Jump to content

Silly Question about the exercises in "Four pillars"

Rate this topic


dennydude
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

So I just got four pillars and am watching the video lectures and noticed that "twang" is used in a lot of exercises which leads me to my question

Will practicing these sounds make me more nasally?

I've been singing for about a year and have worked quite hard trying to get rid of a overly nasally tone and am just starting to develop some power in my chest voice. I'm especially concerned about the "Resonate Tracking" because you have to sing through you nose(something I try to avoid at all cost :rolleyes: ). and this brings me to my second question.

Will I wind up sounding like Robert Lunte?

Nothing against the guy but I'm not a big fan of the heavy twang sound he has in his voice. My concern is that I would end up to twangy for the stuff I want to sing.

I know this might sound kinda stupid but I hate having to unlearn something that I spent good time on. :P

Thanks in advance for any help

“D”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 4 Pillars, among other things. I have been known to have some twang. And I sound nothing like Robert Lunte. Nowhere more evident than in the threads for "Child in Time."

Also, though my ears may not be as sensitive as others, I don't think Lunte sounds particularly nasal. However, for example, I found Vince Neil's stuff to be very nasal, almost through the nose.

Twang is not about singing through the nose. Yes, it can lead to use of resonance spaces in the sinus and maxilliary sinus cavities but these do not present a nasal sound. In fact, one sounds more nasal by avoiding them, as did Sylvester Stallone did for his character, "Rocky," to sound like a boxer who has taken one too many hits to the nose.

If you think that resonant tracking means singing through the nose, I think you might be misunderstanding the process.

And let me go ahead and break your heart, right now. There is an elemental of resonance from the sinus in just about every noise we make, including speach. It is why you sound "stopped up" when you have a head cold or allergies.

An example of someone who sings through the nose is country singer George Jones. Now, that is a nasal tone.

You may need some clarification from Robert but stick with the resonant tracking. It is a multi-tool that solves a number of problems at once. And has precedent in classical instruction, even as far back as the early 1900's in the writings of Dr Fillebrown.

I'm not a teacher, just an amateur. I have been singing longer than a year, so, I have probably made every mistake you could imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply!

I didn't mean to say that Lunte sounded nasal, twangy yes nasal no. I guess the question I should have ask is whether or not the heavy twang is part of the training system or just a stylistic element on Luntes part.

Not sure about George Jones but I could give the guy from Blink-182 a run for his nasally money :lol:

I'll give the "resonate tracking" a go and see how it works out.

Thanks again :D

"D"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with MDEW. It's okay to go heavy on the twang while in training. Often in training, you will make odd noises. Anthony Frisell states that, for sure. It doesn't mean you will always make that noise. But as a training tool, it allows you to stretch and then you can reign it back in, later.

MDEW and I like to make funny voices. It's a way of staying limber. So that later, you don't have to do a full elmer fudd or an obnoxious Paul Lynde. You can do just a little.

Nice thing about resonant tracking, starting on a sound like m is that it gives you a sympathetic vibration that lets you know that right resonance is happening. Also, because of starting on that sound, you are nearly automatically in the right onset for a note, unless you have something structurally different about you or have a malady, such as bowed vocal folds (rare, I wouldn't worry about it.) And because you have found the right resonance and onset, it tends to help you train the right amount of breath pressure, which in turn, tasks you to watch breath support (how much pressure and how fast you exhale to produce a note.)

A multi-tasking tool, I should have said, at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Hi everyone,

So I just got four pillars and am watching the video lectures and noticed that "twang" is used in a lot of exercises which leads me to my question

Will practicing these sounds make me more nasally?

I've been singing for about a year and have worked quite hard trying to get rid of a overly nasally tone and am just starting to develop some power in my chest voice. I'm especially concerned about the "Resonate Tracking" because you have to sing through you nose(something I try to avoid at all cost :rolleyes: ). and this brings me to my second question.

Will I wind up sounding like Robert Lunte?

