Jump to content

RedOx

TMV World Legacy Member
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RedOx

  1. Guys please! I get it. I'm an idiot for posting this, alright? Can you please just stop accusing me of being this kickingtone character? And if you absolutely have to, would you at least care to explain who this guy is?
  2. You're right. I haven't done that. Maybe I should have. The thought of coming into one of these discussions as a complete outsider - just like in this thread - is kind of intimidating though, to be honest. I wasn't demanding that people think about me or someone else without any kind of reputaion who they don't know and have never heard of, when engaging in these discussions. I was just trying to explain to cuno dante why I thought that this forum is not only visited by experts like him or yourself. Many people read forums and never post a single word on them. As I wrote earlier. I propably should have been more careful about my choice of words. I realize that the way I wrote this may come across as kind of arrogant and I'm sorry if that's the case.
  3. Thank you for this, Robert. That was more or less what I was talking about. And I totally agree with you about not getting carried away with talk about the 'inner child' or any of that esoteric stuff.
  4. Now, I feel kind of offended myself... Yes I really really don't knwo who this horrible, filthy human being is. Why are people comparing me to this guy?
  5. I agree almost completely. Only one point I would like to make: You write that people on the forum already know what all those technical terms mean. I absolutely believe that in your case, But I've read a lot of discussions on this very forum where people were fighting over exactly which technical term to use and that is one reason for my initial post. I am not saying that people don't know what they're talking about. I just think that even those experienced singers aren't always so clear about what the right 'technical' description is for something they usually don't have to think about that much anymore. Also - and please don't take this the wrong way - your assumption that these discussions were only meant for people who have already experienced good technique sounds a little elitist (sorry!). Unless you make this a private forum for members of a certain level of proficiency - e.g. professional singers, vocal teachers etc. - you will always have people following your discussions, who may not have the experience and knowledge to comprehend the topic as fully as you do. It's the internet. Peolpe believe stuff they read on websites and forums and many don't always realize that they don't really understand what they read. On a personal note, I myself like to follow these discussions, because I find it very interesting how this whole internet communication works (or doesn't). And I am completely aware that everything online has to be taken with a grain of salt.
  6. Maybe I should be more careful about my choice of words. Sometimes I seem to overestimate my ability to write in the english languiage ;-) Since Robert took the time to debunk my post almost word for word, I would like to reiterate that I had no intention to offend anybody and - again - I apologize if I did. I have to admit, the title of the post is a bit on the provocative side. I didn't mean to say that learning the science or exercising technique was useless, or a bad thing to do. Not at all! I just think that it can lead some people on the wrong path if they rely on JUST that. I know that most of the people who replied to my post are propably well aware of that. I'm certain Robert is, since he definitely knows what he's talking about and Daniel and Phil more or less said the same thing (if I understood them correctly, that is). Since this is an online forum and a lot of aspiring singers, including myself, keep asking questions here and on other sites like this that they should propably better ask a real life teacher in person, I was mainly talking about how some (not all!) more experienced singers have a tendency to give very technical answers, and how this often leads to convoluted discussions where a lot of different technical terms from different schools get thrown around. For a beginner, who may not be that familiar with those terms, this could create the false impression that singing is more about science than 'guts' and that they will just have to understand that science better in order to solve their problems. Understanding what goes on on a technical level is certainly important. I just think that it is only one part of developing the voice in a way that enables us to use it as freely as possible, in order to express ourselves through this most personal of musical instruments. As I wrote before, I know it's very difficult to describe physical sensations in a way that can be translated from one individual to the other. Just like MDEW wrote: "We may all feel these sensations different. That is why we go to the scientific or even made up terminology to give some kind of direction." Though that shouldn't keep us from trying, should it? P.S.: @Ronws: Thanks for your personal email. You made some very good points there. And no, I am not 'Kickingtone', Who ist that, by the way?
