Sign in to follow this  
Danielformica

Alexander Kariotis Podcast & Vowel Modification

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 12/5/2017 at 8:02 PM, Robert Lunte said:

Dan,

Cool podcast, very interesting guest. Great points and informative for everyone.

In the beginning of your podcast you mention something about "quack" and "twang" vocal modes. Seemed you had a concern?

Can you elaborate more?

   I started to post this the other day when the thread disappeared for a while...then was locked.... It still seems valid to me after all the other comments. 

The terms and ideas get a bad rap because they are misused or misrepresented. Any written description of a sound is going to be inadequate, especially when that sound is supposed to lead to a coordination which involves air pressure, vocal tract alignment, vocal cord approximation, tongue placement, ect........ Even the guest stated to his teacher " I don't know how to make that sound" at that point descriptions on how to make that sound would follow from the teacher or just a back and forth of the teacher making that sound and the students attempts until something close is achieved. 

   There was also a demonstration showing the difference in a sound production.....one without appoggio(or classical technique) and one with.......but no description on how to make the difference in sound......A teacher or method that uses written words or even a video would need to describe in words what makes the difference by describing a physical coordination.  Even someone like Lilli Lehman would describe the difference in vowel modification on different pitches by writing things like an add an " i " on top and and "oo" on the bottom with a " Y " to link them.    That would give you the vocal fold closure or "Twang" plus the open throat and lower larynx of "curbing". Yes now there are terms to describe an action of the vocal tract and a sound to lead to them. And that is what they are. They are a way to LEAD to a coordination. No different than using the term Appaggio or Squillo to discribe different aspects of "Classical" or "Bel Canto"  techniques.

   No, you do not need to know terms to sing......but when people keep telling you that you are speaking on pitch not singing.....or you are squealing not singing......or you are mumbling not singing.....They better come up with some way to lead you what IS singing and how to achieve it if they are your teacher......

Edit.... Not all of us have someone who can push on our stomach at just the right spot to help us find appoggio or support....

Edit 2. Dan this is not meant to slight your Podcast. It is a great idea and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Awesome job and a great interview regardless of where it led this particular thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things on this.

@Danielformica , would you be kind enough to share with us more insights on the Berton Coffin method? I believe you worked with it a bit, which is cool and I personally would like to better understand... and share with the community.

@Felipe Carvalho Maestro Carvalho, would you be kind enough to embed in the video of the vocal modes on that DIO song? I would really like to see that and we should share. Lyric mapping is a super cool skill and important.

Thx Coaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert I also saw that dio breakdown using cvt modes. And i get Felipes point as none of the CVT modes as demonstrated sounds nowhere close to the sounds like DIO or Pavarotti uses. Yet they claim these singers use these sounds or modes. 

I know ive personaly been big on supporting CVT modes in the past. But im honestly starting to doubt them, sure when we can apply DIO or Pavarotti as examples for a program it's gonna sound awesome. 

But the truth is neither of them used CVT and ive yet to hear a CVT singer come anywhere close. 

In regards to CVT we have been spolied on this forum as we had Martin. His examples was and probably still is 10 times as strong as the stuff out on the CVT libraries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting insights, thanks Jens.

I never have, nor do I feel that CVT is the end all of all. Its just another viable method that allows us to make sense of things at least.

Its helpful, but has some short-comings if you look for it.

Still would like to see the video. 

Agreed, I miss Martin's contributions.

@Martin H, we would enjoy having you chime in again.

 

Share this post


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

Robert I also saw that dio breakdown using cvt modes. And i get Felipes point as none of the CVT modes as demonstrated sounds nowhere close to the sounds like DIO or Pavarotti uses. Yet they claim these singers use these sounds or modes. 

I know ive personaly been big on supporting CVT modes in the past. But im honestly starting to doubt them, sure when we can apply DIO or Pavarotti as examples for a program it's gonna sound awesome. 

But the truth is neither of them used CVT and ive yet to hear a CVT singer come anywhere close. 