Nothing against the guy but I'm not a big fan of the heavy twang sound he has in his voice. My concern is that I would end up to twangy for the stuff I want to sing.

I know this might sound kinda stupid but I hate having to unlearn something that I spent good time on. :P

Thanks in advance for any help

“D”

Hey Long term, hard core members of the TMV World Forum... when you see posts in regards to TVS and "Pillars" like this, will you do me a small favor and email me the link and bring it to my attention? That would be really helpful, thanks guys!

Denny:

When did you purchase your copy of "Pillars 2.5"? Did you get the Training Media Interface to work for you and is everything downloaded and working fine? I'm just curious and want to make sure your getting all your product together.

The next thing I have to say is, as my customer, if you have questions about the product or about the workouts or concerns like this... you are welcome to send me a personal email, although posting it here is ok... a lot of people have "Pillars" that are members of this forum and if they don't, they still know a lot about what TVS is doing, what I'm doing and can answer questions about 'nasal vs twang'... which is a common misunderstanding from beginners , so let's start there.

Do NOT confuse "singing nasal" with "singing or training with twang"... Just because they have a similar harmonic frequency... kinda sound similar, they are two VERY different things as others here have explained to you. The nose is a resonator and as such... its not a resonator you want to avoid, you need it ... so understand that every note you will ever sing or have ever heard anyone sing... has a % of nasal resonance in it... so to be a "anti-nasal" student... is silly, you can't be "anti-nasal"... you need your nose... LOL...

Twang is a vocal mode. Please read about it and consult the TVS Vocal Mode matrix in your book to learn about it. In fact, I think I even pointed out that twang can sometimes be confused as "nasal" by beginners in the book, have you read the book? If you have not, get on it now... I want you to be able to speak, write, communicate and discuss (in the case of this public forum), what you are talking about... anyways, there is a chapter in your copy of "Pillars" called, "Twang is King!"... that is because without twang, you have nothing. All great singing you have ever heard was twang, (ok, guys don't challenge me with some Jim Morrision poem recitation or some whispery experimental singing just to challenge me... you know what I mean). 95% of all singing, not only has, but requires vocal twang. You need twang to build the strength for vocal fold closure, to learn to coordinate TA/CT movements through the vocal break and to amplify your singing. It is KEY to learning to sing and that means... it is KEY to voice training and voice training products....

When you do the resonant tracking... the "buzz" inside is your larynx, configured to twang vocal mode. And yes, this is confusing, but... the nasal consonants Im telling you to use are in fact nasally I suppose... but hey, its not singing dude!? In your post, you said that "resonant tracking" was "singing"... and its not. Its resonant tracking and in order to do proper resonant tracking you have to alternate between three nasal consonants... simply put, its just a work out bro... its a warm up and a workout that you must do to train the strength and coordination of your voice... How could you judge the end results of your ability to sing.. which is way, way down the road in your training.. with a buzzy "Mmmm" with your lips closed? It builds strength for singing, but this is not singing.

So, as I said, the buzzing.. is just configuring your muscle memory for vocal twang, which you have to have. If you imagined that I am the only teacher that will make you twang or buzz in their program, you would be in error. Any good voice coach will make you do these things... your getting ahead of yourself and your judging a warm up on the confused misunderstandings of what nasality and twang is. Your totally confused and worrying about nothing... Just keep doing what Im telling you to do in that program... master the "foundation building routine"! Do your resonant tracking, calibrate and tune your onsets like I show you in the video called, "TVS Warm Ups & Foundation Building Routine" and then start working on those sirens...

Understand your concern is in the sound and aesthetic of singing "nasally"... we get that... but its nothing to worry about and not where I am guiding you.

In regards to my singing or my phonations you hear in the product and perhaps in a recording of me actually singing, not working out... Most singers, including voice teachers who are also students of singing, go through, not a "nasally" phase (per my clarification above), but a "quacky" phase in their singing. It is not rare, it is in fact, common in about 90% of all singers...

