THE RULES of THIS BLOG SITE
Any response that uses inappropriate language, content, or anything else that Mr. Williams would deem offensive will receive an automatic grade of "0" with no hope for resubmitting the post. You are expected to respond in a mature and Godly fashion. Content can talk about topical things (drugs, drinking, relationships, family, sex, God, emotions, etc.), but the delivery of the information should be in such a manner that well represents yourself, your parents and family, CBHS, Mr. Williams, and most importantly, God. I really look forward to your posts. -- Mr. Williams
1) Most of the sounds on the pop version were difficult to copy and reinvent it into a choral rhythm. They also added a regular beat-boxing rhythm to it and also added small echoes to make it seem more solo but still make it more than just a voice.
ReplyDelete2) It’s better because they have 5 or maybe even more sounds being created from people on the spot and the added words, although small, make it seem more filled since there are no instruments and the fact that it’s repetitive makes it even more interesting.
3) they use all sorts of beat-boxing while the girls use different techniques like some are holding notes and others are using repetitive. It’s because they use repetitive with the voice and also because there are words that that brings out the mysteriousness of the main voice.
4) It’s the mix matching of common noises that everyone makes with their voices along with a consistent repetitive of words in the right order with the lyrics of a modern day pop song turned into a human pop.
5) It’s incredible yet complicated how they managed to get each of the voices singing when others were singing something almost different. It’s more appealing in the fact that all the music being made is made by humans and the fact that its all precise and coordinated so elaborately without hesitation is just amazing.
1) In the pop version the back round sound has a constant beat, that you can't really repeat in a choral version, because it would be really hard for our voices to repeat that sound constantly. Also the echo of her voice makes here able to stand out more than if it were done in a choral version.
ReplyDelete2) The choral version shows more difficulty by all the different sounds that are being created by different people at the same time. It would be hard to keep the same beat while hearing all the other beats being played around you. Also the girls voices have a better clear, pure sound to them then the original version.
3) In the second version the vocalists use many different techniques that they use to imitate the first version. One technique is the repetitive sound of some people that make up the back round sound. Then you have the girls in the back round holding the same note while the head girl sings. As both the back round girls and the main girl sing they blend their voices to make the sound richer.
4) What makes the choral version more appealing in style is the fact that the choral group can take common sounds and blend them in with another voice to make a song that was made in a studio. The reason it doesn't sound horrible is because they have obviously practice many of time and their talent level is higher than most choral groups.
5) The way they keep the same beat as others around them are doing something totally different is very impressive. Also the fact that they are all humans doing this and not made up for the studio. I think that the choral group is worth listening to more than the first version simple because it has a more original and richer sound to it.
1) In the pop version, the beat was electronic. It sounded like a synthesiser maybe. It almost sounded techno. The choral group was all choral voices. With basses as the beat on down beat and altos on the upbeat.It reminded me of a choral only piece sophmore year. There is a slight echo in the pop version.
ReplyDeleteThe music also sounded like it may have been played on a keyboard.
2) The choral version sounded like a lot more work needed to be put into it to make it sound amazing. The beat had to keep going and I wonder what it was like for those singers to keep going like that. There were more voices along with the main singer.
3)The second group repeats the sounds similar to the first version. The fluxuations in the sound are present along with reverberrations in some of the beats. There is also a little mixing in the background voices. Almost like a beep-box or whatever its called. It gives it a "Glee" sound.Its uplifting and "bouncy" in a way.
4)The whole thing is just a great mix and blend of voice types each one with an important job to do. The voices in the piece sound like they are in a studio and the sound is confined and concentrated. That is what gives the choral group its power in their voices. My ears felt like they were going to fall of because the mix of the voices resonated so well
1. The pop version features extensive use of instruments in the form of synthesizers, guitars, bass guitars, drums and other percussion pieces as well as various types of ‘in-studio’ effects that can’t necessarily be replicated by a person’s voice.
ReplyDelete2. The University of Southern California’s Sirens did a great job in their recreation of Madonna’s song without losing that main instrumental effect. Making the song work without in-studio assistance which takes a great deal of practice, concentration, coordination, and focus.
