Sign in to follow this  
JonJon

Belting vs Bridging? examples?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

To be honest I don't fully trust anyone's judgment of a sound being the 'same coordination as X/Y' singer' because it sounds the same. The equipment is different, everyone's hearing is subjective. And when the singer is famous and idealized it probably gets worse than two unknown singers.

I don't trust my own judgment. Logically, I'd again expect:

1. Same equipment + same coordination = the same results.

2. Different equipment + same coordination = different results. 

You're never going to have anyone else equipment, so you might as well work on your equipment, but humility when trying to apply your equipment to other singers is probably wisest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another educative opportunity if you are willing to think a bit.

Confusing the differences resulting from dynamic range and vowels with differences due to a registration event on the larynx is the reason why its so important to have orientation.

This whole conversation represents it well. More on the subject of M1 vs M2:

 

 

For references on M3 check Jens samples.

And of course check that Bee Gees sample, so groovy! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Well if we're talking specifically about the parts where he's blending to and from M1, then yes. I was making a general statement "in general rock belts are like this" and have some degree of flageolet tension in contrast to a dramatic operatic sound. Whether or not that's true if you sat down and dissected the cords, I couldn't say.

It was a general statement, not meant to specifically point to any part where he's clearly transitioning from M1 to M2 and saying that the M2 in that sound might be M3. That's not what I meant.

Then what were you even talking about regarding Ian Gillian and M3? He is not using the coordination you showed, neither in the parts where he blends M1 and M2 nor in the parts where he is in his M2. His coordination is of a kind that it is not "blendable" with M3.

You also were not talking about flageolet tension, you were talking about vibration mode M3 or "whistle voice". It is well-possible that the flageolet tension plays a part in creating vibration mode M3, but you can even have flageolet tension within M1, so would you then say it is a "mix between M1 and M3?".

When you posted that video of Gillian you posted this statement with regards to it:

generally when someone says "rock belt" it means a really piercing, twangy, distorted M2 with an early bridge to M3

which is pretty much just plain wrong. While the effect you showed in your video could be used for rock screaming it is definitely far away from what would "generally" considered to be a "rock belt". And as said, I still doubt that you could make a smooth, early bridge to M3 from that. It think your definition of "rock belt" could come from some SLS-guy who never understood how the technique that is actually used works, but it is far from a general statement and pretty much everyone that sings rock belts regularly will tell you that there is no early bridge into M3 possible when doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets talk about this great song. Yngwie Malmsteen with Goran Edman singing.

Essentially this would be great practice at "bridging"..correct?

The verse is in a pretty comfortable M1 range. But then the prechorus (2:33) "Holding you never again It cannot be all love has an end" is moving from G# to B4.

Then the chorus goes back down to M1ish range:

"You cannot see this is my destiny
I'm my own enemy
In my life there was no-one like you
You cannot see this is my reality
I'm my own enemy
In my life there was NO-ONE like you."

 

but that last "no-one" reaches back up to A#4

 

So most average male singers are going to be doing some bridging/blending etc on those high spots...correct?   (pretend im clueless lol)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Overall, this song would probably take about 5 years to replicate more or less effortlessly for the average joe starting from scratch =p.

I have seen u say some bizarre stuff lol. This takes the cake hehe.

So exactly how did you come up with the figure of 5 years? is that like 1 year per minute of singing or what? lol

 

Im trying to equate that to, say, Bohemian Rhapsody which would seem to be like 10x harder and more complicated. So maybe B Rhapsody would take, oh, 10 years? And Freddy did it when he was like 19-20? So he probably started on it when he was 10?? lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jeremy Mohler said:

Looooolll, not a fan of that song at all hahaha.  I'm more of an early Bee Gees fan, but for the sake of the challenge I'd probably do a song everyone knows heheh.  This is the kind I really like though:

 

:bang::bang::bang:

I'd love to hear Bob's version of this one.  Would suit his voice well.

Me too.  I prefer their early "pre-falsetto" era.....

I've gotta get a message to you, Lonely Days, Massachucetts...

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

...

What about this one? think he hits a D#5 in the chorus

the vowels are interesting....Im having a hard time with the lyrics.

I thought he said "im captured" but lyric sites say "enRaptured by the beauty"

but im pretty sure he says "ENcaptured by the beauty"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

It's never easy to tell on a recording. 

