Ken Tamplin

Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

My 2 cents worth

Post  curshdude on Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:38 am

If you ask me Ken Tamplin is using what I would call a "variable" niche. He uses a profession that he knows something about to sell a product. He succeeds in selling it by exploiting and capitalizing on vulnerabilities of that profession. For example. In the vocal teaching business, there are a large number of self proclaimed experts who can't even sing. Tamplin cashes in on that and repeats it over and over. "The proof is in the singing". Even though some of the best vocal coaches in the world can't sing. And example of that would be Judy Davis, who taught Steve Perry.

Awhile ago I purchased Tamplin's vocal course to see how effective it is. This way, I couldn't criticize the guy without having been there. His lessons technically "work". But there is a major problem with them. Basically they train you to sing like you are "heaving" out your chest voice. You have heard this yourself from Ken's own voice. For the record, he actually doesn't sing like he used to. His early recordings fall under different technique which all but ruined his voice. Now he's can't sing near as well. Since then he has learned a way to basically belt everything. And he NEVER performs for hours like he says he does. It's the reason why he now teaches. He uses some truth mixed with "bullshit" to promote a product. This makes him just as bad as the thousands of vocal experts he criticizes and condemns. He certainly has a "self righteous" attitude for someone who claims to follow Christian principles (which I don't believe he is). And for the record, his cousin Sammy Hagar even criticized him for masquerading as a Christian. Even though we know Sammy isn't exactly a religious guy, he's genuine to say the least. And a great judge of character, as he has always been.

But, if you are looking for the bottom line. Tamplin is no better than the rest. Even though in his own mind he is. He tries to play the "honest" or "modest" card, while in the same sentence bragging about making 30 albums and winning awards. I personally know what modesty is and he doesn't have any. If you go on his Youtube page, you will find all kinds of "testimonies" from people who aren't even singing for you. And if they are, they are already speaking in the high tenor or soprano range. And its already easy for someone with a high range to sing something. But you won't hear and good examples of Baritones. Nobody wants to sing like they have a chest voice in the upper register. It's ugly. Sounds like David Coverdale after steroids. And Ken's voice just can't cut it in the desirable industry. Hence the reason he is  advertising through the cracks of society.

If someone were to ask me who I would go to for vocal coaching, first it would depend on what I want to sing. Because there is NO single method that will give it all, contrary to what Tamplin says. This i know because I have a degree in vocal pedagogy. But I do not simply follow what the books teach. I have studied and researched the voice. And to put it in simplified terms, there are muscles that control the chest voice. And there are muscles that control the head voice. Additionally there are adductors and other physical and mental factors that play a role as well. Collectively all these things produce speaking and/or singing.

"What that said" as Ken so often states, how a person is able to sing depends upon what type of coordination is developed throughout the range of motion using all the functions described. What Ken is teaching basically increases the strength of the head voice muscles, while dramatically increasing the strength of the chest muscles and coordinating singing towards "belting" throughout the range, which heavily emphasizes a dominating chest. A strong head voice is present because it must support the weight. This Ken knows and admits in his own words. But as a side note, he throws in the idea that if you want to sing lighter, you still can if you want to do R&B or whatever. This is where he falls VERY short. Ever listen to how Ken sounds when he sings light? He still has his chest pulled WAY up into his head and sounds "weird" to say the least. The reason why he is incapable of being versatile enough to sound similar to the artist he pretends to imitate. So "with that said" learning his techniques will literally KILL any versatility in your voice. You will sound the same all of the time. And it will sound chesty as Hell all of the time....because. The over extended and over coordinated chest voice will dominate even when you do not want it to. When you sing light, you will basically lose support and not be able to sing properly. Why? Because the way you must coordinate and support while ascending a scale, as trained by Ken's methods, if you were to try to sing lighter, you would have to decrease support, which would automatically make the head voice weaker. The resonance then would decrease. The chest would become slightly lighter. But because it is so dominant to begin with, it would still dominate in comparison to head. So an imbalance would occur. You would end up with a super weird sounding voice like Ken. He rarely sings anything light. He claims it's because he just "likes" to sing heavy. Complete bullshit. He can't sing light because his voice won't allow it. All he can do is "wail". Then it becomes another gimmick. Because after awhile you would get tired of sounding the same all of the time. And your choice of cover tunes would be limited to stuff he sings. If that is what you are into. Cool for you. But don't expect to sing many pop songs unless you like that "chesty" sound.

