All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Hello I am gonna sing this song solo with my theatre class on saturday. Do you think it will work? https://www.smule.com/recording/guy-sebastian-climb-every-mountain/1582100635_3050441687
  3. Good for you... it really is sad that some people are led to believe by ignorance that they can't pursue a dream. BS. Post my video link in there as well. Let them see it. Thanks.
  4. Exactly Robert which is why I posted this link there - https://thevocaliststudio.com/can-anyone-learn-to-sing in hopes that people won't listen to this person and rather not only listen to you but maybe actually take lessons from you.
  5. COMPLETE NONE SENSE... What this does, is broadcast to the world how ignorant and uninformed the person is that is posting comments like this. Is it not obvious?
  6. Yeah the statement is a bit silly when we take it at face value. No one is born a singer obviously, we can observe newborns and their vocal capabilities are rather restricted due to lack of coordination and simply not having a mature enough body. During growth slowly the skill for speech is acquired and perfected. Probably during this stage our experiences with music, singing and how our parents deal with us can have a huge influence. There are also personality aspects, certainly someone that is more creative, has more intelligence, or just downright loves to sing, will have an easier time to learn. How can we address all of this and know who is who before learning happenings? I don't think we can. And another way to look at it, is that people that have an easier time to learn, learn it *faster*. We could very well say that Talent = speed on getting results. And if you don't learn at the same speed, you have to put more time to it. I don't think there is a way to predict who is talented and it seems to me that effort can to a reasonable degree tilt this equation. Another aspect to this is that singing involves more than one skill. Sometimes people are not very talented with music in general due to lack of exposition early on, but once that barrier is overcome it flows nicely. Sometimes the person might have great musicianship and sensibility but lack the control to express what is in their minds. Due to all this I think that talent matters but you can only know how talented you are by actually trying. Often also, the fear of realizing this *potential* to whatever it may be, prevents a lot of people from giving a shot and truly commiting to learning.
  7. I saw a video about a deaf person who wanted to learn how to play music. As would be expected most teachers did not want to take her on and colleges would not accept her in the music programs. How do you teach a deaf person to recognize and reproduce pitches? One teacher did take her on and accepted her in a college course. I think she now has a PHD in music. First she started by Touching the walls of the studio to feel the different vibrations and the "Beat" of the music to get an idea of rhythm and syncopation. They ended up inventing a device that would give off a color that would correspond to different pitches and vibrations.She learned to imagine these colors while feeling the vibrations of sound. So, you can teach people to do things that others would think is impossible. I think being born with a natural talent is BS. You may be born with a natural desire to improve and work on your talent, or rather to pay attention and change the things that do not sound, feel or look right or correct to you. My brother had a desire to sing at a young age. To me he is a better singer than anyone else I have heard. People think he was born a natural singer, but I know he worked on every song he sang. If there was something he did not like about it he would work on it more. Even if he did not have formal training he did hang out with a LOT of different singers. I am sure the question was asked "How did you do that? and "How can I do that?". Or suggestions from other singers "You sounded a little off there. Try this." It was not that he opened his mouth and a beautiful expressive voice came out. I have had to "Work" on my voice, and I continue to work on it. I have plenty of work to do but I am way better now than I was 3 years ago and I have been "singing" since I was a toddler.
  8. Yeah I know that youtube comments are not the best way to get opinions but still as popular as youtube is if anyone sees a comment like this: Singing is mostly a talent you are born with. You can either sing or you can't sing. No amount of voice lessons or practice in the world is going to make you a good singer. It might discourage someone to actually get vocal lessons. Comments like this really agitate me but I did give a link from TMW and told this person I'd rather listen to someone like Robert than someone who hasn't a clue on how the voice works.
  9. Last week
  10. Hello i am new here.

  11. Is anyone understanding what I am suggesting here? At a certain point in the voice it is beneficial to narrow(constrict) or widen(expand) the entire pharynx to adjust pitch. Not just certain areas such as the mouth or Epiglottic sphincter. Is there a reason that I am off track? Also the difference between a strong Falsetto sounding High voice like Berry Gibb and a clean but adducted sound like DIO could be in whether or not the Piriform sinuses are closed off or open.
