kickingtone

TMV World Legacy Member
  • Content Count

    339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by kickingtone

  1. Mysteries of the mind! That is why I think that much of the consensus about sound quality is contrived. Here's another strange phenomenon I experienced as I woke up one day... At the point of waking up, I heard tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack-tack -- just like that...a series of sharp sounds in rapid succession. Three seconds later, I was fully awake, wondering what the sound could possibly be. It was early morning and there was only silence! I lay awake, wondering if I had dreamed the sound. Then, I heard, "tack". Then ten or fifteen seconds later another "tack", and so forth, very slowly and intermittent, like that. What was happening was that a window was open and the door was slightly ajar, and a wind had sprung up and was blowing the door to every ten or twenty seconds. But the noise I had heard as I woke up was as rapid as automatic gun fire! There was no way the wind could have done that with the door (and once closed, the wind cannot open the door, so it wasn't the wind rattling the door open). It was as if my mind had stored up all the intermittent "tack" sounds and "downloaded" them in an instant. It was like a time warp...a different sense of time. I've heard that dreams can work that way. Researchers think that REM sleep is the dreaming phase, but when they interview the subject, the subject reports experiencing a dream that seems to have taken much longer. Anyway, even when we are awake, our sense of time can go haywire.
  2. I just think that a lot of people expect "muscle memory" to take care of things that it won't. You hear people say things like, "you've just got to keep practising until the muscle memory kicks in, and you are able to do X". You don't hear that many people say, "practise hearing the note just before you sing it". People know (or quickly get to know) that training the physical coordination is necessary, even though is is not sufficient. Audiating, on the other hand, doesn't get that much of a mention. Talking about "hearing the note"... I can "lucid hear" when I am asleep and about to wake up. So, I would be asleep and know that I am asleep, but be able to hear what is going on around me. The most notable sound is usually the dawn chorus -- birds singing in the morning. I can listen to that for a while when I am asleep, and I can choose the precise moment I want to wake up. The funny thing is that there is a change in timbre of the sound, as soon as I awaken. It's the same timbral change every time. My "sleeping ears" and my "awake ears" hear the sound differently!. Both are equally clear, but timbre is distinctly different. While I am "sleep listening" I even remember, and am aware, that the timbre will change when I wake up. So I deliberately delay waking up so that I can enjoy the unusual timbre. Then, when I decide to wake up, I wonder at the inevitable change in timbre. That kind of convinces me that we all hear differently. What if there are people whose "awake ears" hear like my "asleep ears", etc.?
  3. I did watch the whole video. Of course, there is no suggestion that merely audiating is sufficient, or could replace training. But he is saying that audiating is necessary and essential. What I understand Pavarotti to be saying is that if you get to the note before audiating ("hearing") it, then mere memory/muscle memory won't work. I said something similar earlier -- that trained muscle memory says that you CAN sing the note, not that you WILLl sing it. The coordination will feel familiar and easy if you trigger it, but you need to audiate to trigger the right responses. (I wonder if people who talk or sing in their sleep talk/sing flat?)
  4. 3:20 "...the concentration must be so strong. Before you begin to sing...you have to one second before...you have to HEAR the note, and then, you will not make a mistake. But, if you think, at the last moment, to invent the note, I think it's not going to be good..."
  5. ^Nice demo! Not necessarily. The pressure requirement at the larynx is fluctuating all the time, as we are singing different vowels, consonants and pitches, etc. "Support" is supposed to stop that from becoming uneven airflow. So, "use more support" in the sense of "engage the support better" actually relieves the pressure. As you sing higher, you need more air pressure, which needs more precise support. But support isn't causing the pressure. It is managing it. Your diaphragm and abs are continually adjusting to regulate each note, which is like "singing from the diaphragm". Leaning the voice helps with the chain of command. Because the diaphragmatic support system responds to the air pressure (rather than causes it), leaning the voice or the breath reminds you that the "breath moves first" and causes the diaphragm to respond. That, however, may not be the order in which you prepare. The abs are the anchor and may brace first, ready to "oppose" the diaphragm, then you lean the breath down, then you phonate or alter phonation. The sensation may be that you are singing from the waist, as that is the first point of physical preparation. Another difference between the mechanics and sensation could be a feeling that the diaphragm is moving, or has to move, down, when in fact it is moving up. The sensation of slowing the upward relaxation of the diaphragm could feel as if it is being lowered.
