I would say 99 3\4 of the users of SHS users don't give a rat's ass what you call them. It's an exercise in stupidity, just put all 3 together and be done with this nonsense.
______
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH - Haters Gonna Hate
Attachments:
I would say 99 3\4 of the users of SHS users don't give a rat's ass what you call them. It's an exercise in stupidity, just put all 3 together and be done with this nonsense.
The whole point of the exercise is that vocalese and scat are the *opposite* of each other in most respects (vocalese adds words where there usually weren't any, scat removes words that often were there).
SCAT: To me, "scat" isn't always nonsense words. These are often random parts of the actual lyrics repeated as a song fades or random but actual words injected by the singer as the song fades.
That's not a use of the term I've encountered before. Do you have a reference for this?
SCAT: To me, "scat" isn't always nonsense words. These are often random parts of the actual lyrics repeated as a song fades or random but actual words injected by the singer as the song fades.
That's not a use of the term I've encountered before. Do you have a reference for this?
I'm admittedly using a broader, lay definition of "scat", but (e.g.) I consider Sting's sung parts during the final fade of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic scat (i.e. not offficial lyrics but improv). There are countless recordings like this. I have submitted and perhaps reported on some English recordings by (e.g.) Italian artists that also include sung non-English parts that "feel" like scat (i.e. not translated lyrics) to me.
The far more important question regarding these concepts is "so what"? I went and quickly read through the related thread under Guidelines and didn't see why any of this is necessary.
One is just an adaption; the other two are just instrumentals with some vocal stuff going on. The only advantage I see is the ability to tag a performance that is already coded as an instrumental with "scat/vocalxxx/minimal lyrics" so I don't have to ask an editor to add a comment.
Take Five is already listed as a derivative work of Take Five. What makes a tag necessary and pressing?
If we will be listing either scat or vocalise performances along with the standard vocal recordings but tagged, SHS has made a real bad decision.
I'm admittedly using a broader, lay definition of "scat", but (e.g.) I consider Sting's sung parts during the final fade of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic scat
I don't know what the technical term for this is, but I definitely wouldn't call it "scat".
There are also lots of improvised lyrics in the pregón sections of Cuban/salsa music, but I wouldn't call those "scat" either.
The far more important question regarding these concepts is "so what"? I went and quickly read through the related thread under Guidelines and didn't see why any of this is necessary.
One of the benefits, as far as I'm concerned, was to clarify that vocalese and scat are near-opposite, and not interchangeable concepts.
As for the usefulness:
I'm admittedly using a broader, lay definition of "scat", but (e.g.) I consider Sting's sung parts during the final fade of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic scat
I don't know what the technical term for this is, but I definitely wouldn't call it "scat".
There are also lots of improvised lyrics in the pregón sections of Cuban/salsa music, but I wouldn't call those "scat" either.
If they aren't lyrics and not scat, then what are they? If neither "scat" nor "vocalise" nor "vocal effects", what are they? I see no practical difference between any of these.
The far more important question regarding these concepts is "so what"? I went and quickly read through the related thread under Guidelines and didn't see why any of this is necessary.One of the benefits, as far as I'm concerned, was to clarify that vocalese and scat are near-opposite, and not interchangeable concepts.
As for the usefulness:
- "vocalese" may be of interest inasmuch as vocal Jazz usually maintains the traditional distinction between composer and performer, and vocalese is the rare case where performers dabble in composition or at least lyric writing. Not "useful" information, as such, but "interesting", the same way that "#3 hit in 1776" is.
- "scat" is of practical use to me and other vocalists. When we read through lists of performances and see somebody known exclusively as a vocalist (say, Ella Fitzgerald) listed for an "instrumental" performance of a song, there is always the question of whether the performance was misclassified, whether actual lyrics existed that were performed, or whether it was a scat performance. It's also a particular technique that requires lots of practice to perform tastefully, so being able to search for such performances is valuable as well.
This reads as mostly irrelevant to me. "Vocalese" seems to simply be an adaption of an existing work, usually an instrumental for which someone has written lyrics and gets a writing credit.