You can actually get a true mix that emphasizes a true balance of chest and head. But only enough to maintain a "pop" sound that allows you to be a lot more versatile. You won't be able to distort like David Coverdale (ruin voice here). But you will still be able to sing heavy rock music and pop and R&B and country and anything else. If you want those things stay away from Ken Tamplin. Out of every system I ever bought, I would say for at-home lessons I would lean more towards Robert Lunte. Mainly only because he doesn't teach SLS (which sucks), and because he's the only one that teaches you techniques that you can use to "wail" and sing pop. He has a student named Randy who is a prime example of training a low voice to sing Journey songs. If Randy had used Tamplin's methods, he would not be able to sing those Journey songs without sounding all chesty and weird. I am sure there are other great coaches out there. This is a big world. But I still believe in wisdom that has been handed down for centuries. And in that wisdom it has been said the following words:

"Anyone who thinks everyone else is wrong is probably wrong". And Ken Tamplin seems to think everyone else is a bonehead while he has all the answers. And by no coincidence, all his answers cost you $300.

curshdude

Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  colin040 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:04 am

Wow that's a long post.

I definitely find it weird how Ken claims bridging early will ruin your chest voice as he has claimed. Aren't you suppose to do that if you want to learn how to actually sing ligher material? His critism towards singingsucces' method seemed a bit too harsh for its own if you ask me and it only shows what kind of douche the dude can be.

avatar
colin040

Posts : 571
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 23
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Michael Bolton on Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:17 am

As a huge fan of his voice and the owner of all his products, I find myself agreeing with a lot of your points. Even then, I think Ken's an incredible singer. I definitely acknowledge his weaknesses, though, especially in the teaching department. He does indeed come across as very pompous and egoistic, making very direct attacks at other singers.

I want to point out one of your quotes, though, where I find myself completely disagreeing:

curshdude wrote:If you go on his Youtube page, you will find all kinds of "testimonies" from people who aren't even singing for you. And if they are, they are already speaking in the high tenor or soprano range. And its already easy for someone with a high range to sing something. But you won't hear and good examples of Baritones. Nobody wants to sing like they have a chest voice in the upper register. It's ugly. Sounds like David Coverdale after steroids. And Ken's voice just can't cut it in the desirable industry. Hence the reason he is  advertising through the cracks of society.

"Nobody wants to sing like that"/"<insert Coverdale comparison here>" < This mainly bugs me. Not only is Coverdale a very fine singer, I'm a singer who wants to sing with chest power like Ken. I find his sound very powerful and beautiful, kinda like with Bolton and the likes.

But yeah, I find him an amazing singer who has some great tips to offer, yet acts way too egoistic about his own teaching. As a singer aspiring to become a professional, I find Ken's vocal warm-ups very helpful, as they've improved my vocal range and blending. However, I find myself agreeing with you: "there is no single way of learning everything". You can always learn new, valuable tips and tricks from different teachers, but I have yet to find a teacher who teaches it ALL. One of the best ways is to experiment yourself and simply sing along to various tunes/record yourself.

That's my two cents on it anyway.
avatar
Michael Bolton

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 64
Location : New Haven, Connecticut

View user profile http://www.michaelbolton.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  jco5055 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:49 am

I will admit, take this for example:






Here he often sounds like he's just straining, and he sounds like this on most of his covers. I'll admit, that when I watch his most popular video and a few others he sounds amazing (not to mention his "Livin for my Lord") but on a lot of his videos he doesn't sound that special...

jco5055

Posts : 121
Join date : 2012-10-10
Age : 26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  the_bachkator on Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:56 am

curshdude wrote:If you ask me Ken Tamplin is using what I would call a "variable" niche. He uses a profession that he knows something about to sell a product. He succeeds in selling it by exploiting and capitalizing on vulnerabilities of that profession. For example. In the vocal teaching business, there are a large number of self proclaimed experts who can't even sing. Tamplin cashes in on that and repeats it over and over. "The proof is in the singing". Even though some of the best vocal coaches in the world can't sing. And example of that would be Judy Davis, who taught Steve Perry.

