Jump to content

Silly Question about the exercises in "Four pillars"

Rate this topic


dennydude

Recommended Posts

Can't see the video posted here now, so maybe what I'm writing is redundant, but nevertheless:

twang and nasality are often confused in a way. This has the following reason:

A sound produced by humans is considered 'nasal' when the output signal (which is the air carrying the vibration) comes from the nose and not from the mouth. So consonants like 'n' or 'm' are 'nasal' by definition. If the airflow comes primarily from the nose there is a certain frequency band that is enhanced, which is around 800-1000Hz. You can try increasing that band with an EQ on some recording of you and will find out that you sound more 'nasal' if you do that.

Normall, even when singing, vowels for example are 'oral', which means the air carrying the signal comes out of the mouth. However, there are two factors which can cause 'nasality'

1. Twang: Twang increases a frequency band that sits somewhere between 800 and 5000 Hz. This includes the important singer's formant, but ALSO the frequencies which are percieved as 'nasal' because they are also produced by real nasality. However, if you use larynx dampening correctly you will dampen the nasal frequencies while still keeping the enhanced singer's formant. So twang nasality can be considered GOOD nasality. This good nasality goes hand in hand with 'quackiness' which basically just means that your output is too much focused on the 800-5000Hz band. So 'quackiness' usually contains some degree of nasality.

2. 'real' nasality: This means that you get an output signal from the nose on vowels or consonants that are usually not nasal. This happens when you close the airflow out of your mouth too much with your tongue. You can try this by pressing the back of your tongue against your soft palate and then phonate a vowel. This is 'real nasality' because the airflow comes out of your nose. Bob Dylan uses 'real nasality' because he has a too high tongue position which also goes hand in hand with a too high larynx position. 'real' nasality is usually considered BAD in terms of singing because it also causes constrictions from the high larynx position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Looking forward to updates lectures!

Just a small point of feedback on video lectures. To me the main thing that is "lost in translation" when watching videos is a notion of volume. Due to recording, amplication etc I have no clue if you are at super high volume or doing fancy tricks in a barely audible volume. I'm not saying that training with amplication is bad, just that when done over internet I can't relate what I'm doing with what you are doing. Within a single video one can get the relationship between different methods (light vs medium weight phonation), but between totally different videos it is harder.

Stuff like vowels, posture, nasality etc is much easier to spot when watching the video!

Just a little feedback from me. I know it is hard because volume, power and amount of work is not the same thing, I'm not expecting something perfect here!

Anyone got any good suggestions?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Steven rocks the house.

And yes, degree of "perceived" nasality may be a matter of aesthetics, kind of like what I was saying about someone being from a culture or background where any touch of nasality is noticed and avoided.

And yes, MDEW said what I was saying, too. When someone has a blocked up sinus, you can hear it.

Back to Steven. I think he is right that the amount of stuffiness in the sinuses may affect the finer overtones.

As to Vennard, the expert witnesses may be in a similar situation to me. I live in Texas, so Robert doesn't sound that nasal to me.

In fact, a good friend of mine, who I was just talking to, this evening, talks through the nose, quite a bit, something he learned from growing up around this county that I live in. Trust me, he's got some nasality that will get youse guys attention. Robert is positively european compared to my friend. My friend also doesn't open his mouth much when he speaks. So, I would imagine, much of the tone has no choice but to exit the nose. And, he chews dip, so, keeping the mouth kind of closed goes along with that.

Just a thought. A couple of rednecks on a Thursday night .... He was helping with my neighbor who had foot surgery today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a confusion here between resonance tracking and actual oral and nasal components. A correct placement, and yes such thing does exist because its optimal in terms of efficiency, will lead to a position where you feel nasal resonance, as if the focus was just about to enter your nose, but still if you pinch it, the difference in the audible result is minimal. Minimal does not mean inexistant.

Nasality is a tool that can be used to train, a very powerfull one. To allow the production of a mostly nasal setup without squeezing everything, you are forced to reposition the jaw, tongue and relax the muscles on the neck in order to allow it to happen. From there you can reposition the postures of the fundamental vowels using the strong sensation of this setup to allow the more efficient posture of this nasal setup. The mental effort required to control the velar port and lower it back into the mouth is small, its easier than trying to relax a constricted vowel right away.

For pop this result would be a bit too relaxed, so it may be usefull to add more definition into the vowels later.

Another test, pinch your nose, breath low and say AAAAHHH, releasing it, not forcing it out, and start trying making it very nasal, you will feel pressure and vibration on your nose and your fingers. Notice how your throat relax and the vowel assumes a more round posture. Of course the sound quality will suck. After you got it going, Do it again, on the same posture, just think that this sensation is moving down, from against your fingers, to the front of the upper teeth. Move it down just enough so that the pressure against your fingers disapear but you still feel a bit of pressure against your nose. Try and find this sweet spot. Notice how this AH is still AH, just a bit rounder, but brighter and stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Looking forward to updates lectures!

