Jump to content

Terminology/mumbo jumbo vs. Learning to sing.

Rate this topic


izzle1989
 Share

Recommended Posts

I decided to make this thread because sometimes as students and teachers we get so caught up in labeling something that we fail to look at the big picture.

Chest voice, head voice, mixed voice, blending, passagio, and all this other bs is what is causing soooooooo much confusion within the singing world. We are so concerned with labeling and stating our own beliefs that we tend to forget about what is important.

At the end of the day we can all become great singers if we have the correct guidance and wok ethic, but all of these labels just limit the voice they don't help it. Any thoughts??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If your computer breaks down what do you do? - you google the problem and/or ask people for help, in which case systematic breakdown of the problem helps.

If your computer runs smooth what do you do - continue as usual.

Also if you don't like techno mumbo jumbo bs you picked the wrong forum LOL :)

Also I'm getting a bit bored with this forum in general since I feel there is too much philosophical talk, too much unecessary, too much arguing and lack of real time problem-solving... I think there are a lot of frustrated people digging deep into stuff they think might help but things I doubt will make any practical difference, singing is not that complex but you might need some tips and pointers along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your computer breaks down what do you do? - you google the problem and/or ask people for help, in which case systematic breakdown of the problem helps.

If your computer runs smooth what do you do - continue as usual.

Also if you don't like techno mumbo jumbo bs you picked the wrong forum LOL :)

I do like the mumbo jumbo and I am studying it in college. What I am saying is maybe we need to find better ways to convey the message and spend less time arguing over who's method is the best. There are many routes to Rome, but all are not equal.

Many of these terms only limit our potential not promote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the tech talk is just people trying to get a solid grasp on the voice as an instrument. Whether or not vocal terms help you or make things harder for you is probably individual, as you said, many routes to Rome.

Maybe we should try and post clips with every question/statement so that the stuff discussed would become less in theory and more in practise, so we could look past all the useless stuff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere else possibly in this forum. Give something a name then you can learn to control that thing.

That will at least give you a starting point or direction to go in.

I do agree that there may be too many labels for the same vocal configuration. But what one may not understand using one term he may understand using another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said on a few oportunities before, decoupled from pratical application, they are meaningless. They are used to build a system of solid methods and references that once trainned, allows one to access and control key mechanisms of your voice, most of the times, they are descriptions based on sensations.

Once you turn chest or head into something that you can use to sing with quality and comfort, only then they become something tangible, and only for you.

If I have a difficult song, I mark all the places where head or chest choices are important, so for me its something real. For another person, they may have no clue of what it is, have a different implementation of the technique or have a different point of passaggio.

All implementations THAT WORK have a lot in common though, and the clear definition of each of these must happen. Doesnt matter if you call it twang, forward placement, witch voice or a tripple mortal back vowel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your computer breaks down what do you do? - you google the problem and/or ask people for help, in which case systematic breakdown of the problem helps.

I have a stupid question. If the computer breaks down, how does it operate enough to open the browser and search Google.

Kind of like, the lights go out, so how does one see to solve the problem.

Just wonderin ...

I happen to be an electrician, by trade. And we have lots of technical terms. But the first thing I teach new helpers is this:

Electricity seeks the shortest route to ground. Stay out of its way.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I decided to make this thread because sometimes as students and teachers we get so caught up in labeling something that we fail to look at the big picture.

Chest voice, head voice, mixed voice, blending, passagio, and all this other bs is what is causing soooooooo much confusion within the singing world. We are so concerned with labeling and stating our own beliefs that we tend to forget about what is important.

At the end of the day we can all become great singers if we have the correct guidance and wok ethic, but all of these labels just limit the voice they don't help it. Any thoughts??

For starters, I am a voice teacher so there is no "getting caught up" into anything, its what I do for a living and it is what thousands of my clients enjoy from me and other teachers every day. Given the demand, it is hardly BS what we do here.

Did you originally come here to get help on vocal technique, or did you come here to play singer-sing-a-long? What really is the purpose of this forum? If you just want to sing, I can refer you to the "Critique my Singing" forum and you can just worry about singing over there.

If vocal technique discussions confuse you, I suggest you hunker down and keep reading and learning more about it, instead of concluding that it is the source of so much confusion and its BS? Is it these terms that is the source of confusion or is it the lack of understanding and knowledge of the confused?