3. They use a plethora of sounds that, in many ways, could simply just be a type of exercise. If we tried hard enough, we could imitate sounds such as that if we learned how to incorporate it successfully in one of our songs.
4. The amount of talent needed for the choral version is tremendous. Despite being strictly vocal, the Sirens did a great job of recreating not only the rhythm, but the unique sound of the music. It doesn’t sound horrible because it is well-practiced as well as being well-coordinated. No ‘instrument’ was off or out of beat.
5. The second version demands an inordinate amount of talent, focus, concentration, coordination, dedication, and practice. Simply by the virtue of the hard work put into it, the choral version should be appreciated just as much.
1. The pop version contains a constant beat with guitars and different instruments along with computer generated sounds.
ReplyDelete2. The Choral group shows the shifting of sound excellently. The woman in the choral group is more pure without the studio affects.
3. The choral group uses their voices to imitates the sounds of the instruments and hold the beat.
4. To me, the voices in the background is what makes it sound so much like the original. If it didnt have these, even the though the girls voice is very good, it still wouldnt be the same.
5. The thing that makes it worth listening to is the purity of the voice.
6.
1.) Many sounds in the pop version are created by other intruments and computer generated sounds that can not be sung with voices.
ReplyDelete2.)The second group has to do much more in order to create a similiar sound than studio effects that help. This shows the hard work and deligence in the sound of the choral group.
3.)The people in the second song use different sound techinigues to make the similiar sounds of the intruments. This can be hard to do but also easy to make.
4.)The choral version is appealing to me because even tho the sounds are being in a different way it takes a lot of work to imitate these sounds. I am appealed because one can realize all that the group put into making the souds and its great.
5.)The second version is worth listening to because of the way they create sounds that were created by a studio. It is interesting to listen to the sounds and instruments in the second version.
first madonna has been a real inspiration not only to me but to the whole world through her great music and lyrics. she is what all women should look up to. love you madonna.
ReplyDelete1.the pop version has many things like long computer riffs and guitar parts that are hard to replicate. many of the other sounds cant be copied perfectly no matter what.
2. i think all the background music is better because it takes allot of skill to get those sounds and have them be real and out of peoples real voices.
3. to imitate the first one the vocalists in the second one try to hold the same pitches and have their sounds imulate the firsts as much as possible. the singer also tries to blend with the background music to make it sound good.
4. i personally dont think it is appealing so why did you not ask for our opinion? but im sure some people think that real voices are cooler and it gives a more natural sound.
5. well its just interesting to hear what the human voice can do and show you that a computer or electronics are not always necessary.
1) The high energy electronic beat is very difficult to replicate in choral music. Also, the precision of the time keeping is extremely difficult to do with many a voice. In pop music you can also use electronic devices to adjust the tone and pitch perfectly.
ReplyDelete2)The musical technicality is much better, because different voices are doing the arpeggios that the snyths are doing.
3) The vocalists in the second version use quick layering of short notes to imitate the sound of the first song.
4)The second version does not sound cheesy because the musicality sets it apart from your typical electronic pop song. The second version strives to focus on a tight nit beat among a group of singers.
5)The second version is worth listening to because it demonstrates professional musicality. The second song shows the potential for simple pop songs to be worked on and turned into intricate musical pieces.
1. The Synth line seems like it would be extremely difficult to duplicate vocally, but the choir pulled it off wonderfully!
ReplyDelete2. To me it just seemed better quality because it hadn’t been filtered through a mixer over and over again to give it its sound, it was one take, make it or break it. I tend to focus really hard on the vocal performance of whom ever I listen to in the same way a drummer focuses on the drummers in the music he listens to, and the choirs performance (being all vocals) was really fun to listen to, and kept me very attentive to the entire thing!
3. Breathing, extended ah’s, and I think I heard a little beat boxing. It was done very well.
4. They blended their voices very well, which made it sound very very close to the synth line of the original song. That almost had to be done perfectly or else it would have sounded mortifying. This means that this choir is very well trained and very talented.
