an excerpt from a great book

[ronws]

Bob, I've been accused of "hammering" my viewpoint all through the forum. Or have you not been paying attention?

Quincy, you just proved my point with the comparison between a small tree and a large tree. In no universe would the human vocal cords be able to generate the amplitude of a signal from a kick drum in a modern drum set.

And the volume of the human voice, from Lilli Lehmann to Dr. Fillebrown to Yampolsky, et al, is that the volume comes from resonance, specifically, the wave doubling back on itself to create a greater amplitude. An amplitude greater than that achievable by the tone generator. I am not making that up, it's not just my opinion, contary or otherwise. It's just that science stuff.

[Quincy]

Ron, we are in total agreement that resonance is the amplifier to our voices. I’m a huge fan of its power and I’m continually trying to refine it. It pays big dividends to really learn to use resonance efficiently and it takes the workload off the cords.

My point, and I don’t know if it is correct, is that the actual source of a sound wave (vocal folds) is the main volume control. Not that it puts out a lot of dBs, but that it is the primary control knob of how loud or soft you want the sound to be after it has gone through the amplification of resonance. The end product.

For example, just using numbers for illustrative purposes. If your cords make a sound at 5dBs and the resonance amplifies it to 20dBs. To make it louder, you create more resistance with the folds and produce 10dBs and resonance then pushes it up to 40dBs.

And I don’t know if this relationship is multiplicative or even non linear. For example the 10dBs may be increased to say 60dBs. But my point is to make changes to your overall volume, given the resonance configuration is efficiently maximized, is by manipulating the source of the sound wave. IMO.

[VideoHere]

Ron, we are in total agreement that resonance is the amplifier to our voices. I’m a huge fan of its power and I’m continually trying to refine it. It pays big dividends to really learn to use resonance efficiently and it takes the workload off the cords.

My point, and I don’t know if it is correct, is that the actual source of a sound wave (vocal folds) is the main volume control. Not that it puts out a lot of dBs, but that it is the primary control knob of how loud or soft you want the sound to be after it has gone through the amplification of resonance. The end product.

For example, just using numbers for illustrative purposes. If your cords make a sound at 5dBs and the resonance amplifies it to 20dBs. To make it louder, you create more resistance with the folds and produce 10dBs and resonance then pushes it up to 40dBs.

And I don’t know if this relationship is multiplicative or even non linear. For example the 10dBs may be increased to say 60dBs. But my point is to make changes to your overall volume, given the resonance configuration is efficiently maximized, is by manipulating the source of the sound wave. IMO.

ron, technical jargon aside..

if you are a singer able to generate a significant (above average) level of breath pressure, and you have the above average strength in the folds to resist the pressure, you are then sending one powerful sound wave up into the resonators, wouldn't it stand to reason that sound is going to be much more intense than a singer with a lower level of breath pressure?

[Steven Fraser]

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.

Quincy,

The beauty of the Messa di Voce is that it requires, and helps develop, the subtle interaction of vocal band muscle action and exhalation force. For lack of a better term, I think of this as 'dynamic balance'... all brought about by the desire to make a musical effect... a crescendo/decrescendo pair.

My favorite metaphor for this is the time for the beginning driver who is learning how to smoothly accelerate and decelerate a car well enough for use in traffic. Initally, its pretty jerky, but setting smooth acceleration and braking as a goal helps to even out the physical responses to put the speedometer into the desired range.

[ronws]

Hey, Bob. There are levels of intensity, and certainly fuller fold involvement produces a fuller note from the folds but the volume of the note is not from the folds. That is a simple fact of life and no amount of belief in any system or will power will change that. And that is not just me making that up. That is an anatomical fact of life. You do not create greater volume with increased breath pressure and "fuller" adduction. You create volume by resonating correctly. It's a matter of physics, which I know is an unfair way to debate.

My bad.

[Quincy]

The beauty of the Messa di Voce is that it requires, and helps develop, the subtle interaction of vocal band muscle action and exhalation force. For lack of a better term, I think of this as 'dynamic balance'... all brought about by the desire to make a musical effect... a crescendo/decrescendo pair.

My favorite metaphor for this is the time for the beginning driver who is learning how to smoothly accelerate and decelerate a car well enough for use in traffic. Initally, its pretty jerky, but setting smooth acceleration and braking as a goal helps to even out the physical responses to put the speedometer into the desired range.