In regards to CVT we have been spolied on this forum as we had Martin. His examples was and probably still is 10 times as strong as the stuff out on the CVT libraries

there is some useful info there but the modes stuff seems somewhat off to me. If you look at her usage of the word "belt", you would think it would be the chesty "overdrive" mode...but nope, she calls "edge" and "belt" to be the same thing lol. I know the word "belt" sucks but come on, belt and edge simply arent the same AFAIK

And the whole "different modes use different vowels".....nah, im not feeling that either. Id like to think a good singer can use any mode on any vowel to whatever degree their skill allows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JonJon said:

she calls "edge" and "belt"

I am not certain, but I think that belt and edge are the same thing, but 'belt' is an older term that was replaced with 'edge'. Educated guess.

2 hours ago, JonJon said:

And the whole "different modes use different vowels".....nah, im not feeling that either. Id like to think a good singer can use any mode on any vowel to whatever degree their skill allows

This is a really good point Jon. I completely agree. A CVI mode should not HAVE to be one vowel color region... they cetainly have preferred or easier vowels per mode, but for sure, you would not and should not think that you can't or shouldn't apply all vowels to every mode. Good observation.

:39:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Lunte said:

@Danielformica , would you be kind enough to share with us more insights on the Berton Coffin method? I believe you worked with it a bit, which is cool and I personally would like to better understand... and share with the community.

Well a couple years ago I tried to show you and you didn't seem to want to know and stopped trying.(you said it would mess with your technique, I understand that). the method is actually simple to understand hard to execute it takes a while (not a few months or 2-3 lessons). Basically the vowel+ pitch+ intensity (sometimes) = the register. So for example an uh vowel on a F#4 is upper chest but the same pitch on an oa vowel is mixed voice,  but on an oo vowel is vowel register or sung lighter no support (intensity) is falsetto. Sounds crazy I know but when you use your ears which is your best tool you hear and feel the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonJon said:

And the whole "different modes use different vowels".....nah, im not feeling that either. Id like to think a good singer can use any

In the bel canto/Berton Coffin method it isn't about that either. Once your weaker registers like mixed/vowel are stronger you don't have any holes in your voice so you can sing every vowel in every register not changing ee to eh or that bullshit. Sometimes you will if you want a certain intensity on a note but you'll have the strength to excute and technique to choose and stand on. Technique gives you the freedom and no excuses approach to singing. That is what true technique is.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Danielformica said:

Well a couple years ago I tried to show you and you didn't seem to want to know and stopped trying.. the method is actually simple to understand hard to execute it take a while (not a few months or 2-3 lessons) basically the vowel+ pitch+ intensity(sometimes) = the register. So for example an uh vowel on a F#4 is upper chest but same pitch on an oa is mixed voice but on oo is vowel register or sung lighter no support (intensity) is falsetto. Sounds crazy I know but when you use your ears which is your best tool you hear and feel the difference

This sounds similar to CVT (the concept) F#4 on UH, upper chest (curbing) oa Mixed voice( neutral with curbing) OO vowel register, no support(neutral without curbing).

Same concept. With Coffins technique The vowel and intensity describes whether you use (pardon the expression) Chest, mixed or Head......CVT whether you use Chest mixed or head and intensity describes which mode. Same concept different approach.

No, I am no expert in either. Maybe that is why they seem the same. but the common denominator is VOWEL, PITCH and INTENSITY........

Share this post


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

Well a couple years ago I tried to show you and you didn't seem to want to know and stopped trying.(you said it would mess with your technique, I understand that). the method is actually simple to understand hard to execute it takes a while (not a few months or 2-3 lessons). Basically the vowel+ pitch+ intensity (sometimes) = the register. So for example an uh vowel on a F#4 is upper chest but the same pitch on an oa vowel is mixed voice,  but on an oo vowel is vowel register or sung lighter no support (intensity) is falsetto. Sounds crazy I know but when you use your ears which is your best tool you hear and feel the difference

 

59 minutes ago, Danielformica said:

In the bel canto/Berton Coffin method it isn't about that either. Once your weaker registers like mixed/vowel are stronger you don't have any holes in your voice so you can sing every vowel in every register not changing ee to eh or that bullshit. Sometimes you will if you want a certain intensity on a note but you'll have the strength to excute and technique to choose and stand on. Technique gives you the freedom and no excuses approach to singing. That is what true technique is.. 

Dan, these two posts seem to completely contradict one another on the surface. Can you elaborate more? For instance, at face value, "Basically the vowel+ pitch+ intensity (sometimes) = the register."etc... is the exact same thing as modifying the vowel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Danielformica said:

No it means if you can't sing ee on an g4 and keep spreading to aye that register is weak. Through Bertons exercises you will learn. 