Here's a live performance (only one I could find) and now the vocals are more naked.  I'll bet Joe Lynn Turner would have done this well.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, VideoHere said:

Jon,

It's never easy to tell on a recording. 

Here's a live performance (only one I could find) and now the vocals are more naked.  I'll bet Joe Lynn Turner would have done this well.

 

 

 

 

 

wondering what year that was? The original was 92. Pretty sure his voice has gotten lower/darker since

 

im no pro but that sounded like a struggle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

I could probably give examples. Ya'll already said before "what you're saying isn't possible, so demonstrate it" and "I'm expecting to hear something low intensity and soft." But I did demonstrate it and it wasn't "low intensity." But then I get criticism from Felipe for having too much intensity/distortion in the sound :24:

Just to make sure: What you showed there WAS low intensity, because exaggerated flageolet is a consquence of not enough intensity, which is why CVT will tell you to sing louder if you have a problem with too much flageolet. Maybe it was loud already in your perception, but even low intensity sounds can get very loud in the high range. I was actually expecting a cleaner sound than that because a rock belt does not need distortion.

Actually I think the distortion you showed there is a result of you settling just in between those two modes which creates and unstable coordination (that distorts) but is pretty much the opposite of a "mix" between the two. You can do similar things by settling right in-between vocal fry and M1 or between M1 and M2.

 

Quote

 

Check out these examples and tell me that I couldn't execute these notes similarly using my technique. Many of these sounds sit dead center in what I considered to be a "mix" of M2/M3 in my demonstration. 4:07 is the same idea with a vowel modification + distortion; again, similar to how I demonstrated it.

2:00, 3:24, 4:07

 

 

You don't really try to tell us that these notes at 2:00 and 3:24 are "rock belts" do you? And no, these are NOT connected notes, this is basically disconnected falsetto.

The one at 4:07 is a different coordination which you will not be able to reproduce using your technique. You maybe can derive it from your technique, but there is no way that you will be able to connect that to M3.

The whole thing here is your claim about "connection" or "mixing" with M3 and this will not happen on a coordination like that at 4:07.

If you really want to show something, do it at least close to the sound at 4:07 (on the same vowel) and make a smooth glissando (without distortion!) into the M3 mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 23, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Danielformica said:

"Bridges" are spots in the voice where the voice shifts resonance. 

For a man, both tenor or baritone, the first bridge begins at about E flat above middle C. For heavy voices with thicker vocal cords it will be a bit sooner. With a bass it can be as low as B flat below middle C. It is important to mention that regardless of where a man’s bridges are, the sensations brought about by the shifts in resonance and the vocal cord adjustments are the same. The intrinsic thickness of an individual’s vocal cords will determine how low or high his bridges will be.

A tenor or baritone will begin to experience a shift in resonance around D and E flat entering the mix at E natural. The resonance begins to leave the mouth and go up behind the soft palate. This split resonance leaves some in the mouth, and some in the head.

The second bridge is at A and B flat above middle C. This is the bridge that many are not aware of. This is why there are so many tenors who have no high notes and therefore think that they’re baritones. It’s also why we have tenors that cannot get above an A or B flat. At this second bridge the vocal cords make an adjustment (if allowed to), that sends the resonance even higher in the head. 

The third bridge is at E natural above high C. Again the vocal cords adjust to send the voice higher into the super head. The fourth bridge is at B flat above high C and is also a super head voice sometimes referred to as the whistle register.

its not pure chest..

And it's not belted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

That statement about being "low volume" was a lie, by the way. All the samples were a mixture of both low volume and very high volume in order to demonstrate that we have no idea what volume rock singers are phonating at. Some were so loud my roommates were worried about me, some were so quiet they didn't hear them. You absolutely would not be able to go through those recordings and pick out which sounds were which because of how I mixed them. This is modern music, you have NO idea what intensity is being used at any given time.

Again we need to have terms here for when you said "M3." First it didn't exist, then it was the same as strong flageolet tension, and now it's just being used randomly again. I'll go by whatever term you set for it. I rather liked your "strong flageolet tension" definition because it meant that I could do anything with strong tension and consider it to be whistle. But if that definition is too loose, since you're the one calling the shots, you'll need to give me a definition of M3. From what it sounds like you're in the same camp as Jens of M3 being C6 and above.

