Felipe Carvalho

Organizing Information on Singing Technique - Unto Caesar what is Caesar's

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

     Boring? Come on, You know as well as anyone that listening and learning how is just as important as anything else in music or training. And just like anything else because it is believed to be something that "automatically happens" it gets over looked. Part of your original point is to be able to use information and test if it is good or not. You do that by listening to the outcome and comparing it to other information. That also is helped by "Hearing" the results in your head. This is another tool to use and information on how to use the tool.

    Sure, at this point we only have 3 people who are willing to share their input and our views are different, many more are reading who may happen to agree or disagree with all 3 of us. It depends on the goal and obstacles of the readers and others who are training what their particular needs are.

   Yes, threads get sidetracked and the original intent of the thread takes a turn, that is called discussion. Discussion leads to different ideas and different discussions or at least it should. Not I'm right because. Discussion works best with people of differing opinions.

 It probably would be a better read for others if conversations would go something like "Yes I agree Felipe, but have you considered.....?" For some reason the world cannot relate like that any more but this "I am right because..." is bull. Share ideas. do not discount them because you do not agree. State why you disagree maybe....

The song you posted was taken out of context. The song itself is not one that people would sing using any kind of technique because it is not a serious song to begin with and should not be used to judge someones technique.

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The role of philosophy is to categorize and organize information and argument. So, "the philosophy of music education" is precisely what the thread has to contend with.

Just as you have the "philosophy of science" which poses questions like, "What is science?" and "What is pseudo-science?", so philosophy of science education in general will pose all those questions in the OP, and more, but without the dogma.

That is why it is so complex. At the very least, one has to be able to acknowledge the overlapping skill sets needed, none of them are commonplace. You have musicality, education and philosophy (to regulate any field). The field of education will take in "education psychology", culture and even some anthropology. All these are highly intellectual fields, so one has to be humble, and come with a questioning mind -- not one that places itself above everyone else's and thinks it has all the answers.

I am sure there are many more research articles on the philosophy of music education, and this one exemplifies the considered language, attitude and position educated people take when discussing complex topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MDEW Yes, boring. Because:

- I´ve made a clear case and provided real world evidence demonstrating what I am talking about, and why.

- "But I don´t think it is so because you have to consider numerology" Is not an argument or a discussion. I´ve made an effort to have a conversation, and every single time an attempt to change subject was made.

- The sample is fair, there are others way worse.

- My input on the specific subject of music cognition is on the thread about it, it´s very clear, and I don´t care enough to talk about it more than I already did. This is just another atempt to distract from the subject of this thread.

And this thread is not about music cognition, it´s about technique/coordination and the confusion that crossing the underlying aspects that I´ve mentioned, as well as the misuse of references, will cause.

 

What is bull is to think that because people want to have an opinion on stuff they don´t even understand, or because they think they can divinate *intent*, I have to put up with non-sense indefinitely. Sorry but it is not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinion is on what is useful and what is not. How to categorize and organize is opinion based. Whether something sounds good or not is opinion based. Classical vs Contemporary is opinion based.

Before you can categorize and consolidate you need differing opinions and options and different sources or your just going to get the same ole thing.

 Whether you have to put up with us or we have to put up with you is also a matter of opinion.We all have them and they do not always mesh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again absolutely not:

To have any meaningful conversation about a subject the very least that is necessary is that opinions are based on reason, fact or competence, and that they address the actual subject.

You can not pursue truth by attempting to look away from the subject being discussed or by handing out, or accepting for that matter, whatever opinions suit your beliefs, desires or fears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I did not say I don´t want to discuss with anyone.

I said that I won´t be discussing other subjects and that I am not about to entertain or feed opinions that do not make sense or least show signs of effort just so everyone can have a say of equal value to the discussion in spite of the content, for the sake of what? Being nice?

