Jump to content

Has anybody here personally increased his Chest voice vocal range?

Rate this topic


Simon T8W

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

If my phonations did not have enough compression, why didn't it sound windy? Sure, I can add more compression, but that is not going to change the level of constriction in the phonation, its just going to amplify and make it sound more twangy or quacky.

The contraction you are feeling when you twang or add compression is primarily the activation of the aryepiglottic sphincter or the "AES".

Dave Brooks, is rambling on about vocal twang and the compression you get from it. At 3:15, nothing happened but a twangy, compressed note for 1 second. There is no demonstration here? You are trying to tell me that this video demonstrates more 'chest' aesthetic in your voice? No it doesn't... it does not even address what we are talking about here Dante... "cry like a baby?" sound? all we get is 1 half second, twangy phonation?... this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The Jen Werner clip is another 1 second, twangy "chirp" with a high larynx?

Dante, I'm sorry... But did you put the wrong videos in here ..?

:/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No Daniel, but the more space you travel through, the faster time will pass for others and will slow down for you.

I am powerless to stop myself. Einstein was wrong.

And proved himself wrong a few times. First, with his study of what was called statistical mechanics. The study of sub-atomic particle collisions. The only way to adequately describe the results was with analytic geometry and even topology. Which require vector sums. And this violated his notion that large velocities were non-additive, an assumption created by his special theory of relativity.

Second, his collaberation in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Event in Quantum Mechanics. As an electron microscope is brought near to an electron to observe it, the em field of that scope aligns the spin of the electron up or down. Per conservation theory in QM, the electron on the other side of the orbit must have the opposite spin. And this alignment happens instantaneously, i.e., no time. Violating Einstein's limit on the velocities of things and events in the universe.

Stop it Ron, just stop it ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Robert.

And moreso:

There is no purpose in defining chest and head against sound quality. Or "closed quotient" or whatever you guys believe that are talking about. As far as your larynx coordination is concerned, there are 2 conditions that can be happening, it either is correct, free of tensions or it is not.

It is impossible to keep chest coordination without additional effort above passagio, simply because chest and head are, by their own definitions, a description how CORRECT placement should FEEL, not a description of how you will sound and absolutely not about ammounts of muscle activity. One should guess this is obvious since the terms were used long before it was possible to measure it.

Does not mean that you should break, does not mean that it should not be done on modal voice and absolutely does not mean it should not have energy. Quality and power MUST remain as well as control, comfort and plasticity.

And on demonstrations of "technique". The only possible demonstration is actual singing, anything else is useless. The result of technique application should be singing with quality and without strain, and not just making some random scales. Its technique to sing, not to compete for the highest possible squeaky note you can come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe - There are so many definitions of chest and head that it is pretty difficult to argue about it unless you first agree on how you want to define it. Otherwise it gets to be a blurry mess of different assumptions. The old notion that the "chest" helps in resonation has been proven false though. You can "feel" it in the chest through sympathetic vibration only. The definition of chest and head I like the best is in this chart I found. It is the most logical, to me. Again - other people define it differently and who's to say which one is right and which one is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe how come we train scales then and vocalexercises? Because its easyer, easy sounds to Find coordinations. By looking at à ferrari can you build one then? Let alone do you know how it is driving that car?

Singing is hard, so much more to think of Than simple exercises consonants, pitch, emotion, lyrics, the beat and so on.

When i hear a great singer i wanna know the journey he/she took to become as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I am powerless to stop myself. Einstein was wrong.

And proved himself wrong a few times. First, with his study of what was called statistical mechanics. The study of sub-atomic particle collisions. The only way to adequately describe the results was with analytic geometry and even topology. Which require vector sums. And this violated his notion that large velocities were non-additive, an assumption created by his special theory of relativity.

Second, his collaberation in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Event in Quantum Mechanics. As an electron microscope is brought near to an electron to observe it, the em field of that scope aligns the spin of the electron up or down. Per conservation theory in QM, the electron on the other side of the orbit must have the opposite spin. And this alignment happens instantaneously, i.e., no time. Violating Einstein's limit on the velocities of things and events in the universe.

