Felipe Carvalho

Review of Twang and Squillo Research

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A friend, and great singer, forwaded me this video today and I think it's very cool:

 

 

It's a bit long, she talks about how the aryepiglottic muscles cannot be responsible for the coordination (something that was already debated in this forum years ago) but she reaches two important coordination/mechanical basis for it that are new to me: tongue root and pharynx contraction. It matches many of my experiences in these last 2 years studying high intensity vocals and distortion.

What do you all think of it?

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observations:

  • The More vocal fold mass = more frequency amplification. 
  • /ah/ vowel tends to create more epiglottis movement = perhaps more resistance training and more physical strength could be achieved with training /ah/
  • The tongue root  anchoring idea, very fascinating. 
  • Jonas Kaufmann... wow. So amazing. :thankyou:

How do you engage this tongue root narrowing? Practicing on an /ah/ or adding /ah/ to the other vowel colors? Practicing /i/?

There needs to be a practical application to this information and idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I did not get to watch all of this, I made it to the examples of Linda Ronstadt.

   Having said that, this seems to relate to what Feuchtinger was saying about the importance of the Hyoglossus muscle. He pretty much based his "Method" on strengthening the hyoglossus muscle. Not necessarily the manipulation of the root of the tongue but engaging the anticonstrictor muscles,(muscles activated by the gag reflex). That dip in the tongue that most teachers will tell you is important. If the top of the tongue is "Deactivated" and the anticonstrictors activated, the sides of the tongue will become rigid and the middle of the tongue will become soft. Not only will this give you more space in the mouth but it will also anchor the tongue to the hyoid bone, which will also anchor the larynx.....  

    Another thing to remember about the epiglottis is that the muscles which make up the epiglottic sphincter extend into and along side the vocal cords(TA muscles), So, when the epiglottis is tilted it is giving "Help" in keeping fold closure and aiding in vocal mass.

    I will have to watch the rest tomorrow maybe she will go onto a different path than what she has explained up to the half way point.

I am not sure if she has other videos of the tongue while singing but what I have seen in this video so far shows the head from the side and you can not tell what the back center of the tongue is doing. My guess is that it has retracted to create a larger space in the pharnyx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 1:33 PM, Felipe Carvalho said:

but she reaches two important coordination/mechanical basis for it that are new to me: tongue root and pharynx contraction.

     I do not see how this could be new to you. Maybe calling it "Tongue root" and "Pharynx contraction" are new but the idea of anchoring the tongue and Narrowing above the vocal folds have been around forever.

    Also, what she mentioned about a chamber between the Palatopharyngeus muscle and the  back wall of the pharynx has also been discussed many times.

    Fauchtinger had also mentioned this in his writings and his course. The pillars of the fauces are drawn together in the higher registers. Those two arches that you see when you look in your mouth.

     "The arches form the pillars of the fauces. The anterior pillar is the palatoglossal arch formed of the palatoglossus muscle. The posterior pillar is the palatopharyngeal arch formed of the palatopharyngeus muscle."

     Fauchtinger goes into more of the mechanics of singing. Of course he was considered a quack because the physical musculature means nothing to the vocal pedagogy world(sorry about that, I think I am channeling 2 cats now)

    Anyway that Hyoglossus muscle that was mentioned as "The Root of the Tongue" is the key point between the hyoid bone and the muscles above it and the larynx. The hyoglossus anchors the tongue to the hyoid bone. The palatoglossus links the soft Palate to the tongue. The thyrohyoid membrane connects the hyoid bone to the larynx.

    So what happens when the tongue root is positioned in this way? The palatoglossus and Palatopharyngeus muscle have a stable anchor to pull against. Also the muscles that pull the larynx down also have a more stable anchor to pull against. Of course what does Fauchtinger know? He wass a quack right?

    Even so these things are only part of the puzzle. There is no mention of the structure of the larynx and the trachea being drawn together tighter(Which it can now do with the tongue root position) to add its piece of the puzzle into the sound. 

