you don't have to.
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
@LoungeSinger23: I've been reading the comments and enjoying the discussion very much. IMO, it isn't a fight, and it isn't hyper-criticism of anyone's singing abilities or multi-tracking skills. It's a chat about various tuning approaches, which depend somewhat upon personal taste.
Actually, I'm glad that Big-O's question about Simon's penultimate note has prompted this conversation. I've learned SO MUCH from reading these types of comments on YouTube. Thanks to all who've contributed.
CarlyCarlyW 2 years ago
Ok great, it seemed that people were getting a little too heated. It seemed this way to me, but since it's not, party on!
I personally would like something flatter than option 1 and sharper than option 2.
kitztracks 2 years ago 4
@kitztracks you look a little bit like Brian Wilson. :p
brianisawesom 2 years ago
It should be noted that you DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANY of this to sing Barbershop! Just let your ear and brain do the work: the laws of physics are on your side!
Do you need to know that red light is about an octave "deeper" than blue light to know that a USA flag looks good? No? Same principle.
All this techie stuff about harmonics and ¢ and such is only needed by people trying to teach computers how to tune MIDI and music tracks to Barbershop-style J.I.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Check out the video responses I posted, and let me know which one you like best.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Good lord you guys fight a lot over one b6. Personally, I think the note sounds flat, and I'm familiar with many tuning systems, they will all say different things and can be interpreted differently. A wise recording engineer once told me "Make sure you mix with your ears and not with your eyes." If it sounds flat, it's flat, no matter how the math works out.
kitztracks 2 years ago
The only problem with that, Kyle, is that it doesn't sound flat to everyone. I'm used to that kind of tuning, so to me it sounds good. I know for a fact that most of the people that think this note is flat won't be happy until I sharp it, hence make the chord out of tune. I'm not mixing with my eyes nor my ears, I'm mixing with my brain =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
just out of curiosity when yall sang that one did you hear a fifth note. I just love when harmony goes so well a fifth note that no one is singing at all can be heard listen to it again and see if you hear it, and no one is singing it but it is there
mustardhead1 2 years ago
All I can say about that one is WOW!!!
MCVtenor23 2 years ago
I think it sounds great.
t1e1rry 2 years ago
Great tag guys! Great blend.
I don't mean to nitpic, but Simon, were you flat on the second to last note?
murry537 2 years ago
Actually, I sang it very sharp, and had to pitch correct it to what it is. Do you know anything about harmony theory? Sevenths are supposed to be 31 cents of a semitone flat compared to the even-tempered scale for the chord to lock properly (as you can hear, the chord is locked even though it sounds like I'm flat), so no, I'm simply just =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Maybe it's the pitch correction that I'm hearing, or something. It sounds off to me.
I don't mean to criticize though, it's a great tag!
murry537 2 years ago
It probably sounds off to you because you're used to the piano tuning. Me on the other hand, I can't stand sevenths that are any sharper than that...
FineyLeee 2 years ago
and when I say "piano tuning", I mean that you're simply used to the "Do Re Mi" that we all learned from the beginning, which is the even-tempered scale we know from the piano.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
No, I think murry537 of ALL people (of the "Big O" Multitrack Training Tags) knows the difference between E.T. and J.I.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Here's a question for you, COMALiteJ (what's your name anyway?):
Do you think it sounds like I'm flat on the pinultimate chord? Or are you used to that kind of tuning?
I've been in contact with several people with your knowledge regarding this matter, and they all seem to have different opinions. Some people say it's a matter of getting used to it, others say they don't think it's pretty this way, and should be faked (singing the 7th +18 cents instead of -31). What's your opinion?
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Call me "CJ" if you must abbreviate.
I think what's happening here is that the chord is ringing properly, but since your 7th note is on the melody, the -31¢ is an audible difference even to an untrained ear (almost a third of a semitone!), so the MELODY sounds out-of-tune.
You should probably sing that note in a Pythagorean 7th (-4¢) pitch, and have the OTHER three parts tune to YOU. They'd have to sing ~ a third of a tone SHARPER than they'd normally be used to in such a chord.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that the post should actually go up 27 cents? Normally, I just put the post on the even-tempered +-0 and tune all the other parts around it.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
@CJ, concerning your comment about the step in the melody: Yeah, that makes sense.
At first glance tuning Barbershop chords seems to be no more than just simple fractional arithmetic. But things like unpleasantly small/big steps in the melody can make it much more complex. That's why it's probably very difficult to find an algorithm for automatically find the optimal tuning for each note in a Barbershop sing. Trying to develop such an algorithm might be a nice theme for a thesis.
