vowel modification? why dont i ever hear it in songs

[rfcorange]

so i was just wondering, if vowel modification is so important, why is it i never hear it in songs?

that is, when singers are using their higher notes, the lyrics still sound like they are being pronounced normally?

[bigfoot]

??? U serious mate?

My point of view would be just the opposite.. Until I'd heard of / read about vowel modification, I didn't think it existed, but now I hear it more and more in almost every song I head, specially ones where the singer is high in his/ range!!

What kind of music are you primarily listening to?

[rfcorange]

chinese music. lol.

hmm maybe it hasnt been long enough since i've learnt about vowel modification haha.

[Robert Lunte]

I assure you, its there... you just don't know how to identify it. Remember, part of the trick of vowel modification when applied to singing is to create the illusion that its not happening. In a sense, it is happening, all the time... right in front of your ears. Just like an optical illusion.

Go Here: Click the middle illusion.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/cog_rotations/index.html

Your ear can be tricked the same way.

These vowel modifications are staring you right in your face, but you being duped, tricked... its working on you, you think your hearing an "ee" as in "see" , but your actually hearing a "ae" as in "say".

When you begin to actually practice vowel modifications, you begin to recognize them.

There are exceptions where someone does sing a high note and chokes out an "ee" as in "see"... but that would be a failure to use vowel modification in the lyrics. Trained singers, do it a lot, it enables the technique. If you don't, it will choke you on closed vowels.

From whom or what have you learned vowel modification? Are you my student?

BTW.. "learnt" is not a word.

[VideoHere]

as ken tamplin says vowel mods. are release valves used in the higher end of the voice to ease the transition upward.

skilled singers, have achieved through discovery and experimentation the exact shade of a vowel to use per their particular voice.

there are also singers (the appoggio method) where very little vowel modification is employed, because of really skilled support.

it's subtle, but it's used to a more or lesser degree by all skilled singers. it's a skill that needs to be learned and ingrained per each vowel, per each note.

[eggplantbren]

BTW.. "learnt" is not a word.

It is in British English.

[eggplantbren]

there are also singers (the appoggio method) where very little vowel modification is employed, because of really skilled support.

That's really interesting. So could it be that sometimes when you hear a certain vowel, you're being fooled like Robert suggests, but other times that may not be the case, depending on the singer?

[VideoHere]

some will say otherwise, that some singers use absolutely no vowel modification, but i believe all singers use it to varying degrees.

like steve fraser said, it all depends on which vowel, which note and the particular voice.

but i have studied some favorite singers of mine, and i have noticed some have a tendency towards certain shades

if you listen to guys like michael bolton, you'll hear a prevailing "uh" or "oo" shade to a lot of his tones.

jackie wilson is another with that prevalence.

the skill comes in knowing for yourself what shade, what subtle shade works for you. like steve fraser said, it varies by vowel, by note, and by voice.

[mjgp3]

It is in British English.

Interesting, Merriam-Webster says it's "chiefly British," but does not say that "learnt" is nonstandard in American English. So I think both "learned" and "learnt" are acceptable past participles for "to learn."

The idea of vowel modification is a relatively novel one for me, but I think I've subconsciously picked up on as I've listened to singers. Robert's example of "ee" to "ay" is a particularly prominent one for me. I remember working up a cover of the tune "Valerie" originally by The Zutons but probably made more famous by Amy Winehouse. Amy sings "Val-er-ay" while the original is more "Val-er-ee." I always found myself doing it Amy's way, but it was hardly subtle... doesn't necessarily stick out like a sore thumb, but it's no secret... maybe I'm just no good at it. :D

[gno]

Vowel Mod is always there with singers who seem to be doing it effortlessly. Like Robert said you just don't know what to look for. It sounds natural, because it is.

A lot of lucky tenors just do it instinctively. They may have a very high speaking pitch. But a lot of us have to learn it.

You can certainly tell when you are not doing it - when it feels forced and sounds kind of ugly. And you can hear this in some singers too that don't know. For example - John Mayer when he first came onto the scene.

When you first learn you almost have to exaggerate the weird sound of it. It is a shifting of the back of the throat to create or modify the "pocket" or "amphitheater" that the first formant is resonating in.

As you work on it more and more (and this takes literally years to master) you can get rid of the weird part of the sound and learn how to shade the vowel so it sounds natural. You are training your muscles in the back to form the correct resonator so that it is automatic.

[VideoHere]

well said geno, (as always).

ironically, just as an example, you know who's very skillful at it, but you wouldn't think of him being so is bryan adams. did he study vowel modification? who knows, but he's definitely using it here.

[rfcorange]

wow thats some interesting stuff guys! yeah i guess the concern was having to learn to sing, but with weird sounding vowels. the idea that you can modify it, and then train it so it's more "natural" sounding is intriguing.