     Sound is not just the source vibration and the resonance chamber. It is also the material that makes up the resonance chamber. A bell of tin and a bell of glass have different timbers even if the same size and producing the same frequency of vibration.

    

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MDEW

Humm I am not sure it's related. If my memory is right Fauchtinger idea was to train to have a tongue groove, making the case that high level performers such as Caruso showed such groove.

Even if the video talks about the pharynx and it's constrictors, and that he probably talked about it to in his writings, I really don't see they are related since a big part of his theory was that you did that to increase space, she is making a case about how to create the constrictions that leads to the specific quality *twang*.

@Robert Lunte I don't particularly know how to make use of it. Given what she said, kermit voice, while making sure that the tongue root was the cause of it, could be a way to acquire the coordination? Not a big fan of this type of reference... I have some ideas about the pharynx that I am trying to organize for a while now for different reasons, mostly using unvoiced, white noise sounds while observing it (since this one you can at least see).

It's one of the reasons I would like to hear what people make of it since it introduces variation to exercises done based just on the sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Felipe... It is interesting. I want to know what the practical application could be. I have since played around a bit with what I thought was a tongue root position. Maybe it gave me more mass? Not really sure, can't confirm. Needs more experimentation. I retracted my tongue a bit. It did seem a bit beefier but that may just be the power of suggestion... needs more time to make any conclusions.

Share this post


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

@MDEW

Humm I am not sure it's related. If my memory is right Fauchtinger idea was to train to have a tongue groove, making the case that high level performers such as Caruso showed such groove.

Even if the video talks about the pharynx and it's constrictors, and that he probably talked about it to in his writings, I really don't see they are related since a big part of his theory was that you did that to increase space, she is making a case about how to create the constrictions that leads to the specific quality *twang*.

@Robert Lunte I don't particularly know how to make use of it. Given what she said, kermit voice, while making sure that the tongue root was the cause of it, could be a way to acquire the coordination? Not a big fan of this type of reference... I have some ideas about the pharynx that I am trying to organize for a while now for different reasons, mostly using unvoiced, white noise sounds while observing it (since this one you can at least see).

It's one of the reasons I would like to hear what people make of it since it introduces variation to exercises done based just on the sound.

     Cause an effect. The tongue groove is an effect of engaging the hyoglossus muscle. A way to activate this muscle while keeping the mass of the tongue passive.

A problem that I have found with most "studies" and "research" on the voice is that you cannot research all aspects at the same time. One study will be focused on resonance and formants, one will be on larynx position, one will be on vocal fold vibration, one will be on tongue position, one on raising the soft palate....

    What is not found or considered is the rest of the components. What else is happening at the same time.

    The most common method of training the voice and making it stronger or more focused is to "Twang" or add Squillo, follow the "Ring" or "Ping" The Bright AH or the buzzing EH, or increase the singers formant. Basically "Follow the sound" You are taught to find the sound by imitating the teacher until he tells you that you have found it. Or you use a computer program that shows what formants you are producing and you change your voice until you see the increase in the 2000 to 3000 kilahurtz range.

    Faugchtinger based his method on what he called "The beat of the tongue"  or "The Tongue attack" Basically engaging the hyoglossus muscle at the onset of sound. In his thinking this is what "Produced the ring" and made the voice sound more strong and full.  He also had a theory for those with weak voices to produce the higher notes and still maintain the "Ring" and fullness of voice in a lighter configuration. He called it the "Palate attack". In the palate attack the pillars of the Fauces were "Engaged" or the fauces would be drawn together like a curtain.

    Now we have someone trying to find out what produces this "Ring" or "Ping" and finds that it is the hyoglossus muscle being activated and subsequently the palatopharengeus are also involved in a similar sound.

    You have several different schools of vocal technique. Those who will train by Appoggio or breath support, those who will train by a stable larynx and connected sound, Those who will train by the use of Twang, Those who advocate a lifted soft palate and those who will advocate a lowered or dampened larynx.

    Each one are to train a full "ringy" "Pingy" sound.