Partyburner 2 years ago
PartyBurner, there's a group of us trying to do precisely that. Join "bbshoptech" YahooGroup!
I and others are experimenting with the MyrScript language (a Lua dialect) built into Myriad Bros. Harmony Assistant (and how's THAT for the perfect name of a music notation program that would be Barbershop-savvy!?) with its Virtual Singer (FineyLeee, remember us meeting on the Virtual Barbershop video thread, which we both found because we thought it might be the OTHER kind of Virtual Barbershop?).
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
@CJ: That Yahoo group sounds great! I just joined the group, using the nick "Patrick_von_Massow" but it's pending for approval. And I found that "Virtual Barbershop" video, too a while ago, expecting something different from it ... But that binaural audio thing is an interesting topic, too.
Partyburner 2 years ago
Check out the video responses I posted, and let me know which one you like best.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
@Simon: Does piano tuning mean a major 7th equals 1:2^(11/12) and just intonation means a major 7th equals 15:8? Because - if I checked correctly - that would mean a justly 7th is only supposed to be about 12 cents flat compared to a equally intonated 7th (and not 31 cents).
Well, in any case I think a 7th should be 15:8 for maximum ring, because this way n*15 times the root's frequency equals the (n*8)th harmonic of the 7th.
Partyburner 2 years ago
You are absolutely correct. However, we are talking about the minor seventh here (ie 2^(10/12):1 compared to 7:4, which you will discover differs with 31 cents).
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Oops, my bad! Well in this case I think tuning it 31 cents flat is the right thing to do and it should lead to maximum ringing. So I agree with the ones telling you that people who feel it's too flat are probably just too much used to equal-tempered intervals.
Partyburner 2 years ago
This "fake minor 7th" with +18 cents compared to 2^(10/12) has a ratio of 9:5, right? Well, it should ring, too. But the smallest common multiple of the root and the note is higher than it is for the 7:4 minor 7th, leading to less hearable common harmonics and therefore less ring.
So it may indeed be a matter of taste. I can recommend you the Wikpedia article "Harmonic seventh", which contains a lot of info about the different types of minor 7ths and also about it's use for Barbershop.
Partyburner 2 years ago
A Barbershop Seventh chord in root position should be tuned to Root: 4/4 (1/1), Third: 5/4 (-14¢), Fifth: 6/4 (3/2: +2¢), and Seventh: 7/4 (-31¢). This produces a 4:5:6:7 progression: four full sine waves of the Root's fundamental pass the ear in the exact same time as five waves of the Third's, six of the Fifth's, and seven of the Seventh's. This produces the lock and ring, and the reinforcement of overtones.
True Minor Seventh is 9/5 or +18¢. Pythagorean Minor Seventh is 16/9 or -4¢.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
@ Simon, 'CJ', and Patrick:
You all make my head hurt! How do you guys know so much about barbershop theory?! It's staggering! Keep the good music coming!
virtualbeck 2 years ago
Simon, it does sound like you're flat on the penultimate chord. Now from a barbershop standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to suddenly make the post (the 9th of this chord) move for that one chord, so obviously you have to tune everything around the post. I agree with you about the tuning of the minor 7th usually needing to be low, however it may be something to do with it being a 9th chord, or there may be other factors, that make it ring much better when it's a littler higher (b6 in the bVII9).
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Trust your ear. I plan on sitting down one day in a couple of months and figure out the math on this puzzling chord, though from reading CJs post, I suspect I'm going to come up with one of the other two (-4¢ or +18¢).
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Check out the video responses I posted, and let me know which one you like best.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
VBeck, this has been a hobby of mine for quite some time now. I used to program Just Intonation (J.I.) microtuned music on the SID chip of the Commodore 64 back in the day, before MIDI (let alone General MIDI) was popular (if it even existed then).
To get you started, just consider this: you probably know that harmonics are formed by a vibrating string or similar item (e.g. human vocal folds) vibrating as a whole AND in fractional parts (halves, thirds, fourths, etc.), right?
