Jump to content

Should I bother to learn singing high notes?

Rate this topic


kurtvana
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm a baritone. My current comfortable highest pitch I can hit is the E above high C (The first E you reach when you climb up from A=440). I'm practicing with Brett Manning's Singing Success, and God knows how confused I become when it wants me to reach G above that aforementioned E. My goal is to sing rock songs as singers like Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) and Layne Staley (Alice In Chains) do. But besides I wanna be the best singer I can become, and have a freedom in singing.

I sing my highest pitch with my full voice, and I have to be loud a bit, though I don't abuse my voice. But I can't go into the "head voice" (as Singing Success defines it). I have a voice teacher and he says you can sing notes higher than that very E, only with falsetto. It's been a real hard work for me, singing the way SS expects me, and when I do, I abuse my voice with too much pressure. And the other thing is that, those singers I mentioned earlier, sing notes like G(Above A=440), with scream and not head voice.

What would you do if you were me? Trying more to get to that "head voice" (which has consumed plenty of my time) or trying to learn screaming and never bother singing in "head voice"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is kind of a tough decision for me. I was exactly the same way, I'd have a useable range between maybe A2 and A4 on my best day as the notes below were too weak, and the ones above would strain or falsetto. Very near the time I introduced Speech Level Singing oriented exercises I got voice pain and spasm that hasn't been solvable medically, and apparently I've read my previous way of singing was not compatible with whatever it is they are doing. I was an emotional singer, more so than a technical one (though I had my own technique), I sang what I felt more intuitively, and that often involved more air. Not breathiness, just more air flow. Emotionally, I don't think I felt like a leaking valve, I felt more like an explosion and these other techniques didn't really gel with my intuition.

What I would suggest, and this honestly sucks for people who have invested in Singing Success, is to maybe find a program or a teacher that has more versatility or open mindedness to different styles of singing that can get you to your goals, rather than their goals. If you choose CVT as a method, you could likely continue to sing in Overdrive with more 'effort' fairly high in pitch with some vowel modification. The only real rule is you couldn't use a breathy tone, and you'll be a shouter. You could work more so on the twang and more vowel modifications, and get you into closer than a belt scream kind of configuration. CVT calls this Edge. Or you could work on curbing (and a lot less air) and do something more similar to what SLS seems to be doing in passaggio. All of these ways of getting up there, sound good, but in order to get centered into these modes, you kind of have to unlearn and let go of your intuition assuming they were not intuitive to start with. They do have a lot of 'rules' that if you break you could get injured pretty easily. Emotionally, like me you might be more of a free spirit type, and you find 'rules' difficult so you may sing from a place like this, which makes any method other than your own very difficult to execute.

I really only understand CVT terms, and sadly even post injury what they are doing just 'makes sense.' I can siren possibly 3 octaves now including a more head voice configuration, just using the 'techniques' I know or whatever, but my voice constantly hurts no matter what technique I do period and nothing I do feels as effortless or natural as what I originally used intuitively. I think I have more range now, but strangely enough, I get the most pain in my voice from Overdrive, as CVT would call it, which is closer to what my speaking voice would have been. Now I speak in neutral, primarily, which sounds pretty lame, but it hurts less.

I talk a lot in CVT terms, but I have a lot of faith in both Robert Lunte and Steve Frasier here as people who know a whole lot about voice. They are by far more educated than I am and if you are looking for people to teach you or help you with advanced techniques, someone that is educated both in that they can show you, and that they know scientifically what is going on enough to not be giving crap advice of 'sing purple' or 'make a bunch of sound effects until you sing good.' That kind of thinking is inadequate for me.

Robert Lunte's teacher, was the same teacher who taught Layne Staley, so if this kind of style is what you're interested in, he could help you. I know Layne had that damned B flat in Man in the Box that always pissed me off so I can relate to that.

