an excerpt from a great book

[VideoHere]

Bob - I never paid too much attention to lou grahm until this forum with your posts. I used to put lou in the same category with steve walsh, steve perry and others singers who were simply lucky to be born with a high range. From your posts I have really learned to appreciate lou's singing ability. He is fantastic and maybe he was one of those lucky ones that just sang this way by accident. Or maybe he developed it, I don't know. But now we know we all have the ability to sing up there. And the whole Chest / Head thing is a blurr. I'm developing one single voice that can go really high, and my low range is also expanding. I agree with you that a lot of it is muscle development. And of course a ton of fine coordination and vowel formation. It does go together. That's what I like about the KTVA program and I believe Lunte's program is the same. These programs are vocal workouts - like lifting weights.

thanks so much geno, i was beginning to feel like i was the only one seeing it this way. you've got to read this book, it talks to all we think about.

gramm is a singer's singer...i heard he has had very little training from tony (vocalpower) who shared the same bill with him once. but i'll bet he's done his share of vocal workouts...i'll bet my life on it....lol!!! his mother was a singer.

i actually wrote to him a while back..

here's another fantastic excerpt.....it's just what you are talking about:

Each and every combination of pitch and vowel, within the singer’s complete range, possesses its own individual vowel-throat-socket. By making the upper register, and all of its vowel-throat-sockets, become the dominant muscular control throughout the complete range, then stressing each individual pitch’s vowel-socket, through the application of progressively-increased amounts of breath tension, each pitch may be eventually developed to its maximum potential. In this way, the singer can eventually match all the developed tones of the upper register’s vowel throat-sockets to the corresponding vowel throat-sockets of the lower register’s tones, creating a synergism, or team of both registers. Doing so eliminates the inherent antagonism between the two registers, and subjugates them to the singer’s control. Then, he may sing with precise muscular intonation and control, and superior tonal quality.

Anthony Frisell (2010). THE TENOR VOICE (Kindle Locations 1534-1537). Branden Books. Kindle Edition.

[ronws]

Another thought I want to put in about the guitar analogy. Easy for me, since I also play guitar. We were talking about pick attack or how hard you strum a string. Yes, with out the resonance of the guitar itself, there is a slight increase in volume with an increased pressure on the pick attack. But that increase is nearly indistinguishable without the resonant qualities of the guitar. Most of the reason the guitar (acoustic) is shaped the way it is is the same reason a piano is shaped the way it is. To provide various resonant spaces for various notes. But the clearest high notes on a guitar are played on the lighter gauged (thinner) strings. Therefore, to relate the analogy, the highest notes in range do not involve total fold involvement. They involve a smaller section of the folds. And not stretched out but just a smaller section that can vibrate open and closed more easily to effect the frequency of a high pitch. To carry chest voice all the way up is like playing the entire range of the guitar on the 6th string (the big fat one at the top, on a guitar stringed for standard right-hand play. Interesting trivia, I am left-handed but play guitar right-handed, which makes sense to me. Most of the work is done by the left hand. And, when I taught myself how to play guitar in October of 1974, all I had was Mel Bay's Book of Chords, writtten for the right hand.)

But my analogy shows why a natural bass sounds different hitting a D4 than a natural tenor does hitting the same note.

But I am probably going to have to disagree with Dante on the concept of chest voice being simply a matter of how much chord depth is involved because I think it is not giving enough attention to the physics of the matter. To me, chest voice is a matter of resonance, mainly involving a descended palate, especially with closed off sinuses and the resonance is limited to the pharynx up to the level of the soft palate, and this is how a number people speak. With exception of course, of certain languages and dialects. Chef Paula Deen from Georgia speaks through the nose. And french is spoken with quite a bit of nasal tone.

Does this sound like I am leading to the conclusion that voices have operating limits? Why, yes, it does. I have never stated otherwise. Please, look at the quote in my sig. Does that mean that you cannot sing a certain style of music just because your voice does not have the same parameters as some of the notables in that genre? Of course not. The only person keeping you from singing whatever style is yourself. Because you, yourself, in your own mind, think that such and such genre requires such and such a sound. Which makes you just as didactic and dictatorial as anything you imagined opera to be. Grow a pair of cajones and dare to against "type." Or be like Michael from Faith No More and dare to combine several styles in one song. From rap to classical. Art is art and the true artist needs to have bravado.

If you want to sing country with a Steven Tyler type of voice, who is stopping you. You. If you like to sing Foreigner songs but your voice sounds like Sam Cooke, who is saying that you need to change? You are. No one else. And anyone who says you can't do what you want with your voice is an idiot and I did say that out loud, in my "outside" voice.

