Felipe Carvalho

Yep, the 3rd partial is also lowered, which also indicates softer singing (less closure) and less twang. I was not being selective, it's just redundant. This idea that "asymmetry of closure" emphasizes odd harmonics instead of even seems odd, can you point to the place where this was said? The harmonics themselves, odd and even, are a consequence of the asymmetry of the signal that is produced by the vocal folds. Because during the closed phase there is no air passage, the pressure gradient happens only during the open phase, this is the main source of asymmetry. Then, considering just the open phase, the shape of the pulse can vary from closer to one half of a sine wave, to something closer to a saw tooth (or square) wave, which is a change in symmetry of this pulse considering it's attack and decay, in this sense more closure equals more asymmetry. Higher closure levels move the signal towards the later and the energy level on all the harmonic spectra shifts in relation to the fundamental. Such as can be seen on the stage/full voice he does later on the video, represented in the 4th graph:

In regards to the harmonic content: On the first example where the 6th harmonic should be amplified this is the spectral distribution: Both 6th and 5th harmonic have a boost, this is very consistent with the idea of *twang*, being close to the 3khz area. On the second example, where he says it´s 5th harmonic: Indeed the 5th harmonic is stronger on the twang region, but it´s on a very similar level to what it was before, it´s likely the darkening reduced twang and separated the clustering. Reducing twang is also consistent with the lowering of the energy level on the second partial in relation to the fundamental when compared to the first example. Then he demonstrates a vowel on the low range, again the profile is very similar to twang, and of course now that the note is lower, the 3khz band is affecting much higher partials: Finally on stage voice, there is a situation closer to the initial sample, only now because of the higher level of closure, the energy content of the harmonics rise in relation to the fundamental: Twang and 3rd partial are the dominant areas, with a slightly lower 2nd partial, and the fundamental bellow all of this. This is the profile you get with *covering*, also fits CVT *curbing*.

??????

Honestly there isn´t much there to agree or disagree, it´s true that male voices get more stable around 30yo, and then you get old and with it problems happen. How well you age will depend on much more than just your singing technique of that you can be sure. But most of the video is him, once more, using high level performers to tag along as if he was in position to say anything about their skill. For example saying that Russel Allen is in "relatively good condition" or mentioning his masterclass and saying it´s the way he works. Very pretentious and no singing whatsoever... Disappointing for a video about Russel Allen.

It´s true that there are people that are significantly better or worse at the skill, it´s also true that everyone works for it in some manner, and it´s true that for the extreme cases normal instruction might not be very efficient, either by being bellow the capability of one of these genius level individuals, or because it´s just totally beyond what a person that has extreme difficulty with singing can cope with. The core of the matter is this: If you consider that everyone that gets good worked for it somehow, and that one of the common points on extremely competent performers is that they were singing at high level from a very early age, the inevitable conclusion is that this talent, if you will call it that, can be resumed to learning speed. And what can be done about learning speed? It seems to be: - Keep learning; - Learn as fast as you can. Two things that seems to be extremely important to stick to this plan: - Sing everyday; - Record yourself singing songs and evaluate it by the same standard you evaluate music you consume. First one is straight forward, if you are not singing, you are not learning. End of story. Second one is a tool that is pretty much of free access nowdays, recording, which gives you a very reliable feedback on what you are doing, but the crucial part is to NOT lower your bar with excuses. And then there are learning tools, voice teachers, programs, coachs, communities. On our messenger group you can very easily sing to a bunch of people that are also learning and get feedback and different ideas on the fly for example. All of these can speed up learning, effectively making you more *talented*. TL/DR It´s a race to skill.

@mdew did not argue that it is absolute, but that it was elementary/basic. Which is not absolute, but is more than just interesting. It's elementary not because the musician likes it, but because it's the very language the audience that will be targeted knows. A very subjective meta-language, in the sense that meaning and interpretation will be personal for those that hear, but there are structures that even if you intend to break with it's necessary to know, otherwise instead of doing something different it's likely you will do the same old stuff poorly. And poorly executed basics is not innovation. No amount of sophism/relativism will change it!