 

8 minutes ago, Danielformica said:

Also in modifying a vowel on certain notes in songs sometimes  let's the overtones ring better so you hear the vowel intended. 

Again, two seemingly contradictory statements. I understand and agree that an /ee/ should not change to an /eh/ or "aye". A proper modification would be to let the overtones shade the /ee/ depending on the pitch, which could be perceived or easily described as a adding /ou/ overtones to the /ee/ vowel. Not that the /ee/ is changed to a different vowel. It's still there. There are simply other overtones.

Am I correct in thinking that you do advocate modifying the vowel overtones in as much as the Bel Canto register requires based upon the pitch, but not so straight forward as to say that an /ah/ become an /uh/? Because if that is what you're saying, then the TVS vowel modification, perhaps even what I studied from Ken Tamplin, is in agreement with you. It's not as simplistic as changing the vowel, rather it involves shading the vowel with other vowel overtones, depending on the pitch of the voice (as well as, sometimes, intensity). Terminology is definitely different here, but the method being described is very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no the methods are different at least from what I have heard and that being Ken as well. I suggest find someone that studied it and take some time the book won't do good without a teacher I don't think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps "method" is the wrong word there. The result is the same. I'm familiar with the methodology/pedagogy you describe, and others. My best friend used to tour the world singing Opera, and we trade pedagogy techniques. In our discussions and demonstrations to each other, I'm always surprised by just how much is misunderstood (and sometimes prejudiced against strongly because of the misunderstanding) until we spend time to explain and teach it to one another. More often than not, we're both surprised to find we're talking about the same exact placement and support, just using different terminology and methods of getting there.

For example, I use twang and sob vocal modes  with resonant anchoring and vowel overtone modification to produce what Bel Canto describes as Vowel Register. I don't call it all of those things either. I usually just call it rock or contemporary singing. There are obviously other associations and terminology used within Bel Canto to produce that result too, but that's beside the point. Another example would be when I first discussed proper belting with my friend. He wasn't very keen on the idea at first, until I explained to him what I do in order to belt. Then he showed me how he learned to do pretty much the exact same thing I was describing, albeit without as much vocal fold compression. The biggest differences in the pedagogies became stylistic, terminology, and perhaps a few nuances found in twang and sob vocal modes (that is, without mentioning vocal distortion). 

At this point, I almost feel like someone in Krav Maga trying to discuss martial arts with a Kung Fu traditionalist, or perhaps even trying to describe pears to someone who has an obsession with apples. haha! I'm in no way saying you're short-sighted or ignorant, but rather that a conversation like this one requires a lot of patience, questions, examples, and perhaps too an understanding that there are different teaching methods that all lead to great results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think at this point I just wanna say I have studied many if not all the schools we talk about here from estill to sls to cvt etc.. I'm saying from a personal standpoint and I'm a pretty accomplishment singer/teacher I hope (not trying to be cocky) that it is much different when you learn from someone like Alex as opposed to others Ive worked with. I'm gonna end this here and I'm glad everyone liked the podcast I have some more coming with some great singers I've sung with and teachers that are singers that I've met the last couple years. Peace 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Lunte said:

I am not certain, but I think that belt and edge are the same thing, but 'belt' is an older term that was replaced with 'edge'. Educated guess.

This is a really good point Jon. I completely agree. A CVI mode should not HAVE to be one vowel color region... they cetainly have preferred or easier vowels per mode, but for sure, you would not and should not think that you can't or shouldn't apply all vowels to every mode. Good observation.

:39:

yeah, she says on the site that where she formerly used the word "belt" she now uses "edge". But to me, the description they give of "overdrive" mode sounds more like what I understand belting to be. (A TA dominant thing)....whereas when you listen to their examples given for "edge"..it sounds nothing like belting lol.