Go to your "TVS Vocal Mode Matrix" and again, read about twang vocal mode and quack vocal mode... you will learn that these two TVS modes are "compression modes"... that means, they are unique in their ability to engage vocal fold closure. So when training vocal fold closure, these two vocal modes will be something you and I would focus on. (I refer you to the 'Specialized onsets matrix" in your book and video... notice the special onset called, "quack & release"... this is used to help students get the strength to get vocal fold closure... or stop blowing hot , humid wind... which is not what we want and results in Falsetto vocal mode. We use compression vocal modes to remove Falsetto...). So... back to students sounding quacky...

Beginners do not suffer from sounding too quacky usually... it typically comes from more advanced and stronger singers. Essentially, when you begin to get strong as a singer and the musculature required to twang gets very coordinated... singers will tend to over squeeze the 'twanger' (AES muscle). By squeezing the twanger real hard, you can maintain vocal fold closure on high notes... yes, this approach works... but, there is a price to pay.. if you do it too much and too often you actually over compress and engage 'quack vocal mode' which makes you sound like a duck... lol. Not "nasally", but more "quacky"... so the sound you don't like is more accurately described as "quacky"... as you can see, it little to do with the nose resonator and 95% to do with the compression of the vocal folds...

So you are basically saying, "I'm not sure I like the sound of Robert's voice, because sometimes it sounds too 'quacky'"... and I would say to you... Yes, in the past and still from time to time, I do sound too quacky... my strength and coordination of my "twanger' is so strong, that it is hard to throttle back sometimes... Remember, its not just me, its about 9 out of 10 experienced, strong singers that have this problem... Some of my older recordings, in my opinion seem a bit too quacky and even some of the demonstrations in Pillars seem a little too 'quacky' for my tastes these days. So I understand your observation...

However,... Since those days... Id say in the last 18 months - 2 years... new techniques and ideas have been included into "Pillars" 2.5 (the version you have) that are the missing links of what needs to be done to get better balance on compression... to throttle back from "quack vocal mode" to "twang vocal mode" (remember this, quack is the ugly duckling, it sounds 'quacky'... if you have fold closure that sounds good... not quacky, then in TVS we would classify it as 'twang vocal mode". Twang is the beautiful swan. Quack only is used in training to build compression strength, twang gets to play inside of singing of songs)... So, how do I and my teachers and my students and you and everyone train to sound less 'quacky'?

1). Work on the 'messa di voce' onset in your copy of 'Pillars" and work to gain command on control of your twanger... learn to compress, but not too much. Train to get a balance of that compression.

2). Engage mor Appoggio, (see your book & videos), which means more respiration to support the phonation package and less vibratory mechanism to support the phonation. Learn to get more 'Bernoulli Fold Closure' and less "Vibratory Mechanism" closure... this is a big part of it.

3). Make sure your intrinsic anchoring set, (see your book and videos), is coordinated and trained on command. In particular, the larynx dampening, which is part of your intrinsic anchoring set. If you don't lower your larynx, you will not increase the resonant space of your vocal tract and thus... your harmonics will still sound too bright, enhancing 'quack mode' instead of 'twang mode'... Twang exists inside the benefit of a dampened larynx, quack typically has no dampened larynx. This includes committing to the preferred training vowels, "Eh" and "Uh"... watch out for IPA "Ae". (see your IPA Alphabet table and the Vowel Modification Translation Tables in your book).

Summary:

1. Work on command and control of the twanger, learn to throttle back on the squeeze and get a balance.

2. Make your Appoggio techniques work for you. Use respiration and the Bernoulli effect to get fold closure, instead of too much squeeze (#1 above). The proper balance is about 80% benoulli closure from good Appoggio/Respiration and 20% closure from the vibratory mechanism (fancy pants for larynx and twanging).

3. Learn to dampen your larynx and make sure you are training inside of shadings of "eh" and "uh"... if you allow your body to push you into IPA 'ae' as it wants to, you will sound more quacky.