[rfcorange]

From whom or what have you learned vowel modification? Are you my student?

BTW.. "learnt" is not a word.

Yeah Rob it's Gary here, we talked on Skype a few times recently and I got four pillars a week ago.

Yeah we use "learnt" over here in Australia :)

[gno]

Bob - I love how Brian Adams sings. And you're right - who knows if he had to learn it. He might have been one of the lucky ones.

[ronws]

I wanted to be a smart-aleck and quote Freddie Merucry - "It's a kind of magic / that no one else can see ..."

My way of thinking about it is that each vowel does set up a certain configuration in the vocal tract. And one of the big things about what a vowel does is how the tongue is set. In addition, a vowel is comprised of overtones or selective filtering of the sound. For example, the folds do not articulate vowels. They just make a sound. The vowel sound comes from what the resonators and articulators are doing. And this also explains the tonal shift, even or especially for tenors, at around the area of E5 to G5. This gets back to acoustics. Volume comes from resonance. A pitch has a wavelength of peak to peak that is repeated a certain number times in a second. A 440 which is A4 means that the wave peak happens 440 times in one second. For simplicity, let's say the wavelength is .5 inches (nowhere near accurate but close enough to illustrate.) For the note to have volume it must resonate. What it means to resonate is be in a physical space that causes the wave to bounce back on itself. In physics, when to waves impact each other, it is called heterodyning. Frequency-wise, there will be harmonics of the two added and subtracted (overtones and undertones.) Also, the physical waves stack up. This creates a doubling of amplitude of the wave. The amplitude gives volume. A doubling of amplitude creates a logarithmic (as in greater than just doubling) of volume. This is why Caruso, with an imperfect, congestion beseiged organ, could sing so well. He was king of the resonators. Well, this takes a short space, the higher you go. When I say a high note is a small note, I don't mean by amplitude. I mean by wavelength, peak to peak. That is why you cannot physical resonate a C5 in your chest, whether you are baritone or tenor or soprano. It is a matter of the size of the resonating chamber(s), not the thickness of folds or tonal quality.

Vowel shape can determine how easy or difficult it is to get a note into the right resonators.

Therefore, modifying vowels is about directing the sound energy. Done right, the effect is not so apparent, unless you know what to listen for.

At the upper tonal shift, the resonators are two small to reinforce much of anything other than the fundamental, which is why all vowels begin to sound the same, up there.

This has been redneck physics with ronws ... howdy ya'll.

[VideoHere]

excelent, but too technical for me brother ron.....lol!!!

i'm a touchy/feely kind of singer....lol!!!

all i know is when the sound is focused just right and hits the pocket, you know it. the trick is to improve your aim and consistency of hitting it...lol!!

i find that mr. mister song "broken wings" a good practise session for this. if you aren't spot on with "take", "wings" , "hear" and "sing" it just won't ring and ping nice and free.

[ronws]

excelent, but too technical for me brother ron.....lol!!!

i'm a touchy/feely kind of singer....lol!!!

all i know is when the sound is focused just right and hits the pocket, you know it. the trick is to improve your aim and consistency of hitting it...lol!!

i find that mr. mister song "broken wings" a good practise session for this. if you aren't spot on with "take", "wings" , "hear" and "sing" it just won't ring and ping nice and free.

I like your explanation, too, because I think in terms of images and places for the note, too.

I also meant to add that when people think a high note is "chesty" it is because of what sounds like higher closed quotient, whether it is more closed quotient, or not. For example, in my "Justin Hawkins" voice, the high notes are not falsetto. They are head voice and I am not creating anymore compression in the folds that I normally would. What makes it sound so loud and piercing, like a chest note, is focused resonation, which gives the note all the volume it will ever need. The only other thing to impact how you hear it in the recording is the eq and mixing strategies involved. Seriously, I was not straining at all. For example, on the strat note for "guitar!", I am quite relaxed and even have a little rattle up top.

But the image and feeling is that I am rattling my eyeballs in their sockets and tickling the top of my skull.

Also, there could other tones, such as overtones, present but not as prominent. Sound has a way of bouncing around and doing funny things. I saw an analysis that Steven did of Pavarotti and Bjorling. I'm not sure how much of an effect recording tech and editing tech has on what can be analyzed. Pavarotti was recorded with modern tech and mixing strategies. Not so with Jussi Bjorling. Anyway, it appeared that Pavarotti was producing two harmonics over the fundamental and Jussi was producing an average of 5, sometimes more.

[Snejk]

I must disagree a bit with Lunte. Some singers do modify vowels in a manner which disguises it -BUT- there are also singers not modifying at all, overdriving G5's and doing stuff all the elitist people say "IMPOSSIBLE!!!"...