Awhile ago I purchased Tamplin's vocal course to see how effective it is. This way, I couldn't criticize the guy without having been there. His lessons technically "work". But there is a major problem with them. Basically they train you to sing like you are "heaving" out your chest voice. You have heard this yourself from Ken's own voice. For the record, he actually doesn't sing like he used to. His early recordings fall under different technique which all but ruined his voice. Now he's can't sing near as well. Since then he has learned a way to basically belt everything. And he NEVER performs for hours like he says he does. It's the reason why he now teaches. He uses some truth mixed with "bullshit" to promote a product. This makes him just as bad as the thousands of vocal experts he criticizes and condemns. He certainly has a "self righteous" attitude for someone who claims to follow Christian principles (which I don't believe he is). And for the record, his cousin Sammy Hagar even criticized him for masquerading as a Christian. Even though we know Sammy isn't exactly a religious guy, he's genuine to say the least. And a great judge of character, as he has always been.

But, if you are looking for the bottom line. Tamplin is no better than the rest. Even though in his own mind he is. He tries to play the "honest" or "modest" card, while in the same sentence bragging about making 30 albums and winning awards. I personally know what modesty is and he doesn't have any. If you go on his Youtube page, you will find all kinds of "testimonies" from people who aren't even singing for you. And if they are, they are already speaking in the high tenor or soprano range. And its already easy for someone with a high range to sing something. But you won't hear and good examples of Baritones. Nobody wants to sing like they have a chest voice in the upper register. It's ugly. Sounds like David Coverdale after steroids. And Ken's voice just can't cut it in the desirable industry. Hence the reason he is  advertising through the cracks of society.

If someone were to ask me who I would go to for vocal coaching, first it would depend on what I want to sing. Because there is NO single method that will give it all, contrary to what Tamplin says. This i know because I have a degree in vocal pedagogy. But I do not simply follow what the books teach. I have studied and researched the voice. And to put it in simplified terms, there are muscles that control the chest voice. And there are muscles that control the head voice. Additionally there are adductors and other physical and mental factors that play a role as well. Collectively all these things produce speaking and/or singing.

"What that said" as Ken so often states, how a person is able to sing depends upon what type of coordination is developed throughout the range of motion using all the functions described. What Ken is teaching basically increases the strength of the head voice muscles, while dramatically increasing the strength of the chest muscles and coordinating singing towards "belting" throughout the range, which heavily emphasizes a dominating chest. A strong head voice is present because it must support the weight. This Ken knows and admits in his own words. But as a side note, he throws in the idea that if you want to sing lighter, you still can if you want to do R&B or whatever. This is where he falls VERY short. Ever listen to how Ken sounds when he sings light? He still has his chest pulled WAY up into his head and sounds "weird" to say the least. The reason why he is incapable of being versatile enough to sound similar to the artist he pretends to imitate. So "with that said" learning his techniques will literally KILL any versatility in your voice. You will sound the same all of the time. And it will sound chesty as Hell all of the time....because. The over extended and over coordinated chest voice will dominate even when you do not want it to. When you sing light, you will basically lose support and not be able to sing properly. Why? Because the way you must coordinate and support while ascending a scale, as trained by Ken's methods, if you were to try to sing lighter, you would have to decrease support, which would automatically make the head voice weaker. The resonance then would decrease. The chest would become slightly lighter. But because it is so dominant to begin with, it would still dominate in comparison to head. So an imbalance would occur. You would end up with a super weird sounding voice like Ken. He rarely sings anything light. He claims it's because he just "likes" to sing heavy. Complete bullshit. He can't sing light because his voice won't allow it. All he can do is "wail". Then it becomes another gimmick. Because after awhile you would get tired of sounding the same all of the time. And your choice of cover tunes would be limited to stuff he sings. If that is what you are into. Cool for you. But don't expect to sing many pop songs unless you like that "chesty" sound.

You can actually get a true mix that emphasizes a true balance of chest and head. But only enough to maintain a "pop" sound that allows you to be a lot more versatile. You won't be able to distort like David Coverdale (ruin voice here). But you will still be able to sing heavy rock music and pop and R&B and country and anything else. If you want those things stay away from Ken Tamplin. Out of every system I ever bought, I would say for at-home lessons I would lean more towards Robert Lunte. Mainly only because he doesn't teach SLS (which sucks), and because he's the only one that teaches you techniques that you can use to "wail" and sing pop. He has a student named Randy who is a prime example of training a low voice to sing Journey songs. If Randy had used Tamplin's methods, he would not be able to sing those Journey songs without sounding all chesty and weird. I am sure there are other great coaches out there. This is a big world. But I still believe in wisdom that has been handed down for centuries. And in that wisdom it has been said the following words:

"Anyone who thinks everyone else is wrong is probably wrong". And Ken Tamplin seems to think everyone else is a bonehead while he has all the answers. And by no coincidence, all his answers cost you $300.