I mean it´s obvious from your first post that your intent (my turn to read minds) was not to have a conversation, but to attempt to disrupt this one. And even being aware of your poor attempts, up to the moment when you began talking way out of your competence, I played along.

About being *upset*: that would be pretty normal and expected, after all singing technique is something I study and I am passionate about, so it would not be a reason for me to not attempt to have a discussion.

My feeling at this moment about this thread is really just boredom, exactly because instead of talking about technique I am dealing with empty rhetoric. :zzz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your OP doesn't really invite discussion.

You start by stating that students and members of online communities regularly complain about confusion surrounding the information and advice that they are given.

Then you give a list of aspects of technique that you think "trained singers" discuss among themselves.

Then you insist that the confusion that the students and members of online communities regularly complain about stems from contention within these aspects.

Then you mete out advice to people "looking for information on technique".

So, I suggest that, instead of simply putting yourself "up there", dictating to people what they find confusing, you ASK them, and invite discussion on the issue before giving advice.

I am telling you from experience that confusion often comes from not discussing INTENT.

e.g

People are given advice on technique that is not optimal or useful for the genre they are interested in. Nobody asks what genre(s) they intend to sing. It's just, "Q. How do I breath for singing? A. Like this." Or they launch into a specific way of dealing with the passaggio, without mentioning that it is dealt with differently in classical and contemporary techniques. Then the student simply finds that the sound colour he intends to achieve doesn't work with the technique he has been given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

Which indicates an underlying common organization. Problem is, this is often just intuitive/practical. So what could that be?

Here are the things that seem to be present when talking about technique with different people from different backgrounds (trained singers from different methods):

Perception - How something sounds like, what are the qualities you can identify on it by listening.

Practice/Execution - How to do it, references and exercises that leads to a certain idea.

Sensations - How it feels like to do something, a reference of sensation.

Mechanics - What is actually going on, how and why these other things happen.

On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

The result is that from CVT perspective, Covering is curbing, since the quality description seems really fit for it. But from classical perspective, Covering is not Curbing because the orientations to produce Curbing will not lead to the same mechanical principle and execution, and this matters quite a bit. Even if the quality is indeed similar, it's different enough to bring a different flavor when both are used on songs. A cry is present on covering but it's at the same time darker and more "floaty" sounding during phrasing than on curbing.

 

 

On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

Using covering to sing Soul for example is not very effective, it just does not fit in as well as curbing even if the quality is almost there. And using curbing on Power Metal gets extremely taxing when you go past a certain point in pitch.

 

 

On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

At the same time even if their focus is fixed in one or two key aspects, they all need to address each of these aspects at least to some degree, otherwise the search becomes blind.

On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

And of course remember, the very least anyone talking about technique should be able to do is to sing using it.

"At the same time even if their focus is fixed in one or two key aspects, they all need to address each of these aspects at least to some degree, otherwise the search becomes blind."  This is what I keep saying. All of the aspects influence another. Support influences cord closure, cord closure influences support. Tongue position and Twang influence...Larynx position....influence "Where you are going to feel vibration. Larynx position influences how the voice will respond to Tongue position vowel coordination(modified or not)...... 

On 7/26/2019 at 10:12 AM, Felipe Carvalho said:

Which indicates an underlying common organization. Problem is, this is often just intuitive/practical. So what could that be?

   Intuitive. Actions that are automatic and you do not realize you are using.    It is said that with Curbing and Covering there is no break or passaggio.  People who can and "Use" it are doing some things that are "counter-intuitive" that became intuitive and natural. (but are things that happens automatically in certain emotional conditions)

   That is why someone like Trimble can believe he is stopping the Breath at a certain point in his chest and it produces a certain sound or coordination and may believe he is not "Covering". The coordination is intuitive. Those who use appoggio will say there is no passaggio while using it. Yet you still have others who use it and will tell you at passaggio there is a "Turn" of the voice, A resonance shift, More support, These things from some who teach it claim it will happen automatically, I say for THEM it is automatic, a learned response that they do not "Feel" anymore because it has become natural to them. An intuitive action.