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Say a plucked or bowed string is vibrating at 100Hz (a low bass note). If you placed a fulcrum at the exact middle of the string (say, lightly touching it with your fingernail) and plucked or bowed it again, it would vibrate in two parts (halves), at twice the frequency (200Hz in this case), producing a note exactly an octave higher. That's technically the First Harmonic, but to make things easier to understand, we call it the 2nd Harmonic, and the Fundamental (100Hz) the First Harmonic.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
If you placed a fulcrum at the ½way place on the string, and two more ½way between the first fulcrum and each end of the vibrating portion of the string (thus at the ¼, ½, and ¾ spots), it would vibrate in fourths, 4× the base frequency (400Hz in our case), or two octaves above the fundamental. We call this the Fourth Harmonic.
As it turns out, you don't need three fulcrii. One fulcrum will do. Place it at exactly ¼ (or ¾), and the string will vibrate in fourths as with all three!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
You see the pattern: each time you move the fulcrum up to the ½way point between its prior position and an end of the string, the number of vibrating sections doubles, as does the frequency at which they vibrate, thus going up yet another octave!
Pythgagoras discovered this millennia ago, and calculated it without aid of computers, calculators, or even a digital place value numeral system! He was VERY SMART!
He also discovered what happens if you place the fulcrum a THIRD of the way!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Placing the fulcrum a third of the way produces NOT an OCTAVE, but the PERFECT FIFTH (actually, an octave PLUS a Perfect Fifth)! This is the Third Harmonic. In this case, the string whose fundamental is 100Hz would be vibrating in thirds, each part at 3× that speed, or 300Hz. If we go down an octave from there, we cut it in ½, for 150Hz.
So, we say in Barbershop that the Perfect Fifth is the Third Harmonic (numerator 3) down an octave (denominator 2), or a 3/2 ratio, which = 1½×.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Anyway, Pythagoras was ecstatic! He figured that he'd discovered the secret by which the gods created the universe and everything in it: harmonics! He also determined that any melodically useful interval could be formed SOLELY by octaves and Perfect Fifths, or reciprocals thereof (octaves down and Perfect Fourths). For instance, to get a Major Third, you simply go up four Perfect Fifths, then down two octaves back into the same octave you started from: e.g. from C, to G, to D, to A, to E.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
What happens exactly when you do that? Starting at C (let's say 100Hz — its not really [not even close], but this is to make the math easier), you go up 3/2 (1½×) to G (150Hz). From there you go up another 3/2 to D (150 × 1.5 = 225Hz — drop down an octave [÷2] = 112.5Hz), then up 3/2 from there to A (168.75Hz), then up another 3/2 from there to E (253.125Hz, ÷2 down an octave for 126.5625Hz).
Despite the decimals, these are all Just Intonation, but NOT what Barbershop chords use.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
What I just described in the PYTHAGOREAN Major Third. It IS used in Barbershop, but ONLY for the MELODY or Chord ROOTS, NOT for WITHIN a chord!
Going up 3/2 four times means multiplying the 3/2 itself by itself four times: both numerator and denominator. 3×3×3×3 = 3²×3² = 3⁴ = 81. 2×2×2×2 = 2²×2² = 2⁴ = 64 (your computer's web fonts may not be able to show the superscripted 4). So, the Pythagorean Major Third is 81/64 times the fundamental, and that works out:
100Hz *
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
oops!
81/64 = 1.265625, so 100Hz × 81/64 = 100×1.265625 = 126.5625Hz, which is what we caulcated before!
But, you may be thinking, if the C is 100Hz and the G is 150Hz, shouldn't the E be a perfect 125Hz instead of 126.5625Hz? You're right! It should, and it IS for a Barbershop Major, Seventh, etc. chord!
THAT frequency is 5/4, NOT 81/64. Pythagoras never discovered that, because he never tried moving the fulcrum 1/5th of the way. He felt no need, because of the Circle of Fifths.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
As I said before, using just Octaves and Perfect Fifths, any melodically useful interval could be achieved. In fact, the entire scale could be built from Fifths alone, or so he thought at first!
The Circle of Fifths is the very basis of all Western Civilization music — but it DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK! Theoretically, if you start at C and go up 12 Perfect Fifths, you wind up with a C seven octaves up! If you keep backing down octaves as needed, you wind up exactly where you started. NOT SO!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Pythagoras DID discover this much, and it drove him batty. He calculated the exact amount by which the twelve Fifths OVERSHOOTS the seven Octaves: by nearly a quarter of a tone (about 24¢, where ¢ = 1/100th of a 12-tone Even Tempered [12tET] semitone).