If I see an instrumental credited to a vocalist, I assume it was just technically credited that way or there's some vocal effects, etc. The coding as instrumental is the material thing with a comment/tag encouraged gravy; however, I still see no reason to have separate tags or any tag for vocalese.
I can see where scat, vocalise, or vocal effects can rise to musical elements deserving of a composing credit; however, the performance remains an instrumental. The Great Gig in the Sky comes to mind, which should be coded as an instrumental in my view as the words are spoken non-lyrics and the vocals are just "effects".
I'm reminded how doctors make all kinds of distinctions between different "cuts", as the type effects treatment. How do any of these differences effect SHS treatment?
Vocalese gets adaption treatment, no tag necessary.
Scat/Vocalise/Vocal Effects all get instrumental treatment with a combined S/V/VE tag.
At least that's how I see it. Any value of these tags is very marginal at best, far outweighed by the confusion generated and the likely errors resulting in irritated editors.
This kind of stuff is why if we ever start coding genres, they need to be broad or there will be endless arguments over new vs. alt. country, black vs. death metal, etc. A song either has lyrics or it doesn't. If it has lyrics, they are either material or immaterial.
I'm admittedly using a broader, lay definition of "scat", but (e.g.) I consider Sting's sung parts during the final fade of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic scat
I don't know what the technical term for this is, but I definitely wouldn't call it "scat".
There are also lots of improvised lyrics in the pregón sections of Cuban/salsa music, but I wouldn't call those "scat" either.
If they aren't lyrics and not scat, then what are they?
I would absolutely consider them lyrics.
I'm admittedly using a broader, lay definition of "scat", but (e.g.) I consider Sting's sung parts during the final fade of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic scat
I don't know what the technical term for this is, but I definitely wouldn't call it "scat".
There are also lots of improvised lyrics in the pregón sections of Cuban/salsa music, but I wouldn't call those "scat" either.
If they aren't lyrics and not scat, then what are they?
I would absolutely consider them lyrics.
There's some registered work with improvised lyrics? Then all of these would be different adaptions as I understand how we use the term and need no stinkin' badges nor tags.
Looking at the original post. How many people (including the editors) care about differentiating "ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub Yo da dub dub" from "lalalala lalalalala ooooo oooo lalalala"?
Unless there's some broad combined tag that I can safely use, I will not be using it (and I'm a tagger). I may file an error report reading (e.g.) "This is an instrumental with some vocal stuff going on. Looks like it's missing the applicable tag,"
VOCALESE: Why isn't this just an adaption? A lyricist adds lyrics to a root instrumental work. I have no objections to an SHS term of art for these, but reads to me as a specific type of adaption.
Vocalese works are adaptations, indeed.
SCAT: (...) Your example reads to me as vocalise.
No, because Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub Yo da dub dub is not one or more vowel sounds.
VOCALISE: A term of art for "vocal effects" or are these different things?
I don't think so, though I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Vocalese tag is only present for work, normal?
Well spotted and it's indeed voluntary, since vocalese requires the addition of lyrics.
I clearly have been doing this incorrectly as my understanding was if it was an instrumental tune with say humming (but clearly not actual lyrics) I would set it up as an Instrumental and check the Vocalise tag and note this in the Comments.
Does this sound correct or incorrect to you microtherion ?
I've read through the definitions several times and am still confused.
I admit I'm not 100% satisfied about how I've written the guideline. I'm sure there's a way to rephrase it in a more intuitive way. Open to suggestions.
Two of mine were scat and one vocalise.
Thanks for verifying.
PS: Mark, please try to comprise and structure your often valuable comments more clearly.
mduval32323 , I have the same feedback as camembert electrique : Your feedback is relevant and valuable, but it's hard for me to work my way through your post because it's such a huge lump of text.
Fixed half of mine. The other three are definitely scat.
Thanks Michael!
I would say 99 3\4 of the users of SHS users don't give a rat's ass what you call them. It's an exercise in stupidity, just put all 3 together and be done with this nonsense.
You're free to like or dislike any initiative we take, and it's ok to be frank about it, but not this way. See Code of Conduct.
