Jump to content

Has anybody here personally increased his Chest voice vocal range?

Rate this topic


Simon T8W

Recommended Posts

Um, the position of the larynx doesn't have anything to do with whether you sing in chest voice or not. It's the proportion of thyroaritenoid larynx muscle action (the flexor muscle, the one that thickens the cords and brings them together) and cricothyroid muscle action (the adductor muscle, the one that elongates the folds).

Larynx position mostly has an effect on the timbre.

Trip, the Estill method doesn't exactly define "chest voice", which is why I put it in quotation marks. Some will use it comparably to Estill speech quality, which is categorized by thick folds and a low larynx. Belting uses thick folds and a (relatively, compared to classical technique) high larynx. But the larynx isn't so high that it's choking. It just has to be allowed to comfortably rise (but again, not too much) as you ascend in pitch. By contrast, in Opera, they keep the larynx very low, regardless of pitch.

And although both Opera and Belting are extremely loud (both can project over an orchestra without amplification) and chesty sounding, belting is louder and they've observed from laryngoscopes, that the thyroid cartilage is not tilting and thus thinning out the folds. In Opera, the thyroid cartilage still tilts somewhat and thins the folds out, although they are still way thicker than your average singer with amplification would use. Of course in Opera, they have to project that sound for an entire show. In musicals, they only belt a verse or a chorus here and there and the rest is done with thin folds.

So I guess the question is whether or not one could achieve the kind of fold mass that you get with belting with the laryngeal position they use in Opera, and do it safely. Obviously it's not commonly done, but perhaps it's entirely possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On the italian school, larynx is allowed to rise a small bit on the end of the tessitura. As for being louder, what I know as belting can only be safely used a medium, maybe mezzo forte projection level, higher larynx as you said, totally forward. Never heard all this volume used on stage, got any samples?

The non amplified solo singers almost disappear against the piano.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remy, from what I know, fold mass doesn't affect projection nearly as much as amplifying a particular frequency range (2800-3100 Hz, was it?), the one they call the Singer's formant - and this is mostly a matter of manipulating the vocal tract and not the folds themselves. I, like Felipe, also haven't heard that Belting is louder than the Opera quality. But even if it is, it's louder only in terms of decibels and that doesn't matter much, because a full orchestra always produces more decibels than a human voice. The trick for the human voice is to be loud in the frequency-range that the orchestra isn't loud in, and that's the Singer's formant range.

In a BBC special about operatic tenors there were a few colleagues of Domingo who stated that up close he wasn't an incredibly powerful voice but the thing that made him a great tenor was that he could be clearly heard from far away too, and over an orchestra.

As I see it, the stronger IA-action we're talking about here is a way to give the headvoice a chestier timbre, not more projection (which is possible even with a very heady acoustical configuration, if you hit the sweet resonance spot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, since this discussion started, I have been working on what I am now calling, "The Contract & Release Onset". "The Contract & Release Onset" is now one of a group of 6 specialized onsets that can be used as trouble-shooters for building M2 (head voice). I believe that this onset is activating the arytenoids and other musculature to give a beefier sound, a more muscle'y sound... having worked on this now in field tests with about 100 students in the last three weeks and on myself, I do see a certain amount of intrinsic 'beefiness" building in my M2 onsets and it is helping my students under certain conditions. Thus, i think its cool and really useful.

It is not however, any magic bullet or elixir of how to sing in M2 or get more chesty, it is only a tool, a technique that can be used to help. When you use it, depends on the context, the individuals own vocal tract physiology, the style of singing and the quality of the other components in the phonation package in balance. If other components in the phonation package are out of alignment, then "Contract & Release" onsets are clunky and premature. Which leads me to my other field tested observation that confirms my initial gut feeling about this... it is for more advanced students or at least students that have learned to disengage the constrictors first. If you have not learned to disengage the constrictors, which implies learned to bridge from M1 to M2 seamlessly first... the "contract & release onset" is going to just become the "constrict and choke" onset. Unfortunately, a lot of readers that are impatient about training, will jump ahead and start playing with it and only get "constrict and choke"... if this happens, don't say I didn't warn you.