5. I adored the second version personally; in fact I may put it on my ipod, hahaha. But everything I have said already explains why I think it was worth listening to.
1) The sounds of the music seem really hard to replicate. Figuring out whether or not what the tenors or bass' sing seems like it would be hard too, but if they pull it off I bet it sounds great.
ReplyDelete2) The choral version gives a more exciting vibe. I am very impressed with how good it sounded. This piece seemed very difficult. The sounds in the background sound much more unique.
3) I noticed a lot of "beatboxing" which I think is what made it sound so good.
4) Just the fact that there is no instruments or special computerized sounds being made unlike in the real version makes it sound a lot better. Because all of the sounds are on time, that is why it does not sound horrible.
5) To me all choral versions of songs are a lot cooler knowing that its people doing it not instruments.
1) The pop version is difficult to replicate because it has a unique techno sound that is clearly made by the help of a computer and mixed with other instruments.
ReplyDelete2) Aspects of the second one that are of better quality are in the mixing of different voices not just one but mulitple different voices that go well together.
3) The vocalists in the second one use their voices to imitate the beat and the sound of the first one.
4) The second is appealing in style because their voices flow well together and instead of using instruments and computers like the first one they use their voices in different ways that play the part of the instuments.
5) The reason I liked the second one was becasue of its uniqueness and I liked the backround singing that was different. Overall the group is just really talented.
1. The pop version contains a constant beat. I agree with Jacob the energy electronic beat is very difficult to replicate in choral music.Figuring out your part would be hard to find in this I would think.
ReplyDelete2. The mixing of our voices in one aspect of the choral version are of better quality. It sounds better to me. Madonna wouldnt be as good as us live either.
3. Breathing techniques could work.
4.What makes the choral version more appealing in style is the fact that the choral group can blend.It sounds very good because they have practice many times and their talent level is higher than most choral groups.
5.The simple fact that its just a voice is better than having music and beats to go along with it. I liked the second one better.
1) Most of the sounds on the pop version were difficult to copy and try to recreate into a choral rhythm. They also had added something that sounded like beat boxing rthym to the music to mimic the techo, hip beat in the Madonna version.
ReplyDelete2)I would say that the beat boxing and the lady in the back ground that was dooing the background singing would be difficult, but the most difficult would be having to recreate that techno beat and the drums would be the most difficult part.
3)Controlled breathing, the beat boxing would be the one that actually stands out the most in the song because since it was the most difficult part you wouldn't expect it to be done so well.
4)It probably doesn't sound bad because the choral group used their voices in very unique ways that made it almost better or just as good as the original version because it was practices a great amount of times and everything sounded crisp and perfectly imitated from the original version.
5)Because the choral group talents just made me feel as their song was just as good as Madonna's just simply because they used nothing but their mouths to sing and make beats
1. Most pop music and other genres of music are very hard for a choir to duplicate but still somewhat possible. Most of the music is done with electronically and is very electronic in sound which is very hard for a choir to duplicate
ReplyDelete2. The fact that this is actually the choir singing and not recorded and altered to sound better shows that these people can achieve a great sound without technology.
3. The choir uses their voices to make the sound that the first one made with a computer.
4. They can make their voices blend together to make a great, complete sound which is more appealing than the first one.
5. The 2nd one shows that with enough time and effort you can sound the same or even better than big stars that have millions of dollars to fix their voice to sound good.
1.) In the pop version the beats are quicker, and there are more techno elements in the pop version that might be difficult to replicate vocally.
ReplyDelete2.) In relation to musical correctness the choral version's notes were fuller and seemed less strained in comparison to Madonnas vocals that sounded strained.
3.)They use basses and tenors to try and recreate the pop back beats, they also sing in a faster tempo.
4.)The choral version is not cheesy because it is a hard song to cover chorally with its pop beats and the choral group nailed it, that's why I think the second version does'nt suck.
5.)The second version is worth listening to because, well for one, someone took time out to cover the song which shows dedication and also the choral group was able to produce an accurate cover.