"Connect that to M3" I can connect ANYTHING to M3. I just lessen the intensity, change the settings on my computer to equalize the volume, and increase pitch. It will sound connected. You have no idea what I'm doing behind the microphone. No idea what volume is being used, what vowel modifications I'm using to make my sound resemble more like M2, etc. Someone well practiced in their M2/M3 bridge could take almost any sound and connect it seamlessly to M3. The same is true of the M1/M2 bridge. This is how modern music production works.

Do you think any of us could definitely say how loud Michael Jackson's voice was? Prince's voice? Because I don't. Most of my training is in sound design and music production; I have done these things for years with my own voice and others' voices. I could take the sound of a toy car horn and make it sound as intense as a fog horn in 10 minutes.

I don't really know why you always come back to the terms. The thing about "It's not sure that M3 as a laryngeal mode exists" was regarding the papers you posted. It is not even about volume, it is about intensity in terms of "vocal fold mass" (take it as a picture term), which one can pretty much hear is very low on all the coordinations you show there. They are all "light" coordinations regardless of volume. It is all "neutral with flageolet" in CVT terms, which is the lightest possible mode (but still can get loud in the high range).

However, when we are talking about coordinations it is simple and we don't need terms when we are able to demonstrate. You can do this "thing" you showed in your video, so it exists, no matter what we call it. So let's just make it simple:

1. I think we all agree that the higher note you showed in your vid we can call "whistle"/M3, whatever, so let's just agree to call it "coordination A"

2. I think we all agree that the coordination Ian uses at 4:07 could be considered "rock belt", "pharyngeal voice", whatever, so let's just agree to call it "coordination B"

3. I think we all agree that the coordination you first showed in your video is somewhat similar to what Ian does at 2:00 (even though Ian has less tension on it), so let's just agree to call it "coordination C"

The one thing that is in discussion is your claim that there is a "blend" or a "mix" between coordination A and coordination B. But what you showed in the video was only coordination A and coordination C and you did not even execute a smooth "blend" or "mix" but some distorted "in-between" state of the two.

The terms do not really matter here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Some people call it "pharyngeal voice" or the "witches cackle" too. If you look up "pharyngeal voice singing" on youtube you'll get a lot of different perspectives. Once you're in the space it's just like anything else... adjust intensity/vowel to suit the needs of your voice and the song. I like to start the sound from whistle and push on that sound, some like to start from falsetto and modify it.

But yeah it's M2 =p. Though, some might argue it's a light "mixed" M1. Still, same general idea applies.

Again, no matter what you want to call it, it is not the same coordination that you showed in your video. The important thing is that there is no such thing as "just a vowel modification". You are singing in the OO (closed vowel) spectrum in your demonstration which makes the coordination very light fold-wise (remember OO is a neutral vowel). For the pharyngeal voice you typically use open vowels like A, which makes it a whole different coordination in terms of intensity and "fold resistance" (A is an Edge vowel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YouCanSingAnything said:

How does one sing a rock belt in any mode other than neutral? A light M2 edge? I could throw these clips up on the CVT forum right now and ask "is this neutral or edge-like neutral?" and get people on both sides of the discussion. The problem is you're acting like you have an objective measurement of what I'm doing when you don't. In fact, I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the responses on the CVT forum wouldn't say "neutral" they would say some sort of "metal-like neutral" or "edge-like neutral."

If I actually practiced my whistle, I could have blended them more perfectly. Pharyngeal voice is the easiest sound for me to do! I could quite easily do a demonstration of all 3 of those coordinations. I could also do a demonstration of all 3 of those co-ordinations connecting to whistle. No, probably not perfectly.. you have to use some imagination considering I haven't recorded a single note for this genre in at least 2 years.

You've said it yourself that there is no definitive "here is M3" point in the voice. You also acknowledged the study I linked which demonstrated that, unlike the bridge from M1 to M2, the bridge from M2 to M3 seems to be long and drawn out over many notes. A very skilled singer in this rock or in opera would not have an issue reasonably connecting any note in his range between co-ordinations A, B, and C. Even going so far as to blend A and B as well as B and C.

It does not matter if it is Edge-like-neutral or Edge. The A vowel always has a higher "acoustic mass" as it is called in 4 Pillars and will make your folds react differently. The coordination they show in the YT video is Edge btw (glottal onset) it is not Edge-like-neutral.