Great metaphor Steven and I can relate to it quite easily. I pop the clutch here and there but it does continue to get easier controlling the rate of speed. I could probably drive on an old country road with out too much damage and look forward to being able to drive in heavy traffic one day.

This exercise really adds a whole new dimension to my choices in singing.

[VideoHere]

Hey, Bob. There are levels of intensity, and certainly fuller fold involvement produces a fuller note from the folds but the volume of the note is not from the folds. That is a simple fact of life and no amount of belief in any system or will power will change that. And that is not just me making that up. That is an anatomical fact of life. You do not create greater volume with increased breath pressure and "fuller" adduction. You create volume by resonating correctly. It's a matter of physics, which I know is an unfair way to debate.

My bad.

ron, i agree that the folds do not directly impact volume, sorry if i implied that they did, but breath pressure definitely contributes to increased loudness or perceived loudness.

if it didn't, how do you explain crescendos? what moves the volume up in a messa di voce?

[jonpall]

You do not create greater volume with increased breath pressure and "fuller" adduction. You create volume by resonating correctly.

Wrong. You create greater volume with all of the above. Or at least you can. If you ONLY resonate correctly but don't increase your support, don't use more cord closure, don't twang and don't relax your throat, you don't get as much volume AND "fullness" as you otherwise could. All of this is in most of the books and being taught by all good vocal coaches AND it's something that's very apparent with sufficient experimentation.

Personally, I don't think it matters much to singers exactly HOW volume is being done inside your throat and body, but whether or not you can actually DO it, i.e. sing high, full notes. Or teach other how to do it, if you're in the business of somehow helping others to sing.

One thing to throw out there is that many vocal coaches believe that if you can let your voice do vibrato just by sheer throat relaxation and just the right amount of breath support, you're tone is healthy. I tend to agree with this, even though the amount of vibrato one uses is a stylistic choice. So if you can do this fairly easily throughout your range, you're technique ain't too shabby.

[jonpall]

But ronws is absolutely correct in stating that producing loud, powerful notes should be done with resonance rather than pushing, so mentioning resonance many times is probably a good idea. The idea of "letting it happen" when singing is one of the most important aspects of singing, IMO. It's just that if you want to sing with true power and not just loud with little meat behind the tone, you kind of have to do everything right, reconance, breath support, twang, cord closure, relaxed, open throat, etc. That's all I want to comment on this at the moment. Cheers.

[VideoHere]

But ronws is absolutely correct in stating that producing loud, powerful notes should be done with resonance rather than pushing, so mentioning resonance many times is probably a good idea. The idea of "letting it happen" when singing is one of the most important aspects of singing, IMO. It's just that if you want to sing with true power and not just loud with little meat behind the tone, you kind of have to do everything right, reconance, breath support, twang, cord closure, relaxed, open throat, etc. That's all I want to comment on this at the moment. Cheers.

pushing is a non-no but "intensifying" (when called for) yet staying relaxed and loose everywhere needed is the holy grail i.m.o.

lou gramm, perfect example.....he's not pushing, but man is ever intensifying at times.

[jonpall]

Agreed, Bob.

[ronws]

There is a maximum amount of volume available at the folds given full adduction and proper breath. But the main amplifications happens through resonance. The amplification by resonance is not my home-cooked opinion, it is also the results of study and work from people such as Dr. Fillebrown, Lilli Lehmann, to some extent Anthony Frisell, Yampolsky, Arman, pretty much all the classical method instructors I have been studying. And I got it directly from them, even though it did match my experience.

So, all of them must be wrong, as well. Please, believe me, I'm not saying that to be snotty or defend my position, I have no "feelings" to be hurt in this matter, nor am I arguing. It's algebraic logic, really. If a and b are whole positive integers and a < b, and c is a whole positive integer, then a*c < b*c. Mathematical logic. Trust me, it's a curse. By analogy, if the opinion or statement I have made has come directly from the words of these sources I have mentioned, then those sources must be wrong. Every single one of them, as a matter of fact, as they all agree on this point.

I would submit that your loudest volume at the folds is not a matter of increasing over a lower, standard, volume. I submit that the lower volumes are below your full volume at full adduction and breath support. But, my point is moot, since it has been agreed here that I am wrong about the volume of resonance.

[VideoHere]

There is a maximum amount of volume available at the folds given full adduction and proper breath. But the main amplifications happens through resonance. The amplification by resonance is not my home-cooked opinion, it is also the results of study and work from people such as Dr. Fillebrown, Lilli Lehmann, to some extent Anthony Frisell, Yampolsky, Arman, pretty much all the classical method instructors I have been studying. And I got it directly from them, even though it did match my experience.