"And of course remember, the very least anyone talking about technique should be able to do is to sing using it."

And of course this excludes me from even discussing it. Or does it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kickingtone my previous reply on intention:

Already covers the aspect of "intended" application.

To make it more clear. It does not matter if a given technique was developed by the bedouin with the intention of calling a camel in the middle of the desert, if it sounds appropriate and on par with material that is considered high quality on the style being performed, that's what will matter.

Just a perception matter, intention is slave to the achieved result. And the same applies to cultural or social history, it is irrelevant unless it leads to practical insights. Example: If something was used as a "call", you can infer it was loud. The relevant information you can derive is that it was "loud". A sound sample is still much more effective when available.

 

@MDEW I would say that if you want to bring the discussion to practical ideas: such as sensations and references of execution, then yeah not having the ability to execute what you are talking about makes your argument very frail. Which is not a surprise to anyone, it's just that people don't talk about it because it's more comfortable to pretend everyone is being taken seriously on all aspects, aka being "nice".

However, mechanical aspects that can be verified with visual information and, to some degree, perceptual evaluation, are less dependent on the skill to execute something.

Share this post


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

@kickingtone my previous reply on intention:To make it more clear. It does not matter if a given technique was developed by the bedouin with the intention of calling a camel in the middle of the desert, if it sounds appropriate and on par with material that is considered high quality on the style being performed, that's what will matter.

Just a perception matter, intention is slave to the achieved result. And the same applies to cultural or social history, it is irrelevant unless it leads to practical insights. Example: If something was used as a "call", you can infer it was loud. The relevant information you can derive is that it was "loud". A sound sample is still much more effective when available.

You are totally missing the point.

Before you give advice to someone, any kind of advice, you need to know that person's intent. It is common sense!

There may be people who consider themselves to be in a privileged position to determine what is "high or low quality", but more often than not they are living in fantasy land.

A single song can be sung in so many different moods that an intelligent person has to recognize that they won't "get" or feel all of them. Sometimes, you can miss the mood altogether. That will mean that you are not in a position to give advice about it. But some people, in ignorance of this fact, give the wrong advice. There was a girl, way back on this forum, who made a number of posts on how she ruined her voice (what she had intended for her voice) by following advice from someone with a fixed and narrow perspective, and she'd paid money for it too!

Imagine the mess! How can you do something correctly when your intent is different from the person giving you advice?

Worse, is when the person giving advice cannot even figure that they are confusing their personal preferences with questions of basic technique.

I actually read a critique you made of a beginner's singing a few weeks back. I listened to his clip, too. In your critique, you pinpointed the very bit that sounded bad TO ME, and you told the guy, "you got it there! Do more of that!" It was the exact sound quality that makes me reach for the mute button. There was no discussion about what  sound the guy was going for. I didn't comment. I've seen it too many times before, and I think that it is the responsibility of the student to think for themselves, and not follow blindly.

Share this post


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

 I would say that if you want to bring the discussion to practical ideas: such as sensations and references of execution, then yeah not having the ability to execute what you are talking about makes your argument very frail.

No. It has nothing to do with the strength of your argument.

It may affect the perceived "credibility" of your argument, but "strength" and "credibility" of argument are two different things.

If people over the centuries had always succeeded in forcing on everybody else their own sense of what has "credibility", we would all still be in the Stone Ages.

Share this post


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

@MDEW I would say that if you want to bring the discussion to practical ideas: such as sensations and references of execution, then yeah not having the ability to execute what you are talking about makes your argument very frail. Which is not a surprise to anyone, it's just that people don't talk about it because it's more comfortable to pretend everyone is being taken seriously on all aspects, aka being "nice".

 

"However, mechanical aspects that can be verified with visual information and, to some degree, perceptual evaluation, are less dependent on the skill to execute something."