The other trouble-shooter onsets in the new TVS Onset Categories are being updated into "Pillars 2.0" as I sit in a coffee shop today updating my book when the rest of the world in Seattle is out riding motorcycles and swimming in the nice weather... ok, I'll stop whining. A video demonstration on all of the specialty onsets will also be demonstrated in video to make it more clear. This is super cool... before the idea of "Contract & Release" was presented to me, I was already working on some pretty exotic onset work flows that are getting some great results for students that are trying to get a clean, powerful onset into M2... its arrival could not of come at a better time. Eventually, I stood back and looked at all these different onset types and realized I developed a set of trouble-shooters... other onsets that are useful are used to get deeper M2 Placements, better fold compression, command and control and better respiration... its really exciting, at least for students!

One last thing about this onset group is some are used in singing, others are not... very similar to the vocal modes. "Contract & Release" is NOT inclined to be used in singing or the art... but because the purpose is to build musculature, is great for training.

Hope this helps ...

This is what i mean about to many terms i love you guys but now you will ad something with a name you make up out of thin air and people will think its something they need to know or that they don't know and more confusion starts.

what if it was called k1 or k2?

You guys see what i mean and please dont be mad im just speaking like everyone else. No disrespect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what i mean about to many terms i love you guys but now you will ad something with a name you make up out of thin air and people will think its something they need to know or that they don't know and more confusion starts.

what if it was called k1 or k2?

You guys see what i mean and please dont be mad im just speaking like everyone else. No disrespect

I'm still on board with you Dan. This is exactly what I have been trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remy, from what I know, fold mass doesn't affect projection nearly as much as amplifying a particular frequency range (2800-3100 Hz, was it?), the one they call the Singer's formant - and this is mostly a matter of manipulating the vocal tract and not the folds themselves. I, like Felipe, also haven't heard that Belting is louder than the Opera quality. But even if it is, it's louder only in terms of decibels and that doesn't matter much, because a full orchestra always produces more decibels than a human voice. The trick for the human voice is to be loud in the frequency-range that the orchestra isn't loud in, and that's the Singer's formant range.

In a BBC special about operatic tenors there were a few colleagues of Domingo who stated that up close he wasn't an incredibly powerful voice but the thing that made him a great tenor was that he could be clearly heard from far away too, and over an orchestra.

As I see it, the stronger IA-action we're talking about here is a way to give the headvoice a chestier timbre, not more projection (which is possible even with a very heady acoustical configuration, if you hit the sweet resonance spot).

Trip, after doing some further reading, I think you're right that because of the formant issue, belting cannot project over an orchestra (at least not very well) and in terms of projection, Opera is much louder.

But in terms of sheer decibels, I do think belting is generally louder.

Andrew Rannells starts belting around 2:00 in this live version of a song from Book of Mormon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT-TGavkB2c

So if he weren't amplified, you'd probably have a hard time hearing him from the cheap seats over the band. But if you were listening to him do that up close without the orchestra, it would seem pretty damn loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I was out, riding a motorcycle, too.

Daniel, well done, k1, k2. It's often said that different systems may use different nomenclature, even different perspectives to arrive at the same result. I think the effectiveness of a system is in how well the students understand it, without having to be vocal anatomy specialists, rather than how it competes with other systems and their nomenclature, esoteric lingo, etc.

Anyway, for those out on their bikes, or wishing they were ... the theme song for motorcycle enthusiasts, everywhere...

My first ride was on my uncle's 69 shovelhead hardtail built like the bike in this, but with a diamond-shaped tank, rather than teardrop. Memories ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

This is what i mean about to many terms i love you guys but now you will ad something with a name you make up out of thin air and people will think its something they need to know or that they don't know and more confusion starts.

what if it was called k1 or k2?

You guys see what i mean and please dont be mad im just speaking like everyone else. No disrespect

This is a forum that is titled, "vocal technique" and my post is clearly about vocal technique. Even the original post was a question that could only be answered by people that have insights to vocal technique.