So, all of them must be wrong, as well. Please, believe me, I'm not saying that to be snotty or defend my position, I have no "feelings" to be hurt in this matter, nor am I arguing. It's algebraic logic, really. If a and b are whole positive integers and a < b, and c is a whole positive integer, then a*c < b*c. Mathematical logic. Trust me, it's a curse. By analogy, if the opinion or statement I have made has come directly from the words of these sources I have mentioned, then those sources must be wrong. Every single one of them, as a matter of fact, as they all agree on this point.

I would submit that your loudest volume at the folds is not a matter of increasing over a lower, standard, volume. I submit that the lower volumes are below your full volume at full adduction and breath support. But, my point is moot, since it has been agreed here that I am wrong about the volume of resonance.

the only point i wish to make ron is if you add more breath pressure into the resonator cavities vs. a lower breath pressure the perceived loudness will be greater...i didn't say volume...i said loudness. some singers can really generate a significant pressure and intensify greater than others...this will impact perceived loudness. correct?

[gno]

Ron - i agree that the reasonating cavaties are responsible for all the amplification of the signal that the folds are producing. Different people have different ways of thinking about it. I like to use the guitar analogy. An acoustic guitar has a large resonating cavity whereas a solid body electic has hardly any reasonance. And the volume of the acoustic is multples of an unplugged solid body. However, I can vary the overall volume of the acoustic by how hard I strike the string. The harder I pluck, the higher the amplitude of the string and the louder it gets. Same with the vocal folds - the larger the amplitude of the vibrations, the louder the initial signal.

It is not just limited to volume - the amount of overtones in relation to the fundamental pitch are also affected. The more complex the wave form, the richer the overtones. A lightly plucked string - even on an acoustic - sounds soft and the overtones are not as loud (like falsetto). With falsetto the wave produced is not complex - you get a sound more like a flute. As we hit the folds with more pressure the folds produce higher amplitude with richer overtones, like Chest voice. It's like the difference between a trumpet and a flute. The trumpet produces far richer overtones.

Another factor is the "closed quotient" or length of time the folds stay closed verses open. With more compression, the CQ is higher and with each vibration, air bursts through the folds faster, with more intensity, in turn blowing them open more (higher amplitude) creating more complex wave and richer overtones.

I think what Bob means is that Lou Gramm produces an intense tone, it is rich in overtones, and probably high CQ.

Anyway, this my current thinking on the subject. If I'm wrong please let me know (I am NOT a vocal scientist!).

[VideoHere]

thanks for adding to this geno.

ron, gramm is generating those tones with more than just resonance. he's not just skillled at knowing how to nail the resonator pockets, he's sending some above average air pressure skillfully to his folds that are worked (adductor muscles) to a point of greater hold-back capacity than others.

i think that's why his screams can hold such a melodic core, rather than just sounding like a scream.

[analog]

I think I'm only gonna respond with Steven "the professor" Fraser quotations. It really feels like there are 10 or so basic questions that get asked and answered over and over and over and over and over and over. I realize there are new(or even exotically antique) ways of couching these issues, but they seem to be asking the same thing.

Hopefully I don't quote out of context. I bolded the main points.

Classic

[jonpall]

analog, that sounded a bit like a description of the CVT modes and finally a notion that if you get good at them, gradually you'll feel that your voice has begun working like one, single voice.

This might also lead you to eventually conclude that the modes are/were useless, but try not singing for a few weeks and see how unified your voice is then - at that point you might need to revisit those modes to get you back on track so you can again sing without thinking anything about vocal technique.

[gno]

analog - that was a great quote from Steven. He says: "there are so many intermediate gears that the engine speed and tranny ratios are always perfectly matched." I really beleive this now. One can learn to morph these configurations so that there are literally infinite configurations. For a while I thought that there were four configurations / modes of CVT and that there were 4 "centers" to learn. But now I'm realizing that all the modes are connected and there are "loose" boundries between them. For example, insn't the difference between "curbing" really high, and "edge", the amount of twang you apply? you can put 10% twang or 100% and everything in-between. At what point does curbing turn into edge? Maybe I'm way off base here.

[Jens]

Guitartreck applying ton of twang and increasing volume for instance would put you in powercurbing and That is edge with hold.