Here is how they describe "overdrive"--> "Overdrive is a full-metallic mode. Its character is often direct, loud, and shouted, like when you call ‘hey’ after someone in the street. "     Boom, in T4P thats a straight up belt lol....just like the vid for Vinnie belts. Yet she says "belt" corresponds to "edge".   cest la vie

 

There is more confusion like this: " In Overdrive you can only use the vowels ‘EH’ (as in ‘stay’) and ‘OH’ (as in ‘so’). "   Just those 2 vowels??  But then when they give the demonstration the guy is singing other vowels and he ends up hitting the word "blessings" which I guess would this IPA symbol "ɛ"  but it certainly isnt "stay" or "so" lol

 

for "overdrive" they mention that it is limited in pitch to C5 for men....which does more or less correspond to a strong pure TA dominant belt lol. So why she decided that "edge" = belt is beyond me.

 

for "edge" they say: " Only twanged vowels can be used in Edge, as a distinct twang is a condition for the mode. Accordingly, you must use only  these vowels: ‘I’ (as in sit), ‘EH’ (as in ‘stay’), ‘A’ (as in ‘and’), and ‘OE’ (as in ‘herb’)."

So its interesting that the "stay" vowel is listed for both edge and overdrive.

 

If I thought CVT was worth it id have bought it by now but it seems pretty confused to me. I got enough junk in my head already lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Danielformica said:

Well I think at this point I just wanna say I have studied many if not all the schools we talk about here from estill to sls to cvt etc.. I'm saying from a personal standpoint and I'm a pretty accomplishment singer/teacher I hope (not trying to be cocky) that it is much different when you learn from someone like Alex as opposed to others Ive worked with. I'm gonna end this here and I'm glad everyone liked the podcast I have some more coming with some great singers I've sung with and teachers that are singers that I've met the last couple years. Peace 

of course you are cocky Dan...then again so are most of us lol. The hardcore arguments start when someone tries to say their way is the ONLY way or even the BEST way. Ken Tamplin says the same thing then he backs it up with "guys, ive been doing this for 40 years, I know what works."   If his voice is good enough though he wouldnt have to add the little chest thumping self promotion.

 

There is no best way...period.

 

how to explain the Ronnie James Dio's, Rob Halfords, Bruce Dickinsons, Paul Rogers and many other great singers who never studied with anyone?? They probably never heard of Berton Coffin or Estill or Lillie Lehman. They figured out through experimentation and imitation how to use the physiology which we all have in common. People were doing that long before Berton Coffin was born

for YOU it may be right to attach yourself to a long list of coaches..for others it is totally unneeded.

Im trying to figure out...how does a heavy Pavarotti vibe translate over into singing all the pop stuff you sing? Im not hearing bel canto when I hear Steve Perry or Sam Cooke lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JonJon said:

Accordingly, you must use only  these vowels: ‘I’ (as in sit), ‘EH’ (as in ‘stay’), ‘A’ (as in ‘and’), and ‘OE’ (as in ‘herb’)."

One thing I'm certain of is there is no "mode" where you can only use certain vowels. I agree, it doesn't make sense to me either.

10 hours ago, Danielformica said:

changing ee to eh or that bullshit

Dan, modifying vowels in this way is not bullshit? It is a legitimate, alternative option for the more narrowed positions. It couldn't be bullshit, because every great singer does it from time to time, including you. I would invite you to just view it as an alternative. Why would an occasional “ee” to “eh” modification be “bullshit”? 

Focusing on narrowed language vowels does have a lot of benefits I've noticed. You get a nice diction from it but it also has the effect of working your musculature a lot and it makes you stronger. I am a big advocate of it.

Singer's should be aware of both techniques and their unique advantages. Nobody benefits by purposely trying to only do one or the other. Why be so rigid about this?

One of my Vowel Modification Lectures. It is an explanation as to why we need vowel modification.

10 hours ago, Danielformica said:

So for example an uh vowel on a F#4 is upper chest but the same pitch on an oa vowel is mixed voice,  but on an oo vowel is vowel register or sung lighter no support (intensity) is falsetto. Sounds crazy I know but when you use your ears which is your best tool you hear and feel the difference

That doesn't sound crazy, that is a good decent description of how to manage vowels and their resonance. I think most people understand this forumla.

9 hours ago, Draven Grey said:

"Basically the vowel+ pitch+ intensity (sometimes) = the register."etc... is the exact same thing as modifying the vowel.

That is a formula for vowel modification, or the layman's formula for the physics of it. I like it, but it is definitely a vowel modification, resonance amplification formula.