   So what happens when you engage the hyoglossus muscle at the onset of sound and keep it engaged? The larynx is dampened or lowered which in turn brings the crycoid cartilage in contact with the trachea making that a solid tube, the soft palate rises, the pillars of the fauces are engaged and brought towards each other creating that upper chamber that was discussed, The vocal folds make better contact creating more resistance to the breath(better support), the priform sinuses are closed making a more solid tube of the larynx/pharynx connection.

   You can go through that list starting with any of the elements. The first thing to remember is that the larynx,  trachea and soft palate are connected by the hyoid bone which is connected above to the hyoglossus muscle. Because the Hyoid bone is not fixed to any other bone the muscles that pull the larynx down effect the muscles of the soft palate they are somewhat antagonistic to each other. So, for the larynx to go down the muscles from the soft palate must engage to resist them. When the larynx goes down....the soft palate goes up and vice versa. When the soft palate goes up....the larynx goes down. The hyoglossus gives these muscles the stability.

   Appoggio: One of the requirements is the "Ring" or Squillo.....   Breathe the larynx down, expand the ribcage and resist the release of the breath. The soft palate goes up. With the larynx down and the resistance to the release of air the larynx and the trachea form a more solid tube. You can do this without the hyoglossus being engaged but the "Ring" is expected in the sound. We have seen from the video that the "Ring" is always accompanied by the Root of the tongue position. So the priform sinuses are closed off and the Pharynx and larynx are now creating a solid tube. The soft palate is raised and a chamber is created by the pillars of the fauces and the back wall of the pharynx.

   The same process can be triggered by the raising of the soft palate or "the inner smile" you may keep hearing about. Of course the ring or ping is what the end goal is. 

   And with each one it is necessary to "Not do anything with the throat" other than achieve this ring. 

   Each of the elements are an effect. Not the cause. The cause is the engagement of the hyoglossus muscle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite sure the hyoglossus does not produce the tongue groove mdew.

(likely it does the exact opposite...)

Have you tried it? If so it would lead to immediate twang.

In any event at around 43:00 mark the coordination is pinpointed at the MRI. That specific motion is what I am interested at. Who got to it first is not very important, Im more curious about the ways to acquire and refine it, IF there are any.

At least from what Ive seen so far there aint much in that sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The tongue groove is made by "deactivating" the surface of the tongue. Making the surface of the tongue passive. Getting it out of the way. Other than the tip of course that does the articulating.   You do not "Make" a tongue groove with the tongue. You relax the the tongue. The hyoglossus is located Under the tongue and connects to the hyoid bone.Hyoglossus.png

    The "Beat of the tongue" that Fauchtinger was talking about is the activation of the hyoglossus . There is a simultaneous relaxing of the surface of the tongue and activation of the hyoglossus. That is what his exercise was all about, And that is how you formed the groove. You CAN form a groove by manipulating the tongue by using  tongue muscles.  That is NOT the same thing as forming a groove by relaxing the tongue and activating the hyoglossus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyoglossus is part of the tongue mdew (root).

Hyo refers to the hyoid bone. Glossus = tongue.

This muscle depresses the sides of the tongue (as you can see in the image you linked) and makes it shape convex, not concave (groove).

Relaxed tongue will not have groove.

Also I checked Feuchtinger and his proposal was that of making the tongue stronger, all very close to the concept of anchoring perhaps. Really not what the video is about.

Cutting the chase. Do you believe that making a tongue groove will lead to the particular articulation that is shown at 43:00 mark? That's what Im after!

Share this post


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

Hyoglossus is part of the tongue mdew (root).

Hyo refers to the hyoid bone. Glossus = tongue.

This muscle depresses the sides of the tongue (as you can see in the image you linked) and makes it shape convex, not concave (groove).

Relaxed tongue will not have groove.

Also I checked Feuchtinger and his proposal was that of making the tongue stronger, all very close to the concept of anchoring perhaps. Really not what the video is about.

Cutting the chase. Do you believe that making a tongue groove will lead to the particular articulation that is shown at 43:00 mark? That's what Im after!