This forum and our quest should not be about hammering square pegs into round holes. It should be about discovering and enjoying what you do. End of mini-rant.

And Geno, I will disagree with you, too. Singing is NOT weighlifting. Singing is coordination. But more importantly, singing is mental. Including the acceptance of one's own voice, the hardst thing of all. Any number of people have been willing to spend hundreds of dollars on programs and skype lessons and owning more than one program and any amount of time, up to years, of self-degredation self-flagellation because their voice does not yet sound like some favored singer.

I used to lift weights. At one time, I was butterflying 135 lbs machine, 110 lbs cast-iron freeweight. The point of weightlifting was not coordination or reflex but building muscle to achieve a certain "look." The true nature of endurance exercise is not muscle-building but conditioning of the nervous system. Outside of pushing muscle past what it should do, exercise is about the nerves becoming more efficient at firing the muscles to do what they need to do. Real conditioning is about efficiency in use of energy and muscle.

And that's fine for the major muscle groups of the body. But the muscles that move the larynx are fine and delicate. And even if you succeeded in "building them up," what you have done is added bulk, which means there is less room to move, less flexibility.

If you walk properly, there is no difference in conditioning between walking a mile a day and 10 miles a day. Covert Bailey, the fitness guru, frankly admitted the process of diminishing returns. All you need for flexible, supple muscles and nerve action is 12 minutes of gentle warming and 30 minutes of walking. Anything past that doesn't give you enough benefit to justify the exertion. And I relate to that because singing is not weightlifting, it is coordination. But, then, again, perhaps I am speaking in vain as maybe no one here can relate to the endurance any parent has to undergo with a crying baby. A crying baby who has never heard of overdrive and doesn't give two flips about depth of fold involvement. They just breath, phonate, and resonate. I dare anyone here to ask any actual parent about that. You were born knowing how to sing. Your culture beat it out of you. Real singing training is about getting out of your own way.

And Dante, you quoted my last question after you answered it. That's a bit unfair.

Then, again, I don't have to be politically correct or assuage powers that be. I don't have singing program to sell or a website to defend. I don't have to maintain an "Anything is possible" to a buying public. And more than once, I have been ignored when I mentioned the case of a singer who was previously classed as a dramatic baritone when a later, more astute teacher correctly fach'd him as a lyric tenor. Which brings about the unpopular thing mentioned by many of the singers in the Martin's book. You are born with a certain voice. Do what that voice can do, not what you think others are doing. And too many of the popular singing programs are leading students to think they can achieve what is not physically possible. And I understand the pursuit of the dollar. I am an unrepentant capitalist. I vomit in my mouth a little when I even have to say the word, "socialist." And if people want to hand over 100 dollars or more for the dream that they can sing "Dream On" and sound like Steven Tyler, fine. Free market is free market. But also, there is freedom of expression. And I seem to be digressing. Sorry. My bad.

But we are definitely dealing with psychology, here. Bob, you bring it on yourself. Yes, Lou Gramm is a great singer. One of many. And whether or not I, or you, or any one else sings like him or not does not decide whether we are a great singer, or not. Nor does your estimation of his technique mean that he is actually singing that high in "chest voice." Nor does your opinion that rock can only be carried effectively in high chest voice become law. For one thing, are we not, in this thread, exchanging different views of what is "chest voice"? And is not the supposition that rock can only be sung in high chest voice something as didactic and dictatorial as anything we imagine of opera singing, or accused it of being? I find that attitude highly anti - rock and roll. Rock and Roll is about your true voice, whatever that is, not some set-in-stone list of rules and timbres. Which makes me rock and roll. I will sing as I sing, in my own voice, whatever I choose to sing. A) that is rock and roll. If Bob Dylan can do it, I certainly can. (oops, I said that out loud.) No one's actually physically big enough to stop me. It's as if you have decided that the rules of rock singing are defined by what you estimate of Lou Gramm's singing technique, though, I might be an ass and ask if you are referring to Lou pre or post brain tumor, for there is a difference.

And certainly my own psychology may be in play and I accept and recognize that. Some of my earliest memories are of Glen

Campbell's new release (at the time), "Wichita Lineman." Of scottish descent but definitely a classical tenor, though he was singing in the folk and country genre. Followed by the teutonic, yeah, even Wagnerian, bombast of Ted Neely in the movie, "Jesus Christ, Superstar." Interspersed, here and there, with the likes of Placido Domingo and early Luciano Pavarotti, the Beatles, the Who, Kansas, and, of course, Robert Plant. I accept those as my influences, whether I sound like any of them, or not. As well as the phrasing and melody placing of the likes of Uriah Heep. "July Morning" is still one of my favorites and I really should do a cover of that, as my wife sometimes thinks I sound like David Byron, the original singer.

