Jump to content

kickingtone

TMV World Legacy Member
  • Posts

    502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by kickingtone

  1. So you sung an F4#, and she said that it's an F5#? Very confusing. If you sing an F5#, what does she say it is? And when you listen to the clip, you disagree in the other direction??? What you call F5#, she calls "thin" F4#???
  2. I don't get annoyed by such stuff. And If you go back and read, you will find that I am not the one saying there is one way. Quite the opposite. Now, are you going to stand on the corner screaming that I have said there is only one way? (And rock? cheese? It's all semantics anyway. )
  3. There is no right. As long as you think there is only one way, you will end up "word jousting".
  4. A coach did a group session for some students who wanted to learn falsetto. Every single one of them came out disappointed because what the coach called falsetto was not what they had in mind. In a separate case, a girl actually gave her trainer a clip of a singer who inspired her, so that she could build certain elements into her voice. She and her coach both heard completely different things in the voice, but because they were not careful with semantics, they didn't notice during discussions. They just assumed they were talking about the same things. She ended up wanting her "old voice back", and you know what, she was asking the same coach!
  5. No respectable research would possibly make that claim. Not only have you reversed the implication of any evidence, you have extended it to way beyond its sample size. Do you really think that the sample sizes used are representative of the whole of the human race? When a research paper says that we have found A causes B, it does not mean that B must have been caused by A. It is the folk who are pretending that there is one standard who are trying to make it an exact science.
  6. That is not what I have said. I have said: 1. If AP narrowing produces partials in a particular frequency band (and it has been demonstrated that it does), that does not mean that it is the ONLY thing that does. 2. Which frequency band it produces the strong partials in, and the pattern of partials, is not heard the same by everybody. I hear a buzz, you hear a ring. For you, the buzz frequency is lower, for me the ring frequency is higher and must NOT sound like "edge". You talk of "the" configuration, (singular), what configuration (singular) and such effect (singular). And Felipe talks of "we" as one. It would be absolutely remarkable if we all heard the same thing. It would be like everyone agreeing on visual colour. It is so improbable as to be virtually impossible.
  7. Unfortunately, there is no "we", in this case. People's perceptions vary. It is called subjectivity. What "rings", "stands out", "focuses", "is bright", "is airy,sounding", etc. etc. varies from person to person, much as people may like to think of themselves as the standard. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there is only one way to produce high overtones, or that the perceptions people have of those overtones can all be explained by frequency band alone.
  8. AP narrowing may cause energy in the 3kHz region, but that does not mean that energy in the 3kHz region must come from AP narrowing. He sounds different from a singer using quack (distinct twang), who sounds different from a classical singer using squillo, etc.
  9. I am not a fan of distortion, either. I have produced a distorted sound by accident, though. I think that it is sometimes a combination of turbulent airflow and good resonance. For example, I think the growl type of distortion is the amplified sound of turbulence in the airflow past your vocal folds. Turbulence introduces significantly strong frequencies which are not partials of the fundamental. Turbulent airflow does not require any kind of strain.Just like water flowing out of a tap, it can go turbulent at low speed or high speed. Fast enough not to drip, and the tap may produce a steady stream. A bit faster, and that stream may start to wiggle all over the place. That is turbulent flow. If you know the correct condition for the airflow past your folds to have enough turbulence, and you have adequate resonance, I think you can produce safe and effective distortion.
  10. Here is a spectrogram of the Indian singer in the "Light yet full and beautiful" thread, For me, it is a really nice tone, with vocal accuracy. But there is no "distinct twang", and, looking at the spectrogram, "focus" doesn't really come into it. I'd go further and say that the shifting and drifting of the centre of his vocals is part of the beauty of the singing, in this case. That would not happen had there been distinct twang, because distinct twang creates a centre. So, once again, I argue that distinct twang is not an essential part of balance, beauty, focus, vocal accuracy, etc. It is just another style, popular in Western music.
  11. Spectrograms are cool! Now I can understand what they do. They use colour as an extra dimension to summarize a continuum of spectra! (I know that you can tune them to do more, and to pick out different instruments, if there are any.) Here's one of mine from Audacity. Vocals only. (White > Red > Magenta > Blue > Light Blue > Grey [there is no grey in this one]) And here is a held note for comparison I believe that ring goes on at the 4 - 5kHz range. Maybe some sort of gap between that and the formant/s at 2 - 3 kHz help the ringing to appear as another layer of sound. I think that I hear 2 - 3 kHz more as a buzz than a ring. (And given the connotations of the words, I am not prepared to simply accept "standardized definition" in this case).