4. About 10-15 of the demonstrations in Pillars will be refilmed in January which will be a nice update... one thing clients will notice is I am demonstrating less 'quacky' and more of a darker, rounder overtone... this is because... I'm eating my own dog food... and using the new techniques I have developed since I first filmed "Pillars"... in the updated videos, I will demonstrate better vowels and better Appoggio/Respiration... this will raise my game.

In regards to my singing... I invite anyone to listen to "Souls of Silence" and "Child In Time" from this MySpace page I have which were actually tracked about 8 weeks ago: www.myspace.com/tvsvox ... the other songs are older and may sound a bit more quacky, but like I said, that was where I was at in my understanding of my own voice at that time... I think you will find the more recent recordings less 'quacky'...and more mature in many ways... and more songs to come in the new year.

So, I hope that answers your question Denny... going forward, come to me personally if you want to... your my client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow thanks for the post Robert

Yes I have the Program up and running and am vary much enjoying it, and per the quick start guide I'm almost done watching all the video lectures then I'm going to start diving into the book.

I guess I tend to question a lot of things in singing, heck if I didn't I would have never found you program :D (I was trying to understand the whole head voice vs falsetto thing and found one of your videos). I just listened to"Souls of Silence" and was blown away by your voice.

I'll be getting on the exercises ASAP.

Thanks for answering. next time I'll do a little more reading before asking questions :)

"D"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Robert, for chiming in. Nothing like having the author and architect to explain, way better than a redneck from Texas can explain it.:D

You had me at "Twang is King!" :D

And, as an amateur, I still wished I had thought to point out that resonant tracking is not singing. You may start out on the me-eh-uh exercise while warming up or even in training but, obviously, of course, song lyrics do not all start on 'm' sound. though I must admit that when I want to onset high so that I don't scoop, I will onset with ng sound, though you would have to know that to hear me doing it. Helps me get around my provincial accent (north Texas, as a transplanted Cali boy from several decades ago. It's complicated. Those born in Texas can tell I was not born here.)

Just like when I covered "Brandy" the actual sound was MbRandy so that there would not be an explosive "b" at the beginning of the word.

Anyway, Robert, you rock, as always.

Then, again, I am a fan of your singing, songwriting, etc. So, my opinion may be biased.

For the OP, if you have already spent the penny or two for the system, give it a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are some things I learned from Dr. Thomas Fillebrown from his book, "Resonance in Singing and Speaking."

Dr, Thomas Fillebrown was a doctor and surgeon who repaired facial and vocal tract maladies, often treating cleft palates and other injuries to the palate and sinus area. So, more than any person here, from the longest running vocal expert to the newly self-defined singer of teaching, he has physically seen the structures involved in the "vocal organ." Even more so than Manuel Garcia II, whom he does quote in his main book on the subject of resonance in singing and speaking. For Dr. Fillebrown was also an amateur singer. (Amateur means unpaid, not necessarily unskilled. Tiger Woods was a highly skilled amateur before hitting the pro circuit.

And Dr. Fillebrown also led patients in rehabilitation, as they often had to learn how to use their voice, anew. For now, their resonators were different than they had grown accustomed to. Nasal quality falls into two main categories. Either entirely through the nose, as I pointed out with singer George Jones or even the speaking of Chef Paula Deen ("Next, ya heat the awl ....") (she's really saying "heat the oil") or a blocked off nasal passage, such as "Rocky" or even, any one of us with a stopped up sinus from a head cold or allergies.

He has physically seen in reconstructive surgery and in autopsies, the vocal folds, the pharynx, the sinus, and the maxilliary sinus (near the front of the face, what some call the "mask.") And the cavities exist and do have an effect on the sound. More than anyone here with all the videos of stroboscopes and x-rays that we can link here. He was literally knuckle-deep in it. You just can't get any closer than touching someone's "fauces" or uvula, or soft palate. He had been there and done that.

I am not an expert, so I rely on the science of experts.

Every tone you make in general good health has some nasality. When you have a head cold or stuffy nose from allergies or an injury such as a broken nose, what you and others hear in your voice is a LACKING of nasality. Was that a little too strong on the emphasis? Oops, my bad.