Again, no one is arguing that there is a bridge from M2 to M3, it can be done, it has been heard, but it does not work with coordination B. It does only work between a very low intensity coordination C and A. (and I strongly suspect that this is exactly what they saw in the studies on females). I think you might not be aware that operatic sopranos are instructed to modify all there vowels towards open vowels in the high range, which is specifically to prevent the flageolet from kicking in early and increasing acoustic mass. The same principle is used for rock belts. It is why we don't train rock belting on vowels like EE or OO.

If you think it is possible just try to find a single video of someone smoothly bridging from B to A or vice versa (or do you say there is not a single "very skilled" singer out there that can do it?), or even better show it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Also "intensity in terms of vocal cord mass" what does this even mean? If I sing the exact same sound analyzed as having a reasonably similar position of formants but the EGG measurements of my voice say that my "mass" isn't the same as another singers... so what?

First you said "low intensity" and now it's "low intensity in terms of vocal cord mass." How specific do you want to get here? Do I need to start submitting my demonstrations to research facilities?

Again you can call it whatever you want (that's why I said take it as a picture word). We do not need to discuss about terms here, neither "intensity" nor "mass". The point is still that the bridge you claim is there does not exist. And the reason for that is that there is a difference between the modes A and B that is too large. And this difference has a name, no matter if you want to call it "acoustic mass", "intensity" or "banana".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

I can do any of those bridges reasonably with a microphone man I've already told you. I will admit, yes. If I were un-amplified and i kept the intensity/volume the same from my C5 - C6 there would be an obvious transition to whistle. Luckily, that's not how modern music is done. I can sing a full, LOUD M2 in co-ordination A and increase my pitch while decreasing intensity and flageolet tension while managing my formants and arrive in M3 on the C6 and it will sound perfectly blended when I equalize the volume.
 

You can do a "blend" of M1 and M2 in the same way but it is pretty much unusable for "real" singing and is considered basically crap in terms of vocal technique. It is not what would be considered a real "blend" or "mix" between registers.

Are you really saying that Ian is singing these rock belts on a lower intensity than we think because he is preparing for a smooth switch to M3 that is inaudible because the soundman will equalize volume levels on his mic?

Look at this video by Phil, he explains very well how you can "blend" registers without actually using valid technique. It is M1 -> M2 here, but it works in exactly the same way as you suggest doing the M2 -> M3 transition, by lowering the intensity of the lower register as you go up so much that it matches the intensity of the higher register. While the transition may sound smooth the notes within the transition become totally unusable for singing, thus it is not really "connected".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

 But LOL. Just go to 7:40 on that video and he's in an audible falsetto to my ears... but he says it "sounds connected." If you were to plug that into a microphone and I equalized the volume and added the run of the mill effects like track doubling, chorus, reverb, etc. we would be having an argument where you said "That's M1" and I would say "No.. that's falsetto. If you take off the effects it would sound like falsetto."

Even WITHOUT the effects I'm sure plenty of people are going to come along and say "NO Tristan that sound is fully connected chest voice, you have weird ideas about the voice how dare you suggest such a thing." He's singing a C#5 that sounds EXACTLY like falsetto with low volume, low intensity... it's falsetto. I don't care if he calls it "connected" or "disconnected" instead of "chest" and "head voice," it's falsetto.

And no I'm not sitting here telling you what Ian does. I'm not Ian. I'm saying that, ESPECIALLY in the upper part of the voice, once your voice goes through a microphone you have absolutely no sense of the intensity level. In 200 years we might say that some of his "connected" A4s are M3... I do not know. I don't have an answer to that. All I know is that microphones OFTEN "fool" the listener into thinking the sounds being used are more intense and aggressive than they really are.

Why do you always start with these terms? It is not about volume either. It is simply about two sounds and the ability to connect them smoothly. The point is that Ian sings in a way where his lowest register and second register are connected. This pretty much requires him to sing his second register on a level so that it is not connectable to his third register.

And no, that is not falsetto at 7:40. Might be M2, but I think it is the main concept that you have yet to understand. People here are just trying to help you on that. Just try to sing the same phrase like him using your falsetto.