I'm probably confused about your point, but its a little weird Izz. I guess what you are trying to say is let's not lose focus of the end game of singing, the art form we use technique to train for? Ok... but singing without technique would be a complete bore to me, if not a total waste of time. I'm not doing this just to get by with the least amount of effort and I'm not doing this just to have fun. I want to pursue some sophistication and be a little bit scholarly about things... without that, there would be a bunch of people shouting as they try to 'hit high notes" and the only thing that would be BS is the crappy singing we would have to endure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, I am a voice teacher so there is no "getting caught up" into anything, its what I do for a living and it is what thousands of my clients enjoy from me and other teachers every day. Given the demand, it is hardly BS what we do here.

Did you originally come here to get help on vocal technique, or did you come here to play singer-sing-a-long? What really is the purpose of this forum? If you just want to sing, I can refer you to the "Critique my Singing" forum and you can just worry about singing over there.

If vocal technique discussions confuse you, I suggest you hunker down and keep reading and learning more about it, instead of concluding that it is the source of so much confusion and its BS? Is it these terms that is the source of confusion or is it the lack of understanding and knowledge of the confused?

I'm probably confused about your point, but its a little weird Izz. I guess what you are trying to say is let's not lose focus of the end game of singing, the art form we use technique to train for? Ok... but singing without technique would be a complete bore to me, if not a total waste of time. I'm not doing this just to get by with the least amount of effort and I'm not doing this just to have fun. I want to pursue some sophistication and be a little bit scholarly about things... without that, there would be a bunch of people shouting as they try to 'hit high notes" and the only thing that would be BS is the crappy singing we would have to endure.

Great point! I realize that I didn't properly convey what I was trying to say with the text that I have written. I do find technique talk useful I love it. I was just stating that some things don't really need to be stated or need to be re-evaluated because of confusion and limitations it places on our voices.

I am mainly directing it towards training registers. I understand that we train registers to strengthen the primary muscles that control them, but many times just knowing that you have registers can limit your range.

For example I use to think that I had a chest voice and a head voice, but now that I try to think of it as one voice now I can maintain more chest like coordination further up the scale. When I thought of it as registers I would anticipate a break so I would either flip to falsetto or try to shout the higher pitches. Now that I think of it as one voice I try to keep both head and chest present throughout my range.

I really believe these skype sessions will help us to fully understand each other.

Hey Rob will you be included in any of these sessions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I didn't mean to say all of these labels, but many of these labels. I guess I have similar beliefs to Felipe since we can fully understand if all of us are talking about the same thing. I guess what I am trying to say is we should always strive to have one voice and many of the "breaks" that we have could be created by ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we (amature, new student, beginner) do not need to know all the terminalogy about the muscles and cartiledge. But we as beginners do use the terms Chest voice, Head voice, Middle voice. We know what we mean by these terms and so do you as teachers. For us the passagio is there because we experience it. Maybe it should not be there. But it is. And maybe middle voice is just a balancing act. But there are little tricks that you do to help you maintain balance. Modify vowels depending on if you use light mechanism or heavy mechanism or use squillo or twang. These terms yes we do need to know what they mean and how to use them.

Even you guys who know how to do this stuff tell of the difficulties to balance in passagio and you discuss the "magic Bullets " that you use to help you stay in whatever configuration that you are using. You tell of practicing on your own for years and not getting any where Until you learned...(fill in the blank it is different for everybody). The point is you learned some piece of this puzzle that gave you the insentive to train harder and in the proper direction. Whatever it was it had a name that you could finally identify with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

ok, I understand... Thinking of registers in the old "c/h" metaphor is outdated and it can create problems for some people exactly as you are describing. Coincidentally, I am doing a revision of "Pillars 2.0" right now that will include several new updates and ideas... one is the new "TVS Onset Group"... a list of 6 specialized onsets and their respective work flows used for trouble-shooting different problems when training TVS workouts... I love it, its just great! The discussion we had about more chesty musculature inspired by Dante and his gang evolved into one of these six specialized onsets, the are; Track & Release, Quack & Release, Contract & Release, Wind & Release, Attack & Release and Messa di Voce. Each specialized onset has its own advantages and purpose for using it... details described in my forth coming update and video...

The other thing that is being updated across Pillars 2.0 is a retirement of the 'c/h' metaphor, to be replaced with the more accurate and modern register classifications based on vibratory mechanism in the larynx, or what level of activation is occurring at the vocal folds... some of you may be familiar with this, others that are not, will soon be... this is the future; (M=mechanism), M0, M1, M2, M3.