The other extreme is all tone through the nose. Most of us, I think, fall in the happy middle. But some famous singers have had a sound more nasal than I have. Klaus Meine, for example. And before anyone thinks that's a detriment, even Herman "Ze German" Rarebell accepts that the Scorpions would not be the same without that voice. So much so, that when Klaus had to have nodules removed because of the abuse of his voice on tour, they held up the next album until after recovery from surgery and hired him a vocal coach to teach him how to sing in a more endurable manner, which turned out to be a little more nasal than what you would hear on the earliest Scorpions album. In spite of him giving them blessing to find another singer, as he thought he was done for. But I digress. And yes, I did read that in Herman's memoirs (ya'll know my obsession for useless trivia.)

But maybe we need, or I need, to consider that some people come from a culture where the "rocky" sound is considered the norm and I had not thought of that until just now. I live in Texas and there are people who can "twang" to put me to shame. I'm "european" relative to them.

Anyway, going overboard on "twang" or even nasality, carte blanche, is okay, I think, in training. You will not end up sounding that way. However, this is not the first time someone said that Robert sounded nasal. And I still don't hear it. And I don't know if it's because I live in Texas, where Robert wouldn't sound nasal, at all, or out of place, or if others come from a place where an absolute absence of anything remotely resembling nasal is what is "normal." And also, of course, and everyone hates to hear this, so I will mention it again, what you are hearing on a commercial recording has been altered. Compressed, eq'd, comp'd and dare I say it, yes I dare, auto-tuned. And, in some cases, the recording on the album was made by the studio musicians at hand. Even Herman Ze German (the most influential drummer for the Scorpions and co-writer on some of their most important songs like, "Rock you Like a Hurricane,") will tell you that some of the drums on some later Scorpions albums were played by someone else, much to his chagrin. (I know, I just deflated the myth of Santa Claus. I'm on the highway to Hell, so, what is one more sin? In fact, Herman even mentioned obliquely later versions of the wrecking crew, studio muscians who actually played on some of your favorite albums that you would swear up and down were recorded by the actual band. Well, the band's name is on the liner notes and they wouldn't lie to us, right? :lol: )

I don't know. Just a hayseed living on the edge of a corn field. (Really, at the end of my street is 160 acres of corn. And the next 100 acres south of that is winter wheat.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Well done guys.. from what I can tell, Owen, my student.... seems to agree on most points, but that nasal resonance is not critically important. Hum? What would I sound like if I chopped off my nose? By the same test procedure Owen advocates for checking on 'nasality',.. I would invite anyone to pinch their nose, sing a perfectly beautiful note you feel is NOT nasal sounding and then plug your nose... Did the harmonics, color and sense of free movement of respiration in your upper vocal tract suddenly seem to be stuffed up and whoofy? Maybe the nose is important to my singing and my face... ? I debate...

Owen, in our sessions, we have never dealt with any sense of you sounding too nasally and I have never felt that to be any concern what so ever in your training or phonations...? Are you sure you don't mean you were too quacky? That would be a far more likely diagnosis...

Well, anyways, the point for Denny is... the excercises in TVS and Pillars are not about teaching you to sing nasally what so ever and that is not the sound your developing. Also, be careful not to confuse 'nasality with twang', it is a very common mistake with beginners.

Hope this helps...

Nice post Owen and Ron...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasal component is important, if you kill it, you will create a bit of tension and will not sound natural. After trainned it may be possible to kill it and use a lower and more "held" posture for interpretative purposes (sounds kinda suffered, desperate), but there is no sense in just killing it of the sake of removing all traces of nasal resonance.

When in ballance there is nasal component, and it does not sound nasal.

M and N will cause more of it to come along, its one of the reasons why these consonants are usefull. Does not means its a final state and does not mean that it will be more nasal than whatever you are doing before. The forward placement, or twang, does not need to be tied with nasality, but it does come easier when working with a more relaxed and nasal posture.

Depending on the state, it may be usefull to just send it all into the nose to relax and then ajust from there, than trying to fight the tensions on the way up.