  7. This may come across as a major flame post, so I would like to appologize for any offense taken in advance. I wonder why so many vocal experts have such a hard time talking about the actual physical sensations good technique should produce instead of lengthy discussions about which tiny muscle does what, using a ton of anatomical descriptions in cryptic latin and - on top of that - refering to a plethora of different schools of singing or even their very own self-styled terminologies, which to the unitiated are just a bunch of meaningless exotic words anyway. Let's face it - No matter how much we immerse ourselves in medical studies, spectral analyses or expensive textbooks about singing, the only way anybody is ever going to become good at this is to do it and 'listen' to what our body has to say about it. One might argue, that only a vocal teacher can do that and that one could never find out what's right if he/she were to solely rely on their own perception. But unless one can afford to have a vocal coach present at any time one practices singing, one would still have to be able to determine all by oneself what feels right and what doesn't. We might KNOW that maintaining a stable larynx position is crucial or that the vocal folds must be allowed to become thinner when we ascend the scale but there is no way this knowledge will help us to actually find out if we're doing it right. The only way to know if the techniques we use are actually working is to learn how to judge the sensations they produce within our bodies. No amount of training sirens, vowel modifications, or breathing exercises will ever make a good singer out of anybody if we don't know what good singing should FEEL like. You might be able to train your voice like an athlete trains his other muscles, but unlike sports, singing is not - or at least should not be - about competing with others and measuring success by means of standardized systems backed by natural science. I am not saying that training isn't essential - It's just not enough! I believe that none of the great singers, who many of us are referring to on this site and others, would ever have become who they are if they had seen their art as a sport. After all, Isn't the voice a tool to express emotion, a means to an end rather than the end itself? This is certainly not an easy task for a vocal teacher, which may be the reason for most of them losing themselves in scientific terminology or even coming up with their own 'science' to compensate for their lack of words to describe the sensations that one should feel if the tool is used most efficiently to the desired end. But it would be nice if someone came up with a better way of talking about what is actually a form of art rather than a purely physical exercise, more like a conveyer of emotion and less like a scientific experiment. If I'm being too cryptic about what I mean, here is a good example of Phil describing such a sensation:
  8. @VIDEOHERE I have to admit that I skipped his latest solo album. That was just too much musical freedom for my taste ;-). Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but "Long gone" is actually kind of proving my point. It isn't that obvious in the studio version because, well, it's a timbaland production, but on this live video most of the clean parts sound really weak compared to his usual style. I would almost call that falsetto in some parts and I don't mean the intentional kind of falsetto. And that's despite there being a lot of pre-recorded and effects-heavy stuff going on in the background. It also sounds like he's really quiet for most of the song. This feeling of 'weakness' goes away however, as soon as he goes into the stronger sections - especially in the chorus. But then his distortion also comes back. Don't get me wrong. I am not asking anybody to tell me how to do this. That's way above my paygrade. I just think that Cornell can't really sing in a strong headvoice without distortion and I find that kind of interesting.
  9. @VIDEOHERE Funny that you would point me to Daniel's video, because the first time I found this Cornell clip, it popped up on youtube as well as a related video and of course I watched that one too. I should say that Cornell has always been one one of my favourite singers, though I used to think that his technique on these high distorted screams was very risky. I liked his voice more in his lower chest notes. Especially since, for a rock singer he puts quite a lot of 'soul' into it. I was a teenager during the nineties, so I listened to a lot of his music and I think I never heard him sing anything that high with a clean, sharp voice, like e.g. Daniel does in his video. Now I'm wondering if Cornell could even do it the 'proper' way - meaning without the heavy distortion. Or if maybe his voice wouldn't even sound that good without it.
  10. I just stumbled upon this on the interwebs. Seems to be the vocal tracks of a studio recording. It has obviously been processed a lot so it's propably not exactly his natural sound but I still find it baffling how anyone could ever do something like this: Any ideas about what the heck this guy is doing there - besides something that shouldn't be tried at home? I mean from a vocal technique point of view?
  11. Please don't give up! I am not an expert but for what it's worth, I really like the sound of your voice. It may get too thin at times and could propably use more breath control, but apart from that - at least to my layman's ears - it has a very nice natural sound. You seem a little nervous too in the video - understandably. That certainly wouldn't have made it easier to sing with confidence. For me, whenever I get nervous or too self conscious it totally messes up my support. Also, the song you chose seems rather demanding. Maybe you should try something less difficult? Sorry I can't really give you any useful advice. I just wanted to tell you that I like your voice. On a different note: does Mr. Tenelli really charge you for answering a single question? That would seem a little cold to me.