Stop it Ron, just stop it ....

Ron, space time in a 4th dimension is a reality. Traveling to the future is possible, but traveling to the past is probably not. The perception of time 'moving forward' is only an illusion, we are actually static in time, but moving in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I have to agree with Robert.

And moreso:

There is no purpose in defining chest and head against sound quality. Or "closed quotient" or whatever you guys believe that are talking about. As far as your larynx coordination is concerned, there are 2 conditions that can be happening, it either is correct, free of tensions or it is not.

It is impossible to keep chest coordination without additional effort above passagio, simply because chest and head are, by their own definitions, a description how CORRECT placement should FEEL, not a description of how you will sound and absolutely not about ammounts of muscle activity. One should guess this is obvious since the terms were used long before it was possible to measure it.

Does not mean that you should break, does not mean that it should not be done on modal voice and absolutely does not mean it should not have energy. Quality and power MUST remain as well as control, comfort and plasticity.

And on demonstrations of "technique". The only possible demonstration is actual singing, anything else is useless. The result of technique application should be singing with quality and without strain, and not just making some random scales. Its technique to sing, not to compete for the highest possible squeaky note you can come up with.

DEAD ON, LOVE IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Felipe how come we train scales then and vocalexercises? Because its easyer, easy sounds to Find coordinations. By looking at à ferrari can you build one then? Let alone do you know how it is driving that car?

Singing is hard, so much more to think of Than simple exercises consonants, pitch, emotion, lyrics, the beat and so on.

When i hear a great singer i wanna know the journey he/she took to become as good.

Agreed Jen, but I didn't get the impression that Felipe was making an argument against training with vocalize? I think he is trying to say that we get bogged down in these phonation experiments and discoveries .. .and regardless of how "cool" it may sound to some people, if it breaks down the comfort and efficiency in a balanced phonation package, its probably suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to Elrathion I new it was a big mistake to bring up classical and rock together in the same sentence in the future i wont it always starts a bad conversation.. The singers you posted are great by the way i cant wait to listen to mike farris some more.

As far s what we are talking about its cool to disagree. I come from a place where i had to relearn and relearn again from teachers that told me what to do but couldnt do it. And messed up my voice and they couldn't sing any of the songs I sing.So i made me think and i just started to work harder on singing than vocalises and bingo no more problems.

peace

daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to Elrathion I new it was a big mistake to bring up classical and rock together in the same sentence in the future i wont it always starts a bad conversation.. The singers you posted are great by the way i cant wait to listen to mike farris some more.

As far s what we are talking about its cool to disagree. I come from a place where i had to relearn and relearn again from teachers that told me what to do but couldn't do it. And messed up my voice and they couldn't sing any of the songs I sing.So i made me think and i just started to work harder on singing than vocalises and bingo no more problems.

peace

daniel

I understand where you're comming from ;> I went through my fair amount of teachers myself until I found some good ones :P Sometimes you can pick up a little piece of the puzzle if you're lucky, or sometimes it'll confuse the hell out of you if it seems like they are all saying something different.

Guess you need to be lucky in finding a good teacher you can trust straight away ;>

You seem like a nice guy! If you ever wanna talk or share stuff, you can find me on skype under the same name ;>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Dante, I can assure you one thing... I don't need you to coach me on how to balance compression, twang or laryngeal configurations on any aspect of my range. It is time for you to step up and show us your phonations.

The phonations that Dave Brooks and Jan Werner provided in these isolated moments you offered in these videos are nothing more than weak, quacky chirps that 9 out of 10 people on this forum can do. I'm not arguing with you on the overall possibility to balance contractions in the configuration to get a desired and likely, relatively healthy result.. but your video samples are not consistent with the rest of your presentation. So to be clear, you may be onto something... but when you try to sell us on the idea that these videos are demonstrating anything other than little weak, chirpy, 1 second quacks... your credibility becomes really at risk.. therefore... for your benefit, would you please either find better video samples or even better, do it yourself and show us what you have worked out.

