Speech level singing for Metal....uh oh

[Jens]

I dunno i havent heard, i just compared some youtube video some years ago to his old stuff.

But the drugs and alchol claim many good rocksingers...

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

ummm center i think im talking about the "strong head voice" kind of mixed voice.

is that the kind of sound u get when you pull head or something

i dont know how that comes about or is it right above the break or actually before the break and you can access it if you choose?

well the brett manning clip i posted is a strong head voice "mix" when he sings the "when a man loves a woman"

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

steven, yes with out doubt any high energy type singing will take more effort such as support and such but all i can tell you is having done those high screams that way, such as the jim gillette clip, and still being able to do them if i choose to, there is a lot more musculature activity in the face and throat than how i would attempt higher notes now. why not try one of those high larynx screams for yourself? they are not hard to learn (not to be confused with the stamina aspect) and you will feel the muscle activity for yourself.

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

I don't know about Halford's voice having gotten worse. His vocals on the Halford album are some of his best since he quit smoking and drugs/alcohol.

snax, the first halford album is really, really good but it came out quite a time ago now. i think his voice started failing him around the "angel of retribution" album by priest. i am a massive priest and halford fan but i wont be bying the latest, new priest live album because, and its hard for me to say this cos he is/was one of my biggest metal heros, halfords voice just isnt really up to some of songs anymore.

[Snax]

I'll admit I didn't realize how long ago his Halford Resurrection album actually was. His voice on that was really powerful and his screams were insane as ever!

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

robert, the email from ronald scherer is more to do with how he is impressed with the height of the note which obviously means A, he is not familiar with the 80´s metal scene or any of the hundreds of heavy metal and power metal bands that do this today and B, has never gone on to youtube and typed in something along the lines of "high metal scream" and seen the many, many videos of guys doing such notes.

to me looks like jim gillette is doing the high notes EXACTLY like how i used to do these. whats wrong with it, well nothing other than the cheeks come right up (which can get tense) to engage the elevator muscles to help pull the larynx right up which comes with the tensing of the muscle under the chin which often results in a stiff lower jaw. do i believe this will harm the voice, no. do i believe this can being fatiguing if your doing it all the time and is training the muscle coordination to use elevating muscles for high pitches (which have nothing to do with pitch change) which fatigue more easily than training the muscles that do coordinate pitch, yes.

do i believe he has a sock in his jeans , yes

are you saying that the reason that just about every single big name that sang those high notes such as halford, gillan, plant, tate, dickenson, labrie, coverdale .....on a regular basis such as extend tours for many years and cant any more consistently or without a lot of effort is because they didnt train there voices later on or stay in shape. what, every single one of them!

"Please do NOT blame these individuals inability to hit a high note they could sing 20 years prior on vocal techniques that are contrary to your obsession with defending "neutral larynx all the time" beliefs"

A, i think you can use a high larynx if you want to, just try to accompany it with as little extra musculature as possible in the knowledge that this can be more effort. when mastered the balanced level larynx requires very, very, very little effort. does the sound it produce fit in with every genre, no, but it gives you an idea of what total freedom "home base" feels like so if you want to go and use different coordinatinons you have a reference to monitor by which helps if use other cooindination to use them with as little added muscle and effort as possible. even seth riggs says this! the singer from linken park does SLS and he is hardly in the most balanced larynx position all the time but it has helped him to gain more control within and monitor the other coordinations he uses.

B, i was under the impression that this vocal forum was a place where we shared our techniques, experiences, thoughts etc. so if someone comes along and says "speech level singing is not good for metal etc" what am i to do as one of the only people on the forum that does SLS and probably the only one who does SLS and likes to sing melodic metal and has found it helpful? should i not put forward my experience?

my "obsession" with defending neutral larynx beliefs is no more obsessional than your, larynx must be raised, twang all the time beliefs!