8 hours ago, Draven Grey said:

Because if that is what you're saying, then the TVS vowel modification, perhaps even what I studied from Ken Tamplin, is in agreement with you. It's not as simplistic as changing the vowel, rather it involves shading the vowel with other vowel overtones, depending on the pitch of the voice (as well as, sometimes, intensity). Terminology is definitely different here, but the method being described is very similar.

Excellent. Singing vowels become more multicolored in their auditory perception, the higher they are in frequency. The lower they are, the more singular the color seems to be perceived. 

8 hours ago, Danielformica said:

the book won't do good without a teacher I don't think

The Berton Coffin? Ya, it seems a reach to do it alone without a coach.

I think Maestro Steve Fraser understands it. You guys remember Steve? @Steven Fraser.

6 hours ago, JonJon said:

for YOU it may be right to attach yourself to a long list of coaches..for others it is totally unneeded.

I don't cite who my teachers were very often. I had great, legendary teachers as well. Including Steve above... But It never occurred to me to speak of it so often, other than a page on my web site. I feel like I want to focus or highlight what I'm doing. My former voice teachers are not a big thing that defines my credibility. I suppose they add something to it, but when I think of my credentials, who I worked with,,, at this stage of my career, is a side consideration with marginal weight toward my credibility.

Great posts guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, All.  Since Robert mentioned me, I thought I would chime in.

I can speak a bit to the references about Berton Coffin, who taught at the University of Colorado, some of whose students I know.

To call his approach a 'method' is a little too expansive, I think.  He was, by training, a Physicist, and applied a strong acoustical perspective to singing.  if you want, you could reasonably say that he took Gunnar Fant's treatise on 'The source-filter theory' and systematically applied it to vocal studio work.

He used, in the studio (per his students I have discussed this with) two things he invented for use there: 1) the chart of the 'best' vowels to sing on all notes of the range, which was based on his understanding of how the harmonics of the phonated tone interacted with the vocal resonance, and 2) the 'vowel mirror',  a small speaker issuing a sawtooth wave, which was held by the singer in front of their mouth (glottis closed), issuing a particular fundamental, and used in place of phonation, to help the singer discover their most resonant vowel for the note.

All this taken together (that is, Coffin's pedagogy) was to make systematic, and provide the singer some assists in discovering resonant vowels.  It turns out that the most resonant vowels are those where the harmonics are fairy well aligned with the resonances of the vocal tract for the particular vowel, particularly as the vowels chosen needed to change based on the type of voice and range being sung..

In listening to classical singing, the ability to perceive a particular vowel declines as the voice ascends in fundamental frequency, as the harmonics spread apart so that they only occasionally align with the resonances.  The classical singer does not worry about the intelligibility... the composer has already taken care of that (if they were any good) by writing a syllable on the higher notes that either could be communicated by multiple vowels, or by picking a syllable that had the best vowel for the voice type.  In any case, the wise singer chooses a vowel they can perform consistently with confidence, and does that, even if is not the one that seems appropriate if spoken.

I use as a good example of this compromise (vocal survival vs vowel purity), the aria from Adam's Le Postillion de Longjumeau 'Mes amis, ecoutez l'histoire' , in which the written part for the tenor contains, G4, B4 and D5 for a word written with the 'oh' vowel.  The composer, in his wisdom, gives the tenor this great vowel, which can be sung open or closed with beauty, even across the passaggio, for these notes, as (we know now, via Titze's work on  the nonlinear theory) the vocal tract inertance is helpful for reducing strain, especially when the tone is sung with some twang, making the voice more efficiently produced, and easier to sustain on stage.

Best Regards,

Steven Fraser

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 4:11 PM, Danielformica said:

Well a couple years ago I tried to show you and you didn't seem to want to know and stopped trying.(you said it would mess with your technique, I understand that).

I have read this a several times now and I just have to chime in. This is not true or how I remember our discussion.

For starters, I already owned the Berton Coffin book prior to our very brief chat about it. It was recommended to me by Maestro Steven Fraser above, so I was already familiar with it and its premise. You did not introduce me to Berton Coffin.

As I recall, we were talking about vowels and you mentioned "Berton Coffin" and I mentioned that I own the book. I recall you making the point that you have to practice the vowel routines in the book and make a commitment to it and it will come. That is all I recall from our discussion.

 

The idea that I, "didn't seem to want to know and stopped trying... because I would mess up my technique"... is full of irony and unfounded. 