Look I understand that it can make a positive difference on many situations, that's the reason why I brought up the subject to begin with. But what I am talking about and that I believe to be very important, is the idea of metal and it's link to intensity. It's important because the idea that CVT calls "metal" is one of the main causes to what we understand as registers on singing. There is no reason to mix it with tongue root constriction, you can very well find that using constrictions and proper vowels will *unlock* levels of intensity you did not have before but you still need to use said intensity level. To use an extreme as an example if you are whispering and you add all kinds of constrictions to it, it will still be whisper, just brighter. Which is not to say that there can not be a situation where you are just on the limit for a mode transition and adding a constriction makes it more effective and you get the extra intensity you need to change, this is possible. The point is, the determinant factor for metal is intensity, and that's what will needed to be explored in order to control it. When you conflate other ideas with it, even if they are indirectly related to it, you lose this information or make it less clear. There is a big and important difference between metal and the effect that supra-glottal constrictions cause.

On the song you linked, you were guessing the melody and trying to fit a modified version of the original. On some points it does fit so being tone deaf does not seem to be the case. I am saying work out exactly what the melody will be before you sing, and have it memorized. It's kinda like trying to sing a song without knowing the lyrics but instead of improvising something you are still trying to be accurate to the original lyrics, it just has no chance of working out. Nothing to do with a limitation such as being tone deaf.

Well you did not say that tongue root was one factor out of many, you specifically linked the idea to *metal*. And that's just not true. There may be other factors involved in overdrive and curbing but I am talking specifically about the amount of metal, which is the main aspect that differentiates the modes, from no metal, to half metal and full metal. Neutral, curbing, overdrive/edge. Tongue root tension as it was demonstrated on the thread I've opened about it, is a narrowing of the vocal tract and if the effect is amplifying higher frequencies (like any other constriction), it is indeed a change of character. Neither twang or this effect equals to metal, metal will depend on intensity, not on constrictions and the resonance changes they cause.

Well I am rather sure that to change from neutral to curbing on... say a F4, you will have to increase intensity and the tongue root by itself will not do it. As pitch increases, these differences become larger and larger. You get more possible intensity and only the very limits will represent the half and full metal modes. As in a A4 in curbing takes quite more intensity than doing a D4 on overdrive.

Just heard it. Weekest links on the chain to work in here would be your phrasing (rhythm) and getting a better grasp of the melody you will sing, on a lot of parts it´s just totally off from the song. Second issue would be that on many parts you attempt to go strong but you are restricted, probably because of how you are approaching the vowels. This song is pretty aggressive so probably it would be a good idea to try to open more the vowels towards oh and eh as a starter to match better what you are attempting. Study on the song, see if you can get a keyboard and play the melody you want to do on tempo, to a metronome. Work on recalling the melody just from memory.

Lovely voice, awesome, more!!

Not really, I mean a real little girl, and the real Christopher Lee. Not someone trying to impersonate these. There is a physical difference between these subjects. And I am also saying that such physical differences are much smaller when you compare a Baritone to a Tenor voice, the difference is almost entirely on what the singers do.

Yes there are several things that are necessary in order for you to even be able to go strong. The core of what I am saying is that this buzz you are relating to the tongue root gesture is not the same as metal which is what CVT uses to identify the modes mdew, and that the difference from neutral to overdrive is in fact the amount of metal present. It may *help* since it´s a constriction above the vocal folds and the full metalic modes (edge and overdrive) need constrictions. But the main change you will need to perform is to increase how intense you are singing, more effort. And not just making it louder by some type of constriction that leads to twang or ring or buzz. I do believe there is a lot to be said on how exactly you put more effort, but I am not that sure about how to describe it. That *tilt* is one of the things I am curious about, I do feel a change, I asked Martin exactly to see what he does, and he reported no tilt, which throws a wrench in my idea. There are some possibilities, perhaps he defaults to a position that already has more density than what I do, which is not an absurd idea since my training was all about reducing density in the way up, perhaps he does not sing with as much density besides the necessary to produce the level of metal he needs (if I understand it right, there is a perceptual threshold to consider a mode in Full Density and not necessarily you need to be at the limits), and perhaps of course what I am feeling is just a coordination that is not refined enough yet and the change I am doing itself is totally unnecessary. I did ask a CVT teacher to do the same test and he reported the same change in distance I felt. I also asked Jens and he felt no difference. So far it seems to be chance. I don´t even know if tilting is the best way to put it, I don´t think it properly describes the idea. And perhaps my test sucks.