Jump to content

This is falsetto, right?

Rate this topic


kickingtone

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

But I could probably tell the "spectrograph" of a piece of flute music from sax music, which is more in line with what we are talking about. There is no SIMPLE spectral difference between a male voice and a female voice, and people can even sometimes mistake the actual voices.

But you're back to sound again. If you can hear the difference, why do you need to define the coordination? Would you tell the student to stop stiffening his doodah (vocal folds, whatever). How do you use the definition?

Scientists, vocal pedagogists and singers are trying to use a spectrograph as a means to help singers learn to control the voice and you cannot tell a coordination from the spectrograph.

You can tell what frequencies are being manipulated or changed with a spectrograph but not the physical attributes that are changing them.

37 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

Would you tell the student to stop stiffening his doodah (vocal folds, whatever). How do you use the definition?

Pretty much, yes. And teachers do so when describing a vocal exercise. Many times when a teacher is describing a "Lip Trill" or "Lip Bubble" to gain access to "full voice" or "head voice". "Relax or thin the vocal folds but Maintain the connection and do not "Flip" into falsetto" when it starts to feel too tight." "If you do '"Flip'" stop and start the exercise over'". The point is to keep the vocal folds engaged and maintain some contraction without letting go completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, MDEW said:

Pretty much, yes. And teachers do so when describing a vocal exercise. Many times when a teacher is describing a "Lip Trill" or "Lip Bubble" to gain access to "full voice" or "head voice". "Relax or thin the vocal folds but Maintain the connection and do not "Flip" into falsetto" when it starts to feel too tight." "If you do '"Flip'" stop and start the exercise over'". The point is to keep the vocal folds engaged and maintain some contraction without letting go completely.

But, just like listening to the sound, that is still an indirect diagnostic. Listening to the sound, or doing an exercise like a lip trill, NARROWS DOWN the available coordinations, coaxing you into, or facilitating, the production of the desired coordination. And it is still a theoretical leap of faith that the sound or exercise is being produced by your definition of falsetto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

But, just like listening to the sound, that is still an indirect diagnostic. Listening to the sound, or doing an exercise like a lip trill, NARROWS DOWN the available coordinations, coaxing you into, or facilitating, the production of the desired coordination. And it is still a theoretical leap of faith that the sound or exercise is being produced by your definition of falsetto.

No matter what, you still have a hypothetical leap of faith. But, It is not too much of a leap of faith when you know what to listen for....describing what to listen for to someone else is a problem because you cannot always use all of the descriptions needed to pinpoint that exact thing. An example would be describing an object that has 4 wheels, a motor and you can drive it. Sure you can say it is an Automobile....but, it could be a Car, a truck, a golf cart, a recreation vehicle or even a moon rover.... these are not the same things even though they can be described the same to a degree.

Any way, I am not trying to convince you to use my definition. Just stating why I have that definition. I know that other people, those in the teaching community and even Websters dictionary and wiki, just describe it as an airy hooty sound in the high voice. Not much to go on with that description and definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MDEW said:

Any way, I am not trying to convince you to use my definition. Just stating why I have that definition. I know that other people, those in the teaching community and even Websters dictionary and wiki, just describe it as an airy hooty sound in the high voice. Not much to go on with that description and definition.

Can even be counterproductive, sometimes. When people say "hooty", I'm thinking owl, wooden flute, that sort of thing. I am not thinking Hyacinth. In fact, imo, she is neither a good example of airy nor hooty. I can isolate what I think is similar in her voice and the Mickey Mouse voice I found, and narrow down the definition of what I THINK you are calling falsetto -- even though your definition is not BASED on sound.

But I do think that DEMONSTRATING the sound IS a good way of describing it. Online dictionaries do now have this capability, although there are too few situations to make use of it in a general dictionary.

I'm not quibbling about the definition, per se. No point in that. I'm just curious about how effectively it can be used. Whether you are using sound or doing an exercise, you always end up interpreting whether the particular coordination is being used -- does it sound right? Did the lip trill cut out? etc. None of them definitive, but narrowing down the possibilities.

I'd still say that giving someone a demo of Hyacinth or Mickey Mouse and saying, "copy that" could be a good start. Then, if it isn't quite right, you'd have to pick other diagnostics to highlight the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kickingtone said:

But what does falsetto sound like for low notes?

there is a character in "Hing of the HIll" cartoon. I never watched that show but I believe it is the father or main character.

Barry Gibb in this clip is showing a good example. But he did not sing his earlier songs with falsetto. That did not come till after "Nights on Broadway". His brother who is singing the higher harmonies on the "BeeGees" was using Falsetto before Barry but Barry's has a quality that was more suited for the lead rather than the harmony.