- M0: essentially fry

- M1: essentially classic chest voice

- M2: essentially classic head voice above the passaggio

- M3: essentially flageolet or phonations above the 2nd bridge (A4+ for men)

The system was developed by a team of researchers in France. In any case, new copies of Pillars 2.0 will rarely refer to the old "c/h" metaphors and will be replaced by the vibratory mechanism classifications... which gets me to your point Izz... if you think of the registers in this new system, it will help eliminate a lot of the confusion that can come from the 'c/h' idea.

I will say this however, the 'c/h' idea still has value. It is useful when dealing with raw, noob beginners that you just don't want to start digging into focal fold mass, formants and harmonics with... this stuff could be too complicated in some situations in the beginning and probably the best reason for hanging onto it from time to time is just simply because its easy. Everyone knows what the hell it means when you use it. It may just be a metaphor, but its a good one. I think as long as students and teachers understand its just a metaphor, its ok to use it from time to time, provided you don't get pounced on for using it by hard core members of the TMV World Forum... LOL.... But as far as my book is concerned where things need to be as accurate and cutting-edge as possible, the OFFICIAL and final word on register classification at TVS is the new "M0,M1,M2,M3" system... you will see me using it more often now in my postings...

Here is some information on it from my research for Pillars 2.0.1:

In the voice, we can change the muscle tension and the pressure to vary the pitch. However, to cover a range of a few octaves, we usually need to use different registers (Garcia, 1855). The distinctions among registers in singing are not always clear, however, because changing registers corresponds to both laryngeal and vocal tract adjustments (Miller, 2000). The vocal folds can vibrate in (at least) four different ways, called mechanisms (Roubeau et al., 2004; Henrich, 2006).

Mechanism 0 (M0) is also called ‘creak’ or ‘vocal fry’. Here the tension of the folds is so low that the vibration is not periodic (meaning that successive vibrations have substantially different lengths). M0 sounds low but has no clear pitch (Hollien and Michel, 1968). Experiment: if you hum softly the lowest note you can and then go lower, you will probably produce M0.

Mechanism 1 (M1) is usually associated with what women singers call the ‘chest’ register and men call their normal voice. This is used to produce low and medium pitches. In M1, virtually all of the mass and length of the vocal folds vibrates (Behnke, 1880) and frequency is regulated by muscular tension (Hirano et al., 1970) but is also affected by air pressure. The glottis opens for a relatively short fraction of a vibration period (Henrich et al., 2005).

Mechanism 2 (M2) is associated with the ‘head’ register of women and the‘falsetto’ register in men. It is used to produce medium and high pitches for women, and high frequencies for men. In M2, a reduced fraction of the vocal fold mass vibrates. The moving section involves about two thirds of their length, but less of the breadth. The glottis is open for a longer fraction of the vibration period (Henrich et al., 2005).

Hate to be arguing with the researchers here, but I'm not sure this is the proper explanation of how M2 actually works. To be sure, as far as I'm concerned, it definitely is not referred to as "Falsetto". I'm surprised at how many top researchers themselves still classify head voice as "Falsetto" and are not grasping the delineation between the register of head voice/m2 vs the vocal mode known as Falsetto? Just goes to show you that having a bunch of degrees does not guarantee that you cannot still be confused about some things. People that have no experience working with vocal mode pedagogy concepts, seem to make this mistake. With all due respect, I have even heard Dr. Titze refer to "Falsetto" in the context of a register... :rolleyes:

Mechanism 3 (M3) is sometimes used to describe the production of the highest range of pitches, known as the ‘whistle’ or ‘flageolet’ register (not to be confused with whistling) (Miller and Shutte, 1993). Little has been published on this: we have been researching it lately and have published two papers on it (Garnier et al, 2010; 2012).

Hope this helps...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Izzle,

The thing that can make all of this confusing is not everyone NEEDS to know these terms. If everything is working just fine with your voice, then continue to do whatever it is that you're doing -- you don't need to do anything differently. However, if you're having a problem, then these terms become meaningful because they help you to conceptualize what you are doing and how to move from point A to point B. The thing is, many times when singers are trying to assess themselves, they start trying to use ideas which are not relevant to their particular vocal situation. That's sometimes when these terms start to seem meaningless.