We all then engaged in a lively discussion that was mostly about vocal technique and we all learned a lot from it. I hope you did too. Now, a combination of Dante's ideas and my work has been combined to develop a system that helps singers and eliminates confusion, not creates more. No experienced member on this forum would ever belittle any noteworthy research that has been done by a professional research team to create a better solution for explaining the notorious regarding how to define registers or my efforts to develop new ideas to help singers .... that were forged out of our discussions held here on this forum!? That's cool! Why would you attempt to belittle that?

When I have made efforts to compliment Dan in front of the community here at TMV World Forum and show mutual respect several times, he tries to belittle my efforts and accuses me of making things up. That is an insult. I should be reading a post that is more along the lines of, "wow, great job Rob... that is actually a good idea and its cool how you took the information from this forum and developed something new and helpful for singers".

Lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I'm still on board with you Dan. This is exactly what I have been trying to say.

Really, you have been trying to say that ideas designed to eliminate confusion in vocal technique are actually creating more confusion and that my ideas and a famous research team that has developed the vibratory mechanism idea for registers are just 'things made up"?

Hmm, noted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert I love how you are trying to help as well as everybody. I think there are 2 schools one is more term and wordy singers and that's how they connect and the others are sensation based.

I in know way would try and belittle you. I really hope that's not what you think and I totally thank you for this forum where we can share ideas

Sorry for the confusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Dan, it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of people would not be dumbfounded. Many people on this forum know exactly what curbing means more than I think you know... go ahead and challenge CVI on this forum Dan... I dare you... you'll get your ass handed to you.

And yet still, let's get back to your point, can we? CVI is creating more confusion for people with their pedagogy and when Cathrine Sadolin created the terms curbing, edge, metal, etc.... based on research, experience and a lifetime of teaching .... she was just "grabbing things out of the air" that had resulted in having no value to students of singing?

Like I said, what ever dude... :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said if you have cvi you know what curbing is, but you have to have it. That's all I'm saying I didn't say cvi or pillars wasnt helpful.(and I'm not gonna challenge anyone) This was just something guys were talking about with terms and I interjected. That's it

Again I'm sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I am not a 'cvi' person, but I know what 'curbing' is and understand its merits as a voice coach. People that dedicate their lives to figuring this stuff out are not just 'making things up in the air'. We are all, including you, suppose to be helping singers around the world to sing better, in part by, trying to be knowledgable and innovative about how to do that.

If anyone, Dante, me, CVI, the French register research team come up with something that adds more knowledge to the lexicon of singing for all to share for possibly generations to come, its a good thing. No, its an honorable thing. Hats off to anyone that attempts to write a book on vocal technique or comes up with new ideas so that they might help others.

Yes, this stuff can be DAMN confusing! But just because its confusing, doesn't mean it wouldn't be less confusing if it wasn't there. If these methods and ideas were not there what would we have? Pushing and choking on high notes and singing like dog S***. I mean, without methods, techniques, schools, books on singing, etc... are we to assume it would be less confusing?

Apology accepted Dan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, the BBC special starts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmauTTi7awA

It's the first part out of seven; the rest are in the links bar to the right. Bear in mind it's aimed at the general public though, so precious little nuts-and-bolts there :)

Also, thanks for the clarification on the IA-action, you're right of course :)

Remy, the more decibels/less Singer's formant is what I think is happening to Belting too, yeah :) I just don't think Belting is especially safe, since it requires a great deal of control in order to be so, and even then it's still a heavy-mechanism heavy-duty action. With headvoice tones, once you get the hang of it, you get a decent effect even if you're not 100% focused and it's so much easier on the cords, while if you belt and you're not 100% focused your sound falls apart and/or you blow out your voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, the BBC special starts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmauTTi7awA

It's the first part out of seven; the rest are in the links bar to the right. Bear in mind it's aimed at the general public though, so precious little nuts-and-bolts there :)

Also, thanks for the clarification on the IA-action, you're right of course :)

Remy, the more decibels/less Singer's formant is what I think is happening to Belting too, yeah :) I just don't think Belting is especially safe, since it requires a great deal of control in order to be so, and even then it's still a heavy-mechanism heavy-duty action. With headvoice tones, once you get the hang of it, you get a decent effect even if you're not 100% focused and it's so much easier on the cords, while if you belt and you're not 100% focused your sound falls apart and/or you blow out your voice.