      And this is my whole point. The mechanical aspects have not been verified. To the contrary they keep being altered and updated as new research continues or they are ignored because they interfere with accepted methodology or lack of means to research the mechanics effectively. The singers themselves either do not want to be bothered with the mechanics or have been taught through imagery or imitating the teacher and then be told by teacher whether it was right or not. The accepted "methodology" is still vibration or tone in the head and movement in the abs and nothing in the throat" " I feel as if the throat is not even there". In the mean time you are given instructions to "breath the larynx down" "Cry into the sound" " Expand the space in the back of the throat to give the note room" and " support with the diaphragm while maintaining the feeling of breathing in" add more cord closure, "cut back the flow of breath" "drink the breath in" . The rest is experimentation on the part of the singer, intuition and "Training" doing a thing over and over until things start to sound right. And of course you also have those who insist that any form of training will ruin the natural sound of your voice through your own natural expression.

    The skill to execute something does not presuppose that that person knows the function of what he is performing. This presupposition actually leads to more confusion because you tend to believe that this person must know what he is doing if he can do it. If he believes the sound is a result of support it must be. If he believes he is breathing in to adjust the larynx it must be. If he believes he is covering or not covering, it must be. If  he believes the vocal cords are zipping up, it must be.

    And you get the same type of misinformation from those advertising as teachers and coaches and music forums and schools of music.

    There are a few who really are looking for the truth in the matter and will not just accept what they are told without investigation. The common response is "This is how it's been done for centuries and why question what has worked in the past".  

    In the last 50 years or so there has been new research and new investigations on the mechanics of singing and voice production. It is not based on whether you can do it or not it is based on If you do this, This will happen. An action and a response in sound resulting from that action. 

   Estill, CVT, TVS to name a few.  These are still  generalizations and pieces, not the whole but at least they address actual configurations and how to make the sound you wish to make and not whatever sound you end up making be sure to feel the vibration in your head.....

  Yes, render unto Caesar what is Caesars. You tube is normal everyday people from all walks of life and levels of experience and knowledge giving advice and opinions. The same is true for forums like reddit and even this one. Trying to find truth there is like finding a needle in a haystack. Maybe a little better because you can adjust your search criteria according to the information you are seeking. But you still have to take every bit of information with skepticism and test it yourself. Each method has their own vocabulary and their own way of organizing the material and process of ,well,  processing the information. To each his own, not meant to be cross referenced and compared. And their use to your own particular needs or wants would depend on your own goals, strengths and weaknesses.

7 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

 

@MDEW I would say that if you want to bring the discussion to practical ideas: such as sensations and references of execution, then yeah not having the ability to execute what you are talking about makes your argument very frail. Which is not a surprise to anyone, it's just that people don't talk about it because it's more comfortable to pretend everyone is being taken seriously on all aspects, aka being "nice".

     The information is to be questioned no matter who gives it. Anyone who discards information without first checking into it is a fool. To the same regard anyone who accepts information without checking into it is also a fool.

    For myself it never was practical to disregard the coordinations that gave the differences to sounds. And that is what I was doing when following sensations. Sure get rid of tensions that were not necessary but if you do not like the sound of your voice or your voice is not working as it should, Use someone else's. Chances are the things that make you sound the way you do are what is causing the problem. But you cannot do that until you learn what coordinations has what type of effect on the sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kickingtone said:

I actually read a critique you made of a beginner's singing a few weeks back. I listened to his clip, too. In your critique, you pinpointed the very bit that sounded bad TO ME, and you told the guy, "you got it there! Do more of that!" It was the exact sound quality that makes me reach for the mute button. There was no discussion about what  sound the guy was going for. I didn't comment. I've seen it too many times before, and I think that it is the responsibility of the student to think for themselves, and not follow blindly.