Hyoglossus is PART of the tongue. There are intrinsic and extrinsic muscles. these muscles are independent of each other. You can relax one set while contracting another. Relax the intrinsic muscles while activating the hyoglossus. 

   The tongue groove and activating the hyoglossus are two separate things. 

   I do not think the tongue groove has anything to do with the sound of Squillo or twang. It may be part of the darkening of sound in Chiaroscuro. 

  What you see in the video shows only the most dense material. There could be another set of muscles that make it appear that the root of the tongue is pushing backwards towards the spine. It could be a  constrictor muscle of the pharynx and the root of the tongue has no choice but to move towards the spine.

 B9780323052986000020_f002-004-9780323052

Middle constrictor looks to be in the right position.

Another problem with doing research on the voice....when you are focused on one piece the other possibilities may be missed or discounted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The voice is a "Wind" instrument, A "Reed" instrument, A "String" instrument and a percussion instrument. If taken individually in the research you only get part of the puzzle. And you will come across things that do not make sense. 

"Ring" or "Ping" is one aspect. "Buzz" or "Zing" is another and there are other aspects that have not yet been named. Boom maybe?

It seems to me that the Hooty, flutey, ringy, pingy, sounds are from the Wind instrument aspect. Air blowing through an open tube like blowing into a bottle with liquid or a pan flute. ( I think the "Ring" or "Ping" is from the pitch matching a resonance chamber somewhere or manipulating the chamber to match resonance of the pitch)

The buzzy, zingy sound would be from The REED aspect, like blowing through a blade of grass or vocal cords making contact while vibrating(this is what I hear when activating hyoglossus or tongue root. A buzzy sound of a high frequency apart from the overall tone), When you take it too far into the Kermit zone the reed buzzy thing disappears and you are back to a distorted flutey sound.

You also have aspects like a Tuning Fork or Piano that relies on a sounding board. When  you strike a tuning fork you do not hear the sound until you place it on a solid object. It is still vibrating when not on a solid object but you do not hear it. Maybe the Squillo Or ping is from The Larynx being pulled and making contact with the esophagus and in turn making contact with the spine setting the spine and ribcage and skull into vibration.

One thing to ask is this "Is the Squillo a Ringy Pingy sound or is it a Buzzy sound? Is Twang "Ringy Pingy? or Buzzy? 

 Formants are made by changes of size in the vocal tract or tube.  The vowels are made from where those changes are in the tube and how many narrow or wide places there are and their position . Not only does the tongue change positions and create formants but the Pharynx can be narrowed in different places and can be made wider in different places. This can also account for the ringy pingy quality. This would be part of the Wind instrument aspect of the voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a teacher and not a coach I have no PHD in music or voice, I am not even a good singer. None of that matters. If we are looking for what makes a certain sound in the voice all aspects need to be considered. The vibration source, the filter, the resonance properties of the vocal tract and other materials that connect to the vocal mechanism that may serve as sounding boards or sympathetic vibrators or resonators.

     I am not a scientist I do not know if any of the science in this article is accurate BUT this may better explain to PHDs or researchers what I am getting at...     I may not even agree with anything else stated in this article. I was just looking for a better way to explain my thoughts so it could be understood by those with a scientific or pedagogical mind. 

     "It is typical, however, to represent speech production as a linear combination of an excitation signal (i.e., glottal flow) and the vocal tract filter. A key assumption of a linear system approach is that the filter (i.e., the vocal tract and trachea) does not influence or modify the source, rather it can only enhance or suppress the amplitudes of the spectral components produced by the source. Although the effect of the vocal tract on the glottal flow has been recognized for a long time (cf. Fant 1979; Rothenberg 1981; Titze 1988, 2004; Titze and Story 1997), it is only recently that a nonlinear source‐filter theory has been formally stated that explicitly addresses various types of nonlinear interaction of the voice production components and the vocal tract (Titze 2008). The theory defines a “Level 1” interaction as the dependency of the glottal flow pulse shape on subglottal and supraglottal acoustic pressures, and a “Level 2” interaction as the flow dependency (Level 1) plus the effects of vocal tract inertance on the mechanical modes of tissue vibration. In light of this new theoretical view, it is perhaps most accurate to consider the mechanisms of vocal sound production as existing along a continuum. At one end of the continuum the sound generated by vocal fold vibration is weakly coupled to the resonances of the vocal tract such that the output is a linear combination of their respective acoustic characteristics, whereas at the other end there is strong nonlinear coupling of the vibratory source to the vocal tract resonances. To adequately express phonetic properties in the output, such as formants, the linear case requires that the vibratory source produce sound that is rich in either harmonic or broadband energy, or both. In contrast, the nonlinear case allows for the possibility of an harmonically rich source signal to be generated even when the vibration pattern of the vocal folds (e.g., glottal area) is so simple that it may contain only a few harmonics (Titze 2008)."