I guess what I'm hoping is maybe you can find something closer to what singing means to you, so you can keep some of the attitude and expression, without having to abandon everything that your singing means to you and having to start completely over from a technical standpoint. If you 'do' have to abandon everything, I really think lessons, or at least a more comprehensive method than Singing Success would be a good idea. Singing Success and SLS in general definitely have a specific sound they are shooting for, and if that sound isn't you, it could cause a lot of heartache. I also feel the way they teach it is not the best for self learning. Many of the sound effects they recommended caused me strain and pain although I felt I was doing them right 'sound wise.' How much of this is just doing the exercises wrong, or how much is those exercises not being right for my voice, I don't know, and I don't really care since other people have advice that can get me there without so much 'blind' teacher student relationship or the idea that if I make a bunch of sound effects they will magically combine into a 'healthy singing voice.' What I respect about these other ways of thinking, is they tell me how I can use my voice, why it works that way. What the dangers are, what are the strengths and limitations of using my voice this way. I think it's safer and more useful than this sound effect/sound ideal kind of approach that SLS takes in general, but if it works for other people, more power to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lately i'm in an analogy mode, so i'll help with an analogy.

you want to be the best singer you can become, right?

so ask yourself....would you want to own and drive a car that doesn't shift past first or second gear?

if you want to scream as you say up and over g4, you had better be in your head register when you do it.

try if you can to stop looking at the voice as head and chest but rather one smoothly connected voice. the head register is there, like a car that comes equipped with a transmission...it's standard equipment.

you just have to work to finding your way into the higher register. the voice has spent many more years speaking than singing so you have to teach it (and yourself) to find and build it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Kurt. You mentioned you are a baritone. Yes, some baritones can sing an E5. But I was wondering what your lowest comfortable full note is. Or how you came to feel that you are a baritone. You might as easily be a lyric tenor (a common case amongst singers who are still developing and just think they must be a baritone because the high notes are a struggle for them.)

In fact, if you are a high or light baritone, you are already close to what Eddie Vedder sings, possibly needing some coordination for the 4th octave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a similar position. I think im a baritone, as I can sing low as e3 i think? (Im writing at work, no keyboard for reference).

I don't want to sing any higher than C5 if Im honest. Im more towards R&B and they hardly hit those notes. Not saying it wouldnt be nice to sing that high.

I find SLS hard and I just can get the exercises done, and its really putting me down. I bought Robs program and can't get higher than G4. But I feel that it aims towards belting than the sound I hear in R&B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it depends. I've seen five different respect authors describe the tenor range in 4 different ways. Operatically, a tenor should be absolutely solid from C3 to C5, each fach covering at least 2 octaves. And each fach can have different tessituras. A dramatic tenor has a warm, expansive low end and a high end that sounds meaty. A lyric has a lighter weight. Leggiero has a lighter weight and possibly a few higher notes.

Another source says to take your bottom usable note and add 2 to 2.5 octaves.

Others say any note you can create is usable, depending on amplification. And, in so doing, the demarcations of fach relatively disappear.

But generally, yeah, I think there is some use for fach, to at least describe the range where you have most dynamics (control over volume and tone.) I get that definition from our own Steven Fraser. I think it is the most accurate description and stands the test of the time.

I also agree with some that trying to classify yourself in the beginning is hazardous. Some training and and re-calibration of your coordination may yield another octave you didn't know you had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking this might be simpler than I thought. Kind of a mathematical equation:

You sing as high as your artistry demands, your health limits, and your technique subtracts from.

If you've programmed on a computer, here is your logical algorithm for vocal pitch exploration:

if (CurrentRange < HealthyLimit && ArtisticRequirements > CurrentRange)

{

Technique += YourEffortandKnowledge;

If (Technique > CurrentRange)

{

CurrentRange+=1;

}

}

So what are your artistic goals? Me, probably the majority of my heroes weren't that worried about pitch. They were worried about voice tone, emotional authenticity, songwriting ability, fluidity, interpretation, comfort, those kinds of things and they just ended up with whatever pitches they got naturally through comfortable practice and some basic tips. That can mean singers ending up with 1, 2 , 3 , or 4 octaves.