Why doesn't it work? Well, when you go up by octaves, you're multiplying by powers of 2: 2×, 4×, 8×, and so on. Go up by Perfect Fifths and you're multiplying by powers of three: 3×, 9×, 27×, and so on.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
See the problem? The powers of two are all EVEN numbers, and the powers of three are all ODD numbers, and no matter HOW far you extend both sequences, you'll NEVER find an ODD number that equals an EVEN number! NEVER, EVER, EVER!!
So why does music work, if it's based on such a flaw? Well, we compromised the tuning system. It's a long story, but what we finally wound up with is the 12tET scale. It has NO pure intervals except for octaves and kinda-sorta the tritones (√2×).
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Without a tempered scale, you'd pretty much have to stop and retune your piano nearly every time you changed chords, BECAUSE OF the failed "Circle" of Fifths! Could you imagine doing that with a PIPE ORGAN!?
Anyway, if Pythagoras had tried dividing the string into fifths, he would've discovered a third that was FLATTER than the Pythagorean Major Third. The string vibrates at 5× the fundamental, or 500Hz in our example. Drop down two octaves (÷4) and you get — 125Hz!! 5/4!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
It's a weird quirk of the math that the THIRD Harmonic gives us the Perfect FIFTH, while the FIFTH Harmonic gives us the Just or Harmonic Major THIRD. But once past that, the odd harmonics match up with their intervals: Seventh Harmonic = Barbershop Seventh interval, Ninth Harmonic = Harmonic Ninth interval (not a prime number and so can be derived from the Perfect Fifth in this case), Eleventh Harmonic = Harmonic Eleventh Interval, and so on.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
@CJ Well I read all of this expecting an answer to our question at the end, but it turns out it was all pythagoras and harmonic series theory, which is fine, 'cause I hope everyone who doesn't know about it reads your posts, it's really important for everyone...at least I think so, but I think I'm biased. :p
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Well the answer is the following: The Pythagorean tuning is based on perfect fifths, and the equal-tempered tuning is based on perfect octaves. However, the just tuning is based on all perfect intervals at the same time. The downside with this? It comes with no scale whatsoever. And since all music of today is based on some kind of scale, this becomes a problem.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Here's the solution I present to you. This solution works VERY good with me, and I think no other can match this solution.
All sung chords have a root. Keep the root even-tempered. The even tempered scale is the only scale that is complete. Tune all the other notes perfectly around the root. Do this for all chords except for chord progressions where there's a post. Then tune the other parts around the post until the post is over, and then go back to tuning around the root.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
FineyLeee, the problem with that is that human beings cannot sing in E.T. without instrumental accompaniment. Close, but not exactly. E.T. is an artificial and compromised tuning system, based on exponential math too complex for our brains to subconsciously calculate on the fly, rather than on simple ratios and laws-of-physics harmonics.
What you describe works fine for Melodyne or MIDI with Pitch Bend tuning or Harmony Assistant with Virtual Singer, but not for real human beings.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
What I do is tune the root (usually Bass) of each chord (some exceptions) to the Pythagorean tuning relative to the scale or key root, then tune the rest of the notes to that altered-tuning root using harmonic J.I.
This is Adaptive J.I. and requires fewer pitch shifts.
For instance, the Major Third of the Perfect Fourth (an IV chord) should be the same tuning as the Major Sixth of the Root.
IV's root is -2¢. Its Major Third is thus -2¢ + -14¢ = -16¢. Major Sixth of Scale Tonic: -16¢!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
With FineyLeee's system, if, in the Key of C Major, an A were held sustained over a transition from C Major 6th (I6) to F Major (IV), its pitch would have to shift up ~2¢ (from about -16¢ to about -14¢). That's too small of a difference for any human singer to do consciously, or even hear by itself, but it sure does make a difference in the chord.
With Adaptive J.I., the A remains at ~16¢ throughout!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
You're right. And when you ask most educated people what scale to follow when singing Barbershop, they'll say the Pythagorean. And sure, the math adds up better when doing it, so in theory, that's probably what you do when you sing Barbershop. However, in practise, your tuning isn't that accurate that you for instance can differ from a Pythagorean five and an even-tempered five. Therefore I stick to the even-tempered scale (like on this tag), which works better with any music software.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
This basically mean that you can use the even-tempered scale when singing, with a little addition to it. If you know the approximate tuning to most notes used in Barbershop (roots, fifths, nines dead on, thirds, sixths, major sevenths a sixth flat, minor thirds, minor sevenths a sixth sharp, and barbershop sevenths a third flat), all you need to do to apply it in practise is to know what note in the chord you're on. Once you do, you apply the extra few cents as well as you can!