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

anyway what are "metal vocals" these days. there are so many metal genres and so many types of voice types and styles in metal these days.

for instance,

the singer from the band falconer doest even sing high. so what, he still has has a good voice even if its not the stereotypical "metal" voice.

(p.s im not a fan of their slightly folkey musical influence style but i like the singers voice)

another really great singer is Khan from the band Kamelot. he also doesnt sing that high these days and has a really smooth, sophisticated tone compared to a lot of singers in the power metal genre. i think he sounds great

though!

[Robert Lunte]

SLS is a good program to study. There is nothing wrong with neurtal/balanced centric configurations all the live long day... But I advocate that you learn to calibrate and sing both neutral and tilted configurations. Therefore, if you want a really strong rock/metal sound in the head voice, you have to tilt/raise

"lary".

[Jens]

No Robert you dont have to raise larynx to get a powerfull sound in the highregistister... You can do, but you dont have to, power is alot more than just raising the larynx, the tilting is a nobrainer and it happens automaticly when you enter your highrange low/high larynx...

[Martin H]

Ah the larynx-thing again

The higher you sing the higher the larynx must be. The lower you sing the lower the larynx must be.

[Robert Lunte]

well the brett manning clip i posted is a strong head voice "mix" when he sings the "when a man loves a woman"

I have seen this clip, its not a "mix"... its full head voice and a twang configuration.

[Robert Lunte]

robert, the email from ronald scherer is more to do with how he is impressed with the height of the note which obviously means A, he is not familiar with the 80´s metal scene or any of the hundreds of heavy metal and power metal bands that do this today and B, has never gone on to youtube and typed in something along the lines of "high metal scream" and seen the many, many videos of guys doing such notes.

to me looks like jim gillette is doing the high notes EXACTLY like how i used to do these. whats wrong with it, well nothing other than the cheeks come right up (which can get tense) to engage the elevator muscles to help pull the larynx right up which comes with the tensing of the muscle under the chin which often results in a stiff lower jaw. do i believe this will harm the voice, no. do i believe this can being fatiguing if your doing it all the time and is training the muscle coordination to use elevating muscles for high pitches (which have nothing to do with pitch change) which fatigue more easily than training the muscles that do coordinate pitch, yes.

do i believe he has a sock in his jeans , yes

are you saying that the reason that just about every single big name that sang those high notes such as halford, gillan, plant, tate, dickenson, labrie, coverdale .....on a regular basis such as extend tours for many years and cant any more consistently or without a lot of effort is because they didnt train there voices later on or stay in shape. what, every single one of them!

"Please do NOT blame these individuals inability to hit a high note they could sing 20 years prior on vocal techniques that are contrary to your obsession with defending "neutral larynx all the time" beliefs"

A, i think you can use a high larynx if you want to, just try to accompany it with as little extra musculature as possible in the knowledge that this can be more effort. when mastered the balanced level larynx requires very, very, very little effort. does the sound it produce fit in with every genre, no, but it gives you an idea of what total freedom "home base" feels like so if you want to go and use different coordinatinons you have a reference to monitor by which helps if use other cooindination to use them with as little added muscle and effort as possible. even seth riggs says this! the singer from linken park does SLS and he is hardly in the most balanced larynx position all the time but it has helped him to gain more control within and monitor the other coordinations he uses.

B, i was under the impression that this vocal forum was a place where we shared our techniques, experiences, thoughts etc. so if someone comes along and says "speech level singing is not good for metal etc" what am i to do as one of the only people on the forum that does SLS and probably the only one who does SLS and likes to sing melodic metal and has found it helpful? should i not put forward my experience?

my "obsession" with defending neutral larynx beliefs is no more obsessional than your, larynx must be raised, twang all the time beliefs!