"If you like the way I sing, I'll show you how to do it."
Ken Tamplin

the_bachkator

Posts : 148
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 20
Location : Bulgaria

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Michael Bolton on Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:06 am

the_bachkator wrote:
curshdude wrote:If you ask me Ken Tamplin is using what I would call a "variable" niche. He uses a profession that he knows something about to sell a product. He succeeds in selling it by exploiting and capitalizing on vulnerabilities of that profession. For example. In the vocal teaching business, there are a large number of self proclaimed experts who can't even sing. Tamplin cashes in on that and repeats it over and over. "The proof is in the singing". Even though some of the best vocal coaches in the world can't sing. And example of that would be Judy Davis, who taught Steve Perry.

Awhile ago I purchased Tamplin's vocal course to see how effective it is. This way, I couldn't criticize the guy without having been there. His lessons technically "work". But there is a major problem with them. Basically they train you to sing like you are "heaving" out your chest voice. You have heard this yourself from Ken's own voice. For the record, he actually doesn't sing like he used to. His early recordings fall under different technique which all but ruined his voice. Now he's can't sing near as well. Since then he has learned a way to basically belt everything. And he NEVER performs for hours like he says he does. It's the reason why he now teaches. He uses some truth mixed with "bullshit" to promote a product. This makes him just as bad as the thousands of vocal experts he criticizes and condemns. He certainly has a "self righteous" attitude for someone who claims to follow Christian principles (which I don't believe he is). And for the record, his cousin Sammy Hagar even criticized him for masquerading as a Christian. Even though we know Sammy isn't exactly a religious guy, he's genuine to say the least. And a great judge of character, as he has always been.

But, if you are looking for the bottom line. Tamplin is no better than the rest. Even though in his own mind he is. He tries to play the "honest" or "modest" card, while in the same sentence bragging about making 30 albums and winning awards. I personally know what modesty is and he doesn't have any. If you go on his Youtube page, you will find all kinds of "testimonies" from people who aren't even singing for you. And if they are, they are already speaking in the high tenor or soprano range. And its already easy for someone with a high range to sing something. But you won't hear and good examples of Baritones. Nobody wants to sing like they have a chest voice in the upper register. It's ugly. Sounds like David Coverdale after steroids. And Ken's voice just can't cut it in the desirable industry. Hence the reason he is  advertising through the cracks of society.

If someone were to ask me who I would go to for vocal coaching, first it would depend on what I want to sing. Because there is NO single method that will give it all, contrary to what Tamplin says. This i know because I have a degree in vocal pedagogy. But I do not simply follow what the books teach. I have studied and researched the voice. And to put it in simplified terms, there are muscles that control the chest voice. And there are muscles that control the head voice. Additionally there are adductors and other physical and mental factors that play a role as well. Collectively all these things produce speaking and/or singing.

"What that said" as Ken so often states, how a person is able to sing depends upon what type of coordination is developed throughout the range of motion using all the functions described. What Ken is teaching basically increases the strength of the head voice muscles, while dramatically increasing the strength of the chest muscles and coordinating singing towards "belting" throughout the range, which heavily emphasizes a dominating chest. A strong head voice is present because it must support the weight. This Ken knows and admits in his own words. But as a side note, he throws in the idea that if you want to sing lighter, you still can if you want to do R&B or whatever. This is where he falls VERY short. Ever listen to how Ken sounds when he sings light? He still has his chest pulled WAY up into his head and sounds "weird" to say the least. The reason why he is incapable of being versatile enough to sound similar to the artist he pretends to imitate. So "with that said" learning his techniques will literally KILL any versatility in your voice. You will sound the same all of the time. And it will sound chesty as Hell all of the time....because. The over extended and over coordinated chest voice will dominate even when you do not want it to. When you sing light, you will basically lose support and not be able to sing properly. Why? Because the way you must coordinate and support while ascending a scale, as trained by Ken's methods, if you were to try to sing lighter, you would have to decrease support, which would automatically make the head voice weaker. The resonance then would decrease. The chest would become slightly lighter. But because it is so dominant to begin with, it would still dominate in comparison to head. So an imbalance would occur. You would end up with a super weird sounding voice like Ken. He rarely sings anything light. He claims it's because he just "likes" to sing heavy. Complete bullshit. He can't sing light because his voice won't allow it. All he can do is "wail". Then it becomes another gimmick. Because after awhile you would get tired of sounding the same all of the time. And your choice of cover tunes would be limited to stuff he sings. If that is what you are into. Cool for you. But don't expect to sing many pop songs unless you like that "chesty" sound.