Furthermore, a lot of these vocal ideas and terms are really just temporary things to move you from one point in development to another. It is something I emphasize in lessons with people. You might just have to think about things in a particular way for a certain period of time to help you to progress, then once you reach a certain stage, those concepts are no longer useful to you and you disregard them. For many people at a certain stage, thinking of the voice as two registers (or sometimes more) IS very helpful to get them to a certain point. But then, that concept no longer becomes useful and you conceive of the voice differently, perhaps as one register or something else. But often times, to tell a person, especially a beginner, to just think of the voice as one register without giving them the proper tools to do so is a futile endeavor because it's something that too far away for them to reach.

Many times once we've come to understand how our voices work, we undervalue all the little steps and intermediary ideas that helped us get from one point to the next, and instead just only think about the "big things" and end conclusions that we came to. While it is great to just be able to open your mouth and sing, don't forget all the steps you had to go through to be able to do that.

~~Dante~~

You are right and I would like to apologize to anyone who I have confused by making this statement. I guess at this point I am beginning to understand just how simple training the voice can be. I guess it is only simple because of all of the trials and tribulation I had to go through to get to this point.

I do find everything that I have learned and that has been stated on this forum useful since it is really setting in stone a lot of things I have been through and am continuing to go through.

I just thought we should remember that we only have one set of vocal folds that we need to use and there are not two voices unless we make it that way by not using the upper voice as often as we use the lower.

I do understand how all of these terms would make since to a complete newbie my bad everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, I understand... Thinking of registers in the old "c/h" metaphor is outdated and it can create problems for some people exactly as you are describing. Coincidentally, I am doing a revision of "Pillars 2.0" right now that will include several new updates and ideas... one is the new "TVS Onset Group"... a list of 6 specialized onsets and their respective work flows used for trouble-shooting different problems when training TVS workouts... I love it, its just great! The discussion we had about more chesty musculature inspired by Dante and his gang evolved into one of these six specialized onsets, the are; Track & Release, Quack & Release, Contract & Release, Wind & Release, Attack & Release and Messa di Voce. Each specialized onset has its own advantages and purpose for using it... details described in my forth coming update and video...

The other thing that is being updated across Pillars 2.0 is a retirement of the 'c/h' metaphor, to be replaced with the more accurate and modern register classifications based on vibratory mechanism in the larynx, or what level of activation is occurring at the vocal folds... some of you may be familiar with this, others that are not, will soon be... this is the future; (M=mechanism), M0, M1, M2, M3.

- M0: essentially fry

- M1: essentially classic chest voice

- M2: essentially classic head voice above the passaggio

- M3: essentially flageolet or phonations above the 2nd bridge (A4+ for men)

The system was developed by a team of researchers in France. In any case, new copies of Pillars 2.0 will rarely refer to the old "c/h" metaphors and will be replaced by the vibratory mechanism classifications... which gets me to your point Izz... if you think of the registers in this new system, it will help eliminate a lot of the confusion that can come from the 'c/h' idea.

I will say this however, the 'c/h' idea still has value. It is useful when dealing with raw, noob beginners that you just don't want to start digging into focal fold mass, formants and harmonics with... this stuff could be too complicated in some situations in the beginning and probably the best reason for hanging onto it from time to time is just simply because its easy. Everyone knows what the hell it means when you use it. It may just be a metaphor, but its a good one. I think as long as students and teachers understand its just a metaphor, its ok to use it from time to time, provided you don't get pounced on for using it by hard core members of the TMV World Forum... LOL.... But as far as my book is concerned where things need to be as accurate and cutting-edge as possible, the OFFICIAL and final word on register classification at TVS is the new "M0,M1,M2,M3" system... you will see me using it more often now in my postings...

Here is some information on it from my research for Pillars 2.0.1:

In the voice, we can change the muscle tension and the pressure to vary the pitch. However, to cover a range of a few octaves, we usually need to use different registers (Garcia, 1855). The distinctions among registers in singing are not always clear, however, because changing registers corresponds to both laryngeal and vocal tract adjustments (Miller, 2000). The vocal folds can vibrate in (at least) four different ways, called mechanisms (Roubeau et al., 2004; Henrich, 2006).

Mechanism 0 (M0) is also called ‘creak’ or ‘vocal fry’. Here the tension of the folds is so low that the vibration is not periodic (meaning that successive vibrations have substantially different lengths). M0 sounds low but has no clear pitch (Hollien and Michel, 1968). Experiment: if you hum softly the lowest note you can and then go lower, you will probably produce M0.