Then, again, I have followed a conventional, yet unconventional path. While the beginning of my singing was classical in origin and influence, I have always been a self-learner, especially growing up poor, where even having Mel Bay's Book of Chords was a luxury ( I am not exaggerating or being superlative.) So, I haven't followed one program or attached myself to a program which must somehow defend after having spent some money on it and must now defend my honor for having purchased it (God forbid I appear wrong.)

I know that one of your pet peeves is when somone makes something appear easy, when it might mean some herculean effort of work for someone else. But that's the way life is. A 7 foot tall guy is likely to have an easier time playing basketball and all the crying in the world won't help that change. Rik Emmett of Triumph is a naturally high pitched guy and it is going to be easier for him to sing a C6 than even the blessed Axl Rose or Tom Petty and that's just the facts of life. And no singing program or amount of work or effort is going to change that, nor will it change the tonal difference, if each of those guys was capable of singing that C6.

So, it's possible that I just have a "natural" light, and ringy headvoice and gravitate toward classical instruction the easiest, since it supports what my voice naturally does. By no means does that mean I am an opera singer or could sing opera effectively. But the roots of classical singing seem to match what my voice does.

Could I sing Foreigner songs? Some of them, yes. Would it be successful? Perhaps, depending on the buying public. I'm not about to ruin or strain my voice to sound like Lou. I already strained it twice trying to sound like Bon Scott and that was just an experiment, trying to follow the suggestions of others in this forum. And yes, I was an idiot for even listening, when I should have trusted the instincts of what my voice can do. For it is rock and roll for me to keep singing "Highway to Hell" however my voice does it, which does not sound like Bon Scott. And anyone who does not understand that does not understand rock and roll. Which is not to say that I could be successfull singing that song. The problem is, however, I don't give crap. It's my song.

Again, for the umpteenth time, singing is mental.

Man, what a rambling post I can produce. I feel like I didn't answer any of the questions put before me. Oh well, at least we are like-minded in our pursuit of our craft, even as we take different, even slightly, paths to get there.

[ronws]

Also, I didn't want to appear flippant. When I question whether we are to hold the Lou Gramm standard of pre or post brain tumor, I wish to add that for him to sing like he still does inspite of his medical issues is a nigh unto a miracle. A gift that is thankfully still in this world. And a testament to the drive in his heart. And that, friends, one and all, is rock and roll. And opera, too.

[ronws]

I agree that end product often becomes the goal, whether it is appropos or not. And more than just the classical teachers are at fault. So are some others that have a chance to influence by their position. "You can't sing rock and roll because you have to carry chest high and if you are not doing that, it's not rock and roll."

Or, in so many words;

"You might sing your way but if you're not singing like this guy over here, then you're just not skilled enough and you are not going to be at a pro level."

I truly like your definition question for singers. For the main thing singing training should build is confidence.

However, I don't think we control the folds with that much fine degree. Other than by how we manage breath. And for that, I prefer to use resonance. When resonated properly, the note is loud enough and the brain, in turn, tells the breathing motor how much gas to put on or pull off. Spending too much time worrying about what the throat is doing or holding breath is likely to lead to strain and tension, which lead down the wrong path.

Granted, it's old school to believe that nothing should be in the throat but I have found that a valuable consideration to maintain.

And I am out of time, again.

[VideoHere]

ron, i'm not at all offended, nor would i ever be. all you folks are my friends and i hope you consider me one as well.

i really don't mean to imply that lou gramm is the be all, end all of singers. while i admire him greatly, i realize everyone has their favorites as well. but what i don't think you realize is how i choose to sing is not pulling chest, it's bringing head down to chest and strenthening the two together. you have your way of singing and i have mine...it's all good. however, rest assured i'm not straining my butt off over here just working (yes building up the voice) but believe me i'm very open and relaxed in the throat. please don't be offended by this, but is it possible you are simply not choosing to go into a more intense level of exercising/singing? i personally think you can do a lot more with your voice in terms of chestiness, power, etc., (anyone can i believe) but you may simply be happy where you are and that is fine too.

and believe me, i'm not saying the way of singing or training i do is "the way." i just know for me it's really working.

so feel free to comment away, but know a lot of this stuff i agree with you on, and some of it i don't, but i respect your opinion either way...okay?