  12. Thanks for your advice. I think I figured out what my problem is. It was just not enough vocal fold closure. Since I've kind of 'trained' my voice over the years, through untrained singing, to be a little airy and get into this kind of bluesy chest voice mode, I didn't really know how to stay connected properly. That's not so much of a problem in the higher head voice range since I had to start 'crying' to remove the falsetto in the first place. But I didn't realize I was still letting too much air come out in the upper chest range, so that it was hard to maintain a 'chesty' feel to the lower head tones. I had a rather long email- exchange with Phil, who was kind enough to listen to some samples I recorded. He pointed out that it seemed like I wasn't applying enough compression to make it sound louder. So yesterday I spent more or less the whole day trying to eliminate the airyness from my chest voice up through the passagio - quietly 'crying' along with some songs and trying to keep up better breath support. Which was pretty hard at first but I made some astonishing progress and in the end I could bridge rather seemlessly in a lot 'stronger' fashion than before. Of course it's still not very loud and I need to train a lot more to be able to maintain that seamlessness at a higher volume. But at least now I think I'm on the right track and I have a feeling that it's possible to 'lean into' this more connected voice without straining. The most important lesson I learned from this is that it's really hard to recognize mistakes like that, if I'm only singing to myself and that it's kind of crucial to get an opinion from someone who knows what they're talking about . So, I guess Felipe was right suggesting that I go see a vocal teacher. I just need to find the budget for that.
  13. Don't be in my case. Half of it isn't really usable anyway. I'd gladly shave some of it of in exchange for a stable passagio.
  14. "Get to a teacher before you train more habits on top of it." Yeah. I was afraid you'd say that. I would like to do that. I don't know what that would cost in Brazil but where I live, seeing a vocal coach every week would cost me about the same as the rent on my appartment. Which would mean I'd have to stop eating or start stealing food. And the websites of these teachers here really suck.
  15. Hello Forum, I have a question concerning the 'loudness' of vocal training and wether one should first concentrate more on the proper sound quality or rather on mastering the passagio and then work on putting a 'ring' to it. I've been singing for over twenty years now, mostly writing my own songs. I think I'm a halfway decent singer (at least a lot of other people tell me so), so I don't consider myself an absolute beginner in every aspect of singing. But I have only recently (a few months ago) discovered that I can actually use my head-voice in a different way than falsetto mode. Call me stupid, but I always thought that I just didn't have the kind of 'magical' voice all those other guys I loved to listen to had been given by nature and so I never really bothered to do any kind of research into how exactly they were doing it, until I stumbled upon this seemingly infinite amount of youtube videos and websites like this one telling me that it was actually a matter of technique rather than genetics. So ever since then I started experimenting a lot, trying to connect my headvoice and amazingly I found out that I could actually do so. Per classical definition (not as an operatic 'Fach', of course!), I think I would propably qualify as some kind of a deep baritone and after warming up for half an hour I could usually sing from a somewhat stable C2 up to a comfortable E4 in my chest voice without straining or shouting too much. I also always liked recording my own backing vocals and doing harmonics in a kind of 'controlled falsetto' higher up on the scale. That's also what I used to do, when I was listening to songs that I liked and singing along - flipping into falsetto once the notes got too high for my chest voice. So, while I had never trained to bridge my passagio area and sing in connected headvoice, I had already developed quite a range for a guy with a rather deep speaking and singing (chest-) voice. Since I already knew how to use my headvoice in falsetto quite proficiently It didn't take too long to find out how to 'connect' in the upper region. Now I can produce tones up to a G5 (not really pretty and only on a really good day though!) and sustain them for much longer than I ever could in falsetto and I have a lot of control over modulating them and shaping their resonaces, so that I can actually sing along with a lot of female singers without hurting myself. Don't worry, I usually stay away from those super-high notes and only use them for effects in my own stuff. Unfortunately, once I started recording myself singing in the lower head tones right above my vocal 'break', I realized that it still sounded like a more 'controlled falsetto', though with much more volume but lacking those high-mid overtones that make the voice really stand out. I don't