I think at this point, I would like to hear your phonation samples. Let's hear you do it... I'm not challenging you, as much as I don't have time to argue that these videos are showing me something interesting.

I maintain, that Jen's phonations are cool... but a very important point that no one has brought up yet and that simply is this... every singer has a unique vocal tract, unique thickness to their folds, some can distort better than others, some can sing more clean better than others... I have heard Jens before in other discussions demonstrating different things, it usually sounds good. There is no compelling evidence or argument that is making me believe that Jens isn't doing pretty much what I was doing, but because he has worked his musculature more to make that kind of sound, its just a matter of physiology, working it out... not as much about technique. However, Jens or anyone has to have a good foundation of technique to even attempt this. So we are assuming we are already at advanced levels here.. now, if someone wants to experiment and go for different sounds, at an advanced level of command and control of your voice, with time you can develop different tricks.

I previously pointed out, the voice consists of muscles, ligaments, etc... if you work them out in a special way, you can eventually get a result or strength and coordination to do the 'thing' your trying to do... within reason of course.

So Dante, you may be onto something here and I'm interested, but your video samples are still... lame... so let's hear your samples...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Dante, please explain how you would train the IA and Vocalis balance. To your argument, how would you train more Vocalis activation to get the desired result we are discussing? Ok, I'm all ears... what is the suggested training techniques or work flows to develop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I totally agree that each person has a different structure with regards to fold thickness, even the shape of one's resonating spaces. And that is why two people can do the same thing and one will sound boomy and the other will sound covered. Or one will sound raspy and airy and another will sound bright and ringy.

As for time being proven a 4th dimension of reality, not really. Time being a dimension of "reality" started out with Einstein's limit of the speed of light (already disproven by himself.) Which led partially to the General Theory of Relativity. And both were based on his use of Fitzgerald's theory of contractions and Lorentz's equations to describe the Fitzgerald contractions. And both of those guys, from whom Einstein borrowed heavily, believed in aether, a "sub-space" substance against which things and events would experience friction. This theory was effectively disproved with the Michelson-Morley Experiment that showed no contraction against an aether in the transmission of light in both the direction of Earth's rotation and opposite it. In fact, this experiment led Einstein to posit that light travelled the same in all directions regardless of its source's motion. However, I think, he made too much hay out of one piece. A whole vest out of one button.

Then, again, he failed algebra twice and failed out of the polytechnishe institute. He couldn't be bothered with going to class and learning all that math stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw something into the mix, I think this song is a good example of the difference between taking a thick, belty chest sound up through your range and using a resonant, covered head placement to give the perception of a chesty sound in the upper register. I think both methods sound big and powerful; the difference in this song seems to be purely a stylistic choice as the singer is proficient using both configurations.

The main point where this happens within the song is in the chorus at 1.00

Casey sings the word "remember" 3 times. The first and third time sound more chesty/belty and the second, more covered/heady.

I'm not offering an explanation or preference... just thought this was a good reference point =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Robert,

I have addressed many of your concerns with this clip. BTW, make sure you don't have your headphones on too loud when listening to the clip because it gets quite loud when I do the demonstrations and I didn't have any compressors on or anything to normalize the sound.

https://www.box.com/s/cfca692907d5781bbf13

If you think those demonstrations were weak and quacky, then you must have never heard them in person. Are they thin sounding? Yes. But weak? No. Most people can't do it as easily as you suggest, at least not in my experience.

~~Dante~~

Nice Dante, way to step up! Why your sample has to get so hot and explode into the microphone I don't know, you should fix that. People don't want to have to turn up and turn down and turn up and turn down over and over again when listening... get some compression.

I liked your presentation here, other than the audio blasting...

What this needs is, better pedagogy to explain it. "sound like a whale" is not going to work for most people... however, I recognize its merits. Good stuff... I have already taken steps to get my head around it for more advanced options for students.