  6. Usually implies that the conclusions of the research are tentative. And that research that gave the 1/6 ratio is really odd, just from a mathematical modelling perspective. A ratio, like 1/6, is what is called a "dimensionLESS quantity". A quantity like 3kHz is a dimensionAL quantity (dimensions of 1/time). Relating dimensional quantities to dimensionless quantities, like that, is not expected in a quality research paper.
  7. That is a heap of assumptions that you are making there. He says that he wants to know if he has potential as a singer in a band playing gigs at bars. He does not say anywhere that he wants to avoid belting. In fact, the implication is that he INTENDED to belt. He didn't say that he was trying to sound like the original. He just pointed out differences, and asked if he was overdoing the belting. He doesn't say that he shouldn't belt. He says: "I may have been belting more than I should so I don't know... the singer from the Eagles doesn't belt at all or has a much lighter voice than I do". That suggests that he is ok with some level of belting, even thought it is not in the original. He picked that song. That doesn't prove that he wants to be a rock singer or to sound like anyone. (We had one guy recently on this forum sing an Ed Sheeran song. He didn't want to sound like Ed Sheeran. He said so. He picked the song to sing it!) When you give advice, you should ask questions and make sure that the person you are responding to knows a bit about your personal perspective and preferences, too. But you don't seem to be able to distinguish between your personal assumptions and opinions, and fact. I have learned about the appoggio technique, which it is clear to me you know very little about. It is obviously something that doesn't work for you. Yet, I have seen you claim that top tenors are "covering" or "changing vowel" when they are not. And I have seen you claim that "open throat" is a myth. This is stuff that you don't do, and don't seem to be able to do or understand. But you still comment. I don't INTEND to be a classical singer or use what I now about appoggio for classical singing. For me, appoggio does what it says on the packet: eliminates passaggio problems. The guy asked me specifically about breath support, and mentioned that SS doesn't seem to cover it. My response was measured and clearly stated MY position. I explained why I find listening to classical singers an easier starting point. I didn't phrase it the way you tend to, which is: "you need to do blah blah blah". I recognize that people learn in many different ways. There was enough information in my reply for anyone to decide whether they deemed it relevant to their INTENT!
  8. No. It has nothing to do with the strength of your argument. It may affect the perceived "credibility" of your argument, but "strength" and "credibility" of argument are two different things. If people over the centuries had always succeeded in forcing on everybody else their own sense of what has "credibility", we would all still be in the Stone Ages.
  9. You are totally missing the point. Before you give advice to someone, any kind of advice, you need to know that person's intent. It is common sense! There may be people who consider themselves to be in a privileged position to determine what is "high or low quality", but more often than not they are living in fantasy land. A single song can be sung in so many different moods that an intelligent person has to recognize that they won't "get" or feel all of them. Sometimes, you can miss the mood altogether. That will mean that you are not in a position to give advice about it. But some people, in ignorance of this fact, give the wrong advice. There was a girl, way back on this forum, who made a number of posts on how she ruined her voice (what she had intended for her voice) by following advice from someone with a fixed and narrow perspective, and she'd paid money for it too! Imagine the mess! How can you do something correctly when your intent is different from the person giving you advice? Worse, is when the person giving advice cannot even figure that they are confusing their personal preferences with questions of basic technique. I actually read a critique you made of a beginner's singing a few weeks back. I listened to his clip, too. In your critique, you pinpointed the very bit that sounded bad TO ME, and you told the guy, "you got it there! Do more of that!" It was the exact sound quality that makes me reach for the mute button. There was no discussion about what sound the guy was going for. I didn't comment. I've seen it too many times before, and I think that it is the responsibility of the student to think for themselves, and not follow blindly.
  10. Personally, I don't like to download files, because of possible malware. I only check streaming services like SoundCloud, YouTube, Vocaroo etc. Anyway, I haven't heard your clip, but yes, you can sing. Practically everyone can sing.