This is th whole article.   http://sal.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/BStory_HandbookSpeechProd_ch3.pdf   

   I hope you read this edit also.

All the scientific formulas or spectrographic evidence means nothing if they cannot point a singer to a configuration of the vocal tract and what muscles are involved or whether there are different configurations that could achieve the same effect.

From the laryngoscope of the vocal cords in the above video it looks as though the pharynx is closing around or above the larynx. It could be as simple as the middle constrictor narrowing the throat which achieves this coordination. Moves the Epiglottis, closes the priform sinuses, brings the root of the tongue closer to the epiglottis..... As with the ending tag in all research.....More research is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really not sure I am following what you are trying to get at mdew, at first it seemed you were arguing the idea was old, that Feuchtinger already described that and proposed it as a solution. As I said I really disagree with this, and I would go so far as saying that Feuchtinger writes much more about the benefits of his approach than describe what his approach actually is. What you can effectively gather from it is mostly focus on strenght training that could lead to anchoring and more open space. That's almost the opposite of what the video proposes.

But, if it is true that he proposed it then I would really like to know how he proposed to do that.

Here is my personal experience so far:

I've been working on metal singing for a while, but on some things classical technique only goes so far. You don't have a tool on classical technique to produce Dio's distortion for example (or any distortion for that matter). What I did up to more recently was pretty much using the technique and making it fit. It certainly benefited me a lot and one of the things I got from it is that it is easier for me to isolate coordinations.

In the last years one of the things that I found is that there is this something that feels close to the tongue root that if I do, it increases twang considerably, to the point I would call it a 2nd gear or whatever. Then I was sent this video just the other day and it matches my perception really well.

I am more curious about experiences/solutions than theories really, I don't care if the technique is from 1800s but I am being 100% honest when I say this is the first time I seen it proposed in this form, whatever the source/age you seen this before I am interested on how they did it. Because I probably can learn to do it better with more references, and it seems the kind of thing people singing rock would make good use of.

CVT does not describe twang this way, neither does Estill, nor classical technique, nor 4 pillars. I also did not see anything like this debated here before (I did see a proposal here that began on similar form, but the proposed solution was that it was only larynx height that produced it, which seemed incomplete to me).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   The reason I mentioned Fauchtinger is that he is the one who proposed the importance of the hyoglossus. I guess now it is being called the Tongue Root. His idea is that the tongue root is the anchor point. Joining the Tongue to the hyoid bone. Other muscles attach to the tongue and soft palate. Muscles join the Larynx to the Hyoid bone. The Hyoid bone is a floating bone. The tongue and Hyoid being "Anchored" together creates a stable point for the other muscles to pull against.

   It is not even that you have to "Do" anything with the throat or inner larynx muscles or DO anything with the soft palate...When the hyoglossus is strong and engaged the vocal mechanism (Inner workings of the larynx) is freed up and the muscles will be more likely to work together. The act of singing or thought of it configures the larynx.

 The other points I brought up come from many diverse books articles and such. The cricoid ring and trachea becoming a fixed tube comes from another source but is relevant to the sound produced. Same with the closing of the priform sinuses. Another source but relevant. They effect the sound because of making a more solid tube for the breath and vibrational energy.

 Most of what I come across is from very different people and for different purposes....Because of that I am not locked into any one idea.