1) In the pop version there are several electronic parts and vocal synthesizers that you just can't repeat using the normal human voice. Madonna sang well, but she was definitely aided by the electronics of the recording studio.
ReplyDelete2) The choral version had vocal harmonies that can only be produced by a large number of voices. Also, there were a capella parts that really added to the overall sound of the piece. These aspects of the choral piece can't be produced by the studio version of Madonna, unless you crammed the whole choir into the voice booth.
3) The vocalists in the second piece used a capella techniques involving diaphragmatic pushes of air to imitate the electronic sounds added into Madonna's piece. The pops and beats pushed the choral piece to a different sound that incorporated more dynamic elements than the original work.
4) The choral piece sounds good, because of their consonants, vowels, diction, and overall sound. Because their vowels were solid, tall, and crescendoed at the right times, the piece sounded fluid, fun, and distinctive. The group worked well to blend their voices and develop an overall sound that imitated the instrumental work in the piece by Madonna.
5) I prefer the second version over the first, Madonna's voice kind irritated my eardrum honestly. The aspects of the second piece provide more room for harmony and isolation of individual sounds. Rather, the instrumental piece with the synthesized rhythms and tonalities of Madonna's voice sounded so constructed and symphonic.
you WOULD have me listening to Madonna when my dad walks in the room..thanks for that one.
ReplyDelete1. The electronic aspects of the pop song would be hard to duplicate, but the singers do a good job of replicating the parts that they are able to.
2. The instrumentation is really cool in the second version, I love a capella musicianship it takes true talent to be able to stay tight and on beat when you are just making the instrument noises as they are.
3. The same techniques that a beat boxin b-boy would use, it's all about control of their mouth the different shapes and noises they are able to create.
4. The musicians are very talented and very precise. they know the limitations of their voice and they don't try to go past them like some less experience acapella groups do.
5. It's cool to think that there's one really big bass dude sitting in the back of the chorus just making a bass drum noise for 3 minutes. It makes me laugh.
1) In the pop version, the altered voices are almost impossible to reproduce in a choral version. Other things include the singing style paired with the remixed music, and the use of technological echoing and repetition.
ReplyDelete2) The individual people contributing unique and individual sounds makes the second version much more difficult and impressive than the original. Plus the use of voices rather than machine give a much more unique aspect to the song.
3) They use their voices to imitate the sounds of the remixed music by beat-boxing, whistling, and making rythmic noise.
4)Because of the careful arrangement and choice of voices for each sound, and the intense amount of practice that must have gone into keeping everyone unified and on track singing, the choral version is kept from sounding horrible.
5) Because of the use of human voices in the second one, there is a genuine feel to the music, and a sense of work. I think both of these are highly respected qualities in any field of work or entertainment, so when they are applied to music, it makes the music more respectable.
1) The vocal repetition with echo is all done by a computer and can be hard to almost impossible by a chorus group to do without the use of technology.
ReplyDelete2) The Chorus version is full of technical things done with the voice the Madonna does have to do because the computer does it for her. The Chorus version is a lot softer on the ears.
3)They use their voices to do the echoing and to create the music that goes with the song its great blending.
4) It sounds amazing because its the human voice hitting all the notes and not autotune. The human voice naturally has a very warm tone to it and thats what makes this piece better then the original.
5) The blending and echoing in and out that they are able to do to create a better replica of the original version calls for great ability vocally and mentally to know the persons singing around you.
1. The aspect that would be very difficult to create in the choral version would be the computer generated beat. Also, the effects added Madonna’s voice would be almost impossible to create with a choral group.
ReplyDelete2. The aspects of the choral group that is more difficult than the pop version would be the accapella rhythm. This takes more talent to sing the rhythm than a computer creating it.
3. I noticed that the choral group tries to imitate the tempo of the music with the rhythm singers, as well as the lead singer in the echo’s and effects.
4. The choral group still captures the passion of the pop version. Also, it makes you appreciate the talent put into the piece as far as musicianship; I like the accapella singers better than the electronic enhancers used in the pop song.
5. The pop version is nice, but the choral version is worth listening to more simply because of talent. It is more difficult to get a group of singers on the same page than it is just a single singer.