  12. This is really useful, considering M as a nasal consonant with an underlying vowel. I have to think consciously about the underlying vowel, because my default M tends to use just one particular underlying vowel, which is like a dark AH. When singing, I have to learn to colour the M as necessary, either to stand out or to blend in with the ensuing vowel. I had not really thought about singing an M with an underlying EH, for example. Up until now, if I parted my lips while singing mmmmmmmmm, trying to keep everything else the same, it always became a dark ahhhhhhhhhh.
  13. I can't do tongue trills properly, lol. I find it easier to roll the back of the tongue. I hope you forgive us! The English probably have the laziest accents on Earth. Just saying a strong R gives us cramp in the tip of our tongue. And our lazy vowels are really bad for singing. Fortunately, I get my vowel base more from my African heritage. Whenever the Americans want to cast a camp character in a sitcom, they seem to like to choose someone with an exaggerated English accent. So they must think we have really "affected" accents. Hey! While typing this, I just figured out how to do a tongue trill. The middle of the tongue has to roll, as well as the tip! I had been trying to roll just the tip! That is what my Spanish friends had told me!
  14. I've already mentioned other such consonants in the OP. It is not the challenge of hitting the note that is the issue. The issue for me is that my default M has a significantly dark sound -- a lot of deep chest resonance for some pitches. That can add character, and a bit of percussive rhythm in the right situation. In other situations, it is not appropriate. I have to consider the M in its own right, rather than hope it sorts itself out.
  15. I have accepted in my reply to Rosa that, by definition, 'M' is not a "vowel". I guess we can all settle on it being a "nasal consonant"? ok, the following points remain. 1. M can be an onset to a vowel, or, unlike other types of consonant, it can be sustained in its own right. 2. M can have a pitch. Even if it is an onset to a vowel, it can have a pitch different from the pitch of the vowel. So, as we approach an M in singing, we have to consider its pitch (and to some extent the depth), just as we have to consider the pitch of a vowel.
  16. The thread appears to be ....................... evolving....
  17. Excellent points Rosa. That really clarifies things. What we have, then, is different levels of resistance. If I do a siren in "mmmm" (not muh) I have to use the techniques necessary for a vowel siren, whatever category we put mmmm in, even thought there is some resistance. It is not as obstructive as a 't', for example. (The Spanish R, with the front of the tongue, is a thing of wonder! I was listening to some Spanish tourists to the UK, but I don't know which part of Spain, except that they were speak incredibly fast so that every sentence sounded like one long word. And those Spanish R's were rolling like mad. You could probably do a siren on one of those, as well, I guess.)
  18. I can do a very chesty "mmmmmmmm"....very chesty. Singing is different to speaking. When we speak, mm is a consonant sound, in the English language. (If you look at African and Asian languages for example, m and n can be vowel like, and with chest resonance, e.g Names like Mbeki, or Ng.) When we sing I think we have more vowels, partly because we hold notes and use legato. However, we seem to have decided to stick with the speech level designations?? Bottom line is, if they m starts behaving like a vowel, because of the way we use it, we have to treat it like a vowel, and not like a speech level consonant.
  19. Contestant-I'd like to buy a soft consonant please.
  20. One thing I find helps me here is keeping the notes running up to "where" nice and bright. That preps the high pressure, so that it is ready on "where". The upper harmonics in the bright sound prior would keep the pressure high and on idle. Without the prep, I am inclined to take that extra breath to get the "where" started. You always have to overcome inertia to get things moving. It is better to keep them on idle..
  21. M It can be held: "mmmmmmmmmmmmmm" It has a pitch. You can sing "mmmm" in a scale or siren. So is it pretty much both a vowel and a consonant, in terms of behaviour (although we may not technically call it one). It may not be an open vowel, but it sure acts like a vowel. L, M, N, R?, V, Z seem to have this property. Sibilants like S and F can be held, but they do not really have a well-defined pitch. My current big project is vowels (I've graduated from basics to style, courtesy of kickingtone akadummy ). While studying phrases in various songs, I have found that Ms (particularly) have to be controlled in the same way as vowels, otherwise they can create unwanted fluctuations in brightness, and even pitch. It can be instantaneous if the M is just an onset, yet noticeable enough to affect the overall delivery and mood. I am now playing around with truncating my Ms so that they stay consonants when I want them to be. Any one else had to do this?.
  22. Sure, the books said, and still say, "nearest living relative" or "cousins", but not ancestors. ToE doesn't say we descended from them. And ToE may be the best hypothesis going, but that don't make it a theory, much as they are pretending it is. It is broken. It doesn't really work that well. There is not really that much to test it, and it seems to break more often than it succeeds in predicting things. Poor Darwin didn't know what geneticists know today -- horizontal gene transfer, parallel evolution, etc. which can account for similarities without implying inheritance. That is why the taxonomy is so debatable. The best hypothesis going ain't good enough. We should hold our hands up and say it's an hypothesis, and stop pretending. When will this place get a off topic forum. And I'm........... anonymous...
  23. Bob, checked your first Kansas vid, and looked at the spectrum. Looks like they've filtered out the 4kHz to 5kHz frequencies, cos it dies just there! No wonder I am not hearing any ring. It really sounds strangled to my ears. Your last vid is not available where I am.
×
×
  • Create New...