Maybe the main point is that your M1 and M2 are still disconnected (at least it was the case a while ago)? It is really easy to understand what we are talking about once you have that connection. Just try to do a smooth siren from like F4 to F5 on an open vowel. Then try the same siren from F5 to F6 without changing the coordination of the F5 with regards to the first siren.

Trust me. I was in the same spot as you not long ago and I would have sworn that the part at 7:40 is falsetto, but it is not. And understanding this precise difference was probably the most important lesson to learn for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Thanks to some of your suggestions and my own curiosity, those issues have largely been resolved. But no before I came here I was in shows where I would belt a C5 in edge and blend into an Eb5 in falsetto and back down again. It's part of why I got these rock parts... I just didn't have words for what I did.
 

Yes, cool, then you know the coordination. And what Ian is doing is just that he doesn't blend into falsetto at Eb5, he goes further in the coordination used before Eb5, whatever you want to call that. The thing with "falsetto" is just that it typically refers to a disconnected sound. And I agree that the definition between M1 and "connected M2" is kind of fuzzy, but that just shows you how well singers are able to blend these two, that even in terms of sensation people are unsure if it is closer to "chest" for "falsetto".

Actually I personally "sense" the coordination Phil is doing at 7:40 as being M2, but it is still a clear difference between that and falsetto. And it is exactly this element that separates "connected M2" from "falsetto" that will prevent the smooth transition to M3, regardless of what it is, call it "mass, TA activation", whatever. And some people also percieve this as being M1. What the scientific truth is, I'm not sure. Could even be that for some voices it is indeed M1 and for some it is M2.

The blend you describe here at Eb5 is pretty much the blend going from "rock belt" into "bee gees falsetto". And this is also what Dan refers to (I think) with his switch that can happen (but does not have to happen) on Eb5. Bee Gees falsetto is still not M3 though, but from that I think there would at least be ways to get into M3, not possible if you don't make that switch at Eb5 though.

BTW, the key to keep Edge mode up past E5 is a modification of the vowel towards UH or AH. This is needed to adjust the formant. Look what Ken Tamplin is doing in his videos, this is exactly it, some shade between AH and A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of imitating Ian Gillan, from what I've read, he was a vocal innovator and deserves acknowledgment, but as someone not from that era, I'm not sure I'd never know by listening to it in a blind test. I can't say the same for a lot of other vocal innovators.

So my thoughts are: if people can imitate him 'that' well, maybe that's not such a great thing? If someone were to ask me to, 'imagine a high pitched, screaming rock voice, in its vaguest, most generic, and undefined form,' that's kind of the sound I'd picture. To me that's at odds with what he did as an innovator, a pioneer, and a distinguished voice and it's a bit sad.

My thing is if you really want to sing like this guy, that would be called vocal innovation, not imitation. He wasn't concerned with his Ms and curbs and edges to try to get sound like someone else. He sang like himself. It's all the 'successful' imitations that may be diluting his impact. It's why I might hear him in a sea of singers with blindfold 'that's generic rock guy voice' rather than, innovator, pioneer, artist, etc. None of this is his fault. I'm sure it was fresh before everyone and their grandmother were trying to perfect the Ian Gillan 'coordination' so they could sound like the guy.

I feel bad for Gillan if musical theaters are basically asking people if they can do the 'Ian Gillan coordination' so they can have the 'rockish guy.'  Yeah, it was totally rock n roll in the 60s when he would rebelliously make personal and original sounds, sure. There was a lot of rock n roll in the 60s. All sorts of different voices, including contemporaries like John Lennon. If someone was asked to replicate the 'John Lennon coordinaton' so some theater could have 'the rock guy' that's just plain ridiculous, but apparently this is what happens. Maybe I wouldn't be able to appreciate the Beatles if every time 'rock guy' was needed 'the coordination' was requested. Ewww. Not rock n roll!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear I have no problem with some degree of imitation in learning to coordinate the voice. It's very useful. But as an end result (effective) imitation doesn't generally produce music that I like. On the other hand failed imitations can be amazing. Example: Lennon's self described take on 'Elvis and Roy Orbison'

Fail.... Not even close. Tristan, you were closer to Gillan and no one will let you have that! I heard your clip, you did way better than Lennon's Orbison! People should be harping on Lennon's pure fail right there, but you didn't do 'Gillan' to the forums satisfaction. 