Ok, Centre (LOL)... even though we butt-heads, I do admire your conviction and "fight". Of course this forum is for open conversation and I think thats what we are all doing here, isnt it? Its great when we get a little edgey, it makes for "good TV", if you get my drift. Above... again, you assume that Dr. Scherer has not spent time listening to these sounds? I would highly suggest you dont make that assumption, his comments for me are good evidence that he is very much interested in what is going on. You make the assumption that these famous rock stars have all succumbed to "sex, drugs and rock n roll"... ? This is a cliche Centre... its simply not true. Bruce Dickinson, for example is a commercial airline pilot for Australian airlines in the off season ... Im sure he is not taking drugs... I keep coming back to the same point... My stuff is all over the internet, there to be enjoyed, or critiques or what ever... the point is, Im not sitting here on this forum arguing without first doing what I can to demonstrate and pay some dues. Please... send us a file of you singing a C-D-E-F-G 5 that has a convincing rock/metal characteristic to it with an SLS , "neutral" configuration and without anchoring... you need to show us something now... and please dont send over a clip of Jim Gillette's silly scream, some dude screaming in the trailer park or Ozzy Osbourne singing in his chest voice... If your the advocate, send us something that you are doing so we can understand and better appreciate your argument.

Respectfully,

[Robert Lunte]

Ah the larynx-thing again

The higher you sing the higher the larynx must be. The lower you sing the lower the larynx must be.

I know Martin.. isn't this funny?... its frustrating because there is this "camp" out there that will defend the SLS doctrine , come hell or high water... it doesnt matter if you give them video examples, if your speaking from real experience, if Steve Fraser and Dr. Scherer chime in to defend raised configurations... its like arguing with the brick walls.

Fellas.. SLS is a great voice pedagogy. There are good things there and its certainly a pioneer in contemporary voice pedagogy, in particular the idea of bridging. Thats where the "speech level singing" term comes from. Its suppose to imply that you can sing a high note without constricting and without extrinsic tension. Very helpful and innovative... 20 years ago... but today, all decent contemporary voice teachers are teaching this... its not a big secret anymore. I happen to be one of them. Point is, bridging is no longer only the domain or understanding of SLS... voice pedagogy is beyond that now... what we are now into is the idea of laryngeal configurations and vocal modes. Systems such as EVTS, CVI and what I am teaching more and more are the new exciting stuff... this means, we are learning that a "neutral" configuration is NOT the only way to sing...

There is a lot of good in SLS, but they are lagging behind in the understanding of laryngeal physiology, vocal modes, vocal qualities and how those configurations change the acoustics and physics of the vocal sound. You are arguing for what I call, "World is flat" pedagogy , when you keep pounding on this idea that anything other then "neutral" configurations is an area of concern. Move on! Have the courage to question what your SLS doctrine is feeding you in regards to laryngeal positioning... the evidence and credibility is all around you... Are you really going to Argue with Steve Fraser? Give me a break...

Martin, Im fightin the good fight here... :|

[dr rock]

i guess it all comes down to taste, but i mean in my opinion, the only thing i would sing with a neutral larynx without twang is like a ballad or something, for some badass leather wearin heavy metal u gotta have the cut and youve gotta have the twang, which is what im into. it brings out a larger than life badass character.

but there are some power metal (castle metal) haha styles out nowadays where they are totally singing with a ballanced larynx the whole time and it benefits the style by giving them an angelic sound.

a funny story i have is, 2 years ago when i really didnt know much at all about vocals, and was primarily a guitarist i used to go to some studio to record stuff with some bands and whatnot, and i ran into this dude who i started talking to and he told me he was into pretty much the same stuff i was judas priest iron maiden deep purple, bands like that. and at that time he came in with a band to record some progressive stuff.

he told me he was a kickass singer and hes been taking opera lessons for numberous years, and told me we should jam and start a band or something. then he gave me me the myspace address of his current band and told me to check it out.

when i got home and checked it out i blown away by his preformance it sounded almost exacily like bruce dickinson!...... haha

just kidding, it sounded even better, it sounded as though Kermit the frog had a son with Barney Rubble and HE was that son.

ahhahaaha i keed you not, he kept his larynx freakishly low, i wonder why his band mates didnt say anything to him about it, mabe he showed them his opera certificate or something.

long story short, i never called the guy to jam :)

[Martin H]

Robert,

I will stand by your side brotha.