think this is because I fail to get my vocal folds adducted properly since I can really sustain the upper head notes quite effortlessly and play with pitch and modulation almost to my heart's content. So, since Robert Lunte was kind enough to offer a holiday discount I got myself a copy of the 'Four Pillars of Singing', hoping that he could explain to me how to engage this magical 'twang' mode everybody is talking about. I know I am doing it all wrong from a vocal teacher's point of view, having started on the high notes and not on the passagio. Plus, I can't for the life of me stick to only doing scales and sirens using only certain vowels. Though I don't doubt it's an efficient way to train the voice, it's just too boring and I constantly fail to accept myself as an absolute beginner - though concerning headvoice and bridging I most propably am. Because once I start singing, my voice gets a life of its own and immediately wants to produce real melodies with actual lyrics. And to be honest, I don't really aim to become a virtuoso or vocal 'athlete'. I just want to be able to put more variety into my own songs and not feel restricted by insufficient technique. Now, as you might have guessed, that doesn't help me bridge the passagio area. Since I've been flipping between registers all my life and even doing so on purpose for effect, I have propably developed a bad habit of 'not bridging' and consquently I am having a hard time making a smooth transition from chest to head resonance. I don't however have too much of a problem lowering my larynx and finding what the experts would call a 'singers formant' in my upper headvoice, once I start modifying vowels and opening my mouth in the right way. That came somehow naturally, propably because of my previous experience dabbling with singing harmonics and choir-like arrangements in falsetto and trying to put some 'ring' to them, or even trying to make them sound like a female background combo. Now what I've been doing for the past few weeks is making playlists of songs whose melodies concentrate around my passagio- area (pretty much betwen D4 and G4), singing along with them and trying to reduce volume once I reach the tricky region in order to make a smooth transition. Though I consider it a lot less fun, I have also tried to do some sirens and scales. What I absolutely fail at and find increasingly frustrating, is doing it at a volume that even remotely resembles what Robert is producing in his video lectures. I can only bridge into headvoice if I do it very quietly. Now I know that someone who's been training himself and others for the last twenty years will always sound a lot more 'voluminous' than some amateur like me who has been recording a few songs just for fun. I also know that 'volume' may not be the right term here, because a lot of that perception derives from resonance and would propably be better described as 'Loudness'. My understanding is that, if I do a siren from the lower end to the top, by using what robert calls 'twang' mode while still on the 'chestier' level and gradually lowering the larynx through the passagio-area, the vocal folds should stay connected. My problem is that I lose that twang configuration once I start transitioning into head voice if I try to sound beefy from the start. And if I put less 'beef' into chest voice to begin with, it doesn't really have that 'twang' sound and propably lacks compression as well, also leading to a quite falsetto-ish lower head voice. What I can do instead is start quite low in what I call 'gospel mode', since to me it somehow resembles what a gospel singer does or what can be heard from those soul divas if they sing really low in their alto range. It actually feels a lot like head voice but resonates deeply in the chest, while having a certain 'dopeyness' to it and still feeling connected. From there I can bridge into head voice more easily, since my larynx is already lowered from the beginning and I don't have to consciously 'engage' the lowering. Of course that doesn't sound as sharp as the rather metallic stuff that Robert is doing and which reminds me of some of those grunge-heroes from my youth. I still have to do it rather quietly and it's not really usable for the actual singing of real songs - except maybe for some really sad ballads - since it lacks the proper punch, especially if I try to sing more rythmically demanding stuff that requires exact timing of the lyrics to the beat. I know, I know, I will propably just have to do a lot more training. The question is if that does me any good if I keep doing it at a low volume or if I should rather try to do it 'louder' even if that means that I will not be able to connect all the way through the passagio at first? I know it's hard to tell what I'm doing by just reading a ridiculously long forum post, but how did/do you guys do it? TL;DR: What's more important? Sounding 'loud' and giving those tiny muscles a demanding workout in order to train them, or would you consider it more efficient to get the bridging done properly and only then start on making it sound louder?
×
×
  • Create New...