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm aware of all of the math and tuning systems, including all of the mean-tone systems (quartet-comma mean-tone, etc.). But the question is still, why does the JI flat-seven in the penultimate chord sound out of tune, but to our ears it sounds IN-tune when it's a bit sharper? Is it only in that inversion? It must have something to do with acoustical dissonance, perhaps from adding the 9th to the chord and removing the 5th.
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
It's because you're listening to the note, rather than the tuning. I swear to you, if you heard the version where I pitched the note up x number of cents, you'd think the lock got worse, although when listening to the note itself it'd probably sound better in your ears.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
No, I promise I'm listening to the chord. But who knows, maybe it's a vowel matching issue that is making it sound funky, with the other three guys singing a much taller vowel.
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Good Lord! That was a good class in theory. Thanks COMALiteJ. Although I understand the flaws in the system now, does Simon's method of tuning to the root, and then to the post encapsulate the mathematics which Pythagoras found in the first place, or is it an override to come as close to perfect in an imperfect system?
virtualbeck 2 years ago
@Mike: Haha, I don't know that much about it. I just read Simon's 'The 11 Chords of Barbershop' introduction plus some Wikipedia articles about just intonation and intervals and I remember a few things from school about factional computation :).
Furthermore I experimented a little with pitch correction and "constructed" chords out of synthetically created notes by generating sine waves with harmonics in Audacity.
But CJ just showed me tuning each chord separately for max. ring isn't enough.
Partyburner 2 years ago
Just to clarify notation in the format of "Seventh: 7/4 (-31¢)": is the cent disparity supposed to be the difference between tuning the note justly and what you would expect in 12-tet?
graynjah 2 years ago
yes, the -31¢ means the justly tuned minor-seventh is 31/100 of an equal tempered semi-tone lower than the equal tempered minor-seventh. Hope that makes sense.
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Indeed it does, thanks - I had just never seen notes referred to in terms of cents from 12-tet before. That having been said, this is why I prefer b7 - 4 - 1 - 2 penultimate chords.
graynjah 2 years ago
Not quite. That is what would be the case for a Scale Tonic-rooted Seventh chord ("I7" in Roman Numeral notation). For any chord rooted on any other note than the Scale / Key Tonic, you also have to add in the offset of the Chord Root relative to the Scale Root.
So, in the case of a V7 chord (e.g. G7 in the key of C Major), its root is the Perfect Fifth (+2¢) of Scale Tonic, so its Seventh would be -31¢ (for 7/4 Barbershop Seventh) + +2¢ (for Perfect Fifth) = -29¢ (approximately).
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
Unless you approximate the Pythagorean scale to the equal-tempered scale, to make both the theory and the practise easier =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
I was speaking directly relative to the root. So we're both right. =p
LoungeSinger23 2 years ago
Check out the video responses I posted, and let me know which one you like best.
FineyLeee 2 years ago
I listened to them all carefully and I like option 1 the best for sure.
I can't argue with the theory that you all are talking about, but I think you're over complicating it in this case. It seems to me that it sounds out of tune because the second-to-last note should be the same note as the third-to-last note but you've flattened it to somewhere that isn't a standard semi-tone.
murry537 2 years ago
I'm a huge fan of music theory....but the bari doesn't seem quite tuned in this vid. I guess I just listen for "the sound" more than I calculate the mathematical equation for "the sound". :)
cpjds1 2 years ago
To my ears the singing of a note that is somewhere in the middle of a standard semi tone stands out more harshly than a chord that isn't completely locked. I generally don't plan on getting a complete mathematical lock on a chord that dirty anyway.
Perhaps the bari just needs to be mixed more softly than the other parts on that note since he's the odd man out?
murry537 2 years ago
That's exactly what I did with option 2. I sang it lighter and mixed it a bit softer in volume.
So what you just said kinda proves my point. Let me take an example: "When I calculate trigonometry, I prefer approximating pi to 3, because it's easier and I'm used to it."
And, taking it to the next step: "You said you drew a circle with radius 3, but your circle is too big. I can clearly tell that your circle has a circumference bigger than 6."
FineyLeee 2 years ago
What I just did might seem like a silly comparison. But actually, it's pretty darn serious and accurate. You're saying that you prefer what you're used to, even if it goes against the laws of physics. I think this is an interesting matter though, because many seem to think the same way!