1) The fighting of the same voice clashing against itself is something that can never be done with an all choral version.
ReplyDelete2) One of the most difficult parts of the choral version is the timing. The choral version paints a picture. For me it was reeds on a riverbank flowing in the wind of a tornado.
3) They use repetition of the voices. The second also has a quicker beet to it.
4) The choral version does not have a techno sound to it. It sounds natural. It uses sounds that humans made, so our minds jump to them and replay the note in the mind.
5) The overall talent hard work and dedication that
1.) The pop version contains electronic elements such as synths, drum machines, samples, etc; which can be difficult for a choral group to replicate in a live setting.
ReplyDelete2,) The choral group shows more musicianship, sticking to the beat, hitting the right notes, and they are not reliant on technology for this to work and works it well.
3.) They imitate the percussive sounds of the first piece with their own voices.
4.)The skill that this requires makes it less cheesy. It's uniuqe, and not the typical path to take when covering a song so most can respect that they did something intreresting here.
5.)The uniuqeness of it. This group used only their voices to recreate dance beat, synthesizers, echoes and more. This takes musicianship and talent which makes for a more entertaining piece of work anyway.
1. The pop version has an electronic beat to it that could not be easily replicated by a person's voice. It just wouldnt sound the same.
ReplyDelete2. The choral group has a softer sound that is more appealing to the ears. The electronic sound is not as soothing and its more in your face.
3. They imitate the echoing effect that madonna has electronic computers to do for her.
4. The choral version is not cheesy because you can tell that it is good. It also took a lot of time and effort to make the song sound good. If it were just slopped together quickly it would be cheesy.
5. The contrast of the two songs makes me like the choral version. I do not think that i would like the choral version without first hearing the madonna version of the song.
1) The strong beat that my favorite singer, Madonna, puts out is hard for a choir. A choir cannot replicate the sharpness of a drum or the melody played by a guitar. Also, one girl’s style cannot be replicated by a group of 40 people.
ReplyDelete2) I like the softness and general mellow tone of the choral version. It is a much lighter and less rock and roll than Madonna. The electronic sound in the other version is a little strong.
3) The singers use their voices to try to replicate the synthesizer used by Madonna. They do not have fancy computers and stuff to do it, so they use their voices. They also use their voices to imitate the drums and such in the original version.
4) I like the choral version because it is a little easier on the ears. Let’s face it, Madonna isn't exactly the best musician ever and so it is a little hard for me to listen to. However, the choir really produces a beautiful sound. It could easily sound horrible, but they really nailed it because of an awesome director like mine, Mr. Williams!
5) I think that the second version is a lot better. It is not so loud and obnoxious. This really makes it a lot easier on the ears. One can really tell that a lot of time and effort was used here.
1. The beat was very different and the sound Madonna produces played a major role. It would be hard for anybody to "One Up" Madonna. She has grreat tone control.
ReplyDelete2. The choral version is more straight forward. The choir sang it full and together.
3. The echos
4. It doesnt sound horrible because they set out to make a set sound. They were not trying to be like a Glee club or anything of that nature.
5. It gives me hope for how we can sound.
1. The constant beat, the drums, the woman voice, all of these would be hard to replicate for a choir.
ReplyDelete2.This choir did a good job replicating the drums, and voice of drums, but its hard to make a song sound good a capella when the original sucks.
3. the second group does a drum sound with their mouths that replicates the drums in the original song very well.
4. It does not sound "cheesy" because the voices are still chorusy. even though the song itself is poppy.
5. It's not as poppy as the first, and it was probably a lot harder to make, so that makes it more worth listening to than the first.
1) Of course, the instrumentals (especially the synthesized ones) are extremely difficult to imitate. There are a lot of artificial sounds in the pop version, and it is quite a challenge to replicate them.
ReplyDelete2) Vocals overall are much more impressive since each of the instruments is imitated…a capella. There is NO assistance provided for the choral group, and it really is something how they managed to pull all of this off. Even though it is obvious that these are voices and not instruments, the fact is still incredible.