 

  • "I didn't seem to want to know"?... Really?!  Have you forgot who your talking to? Why would I "not want to know"?... And if I didn't want to know, then why did I purchase the book, because... "I didn't want to know"?... it makes no sense. I did and do want to know, that is why I purchased the book when Steve recommended it to me and why I even asked you to explain it in more detail above, precisely because I DO want to know... Which BTW, you have not provided for us. Maybe its you that truly "does not know"... if you do, then let's hear your lesson on Berton Coffin. We are waiting.

 

  • "Stopped trying"?... LOL, I never started "trying". I have never committed to training the Berton Coffin routines and have never claimed that I have... it is impossible for me to "stop trying" something, that I never started. Your accusation is Rubbish. 

 

  • "I said it would mess up my technique"? Thats why I purchased the book when Steve recommended it to me, right? Apart from the fact that I am the last person to not be open to new ideas and techniques. Are people on this forum really going to believe that I ( Robert Lunte ) was not interested in learning about effective vowel modification techniques? Just stop... give us a break.

Absurd and completely unnecessary.

:DancingChicken:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steven Fraser said:

Hi, All.  Since Robert mentioned me, I thought I would chime in.

I can speak a bit to the references about Berton Coffin, who taught at the University of Colorado, some of whose students I know.

To call his approach a 'method' is a little too expansive, I think.  He was, by training, a Physicist, and applied a strong acoustical perspective to singing.  if you want, you could reasonably say that he took Gunnar Fant's treatise on 'The source-filter theory' and systematically applied it to vocal studio work.

He used, in the studio (per his students I have discussed this with) two things he invented for use there: 1) the chart of the 'best' vowels to sing on all notes of the range, which was based on his understanding of how the harmonics of the phonated tone interacted with the vocal resonance, and 2) the 'vowel mirror',  a small speaker issuing a sawtooth wave, which was held by the singer in front of their mouth (glottis closed), issuing a particular fundamental, and used in place of phonation, to help the singer discover their most resonant vowel for the note.

All this taken together (that is, Coffin's pedagogy) was to make systematic, and provide the singer some assists in discovering resonant vowels.  It turns out that the most resonant vowels are those where the harmonics are fairy well aligned with the resonances of the vocal tract for the particular vowel, particularly as the vowels chosen needed to change based on the type of voice and range being sung..

In listening to classical singing, the ability to perceive a particular vowel declines as the voice ascends in fundamental frequency, as the harmonics spread apart so that they only occasionally align with the resonances.  The classical singer does not worry about the intelligibility... the composer has already taken care of that (if they were any good) by writing a syllable on the higher notes that either could be communicated by multiple vowels, or by picking a syllable that had the best vowel for the voice type.  In any case, the wise singer chooses a vowel they can perform consistently with confidence, and does that, even if is not the one that seems appropriate if spoken.

I use as a good example of this compromise (vocal survival vs vowel purity), the aria from Adam's Le Postillion de Longjumeau 'Mes amis, ecoutez l'histoire' , in which the written part for the tenor contains, G4, B4 and D5 for a word written with the 'oh' vowel.  The composer, in his wisdom, gives the tenor this great vowel, which can be sung open or closed with beauty, even across the passaggio, for these notes, as (we know now, via Titze's work on  the nonlinear theory) the vocal tract inertance is helpful for reducing strain, especially when the tone is sung with some twang, making the voice more efficiently produced, and easier to sustain on stage.

Best Regards,

Steven Fraser

 

Nice post Steven.

As a former USAF radio tech and now a 30 year guitar player, I am quite familiar with fundamentals, harmonics, and resonances etc. So I can easily lose myself in reading tech articles about these subjects. On the flip side I am also trying to be practical about what  spend my time on since I sing, play guitar and bass, write, record, produce my own stuff etc. The last few days have seen me spend about 6-8 hours learning how to program midi drum patterns by hand etc.

Id love to hook myself up to VoceVista and analyze certain spots in my range etc but I have way too much on my plate already. I have a feeling though that the singer (and audience) will already know when the singer hits the correct vowel/note/resonance combination, even without seeing the fundamentals and harmonics on a screen.

 

 

BTW, did Berton Coffin himself actually sing??

 

Thanks, JJ

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