  11. Your OP doesn't really invite discussion. You start by stating that students and members of online communities regularly complain about confusion surrounding the information and advice that they are given. Then you give a list of aspects of technique that you think "trained singers" discuss among themselves. Then you insist that the confusion that the students and members of online communities regularly complain about stems from contention within these aspects. Then you mete out advice to people "looking for information on technique". So, I suggest that, instead of simply putting yourself "up there", dictating to people what they find confusing, you ASK them, and invite discussion on the issue before giving advice. I am telling you from experience that confusion often comes from not discussing INTENT. e.g People are given advice on technique that is not optimal or useful for the genre they are interested in. Nobody asks what genre(s) they intend to sing. It's just, "Q. How do I breath for singing? A. Like this." Or they launch into a specific way of dealing with the passaggio, without mentioning that it is dealt with differently in classical and contemporary techniques. Then the student simply finds that the sound colour he intends to achieve doesn't work with the technique he has been given.
  12. Felipe, why don't you put your opinions in a blog? That way, you won't have to discuss with anyone, and you won't get upset.
  13. The role of philosophy is to categorize and organize information and argument. So, "the philosophy of music education" is precisely what the thread has to contend with. Just as you have the "philosophy of science" which poses questions like, "What is science?" and "What is pseudo-science?", so philosophy of science education in general will pose all those questions in the OP, and more, but without the dogma. That is why it is so complex. At the very least, one has to be able to acknowledge the overlapping skill sets needed, none of them are commonplace. You have musicality, education and philosophy (to regulate any field). The field of education will take in "education psychology", culture and even some anthropology. All these are highly intellectual fields, so one has to be humble, and come with a questioning mind -- not one that places itself above everyone else's and thinks it has all the answers. I am sure there are many more research articles on the philosophy of music education, and this one exemplifies the considered language, attitude and position educated people take when discussing complex topics.
  14. May as well post this here as it says some interesting things about audiation, (rather bold assertions) like... "According to this pedagogical approach, performing musically on an instrument cannot occur effectively without audiation, as there is an enormous emphasis on the connection between the physical and the mental aspects of performing. Because of this philosophical outline, ear training is a key aspect of the Jacques-Dalcroze Method. Practically, an orchestral Jacques-Dalcroze Method enthusiast may incorporate singing into all classrooms, including orchestra classrooms, as they would argue that a string player will not phrase effectively on an instrument if they cannot internally audiate effective musical phrasing." WOW! https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=honors
  15. Personally, I've never really understood the muscle memory thing. I tend to view it as a gimmicky buzzword, to be honest, or maybe one that is oversubscribed. My opinion is that you can train a muscle, through repetition, to not feel awkward or unfamiliar in a coordination -- so it doesn't get in the way. But I think that there still needs to be a trigger or motive (which can be subconscious) learned to sew all the motions together -- a conceptualization of the action that repetition does not deliver. So muscle memory says "you are able to do it", not that "you will do it". Only my gut feel.
  16. Maybe some papers on the philosophy of music education would help. Notice how it is written without dogma. It only claims to be a particular perspective. (Interestingly, it also mentions the importance of audiation, for which I have already opened a thread.) https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=honors
  17. Ironically, Felipe's earlier rant highlights the huge flaw in his incoherent quest. He has demonstrated that he is an example of the thing that he is trying to reduce, LOL!
  18. If I understand your post, you were singing along to songs that were playing on the radio? I'm sure that my reaction would have been "how do I record this before it goes away". Hearing a coordination played in my own voice really helps me to replicate it, later. It's the audiation thing again. The closer what I can audiating is to my own voice, the better I am able to render it physically. Recording a cappella is just ideal for this. But a recorded singalong is also helpful. Sometimes, there can be things about the precise situation, maybe the room feedback, the vibe of the song, the key I choose, etc. that encourage me to go into a new coordination. That gets the foot in the door. Once I am able to repeat the coordination regularly, I can the remove the crutches and start using it in other environments, songs and keys. Problem is usually with getting in those early repetition before the feeling fades. But thinking of the mechanics rarely works directly for me. It does help with exercise and familiarity, which means that I am less likely to fight any coordination that I do find through audiation. I like American comedy... This is Niles Crane of Frasier knowing what he had to do, and feeling his way to a coordination that would work for him. That's how I see it happening...you audiate a sound and your muscles kind of feel around on the fly until they sense that they are close to what's needed. The more "weird" vocal exercises you have put yourself through before, the more instantaneous feeling around the muscles can do, and the more options you have. Over to "Half-court Niles"...
