How many registers does the voice have?

[Steven Fraser]

Note to Forum members: Timothy posted this under a different topic, and I am carrying it forward into its own thread, because its a cool topic.

Hi Singers,

Always made more sense to me to look at the voice as having one register. Especially so since singers and singing teachers can not agree on what a register is, how many the voice has, what to call them and how to develop and use them.

Timothy

Timothy: Its very interesting that so many singing teachers and singers think the voice has multiple registers. Even vocal scientists have four: 1) Vocal Fry, 2) modal voice, 3) falsetto (sometimes confusingly called head voice) and 4) whistle (or flageolet).

How does the idea that 'the voice has one register' work? For example, how does it explain the different sensations experienced by the singer throughout the entire vocal range?

[Jens]

The thing is in my opinion every set note and sound has it's own coordination by the folds. Registration is a man made way of setting name to a voicequality, similar voicequalitys share the same name for instance Chestvoice, headvoice ect.

The main problem with registration is that the voice is capable of so many diffrent types of sounds that just by listening you cant realy be sure 100 % sure of what register/vocalsetting the singer is using.

So in a way thinking about your voice as one voice and not loads of diffrent voices can be benefitial to the singer. Singers who divide the voice into registers can run into trouble such as an undeveloped falsetto in males as the sound is considered "girly".

Sensations will always be just sensations and not whats actualy happening down in the throat.Sensations can differ alot from singer to singer, as people have diffrent experiences and strategies to use their voice.

This is now simplyfied alot, but this is my general thoughts.

[TeachYourselfSinging]

Hi Singers,

I believe the goal should be sensationless singing. Splitting the voice into registers makes this difficult to achieve. For ones attention is on duplicating sensations and not on singing with no physical sensations at all. Many singing teachers have learned from other singing teachers that you learn what register you are using by what kinds of sensations one is having.

A lot of the sensation, I believe comes from using force and tension to achieve the narrow range of allowable tone colors and sounds opera and classical singing call acceptable. If your voice does not produce those tone colors you are usually told you have no voice and can not sing.

As a whole non classical singing allows any kind of tone colors or sounds. Its a much freer form of singing. And uses an entirely different vocal skill set than opera. The voice if allowed the freedom to do so, has an unlimited ability to produce 1000's of different tone colors.

Each voice is also different in how the different parts of the voice range express themselves. I look at each voice as not just one register, but actually being its own register and its own sound.

Happy Singing

Timothy Kelly

www.teachyourselfsinging.com

[VideoHere]

i like to perceive the voice as having no registers. but (i.m.o.) the vocalist needs to be taught about the passagio, the falsetto, and particularly the differenence between a full voice, head voice and just reinforced falsetto. a lot of novice singers are not understanding of what kind of work and comittment it takes to improve the voice. (i was one of them.)

[Steven Fraser]

I believe the goal should be sensationless singing. Splitting the voice into registers makes this difficult to achieve.

Timothy: Then what do you tell the student, when singing with their best tone in your estimation, that reports that they have strong sensations of vibration in the head, on the soft palate, or within the chest?

I am not suggesting that a singer needs to feel 'this or that' particular sensation when singing a great tone. Its just that beautiful, powerfull singing very often is accompanied by strong physical sensations, and for those that feel them, the sensations very often move around as the singer traverses the range, or sings particular vowels in those ranges.

[jonpall]

Hmm, I kind of agree with Steven here. Telling students about that high notes should be felt more in their head is a GREAT tool to help them take away the heavyness that needs to be taken away in order to reach those high notes and reduce strain. So the notion of chest and head voices is very helpful, IMHO. It doesn't matter if they're real or not. Thinking about them when you work out your voice can really help.

[VideoHere]

Hmm, I kind of agree with Steven here. Telling students about that high notes should be felt more in their head is a GREAT tool to help them take away the heavyness that needs to be taken away in order to reach those high notes and reduce strain. So the notion of chest and head voices is very helpful, IMHO. It doesn't matter if they're real or not. Thinking about them when you work out your voice can really help.

i agree too. one really needs to experience that "transition" that "sensation" when the voice moves correctly from the chest to the head.

there's this really sweet ring that you get when the head voice retains some chest lean too.

[Martin H]

When people start talking about head and chest "resonance" I always like to have them do this little experiment:

Put your hands on top of your head/skull. Then siren downwards on the vowel EE as in SEE from the highest note to the lowest and then back up to the highest.

What you will feel is that the lower notes vibrate more in your head than the higher notes!