You can actually get a true mix that emphasizes a true balance of chest and head. But only enough to maintain a "pop" sound that allows you to be a lot more versatile. You won't be able to distort like David Coverdale (ruin voice here). But you will still be able to sing heavy rock music and pop and R&B and country and anything else. If you want those things stay away from Ken Tamplin. Out of every system I ever bought, I would say for at-home lessons I would lean more towards Robert Lunte. Mainly only because he doesn't teach SLS (which sucks), and because he's the only one that teaches you techniques that you can use to "wail" and sing pop. He has a student named Randy who is a prime example of training a low voice to sing Journey songs. If Randy had used Tamplin's methods, he would not be able to sing those Journey songs without sounding all chesty and weird. I am sure there are other great coaches out there. This is a big world. But I still believe in wisdom that has been handed down for centuries. And in that wisdom it has been said the following words:

"Anyone who thinks everyone else is wrong is probably wrong". And Ken Tamplin seems to think everyone else is a bonehead while he has all the answers. And by no coincidence, all his answers cost you $300.

"If you like the way I sing, I'll show you how to do it."
Ken Tamplin

Laughing Pretty much. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'd gladly take his belting range any day, knowing that I'm all about husky rock n' roll belters and screamers.
avatar
Michael Bolton

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 64
Location : New Haven, Connecticut

View user profile http://www.michaelbolton.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  colin040 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:22 am

Michael Bolton wrote:certainly did better job at it than 95% of TRP-users ROFL.

Yeah duh. Comparing a vocal teacher to some relatively young people on a forum who (probably) lack long singing experience/knowledge isn't really fair.

avatar
colin040

Posts : 571
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 23
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  B6 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:54 am

Michael Bolton wrote:very powerful and beautiful, kinda like with Bolton and the likes.
Modesty and referring to himself in third person much? Wink 
avatar
B6
Range Advisor

Posts : 4682
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 19
Location : Desert island

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Michael Bolton on Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:23 pm

colin040 wrote:
Michael Bolton wrote:certainly did better job at it than 95% of TRP-users ROFL.

Yeah duh. Comparing a vocal teacher to some relatively young people on a forum who (probably) lack long singing experience/knowledge isn't really fair.

Neither is taking all your opinions back and jumping on a bandwagon "bekuz it's trendy". Or digging up only the negatives of one's voice. Everybody has flaws. Discuss his teaching like we should, not his single cover medley's quality and how that affects his whole career as a singer. Duh.

OT - Colin, you are one of my favourite new users. Straight to the point and no dilly-dolly-dabbling around.
avatar
Michael Bolton

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 64
Location : New Haven, Connecticut

View user profile http://www.michaelbolton.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Michael Bolton on Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:26 pm

B6 wrote:
Michael Bolton wrote:very powerful and beautiful, kinda like with Bolton and the likes.
Modesty and referring to himself in third person much? Wink 

Sometimes, I get too excited about myself. Embarassed 
avatar
Michael Bolton

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 64
Location : New Haven, Connecticut

View user profile http://www.michaelbolton.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  colin040 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:50 pm

Michael Bolton wrote:
colin040 wrote:
Michael Bolton wrote:certainly did better job at it than 95% of TRP-users ROFL.

Yeah duh. Comparing a vocal teacher to some relatively young people on a forum who (probably) lack long singing experience/knowledge isn't really fair.

Neither is taking all your opinions back and jumping on a bandwagon "bekuz it's trendy". Or digging up only the negatives of one's voice. Everybody has flaws. Discuss his teaching like we should, not his single cover medley's quality and how that affects his whole career as a singer. Duh.

Fair enough.

OT - Colin, you are one of my favourite new users. Straight to the point and no dilly-dolly-dabbling around.

Thanks I guess.