Again, let's have a look at it:

https://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/forum/VocalsLiveSound/acapella-119/32546033-can-you-tell-me-if-there-is-vocal-potential-desperado-eagles

Guy is trying to sing Eagles, wondering if he can ever do it, working on singing success (mix/curbing) and wants to avoid belting.

I pointed the place in his own singing where this is already happening, and explaining what he did as simply and as close to the method he is following I can (even though my training is pretty much classical technique). This is not even my personal preference, even though I use my voice to sing in this very style professionaly, if I would go by my taste I would tell everyone to sound like Dio or Zak Stevens.

While you were talking about classical technique, which you are not even trained with, throwing some terms in the wind and telling a rock singer (which you openly state you "don't get") to go and listen to classical singers because  you have a belief that somehow this will by magic translate into improvement.

 

I never said that people should follow blindly (in this case the best word choice would be deafly) That's the exact reason why I am bringing the whole thing up, making the case that people can tell things apart (even if some will resist it because they can not hide behind confusion anymore), saying that people need to listen to how the person issuing the advice sings, and if possible, hear how the proposed solution will work out on what they want to do.

This last part I personally make an effort to keep up and I wish other teachers would too, though many still resist and even take offense when asked to demonstrate.

It's not about regulating how you will give your advice, you can write whatever you want here or wherever, as long as you keep it minimally civilized that is. It's about getting the people that actually need the help a way to sort through this kind of stuff.

Because I was in their place, because much of what there is to learn can not be just laid down as a simple cake recipe and the practical advice is key on speeding up the learning process, because for this same reason poor practical notions can hinder people, because with a clearer idea of what they are dealing with it is much easier to sort out what will be useful and what will not be useful.

Share this post


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

The information is to be questioned no matter who gives it. Anyone who discards information without first checking into it is a fool. To the same regard anyone who accepts information without checking into it is also a fool.

    For myself it never was practical to disregard the coordinations that gave the differences to sounds. And that is what I was doing when following sensations. Sure get rid of tensions that were not necessary but if you do not like the sound of your voice or your voice is not working as it should, Use someone else's. Chances are the things that make you sound the way you do are what is causing the problem. But you cannot do that until you learn what coordinations has what type of effect on the sound. 

It's not *authority*, it's not a matter of "who", it's just ability to execute.

The problem is exactly: "How do you check practical advice?"

And it can very well invalidate things I show too, such is life. But the alternative  to this (and a lot of people are embracing it already) is lowering the importance of practical aspects and with it not being able to tap into experience. Looking at singing as if it were some sort of science is in my opinion a very poor way to go about it.

Share this post


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

Again, let's have a look at it:

https://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/forum/VocalsLiveSound/acapella-119/32546033-can-you-tell-me-if-there-is-vocal-potential-desperado-eagles

Guy is trying to sing Eagles, wondering if he can ever do it, working on singing success (mix/curbing) and wants to avoid belting.

That is a heap of assumptions that you are making there.

He says that he wants to know if he has potential as a singer in a band playing gigs at bars.

He does not say anywhere that he wants to avoid belting. In fact, the implication is that he INTENDED to belt.

He didn't say that he was trying to sound like the original. He just pointed out differences, and asked if he was overdoing the belting. He doesn't say that he shouldn't belt. He says:

"I may have been belting more than I should so I don't know... the singer from the Eagles doesn't belt at all or has a much lighter voice than I do".

That suggests that he is ok with some level of belting, even thought it is not in the original.

2 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

While you were talking about classical technique, which you are not even trained with, throwing some terms in the wind and telling a rock singer (which you openly state you "don't get") to go and listen to classical singers because  you have a belief that somehow this will by magic translate into improvement.

He picked that song. That doesn't prove that he wants to be a rock singer or to sound like anyone.

(We had one guy recently on this forum sing an Ed Sheeran song. He didn't want to sound like Ed Sheeran. He said so. He picked the song to sing it!)