2 hours ago, kickingtone said:

When people say "hooty", I'm thinking owl, wooden flute

I never really liked the idea of "Hooty" or "Airy" to describe falsetto but that is what you will find most often when falsetto is described. But, there is a quality to it that is distinct from high connected head voice even when head voice has a similar tone. I cannot describe it but I can hear it. 

The lead singer in this song is NOT singing in falsetto even though the voice is very high and most men would not be able to sing it with using falsetto. It would sound very different.

A different sound from Berry Gibb with falsetto. I could not get the video to download, but listen to Berry in "Nights on Broadway when he does that high part. There is a quality or texture  to full head voice than cannot be produced by falsetto and a quality of falsetto that cannot be produced by headvoice. You just have to know what to listen for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kickingtone said:

But what does falsetto sound like for low notes?

Still this is more of a head tone and not breathy tone. you are going to have to (as we have been telling you) SLM to get proper tuition rather then realing on the shite from youtube  and the televison consensors and what MD is telling you too! as you have not yet seamed to grasped the concept even though i have been telling you but you seam to keep post little 10 second clips and your  youtube clips which are all noncence BTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jeremys Fool said:

Still this is more of a head tone and not breathy tone. you are going to have to (as we have been telling you) SLM to get proper tuition rather then realing on the shite from youtube  and the televison consensors and what MD is telling you too! as you have not yet seamed to grasped the concept even though i have been telling you but you seam to keep post little 10 second clips and your  youtube clips which are all noncence BTW

Falsetto does not have to be breathy. The tilting action of the vocal folds are the primary means to adjust pitch. the full body of the vocal folds are not engaged and only the outer edge and outer tissue of the vocal folds are vibrating. this causes a different waveform of vibration which gives the characteristic sound of the falsetto but it does not Have to be a breathy sound.

   Of course it is a "Head Tone". Any pitch above A4 will be a head tone no matter what it sounds like. Full high head voice can also be breathy and NOT be using falsetto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Falsetto does not have to be breathy.

Another thing that I have noticed is a tendency for the word falsetto to refer to slightly different things in UK and US English.

You've given me enough examples that I now think I know at least one of the qualities that you associate with falsetto. The "quality" in Hyacinth Bucket's voice, when she speaks higher, I tend to associate with an unstable larynx (and certain type of cracking in the male voice). Yes, I hear the same thing in Mickey Mouse, and with a few AA comedians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

Another thing that I have noticed is a tendency for the word falsetto to refer to slightly different things in UK and US English.

You've given me enough examples that I now think I know at least one of the qualities that you associate with falsetto. The "quality" in Hyacinth Bucket's voice, when she speaks higher, I tend to associate with an unstable larynx (and certain type of cracking in the male voice). Yes, I hear the same thing in Mickey Mouse, and with a few AA comedians.

That unstableness may be the same as what I am detecting as a clear difference between Falsetto and modal head voice. I mentioned a texture to the Head voice that is not detected in Falsetto. That Texture may the full vibration of the vocal folds as opposed to only the outer edge vibrating. But you can detect the difference even in those who have a natually high voice like Geddy lee of Rush and The singer of the above video of Yes, Christopher Cross and Neil Young. I can only describe it as velvety which I believe is the full vibration and Falsetto having what can be detected as "False" which the term "Falsetto" derives from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MDEW said:

Falsetto does not have to be breathy. The tilting action of the vocal folds are the primary means to adjust pitch. the full body of the vocal folds are not engaged and only the outer edge and outer tissue of the vocal folds are vibrating. 

and where did you discover this from?

 

4 hours ago, MDEW said:

   Of course it is a "Head Tone". Any pitch above A4 will be a head tone no matter what it sounds like. 

Again, same question as above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite odd, because the word "falsetto" is older than the theory that seeks to define it!

Originally, before vibrational modes were even considered, it referred to a type of vocal sound.

Theory has turned it into a search for a distinct, discrete vibrational mode.

There is no logical reason for this search to result in something that corresponds to the original meaning of falsetto. This is part of the problem. Maybe they should not be called the same thing, until and if the are proven to be the same.

There is a claim in the video that the muscles of the vocal folds are relaxed, not stiff, during falsetto. Both theories cannot be right. So, if you train a student to "stiffen their vocal folds" (by monitoring the sound production), that may turn out to be only imagination (or the opposite method may).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

It's quite odd, because the word "falsetto" is older than the theory that seeks to define it!

Originally, before vibrational modes were even considered, it referred to a type of vocal sound.

Theory has turned it into a search for a distinct, discrete vibrational mode.

There is no logical reason for this search to result in something that corresponds to the original meaning of falsetto. This is part of the problem. Maybe they should not be called the same thing, until and if the are proven to be the same.

There is a claim in the video that the muscles of the vocal folds are relaxed, not stiff, during falsetto. Both theories cannot be right. So, if you train a student to "stiffen their vocal folds" (by monitoring the sound production), that may turn out to be only imagination (or the opposite method may).

"There is a claim in the video that the muscles of the vocal folds are relaxed, not stiff, during falsetto. Both theories cannot be right. So, if you train a student to "stiffen their vocal folds" .

Stiff refers to the outer edge of the vocal folds, not the body of the muscle.

The reason for the distinction is to help people to NOT default to falsetto. Not to teach HOW to use falsetto. Falsetto is what happens when you "Flip" "Break" or Yodel when you do not have control over the voice. It happens because the vocal folds or the Cricoid tilting muscles are not strong enough to create a higher pitch while working together and the Vocal folds let go completely and the voice flips or cracks. It requires little effort and  breath flow to make the sound. Maintaining the "Connection" of full voice in the passagio requires steady breath flow and proper coordination. Yes there are some who will make this transition naturally but when you do not have the coordination it is hard to find the coordination for full voice.

As mentioned in the video another thing that happens is that the angle the vocal folds meet is also changed, this sort of locks the coordination in place and causes the "Flip" or :Break" when ascending and descending pitch.

 It is the default coordination when a male tries to speak or sing in the higher range(above Passagio) and it "Sounds'" different from the normal voice. For most males this happens between E4 to G4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MDEW said:

"There is a claim in the video that the muscles of the vocal folds are relaxed, not stiff, during falsetto. Both theories cannot be right. So, if you train a student to "stiffen their vocal folds" .

Stiff refers to the outer edge of the vocal folds, not the body of the muscle.

She is challenging this idea that comes from the Estill Model.

What she is claiming contradicts the Estill Model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

She is challenging this idea that comes from the Estill Model.

 

     The Estill Model was that there are no "registers". That was what she referred to as challenging the former idea that "Registers do not exist", but it is found that there Is a difference in Posture(angle that the vocal folds meet) and characteristic vibration.

     The use of registers in singing comes from the pipe organs which used a bank of pipes of different lengths with the same diameter for one "Register" or series of notes and then switching to a smaller diameter with different lengths for another "register". These groups of pipes gave a different charter of sound from each other. A register came to mean a group of notes/pitches created in a similar manor with similar characteristics. Falsetto is created with a muscle configuration and a "Posture" that is different from modal. This makes it a true register in the proper meaning of the word "Register".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MDEW said:

The Estill Model was that there are no "registers". That was what she referred to as challenging the former idea that "Registers do not exist", but it is found that there Is a difference in Posture(angle that the vocal folds meet) and characteristic vibration.

She is challenging more than that. She directly challenges the idea of stiffness of the folds featuring in falsetto. (I know you interpret what she said differently). She also challenges what she calls a "breathing gesture" featuring in phonation.

Also, all the postures referred to (like angle and thickness) could easily exist on a continuum. This would make the separation of falsetto into a different register spurious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

She directly challenges the idea of stiffness of the folds featuring in falsetto. (I know you interpret what she said differently). She also challenges what she calls a "breathing gesture" featuring in phonation.

I see now. Estill would use "Thick" "thin" and "Stiff" to describe vocal fold settings. "Stiff" being used in falsetto(in her method of teaching). That originally described the "Feel" or the "Locked" aspect of falsetto. When you cannot see what is going on you have to come up with ways to describe it. 

 

1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

Also, all the postures referred to (like angle and thickness) could easily exist on a continuum.

In modal voice it does exist on a continuum. The falsetto is different. That is the whole point of why it is a register of its own and not merely any note above passaggio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MDEW said:

I see now. Estill would use "Thick" "thin" and "Stiff" to describe vocal fold settings. "Stiff" being used in falsetto(in her method of teaching). That originally described the "Feel" or the "Locked" aspect of falsetto. When you cannot see what is going on you have to come up with ways to describe it.

Very non-committal. Are you definitely asserting that they indeed COULDN'T see what was going on, and went on "feel"/sensation? Or are you not sure, and just trying to hint at it?

15 minutes ago, MDEW said:

In modal voice it does exist on a continuum. The falsetto is different. That is the whole point of why it is a register of its own and not merely any note above passaggio.

The point is whether it is PROVEN that there is this other mode that exists on a DIFFERENT continuum. "Register of its own" is just another way of saying that, not a way of proving it. You can't prove something just by writing it a different way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

Very non-committal. Are you definitely asserting that they indeed COULDN'T see what was going on, and went on "feel"/sensation? Or are you not sure, and just trying to hint at it?

The Estill method was created by a woman name Jo Estill. She used her own terms and ideas for explaining and teaching things. This was before there was a way to "Check" what was physically going on.  Most of the actual "Teaching" and "Coaching" even today is by Feel, sensations, abstract ideas and metaphors. They call it Pedagogy which is actually the science of teaching a subject, not the science of how the subject really works.

15 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

The point is whether it is PROVEN that there is this other mode that exists on a DIFFERENT continuum. "Register of its own" is just another way of saying that, not a way of proving it. You can't prove something just by writing it a different way.

There is proof of it now. It is what I have been saying. Only the outer edge of the vocal folds vibrate and it produces a wave form vibration that is different from Modal voice and it can be seen and detected when videod at high speed and slowed down.  It is the reason the "Pedagogists came up with M0 for Pulse register, M1 for Modal, M2 for Falsetto and M3 for Whistle. There is a vibrational and mechanical difference that is NOT just a change in pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MDEW said:

The Estill method was created by a woman name Jo Estill. She used her own terms and ideas for explaining and teaching things. This was before there was a way to "Check" what was physically going on.

Methods of checking existing long before Estill created her model.

17 minutes ago, MDEW said:

There is proof of it now. It is what I have been saying. Only the outer edge of the vocal folds vibrate and it produces a wave form vibration that is different from Modal voice and it can be seen and detected when videod at high speed and slowed down.

That is not proof.

The only way to prove that a vibrational mode exists on a different continuum is to have amassed so many examples of vibrational modes that you can claim that "if there were a continuum, we would have seen it by now, but we haven't". I don't think that the state of the art is anywhere near that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

That is not proof.

The only way to prove that a vibrational mode exists on a different continuum is to have amassed so many examples of vibrational modes that you can claim that "if there were a continuum, we would have seen it by now, but we haven't". I don't think that the state of the art is anywhere near that point.

If you want to take it that level, There is no proof of anything anymore because the technology we now have can alter any pictures and video. History can not be proven because the people who lived it are not alive to tell the story and if the story is told the one telling the story can be making it up. Most of our history books are written from a biased opinion even though the writers may have believed they were writing facts.

At some point you have to make a leap of faith or use the knowledge that you have come across on your own or research or your own experiences to judge the validity of a statement.

Up to this point my own experience and experiments and research(books, videos, and other means), even though at times I come across research that even goes into more bizarre explanations of how the voice works and what is the cause of the voice making different sounds, allows me to believe that the  explanation I have given of Falsetto is correct. Sure someday we may find that the real reason for falsetto is the distance and position of the false folds in relation to the true vocal folds like using different sizes of mouth pieces for a trumpet player produces different sounds, which has been proposed through out history, Or we may find that it is the false folds themselves vibrating in falsetto Rather than the true vocal cords. That is also possible, but that creates its own sound....which I have also produced and can be used in singing, although I do not recommend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MDEW said:

If you want to take it that level, There is no proof of anything anymore because the technology we now have can alter any pictures and video. History can not be proven because the people who lived it are not alive to tell the story and if the story is told the one telling the story can be making it up. Most of our history books are written from a biased opinion even though the writers may have believed they were writing facts.

Scientific proof does not mean "truth". Scientific proof is a "confidence level" achieved through peer review and a system of accreditation of publishers.

The confidence level is measurable, too. For example, in particle physics, the 5 sigma confidence level is used. That doesn't equate to irrevocable truth. It only means a level of probability (a relatively high one in the field of particle physics). In biology the bar tends to be much lower: a generous 5%.

People making things up does not prevent scientific proof. People have made up stories of producing magnetic monopoles and dining with yetis. But scientists can still claim that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and yetis do not exist. The idea is that there would by now have been a highly regarded publication supporting such assertions.

In the same way, saying that Mode A exists on a different continuum from Mode B is to claim that NOTHING exists in between, connecting A to B. In science, that means that to some MEASURABLE level of confidence  (e.g 95% of "experiments") any claim to the contrary cannot be reproduced. But the small sample sizes in these studies of vocal modes, of 10 or so subjects, is too small. Until we have 10s if not 100s of thousands of subjects, a claim that something does not exist is going to be a weak one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

People making things up does not prevent scientific proof. People have made up stories of producing magnetic monopoles and dining with yetis. But scientists can still claim that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and yetis do not exist. The idea is that there would by now have been a highly regarded publication supporting such assertions.

And if someone did dine with a Yeti and told the story he would not be believed because it is in the public opinion that Yeti's do not exist . Merely mentioning seeing something odd in the sky while piloting years ago would get you fired even though you saw something you could not explain. Now that NASA has released video it is at least plausible that there are flying crafts that are not "normal aircrafts". These videos were leaked years before NASA admitted to having them. So the "Idea" of there being technology beyond our understanding has been known to the scientific community even though they may not have admitted it.

In the 70's people that I know and have no reason to lie  had experiences with a large biped, tents were toppled, footprints were found, photographs taken and casts made. You may not have reason to believe the validity of Yeti and science may not. but it does not mean there is no evidence. It means that the evidence has not been taken seriously.

I guess what I am saying is that regardless of what science says experience will sway the opinion. Before there is scientific research there is a theory on which to focus the research.

Link to comment
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

×
×
  • Create New...