Mechanism 1 (M1) is usually associated with what women singers call the ‘chest’ register and men call their normal voice. This is used to produce low and medium pitches. In M1, virtually all of the mass and length of the vocal folds vibrates (Behnke, 1880) and frequency is regulated by muscular tension (Hirano et al., 1970) but is also affected by air pressure. The glottis opens for a relatively short fraction of a vibration period (Henrich et al., 2005).

Mechanism 2 (M2) is associated with the ‘head’ register of women and the‘falsetto’ register in men. It is used to produce medium and high pitches for women, and high frequencies for men. In M2, a reduced fraction of the vocal fold mass vibrates. The moving section involves about two thirds of their length, but less of the breadth. The glottis is open for a longer fraction of the vibration period (Henrich et al., 2005).

Mechanism 3 (M3) is sometimes used to describe the production of the highest range of pitches, known as the ‘whistle’ or ‘flageolet’ register (not to be confused with whistling) (Miller and Shutte, 1993). Little has been published on this: we have been researching it lately and have published two papers on it (Garnier et al, 2010; 2012).

Okay this post makes a lot more sense to me. I appreciate it!

My main point was that the voice should gradually make changes instead of having abrupt changes due to the c/h

Classification. Everything should have a gradual shift. When I sing in head voice I try to maintain more of the chest/cord depth and when I sing in chest voice I try to maintain some of the feeling that I have in pure head voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Okay this post makes a lot more sense to me. I appreciate it!

My main point was that the voice should gradually make changes instead of having abrupt changes due to the c/h

Classification. Everything should have a gradual shift. When I sing in head voice I try to maintain more of the chest/cord depth and when I sing in chest voice I try to maintain some of the feeling that I have in pure head voice.

Hey Izz, yes it should be a gradual shift... I think the TVS way of looking at this idea is really cool if I may (and I believe you are a TVS client, are you not?)... The TVS Phonation Package is a collection of physiological and acoustic components that are activated and balanced together to make up a high performance phonation. When we train with sirens, for example, the Phonation Package components calibrate with each other in and effort to remain balanced as the phonation package moves through pitch and time. Izz, this is what "The Geometry of Vocal Technique" x/y intercept graph on the back cover of Pillars 2.0 is essentially trying to say. It is saying that all this stuff... moves in a fluid movement and calibrates through pitch and time. So yes, it has to be fluid... your right... even through the hard parts/break, vowel modifications, engaging vocal distortion/effects, etc... I think you get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, on a lot of these papers, we dont have one very important information, the recording of what the singer was doing on each of the measurements, and the recording of what the researchers means by "usually associated with"...

Id rather look at a bunch of raw numbers and graphs of muscular activity. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

While I like where you are going with the M0-M3 classification, my question is where do you draw the distinction between all of them? I mean, there is nothing objective to say where one ends and the other begins. I've seen this model used before (click here), and it has many of the same limitations as the chest voice/head voice model. No one has or even can clearly define where one ends and one begins, because the voice is such a fluid mechanism. I mean, unless someone is hooked up to an EMG machine during their voice lessons, how can they really know which of the modes they are in? It's somewhat subjective. You yourself probably know what you mean by each of those terms and where you draw the boundaries, but what do you do when you get to the grey areas? How can you be sure that the next person is going to perceive it exactly the same way that you do?

~~Dante~~

This is a great post. Every pitch should be able to be accessed without running into a break or switching registers(Ideally) I'm just saying maybe we could do a lot better with figuring out how to convey this more accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Robert,

While I like where you are going with the M0-M3 classification, my question is where do you draw the distinction between all of them? I mean, there is nothing objective to say where one ends and the other begins. I've seen this model used before (click here), and it has many of the same limitations as the chest voice/head voice model. No one has or even can clearly define where one ends and one begins, because the voice is such a fluid mechanism. I mean, unless someone is hooked up to an EMG machine during their voice lessons, how can they really know which of the modes they are in? It's somewhat subjective. You yourself probably know what you mean by each of those terms and where you draw the boundaries, but what do you do when you get to the grey areas? How can you be sure that the next person is going to perceive it exactly the same way that you do?