  19. So... I have one theory for why one method comes more naturally than others. I think our natural abilities are strongly influenced by which sounds interest us in our formative years. Our voices get built around the sounds that we like, or are expected to use (accents). So I think it is easier to pick a method that matches ones natural voice. That may not always be possible... I also suspect that if ones musical taste shifts a lot, then one may not have the benefit of their formative years in producing the vocals of their acquired taste. They have to learn more as an adult. Just a theory!
  20. Hi Rob, the clip is for a thread I opened "elsewhere" entitled "Singing in a dry space for practice..." The purpose is to use the dryness of the environment to encourage the singer to drive a response from it. It is just a practice tool. I don't know why Felipe brought it up (out of context) or what his issue with it is. As you can see, and have said, it is not a production piece!
  21. I couldn't care less whether you are convinced of anything or not. Again you think that your opinion is so important, lol. The clip, btw, was me deliberately picking a dry space to sing in. The object is to hear your voice in a dry space. It is good practice. I have no issue with it, thanks. Maybe you can post your own dry space a cappella vocals for me to comment on, LOL! I have heard your carefully edited singing and covers, and I don't even rate that. I haven't bothered commenting, because it doesn't interest me. Neither does your technique.
  22. Do you have a sound for yourself in your mind (back to audiation again)? If so, how does it measure up to all these comments? As my singing has improved, my mind's voice has become closer and closer to my vocalized voice. (And my recordings more like my direct hearing). What I have found is that some criticism boils down to not properly rendering what is in your mind. I've had people say do this, fix it by doing that, etc. But I stuck largely with what I wanted, and eventually the same people have said actually, not so bad. So, yes, it is opinion to be weighed up. How much you incorporate is up to you. The people assessing your sound do not necessarily know the end product in your head, and if you are not able to render it well, they may not appreciate how it is going to work. There are some nasal accents that work well, imo. But if the singer is a beginner or lacks general precision, a lot of people will automatically go for the nasality as the issue. If the singer simply improves their precision, the same people may suddenly start liking the character of the sound. If a singer knows how to use the character in their voice well, they can often turn it to their advantage, and because it comes naturally, it can take on that inimitable x factor. Sometimes it is worth sticking with and polishing what you have, especially if it sounds good in your own head, and you have reasonably good audiation.
  23. Well, you see, that sure doesn't sound like you are presenting an opinion, to me (more like presenting a matter of fact)... Sure, he may have been the one who wanted to know why other people didn't like his singing. The simple answer is that it's the same for all singers. There are always "other people who don't like your singing." If he is sure he has got the right target audience, the question makes more sense. Sure. It's a judgment call, depending on the type of singing and the forum in which you place the question. It's relative. I just ask them what emotion they mean to communicate, and even give different examples (as you mentioned). Then I tell them that I can't figure out which emotion they are expressing. Some singers don't even understand the relevance of emotion or vibe. If they don't put two and two together, the common response, "i'm not feeling it" may persist. I don't want to force feed people what is or isn't relevant. It's subjective. They are supposed to develop an artistic sense. I only let them know what is relevant to me, and they can take it or leave it.
  24. I never call anyone's voice boring. It's too subjective, unless you are sensitive to every type of emotion, style and genre (which nobody is). All I can really tell is that I'm not feeling it. Even if I knew enough to accurately guess that 95 per cent of people would also not be feeling it, what about the remaining 5 per cent? That's a lot of people whose taste I should respect. I don't really care if somebody is or claims to be "in the know". Everyone has taste and ideas worth listening to. The point I was making is not about whether you listen, but whether you have something to compare it with after you listen, That's where the initial investigation by yourself can come in.