Changes takes time...but I agree....Centre, please post some sound clips of the SLS approach to high metal screams! I can do it, Robert can do it...can you? Only teasing you a little Centre..

Actually Centre, there were a discussion about SLS on the CVT-forum and I think I will quote a very interesting post from a french vocal teacher and researcher who is familiar with many vocal methods (I assume Allan(chanteurmoderne) is perfectly fine with that and I hope that the "lingo" being used doesn't confuse to much):

Well, Seth is an odd sort. He's very set in his ways and he truly believes that what he is teaching is the only healthy way to sing.

Science has again and again demonstrated that this is not true, but he refuses to listen (which I suppose shows how much he believes in his own product) - but he won't move forward.

The problem with SLS is that it subscribes to the chest voice head voice model. In these systems Chest voice and head voice are both sounds and parts of the voice. So one could say that they are modes and parts of the voice too.

This means that SLS confuses register and mode, or register and quality if you want to be Estillian about it.

Essentially what SLS purports is that one should sing with thick folds in the lower part of the voice, then tilt the thyroid whilst maintaining vocal fold mass as far as possible, then move gently towards a thinner mass, replacing the loss in volume with twang to finish in thin folds with twang. In Estill terms this is going Speech, Speech with Cry, Cry with Speech, Cry with twang, pure twang. In CVT terms it's going Overdrive, Curbing, twangy curbing, twangy netural.

Certainly this is a healthy way to sing. But it's also healthy to maintain speech and cry or curbing throughout the range too.

SLS imposes a sound ideal on the voice and pretends that this sound ideal is what makes it healthy. It doesn't.

The principal problems I can see with SLS are :

1) it encourages a relatively mid larynx position every where. This is problematic if you wish to belt and also can cause all kinds of muscle tension if it isn't taught correctly (and often it isn't)

2) it doesn't really talk about support, which - again - unless the student naturally supports well (and many do) - the folds will have to work harder than necessary.

3) It forces a sound ideal on the student and thereby limits creativity, I feel.

I would prefer Singing Success over SLS - simply because they accept more sound variation - but they are still limited by the O-C-N model.

CVT / Estill / Other modern science based voice training systems allow you to explore all the possibilities of your voice. With these systems, you can choose to sing in an SLS way, or not. You can choose to make sounds that conform to the SLS ideal, or you can choose to make sounds that are impossible in SLS (proper broadway belting for example) - and because you understand how the voice works, you won't hurt yourself.

SLS claims that because you don't ever really use lots of air and pressure, this makes it a safer system because it avoids strain. However, neutral can be a damaging mode if it's done incorrectly, so the amount of air pressure in use isn't proportional to the safety of the voice.

I have heard many SLS teachers with hoarse voices and vocal problems, just I have heard many excellent SLS singers. However, I have never met and Estill or CVT teacher with vocal issues. That speaks volumes for me.

As for SLS 'safe' belt. It's very twangy speech and cry. Or very twangy curbing if you want CVT terms. It's loud, but it doesn't give the same effect - current research suggests that proper belt set up causes adrenaline burts in the singer BUT also in those who listen too (it's the voice, it's is suggested, that we used to use to scream 'watch out, the wolves are coming to eat the babies' or 'fire! everyone out') - as a great vocal researcher friend of mine says 'You just can't fake that'.

Hope that helps!