The analogy of driving a 'better car' doesn't really work, as that would imply we all drive better cars than Billie Holiday. The analogy is more so wanting to 'drive the car that reaches your artistic goals.' This car will likely be a different car for every person because their health limits are different, as are their artistic goals.

I tried to hop into a different car and crashed after driving my own car successfully up until this point! You have to value 'your' car so to speak, and figure out how you are going to get it safely from Point A (where you are now) to Point B (your artistic goals!) safely!

I think various people can help you get there with training, but it's likely going to take a whole lot more thinking and soul searching than "I want more notes" to achieve personal goals. How do you want them to sound? How healthy or comfortable are they to achieve? Why do you want them? Is it even possible to get the same 'sound' as your heroes on the same notes or will you have to adjust 'relatively' in pitch to get a more similar tone?

To take the car analogy further, different coaches or voice methodologies are driving different cars too. So you'll have to think carefully about who is going to get you where you want to go. You'll have to drive slow at first, get your bearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy of driving a 'better car' doesn't really work, as that would imply we all drive better cars than Billie Holiday. The analogy is more so wanting to 'drive the car that reaches your artistic goals.' This car will likely be a different car for every person because their health limits are different, as are their artistic goals.

I think various people can help you get there with training, but it's likely going to take a whole lot more thinking and soul searching than "I want more notes" to achieve personal goals. How do you want them to sound? How healthy or comfortable are they to achieve? Why do you want them? Is it even possible to get the same 'sound' as your heroes on the same notes or will you have to adjust 'relatively' in pitch to get a more similar tone?

Abso-freaking-lutely brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kurtvana - first of all, "head voice" is not defined by everyone the same, but a common definition is the range which the CT muscle is the dominate pitch control muscle, as opposed to the TA muscle which is dominant in chest voice.

Typically "head voice" is when CT is strong and TA is weak, and the folds are vibrating shallow. Falsetto is when the TA is totally out of the picture and it is CT only, and only the outer edges of the folds are vibrating.

You can add TA to the "head voice" to make it sound just like chest voice. When you acheive this, you can have one connected, single voice. There will still be a point which CT becomes dominant, but the TA is kept strong. As you go further up in pitch, the TA has to gradually reduce - this is call "thinning the folds". It is tricky to learn this but it can be done.

If you are maxing out at E5 it means that your TA is too strong. You are most definitely already in head voice, although you've got a strong TA up there and it sounds and feels like chest voice.

You can go a lot higher, and you don't have to be in falsetto to do it. All you have to do is learn to keep thinning the folds the higher you go. It is not easy and it takes a lot of work.

I started out with a really loud upper range too - the easiest way to increase range is to master a "lighter" singing technique first. That means thinner folds. You will be able to add all the weight that you want up there in the future, but start out light (and I don't mean falsetto). It is hard to sing lightly really high, but believe me, it is worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy is more so wanting to 'drive the car that reaches your artistic goals.' This car will likely be a different car for every person because their health limits are different, as are their artistic goals.

i would think that range expansion (safely, within the limits of one's capabilities) should be a goal of every singer regardless of artistic goals or genre(s) desired.

let me explain: if i'm desirous of singing high (above a4) comfortably, i would think the more you work on your range the more consistent and more comfortable the notes become as time goes on, such that those same notes you used to barely make are now much easier, as are the notes higher up.

even if my my artistic goals didn't require high note singing, i still would want that development, or that capability.

i believe there's more to range extension than just a vehicle to hit high notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to sing above a certain point in range with a certain tonality, certain people have to drastically alter their technique and rethink their singing voices entirely. In this process it can alter their natural habituated singing voice, not only physically and mentally, how they connect neurologically and emotionally with their voice intuitively, but also sonically, how they sound when they sing. Different techniques 'sound' different and 'feel' different to execute.