No your not of base, many singers tends to sing in the greyzones. The mode centers are socalled optimum coordinations, and centration of these are great since it Will require less support to use these Than singing in the greyzones. The Voice is so huge and capable of so many variations That flyr modes isnt enough to describe all the variations possible.

[ronws]

Hey, Geno, I too have used the acoustic guitar metaphor. And a hard pick attack does have more intensity. And the unplugged electric is a perfect example of what I mean of the feeble sound of the tone generator, no matter how hard you strike them. Can you hear the pick attack a little better on an unplugged electric if it is a strong attack, sure, but it is still a tiny sound. What the acoustic guitar is doing is amplifying with resonance what you have done with the strings. But it's already been established that I am wrong on that, so my point is moot.

I don't have any "skin in the game." You guys win. You're (in general. And in Texas, we would say ya'll) right.

And the classical sources I have quoted and referred to, including a doctor who was a surgeon and also a singer, himself, and who repaired cleft palates and other maladies of the voice and provided rehab for his patients, are wrong. For the ideas and statements I have been making come from them, since I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I have also been reading Dena Murray's book. So, I will see if she's wrong, too.

If I am wrong and, by extension, the sources I have quoted are wrong, that would logically make the systems you use to be right. Which would either be CVT or KTVA (I'll let ya'll fight that one out amongst yourselves. :cool:)

Not that I am particularly in one camp or another. My favorite martial art is Jeet Kune Do, self-described by Bruce Lee as "The style that has no style." Or, is being a non-conformist simply being a member of a group of non-comformists? Ah, the irony.

[ronws]

Of course, and veering off-topic a little bit, Dena Murray would have to be wrong because she states, right from the book title, "finding your own voice." God forbid. For I have been told I am not doing enough with my voice when all I have been doing is finding "my" real voice, whatever that is. Because I am not chasing the almighty rasp to sound like whatever rock singer, I am not producing the same timbre as Kevin Tamplin or moding like Sadolin, I am just not applying myself or doing "all" that my voice can do. Since Murray's ethic matches my own and my ethic is wrong or incomplete, she must also be incomplete or wrong. (Damn that mathematical logic. I told you guys, it's a curse. )

If I get some rasp or "rock" sound, great. Yee - friggin - haw. And that's all well and good. But nothing can replace honest to goodness work on the good and steady tone and I would like to think we can all agree on that. Maybe.

Cheers.

[VideoHere]

Of course, and veering off-topic a little bit, Dena Murray would have to be wrong because she states, right from the book title, "finding your own voice." God forbid. For I have been told I am not doing enough with my voice when all I have been doing is finding "my" real voice, whatever that is. Because I am not chasing the almighty rasp to sound like whatever rock singer, I am not producing the same timbre as Kevin Tamplin or moding like Sadolin, I am just not applying myself or doing "all" that my voice can do. Since Murray's ethic matches my own and my ethic is wrong or incomplete, she must also be incomplete or wrong. (Damn that mathematical logic. I told you guys, it's a curse. )

If I get some rasp or "rock" sound, great. Yee - friggin - haw. And that's all well and good. But nothing can replace honest to goodness work on the good and steady tone and I would like to think we can all agree on that. Maybe.

Cheers.

ron, dena murray has two books out...which one are you reading?

[VideoHere]

well folks, it's not an excerpt from a great book, but it's an excerpt from a solid vocal program:

[Quincy]

Bob, after watching this video the other day and reading Dante's excellent post on support and releasing the throat in an open position, keeping it unrestricted the whole time... it sort of clicked for me how important it was to really stay aware of the openness of the throat always. if it is shutting down and constricting unnecessarily just a little bit... that is your CLUE.

Figure out what you need to do to keep it flowing consistent and opened properly.

It is amazing little things like that can make such a difference!

[ronws]

ron, dena murray has two books out...which one are you reading?

"Finding Your Real Voice."

Tidbit: of the groups on the main website, her's is the only one I belong to. For it matches my ethos of finding my real voice, regardless of you telling me that I am trying to sound like other singers. In fact, that is one of the important points of her book. Trying to sound like or sing like other singers will ruin you. Better to absorb the intent, and style, rather than copy the voice. I.E., sing bluesy rock in your own voice, not what you think someone else is doing. But I often seem alone in that pursuit.

As she states (paraphrased), "Trying to sing like another singer is based on what you think they are doing. That is, you are chasing a thought in your head." (sic, rather than reality.) So, her system won't teach you to sing like someone else. It will teach you to sing like yourself, as blasphemous as that may sound.