Meanwhile, this was David Bowie, 'trying out Ronnie Spector.... Just for a day'

Amazing! Sure as hell isn't Ronnie Spector, but wow. Love it.

So Fine, be inspired by others, get influenced by others, be passionate about other singers. But in my book, imitating a rock n roll singer isn't rock n roll at all! Rock n roll is you singing 'you.' The really good ones like the two above couldn't figure out how to stop. :D And I'm thankful for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YouCanSingAnything said:


... If I took the "help" from everyone claming to have the secret I wouldn't have a voice anymore. That's how I went from having fantastic high belts to believing I was a male soprano over the course of 2-3 months on the internet. 

That was a good one. :D:) 

Something new I've just thought: I am very bad at doing scales and all that, and I've just thought that it might be because singing you also help yourself with emotions. Difficult to put emotions on scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, currently in musical theatre there seems to be a shift to make the switch to Edge very early and not taking care of the sound color (covering). Personally I don't really like it from a sound perspective (too harsh for my ears). Idina Menzel is also a good example of that. Today lots of musical theatre singers sing even "sharper" than rock singers in terms of tone, kind of weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2016 at 4:55 AM, Robert Lunte said:

Explain why you would not consider this to be belting? I am inclined to disagree... apart from the fact that it depends on each individual voice what levels of TA engagement are at play for any given frequency and formant.

Hi Rob, in the case of Pride, what Bono does on the line "In The Name" matches the position for head voice rather well, the difficult part, in my opinion, is exactly when he changes it for "of love, what more!". I rather sing it all more centered but hes original interpretation has a notable change of character when he does those phrases. He sings it more like:

"IN THUH NUHMMMMMM" OH LOOOHHHHHV WHAT MORE!.. etc

Powerful but there is this dynamic contrast even so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Hi Rob, in the case of Pride, what Bono does on the line "In The Name" matches the position for head voice rather well, the difficult part, in my opinion, is exactly when he changes it for "of love, what more!". I rather sing it all more centered but hes original interpretation has a notable change of character when he does those phrases. He sings it more like:

"IN THUH NUHMMMMMM" OH LOOOHHHHHV WHAT MORE!.. etc

Powerful but there is this dynamic contrast even so!

On a German board I'm posting on we currently have this "belting vs. head voice" debate and there are pretty much two positions on that. There are peoble which describe belting as the sound produced by the "megaphone position" of the vocal tract, which means vowels are opened and F1 is positioned to create "shouty" resonance. In that case he should sing more like EH-N TH-EH N-EH-M or A-N TH-A N-A-M.

But there are others that state that Belting just means that you sing M1 within "head voice regime" (like E4+ for males) and in that case it would match what Bono is doing. However, I agree with you that he is modifying to more closed vowels on that line, which is typical for the classical handling of head voice.

A consequence of this is that in the first definitions classical singers never belt, while in the second case classical (male) singers do belt in their upper range.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, YouCanSingAnything said:

Ha! I really like that sound for some reason! I think it's because I grew up with it in middle school when "pop punk" was popular. I think it's because I could be a whiney, dweeby, teenager with a shrill voice and feel like I was cool. It's also why I related to Seymour in Little Shop... the little nerdy average guy that somehow managed to get a girl to like him. Something about that strikes me as being more "authentic" for me but I totally understand why it's not everyone's thing.


A lot of what I've been doing these past few months is "curbing" out a lot of that shrillness in my voice. But I still tend to admire the more bright, forward placed sound timbres even in curbing. Singers like Justin Bieber, for example. Again not everyone cup of tea and certainly a rather 'generic' sound these days =p. But I like the style for whatever reason =p. I tend to gravitate toward any vocal style that's more "speech-like" and higher larynxed. Probably because that's how I speak and it comes easy to my voice!

I also recently traded in my more shrill, brightly colored condenser mic for a darker dynamic microphone to help me listen more to the lower harmonics of my voice =p. I'm excited to start posting clips with it soon!

Oh man, I hate this "teenie punk" sound so much, but I guess it is more of personal thing :P BTW and even nicer thing to get into darker sound colors is to darken the sound color on Edge instead of switching to Curbing. A good start is to use Edge on the vowel OE as in "herb" instead of the typical A as in "cat".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this