Having said all that, I still totally disagree on those videos... the sound you made was not the sound that Dave was making to my ears... further to my point here, which is beginning to be pointless at this point... Dave wasn't trying to demonstrate what your demonstrating. Hell, I doubt he can even do it dude... seriously, Ill bet this guy cannot make a sound like Jen's sample... He is trying to explain twang, essentially... and even at that, I didn't feel it was very impressive. He is not even aware of what you and I are discussing... the video samples are still not supporting your otherwise interesting points. You sound like you know more about whats going on then Dave...

The truth is, there just are not many good examples from a teaching tutorial perspective on this topic that I am aware of... I think this is very much on the cutting-edge in terms of how to teach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe - There are so many definitions of chest and head that it is pretty difficult to argue about it unless you first agree on how you want to define it. Otherwise it gets to be a blurry mess of different assumptions. The old notion that the "chest" helps in resonation has been proven false though. You can "feel" it in the chest through sympathetic vibration only. The definition of chest and head I like the best is in this chart I found. It is the most logical, to me. Again - other people define it differently and who's to say which one is right and which one is wrong?

Well I just said that they are just descriptors and references, not a real model. The most accurate description would be modal voice using covering, capable of full dynamic control and that feels higher placed above a given range on ones voice.

Just like this table... You see, the muscular relationship provided does not hold true against reality, its true that as the pitch rises, more and more contraction of CT muscle must happen. But TA contracts just as well. In fact, if you take a fortissimo note on head and compare with a piano chest note, you may find the relationship you propose inverted. In this table, I can very well relate the ideas of TA and CT muscles to description of sensations that will work in trainning, but never as a physical model.

And the fold vibration pattern proposed is also wrong. Only the outer layer with no body of the folds is not head, its falsetto. Head must remain modal, or you will break... If the body disengages completely the glotal cycle pattern changes and you will have a break in the register.

Its a matter of tonus, reaction time and coordination. Any unballance will lead to a state of one or another muscle locking up in contraction. There is no way for you to stabilish a fixed parameter for the larynx as the muscle references would indicate.

A fascinating paper with more on the subject and references to other muscles that are just as important as the two we often see mentioned:

http://headandnecksurgery.ucla.edu/workfiles/Academics/Articles/neuromusc_control_chhetri_et_al.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, clarifying: what I mean is that the vocal production quality must remain from one into the other. You should not have to use chest in order to get quality above the passagio or add weight or for whatsoever reasons.

Chest and Head are, as I learned, simply placements for modal voice. If you define head as covering and chest as modal voice production, yes, it is valid too. But then again why define incomplete pieces of the whole as voices?

Chest being defined as full voice, no sensations on the throat whatsoever, voice placed lower on the mask behind the uper teeth.

Head beind defined as full voice, no sensations on the throat, voice placed higher on the mask, around the nose area (not on the nose of course), with the key difference of covering ( a distinct sensation of pressure against the soft palate).

The terms have origins in the sympathetic vibrations you can feel on the chest and the sensation of the voice starting from a top-down posture on head. Hence voice from the head and voice from the chest. An invalid model of course, but a very valid description to what we feel and that has a lot of technical development built around it that works provided that reality is kept in check.

To keep chest above the passaggio I would simply not cover and focus it forward into EE. Piercing and anoying, loud and physically demanding (needs lots of air and lots of pressure). It does comes handy for interpretative purposes, but there is no point in doing this the whole time, its a very blunt and vulgar quality compared to head, and the control of dynamics goes down the drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe how come we train scales then and vocalexercises? Because its easyer, easy sounds to Find coordinations. By looking at à ferrari can you build one then? Let alone do you know how it is driving that car?

Singing is hard, so much more to think of Than simple exercises consonants, pitch, emotion, lyrics, the beat and so on.

When i hear a great singer i wanna know the journey he/she took to become as good.