By the time you got Bob Dylan into the 3rd octave, the remains of his natural singing voice would likely be shattered or he would injure himself trying to maintain his current identity because he would have to completely change his voice habits. Bob Dylan's artistic goals were never to sing like Geoff Tate, and thus it should not be his priority nor our priority to imply those should be his goals. This should be the case of every singer, creating their own goals and singing with voice habits that that reflect their inner character and their unique artform, rather singing with voices that garner the most range.

The same could be said for Frank Sinatra, Muddy Waters, Billie Holiday, John Lennon, David Bowie, Nina Simone, probably half of my favorite singers likely never knew how to sing like Geoff Tate or Lou Gramm, and I'm thankful for this, because they instead sing with range limited styles that sound like 'them' instead of clones of other people's techniques.

Probably one of the entire points of popular singing, has always been to sing just wrong enough, that you could never be mistaken for anyone else. Operatic singers always had better technique, but they never had the same range of identities or 'characters.' There's a reason for that. In order to sing higher, you need to become more efficient, and that means changing your current voice habits and your sound.

I could sit any of my heroes down, and explain to them modern scientific information how to hit higher notes. I could explain to them that the lifetime they spent intuitively and happily practicing singing and touching listeners with their own styles is extremely limited, because there is a scientific technique that is near guaranteed to get them more notes. I'm sure many of them could be retrained pretty quickly into singing more like another singer who had a larger range. But this would be a tragedy, to their voices, to their art, to my enjoyment of their voices and art. You're likely a great singer, Bob, but I'm not sure you understand this, these singers can't hit those notes for a reason, it's the same reason they sound really unique, because they aren't doing the same thing, and it's often for emotional or personal reasons.

Changing your voice habits, it changes your sound, it's your identity. I'm really thankful some people find voices that are formed more from their own character, from their own experiences, from their own identity and hard work rather than a scientific formula.

Yeah, we could fill the world with voice scientists, all tuned to a physical perfection, every larynx tuned for every single note physically possible within the voice. We might be able to program robots to sing with convincing human sounding voices to do the same. One day when we can make these robots sing even higher than any human, maybe we can put these same robots into singing contests with the humans. You know they just might win, given the way a lot of people seem to think about this.

How will we be able to tell who is still the human artist? I have a feeling it's the limitations. The flaws, the imperfections, the lack of range. The little wobble here or there. I must say, I'm really glad not everyone aspires to this kind of robotic ideal as I love, and I mean I truly love the reasons why not everyone can hit every note physically possible. Often, with my favorite singers, it's because they are doing something inefficiently in a way that sounds SO good and they are too emotionally wrapped up in their artform to worry about fixing it. Even now with scientific formulas for rewiring voices for efficiency available, there are still artists who choose to use their less efficient voices over scientific perfection. You don't see artistic value in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like I see value in improving one's mind AND physique (with f.ex. book reading and weight lifting), I see the value in improving one's emotional AND technical aspects of singing. But thanks for the reminders of the emotional side. Vocal students tend to forget that.

Btw. KillerKu, I read somewhere that you injured your voice. Are you sure you can't just recover from that injury?

Also, I think ANYONE can learn how to bridge their chest and head voices, which will add a lot to their range of both emotions and musicality if they couldn't do it before. I don't think that certain people just can't do it. Even Bob Dylan. I'm not saying it would make him "better". I'm just saying that he could, with the right training.

And as far as not sounding "sterile" or "too perfect" but still knowing how to bridge from chest to head, check out Robert Plant as an example of a guy who wasn't afraid of breaking the rules of singing but still had great range. He had BOTH range and emotion. And that's what separates him from guys like Muddy Waters, John Lennon and David Bowie. All these people are legendary singers, but Robert Plant is considered to be one of the best singers of all time. He also had the third element which makes a legend - he sung songs that ended up becoming some of the most well known songs of all time. So did all those baritone singers you mentioned, but they lacked that extra dimension from the high notes that's probably a factor when you look at all these lists that are made every now and then on "the best singers of all time". You'll usually see Robert Plant and Freddy Mercury in the top two there. They had it all.