Allan

:)

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

Robert, you say of the singing success clip,

" I have seen this clip, its not a "mix"... its full head voice and a twang configuration"

i agree its head voice but sometimes, which can seem confusing to outsiders its called a high mix. anyway...

i think this just proves that sometimes we are on more similar course of thought than seems and sometimes its differing terminology and ways of expression that get in the way. as Jens said SLS does use a type of twang if you want to call it that, its just a slightly different version (whether that be a less aggressive version than you may use, or a different coordination-who knows?) and we wouldnt call it that. what i can tell you is this. if an SLS/SS person does what the guy does in the clip there is very, very little raising of the larynx, no "anchoring" from other muscle groups to speak of and its not a big effort to produce.

i wasnt trying to say that those singers i mentioned voices had deteriorated because of the rock n roll life styles i was trying to say that i think they had deteriorated through using to much muscle in their coordinations.

once again i will point out that SLS says you can use a higher larynx etc if you want to for style application. it just tries to get you to do it with as little extra musculature as possible and as close as you can to the "balanced" coordination whilst still having the characteristics of the style you want.

i do not claim to have mastered SLS fully by any means. so if i were to post up clips i believe it would not be the 100% finished article. this i believe might give the wrong impression about what SLS is. this does not mean that i have not experienced these coordinations first hand, it just means that i cannot replicate them consistently yet. its where my voice is at the moment. thats training for you. you can know what you should be doning but sometimes the coordinations, muscle memory etc isnt there yet. same thing for any technique!. i have witnessed singers and teachers within SLS that are the finished article and can sing this way consistently and its great stuff

there are people who agree with SLS and there are those that dont. just happens that there are more supporters of the "dont" camp on this forum.

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

martin,

personally i think SLS tries to find a coordination ideal rather than a sound ideal but anyway...

i think that sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes its only a matter of terminology that gets in the way. for instance SLS may call something a very full mix or strong head voice but CVT might call it overdirve or such and estill might call it something else etc.

i think this is proved by the fact that there are singers in the CVT book (in the examples of modes and the singers who use them) that have and still train with SLS.

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

Ya, ya... what he said!

PS:

Centre, I have the RODE Condenser S1 now and the new condenser M2. Nice stuff... given your experience with microphones, I thought you might be interested.

yeah would be cool if you did a review robert, maybe a vid as well to hear them. the S1 has been out for sometime but the M2 is a new one. looks like it has a very flat, smooth response. personally i wouldnt get the chance to use hand held condensers as much because it can be hard to use them in louder environments I.E. rock/metal bands because there so sensitive so i prefer dynamics but on saying that i do have a very nice condenser which is the Audio Technica AE5400. its pretty good!

[Martin H]

Centre,

Well no sound clips so far....

Here is one of me:

http://www.box.net/shared/6x87ftv47v

(the name of the file is created on purpose in this context )

Are you saying, that this coordination is actually fully "allowed" and teached by SLS?? (I've been to a SLS teacher and she said that this was a NO GO! you are pulling chest, hurting your voice etc.)

[Snax]

Man, we have a REALLY similar singing style Martin! I'm going to have to pay more attention to your clips and the terminology you use so I know what the heck it is that I'm doing when I'm singing. I'm trying to learn to sing without so much musculature like I always used to do. I'll admit i'm a little (lot) confused with some of the terminology that is thrown around here.

When I heard the youtube clip of the "High Mix" When a Man Loves a Woman I assumed that's what it is called. Now it appears that that vocal coordination is also called a full head voice with "twang"? Is that method of singing those belty tones the correct technique then although called different names by different teachers? Just want to be sure i'm on the right track. I use the same method now to sing those pitches.

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

Snax, sometimes different schools of technique I.E. Speech Level Singing, Complete Vocal Technique etc etc

will use different terms to mean the same thing. at other times the thoughts, philosophies and techniques that are taught can also be very different to each other, thus why we have these debates on here

i suggest you have a few lessons with a few different techniques such as the ones already mentioned to see what feels/sounds best to you and what makes the most sense to you and take it from there. as you are already a bit of a "natural" in this whole singing lark (i just listened to your clips) i dont think it would take you long to get an idea of whether you feel a particular school of technique is right for you or not.

[Snax]

Thanks for the advice Centre.