Great Video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, the BBC special starts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmauTTi7awA

It's the first part out of seven; the rest are in the links bar to the right. Bear in mind it's aimed at the general public though, so precious little nuts-and-bolts there :)

Also, thanks for the clarification on the IA-action, you're right of course :)

Remy, the more decibels/less Singer's formant is what I think is happening to Belting too, yeah :) I just don't think Belting is especially safe, since it requires a great deal of control in order to be so, and even then it's still a heavy-mechanism heavy-duty action. With headvoice tones, once you get the hang of it, you get a decent effect even if you're not 100% focused and it's so much easier on the cords, while if you belt and you're not 100% focused your sound falls apart and/or you blow out your voice.

Trip, the safety issue is where I'm going to disagree with you. Belting isn't really unsafe for a trained singer and it's doubtful that someone like Barbara Streisand or Idina Menzel who have been doing it for years needs 100% focus to do it. They could probably belt in their sleep. After a while, the setup becomes muscle memory just like anything else.

Personally, I've never strained my voice by belting. I don't blow out my voice if the setup is imperfect, I just end up with a sound that's not particularly desirable. I had that happen quite a bit while learning headvoice as well. And I do know what strain feels like, because before I did any vocal training I'd attempt to push my chest up to hit A4's and Bb4's (both well above my break) and my voice would be irritated as hell both immediately following the attempt and the next day. Never once had that problem or anything like it with belting.

I will say that I think it's important to learn headvoice before learning how to belt. It teaches you to reach higher notes by resisting the breath rather than forcing it. Belting is the same fundamental principle of resisting the breath, only you're using more effort to resist the breath in order to get a weightier sound. If you approach belting incorrectly from a "pushing the chest" perspective, as many people incorrectly do, you probably will strain by forcing air. But, if properly done, it's not at all harsh on the folds at all and you can feel that you're singing properly, just as you would with headvoice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I fail to understand how it's different from headvoice.

If belting has a thick-folds setup, then it *is* pushing the chest, since the thick-folds setup isn't usually designed to sound musical in the G4-B4 (or even C5) range, not to mention it's hard on the folds by definition, unless you're very athletic in the support department. Barbra Streisand and Idina Menzel both have used head-voice for their top notes (maybe not all the time, but still), identifiable by the fact that they can swell and diminish their tone, something the belt setup can't do. Also, I can't believe that the F5s Idina Menzel sings as the Evil Witch in Wicked are belted notes.

But if belting isn't pushing chest, and I think that's what you're actually saying, then it's a balanced head/chest musculature, which is the description of good headvoice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I fail to understand how it's different from headvoice.

If belting has a thick-folds setup, then it *is* pushing the chest, since the thick-folds setup isn't usually designed to sound musical in the G4-B4 (or even C5) range, not to mention it's hard on the folds by definition, unless you're very athletic in the support department. Barbra Streisand and Idina Menzel both have used head-voice for their top notes (maybe not all the time, but still), identifiable by the fact that they can swell and diminish their tone, something the belt setup can't do. Also, I can't believe that the F5s Idina Menzel sings as the Evil Witch in Wicked are belted notes.

But if belting isn't pushing chest, and I think that's what you're actually saying, then it's a balanced head/chest musculature, which is the description of good headvoice.

Trip, Barbara Streisand and Idina Menzel use their headvoice far more than they belt. Belting isn't meant to be used as a substitute for headvoice. It's meant to add something extra, usually towards the end of a song. In Defying Gravity she sings the high notes in headvoice throughout the entire song up until just before 4:40 (although she may be belting a couple notes here and there in the part before that where she sings the chorus with Chenoweth).

But in that last part just before 4:40, you can hear that her tone shifts audibly from a cry to a shout and that's the difference, in terms of sound, between headvoice and belting. And considering that the female vocal tract is much smaller than the male one, and considering that belting is different than forcing, I don't have the least bit of trouble believing that she's belting an F5.

It's not hard on the folds because you are using your support to hold back the air. That kind of ability, like anything else, comes with practice and at their experience level it's second nature to engage that support they need.