~~Dante~~

Well, this new system may not be perfect either Dante, but it seems to be a step further into better science then the old metaphor stuff. However, I think exactly because of your point, the old school 'c/h' metaphor will remain in my talk-track from time to time. If I overlay the vibratory mechanisms system to my understanding and perception of registration in my own voice, I think its pretty clear. Think less about the vibratory mechanism... and just think about "fry, chest, head & flageolet". For me, it just adds a little extra science to the story and credibility to the book. I can just as easily train and work with the old metaphors, but I choose to migrate to this system for the benefit of people that would scrutinize such things... not my clients. The clients of Pillars 2.0 really don't give a rip... its more for my teachers, mentors, the industry, people like Steve who would call me out for not using the more scientific terms. You have to take things like that into consideration when you write a book, not just your clients, but your colleagues and the industry if you want something that will be lasting and will have a chance to enjoy a legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this new system may not be perfect either Dante, but it seems to be a step further into better science then the old metaphor stuff. However, I think exactly because of your point, the old school 'c/h' metaphor will remain in my talk-track from time to time. If I overlay the vibratory mechanisms system to my understanding and perception of registration in my own voice, I think its pretty clear. Think less about the vibratory mechanism... and just think about "fry, chest, head & flageolet". For me, it just adds a little extra science to the story and credibility to the book. I can just as easily train and work with the old metaphors, but I choose to migrate to this system for the benefit of people that would scrutinize such things... not my clients. The clients of Pillars 2.0 really don't give a rip... its more for my teachers, mentors, the industry, people like Steve who would call me out for not using the more scientific terms. You have to take things like that into consideration when you write a book, not just your clients, but your colleagues and the industry if you want something that will be lasting and will have a chance to enjoy a legacy.

This is a great post which really cleared a lot of things up. Also I am not a client I just stumble upon this site when doing a search for vocal technique forums. I checked this site out and really found a lot of concrete info that me and my voice teacher talk about in school.

I am a singer/athlete who loves to expand on the craft that I am trying to perfect. I like to look at many things from an anatomy basic and a kinematic way. When I sing I try to find the best technique, when I sprint I try to find the best technique, and when I attempt any skill I look for the best technique first.

I am just a technically really nit picky person LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read about one way of deciding where someone goes "out" of a particular register and where they enter another - you make them sing an upward scale in a light, unsupported voice. The point where they start to feel tension is the point where they should start doing things differently when they sing "for real". (Some people who are enough in-touch with their body naturally start switching registers, but they are very few.)

It's still subjective - some tough guys/gals will try to go higher before admitting they're feeling tension, - but it's a nice diagnostic, I think. I've found it out to be true for me, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to make this thread because sometimes as students and teachers we get so caught up in labeling something that we fail to look at the big picture.

Chest voice, head voice, mixed voice, blending, passagio, and all this other bs is what is causing soooooooo much confusion within the singing world. We are so concerned with labeling and stating our own beliefs that we tend to forget about what is important.

At the end of the day we can all become great singers if we have the correct guidance and wok ethic, but all of these labels just limit the voice they don't help it. Any thoughts??

Izzy, Let me be sure I'm understanding you because I think there is some confusion. I don't think you are saying that technique is not important, but you are saying that the "scientific names" of the technique and its details is what is perhaps not so important.

As a voice coach, of course I think technique is important, if not, what would we teach, and why would a singer even need us, let alone PAY us? I suspect that, like me, every voice teacher eventually develops over time a very specific technique language and vocabulary, unique to them, that the student must master in order to learn from them. While I personally find the technical debates here important, and sort of fascinating, is it something we necessarily need to pass on to our students? This Forum, or perhaps even the Vocal Science Forum is the place where such debates can and should flourish.

Good technique is what makes the difference between a great singer and one who is not. I find I use mental images based on what singers seem to be able to imagine and feel. My clients, however, who sing primarily country, rock, pop and Christian have never seemed to respond well to technical terms. When I start to use technical terms and Latin names for body parts, I can see their eyes glaze over and turn away. That they understand the RGW language of vocal technique is what is most important and I try to keep the focus on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the best help i got was when i started thinking in terms of head and chest voice musculatures. (frisell).

not voices, but musculatures.

then i went to fold depths...various degrees of fold involvement.

and then support, experimenting with various levels of support from light all the way to appoggio.

it helped me greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dan, i respect what you have gone through and i apprecaite that you want and can spare us all this stuff we fall prey to.

another thing i've figured out is vocal exercise can be many things, some of which have nothing to do with note hitting.

god help us.

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...