The ''if I can't show you how to do it, it can't be done'' thing Ken says seems quite exaggerated to me....thoughts on this?
avatar
colin040

Posts : 571
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 23
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Michael Bolton on Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:19 pm

"I guess"? Confused 

It's obviously exaggerated, as not even Ken knows all the vocal techniques IN THE WORLD and certainly can't copy them all. There's so much beyond the typical techniques often shown, throat singing, toying out with vocal flageolet, various methods of extreme singing, overtones, etc. Besides, I'm sure there's a reason why so far he has avoided covering like Queensrÿche, even though Geoff Tate is one of the most requested vocalists on his channel. His voice would simply not fit Geoff's music, as everybody's expecting that super-bright head approach, whereas Ken's version would be more belting-heavy. Neither one's wrong, but it shows that he is definitely better at teaching good ol' rock 'n' roll belting, as opposed to like bright, clean heavy metal wails.
avatar
Michael Bolton

Posts : 413
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 64
Location : New Haven, Connecticut

View user profile http://www.michaelbolton.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rangerover17 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:00 am

Michael Bolton wrote:
colin040 wrote:
Michael Bolton wrote:certainly did better job at it than 95% of TRP-users ROFL.

Yeah duh. Comparing a vocal teacher to some relatively young people on a forum who (probably) lack long singing experience/knowledge isn't really fair.

Neither is taking all your opinions back and jumping on a bandwagon "bekuz it's trendy". Or digging up only the negatives of one's voice. Everybody has flaws. Discuss his teaching like we should, not his single cover medley's quality and how that affects his whole career as a singer. Duh.

OT - Colin, you are one of my favourite new users. Straight to the point and no dilly-dolly-dabbling around.

If anything, the bandwagon is "Ken's the greatest teacher EVER" judging by most posts about him on forums, the fact that his vocal academy has more likes than any other non-sls program on facebook, and the fact that he even goes on Tosh.O has been mentioned on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

rangerover17

Posts : 25
Join date : 2013-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rangerover17 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:41 am

Michael Bolton wrote:"I guess"? Confused 

It's obviously exaggerated, as not even Ken knows all the vocal techniques IN THE WORLD and certainly can't copy them all. There's so much beyond the typical techniques often shown, throat singing, toying out with vocal flageolet, various methods of extreme singing, overtones, etc. Besides, I'm sure there's a reason why so far he has avoided covering like Queensrÿche, even though Geoff Tate is one of the most requested vocalists on his channel. His voice would simply not fit Geoff's music, as everybody's expecting that super-bright head approach, whereas Ken's version would be more belting-heavy. Neither one's wrong, but it shows that he is definitely better at teaching good ol' rock 'n' roll belting, as opposed to like bright, clean heavy metal wails.

Good point about Geoff, though to be fair Michael Jackson, Bruno Mars etc don't fit his voice either but he still does them and does a serviceable job despite the fact that his voice/style is different. Maybe because Geoff is metal (and likewise similar guys like Michael Kiske who I saw was one of his top requests), that if he did it and didn't sound like him at all (which I feel would be the truth) a ton of people looking to sing rock/metal would not buy his program. I know when I was just starting out I would have assumed that all singers singing high were using the same technique.

rangerover17

Posts : 25
Join date : 2013-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  colin040 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:52 am

Seems like Ken's ''new'' videos are more of the same ''if you like the way you sing/the proof is in the singing/if their methods are so great, why don't they show it'' kind of bullshit. Funny.
avatar
colin040

Posts : 571
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 23
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rangerover17 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:11 am

colin040 wrote:Seems like Ken's ''new'' videos are more of the same ''if you like the way you sing/the proof is in the singing/if their methods are so great, why don't they show it'' kind of bullshit. Funny.
It's not really surprising from a business standpoint, as his advantage is on the fact that nobody can really say he's a bad singer. I don't think Robert Lunte, Kevin Richards, Jaime Vendera etc are bad either, but Ken seems to be the least likely to be ridiculed for his tone etc.


IMO, Ken's stuff probably gives the quickest results. For example, if a person with no prior vocal training wants to sing in a talent show or something that's in a week or two, his stuff will probably get you sounding the best the quickest.

I just am not a fan of his approach for the long term. He uses "bottom-up" phonations/technique, while I personally think "top-down" is the way to go.