Jens, I agree with you, of course. And its actually the point Im trying to make. Im not against exercises, Im against this oversimplification of the goals of technical trainning into a competition to see who makes the higher pitched boring sound using exercises that in most cases are not even what they should be doing to improve.

What I mean is that to demonstrate application of techinique, or better saying, to show that you know what you are talking about and that you can actually help someone with what you are saying, you have to sing. You have to show the end result, not some clever scales designed for range match-ups.

Doing lip bubbles in youtube showing 5 octaves of bubububu does not convince me of any thing (besides lack of better things to do and a complete disregard for you own image). A well executed song shows much more on this respect, even if its a simple song.

Scales and exercises are very important to train uppon. They are crucial. The simpler they are, the more effective they will be.

Still, I will add that doing scales or bubbles or whatever kind of exercise without a defined purpose in mind is really useless and does not make a difference. A well defined exercise, with a goal, done with attention for 15 minutes in a few days is much more effective then repeating random scales with the same mistakes over and over again hopping that the god of the singers will extend his hand and set things right on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys - Kevin Richards here - let me weigh in as I am sort of the resident YouTube expert on chesty sounding lower head tones.

You guys are close but missing the mark on a few issues.

Let me explain:

1. Get out of the analysis about your inner laryngeal musculature. It's not going to help you in doing this at all. Unless you can see inside your throat while you're singing, you can't physically control to such a fine degree what it takes to do this better than your brain can. This is more about thought processes and sensations rather than a physical manipulation.

2. To achieve a chest like quality in the lower and mid head tones it is all about a balance between support, fold focus (adduction) throat space and a blending of resonances.

3. A typical male voice CANNOT sing in full chest resonance above an F4. It may feel and sound like chest resonance but it is actually a mixing of lower and middle resonances. Sure there are exceptions if the male voice is unusually high and thin, but your typical male voice will already be in mouth resonance on a F4.

4. You guys are confusing chest resonance in the lower head tones with a high chest voice. They are NOT the same. Unless you have an unusually high male voice anything above E4 will be in lower head tones. BUT you can give those lower head tones some VERY beefy throat resonance so that they APPEAR to be an extension of your lower or chest/throat notes. If you match the tones between lower, middle and upper resonances (matched in terms of attack, intensity and edginess) the voice appears to only have one register.

The "secret" (I hate using that word) is a balance of intercostal diaphragmatic support, sub glottal compression, a relaxed, open throat and resonance space mixing.

Very few singers and coaches know there are actually two mix areas; lower mix and upper mix. Lower mix is the area where the resonance of the throat (laryngeal) meets mouth (oro) resonance. Upper mix is where mouth resonance meets head (naso) resonance.

Oro resonance feels like notes are vibrating across the top of the tongue or center of the mouth. Naso resonance is where the sensation of sound feels like its vibrating or spinning at back of the roof of the mouth or the soft palate. For the highest notes (F5 and above), the resonances ascends above the palate and purely into the head cavity.

To sing from throat to head resonance, one must learn how to keep the focus of the folds (by use of sub glottal compression and diaphragmatic support) while mixing different ratios between lower and upper mixes. It takes some time & patience to get right and consistent and you will usually obtain it in a lighter intensity first. It takes some physical strength training in the intercostal muscles to obtain a very loud, beefy upper mix (F4-Bb4), but once you "get it" the effect is golden.

It's the vocal sound of Robert Plant, Ian Gillan, Glenn Hughes, Bono, a young David Coverdale, Michael Sweet, Tony Harnell, Michael Matijevic and even to a degree Paul McCartney.

@Jens - the clips you posted are not "chest voice". You are singing in a mixed phonation of middle and upper resonances. They sound like an extension of chest because you have not decreased the surface pressure on the folds enough to cause a softer or half voice sound. It IS full voice, but you are NOT resonating in the lower resonances where lower notes like middle C occur. One can clearly hear that the resonance has shifted higher towards the palate and the folds have thinned to accommodate the higher frequency phonation.