So far I feel the most helpful vocal teaching method for my style is Robert Lunte's. We have such a similar background of vocal influences and some of his free videos have already been most helpful. That's not to say I won't learn from anyone else because I'm a sponge when it comes to absorbing information. I find everyone here incredibly helpful and i love the fact that there are debates and discussions about different pedalogies.

[Martin H]

HeY, Centre, post an audioclip of you singing :)

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

Centre,

Well no sound clips so far....

Here is one of me:

http://www.box.net/shared/6x87ftv47v

(the name of the file is created on purpose in this context )

Are you saying, that this coordination is actually fully "allowed" and teached by SLS?? (I've been to a SLS teacher and she said that this was a NO GO! you are pulling chest, hurting your voice etc.)

Hi Martin,

no they wouldnt neccersarally teach it that exact way. i think they would try to refine it so it made it easier for you to sing.

the lesson would probably be something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxeFZIbyXuI

there are SLS taught people on broadway that have to make these or similar types of sound production.

i showed my teacher a sound i had been messing about with which sounds a bit like your example, though i cant sing it that high

http://www.box.net/shared/nppvgy356i

she thought it sounded a bit extreme but was essentially a very hard mix/middle voice. the problem is it takes a lot of effort, support wise obviously, but also in the throat/palette from having to keep so much "metal" in the sound. maybe im doing it out of centre of the mode?

[Robert Lunte]

Martin is solid on his understandings.

Centre, sound clips please?

In the meantime, I really liked Allan's explanation... In particular:

1) it encourages a relatively mid larynx position every where. This is problematic if you wish to belt and also can cause all kinds of muscle tension if it isn't taught correctly (and often it isn't)

3) It forces a sound ideal on the student and thereby limits creativity,

AND...

Well, Seth is an odd sort. He's very set in his ways and he truly believes that what he is teaching is the only healthy way to sing.

Science has again and again demonstrated that this is not true, but he refuses to listen (which I suppose shows how much he believes in his own product) - but he won't move forward.

AND

CVT / Estill / Other modern science based voice training systems allow you to explore all the possibilities of your voice. With these systems, you can choose to sing in an SLS way, or not. You can choose to make sounds that conform to the SLS ideal, or you can choose to make sounds that are impossible in SLS (proper broadway belting for example) - and because you understand how the voice works, you won't hurt yourself.

This is what I have been trying to say. They force one configuration and one value set onto everyone and refuse to adapt and update their pedagogy. They are totally missing the innovation around vocal modes, qualities and understanding the physiology of the larynx and how that changes the acoustics. Its simply out dated and needs to be revamped!

Then they force their teachers to force their students (centre) to defend it under ANY circumstance. Apart from the pedagogy that needs to be updated, there is a culture of "everyone else is wrong and we are right" and "do not consider any other ideas" in SLS. 20 years ago, that worked... today... no one is buying it anymore, other then their students that are drinking the cool-aid and the teachers that simply want to use the "certification" system to help market their business and get more students.

SLS is a LOT about marketing and maintaining the 5 level licensing pyramid system that insures that Seth and his heir apparent continue to get paid great gobs of money from licensing fees. If you dont pay the fee, they pull your certificate and you cant use their branding. I know people that spent 20 years dedicated to Seth and SLS and when they left the organization and simply said, "I studied with Seth Riggs" in their resumes... they were sued. You have to PAY to be able to use their brand and logo and if you spent 20 years dedicated to it and then decide to leave, you are sued for mentioning anything about it.

When you point out that this neutral configuration is not going to work for some artists that need more cut and amplification... they say, "We trained Ozzy Osbourne"... its totally lame. Not only is Ozzy Osbourne NOT a great example of incredible vocal technique, ... Ozzy was never his long term student. SLS also is really big on name dropping... they coach one celebrity singer or give a couple coaching tips back stage somewhere and then all of a sudden you see it in all their marketing, "we taught this person. this person is an SLS singer".

Sadly, there is some good pedagogy in SLS to be sure, but they are ruining it by not being adaptive, updating the pedagogy, pride, arrogance and greed!