My point is: The common notion that you'll feel the low notes vibrate in you chest and the high notes in your head is kind of wrong - because lower notes actually vibrate more in your head than the higher notes.

So when talking about head and chest "resonance" - the only right way to look at it in my opinion is: Low notes vibrate in the chest - higher notes don't. So the only point of reference should be the chest - not the head. :)

[Steven Fraser]

When people start talking about head and chest "resonance" I always like to have them do this little experiment:

Put your hands on top of your head/skull. Then siren downwards on the vowel EE as in SEE from the highest note to the lowest and then back up to the highest.

What you will feel is that the lower notes vibrate more in your head than the higher notes!

My point is: The common notion that you'll feel the low notes vibrate in you chest and the high notes in your head is kind of wrong - because lower notes actually vibrate more in your head than the higher notes.

So when talking about head and chest "resonance" - the only right way to look at it in my opinion is: Low notes vibrate in the chest - higher notes don't. So the only point of reference should be the chest - not the head.

Martin H: Well, at this point of the thread, we are not talking about Resonance, just about sensations.

Since you brought up the head vibrations typical of the chest voice production, I think its also reasonable to say that, unlike the chest voice, the sensations often felt by singers in the 'head' voice very often seem to have specific head locations, and those locations move by vowel and fundamental. This is not universal, but is reported often enough that the whole 'placement' approach has some basis in individual experience.

But, we digress. This is a discussion of vocal registers :-)

[Martin H]

Steven,

Well, at this point of the thread, we are not talking about Resonance, just about sensations.

But wouldn't you agree, that if it was only a "talk of sensations" then it will not be very beneficial - because we are all different and feel things differently? :)

[Steven Fraser]

Steven,

But wouldn't you agree, that if it was only a "talk of sensations" then it will not be very beneficial - because we are all different and feel things differently?

Martin H: In context, I was initially responding to the '1-register, sensationless' preferences of Timothy.

My own approach is to teach the technique, and to help the student discover their best sound. When it shows up, that's the point that we start to discuss what something feels like.

[Martin H]

Steven,

I agree, that if the student obtain the desired sound, he/she should label that sound to the physical feeling as a result

Though, however about the "head-resonance" (or sympathetic vibration to be more acurate), the chest will vibrate more on lower notes, and actually the same on higher notes. (no matter how you config.) (lower frequenzies conducts way better than higher ones)

But of course, if people like to use the old "head and chest" approach, then that's fine with me. :)

[Steven Fraser]

Steven,

I agree, that if the student obtain the desired sound, he/she should label that sound to the physical feeling as a result

Though, however about the "head-resonance" (or sympathetic vibration to be more acurate), the chest will vibrate more on lower notes, and actually the same on higher notes. (no matter how you config.) (lower frequenzies conducts way better than higher ones)

But of course, if people like to use the old "head and chest" approach, then that's fine with me.

Martin H: Yeah, I know what you mean.

[aldertate]

For a properly produced sound there will be a subtle shift in the center of resonance. This will vary with vowels as well as pitch. It is most noticeable in the passagio, where the greatest amount of resonance shift occurs. The goal is to have one voice throughout the full range while maintaining an optimal center of resonance throughout.

One need only look at Jussi Bjorling for confirmation that this can be achieved with brilliant results. Hislop's approach with Bjorling as well as Nillson, among others, should give ample confirmation to this.

In my opinion, which is still not firmly set, a singer should aspire to learn their range or resonance, and once that's learned.. they will have, in a manner of speaking, no more registers.. just 1 voice, and optimal centering for a given pitch and vowel.

[VideoHere]

For a properly produced sound there will be a subtle shift in the center of resonance. This will vary with vowels as well as pitch. It is most noticeable in the passagio, where the greatest amount of resonance shift occurs. The goal is to have one voice throughout the full range while maintaining an optimal center of resonance throughout.

One need only look at Jussi Bjorling for confirmation that this can be achieved with brilliant results. Hislop's approach with Bjorling as well as Nillson, among others, should give ample confirmation to this.

In my opinion, which is still not firmly set, a singer should aspire to learn their range or resonance, and once that's learned.. they will have, in a manner of speaking, no more registers.. just 1 voice, and optimal centering for a given pitch and vowel.

you know what i have noticed is if you really get adept at transitioning from the chest to head and back and you really get the breath support down which helps relax the throat you can't remember the old bad habits...you can't seem to recreate that reaching and swooping, tightening of the throat to hit a high note (or a low).

it's as if the body has sent a message "no more." in retrospect, i sang so incorrectly for so many years i'm glad i never developed nodes.