[ronws]

And let me reverse field, just a smidge. I can concede "deep fold involvement." However, my qualifier is that a high note can be deep fold involvement, which would fit your definition of "chest voice" but it would still involve a smaller section of the folds having deep involvement. And that is a difference in the amount of folds involved from low "chest" to high head. And one does not amplify that so much with volume of air or even pressure of air, though I find in my experience that high notes do require more consistent movement in the intercostal obliques, the volum still comes from resonance. So, yes, one can attack more vigourously at phonation but the real volume still comes from resonance.

That being said, there are genetic differences that must be considered and I know everyone is not all the keen at accepting genetic differences. Sorry about ya'll's luck. Some people have folds that can put up with the strain of high chest for years, maybe for decades. And others, not so much. But I would find it stifling to say that one cannot sing a style of music simply because one does not or cannot sing "high chest" for a particular genre. Nor is it fair to hold up one singer as the paramount of all singing, considering genetic differences. What if I said that if you can't sing and sound like Bruce Dickinson, you just can't do it and ought to give it up? There would be no end to the line of people telling me how wrong I am. What if I said that the only way to sing heavy metal is to sound like Ronnie James Dio? How ludicrous is that?

I can concede that there could be some miniscule muscle training in singing training. However, my contention is that just about none of it is in the throat. That it is somewhat in breathing, and mostly in learning how to get out of the way and allow the note to resonate.

So, let me be a twerp and share how Bruce Dickinson warms up before a show. Not a protracted series of scales at various intervals. No do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do. And not an hour or more of assorted exercises and mechanical things, so much. In his own words, he wanders around back stage, humming, smiling "maniacally" and finding where his resonance is. And this has lasted for decades. In his off-time, between shows, if he is not flying the 747 jumbo they used for the "Flight 666 Tour," does he spend hours with a program of cd's and dvd's. No, he drinks water, sometimes he jogs, but mostly he watches movies and shows.

He is also one of those bastards that says that people are born with certain qualities to their voice and that you best stay within what your voice can do. Hence, the quote in my sig.

[VideoHere]

agreed, (ron, you know your stuff) but for some reason you corrolate carrying chest up as a requisite for that "gramm" sound. i can sound really chesty but i'm in head register, i'm not really carrying anything up, i would describe it as sending highly pressurized air to the vocal folds letting the folds tension and adduction level give me the high note or the pitch (vocal folds=pitch making) and from there i channel this pressurized air into the right vowel pocket...i can assure you if you send a more pressurized air stream to the vowel sockets of resonance versus a light stream of air you're gonna hear a significant difference in sound. that's the secret i believe to guys like gramm, he knows exactly where to send the air to nail the pocket of resonance and he has breath support enough for two. just to repeat, i'm not driving up my chest voice, i'm just getting better at pressurizing (and having the ability to keep the folds from blowing apart) and hitting those natural pockets of resonance. doing this (can) take a lot out of you physically.

see where i'm coming from?

[jonpall]

Ronws, could you repost one of your covers here which might illustrate some of the points you're making in this thread? I think it would be easier for us to HEAR what you are talking about rather than read about it. Even though some videos have been posted, it would sound most accurately coming from your own voice so we could understand your viewpoint better.

[ronws]

And yes, Bob, I have learned to be happy singing the way I do. And some might think I "give up" on "improving." Nothing could be further from the truth.

For me, I am improving in more ways than one. For one thing, I am not trying to sound like or sing like anyone else. There are a number of singers I admire. Lou Gramm is one of them. I have mentioned it before, so I will mention it again, as it needs repeating. One of my prize possessions ( a Christmas gift from two years ago) is a 3-cd set of Foreigner's greatest hits. And yes, I will sing along with just about the entire set, if I am not careful, whether I sound like him or not. In fact, this whole thread has infected my brain. On the hour drive home, I ran through parts of "I've Been Waiting" 3 times and it's all your fault, Bob.

And never tired and hit the same range every time. Because I have learned to work with what my voice can do. Do I sound like Gramm when I sing it? I have no idea and I just don't care. Singing it like Ron was good enough for me.

Which is part of my evolution.

And you might think I'm not "doing all I can with my voice" or expanding chest timbre and you can certainly have that opinion, even if I disagree with it. And I am so glad that you take my exceptions and differences of opinion in the spirit that I intend. I am not exaggerating when I think of you as a brother or kindred spirit. We just sometimes take what seems like different tacks (to borrow a sailing term), even if we arrive at the same port (to continue the sailing metaphor.)

And I miss having the chance to talk to you over the phone. That one time was very special to me and we agreed on much, I think. But I realized that I was taking the wrong, approach, for me. As another author pointed out, genetic differences do make a big difference. You may have a voice that is more approachable from the "chest" perspective than mine. Which is something I can accept, even if others cannot.

And part of my maturation is to accept some limits, which does not limit, so much what I can sing, but informs me to choose wisely what I should sing, and how I should sing it. Any and every singer, especially pro, only sings what his voice can do. I doubt Gramm could do a convincing version of "Rainbow in the Dark" or "Last in Line." Which is in no way, any criticism of Gramm. It's simply not matched to his voice and that is a hard fact of life for many a person to swallow, especially the student who is trying to find their "fach," as it were, in the wide world of singing. Just as Dio could never do a ballad like "I've been Waiting" if his life depended on it. Which didn't make him less of a singer. Just a singer of a different style. I hope this is making sense. By the way, when Dio covered "Dream On" (on a tribute album where a bunch of different artists and bands covered Aerosmith songs (and yes, I have that album and it's entitled "Not the same old song and dance")), he did not hit Tyler's high note, though he could have. He restrained, leaving that note for Tyler and also, staying within his singing style, rather than trying to copy Tyler's style. A mark of grace, maturity, and respect, I think.

So, I think I am doing all that my voice can do, though I am going through re-discovery by going back to my roots. I am using herculean effort to prevent myslf from re-recording everything I have done. But I am always in search of my real voice and I think I have found it. And, also, I want to get more into writing my own stuff. Not just as a creative outlet but because any singer sounds best on stuff he/she wrote or that was written for him/her by a writer that understands the unique voice and music style.

I know that my natural style is hard rock/heavy metal, with a strong classical influence. My wife thinks I often sound like David Byron, the original singer of Uriah Heep. Recently, I was favorably compared as a clean, almost operatic version of Bruce Dickinson, similar to how he sounded on "Fear of the Dark." Doesn't matter, either way, I think a semi-aria is up my alley.

And perhaps, that is the path I should follow. I am resurrecting an old song I wrote called "The Highlands" to celebrate the scottish part of my heritage (I am a mongrel, comprised of english, german, irish, and scottish descent.) But with my new-found appreciation of what my voice can actually do, I will probably re-write parts of it, higher.

And that is another part of my maturation. Not so much cover tunes and more original stuff. Though, don't get my wrong, I will sing "Highway to Hell" in my own voice, as long as I have breath to do so. So, my progress is to see what exactly my voice can do, per the Bruce quote in my sig. No, he's not necessarily my role model or how I want to sound. It's just a piquant bon mot I found appropos and worth considering.

What can my voice do? Indeed.

[Quincy]

This is a great exchange of ideas guys! It’s really got me thinking about things I’ve never thought of.

Ron, I agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying. Resonance is a huge part of volume increase with little extra effort. Efficiency. But take for example the messa di voce exercise. A favorite exercise of mine lately. I start out at a given pitch as low of volume as I can manage, but try to make it as efficient as possible with the resonance pocket. As I direct my body to swell the pitch to a louder volume, what I feel is a subtle sense of more cord compression and depth. Along with the needed additional breath pressure to create the ease and balance of fold phonation. If either one of these is out of balance it becomes more difficult, less efficient, blows apart, becomes too squeezed, etc. When I do it correctly, I can feel physical sensations at the cord level as the sound becomes louder. The resonance is still there to help amplify the sound waves produced.

It would be interesting to know what sensations others feel as they change the dynamics of a given pitch.

[VideoHere]

This is a great exchange of ideas guys! It’s really got me thinking about things I’ve never thought of.

Ron, I agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying. Resonance is a huge part of volume increase with little extra effort. Efficiency. But take for example the messa di voce exercise. A favorite exercise of mine lately. I start out at a given pitch as low of volume as I can manage, but try to make it as efficient as possible with the resonance pocket. As I direct my body to swell the pitch to a louder volume, what I feel is a subtle sense of more cord compression and depth. Along with the needed additional breath pressure to create the ease and balance of fold phonation. If either one of these is out of balance it becomes more difficult, less efficient, blows apart, becomes too squeezed, etc. When I do it correctly, I can feel physical sensations at the cord level as the sound becomes louder. The resonance is still there to help amplify the sound waves produced.

It would be interesting to know what sensations others feel as they change the dynamics of a given pitch.

great question....i love that exercise (it's the hardest, but i love it)....lol!!!

i do the messa di voce and still get those little bumps and blips. still want to better at smoothing it out.

but here's what i feel when i do them. (reffering to the crescendo version) i start in a light head tone on a lot of sounds/vowels "yay", "ee" awe", "oo" and "ah." as i begin to transition and thicken i get the feeling like i twanged the vocal folds, meaning i feel like i squeeze the folds together from a lower section and slide up like squeezing toothpaste out of the tube. as the sound gets thicker and louder (referring to the cresendo part) i really haven't spent much time on the decrescendo part although i know i should.

i also do these "mini messa di voce's" i made up for myself, where i just try to swell quick from soft to louder fast....not gradually.

[Quincy]

I do the mini mdv some of the time, same as you. Sometimes when I’m having problems finding the groove on the regular MDV, I’ll do a quick Mini on that same pitch. Seems to help me find the groove.

I made a midi file, with the flute like patch sound starting at G2 and goes whole notes up to E4 for about 20-30 secs per note. After doing the MDV for those notes I rest a few minutes and start in at F4 going whole notes up to C5 doing the same. Take another 2 minute rest and then have a single note play for about 3-4 minutes and MDV ay, ee, I, Oh, oo, a, eh, i, ah, and uh for two full cycles. Right now I’m doing this on an Ab4 and will stay there until I feel ready to go to A4.

I’ll tell you, I’m a firm believer in this exercise now also. It really starts to open up a lot of new possibilities and options. I think one of the best overall exercises out there and really transfers over into helping other parts of the voice.

[VideoHere]

I do the mini mdv some of the time, same as you. Sometimes when I’m having problems finding the groove on the regular MDV, I’ll do a quick Mini on that same pitch. Seems to help me find the groove.

I made a midi file, with the flute like patch sound starting at G2 and goes whole notes up to E4 for about 20-30 secs per note. After doing the MDV for those notes I rest a few minutes and start in at F4 going whole notes up to C5 doing the same. Take another 2 minute rest and then have a single note play for about 3-4 minutes and MDV ay, ee, I, Oh, oo, a, eh, i, ah, and uh for two full cycles. Right now I’m doing this on an Ab4 and will stay there until I feel ready to go to A4.

I’ll tell you, I’m a firm believer in this exercise now also. It really starts to open up a lot of new possibilities and options. I think one of the best overall exercises out there and really transfers over into helping other parts of the voice.

totally, totally agree. do you feel the same physical sensation i described (the toothpaste tube)?

and yes, it makes your singing voice stronger and more dynamic....

[Quincy]

totally, totally agree. do you feel the same physical sensation i described (the toothpaste tube)?

and yes, it makes your singing voice stronger and more dynamic....

I'll pay closer attention tomorrow morning when I try it. But what you are saying makes sense to me... I can picture a thin edge of the cords at low volume touching one another and progressively getting thicker or more cord depth as you get louder. Maybe the head voice edge actually starts near the bottom of the cord contact and thickens in an upward direction.

But for sure its good to have a visual picture in your mind to help develop the coordination and make it more consistent.

[gno]

Dante - this thread has been really good. I have incorrectly assumed that head voice has a distinct CT / TA strength ratio that was different than in chest. And that TA had to be relaxed quite a bit for head. I also incorrectly assumed that the head "register" had to sound different because the overtone structure was different due to thinner folds and less fold depth.

I'm now at the point of where you can't distinguish the sound of chest verses head, and I'm starting to not feel any difference either. I'm really wondering if there is a head register anymore. It's like one continuous chest voice. Sure it sounds "heady" really high, but there is not a single point along the range where I can point and say "There's where I just went into head voice" like I used to.

[PopVlad]

Hey Guys,

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread and turning it into the messa di voce one as we've had those (threads) in the past

I just wanted to double-check if I'm doing what you are saying in terms of the resonance and the vowel mod.

Below is a link of me doing a mdv on Ab4:

http://www.box.net/shared/y0abf6vn1q

Is this along the lines of what you are doing when doing that exercise?

Many thanks,

Vlad

[gno]

I hope you now see why there is no need to feel like you incorrectly assumed anything. You had an idea, and it served you for a time, and now you've moved on to newer, expanded idea (for you, at least) which now serves you better. And then one day, these ideas will no longer serve you, and you will move on again. And the cycle repeats until the end of time.

Yeah - what you are saying has happened for me. At first it was good to recognize a "head register" and learn how to "bridge" to it. It used to be a specific CT / TA relationship. And then learning how to bridge to it allowed me to "morph" the CT / TA relationship smoothly. As I got better at morphing to it, I learned how to essentially morph it along the whole range. Sure there is a point where tilting starts to occur, and maybe this was the most important step to recognize and learn how to do when develping the upper range. I guess the thing that I don't understand is why even Bel Canto still clings to the "chest" and "head" register idea? It is just for learning? Are they defining head like I used to? Where tilting starts to occur? I really like the concept of one continuous voice.

[jonpall]

I've heard it both from Steven Fraser and Martin H. that the switch from chest voice to head voice (or the switch from overdrive to curbing) happens at a single point in the range and does NOT happen gradually. But with practise you can train your voice in such a way that the borders between the two regions sound so similar that it sounds like one unified voice. And after you've trained like this for a while and start to get really good at it, you might stop to notice where the switch happens and not really think about it. Geno, perhaps that's what's happening to you right now. Cheers.

[gno]

Well that's another way to describe it: Curbing as head voice and overdrive as chest. Then yes - this happens at certain point for certain vowels. I never used to define curbing as head though, because it was always very "chesty" to me. For example, curbing for me at G4 still involves deep and thick fold vibration producing the same thick overtones. For me, curbing verses overdrive has everything to do with reasonance shifting, and not the actual production of the fundamental pitch how deep the folds are vibrating.

I've been doing vowel modification (overdrive to curbing) for years as I learned it early on in my youth. What I didn't know how to do until a year ago is access the upper tenor and saprano range, which I considered head - essentially Bb4 and higher. For that I needed to learn how to let CT be dominant and start the tilting action. So my idea of "head" again wasn't necessarily everyone elses.

[jonpall]

In some ways, using the terms chest voice and head voice can be a bit confusing and even falsetto, don't you agree? Even so, I can usually understand what people mean when they talk about these terms.

[VideoHere]

Vlad,

I applaud you for even having the guts to try such an exercise. Such an attitude will help you out immensely in your vocal journey. You have the general idea of how to carry out the exercise. What I really like in this clip is that you're doing what I call an EE vowel with depth. This allows the larynx to sit in a slightly lower position and gives the EE more resonance. Good work! As you continue to practice this exercise more, it will get stronger and you will be able to bring in more cord depth, especially in light of what you mentioned in the other thread about your vocal fold closure. If I might make a suggestion, try carrying out this exercise a little bit lower, perhaps in more of the E4 - G4 range. In that area, you will REALLY have to work. It's a bit easier to do higher. As I mentioned in the other thread, you can also try it on different vowels to find which is your favorite.

Keep up the excellent work!

~~Dante~~

you guys are starting to sound like i think too!!!...like there is no longer chest and head but instead a powerful head placement/dominance positioning. but it takes more out of you singing like this.

guess who i spoke to on the phone last night? the man himself anthony frisell...a hell of a nice guy, very down to earth, very much wanting to help..he told me he has another book coming out soon...but check this out, when he asked me if i had any other questions i asked him point blank...mr. frisell, "can singing be very strenuous?" his reply was "singing ain't easy bob, you want it to look easy, but at times it can be a real bitch." this from the man himself!!! lol!!!

vlad, unless i'm wrong, are you sure you're not just swelling the tone and remaining too head dominant (like a reinforced falsetto) instead of getting more under it a bit more and engaging more lower register... then once you have it swelled you shoot that tone beam to the appropriate resonating cavity per that note?

here's a great excerpt regarding instructions on performing messa di voce:

#1, The singer establishes a soft Gn pitch, above middle C (p. 66), with a detached falsetto i (ee) vowel, which has been passed through a hollow o (oh) vowel, endeavoring to produce the purest detached, breath-flowing falsetto tone possible. That means, no muscular conflicts with neighboring tones, and no involvement with chest voice power. This detached falsetto, starting-tone should convey to the singer a sense of minimal physical effort, because the open i (ee) vowel hones the tone and its breath stream into a thinly fine, manageable point. Its tonal quality must be soft and sweet, and it should possess no vibrato, or potential for projection. It should be produced in the same “airy” way in which one whistles. Phase #2, The singer begins to apply breath tension to the detached falsetto, starter-tone, open i (ee) vowel tone, to increase its volume. This requires that, at one point in the swelling process, the singer attempts to “attach” the muscular action of the chest voice to the falsetto starter-tone. To do this, certain structural conditions of the two registers must preexist. The starter-falsetto tone must be developed to a point of sufficient strength to sustain the appropriate breath tension required to fully pull the chest voice’s muscular power “upward” and “attach” it to the starter-tone. If this advanced development pre-exists, the two registers' separate muscular actions can be connected and “clamped” together on the same pitch by the intensified stream of the breath pressure, and with muscular harmony. If the singer fails to achieve all the aforementioned, then the inherent antagonism between the two registers still exists. If the exercise repeatedly fails, the singer should rest his voice, then try the exercise much later. Perhaps then, using only a breathy u (oo) or a hollow o (oh) vowel. These two vowels restore the free flow of breath to the vocal passageway, whereas the i (ee), when not produced and/or applied accurately, will cut it completely off. Eventually, at some point in the swelling process, when the singer attempts to add the “bite” or “core” brilliance of the chest voice to the detached falsetto tone, a new and unexpected mechanical function makes itself felt. It is known as the mezzo-falso, generally referred as the “mixed voice” (pg. 79). While performing the messa di voice, the mixed voice will help the singer to accomplish a smooth transition from the chest voice to the head voice, and unite the two registers’ actions. This mezzo-falso is not an independent mechanical function, but a derivative of both registers’ separate muscular actions. It only comes into existence as a result of developing the upper register separately for a long period of time, then coaxing both registers toward a cooperative team effort. When it finally appears, it may be preceded by an unusual, transitory version of its later. permanent self, known as the “Witch Voice” (p. 77). After the muscular controls of the two registers have been clamped together so they do not “crack” apart, they communicate to the singer a precise “centered point” along the pharyngeal tract, toward which the breath stream should be focused. This “clamping” maneuver can only be accomplished when the breath pressure is first applied directly to the vocal cords, then to its “focal point” which guides the singer in locating the center of any tone. If the singer fails to clamp the two registers’ muscular actions firmly together, the vocal cords will not be able to sustain the gradual increases and/or decreases of breath tension applied to them, in order to add and/or subtract the power of the chest voice to/or from the starter-falsetto tone. Nor, to precisely raise or lower the pitch. The registers will “crack apart” without this “clamping” factor, denying the bonding of the two registers. When the swelled-tone exercise has been accomplished to ideal standards, the vibrations of any pitch, riding on the breath flow, can then be projected upward, in a posterior direction, along the resonance channel and “soar” toward their precise terminal impingement points within the appropriate resonating cavity. But, only if no separation or blockage exists, during the swelled-tone exercise, when passing from the soft, detached falsetto starter tone, to the vibrant power of the chest voice. With success, harmony comes to exist between the vibrations of the vocal cords, at the bottom of the sound tract, in the lower throat channel, and the sympathetic vibrations of the selected pitch’s corresponding resonator cavity, located far above, within the pharynx-mouth-head, or nasal cavities and/or head cavities. Only then can the “ideal tone” be produced. Anything other than this above physical “set up” is a compromise and only allows the singer a forced, thick, difficult to manage voice.

Anthony Frisell (2010). THE TENOR VOICE (Kindle Locations 2184-2197). Branden Books. Kindle Edition.

[Quincy]

Thanks for all your insights Dante! You've been very helpful.

PopVlad, you have the right idea, but I agree you should slow it down. I like to try to start from complete relaxed minimal effort and slowly engage as little as possible but necessary as you swell in volume. Getting that chest to engage with head, as Bob described above, as smoothly as possible. Finding that groove or transition is what I am mostly after. But it should feel coordinated and finely calibrated.

Bob, I paid more attention to the sensations this morning and tried to envision your squeezed toothpaste tube analogy. I still can't put my finger on it but will keep paying attention. I almost feel like I had the sensation of the back of the throat pulling backwards as I engaged more meat ...cord depth.

You ought to try adding some decrescendos for a week or so. I didn't think I would ever get that working but it eventually revealed itself. I don't think I'll ever master this exercise completely, but I can definitely feel a continuous type of improvement.

[PopVlad]

Dante - thank you! I'll keep at messa di voce for a while. Will se what happens. And I WILL work on the E4-G4 range as you have suggested.

Bob - it's on a headier side, yes, yet I don't feel it to be a "stronger falsetto", or whatever. It feels like the note has some core to it. Needs work still

Quincy - yeah, I need to slow that down, don't I?

To ALL - are there any additional benefits (if any) of doing the mdv stating on a full tone first and THEN making it softer, as opposed to a regular one?

Many thanks to all of you,

Vlad

[JohnGalt]

PopVlad, I just listened to your mdv, first I have to say wow that sounds so nice and effortless! But I was wondering if you don't mind me asking, how do you make the falsetto transition to that fuller voice? Does it happen naturally for you after a long period of practicing falsetto? Or was it a result of doing the descending falsetto exercise long enough? When I try it, my falsetto just gets louder (up to a point) but it is still definitely falsetto. I look forward to your response, I love how you add that "brilliant core" as Frisell refers to it.

EDIT: I forgot to ask, does this mesa di voce have anything to do with the "witch voice" Frisell refers to, or when you do the "swelling exercise" are you simply naturally transitioning from falsetto to this middle voice? Thanks again.

[VideoHere]

folks, the mdv is a tough exercise.

so no one is wasting their time, on the mdv crescendo part, you've got to engage the lower register, not swell in head or falsetto. the end result is unification of chest and head.

here's an audio to kinda help a bit i hope. it's still a work in progress.

not http://www.box.net/shared/b6a8g2ertp