Take Michael Kiske;

The chorus for example. He sings chestier and higher than any of us and still gets the "ee"s and "oo"s without modifying at all. Something he also stated in interviews "it's very important for me to deliver the words as they are spoken. I would never consider singing a word differently just because it's easier"

So, the voice is individual and some singers are just extraordinary compared to us :)

[ronws]

And I am going to disagree with Kiske. On the word "illusions," it is normally pronounced ih - loo - zhuhns. He sings it ee - loo - zhehns. Cry is sung as cra. He onsets the word you with an ee sound to get his tongue in the right spot. And he sings the word may as meh-ee.

Now, we could believe him when he says he doesn't modify. And then turn around not believe Dio when he says he never had vocal lessons and learned all he needed to know from playing the french horn. It depends, I guess, on what we want to believe.

Or, I am just jealous of Kiske because he is offensively handsome and I am several decades of bad road. I look like a Hell's Angel that cleaned up for a court appearance. That's why my dog is my avatar. He is prettier than I am.

:)

[Snejk]

Haha... :3 What's wrong with "cleaned up Hell's Angel's" look? Chicks love them bad boys

Regarding Kiske, he is German and that shines through. I, for example sang the word "giggle" like "jiggle" in the first song I recorded o_O I also never knew that's how you pronounced illusions Not that I think "uh" or "eh" is easier or harder than the other, both are pretty easy vowels Point being, as evident by the clip, he's singing the narrowest vowels ee/oo in an extremely high pitch.

Also, I can't really agree that the guy's handsome... Not anymore though, he's got a hat glued to his head This would be an exception (and also his amazing return back!!)

[gno]

Snejk - Sorry - I have to dis-agree. There is a vocal configuration for every Pitch / Vowel combination. Even throughout your Chest voice you are making small adjustments to your vocal configuration all the time - as you speak! I too thought there was some majical things happening with tenors like Adam Lambert who seems to be completely void of any noticeable vowel modifications.

Even CVT's overdrive basically modifies some vowels to others. Some vowels don't need much modification depending on pitch, but others do need modification or your body will fight you.

Those people that seem to be void of modifications are modifying their vocal track naturally - for optimum resonance. This stuff is not majic and those that seem to be endowed with some supernatural powers - this is a myth.

Kiske does a great job - he is definitely modifying vowels - but maybe "vowel modification" is a mis-leading term. Because you're modifying to what is natural and optimum. It's just that a lot of us don't do it naturally. So we need to learn how.

[Snejk]

Alright, I hear you... I guss it's a bit of a comparison...

Take James LaBrie. When he sings very high parts nowadays he does so with only "eh" and "oh". It's not uncommon that the entire lyric dissapears and it sounds just like... A mush of high pitched notes...

That's where Kiske is so much different. You can hear every words, every vowel... To me "vowel modification" means that you actually modify it. If you "disguise it so it's impossible to hear" i.e an EE that sounds EE... Then it's not modification in that sense anymore.

Another singer I'd like to cite is Klaus Meine. Now he has a natural high tenor voice which allows him to keep narrow vowels intact far longer up in the range than any of us. I heard him sing "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas and as opposed to the original singer, Meines voice is much higher and he had no trouble at all singing every vowel as sharp as intended...

[gno]

I know what you mean. Like operatic Soprano's when singing really high you can't tell the difference in vowels - that's kind of like Jame's Labrie. Kiske is more like Lambert - who even when singing ultra high - shades the vowels so damn well. They can push that a little too which can be a little unhealthy. Steve Walsh of Kansas and even Steve Perry comprimised a little too, and it wasn't healthy. Steve Walsh would do a great "oo" vowel up at C5, but it was a bit pushed and he frequently ran into vocal issues back then. Perry too.

Part of it is can be described in CVT modes - Neutral can be sung in more pure vowels all throughout the range where curbing and overdrive tend to gravitate toward certain vowels, I think because of the larger pockets needed for resonation. I do CVT Neutral vowels every day up to F5 on "ee" and "oo" and with these I can remain pretty much with a pure sound. But if I add volume and start to belt, I definitely need to shift the reasonance.

You can hear this with Tamplin too - when singing really lightly it sounds pure. When he's belting, the vowels start to center on certain resonances. I think that is the CVT Neutral thing going on.

[VideoHere]

i agree with geno. also, according to franco tenelli, if you are well skilled in apoggio method, and really support well, you are less inclined to need as much vowel mods.

folks, it can be so subtle. i like to use the term vowel shades as it denotes more subtlety.

[devaitis]

I struggle with vowel modification too, I don't know how to sing /ae/, you know man, bad....etc. and I feel there is no enough precision and energy without correct vowels.

For example I can hear that Bolton did it in "when a man loves a woman". I see v.m is very important here, in passaggio especially.

My incorrect vowels you can listen to here http://www.box.com/s/lhoimsen3gi813y828ay

Bolton's Sladge's performances are well know.