Just try sounding really nasal, close your mouth, say MEE or NEE or MEH and make the sound start inside your nose, release all tensions on the throat, keep it all in your nose. Its not as easy as it seems ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Nasal component is important, if you kill it, you will create a bit of tension and will not sound natural. After trainned it may be possible to kill it and use a lower and more "held" posture for interpretative purposes (sounds kinda suffered, desperate), but there is no sense in just killing it of the sake of removing all traces of nasal resonance.

When in ballance there is nasal component, and it does not sound nasal.

M and N will cause more of it to come along, its one of the reasons why these consonants are usefull. Does not means its a final state and does not mean that it will be more nasal than whatever you are doing before. The forward placement, or twang, does not need to be tied with nasality, but it does come easier when working with a more relaxed and nasal posture.

Depending on the state, it may be usefull to just send it all into the nose to relax and then ajust from there, than trying to fight the tensions on the way up.

Just try sounding really nasal, close your mouth, say MEE or NEE or MEH and make the sound start inside your nose, release all tensions on the throat, keep it all in your nose. Its not as easy as it seems ;)

Exactly what I am trying to say, thanks Felipe. You have to have the blend of nasal resonance in every sound, you don't just remove a major resonator or conclude that it has no bearing on the overall mix of tonality or use in the resonation of singing. As Felipe is also saying, nasal resonance is not responsible for your nasality, or what you perceive to be nasal. You are either WAY too nasally and simple don't have to be and can easily adjust it to a balance, or your twanging too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific or not you can hear when someones nose is stopped up or not when they are singing.

There was one member who posted a sample for review who was obviously keeping his nasal passage closed or had a cold maybe a deviated septum. Nobody mentioned the lack of nasal involvement. the Ms and Ns were almost no existant even the Gs were barely audible.

It may be something that is not picked up by electronic equipment but it is audible to the human ear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this particular instance I was hearing a "Muffled" sound. My thoughts were confirmed when I heard the lack of Ms Ns... It may very well be that I am conditioned to expect to hear what others call a nasal sound. Maybe a pure tone is supposed to sound "Muffled".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget that there is more than one way to close of the nasal passage. That was my mistake. Closing the velum keeps any sound from the passage. You can close the nostrils with an inner pinch and keep the velum open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MDEW, Robert, Rachsing:

Let's keep in mind, too, that there are also differences in tone quality preferences amongst singers and teachers. Nasality and twang can be done at the same time, individually, to varying degrees or not at all at the singer's discretion and aesthetic choice. Whether someone 'should' or 'should not' add a hint of nasality... is a tone quality choice. If they like it, and their audience likes it too, why not?

(Felipe: I am thinking of the voice of the great Spanish Tenor, Alfredo Kraus as I write this :-) He used both twang and nasality, but most of his listeners could not tell the difference! They adored the expressiveness of the voice.)

MDEW: I would hope that you can hear it when someone's nose is stopped up. :-) The 'stuffing' changes the acoustic impedance of the nasal cavities, and that moves the frequency of the nasal formant. Even if not completely occluded, the ear is very sensitive to this kind of change in a speaking voice, too. With complete occlusion, so that the M, N and NG do not buzz, the pathway for the air through the nose is completely blocked, so that the flow needed to sustain phonation is prevented.

As to whether a pure tone is 'supposed to' sound muffled... I do not know this, because I do not know what a 'pure' sound is for you.

I do know, though, that any tone with twang in it (through more or less aryepiglottic narrowing) will have the complexity of high overtones present. Its the presence of those overtones in sufficient strength that we we perceive as twang, and which also causes the some sensation of the voice 'in the mask', 'forward', 'in the nasal resonators', 'in the sinuses', etc. These sensations are intensified when good resonance tuning occurs.

I hope this is helpful to your dicussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

This video explains the difference between nasality and nasal resonance, which are often confused.

Good presentation, I hear Justin saying:

1). we need the nasal resonator in speech and in singing.