Still I'd like to add that some of MY favorite singers are mostly baritone, like Alice Cooper, Elvis Presley and John Lennon. But as long as you don't forget to enjoy what you HAVE and just music in general (which KillerKu has reminded us of), I don't see the harm in trying to improve your voice and your range. And you can improve your tonality, too. Don't forget that. And I want to state again that I think that anyone can learn how to sing high notes and do so without hurting their voice. You might just need a good vocal coach to get you there. It can be very hard or impossible to do so purely from books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonpall, It's been 3 years since I developed my throat/voice problem I've seen many doctors, a couple of speech therapists. I have uncontrollable pain, tension, and spasm. I believe there is either a muscular skeletal problem or neurological problem that makes recovery impossible until it is addressed. I really, tried hard and I've gotten nothing but pain from trying.

I do agree with you most can likely learn to bridge into head voice, but for many it requires a rethinking of singing, and to intellectually rewire your way of singing that was previously intuitive. You will likely have to carefully intellectualize certain 'rules' to stay safe as you cannot sing the same way in head voice as chest voice. As far as dangers, there's possibility some people are not physically wired for this, or that something could go wrong in the brain's rewiring, or that in the process of physical rewiring there could be injury. Also, as far as I understand the increased vibration frequency of the vocal folds during the highest notes, may not be as healthy long term for the voice as the lower notes, but that's unknown.

On artistic dangers, many people habituate certain sounds and techniques and express these sounds intuitively in their art. Many of these techniques are not suitable for large ranges, but are suitable for artistic purposes (different airflow, different vowel choices, etc). Most people would have to change their voice habits and 'forget' their inefficiencies by habituating efficiencies in their place. As an example, I lost whatever I was doing that caused the big falsetto break through training. I literally forgot my original technique, and this can be taken to the extreme where you can scientifically optimize a singer for maximum efficiency until they no longer resemble what they were before.

As for Plant having something over others, that depends on who is making the list. I've met multiple people who absolutely cannot stand the sound of Robert Plant's voice. I've heard anything from he sounds like a dying cat, to he sounds like he's in need of a toilet, to he sounds like a shrieking woman. I like his voice, personally, but I can kind of understand just from the sound why people might react that way and consider his 'head voice' to be more of a head ache. I wouldn't put him at the top of my list above some of the singers I mentioned, but he's a good singer and he wasn't trained scientifically either for maximum pitch range. That is just how he expresses himself.

Ultimately though, at some point science will figure out an ideal coordination for maximum pitch range, or even 'the beefiest tone for every note' of the average person's physique, or whatever measuring stick is in vogue. We're already nearing this point where certain techniques are more ideal than others for these efficiencies, and as more and more singers adopt these 'superior techniques,' instead of 'finding their own identity, inefficient sometimes as it may be' there is a risk..... Well, honestly it's not a risk, we've already lost a lot of humanity in popular music to autotune, and this is the last frontier of the robotification of singing, without actually physically having robots. I really believe not everyone should seek to train the physical limits of the human voice, just like everyone shouldn't pursue the most 'in tune' vocal possible at any cost. Some people should sing as they intuitively, well sing, even if it's not as many notes as someone who trained with someone else's technique.

I'm not saying people shouldn't expand their range or train their voices, but it's not as simple as having everyone all use the 'ultimate physically optimized technique' and having the world suddenly filled with great singers and being a better place. The absolute best thing someone can do is 'good enough' for their artistic goals, whatever those goals maybe. If you need help getting there (and a lot of people do), try to find the best help you can get that fits your needs (identity, tone, emotionally, whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed on pretty much all points. However, you CAN learn new things and not forget your good old tricks if you just make sure you regularly practise your old tricks with the new ones. The funny thing about mastering your mix or head voice is that when you first try it out, you think "is THIS what it sounds like? Surely that can't be it. I've made similar sounds jokingly in the past but I had no idea that this is what those tenors are actually doing when they sing". And you don't know how YOUR mix/head voice will sound until you've had a bit of practise with it. When you start to get better at it, it will probably sound strange to you.

Another thing: I think that if you approach it correctly, speech level singing is a good program. You need to change "always have a neutral larynx" into "sing with a slight yawn and don't care too much about your larynx height", and just always remember that singing should never hurt or tense up your throat and then SLS is great to learn how to bridge. Again - just don't forget all your cool tricks in the baritone range while you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonpall. I agree to an extent you can retain some of the old, but you need techniques to go back and forth and most singing teaching only teaches one direction (towards a 'proper' sound), and certainly doesn't teach you how to go back to whatever it was you were using. The voice is extremely habit forming in how it 'naturally' wants to function.

Creaky voice is a pretty famous voice habit, people can easily get stuck in. I've known people that spoke that way their entire lives, and seemingly never had any clue how to use another voice. When I first discovered it, I had it 'stuck' for like 3 days, until I stumbled across like a 'sigh' technique to reverse the habit.

I feel that at some point, if you mess around enough with the voice, unless you have a technique for everything, it's possible to never get back to where you were. Certainly not intuitively or emotionally wired as directly into the subconscious reflex, as you would be if you focused more solid on a 'home base' voice. Your kind of 'identity' voice. Otherwise, my experience is I'd wind up intellectually juggling at some point or drifting into habits that I didn't want. At this point, I have long lost non painful access to 'home base' voice and I definitely realize the value of maintaining it.

Speech Level Singing, I found both creaky voice scales and gug exercises uncomfortable, and one (gug) resulted in my voice blowing out when I tried resuming normal singing (painfully). I think there should be more awareness that these exercises could be damaging and need to be done with very, very little air, if at all. I would never do them again obviously. Overall, I think it's very possible to train the voice without doing sound effect scales as relentlessly as they seem to recommend, especially the way they encourage inexperienced beginners to imitate sound effects without very scientific instruction in how to reproduce the sounds safely. I also found the concept of vocal cords zipping up in passaggio to be damaging, as it caused me to constrict. It's not only not really what happens, but it 'sounds' like squeezing and I think it should be abandoned in favor of techniques that actually work (cry, twang, the hold, whatever).

I'd agree that doing the 'cry' over the bridge works to smooth out the break (only useful thing I got from SLS), but aside from that I experienced physical discomfort near the introduction of SLS oriented exercises and things only got worse. I won't blame them, but would not recommend it either, especially with so many other options. I feel like I've gained a lot more insight and can do more things mechanically even post injury from reading other sources that I can't make use of it because of pain, tension, and spasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be the case that you don't need any medial help at all to get your voice back, dude, but rather just the right vocal exercises in front of the right vocal coach, at regular basis. I've meddled with vocal coaching over Skype myself so I could give it a shot helping you if you're ever interested :) . The number one rule is just to STOP as soon as you feel discomfort in your throat. No big harm if it doesn't work but great for you if it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried lip bubbles off and on over the years as I learned them prior to injury. I've read that might have been another thing that originated from SLS and if so those are good. They didn't used to hurt, but they certainly hurt now.

That's the thing, is it's too late to just stop when I feel pain now, cause that's all the time. Speaking, eating, singing, everything. Constant pain and tension, and then random throat spasms that can last for hours. The every day stuff sucks, but those spasms are kill yourself painful when they get going and what's worse, speaking or eating can aggravate things and get them going.

Yeah, we might be able to try sometime soon and I do appreciate the offer. At this point any insights are welcome, cause I really hope somehow I won't be stuck with this, but it physically feels this way. The closest thing I can compare speaking to now, especially when it's at it's worst tension, is when I broke my wrist as a child and tried to turn the door knob? Just reflexively, wincing with a huge shot of pain, and then the muscles just say 'hell no' and just clamp down and that's painful too.

I guess it's possible my body learned a new really bad habit. But it must be doing it while I sleep and everything. It's gone haywire. I don't feel like I've got control over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for their replies.

Firstly I shall say that I almost got the answer to my question, which was actually the title of the topic. And also I got my answer to some other questions as well by reading the replies and doing some research. I think we all have reached the conclusion that the best answer to the question is: "It depends on whether you 'need' to sing that high or not." My answer was yes, of course the next question will be "How?".

Through this 'research', I assumed there are two ways [for a male singer] which are:

1.Singing in head voice which is the same as falsetto (according to CVT terminology vocal flageolet)

2.Singing by 'overdrive' or 'shouting'.

I want to know whether it's true or not. And if it is, another paradox arises:

In 'Vocal Power' method by Jim Gillette, at a point he says sth like this: "It's amazing that what you could sing in falsetto, you can sing it now by your real (or head, not sure about it) voice." In this method he actually teaches you how to "scream" like those hair metal singers, such as Bon Jovi's and Guns and Roses' singers. And he does not consider it falsetto, but a more native kind of voice.

And then in Singing Success as I talked about it before, he differentiates between falsetto and head voice for men. And he says the head voice is a bit more personal and characterful than falsetto.

But in Complete Vocal Technique it is said that for men: Falsetto = Head Voice

I'm a bit confused coz it is not only a matter of terminology but totally different notions. If you accept any of them, your technique and "career" will be built differently according to which one you choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a baritone. My current comfortable highest pitch I can hit is the E above high C (The first E you reach when you climb up from A=440). I'm practicing with Brett Manning's Singing Success, and God knows how confused I become when it wants me to reach G above that aforementioned E. My goal is to sing rock songs as singers like Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) and Layne Staley (Alice In Chains) do. But besides I wanna be the best singer I can become, and have a freedom in singing.

I sing my highest pitch with my full voice, and I have to be loud a bit, though I don't abuse my voice. But I can't go into the "head voice" (as Singing Success defines it). I have a voice teacher and he says you can sing notes higher than that very E, only with falsetto. It's been a real hard work for me, singing the way SS expects me, and when I do, I abuse my voice with too much pressure. And the other thing is that, those singers I mentioned earlier, sing notes like G(Above A=440), with scream and not head voice.

What would you do if you were me? Trying more to get to that "head voice" (which has consumed plenty of my time) or trying to learn screaming and never bother singing in "head voice"?

Lets first get some things cleared.

When you say that you are a Baritone, you understand that this classification has nothing to do with the range of your voice, but with the tessitura and overall tonal quality, right?

Now something that is really, really weird. Why the hell are you singing high C or E in exercises if you say that you are not able to use head voice right now?

I dont know what you are doing without even listening, but a high in chest is a very, very dangerous thing even for a tenor, a baritone screaming out a E4(or E5 in american notation) as an exercise is absurd.

Surely you can use it once you get confortable on using your whole voice properly, but even then I see no point on doing exercises with this. And doing this before knowing how to use your voice without strainning in this region will lead to damage.

How is the middle range of your voice working, is everything clear, support working well, legatto? Do you use your voice often? Do you get sore after singing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more than those two ways to sing than those two that you mentioned.

Head voice, falsetto and vocal flageolet are different things and CVT doesn't say that falsetto is flageolet.

Usually it's best to learn how to increase your range with a relatively low volume first and then slowly increase the volume as you get better at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had to throw it out there, regarding the discussion on style and feel.

Guess who sings by feel and emotion, not even thinking of what octave he is in or how much percentage of CT is engaged, versus TA?

Good ole Geoff Tate. Seriously, he dreaded his interview in the Martin's book because he knew people expected some kind of nuts and bolts technical explanation.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...