I hope that gave some insight into this discussion. Visit my YouTube channel for examples of what I'm talking about here http://bit.ly/LCI1dw

Rock On!

Kevin Richards

Rock the Stage NYC / RPM Vocal Studios

http://www.rockthestagenyc.com

http://www.thevoxshop.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/RocktheStageNYC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante great explenation, and that clip was priceless!Thats how i feel to, when i say chestvoice im not talking about resonance or just using vokalis musculature(folds need to stretch to sing higher) but the folds should be vibrating with the same depth as chestvoice(speakingvoice)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

OK guys - Kevin Richards here - let me weigh in as I am sort of the resident YouTube expert on chesty sounding lower head tones.

You guys are close but missing the mark on a few issues.

Let me explain:

1. Get out of the analysis about your inner laryngeal musculature. It's not going to help you in doing this at all. Unless you can see inside your throat while you're singing, you can't physically control to such a fine degree what it takes to do this better than your brain can. This is more about thought processes and sensations rather than a physical manipulation.

2. To achieve a chest like quality in the lower and mid head tones it is all about a balance between support, fold focus (adduction) throat space and a blending of resonances.

3. A typical male voice CANNOT sing in full chest resonance above an F4. It may feel and sound like chest resonance but it is actually a mixing of lower and middle resonances. Sure there are exceptions if the male voice is unusually high and thin, but your typical male voice will already be in mouth resonance on a F4.

4. You guys are confusing chest resonance in the lower head tones with a high chest voice. They are NOT the same. Unless you have an unusually high male voice anything above E4 will be in lower head tones. BUT you can give those lower head tones some VERY beefy throat resonance so that they APPEAR to be an extension of your lower or chest/throat notes. If you match the tones between lower, middle and upper resonances (matched in terms of attack, intensity and edginess) the voice appears to only have one register.

The "secret" (I hate using that word) is a balance of intercostal diaphragmatic support, sub glottal compression, a relaxed, open throat and resonance space mixing.

Very few singers and coaches know there are actually two mix areas; lower mix and upper mix. Lower mix is the area where the resonance of the throat (laryngeal) meets mouth (oro) resonance. Upper mix is where mouth resonance meets head (naso) resonance.

Oro resonance feels like notes are vibrating across the top of the tongue or center of the mouth. Naso resonance is where the sensation of sound feels like its vibrating or spinning at back of the roof of the mouth or the soft palate. For the highest notes (F5 and above), the resonances ascends above the palate and purely into the head cavity.

To sing from throat to head resonance, one must learn how to keep the focus of the folds (by use of sub glottal compression and diaphragmatic support) while mixing different ratios between lower and upper mixes. It takes some time & patience to get right and consistent and you will usually obtain it in a lighter intensity first. It takes some physical strength training in the intercostal muscles to obtain a very loud, beefy upper mix (F4-Bb4), but once you "get it" the effect is golden.

It's the vocal sound of Robert Plant, Ian Gillan, Glenn Hughes, Bono, a young David Coverdale, Michael Sweet, Tony Harnell, Michael Matijevic and even to a degree Paul McCartney.

@Jens - the clips you posted are not "chest voice". You are singing in a mixed phonation of middle and upper resonances. They sound like an extension of chest because you have not decreased the surface pressure on the folds enough to cause a softer or half voice sound. It IS full voice, but you are NOT resonating in the lower resonances where lower notes like middle C occur. One can clearly hear that the resonance has shifted higher towards the palate and the folds have thinned to accommodate the higher frequency phonation.

I hope that gave some insight into this discussion. Visit my YouTube channel for examples of what I'm talking about here http://bit.ly/LCI1dw

Rock On!