  12. People think of Pitch as a vocal fold configuration. A combination of Thickness of the vocal folds,How tight they are together, the length of the cords and perhaps how fast the air is flowing through them. As I mentioned before the voice has many different aspects that coincide with different instruments. Wind, reed, string etc. For example: A steam Whistle...Fixed tube and opening. Air pressure changes the pitch. As the steam pressure rises the pitch goes from low to high. How about those who make sounds with jugs of water: you blow across the top of the opening and the size of the chamber determines pitch. Adding and removing water changes the pitch. How hard you blow does not make a difference....just the SIZE of the tube, or space within the jug. A similar thing with Horns. How about a slide trombone? It is not the amount of air pressure but the length of tube that changes the pitch. And then of course you have the string aspect of changing the size of the thing that is vibrating, the vocal folds. The voice uses all of these. In vocal pedagogy normally ONLY the length or thickness of the vocal folds is taken into account, TA and CT involvement and HOW the vibration may be different. The other aspects are not taken into account when PITCH is discussed. I could be wrong but the term "Registers" for the voice came from the Pipe organ. I believe, in the pipe organ, one set of "Registers" consist of a certain number of Pipes of the same diameter but the length is different.This gives one set of pitches. once you get to a certain pitch the next "Register" is made of another set of pipes with the Same diameter to each other but different from the other "Register" with differing lengths for that group of pitches. What I do not know about the pipe organ is if Each "Register" has it own sound source or if the same source is channeled to each register.
  13. Exactly, I know that it is not the best way to "Sing" but having a mechanical description of a configuration will get you in the "Ball park" so to speak. A general area. There are sounds that I have never made before so when someone just says "Make this sound" and go from there...I am lost and have been lost. One is the "SOUND" of covering in the sense of Classical singing. The SOUND is a result of a configuration, not a cause. I have gotten closer because of some of your own videos, but that was because you used "Sounds" that I was familiar with and put them together. Like the Dopey Yawn sound and adding the "Sound" of twang to bring that dopey sound forward. Just experimenting a few minutes ago I could sing between E4 and G4 by just(it seemed to me) narrowing on purpose as described in this video. Did other things happen too? Probably. But I would lock up before without using a lot of effort. The only effort was Constricting(Lightly) above the larynx. Perhaps other things inside the larynx were able to do there thing easier because of the change in the pharynx.
  14. I think it's a plausible explanation for twang and it gives a mechanical context for it that, in my opinion, was pretty much lacking up to now, and with it the possibility of breaking it down and controlling on much more detail. For example, we can ask: Well what does it sound like when we do it? One of the replies is of course, twang, but that would be not very different from what we had before. But when we think of the mechanics there are consonants on Arabian languages for example that are based on articulation with epiglottal stops/fricatives/plosives/trills. What if we can use those sounds as a tool to map what is going on in that area? A gesture that is really no different from saying a consonant like T or P (just a different constriction place). I think something like this could be pretty significant because it allows precision when working with high intensity sounds, and with it more protection from injury and so forth. I do not see it as a replacement for other techniques, but twang is core to almost everything we do, if we can control it better... Ill try to put some samples together this weekend on a same song. My hope is to reach a clear definition that allows something like what I did with the *middle voice vowels* video, a step by step guide to it that works for a large number of people and relies less on imitation and more on simple mechanical gestures. Then again... It's not the first time I find some promising ideas on this sense lol
  15. What are your thoughts on the video? I have given all kinds of thoughts. Right or wrong they are only what was brought to my mind and a starting point for discussion. They do not need to be correct. Is it better or more beneficial to not use narrowing by consciously manipulating the pharynx or tongue root, or by trying to find these coordinations by Breath pressure, sound ideals and "Free" "Relaxed" throat?