When you give advice, you should ask questions and make sure that the person you are responding to knows a bit about your personal perspective and preferences, too.

But you don't seem to be able to distinguish between your personal assumptions and opinions, and fact.

I have learned about the appoggio technique, which it is clear to me you know very little about. It is obviously something that doesn't work for you. Yet, I have seen you claim that top tenors are "covering" or "changing vowel" when they are not. And I have seen you claim that "open throat" is a myth. This is stuff that you don't do, and don't seem to be able to do or understand. But you still comment.

I don't INTEND to be a classical singer or use what I now about appoggio for classical singing. For me, appoggio does what it says on the packet: eliminates passaggio problems. The guy asked me specifically about breath support, and mentioned that SS doesn't seem to cover it. My response was measured and clearly stated MY position. I explained why I find listening to classical singers an easier starting point. I didn't phrase it the way you tend to, which is: "you need to do blah blah blah". I recognize that people learn in many different ways. There was enough information in my reply for anyone to decide whether they deemed it relevant to their INTENT!

 

Share this post


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

It's not *authority*, it's not a matter of "who", it's just ability to execute.

The problem is exactly: "How do you check practical advice?"

And it can very well invalidate things I show too, such is life. But the alternative  to this (and a lot of people are embracing it already) is lowering the importance of practical aspects and with it not being able to tap into experience. Looking at singing as if it were some sort of science is in my opinion a very poor way to go about it.

    I am not discounting the practice. Or lowering the importance of practical aspects on the contrary what I am suggesting is that the elements or aspects that are practical are overlooked sometimes because we use something unrelated to trigger them. If they are not triggered then we use something else as a trigger. The trigger becomes accepted as the cause. 

     And I am far from looking at things scientifically. The same problem occurs with the science. You run down the rabbit hole seeking formants and chasing numbers or how things line up with the spectrograph.....The numbers say you have more energy in this area or that.... But what causes the energy you don't know because you are looking at numbers not listening to the sound.

12 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

The problem is exactly: "How do you check practical advice?"

By using it. If it worked as suggested....there you go. 

It is not so much the Science I am going for but the practical information. An example is the Tongue root thing on the video of Squillo vs Twang. 

Let's break this down and see why it is practical and important. 1 '"Twang" has been used for quite a while now to build the voice by almost everyone. 2  The "i" Vowel already has an element of "Twang" it is used to FIND "Twang" along with the "Aa" sound. 3 The term "Twang" is used by the contemporary singing community to mean the same as "Squillo"(they are not). The similar element of "Twang" that has the "SOUND" that is noted as important and "Squillo" is the High frequency energy. That Buzz that everyone says to feel in your mask. 4 That high frequency "Sound" the "Buzzing" is the same that CVT calls Metal. It is the same sound as Robert Lunte uses in his Foundation onset exercise as the "Mee" when you Keep the Buzz. 5  The AH vowel does not naturally Have the "High frequency" energy. 6 Tamplin advocates the "BRIGHT Ah" for training. The Bright Ah is the Ah vowel along with the high frequency energy  of "l" that creates the "Buzz" that you feel in the mask.7 in classical singing you have "Covering" and you have Chiaroscuro(dark and bright, A balance of Low Frequency and High Frequency).Covering is also using dark tones and adding clarity by adding the High frequency of "Twang". 8 At least one classical Tenor has stated the the problem people have with "Covering" is that they have a hard time keeping cord closure with the supposed "Low larynx" of the darker vowels. This movement helps close the vocal folds. 

  The point is that the  high frequency sound is a result of a movement of the root of the tongue. And that this movement Helps with cord closure, not only that but IF you have the sound you know you have cord closure. The sound can be made regardless of the vowels being used. The sound can be added to and taken away from the over all sound of the voice. It does not rely on Larynx position. It does not rely on breath pressure. It adds pressure to the breath because of the closed position of the vocal folds and the tighter space in the throat. Adding more or closing the gap more creates distortion.