2). Nasal resonation is mixed in with the other resonators to provide the total tonal color of the voice.

3). Some sounds we make , appear to be "nasal", but they actually are not, they are a result of... In Justin's opinion, a high larynx. And I agree with him, a high larynx would ALSO produce a sound that could be confused as 'nasal'.

What Justin fails to point out is the influence and significance of compression at the vibratory mechanism!? In my view, you can't have this discussion without explaining the significance of twang and quack vocal modes, the two compression modes. I agree with his points and reasoning, but in this discussion, you have to point out that one of those alternative configurations that can appear to be 'nasal', but actually isn't, would be too much compression, too much twang or quacking... In fact, far, far more common then the sound you get from a high larynx... I feel he is missing the primary cause of the problem, but I agree on his his key points mentioned above. A very good speaker.

However, make no mistake, the most prominent configuration that confuses students is vocal twang, not a high larynx. Sometimes Justin probably thinks he is hearing a high larynx, when in fact, its more likely, too much compression from twang and quack vocal modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

In this particular instance I was hearing a "Muffled" sound. My thoughts were confirmed when I heard the lack of Ms Ns... It may very well be that I am conditioned to expect to hear what others call a nasal sound. Maybe a pure tone is supposed to sound "Muffled".

Heck no... that low, sob mode, whoofy sound he was making... not good for anything but Disney character voices and vocal health problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

MDEW, Robert, Rachsing:

Let's keep in mind, too, that there are also differences in tone quality preferences amongst singers and teachers. Nasality and twang can be done at the same time, individually, to varying degrees or not at all at the singer's discretion and aesthetic choice. Whether someone 'should' or 'should not' add a hint of nasality... is a tone quality choice. If they like it, and their audience likes it too, why not?

(Felipe: I am thinking of the voice of the great Spanish Tenor, Alfredo Kraus as I write this :-) He used both twang and nasality, but most of his listeners could not tell the difference! They adored the expressiveness of the voice.)

MDEW: I would hope that you can hear it when someone's nose is stopped up. :-) The 'stuffing' changes the acoustic impedance of the nasal cavities, and that moves the frequency of the nasal formant. Even if not completely occluded, the ear is very sensitive to this kind of change in a speaking voice, too. With complete occlusion, so that the M, N and NG do not buzz, the pathway for the air through the nose is completely blocked, so that the flow needed to sustain phonation is prevented.

As to whether a pure tone is 'supposed to' sound muffled... I do not know this, because I do not know what a 'pure' sound is for you.

I do know, though, that any tone with twang in it (through more or less aryepiglottic narrowing) will have the complexity of high overtones present. Its the presence of those overtones in sufficient strength that we we perceive as twang, and which also causes the some sensation of the voice 'in the mask', 'forward', 'in the nasal resonators', 'in the sinuses', etc. These sensations are intensified when good resonance tuning occurs.

I hope this is helpful to your dicussion.

Steve, thanks for contributing, well put... very scholarly and to the point. I particularly liked this point...

I do know, though, that any tone with twang in it (through more or less aryepiglottic narrowing) will have the complexity of high overtones present. Its the presence of those overtones in sufficient strength that we we perceive as twang, and which also causes the some sensation of the voice 'in the mask', 'forward', 'in the nasal resonators', 'in the sinuses', etc. These sensations are intensified when good resonance tuning occurs.

Vocal Twang and, I suppose, an extremely high larynx as demonstrated by Justin, less common ... produce certain harmonic signatures that are near to nasality, that fool the ears into concluding its nasal.. something the intellect is familiar with, prior to really understanding the influence of vocal twang on your singing... That is at the heart of the issue.

So, singers... don't confuse nasality with vocal twang or high larynx configurations... and we all need our noses.

Happy Holidays TMV World Forum Vocal Athletes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I definately agree.

Absolutely...

The nose can influence tonal color in someones voice radically. When it comes to resonators, the tongue and embouchure... in singing we are talking about very specific, details. Like each person's face, these components of the physiological configuration of good singing vary greatly from one individual to the next.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...