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Barbershop breaks all kinds of laws! Even physics apparently.
murry537 2 years ago
@FineyLeee I'd be more inclined to just think he has perfect pitch. Everyone I know with perfect pitch has perfect pitch to the 12-tone equal tempered scale, and find microtonal alterations to be discordant.
trlkly 1 year ago
This is awesome, and I can't stop watching it, but does anyone have the sheet music for this tag?
Sylvanas590 2 years ago
I love how the cameras on the left were clearly handheld and the ones on the right are stationary.
kitztracks 2 years ago
Uhmm, someone just pointed out to me that you're not wearing head phones, Kyle. Lip syncer!!! =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Here's what happened: the good audio didn't line up with a good video and I forgot to put my headphones back on...
kitztracks 2 years ago
Haha! The art of multitracking isn't just to sing well, it's also not looking like a dork when doing it =)
And as you can see, I am clearly the master of this... or something =S
FineyLeee 2 years ago
God!!! I love 5th's!!!
I love being baritone!!!!
vanish129 2 years ago
Kyle: Excellent bass voice tone.
Simon: You looked a little angry around 10 seconds, but brilliant sound.
Tim: Great tag/vibrato.
Eric: Interesting to hear you sing tenor; me like.
Sylvanas590 2 years ago
Eric sings tenor in most of Vocal Spectrum's screamer tags.
Thank you for all the kind words =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
YEAH!!!! EVERYBODY GET YOUR KITZ MASKS ON!!!! haha love you Kyle. cool stuff guys
ngordon88 2 years ago
ridiculous overtone, always looking forward to new vids. great job
santosjohny 2 years ago
.............and this is the part where I pass out on the floor from the shear amazingness that radiates from this video, lol.
matrix86 2 years ago
A pleasure to see and listen to. Thanks.
dovad16 2 years ago
mmm veeery nice! :D
eveecooper 2 years ago
awesome ! been waitin for a long tome for this one ! it turned out great ! :) perfection
mrlime 2 years ago
I just want you to know that I love you guys.
dpz47 2 years ago
Thanks Dave...
kitztracks 2 years ago
DAmn overtones all the way!!!!!
vanish129 2 years ago
simply amazing!
JoeBourne2 2 years ago
Awesome!
Lince7777777 2 years ago
Gorgeous !
clement8pineau 2 years ago
overtones all over the place huge one at the end you guys are awesome
Rubano5428 2 years ago
This tag right here, is already freakin' epic to me :) Four amazing singers in one vid. I'm not sure, but I may have shit my pants out of pure excitement :) Great job to all four!
sgtsonny 2 years ago
Simon: Why the angry face @ 0:10? Nice runs.
Kyle: Spot on bass man. Love your tracks.
Eric: Dang that rang clear and high. Don't you usually do lead?
Tim: Nice post and vibrato. It looks like you could have held it for much longer.
Cool project to the four of you! You are all blessed musicians!
virtualbeck 2 years ago
And we are blessed to have this great collaboration on YouTube. Many thanks to all four!
CarlyCarlyW 2 years ago
And now Eric too? I hate you :/
stringX90 2 years ago
it was cool, but your strike up the band tag was better. The bass from that is a legend! that guy can do Anything including break my heart
Oh yea, awesome strong bass on this one Kyle, and why is there so many bari tiddlies? this bari is too greedy! haha it's a great collab, though it feels like too short a tag for something so big!
bordonthestreet 2 years ago
Oh and BTW, this is awesome, especially tenor and bass!
atteheikkinen 2 years ago 2
OMG when was Eric (and Tim) at your house? :D
atteheikkinen 2 years ago
before the SNOBS convention last Spring
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Oh, that makes perfect sense. I thought this was brand new, and wondered if they came and visited you again when VS was in Germany or something...
atteheikkinen 2 years ago
All nature seemed to be in perfect harmony!
CarlyCarlyW 2 years ago
fabulous!
nils89 2 years ago
you are so gay! =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
Wait a minute... who's not being discrete about lip syncing?! Simon did you have The Talk with this person?!
bordonthestreet 2 years ago
what the hell are you talking about =)
FineyLeee 2 years ago
nothing gay about the word "fabulous!'. Oh wait, maybe you're right. Anyway, great tag.
nils89 2 years ago
Whoa... that would be amazing to sing with Eric and Tim.
Doctors2Advocate 2 years ago
Nice!!
allanrosendo 2 years ago
Very nice, gents!
vanceperry 2 years ago
love the new vid!!!!
thetonemanman 2 years ago
amazing
cellmate89 2 years ago