3) Everything from beat boxing to echoing is used.
4) The choral version has an allure to it because of the fact that it is CHORAL. Instrumentalists are not employed to provide accompaniment. Instrumental sounds are imitated very splendidly by the group, and even studio-edited effects (such as Madonna echoing herself) are almost perfectly replaced.
5) The second version is worth listening to because it is an exposition of skill. It is always incredibly difficult to transpose a pop tune to choral voice, and this piece is a great example of how---when done correctly---it can all come together for the better.
1) the hard part would be the synthesized and techno pop sounds involved because you cant replicate those sounds that well with the human voice.
ReplyDelete2)Well having the human voices to do the background and using the pitch of the voice to get a techno sound is very impressive. You can also tell the difference between the sound of one singer and the group of singer. its a natural sound.
3)The drum sound, background music and sythisized sounds involved.
4)I think confidence has alot to do with it and sounds like they are having a good time singing. They are also very talented and have the voice to tackle this hard piece of music.
5) The amount of work to accomplish such an involved musicical song is worthy of listening . Plus its a madonna song whats not to love.
1 the instrumentals i think are almost impossible to copy. While the pop version has more sounds added to it
ReplyDelete2 Vocals are important for a piece to go well in a number. which no assistance involed it can be very good
3 Every thing can be used in the sound
4 THe choir version has a certain tone to it that makes it seem better to others.
5 THe 2nd version isn't bad but it still should be listened to cause it sounds good.
1)These sounds are synthesized and it makes for a great sound. A very cool hip and modern sound. The drums are what get me in this song. These would be very hard to imitate though.
ReplyDelete2) The vocal are pretty good. It is pretty hard to do what these vocalist are doing and they should be commended for their job. The sounds almost sound like real instruments are making them.
3) The drums and beat boxing style works very well. It is very close to the original piece which is really good for just using their voices.
4) The song is a little goofy to me. It kind of would be like rapping to an opera. The style doesn't fit.
5) This one i would say is better than the first. The styles are different and the way this one was done just seems more right than the first one to my ear.
1) the insrtuments and computer generated sounds and noises would be very hard to replicate in a choral version of the song. the noises are made by computer so they are not created as well but it is done very well by USC.
ReplyDelete2)The choral version is made my natural voice and it is just really cool that they made it sound like the somputer generated version. i like it alot more because it is natural and way more interesting that they used no computer genertation.
3)they use fast sound and repetition of a certain sound to help recreate the song ray of light. im not really sure what is meant by a technique but it seems like repetition of a certain sound at a certain note or tone was used.
4)it doesnt sound cheesy because the people performing are obviously very talented and obviously have a good coach like you. they bring out the sound very well and carry out the sounds and notes needed to recreate this piece. before i listened to the choral version i thought there was no way it will sound good at all.
5)the aspect that there was no technology used to create it. it was all done naturally and not by a computer. it was more appeling to me in that fact. i liked the second version much better.
1. With the pop version, most of the whole song is very computer generated and just has that sound to it, which would be near to impossible to replicate through a chorus.
ReplyDelete2. With the choral version, they do a great job of actually reproducing the sound from the original song. This piece is better done than the one of madonna.
3. They make different sounds in a rythmic form to imitate madonna's sound.
4. The time put in to redo this song is very apparent, they make their version sound just like madonna's version, but they make it better. They use all of the voices to create a unique sound.
5. The fact that they used all human voice to imitate the sound that generally only a computer can make is very impressive. Also the fact that the singer of the choral group has a cleaner sound than madonna. Overall I would choose the choral one.
1)well the techno sound would be very difficult to replicate in a choir.
ReplyDelete2)i can understand this one better and is just really cool how they do this with just their vocies.
3)they use their vovies to simulate sounds like what we did in carol of the bells in order to replicate actual bells.
4)well this one isnt simply techno music and a person singing it is cleaner than madona's and it is all natural .which is very apealing since this is all human generated.
5) i really liked the second one better because i dont really like madona but i enjoyed hearing all of what the human voice can do on the second one.