    Because it is a conscious and independent movement it can be adjusted without causing any other ill effects to the sound. This allows the higher frequencies.  It is not that singers have not already been using this. It is that they didn't know they were using it and being convinced NOT to use it but instead activated it through other means like "Make the tone brighter" ""add more twang" "Bring the tone forward" ''"Lean the voice" "use more support". This one is interesting, when you "use more support" and "Lean the voice" you create more breath pressure that you are then told to resist. The tongue root is used to help resist the pressure of the breath. Setting up a condition where the tongue root is brought into the coordination without the conscious knowledge of the singer. You could have purposely used the tongue root and done away with all that pressure. The Knoedle is another coordination that has this tongue root movement but it also raises the larynx causing its own problems. The knoedle seems to be something that many people recognize and can produce rather easily so they end up using this, not knowing how to isolate the cause of the Bright sound from the raised larynx position and the somehow deeper sound caused by it. 

     I have not had a chance or circumstance to create a new audio file to demonstrate what I have been writing about. But I have a file I created 3 or so years ago about a similar thing about using a different voice. In it I use the knoedle, at that time I did not know about the Tongue Root but I do make the sound of the '""pharynx narrowing'" which may or may not be the same as Epilarynx narrowing as opposed to the "tongue root" which gives the Buzz to the voice. I had believed that I was using the false folds but it may not be what I am doing.

    I am not saying this sounds great. I am saying that it demonstrates the difference between The Tongue root sound and the Pharynx/epilarynx narrowing sound.

 

I try to joke about things, and be light hearted and friendly. That is why I mispronounced the Thyroarytenoids. It was for those people who hate sciency terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Nice demo!

3 hours ago, MDEW said:

'"Lean the voice" "use more support". This one is interesting, when you "use more support" and "Lean the voice" you create more breath pressure that you are then told to resist.

Not necessarily. The pressure requirement at the larynx is fluctuating all the time, as we are singing different vowels, consonants and pitches, etc. "Support" is supposed to stop that from becoming uneven airflow. So, "use more support" in the sense of "engage the support better" actually relieves the pressure. As you sing higher, you need more air pressure, which needs more precise support. But support isn't causing the pressure. It is managing it. Your diaphragm and abs are continually adjusting to regulate each note, which is like "singing from the diaphragm".

Leaning the voice helps with the chain of command. Because the diaphragmatic support system responds to the air pressure (rather than causes it), leaning the voice or the breath reminds you that the "breath moves first" and causes the diaphragm to respond. That, however, may not be the order in which you prepare. The abs are the anchor and may brace first, ready to "oppose" the diaphragm, then you lean the breath down, then you phonate or alter phonation. The sensation may be that you are singing from the waist, as that is the first point of physical preparation.

Another difference between the mechanics and sensation could be a feeling that the diaphragm is moving, or has to move, down, when in fact it is moving up. The sensation of slowing the upward relaxation of the diaphragm could feel as if it is being lowered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kickingtone I am not interested on the mental gymnastics you go through to solve your dissonances, but it's clear at this point you are projecting on me your own issues. Again if you intend to bring relevant content to this thread, get real.

 

10 hours ago, MDEW said:

By using it. If it worked as suggested....there you go. 

I don't think so because some of the techniques (probably the ones that are more useful) can take a while to control properly, and investing years on something just to test it seems to me like a bad move. It's one that people make though which usually leads to frustration or denial/blocking.

 

10 hours ago, MDEW said:

That high frequency "Sound" the "Buzzing" is the same that CVT calls Metal.

Metal in CVT is level of closure, not just buzz (twang). Metal is directly linked to intensity.

Share this post


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

Metal in CVT is level of closure, not just buzz (twang). Metal is directly linked to intensity.

And that is what I said. 

 

10 hours ago, MDEW said:

Helps with cord closure, not only that but IF you have the sound you know you have cord closure.