If you are looking for a DIO type sound.... I watched a Michael Trimble video.... Not sure which one, but he is an opera singer and teacher with strong opinions of what is right. Very good too. Anyway while demonstrating one of his points, he screwed up and instead of having the Big full operatic sound you are familiar with the sound was Bright and contemporary. It was on the par with a DIO sound. Crisp Clear, full and powerful and had that ring. All the aspects of Classical opera except it was bright not dark.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still am having a hard time following you man. I mean there are things in what you said I agree with. Others I believe are not quite correct.

But I am having a real difficulty to understand what you make of the video.

Your opinion about the tongue root is that if you do the Feutchinger approach you get that? I mean I don't agree but I can understand that.

Can you elaborate the way you do that in such approach?

What do you make of the other parts of the video? Like when she proposes that the ideas of CT and TA dominance are actually mis-descriptions of the application of these two type of twangs ?

I see what she means but I don't agree with that for example, because what people call TA dominance or *chesty* is mostly related to weight/depth/clarity and you can have that without twang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had limited time to watch the video and had many interruptions, I will watch again with your points in mind.

The video started me thinking about a few other things. One of course was fauchtinger and the "Beat of the Tongue", which I perceive as a way to not only use more mass of the vocal folds but allows more vocal fold compression or better cord closure. When I sing with "The beat of the tongue" I can hear a buzzing of a higher frequency like the Horns on a PA speaker along with the fundamental tone like the woofers on a PA speaker.  I believe this higher frequency is what Classical singers call Squillo.  I do not listen to classical singing all that much but I do watch other teachers and look for Hints from people like Pavarotti and other classical singers.

 A lot of teachers say you need to thin out and let go of the mass of the vocal folds to sing higher and keep the vocal fold closure.

Classical singers usually have a Deeper Darker and MORE full sound over all, BUT through and after the "Passaggio" the sound acually gets DEEPER and MORE FULL and Louder. You can hear this sometimes with Rock, Pop and Blues singers when they use a "Grover" type Growl distortion. Think of Stevie Wonder. But you almost always hear it in Classical singing.

 With contemporary singing (For the most part) the Passaggio is Thinner, Brighter and more shrill. 

    The Full sound of Classical is not in the Cord closure or vocal cord mass, Both styles have that. The full sound is either a change in the Vocal tract(wider, longer, more open at one end than the other......) or more concentrated energy to the vibrators and resonators. This concentrated energy could be from a more compressed breath or it could be from a vocal tract that is a more closed off tube or a tube that is TUNED for a bigger more resonant sound.

    Michael Trimble advocates Breathing into the back and "Breathing the larynx down". Appoggio leaning the voice. Another common theme in Classical singing. When he sings he has a Typical Classic sound and the typical big dark high notes that you find in a "Covered" sound, but it is not covered. The vowels are not modified. Usually when he demonstrates contemporary sounds he purposely undersings them or makes them sound bad.

    On one of his videos he screwed up a little and did not have the Dark sound associated with the Classical voice but had a Full bright "Speaking" sound. He was supposed to be singing the Dark AH typical of classical voice but it was bright full and clear.

Edit: The note was A4 by the way.

   

   Edit: I jump around different subjects because I do not think it is one thing. TA vs CT or Wide Vocal tract vs Narrow. Resonating formants or "Chambers vs Vibrating Bones".   It is all of these. Working together in their own way adding to the sound or taking away from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Michael Trimble advocates Breathing into the back and "Breathing the larynx down". Appoggio leaning the voice. Another common theme in Classical singing. When he sings he has a Typical Classic sound and the typical big dark high notes that you find in a "Covered" sound, but it is not covered. The vowels are not modified. Usually when he demonstrates contemporary sounds he purposely undersings them or makes them sound bad.

    On one of his videos he screwed up a little and did not have the Dark sound associated with the Classical voice but had a Full bright "Speaking" sound. He was supposed to be singing the Dark AH typical of classical voice but it was bright full and clear.