Just a small point of feedback on video lectures. To me the main thing that is "lost in translation" when watching videos is a notion of volume. Due to recording, amplication etc I have no clue if you are at super high volume or doing fancy tricks in a barely audible volume. I'm not saying that training with amplication is bad, just that when done over internet I can't relate what I'm doing with what you are doing. Within a single video one can get the relationship between different methods (light vs medium weight phonation), but between totally different videos it is harder.

Stuff like vowels, posture, nasality etc is much easier to spot when watching the video!

Just a little feedback from me. I know it is hard because volume, power and amount of work is not the same thing, I'm not expecting something perfect here!

Anyone got any good suggestions?!

Breakin, thanks for sharing your perspective. On "The Four Pillars of Singing", I am contentiously trying to sing at the top of my performance envelope most of the time. I am laying it down with the best and biggest phonation I can give it, most of the time on the content. I decided to do it this way because if given the choice to have content in the world of me training more lightly and not sounding as great, or .... giving it everything I got and having content that sounds impressive, demonstrates the potential of TVS training and is more entertaining... I chose to film at my top performance. I believe it was the right decision. However, sometimes students have a hard time telling when Im in my chest or my head and other aspects of what bridging sounds like, because when I train at my top envelope, the point is to not hear those changes...

Having said that, going forward in the new upcoming demonstration content, I will keep that in mind and sing a few chops in lighter mass.

Regarding the amplification, I can turn that down a bit... I can assure you one thing, there are absolutely no pedals or any technology that is helping me to bridge and connect my vocal registers. I only use a touch of reverb and alway will when I train. I think everyone should. To sing and even train into a flat microphone signal with no processing is amateurish and a significant detriment to your training.

The volume issues you refer to can be fixed with just an adjustment on the PA and my own mass calibrations... Any other TVS students out there? Hope your digging "Pillars" ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Thanks Owen... I find the discussion around the volume of my demonstrations to be puzzling. I am simply phonating into a PA system with a little bit of reverb. There is nothing unusual about that, what so ever. It is true that when I demonstrate, I often execute top level mastery of the 'bridging and connecting' so that means... the head tones sound really huge and boomy... but isn't that the point? One of the primary end games here is to make your head voice sound huge and boomy.

Now then, as I said before,... I should probably do a few chops with some 'lift up / pull back" or lighten the mass and open the glottis around the passaggio to demonstrate a more basic bridge maneuver consistent with students and beginners so you can hear again what that sounds like... this kind of thing we do over and over again in your private lessons.

One thing that is different is my new studio has different acoustics then the old theater I used to train at... that may be the issue... and I do have my TC-Helicon pedal board fired up as well... although these days, I only use a little pinch of the "Mic Mechanic" pedal reverb.

Ive had a few occasions where people seemed to 'challenge' me by asking me to do my phonations without a microphone, as if my phonations are a trick or something... I do and it sounds exactly the same, just not amplified. It just so happens, you do this EVERY day for 8 years... and you do the most cutting-edge techniques along the way... your just going to end up sounding huge, there is no avoiding it... Coincidentally, I did some filming yesterday for Pillars 2.5 updates... played with some octave sirens and I can honestly say... wow, such great control and management of the formant/color of the voice... really in the zone. In the last 9 months my voice has really got a lot stronger and its because Im applying MY OWN STUFF! Its the specialized onsets, extensive work with "Uh" and appoggio that have all raised my game significantly... all these details are in the latest update of 'Pillars'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Owen, I would like to hear some of the files from your practice, from any time of the year. Even the ones where you burp or cough or blow your nose during the session.

I really have been singing a long time. And usually without voice amplification by means of mic and pa or amp. Usually singing over an acoustic guitar, sometimes over an electric guitar and amp. So, I've always had to create volume within my own voice. Which doesn't mean that I was doing the right thing. I think, many times, I was pushing too hard. At the very least, always having in mind that I need to be heard with an accompanying instrument.

I remember one time I was singing at a bar with a karaoke machine and I was blasting away and the lady in charge of the machine had to cut the mic volume a little, as I was carrying quite well, with or without the mic.

But I think there is advantage in training with amplification. It can help keep you from "oversinging." Thereby, conserving your voice and allowing more concentration on tone. But I am still not used to training with ampflication and still don't. I am still singing acoustically over guitar or other music sources. Thanks to the latency problems of Audacity, I pull off the left can, pan the backing track hard right, and sing with the reflection of the nearest wall as my guide. I'm probably one of those hard-heads that would need live monitor in the studio, placed in the dead zone of the mic.

Good thing I'm not a pro.

:lol:

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...