If anybody is confused what those terms mean just ask.

rangerover17

Posts : 25
Join date : 2013-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  colin040 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:33 am

Could you please explain what those terms mean? :p

Well, I definitely wouldn't call him a bad singer but I don't really enjoy listen to his voice either but that's more about taste.
avatar
colin040

Posts : 571
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 23
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rangerover17 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:42 am

colin040 wrote:Could you please explain what those terms mean? :p

Well, I definitely wouldn't call him a bad singer but I don't really enjoy listen to his voice either but that's more about taste.
It's hard to say exactly, but I guess at it's most basic you could think of bottom-up as chest voice dominant, and top-down as head dominant.  Most of the real "technical" singers such as Geoff Tate and power metal guys all sing in top-down.

There's a great book that's free on Google books called "The Tenor Voice" by Anthony Frisell, that goes all into top-down phonations and why they are superior.

You won't have the same power belting, and for most people it takes longer to get down (though most naturals a la a lot of girls naturally sing in top-down, that's why they are naturals), but the difference is like head voice can be 90% or more in terms of power of a belt.

EDIT: Personally, if I belt an G4 and sing in head/mix/whatever you want to call it a G4, the power is virtually the same but the second G4 feels a lot "free-er", "floaty" and less taxing.

rangerover17

Posts : 25
Join date : 2013-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  WhySoSirius...Black? on Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:56 pm


Although his cover of Grenade wasn't so good, this is far better IMO.
C5's as well.

WhySoSirius...Black?
Banned By Request

Posts : 256
Join date : 2012-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer on Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:05 pm

That's a very good cover indeed.
avatar
R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2013-09-04
Location : IRL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rustyfo on Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:50 pm

Decent enough cover, but imo Ken really shouldn't be singing material by these high-placed pop guys at all. It just sounds weird. When he sticks to metal and hard rock it works.

The only thing that bugs me endlessly about Ken is his ridiculous megalomania. He starts by correctly saying "blabla my voice is heavier than Bruno's", but then goes on to say that he's going to show us how to "morph that high-bari sound into a tenor sound" which he then does not do that at all...!
I've had the KTVA program for over a year and have witnessed a steady increase in these false claims and aggressive PR campaigns with constant catchphrases that flat out lie. "If I can't show you how to do it, no one can" etc. He seems to spend most his time these days spamming youtube comments with ads, whereas previously he would answer questions in the forum and do webinars.
When I bought the program I quite liked him and his "If you like how I sing, I'll show you how to do it". Since then he has lost every ounce of humility and gone full-on douchebag.

edit: With that said, I would still like to point out that I actually learned a number of very helpful things from Ken, so I would still recommend KTVA to people as long as one applies a common sensical critical approach to it.
avatar
rustyfo

Posts : 215
Join date : 2013-02-27
Age : 28
Location : Copenhagen

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer on Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:18 pm

That's quite a good post and I agree with most of it. I've noticed these 'ads' as well, he posts the same comments on every new video of him singing a tune. One of his favourites seems to be the "would you like to have lessons with a singer who can't do the thing he's trying to teach". With that said, I love that cover. Very powerful and expressive singing.

His program has some very good tips. It's not the "final" program for learning to sing like a god, but it's got some very nifty tips, like certain other programs online.
avatar
R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2013-09-04
Location : IRL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  axisundone on Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:15 am

I'd love to hear Ken take on a Symphony X song.
avatar
axisundone

Posts : 324
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 29
Location : Ipswich, England

View user profile http://www.habuband.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  rustyfo on Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:30 am

Meager Smotherer wrote:That's quite a good post and I agree with most of it. I've noticed these 'ads' as well, he posts the same comments on every new video of him singing a tune. One of his favourites seems to be the "would you like to have lessons with a singer who can't do the thing he's trying to teach". With that said, I love that cover. Very powerful and expressive singing.

His program has some very good tips. It's not the "final" program for learning to sing like a god, but it's got some very nifty tips, like certain other programs online.
Yeah exactly. But if you like it, cool. Personally I'm not a fan at all of doing these type of pop love songs with heavy vocals, but each to their own.
Out of curiosity, what other programs have you found helpful?
avatar
rustyfo

Posts : 215
Join date : 2013-02-27
Age : 28
Location : Copenhagen

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer on Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:42 am

Well, quite a lot. I've learned the best by simply singing, but various programs have their pros and cons.
avatar
R.I.P. Rapport Rapturer

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2013-09-04
Location : IRL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Tamplin

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum