an excerpt from a great book

[JohnGalt]

Hey VIDEOHERE, I listened to your clip, and I feel like it has helped me to better understand, but I wanted to ask, when you speak of engaging the lower register, is this what could be referred to as witch/quack voice? Or is it something different?

EDIT: Also, I am kind of confused about some parts in Frisell's book, perhaps you might shed some light on it for me, I would appreciate it. In one part of the book, he discusses the pharyngeal voice, and in another he discusses the witch voice. Are these the same thing, or something different? Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself here, but is swelling from falsetto into the witch voice the first step in the mesa di voce exercise? Thanks for your time.

[PopVlad]

Thank you Dante for the explanation!

Thank you Bob - your example helped a lot.

John - the way i do the mdv is I start out with a soft note (as soft as possible) and than I open up my throat and lower the larynx.

So I would start on a neutral to high larynx with falsetto and the I would start dropping my larynx and opening up the back of my throat.

It's just like "yawning into the note".

Now, I'm not sure this is THE correct way of doing that exercise AND even at it's "fullest" I still feel I could engage more cord (as stated previously and as noted by Bob).

Tell me if that helps,

[PopVlad]

Bob and everyone - a heavier mdv on a G4.

Is that your definition of "heavy"?

http://www.box.net/shared/q5k6u7m64qfmpk093h5e

[anonimuzz]

Messa di voce is brought up several times around here, and it really seems like an effective exercise. Too bad I'm not ready to do it -.-' Your use of vocal fry to find a connection reminds me of some Brett Manning's exercises, Videohere. However, I think he or someone else says not to use vocal fry this way too often, even though it's helpful. Is that true?

[VideoHere]

let me try and answer everybody...

john, the way i understood witch voice from the book is he was trying to explain twang. twang makes your voice brighter.

the quack is just a way to produce twang, but not the only way..a "nay" can produce twang, cackling like a wicked witch will produce twang...twang is a narrowing of the epiglottic sphincter muscle. some people sing with twang instinctively.

anonimuzz, the creaks you heard is my lack of development and coordination ability to make the transition smoothly. i was not trying to vocal fry although it sounded like one. that exercise can takes years to perfect. if it's done right, (steve fraser does a great one) you don't hear any breaks as the sound swells from a light connected head voice to a full rich voice comprised of head qualities and chest qualities.

but whatever anyone does don't just sing and light head tone and increase the volume alone. you must engage the folds and thicken the sounds via the folds and increased breath pressure....you kinda have to lean into the folds...it really is tough to do.

addendum: some people are good at swelling from soft to loud and others from loud to soft. but the end goal is to be able to do both. proficiency in this ability is considered one of the highest vocal acheivements.

[PopVlad]

Thank you, Dante.

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific reason you wanted me to try the mdv lower?

Cheers,

[anonimuzz]

Lol, Videohere, I thought it was intentional. But it still shows that the vocal-fryish cracking sound you made is part of finding a connection. I'm glad you posted your clip, even though it's not perfect. It lets us know how we're expected to sound when we're still learning how to do it correctly.

(...)

One is never "not ready" to try this exercise. Keep in mind, this exercise does not have to be only done in the high range -- you can do it on every single note in your range. If you're only able to do it in your lower range, then practice it there and keep gradually moving it up as time goes on. Just simply practicing it, even if you cant do it perfectly, will develop strength and coordination.

One note: Although this exercise is often described as going from falsetto to full voice, I would make it even more general and say you are changing the intensity level from pianissimo to fortissimo and back to pianissimo (or vice versa). This allows the exercise to be applicable to any range you're in because it takes into account all the little things that have to occur such as changes in cord depth, the stretch of the cords, the tilt of the larynx, etc.

~~Dante~~

Ok, that's nice to know. I said I wasn't ready for it because I was assuming that I had to transition from falsetto to full voice, which implied that I had to be able to use both falsetto and full voice in the notes I chose to do mdv in. So, doing it too low would make it really hard or impossible to use falsetto, and doing it too high would surpass the limits of my (comfortable) full voice.

[JohnGalt]

I am royally confused about this. I found I can "swell" my voice if I transition from falsetto into the "witch" sound, but I am confused now, is this still falsetto, or is it just a very underdeveloped mdv? Here is the link: http://www.box.net/shared/qjear8q9h4ohvf75p100

Thanks

[VideoHere]

hey folks, here's another great excerpt which if you read between the lines is basically telling us all...we gotta keep working hard lol!!!

i told ya this takes a lot of effort...lol!!!!

Present-day tenors, working on their voices alone, or in collaboration with a voice teacher, purposefully resist the full transfer of the chest power to the upper tones of there voice, knowing full well that it is a most difficult and time consuming task. If the singer progresses to a point that he feels secure and confident to essay a complete operatic role, but in a very lyrical fashion, in order to play it safe, he may get by with that approach for a little while. But he will eventually arrive at a crisis point, with his “guarded, lyric” singing, wherein the full power of the chest voice will fully assert itself. If and when that happens, the singer can only survive the crisis by learning all the required structural factors that he can, about the detached falsetto voice, and the methods of restricting the negative chest voice, in the lower range, in order for him to gradually and safely transfer limited amounts of the difficult to manage chest voice power, into all the pitches of his former, lyric tenor range.

Anthony Frisell (2010). THE TENOR VOICE (Kindle Locations 2995-3001). Branden Books. Kindle Edition.

[JohnGalt]

All right, I tried it out, but the only way I could get chest voice was by "breaking" it and not actually crescendoing into it. I am confused what I am doing wrong:

http://www.box.net/shared/dqtkdcqhk625l3k6jheb

[JohnGalt]

Thanks for helping me!

So it should feel as if I'm just going into ordinary, "raw" chest voice? Am I eventually supposed to learn how to stop halfway through this transition, and that is the mesa di voce, halfway through the swelling? Also, I tried your suggestions, and wow your tip to go from ff to pp, I think it made the transition much more fluid on middle C. However, I noticed the transition is poorer in quality on D4 than on the C.

http://www.box.net/shared/glvy59hq3syjg2q4jn3u

[JohnGalt]

Hey thanks so much for explaining this stuff Dante! But am I supposed to expect to be able to access this raw chest on A4/B4, etc.? Or am I training the full spectrum these lower notes to learn to transition into just enough chest for the audience to perceive high notes as pure chest?

[VideoHere]

Thanks for helping me!

So it should feel as if I'm just going into ordinary, "raw" chest voice? Am I eventually supposed to learn how to stop halfway through this transition, and that is the mesa di voce, halfway through the swelling? Also, I tried your suggestions, and wow your tip to go from ff to pp, I think it made the transition much more fluid on middle C. However, I noticed the transition is poorer in quality on D4 than on the C.

http://www.box.net/shared/glvy59hq3syjg2q4jn3u

remember you can't just swell in the original starting voice..the folds have to engage to the folds you use for chest voice sound.

i best describe it as leaning into the tone. it takes a long time to master.

[JohnGalt]

VIDEOHERE: I like your analogy of leaning into the tone, it was helpful for learning the "quack" voice so I will try to apply it to this exercise. Thanks!

CunoDante: Ah, I see, so it's somewhat of a mental thing as well, that's cool, that makes me think of practicing falsetto down int chest voice range. When I go down to lower notes, although no physical effort is required, I really need to focus my attention or else it the chest voice begins to "wrestle" for control. Okay, I think I see what you mean about the amount of chest being engaged, thank you for explaining this, your advice has been immens! I will start whittling away at the mdv, nice and slow.

[VideoHere]

VIDEOHERE: I like your analogy of leaning into the tone, it was helpful for learning the "quack" voice so I will try to apply it to this exercise. Thanks!

CunoDante: Ah, I see, so it's somewhat of a mental thing as well, that's cool, that makes me think of practicing falsetto down int chest voice range. When I go down to lower notes, although no physical effort is required, I really need to focus my attention or else it the chest voice begins to "wrestle" for control. Okay, I think I see what you mean about the amount of chest being engaged, thank you for explaining this, your advice has been immens! I will start whittling away at the mdv, nice and slow.

john, i applaud your enthusiam, but please realize the importance of working at this slow and consistently. try to be patient and work hard but realistic in that it's going to take time. also, not all exercises are going to, nor should they always, "sound good."

don't be in a singer's mode when you exercise, focus more on doing the exercise correctly rather than sounding good.

[JohnGalt]

Thank you VIDEOHERE for your suggestion. I certainly am not expecting any fast results, my expectations (please tell me if they are unrealistic) would be to have a noticeable improvement as a result of the mdv in about a year, maybe a few months longer. I will also take to heart your words about singer's mode, because I definitely have interfered already with my exercises as a result of that.

EDIT: as a result of the mdv/quacking/falsetto slides, not just mdv

[ronws]

And guys, it really is starting to sound like we are saying the same thing, but with different words.

Yes, Bob, I totally agree with air flow. And yes, Dante, totally spot on about resonant vowels. As well as what "bel canto" really means. And even with me talking about maintaining the resonance, is leading to the same mechanics of it, as it were. I recently read a fairly appropos analogy. Good, effortless singing is like driving a vehicle with an automatic transmission, which probably makes more sense in the southern states of USA more than anywhere else. The author I have been reading lately pointed out that he had to drop the automatic transmission analogy when he taught in the northeast as many of his students didn't even have driver's license because they didn't need one with such a massive public transit system. As opposed to Texas, where even the lowest paid helper needs a car as we have limited public transit.

And jonpall, I am not ignoring your request for an audio example of what I am talking about. I have been busier than a 9-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs (local expression. ) Work takes up the majority of my day and yesterday, we went to a concert. Sherman, Texas has a series of free concerts from June to July called Hot Summer Nights and you can hear see some really good shows, such as Jeff Strahan, Ray Wylie Hubbard (whom my wife and I personally know. He wrote the classic "Redneck Mothers.") and Bugs Henderson (a Texas legend.) For free. Sponsors pay for it all. So, I haven't had time to scratch my butt, let alone put together a coherent recording.

Not that it would sound much different than what you have heard of some of my stuff before. It was you that claimed that I go into head voice early. And I think you are right. These days, I get into head voice way early, and stay there.

The thing is, for a seamless voice, resonance and air flow will adjust throughout the range. It's only when you arbitrarily stick to one or the other that you encounter breaks, passagios, flips, whatever.

That being said, at least for my unique voice, I have found value in returning to the values of classical voice training, which is that head voice is the key. Primarily because it focuses on resonance, which lends itself to the right coordination of breath management and the phonation takes care of itself. And, in so doing, all strain is removed from the throat, as it should be, in my opinion. And maybe the author of the book that Bob quote is trying to say the same thing but the phrasing or prose is off, in my opinion.

Just like a recent new member is advising people to "hold their breath" which is, I think, misphrased and creates the wrong mental image. A better image would be to "take your foot off the gas pedal." As in, don't drive the air so hard and allow the folds to compete their adduction.

[ronws]

Well, see, Dante, here's the problem I have with a chest-centred system. To borrow again from the car transmission analogy, it's like trying to drive cross country in first gear. But the flip side of that is thinking of the voice as different gears which introduce tonal differences in my opinion. That's why, to have an even voice I think it is more important to concentrate on resonance, and of course, tone, and the other things will fall in line.

Then, again, even some classical instructors can use flawed images or models. And others spend too much time on vowel color for each exact position in the range when the student could teach themselves by singing a certain vowel and changing resonance or, staying in a zone of resonance and changing vowel sounds. Then, again, I am a simple guy and like to keep things simple.

[ronws]

I am also finding, through several authors that they express things differently with, figuratively, accents on different syllables (prominence given to this or that point.) I think, eventually, it leads to the same point. The production of a note with sustainable resonance and power or volume, which is based mostly on your resonators and articulators.

Though singers may change over the years. Jussi Bjorling sang with a laser beam focus on resonance. Pavarotti, in his later years, not so much. That is, there were certain notes in certain pieces where I think Pavarotti let the note get a little loose, perhaps as a stylistic thing. But only on lower, soft notes, where the risk of damage was minimal. Of the opera singers, even amongst himself, Carreras, and Domingo, he was the most "rock star" of them. But I like Pavarotti's sound, even if he changed his approach. Also fascinating was the duet between himself and canadian rock singer Bryan Adams.

And I am tempted to get the book, myself, just to read it, even on a dare from Bob. I have Kindle and the Kindle version is downright cheap. And some of the best material I have read from the classical perspective was free, presented by the Society of Friends.

What I have found, too, is that an author I may agree with initially or on some points will make others I think are wrong or take paths so convoluted, or even better, both. Start out with a beautiful, simple concept, then proceed to weigh it down with too many analogies and their own technical lingo (no, I'm not talking about CVT.) Conversely, there can be an author I would initially expect to disagree with (for I, too, can have psychological pre-sets, which is I why I can spot it so easily in others) such as classical great, Lilli Lehmann, only to find that I agree with 90 percent of what she says.

So, I will read this book, fresh, anew, in my own eyes. Sometimes, and we don't mean to, things can be taken out of context.

While I value that singing, like any activity, involves some work, that work is training of new habits. Does that make for different muscles? In some ways, yes. To sing, you need supple muscles in the thorax, not rigid moribund muscles. You have to breath freely and easily with enough pressure to maintain the note. So, singers often develope a "barrel" chest, not from exercise but from the practice of not exhaling with only the chest. This better breathing leads to better posture because it requires it. I think, you get better posture from learning to breath better. And while you can run slowly for endurance and lung capacity, singing does not involve the entire contents of your lungs.

It is noticed that singers have a more unique use of the elevator muscles than people who just speak.

As for what I read, certainly a number of authors are viewing singing from the perspective of a "concert" singer, which is a showcase of a singer's talent through several choices of arias and "art" songs. Or as an actual opera singer, which requires acting skill and volume and resonance to be heard over an orchestra. And perhaps, I gravitate toward resonance, not only because my voice seems suited to it but because you can use it to be heard over the orchestra and, in extension, over a band.

The other advantage, to me, of resonance centered singing, regardless of range, fach, music genre, is that it is very automatic, allowing the brain to do what it does best. We do it naturally, as babies. Then, as we learn our spoken language and culture, we achieve more control over the mouth, etc. to form the words and tones of our language. But we also lower volume. Before that, though, the babie cries with perfect resonance and windpower for days. And they have a tiny set of vocal folds, which further proves the point about resonance. How could such a little thing make an ear-splitting sound?

[ronws]

And I am now reading the book that Bob has suggested (my Kindle came with built in 3G whispernet. Plus, I can buy it from Amazon's site and it will freely download, as long as I have the unit's wireless turned "on." It was a gift from my employer, one of the few people who reads as much as I do.)

And I can see his point a little more clearly. And some things are agreeable. While there is advantage in learning from science, there are astounding singers who have no clue about the logarithmic function of "decibel increase." They do what they do through the right mental image. Where I differ with the author, until I read further and see if he expounds on it, is that the changing of the mental image of singing and of one's own voice is work that is harder than any "muscle control" work.

While I agree with him that the singer must have complete control over the muscles, I don't think it's so much a matter of consciously controlling all of the vocal apparatus as it is learning to allow oneself to resonate. But, to be fair, it does require some muscular control, which is nowhere near the throat or larynx or so much in the elevator muscles. Namely, learning to breathe with the intercostals (please ignore any use of the word diaphragm, it is not a muscle that is under conscious control, ever. It is totally autonomic. Find a doctor who can say differently.) And, learning to allow the resonance to be where it needs to be.

For the voice is comprised of three parts. A motor, a tone generator, and a resonator, like a guitar or piano. The air or act of breathing, specifically, expiration, is the motor. The larynx is the tone generator and creates a rather feeble sound as far as volume goes. And the resonator, which gives both volume and character to the tone. A tonal quality is based on the shape of the waveform, not it's amplitude or frequency and this is a result of the construction of the resonators, which varies from person to person, genetically. Of the three parts, I think most of the work is to be done in the motor and the resonator. And that, eventually, the resonator is the control device that cues the motor.

If there truly is a dynamic shift of air and resonance through-out a range, then there is no change that can be affected in the simple tone generator. How does one find the right resonator? You don't. You get out of the way. When a note is plucked on a guitar, that note will resonate off of certain parts of the guitar shape, not the whole thing. Yes, the whole guitar vibrates but those are sympathetic vibrations to the actual power of the note.

Here's where some conscious control comes in at the start. Learning to, for example, let the soft palate lift. You will not resonate a D5 just behind the front teeth. The mouth is too big. That note can only find a resonating space small enough for it in the head cavities. And you don't control the shape of your head cavities. You get out of the way and the note will find it, as it does in a guitar.

Which is not to neglect how we emit a tone in the first place. And there is work to refine that, so to speak. But I think it involves learning to not "over-adduct". It is the opposite, letting the adduction happen as it should. And this is where we have been differing as to how the folds actually create a certain pitch such as depth of fold involvement, elongated, shorten, whathaveyou, and means of aperture (which is important in my opinion.) This is where the guitar analogy falls apart in usefulness for voice. For the voice is a wind instrument. You create frequency by how fast the puffs of air are coming. Which is determined by how fast the glottal chink opens and closes. As opposed to a string vibrating up and down and physically moving air. In this regard, the voice is more like a french horn with the adjustment of the player's embouchre (lip position and thickness, almost similar to a reeded instrument such as a clarinet. But both instruments are generating tone with bursts or puffs of air.

I can play tones on a stick of 1/2 inch EMT (electrical metal tubing.) Lower tones require looser lips vibrating slowly with lots of air flowing through, as the lips are open longer. High notes require the lips to be held more closely and to vibrate only a small portion that allows for a smaller aperture to create a faster series of air puffs that make for higher frequency. This also requires a higher air pressure but slower escape velocity, given the same length of pipe. However, in a shorter piece of pipe than a full stick (which measures 10 feet in length) not quite as much air pressure is needed because you hear enough volume and your brain automatically adjusts, taking the foot of the gas, so to speak. So, it's actually easier to play french horn because you use valves to vary the resonating chamber than it is to play the 1/2 inch EMT.

This french horn model is what informed Ronnie James Dio how to sing. He said he learned to sing from playing the french horn, his first instrument as a child. Claims that he never had a singing lesson, though I think he was exposed to plenty of italian opera and good singing, to start.

So, I certainly dojn't mean to imply that singing training is not work. It is, but more subtly than one might think. And the greatest challenge is getting over one's own mentality. How many people are capable of clear and lovely tenor if they can let go of the preconceptions about what is a "chesty" tone or the thinking of registers.

One thing Frisell is doing that I agree with is simplfying. In that he states that there are only two registers. This is preferrable, in my opinion, to stating that there are three, or various sections that require various rules. I think the voice is more fluid than that and I think that is where he is leading. More preferrable still is blur the line between the registers and I think that depends on resonance. If the note is loud enough, regardless of where it is, everything falls into place.

[ronws]

Well, then, Dante, maybe the guitar analogy still holds some water. For the fullest low notes on the guitar are on the thick, fat string and the fullest highs are on the thinner strings. And one can strike the strings with the same intensity (up and down equals open and close) and yet the frequency is determined by the quality of the string itself and how much air it moves (short fat folds equals large gauge string and thin stretched folds equals small guage string.) I can see where you are going with that and the glottal chink opening is independent of frequency. Which would lean one to the conclusion that adduction to provide the glottal opening and closing should remain relatively the same regardless of pitch, and I can buy that for a dollar. It makes better sense, because that actually keeps strain off the folds, which are elastic membranes and rather than "try to control" the folds "holding" adduction to a small opening (probably erroneous, futile) one allows the larynx to do what it does. Cool.

Another thing I agree with Frisell on is that a singer should never sacrifice tone to attain pitch. Which I think is part of what you were trying to get at with messa di voce. At whatever pitch, you change volume and perhaps adjust resonance but the end result is a stable tone that increases and decreases in volume. Which is more important than the highest pitch. Certainly, some people could train and possibly sing an F6. Is it really necessary? In most music and popular songs, no. More important is the tonal quality and the expressiveness of a singer. James Hetfield will go to his grave not even getting to C6. But he manages his heavy baritone quite well and, by the way, he warms up classically, scales and everything. Not that it's always necessary for everyone.

And I think you are right about the classical method. For the authors I have been reading had their works publish in the 1900's. (1903, in one case, Dr. Fillebrown.) Certainly a different audience and aesthetic than today. Even in the opera of today. I would consider Pavarotti a "modern" opera singer and Jussi Bjorling "old school." Maybe I was born too late in time. I was born the year the Beatles came to America and when Ford introduced the Mustang (a dressed up Fairlane, really) as a half-year model.

Might one's approach as one ages change and find value in things different than in one's youth? Certainly. And that's why I don't mind when singers sometimes change the range in which they sing as they age. I don't think it's always about "losing" what they had. Could Rod Stewart still singing "Maggie May"? Sure. But these days, he prefers to sing the "torch" songs ala Tony Bennett. And totally carries it well. And, possibly, now in his 60's, Rod didn't want to spend the rest of his life in spandex singing "Do you think I'm sexy?" He traded it in for the double-breasted suit. And I totally applaud what he is doing and I don't think he's lost a bit. And what if he lost the supersonic highs he used to do? So what, he still entertains.

Likewise, Billy Joel retired from pop music to compose classical music. Likewise, Steve Vai is now a classical composer. Not because they "lost" anything but because they wanted to artistically go in another direction, or seemingly, another direction. Once in a while, it's nice to "wear a different shirt."

I also wanted to agree with you that fach is largely useless, especially in different venues and with different material. And it is certainly it is foolhardy to classify a voice before some training has taken place. Still, we can't help but classify. Whether we use italian terms or common vernacular, such as heavy, light, bright, dark.

I also understand that the voice changes with time, training. That one is always modifying to some extent, throughout life. Even though I still have the range I did 23 years ago, I think I am doing it better than before. Or maybe a smidge different. But it still helps me to go back to those roots, which was largely the mindset of teaching similar to Lilli Lehmann, et al. And for that, I certainly enjoy my time here. Whether I learn something in this forum or am inspired to read and research and learn from a source either mentioned here or one that I find just because my free mental time is focused on singing, it's all good.

Also, in the method(s) I am following, a key component I am learning and "working" on is learning to speak with resonance. For me, it's not speach level singing. It's song-like speach. More accurately, speaking with resonance. Bring the activities of singing with resonance into speaking. I don't mean singing sentences. But I do mean allowing the tones of my words to resonate in the head (primarily at the soft palate, which changes how I breath.) So, my "training" is actually all day long, every time I open my mouth. This has the added effect of re-calibrating what the body does to produce a tone, whether speaking or singing. So that singing isn't such a big change or requires a different mindset. For me, it is a simplification of approach and I am a simple guy. I still warm up, here and there, throughout the day but it's more like limbering and staying limber. Starting in head voice and staying there, for the most part, even on low notes.

Jonpall asked for an example of what I mean but I'm not sure I can do what I previously thought of as chest voice. For me, the division seems to have blurred.

I have also accepted that I will not use my lowest gravelly notes, which were never all that powerful to begin with. And if they sounded so on a recording, it is probably due to mic proximity. It also means accepting my voice and range for what it is. My greatest range of dynamic ability is in tenor, specifically "light" tenor. Nor should I expect everyone to sing like I do or even find value in what I value. So, I may have seemed didactic in the past and should probably apologize for that.

And certainly some of that is a side effect of reading different authors. One author had absolutely no use for Maria Callas for no other reason than she had a "famous" public career and dared to sing material outside of her "fach." Callas was an operatic "rock star." The same author "lost" respect for Pavarotti after the "Three Tenors" tour, even though she applauded bringing opera closer to the "masses." That's the tricky part. Avoiding stepping in the dogpiles of other people's psychology.

Changing one's mind is the hardest thing and singing is mental.

[ronws]

Thanks, Dante, for the link. That cleared up for me what you were talking about and you are right. And I would add the proviso that there should be a limit to how hard one is adducting. A comfortable limit one should not go past. That is, there is a maximum volume and/or intensity of the folds which is still feeble at best. For, before the tone even gets to the front of the mouth, for example, it has already passed the pharynx, which will have some resonant qualities. That is, you don't hear the volume of the folds, so much as you hear the volume of the lowest resonator, which is also the biggest.

I can also see where some would call this "chest" voice because to go higher after a point. I still think it's a misnomer and sometimes, a certain image or word gives us connotations that are a hindrance, rather than a help. So, how does one prevent too much air that would cause a blow-out or even damage? By having the note loud enough that one does not feel the need for even more air pressure or trying to "squeeze" even tighter adduction. And that is done with resonance. Does this mean there is a safe limit to volume? Yes, it does. Does this mean there is a limit to usable range? Yes, it does. Will these facts not synch with someone's (in general, not picking on anyone, not even Bob) belief system or personal aesthetic or desire? I can guarantee it. The reason I value top down rather than Bob's original statement of bottom power up is that, with head voice config, one is actually starting out light and increasing power in a safe way. How long does it take to learn? I don't know. I have been concentrating on my voice for 23 years and I am still learning. How often should one practice? I don't know. I am practicing head voice every time I speak, so that it is "second nature," almost like breathing, for me. And I have changed from when I started. For some of the original beginning was bottom up warm up. Today, I value more the top down warm-up, even to the extent of sirens reversed from what is popular. I start at high tone, descend and rise back up. Then start at the next whole tone higher and repeat. Etc, and softly, to begin with.

And, one of my personal favorites, to start with a mezza di voce (1/2 volume) beginning of "Ave, Maria" the morphs into "Black Dog" by Led Zep. That may sound profane to some but it somehow fits, for me.

Another valuable thing from Frisell is to eschew "quick fixes." Such as tongue depressors to artificially lower and hamper the tongue. the root of the tongu is connected to the same muscle that is attached to the hyoid bone, controlling the height of the front of the larynx. Left alone, the tongue should rise or fall very much, which has the mechanical affect of stabilizing the front of the larynx. I didn't say that it holds it rigidly in one place. But stable, rising a few millimeters, at best. By doing so, the proper use of musculature will adjust the larynx for pitches. That is, the tongue should never be really high or low. Which leads to the jaw drop. The jaw should not be banging into your knees, so to speak. it should drop as comfortably as it can, which is not that much. What really helps the soft palate rise is the height of the cheek muscles. Danged 'ole anatomy, again.

Anyway, by seeing the visual on how the folds work and accepting those limits, it reiterates what I feel, in that there should be no strain in the throat, specifically the larynx. I didn't say there won't be tension. Actual tension is needed to make a sound. But no strain. The greater motion is in what the intercostal musculature is doing and how you are allowing resonance to happen.

My other acceptance of limits is to accept the voice type that I have. If that means I can't do much rasp, fine. I will still sing rock. I may not have the classical voice but I am still going to sing along with Sarah (Brightman) on "Time to say Goodbye." For I will not sacrifice tone and range for a "style." I will still sing "Highway to Hell," even if I sound closer to Justin Hawkins than Bon Scott.

[gno]

I agree that singing is mental. So is swinging a golf club. And it is good to concentrate on a free voice, open throat and so forth. But there is quite a bit of muscle development and coordination in the larynx. If you don't have enough strength there it can be harmful - here is an example of my experience:

When I first joined this forum a year and a half ago and accessed my head voice for the first time I thought I was superman. I started singing really high songs I never could sing before - and spent way too much time per day singing high. I ended straining my voice requiring a trip to the ENT. After 2 months of recovery I started KTVA and built up my strength and range gradually.

The reason I injured my voice - I believe - is that I finally discovered the right technique and coordination, but my muscles didn't have enough endurance and strength. If I had limited myself to 5 minutes / day at first, then 10 minutes / day, I probably would have been ok. The KTVA exersizes got me into shape in a measured way and I was singing really high again within just a week. Now I can sing really high for very long periods of time with no strain.

Thanks to this thread I'm developing deeper fold vibrations way up in the upper tenor and saprano range. It is a bit of muscle building though. I can "will" my voice to do this, but I got fatigued pretty quickly at first. However, the strength / endurance is getting better and can sing in Chest way up high about twice as long as a week ago. An important part of development is learning when to stop to let the body recouperate.

My point is that it is not just "mental". Muscle building and muscle coordination go hand in hand with proper reasonance development.

[VideoHere]

ron, i just wanted clarify once again buddy, i'm not saying carry up chest, although in my conversation with the author he did say it can be done if you know what you're doing. all i'm saying is there comes a point where the chest "tonality" has to be carried up into the head tonality to strengthen and enrich the top end. head voice to me has to be fortified (for lack of a better word) so when it shoots itself into the appropriate resonance pocket (because we agree about resonance) the sound ends up being more intense....aka the ring... whether that's twang or fold depth or serious breath support (all three) or whatever it's seems to me a mandatory requisite for championship level vocals. if one cannot generate the pressure needed and keep the folds adducted for these high notes in full voice you simply won't get to the power up there a4 and up.

now i may have the voice build versus another singer because sheer power comes easy to me (that's without even properly shooting the tone up to the appropriate pocket) which we disagree here because although it can be automatic, it can be driven into a certain place you want it to go by sheer will (and an awful lot of practice). anyway, when a voice that's innately powerful hits that pocket just the right way ironically it feels like a pressure release and the sound that comes out is actually intoxicating because you know you really hit the note spot on and you seek to increase the probability of doing it more and more.

head voice (i.m.o.) will not strengthen in and of itself and i believe after a while you get to the law of diminishing returns where you say to yourself i have to incorporate the power center the chest register ...not carry it up but "integrate" it into all your notes.

another thing i've noticed is after a while of training (and frisell confirmed this for me and he actually confirmed a ton of stuff for me) the voice takes on a period of changed tonality he calls it a witchy tonality piercing and shrill but told you instead of fearing it, to work with it and it eventually turns more rounded and warmer. i'll bet he's talking about twang becoming integrated into the voice which seems to be happening to me lately...

so all i'm trying to say is i.m.o.....if you don't fortify the head voice by incorpoating more chest "tonality" and sing from the head voice region you will not grow as a vocalist.

[Quincy]

This is just some of my rambling thoughts.

I’ll define head voice as singing on a thin edge of the cords and chest voice a thicker edge of the cords. And of course you can have infinite degrees between thin and thick.

There is a common perception that singing too high in chest voice is unhealthy and will ruin your voice if you do it long enough. But why is that assumed? Probably because most new singers don’t have the ability to thin out the folds as they go higher and choke themselves, blast too much air across the cords blowing them apart, over squeeze the cords causing too much friction and discomfort. So in general pushing chest voice too high is not good.

Now the way I see it, if you can keep thick folds with the right amount of air pressure underneath, so they are not being blown apart or over squeezed, then there shouldn’t be any abuse to the cover of the folds (grinding friction or excessive drying air that causes damage).

So with enough training, building both coordination and muscular strength of the folds, you should be able to handle more air pressure and healthy adducted vocal fold contact.

The tonal affect will vary with the thickness you choose for any given pitch. Thick folds throw off more powerful lower overtones, medium thickness more mid tones and thin folds more high overtones.

It is really a multiple of choices of what sound you want to make. In general it will take a lot more physical effort and energy to sing with thickened folds at higher pitches than the lighter thinner folds.

And after the sound is produced, we then have even more options for shaping the tonality. You can twang, modify vowels, sing with a high/low larynx, hi/lo soft palate, lip shape, pharynx shape, etc etc.

So yes you can more easily mess up your voice on powerful thick folds, but only if you are blasting too much air across them or over squeezing the adduction (out of balance). It takes more strength and the proper coordination to do it in a healthy way.