[briesmith]

Unlike a piano, but like a violin, the voice can produce a seamless spectrum of fequencies; some of which coincide with the notes played on a piano or guitar and the rest of which Europeans - but not orientals who recognise quarter tones, for example - hear as noise. Grouping these coincidental frequencies - which can be noted on the bass and tenor cleff - into registers is a handy way of recognising where a singer "is" within the whole noise frequency range humans are capable of.

Moving onto tone and colour, timbre etc is where it gets away from physics and we move into what sounds move the human spirit, appeal to our souls. No one wants to listen to a dockyard whistle - even if it is a perfect C, G or A - or considers it "music" because it has no colour. The same applies to singers; perfect pitching and phrasing are all very well but why did we listen to Rex Harrison or Maurice Chevalier?

There's something undefinable about singing that is more than registers, pitch, rhythm. When I find out what it is I'll pass it on.

[judyrodman]

It is my understanding that the voice has registers that are created with different sets of muscles. AND... that if there is sufficient coordination in and between those muscle sets, one can "mix" (not a scientific but a sensory term) the registers into what "feels" like one register. The goal would be for the top of the chest voice and the bottom of the head voice to sound as much alike as possible.

I have a little exercise I use to enable this FOR CONTEMPORARY, NOT CLASSICAL vocalists. If the registers are sounding too different, with that telltale break between, I give my student an ascending and descending scale of some kind. When on the lower "chest voice" notes, I suggest they touch their nose and to try to "pull the chest voice from the nose (if they are doing it properly, it will flare). When they transition to head voice, I ask them to touch their mouth and try to pull the voice from there. This causes breath and throat configurations which get the voice mixing better. Does this make sense to anyone? Maybe I'll do a video...

[VideoHere]

It is my understanding that the voice has registers that are created with different sets of muscles. AND... that if there is sufficient coordination in and between those muscle sets, one can "mix" (not a scientific but a sensory term) the registers into what "feels" like one register. The goal would be for the top of the chest voice and the bottom of the head voice to sound as much alike as possible.

I have a little exercise I use to enable this FOR CONTEMPORARY, NOT CLASSICAL vocalists. If the registers are sounding too different, with that telltale break between, I give my student an ascending and descending scale of some kind. When on the lower "chest voice" notes, I suggest they touch their nose and to try to "pull the chest voice from the nose (if they are doing it properly, it will flare). When they transition to head voice, I ask them to touch their mouth and try to pull the voice from there. This causes breath and throat configurations which get the voice mixing better. Does this make sense to anyone? Maybe I'll do a video...

judy, that video would never go the waste with this guy.

[VideoHere]

i was reading roger love's book and i was surprised to find that he considers middle or mixed voice the notes from f to b above middle c (hey, i have learned what to call these notes (lol!!)

head voice, he contends, begins at tenor c and up.

i was under the impression head voice began at g to tenor c.

i see now that i have to let go of chest to favor middle voice sooner.

can you folks recommend any exercises to help me let go of chest?

and if i have the ability to hold on to chest in the high notes is it considered bad or vocally harmful?

[VideoHere]

Martin H: Well, at this point of the thread, we are not talking about Resonance, just about sensations.

Since you brought up the head vibrations typical of the chest voice production, I think its also reasonable to say that, unlike the chest voice, the sensations often felt by singers in the 'head' voice very often seem to have specific head locations, and those locations move by vowel and fundamental. This is not universal, but is reported often enough that the whole 'placement' approach has some basis in individual experience.

But, we digress. This is a discussion of vocal registers :-)

steve, on one of the forums you had asked me to make a high note file to put on the spectograph. this is what i did here...the goal was to transition to my current high note capability which is a sharp over midde c in full voice (think that's how you say it...lol)

let me know is this is long enough

http://www.box.net/shared/qv46zfu2j0

[VideoHere]

steve, on one of the forums you had asked me to make a high note file to put on the spectograph. this is what i did here...the goal was to transition to my current high note capability which is a sharp over midde c in full voice (think that's how you say it...lol)

let me know is this is long enough

http://www.box.net/shared/qv46zfu2j0

steve, was this what you had asked for ?

[Steven Fraser]

steve, was this what you had asked for ?

VIDEOHERE: Yes, it was. Sorry it took me a couple days to respond.