This particular "Buzz" is from the tongue root. An amplification of the high frequencies of the vibration of the vocal cords. It Is different from "Twang" which is a "ring" or whistle from "resonance" in the vocal tract. 2 different things that work independently from each other.   I explained why I used the term '"Twang" in this case. Contemporary singers use this term when referring to the "Buzz" which is really vocal fold vibration not "Twang".

 "Metal" or Cord closure is directly linked to intensity" . I also mentioned that in the other thread. When I use this I cannot help but be louder.

Controlling anything, of course takes time. But you should be able to hear or feel some kind of difference immediately if something is valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, this:

An amplification of the high frequencies of the vibration of the vocal cords.

Is not metal. Specially not the tongue Root.

As a quick rule that also can have some exceptions on borderline cases, to increase metal you need to increase medial compression, you do this by increasing the muscular effort pressing the folds more firmly against each other. To change on a same note from say, curbing to overdrive, you will need to go stronger, it's not just a resonance change you do.

 

Also: that rule of must work immediately is true only on the acquisition of the more simple, or simplified concepts. You can acquire the notion of what covering is in a day (how the vowels will adjust and the tongue will position), using it just right above the typical passaggio area. Even on CVT, that has this very idea as part of their philosophy, hardly people acquire overdrive and get into singing up to high C on it immediately (which often is what people trully want).

Yet you will be likely to  spend the following year getting used to the technique (covering) and getting the extension in tessitura to be reliable, and with quality enough for live use. Other elements that are not so easy to convey will need to be acquired, for example how the laryngeal adjustment you want feels like, and you will need to work to refine the coordination, this is very different from just getting that initial grasp of what you are going to do.

For example, after a certain point it's a good idea to exercise situations that would mess the technique up instead of the most favorable situations that usually are part of the acquisition stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sample of what can happen when some of these aspects are ignored, either for the sake of *scientific precision* or *schollarship*. This is taken from a site that, supposedly, is a science based information source and should give singers clear definitions that can help them, this is the conclusion of an article on *mixed voice*:
 

Quote

 

So, does mixed voice exist? Is it a vocal register? I’d say that the answer to that question doesn’t matter. What matters is knowing that M1.5 doesn’t exist, that mixed voice isn’t a distinct pattern of vocal fold vibration and that mixed voice can’t be exactly defined (there’s no one point at which you can say you’re in mixed voice or not in mixed voice, unless you’re in M0 or M3).

This also means that you don’t have to “find your mix”. It’s not a mechanism you have to find. It’s just a matter of lightening/darkening your voice so as to disguise a physiological break in your voice when transitioning between laryngeal vibratory mechanisms.

 

 

Now at first you may think it's the same you've heard many times before, I have personally criticized the way that mixed voice is addressed, whether it's useful as a concept, and the way people use it to sell products (ever heard someone saying that mixed voice is the secret of the great professionals? lol)

 

But that last paragraph in special is borderline naive, it presumes a counter-tenor registration (which is the only thing the few studies done on *mix* explore), and ignores pretty much everything you will actually need to learn, which is mostly of practical nature.

This is a problem because if someone that is into power metal, and other high/very high male singing styles, you *will* think from reading it that it's borderline impossible or that you have to change to  M2 as you get near your break.

Approaching things like this you ignore many of the possibilities that sound interesting, and most importantly, ignore the fact that from the standpoint of the person that is actually looking for a solution, the middle intensities on the mid and high range *will* feel radically different from other areas of their singing. Relying on the proprioception of vibratory mechanisms, which even with singers that are already using the coordination they want, is not very reliable.

 

And I am positive that asking for samples of the author/authors, and with it their practical take on the matter, would be of special importance for a beginner that is looking for information on "mixed" voice to deal with this information in a way that serves their goals. It's a strictly mechanical depiction of a concept with no perceptual or practical components.

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