The folds can be thicker because the entire body is being used to help them resist the air flow and there is far more work in the body to do this than when you're singing with a thinner fold head voice tone. Pushing chest (the strenuous way) occurs when you force more air through your vocal folds to keep them thick on higher pitches. You can generally hear a breathy sound when someone is pushing their chest, because the folds aren't properly resisting the breath. They've also observed on the laryngoscopes that in belting, the thyroid cartilage isn't tilting like it does in headvoice.

So if you want to think of belting as an extension of the head voice rather than the chest voice, that's certainly one way to do it. Again, the Estill method doesn't define chest, head, mixed, or middle voices.

But regardless of where you place it in terms of registers, it has a weightier or "chestier" sound than your typical head voice tone and it uses more of the folds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trip

Thanks for the video. I quite enjoyed it. And please, don't let me be right. I do like some disagreement, because it is when I learn the most. ;)

This is key and the very thing I've been saying all along in this thread. It is of utmost importance to never, ever let the sound get airy, especially when trying to do something very chesty/intense, because you will kill yourself. You must ALWAYS resist the air. Otherwise, you're just blasting the cords, and giving yourself a quick recipe to vocal damage.

~~Dante~~

AMEN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

yes, but it comes in steps. the first requisite is you need to strengthen the head voice so you produce less breathy notes, and you learn to produce tones in the lower range using the head voice musculature. if you don't develop sufficient strength in this area first you'll make the piercing, or as frisell says "the coupling part" way to difficult.

once this is accomplished, (months to years depending on the singer) you'll start to develop a rich, deep, adducted, hooty-sounding head voice capable of being very resonant. believe me, i know firsthand. i have it.

but you have to realize this hooty rich head voice is just that, and nothing more at this point. you cannot use this voice (in most cases) in and of itself because it does not include the carrying power of the chest voice.

next, you'll begin to notice that if you apply a greater breath pressure (a lean, a stress) along with an appropriate engagement of more fold you will start to develop a tone that will ring and project and you'll be creating a voice that is now using both head and chest voice "musculature."

this is called the mixed voice and it is by and large your performing voice.

the real "voice" is the mixed voice is varying percentages. but without training the musculatures of the head and chest voice they will remain inherantly antagonistic to each other. they are essentially opposing musculatures.

that's why there's a passagio..this is the area of the voice where these musculatures fight each other for control.

what frisell's method does is teach you to sing with a coupled cooperation coming from each musculature.

so the other side means you have "swelled the tone" and made it something more than just a hooty, head voice.

frisell said (and i agree) some singers think they can sing songs with just head voice musculature and pass as singers. but the reality is the chest voice musculature must be included to some extent in the performing voice.

also, i just wanted to mention that both he and steve fraser told me that you can expect your singing voice to suffer a bit while developing this.

have i helped?

wow this advice really helped me. I think I'll start doing that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, you have been trying to say that ideas designed to eliminate confusion in vocal technique are actually creating more confusion and that my ideas and a famous research team that has developed the vibratory mechanism idea for registers are just 'things made up"?

Hmm, noted...

Rob I didn't see this comment before.

To answer your question I firmly believe in what you're doing and I greatly appreciate what you bring to the singing world. I have learned many things from you and other members of this site. What you have done is simply amazing and you deserve to get more recognition for this.

Your new way of compiling these ideas is very informative and simple. I think it gives us a great reference of the science and technique. All I am saying is we have to make sure that people understand that there is a difference between what we "need" to actively control and what can be done with the right mindset/intention.

I did not mean any disrespect with my comment. I am just here to help the singing community to improve and progress towards greater things in the future. I understand that this is your business and you are a great teacher, but I just want to make sure we never settle for anything less and keep excellence as a goal for our futures.

I feel that we can learn to work together with all of our different "perspectives" and change the world. There are some people that will achieve better results with your method, my method, Dante's method, Bob's method, Ron's Method, Dan's Method, and so on and so forth. What we should ALL focus on is the big picture! :)

We love to sing and we LOVE to help people become better singers. This is our mission lets do it together without all of the back and forth comments about the same old BS. I have a lot of respect for you Rob and I hope this has clarified my previous statement.

We have to learn to work together instead of having this every man for himself attitude. We can all learn something from one another, so I thank you for helping to influence my outlook.

Keep up the GREAT work!

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...