He is covering and modifying vowels... Ah to Uh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  He is using the operatic sound. The lowered larynx. Even when he is trying to convince you that he is speaking normal but high. He has the Lowered Larynx. Boomy full sound expected in Opera.

   At 6:57 he is speaking another language and not purposely giving the opera quality. He does not have the Dark sound and is speaking a G4. It is the vocal tract and its resonance that is giving the dark quality or bright quality. Giving the sound of UH when using boomy opera quality? yes. Any time he is intending to sound operatic the "UH" comes in. That is because he is Lowering the larynx to get that sound. It is expected in Opera.

  Around  9:50 he is wiggling his tongue. He lets go of the Lowered larynx and a Clear Ah is voiced Not the operatic UH quality. Same note. Just as easily produced.

   The size and shape of the larynx has an effect on the overall sound of the voice and influences the formants. Vowels are distinguished by placement of their formants. 

  sing AH on a speaking level Keep tongue and mouth position, Hold the pitch and do nothing but lower your larynx. Your ah will change to uh.

Share this post


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

  Around  9:50 he is wiggling his tongue. He lets go of the Lowered larynx and a Clear Ah is voiced Not the operatic UH quality. Same note. Just as easily produced.

That´s still modified...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the same problem I run into a lot. Another cause and effect. Does he modify the vowel or is the vowel modified because he is not compensating for the lowered larynx?

He believes that he is not modifying the vowel. He believes that he is not covering but maintaining a free relaxed throat.

    My only point in bringing him up was that the vocal tract has bearing on the FULL sound  in Classical singing and that he screwed up in one of his examples and created a free full and powerful A4  with the High frequency of Buzz,Zing, or Squillo and fullness of Classical singing without the Dark Timbre .

   I am getting ready to watch the video again about Squillo and Twang. Did your question involve how you approached the whole helloween song or just the distortion at the end?

    Do you believe that you were covering or modifying vowels to sing in that range or using a different approach for the main body of the song? Just curious. It sounded great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright that makes sense, we can think of modifying the vowel sound or the articulation, to keep one you change the other so it´s probably what we are arguing in circles about.

Yeah on the Helloween track it´s the normal approach using covering for the high range.

The other one is using the tongue thing which could or could not be the same as the thing of the video :P

I took a look at the exercise you mentioned, what I could find about it at least. There is a part of it where it was suggested to monitor the sides of the tongue with a finger to get the coordination... That seems like a possible way to do it, gotta try it out more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I am in the middle of watching the video again. I have not gotten to where she talks about "Twang".

   I do recall years ago mentioning that Paul McCartney used a bit of the Kermit sound in "Get Back" and I was wondering if it helped in singing the high notes. The answer that I got was that it was just an effect and did not contribute.

   I never got to the point that I could "Cover" and sing effectively above G4.  But, I can sing with "Voices" that sit in the E4 to B4 range. One of the voices is a modified Kermit sound. Another voice is like Edith Bunker of "All in the Family'". Each is a fully connected "Head" voice though the vocal tract is entirely different. It is not cord closure or vocal mass that makes the difference.

   Where as some of your vocal heroes are DIO and Bruce Dickinson or Layne Staley, mine are Mel Blanc, Daws Butler, Robin Williams and Jonathan Winters. I imitated speaking voices and cartoons, when it came to singing I was told to sing like myself and not imitate others. Somehow manipulating a singing voice was taboo. 

   Whether you are "Doing" something purposely or allowing something to happen while NOT doing something else the voice is being shaped and manipulated either by a sound ideal or a taught configuration.

   The sound I hear in the "Tongue root" or "the beat if the tongue" as taught by Feuchtinger is not what I would describe as "Kermit the frog" sound. I would describe a Kermit sound as a  similar sound to Dudley Do right in the cartoon.

    What I hear in "the Beat of the Tongue" is a crispness or clarity of sound. An extra higher frequency like the tweeter in a PA speaker. And I hear a BUZZ or VIBRATION. Not a RING or PING.

A RING or PING to me is like the sound you get from a microphone feeding back or a whistle. I think that type of sound in the voice is made by Resonance tuning of the vocal tract.

   

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