  16. There are several books. Born to sing, Singing for the stars, Robert lunte's book Four Pillars of singing, There is one of those Dummy;s guide to singing, How to sing. The Basics are the Basics no matter who you go with. Learn to breathe, practice scales, practice matching notes, Practice holding notes without the pitch changing, and sing songs. For the money, Robert Lunte's course is the most comprehensive you could find.
  17. A course for someone who never had any lessons on how to sing or who wants to formally learn singing. In other words, when a child/young person go to a music/singing teacher to learn singing, the training they get is what I'm looking for in online format. I don't know how else to clarify this.
  18. Another few thoughts if there is anyone out there reading......I had a chance to try these ideas "the middle constrictor muscle" as the catalyst for twang and the Root of the Tongue for Squillo or just a means of getting better vocal fold closure...... Getting permission to USE the throat and its constrictors is almost like a birthday present to someone who keeps hearing "nothing in the throat" or "Open Throat". Also being ALLOWED to use the tongue muscles is in itself a breakthrough of sorts. I mentioned being able to sing in the upper range using "Other Voices" well, that pretty much gave me permission to use these ideas. To make your voice sound like someone else you use all kinds of distortions of your own vocal posture that in SINGING it is not allowed. Trying to sing in that range "Without distorting" the vocal tract or 'Manipulation" of any kind was the problem. So Felipe, Have you tried your song again while Purposely narrowing the pharynx for Twang or using the tongue root for brightness of tone? I have to say that both of these ideas had me singing D4 through A4 without sounding overly silly as usual.
  19. Thanks for posting this. Agreed. Another tactic is to find professional singers from exotic countries and then pay them to come in and make claims that everything they learned was solely because of the teacher. It is disingenuous. The proof of the singing is in the singing, but the proof in the teaching is in the teaching. Don’t confuse the two.
  20. To the point: There are some *smart* voice teachers displaying before and after of their students as a sign of improvement and that are deliberately faking results and exploiting recording conditions to create the illusion that their singing method produces *huge* voices. In this particular case I saw, the teacher compares a dry and very clean/honest recording of a students voice on a controlled volume level (meaning that it was properly gain staged for the best possible audio fidelity) and low to no reverb, which would be the before, with a badly distorted/digitally clipped sample of the same student singing where you can't even hear what the guy is doing anymore, which then would be the result of the training. Guys, when you hear a distorted AND louder audio, of course it will sound *huge* compared to a clean version of the same, but this is not a consequence of the singer technique being better, it's just poorly captured and louder. In the sample I received an audio engineer was able to restore a bit of the audio and you could hear the student having issues with the phrase and cracking on it, something that was completely hidden by the distortion. The fact that the distortion itself happens is being used as a sign of competence too, something like *it's so loud the recording equipment can't handle it*. This is non-sense. Certainly if you do not set the gear properly when you go loud, it clips, I did this mistake myself on a few of my videos, but it's all it is, a mistake when recording. Except that on this specific case the effect is being deliberately exploited so I would not call it a mistake either. Loud/Clipped recordings does not mean huge voices. Pay attention to what you are being shown!!
  21. A few more thoughts on the video. The Hyoglossus muscle (That she supposes in the video is the tongue root) attaches to the hyoid bone. From what I understand about muscles, this means that the hyoglossus could only bring the Hyoid and tongue closer together. So, Tongue root is NOT the hyoglossus. This still does not mean that the Fauchtinger idea has nothing to do with squillo or the ability to close the epiglottis. The Tongue root is more likely an intrinsic muscle of the tongue. These musles are attached to each other and their action is what allows the tongue to change its shape so easily. Another thing to take note of. When first mentioning TWANG, she mentions the Palatopharyngeus muscles and the Uvular area of the throat. She also mentions that they are drawn together and too high in the throat for the Scope to see. Then she never mentions it again but shows the narrowed Pharynx and closed piriform sinuses. It would have been a small matter to place a camera at the opening of the mouth to see if the Palatopharyngeus were indeed drawn together in this configuration.
  1. Load more activity