Here is the spectragraph of the top note after you had held it for a moment, with some comments after it:

And here is what we can see in it:

Using the 0 and 1 on the bottom as a scale, there are some small peaks midway the 0 and the 1. All but the 3rd one are noise. The 3rd one is your fundamental, the Bb next to tenor high C.

The tall peak to the right of that is your 2nd harmonic, and it is very resonant. This prominence is characteristic of a belt. If I knew CVT better, I'd venture to say that its an overdrive characteristic too. Perhaps Jens or one of the others will straighten me out if I err here.

The next tall peak, at about the same level as harmonic 2, is harmonic 3. While this is strong, the vowel is not optimally tuned for it to ring. See the hump of noise at the bottom of it, just a bit to the right? That amplification of the noise indicates the presence of the 2nd formant, F2. If you really want this note to ring like the dickens, just darken the vowel a little bit while you are singing that note. F2 will tune down, and when it is sitting right on the 3rd harmonic, you will get a ring you will not believe. It will also be less work.

THe 4th harmonic is less, as is expected, but the 5th harmonic comes right back up. That is because it is pretty well-aligned with Formant 3, as you can see by the hump of noise just to the left of it. Actually, the positioning of that hump indicates that the formant is just a little low for best alignment. You can coax it up just a little if you take a bit more care to keep the tip of your tongue touching the lower teeth. Moving the tip just slightly tweaks the tuning of this formant a little.

The next set of peaks form an arch, and you can see some noise amplified to the right of one of the peaks. This is the singer's formant region of your voice. This area is not as resonant as it could be, because the center of the formant bandwidth is too high to match great. However, its ok.

Looking at all of this together, I think there is a strategy you could employ for it that would increase resonance with a single motion: lengthen your vocal tract just a little bit. You can do this with either or both of 2 motions: 1) slightly lower the larynx. 2) slightly purse the lips forward, without rounding them. (BTW, rounding them will lower F2, but not F3 or the singer's formant region.

As a way to experiment, you can use the lip pursing as a first step. Just sing the siren the way you do now, and when you get to the top, bring the lips _slightly_ forward slowly. We are not talking about very much motion here, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch. When you hit just the 'right' amount, you will hear the vowel ring drastically.

I want too show you something else, too. Now that we have looked at the way you finish the note, I want you to see what the spectrum looks like a couple seconds before that. The alignment was different. Take a look:

In this one, the belt is a little less intense, but the F2 help for the 3rd harmonic is strong. The 5th harmonic is good, and you can see that the singer's formant tuning is higher.

All these differences are from small changes in the way you are configuing your vocal tract, by the vowel you sing, by the overall vocal tract length, embouchure (mouth opening shape) and tongue tip position.

[VideoHere]

steve, thank you very much for this and the effort you clearly have expended on this analysis. i feel very fortunate to be able to tap your expertise. i will try to keep my requests less frequent so as to not monopolize your time. but i see i've got more work to do.....thank you sir.

[jonpall]

"If you really want this note to ring like the dickens, just darken the vowel a little bit while you are singing that note. F2 will tune down, and when it is sitting right on the 3rd harmonic, you will get a ring you will not believe. It will also be less work. "

I think I tried something like this yesterday, while waiting for a bus outside I was singing the final chorus in Bon Jovi's song "Bed of roses", which has a Bb4 note on the word "of" and a C5 note on the word "nails". So instead of singing the line "For tonight I'll sleep on a bed of nails", I used the vowels "a" as in "man" and "eh" as in "set" and sung it something like "For tonight I'll slIhp on a bed Af nEhls". It took so much less effort than before and sounded much, much better and powerful. My head was ringing like crazy and I was so freaking loud that it was fortunate that there were lots of cars driving by and not many people around to hear me acting like a lunatic.

[Steven Fraser]

steve, thank you very much for this and the effort you clearly have expended on this analysis. i feel very fortunate to be able to tap your expertise. i will try to keep my requests less frequent so as to not monopolize your time. but i see i've got more work to do.....thank you sir.

VIDEOHERE: Its my pleasure to help... kinda fun.

Do you have access to a windows pc? If you do, I could send you the software, and I could teach you how to do this kind of analysis yourself... essentially, how to use the spectrograph as a practice tool. I've done it with a couple other members, and it seems to help.

As I have said before, I sing into my spectragraph on a regular basis. Doing so has helped my _hearing_ of the amplification of the harmonics that comes with good formant alignment. Also, with the 'noise' display, I get a really good idea of when my formants are not tuned for optimal resonance.

Just as a teaser: I am writing a fairly lengthy blog article about the where & why of the male voice passaggio. I think you will like it.