Kevin Richards

Rock the Stage NYC / RPM Vocal Studios

http://www.rockthestagenyc.com

http://www.thevoxshop.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/RocktheStageNYC

Thanks Kevin... good stuff... As I read this and further explanations I'm left feeling like this is essentially what I am doing and teaching... add to that, a focus on dampening the larynx to augment an amplified 2nd formant... which BTW... adds to the "chesty' aesthetic... a point that I don't see anyone pointing out here to clearly... perhaps that is what you are saying when you say "resonance".... but there is a special, "boomy" ovetone that adds beef to the head tones above approximately E4, that can be gained with good dampening techniques and its creating amazing results with my clients...

The margin between a lighter, more heady configuration with good dampening VS. a more weighty configuration that we are discussing is so slim! It is a very small margin... the difference is just a few minor adjustments in the balance of the phonation package components... very interesting to be drilling down into very slight differences in the aesthetic here...

BTW, in my sample above, I realize that is NOT quite the approach you guys are discussing... I was trying to make a point, more for less experienced singers that are reading this. That you need to train a lighter mass phonation 1st, before you begin to tweak for heavier mass sounding phonations (even if you want to...), otherwise you will assuredly get sucked into the 'tar baby' of constriction and get frustrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rob, i wasn't trying to sway the forum in any particular direction, i just believe in training to bridge later rather than earlier. i feel it tends to strenghten the mixed voice, which enables you to go higher holding on to more weight and fold.

is this a harder, more physical, more potentially "dangerous" way to go. it's debatable.

training this way starts out near impossible, but as the voice muscles get stronger (years) it gets easier and easier. just like doing curls with 40 lbs. you can do 2 reps, next thing you know you can do 8 reps.

i can't begin to tell you how difficult it was to keep up with frisell.

it's also important to factor in the voice type, size, and weight of the individual singer. i happen to have (took years to figure this out) the type of voice that needs to generate a certain level of air pressure just to generate a tone. there is a huge tonal disparity between my full voice and my head voice making the merging of the two voice "musculatures" particularly challenging.

if a singing teacher doesn't realize something like this, he may not be able to bring the singer's voice to it's maximum capability.

not every voice can be trained light, because we have different versions of light.

also, i believe the heavier, thicker or the larger the voice, the more vowel modification skill becomes particularly important to training.

forgot to attach this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I totally agree with this Bob... My official take on it is pretty much what you said... can you train to bridge a little later.. .or more accurately... learn to balance the musculature to create a vocal sound that has more "weight" in the aesthetic and thus... sounds more "chesty"? Yes, you can...

However, to what degree any individual is able to do that is widely based on each individual's unique physiology. On the other hand, some people will be able to sing a lighter, more "Steve Perry" kind of sound where some will not. And the same goes for any individual's ability to activate distortion. Some can do it more naturally, others need to train it or build the musculature to make it work.

Is there really anything new here? Is there anyone that has been on this forum for a significant period of time that didn't already know that we are talking about muscle strengthening, coordinating and balancing the components of musculature, respiration, placement, etc... ? I don't think so... So the message is, if you have a good foundation already in place... you can experiment with your vocal tract, levels of compression, vowels, respiration, etc.... to create a different acoustic effect, for sure. That is what I have done and I continue to do it today...

For me personally, I have always had a desire to create the "boomy", theatery (early Geoff Tate) sound in my voice that I now know are characterized by an amplified 2nd formant, good vowels and deep placements... in the last 5 years or so... I have definitely captured that sound and I love it! It is one of the aesthetics that I think many of my students pick up on... The sound we are talking about in this discussion is probably more akin to perhaps singers like Jeff Scott Soto or DIO... Its not a sound I have been listening for from a personal interest... but now I am getting more interested in it actually... so that's why this is an interesting discussion for me...

Its really just a matter of practicing and building the coordination and strength for that sound... for advanced singers... no more than probably four weeks should do it...

One thing is for sure... its advanced... you have to train a good foundation first! If you short cut nature and try to get into heavier phonations before you can even stabilize a light to medium phonation, you're going to run into a 'tar baby' of chokey, constricted problems... thats my concern Bob. I don't want less experienced members that are reading this to all go run out and start pulling chest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...