ring,squillo,cut...twang,pharyngeal,cry

[Elrathion]

High notes don't call for high larynx, however with the untrained singer that's whats gonna happen, thats why I don't see why one should advocate high larynx since simply, with starting vocalists, they are just going to sing high larynx, and it's gonna raise too fast too soon. Sure there are opera singers that raise it too low, maybe not allowing enough higher harmonics to come in, but how many of the bulk of singers is training opera, and are in this situation?

I believe high larynx is advocated because the way it's easier to get twang with it. However a higher larynx is often coupled with overcompression and tightness, and can give rise to unbalanced coordinations. Neither high nor low larynx are a problem as long as it's a concious choise, a released, independant larynx. However to get such a larynx it needs to be trained since I don't know many people who start to sing that can just do with their larynx what they want.

Id like to go deeper into the protective aspect of the larynx not being too high to create balanced coordinations, maybe someone would want to go deeper in that. If not I'll try to do it :P

[Guest]

HI

I am going to get Francis Keeping to post here. In fact, the French singers are the ones who sometimes sing with a high larynx. But Garcia and other promulgated the Italian technique, training the larynx to descend naturally as the voice rises. the best bel canto singing uses this technique, and if fact, it serves to save the voice, extend the top range, and makes for long careers. there are of course other factors - you have to sing what is suitable for your voice, etc.

I am going to E mail this to Francis and see if he will chime in.

Best,

Roberta Prada

[Elrathion]

For the lower voices, they tend to sit lower, and when they go up they show more tendancy to go to an imbalanced high larynx with the use of extr. musculature, whereas the higher voices tend to sit higher, can get away with more, and their larynx doesn't uses those muscles as often.

Ofcourse everyone is different so we need to listen person per person to hear if their produced sound is natural and balanced. There's no one size fits all to the voice. That's why teachers before the science was available still could teach so good. They don't need to see a student or have a scope down their tubes to tell what is balanced and what is not. It's simply by training the ear over and over and over they are able to just see with their ears, and they can just make the small adjustments needed in their voice. That's also what makes the difference between a teacher that just wants to give you a set of exercises and make you do them wo knowleadge, and someone that just hears you and on the spot tries to seek ways to make the change happen.

[Steven Fraser]

I do suspect the old classical singers knew what they were talking about. Look at ronnie dio clips on youtube. He can be through the ceiling, but his larynx doesnt seem to budge at all.

All: It occurs to me that it might be useful for me to go back to the published literature on the acoustics of the vocal tract, and to model the effects of laryngeal position. Not only do the formants move up as the vocal tract shortens, but the wide part of the lower pharynx, which is normally a factor in tone quality, is removed from the equation.

I think I saw an online, parameterized resonance simulator that could be tweaked to show the acoustic effects of laryngeal height on the resulting tone quality. I will let ev'body know what I am able to find.

[Martin H]

Elrathion,

Wel we would just have to agree on disagreeing.

Mybe we can just agree that the area between the top of the thyroid cartilage and the hyoid bone (tounge bone) - the thyrohyoid membrane will be narrowed. :)

[Elrathion]

Yeah Martin

One thing I learned from this is that we need to be careful to fall into generalisations of this or that will happen or this or that is best. For example with the footage from Garcia's larynx it seemed that his larynx would rise till his passagio, then drop, then rise again, then drop again. then there are those classical singers that keep it always low, you who keep it moderatly high (allthough in a nonconstricted manner ), me who tries to keep it neutral (I need more training on that hehe :cool: - allthough I notice that I was holding my larynx too low for really high notes ^^).

So yeah, my personal believe is that saying train a neutral larynx is both benificial for those keeping it too high or too low, however a released high or a released work can work too, sure :P

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

hi all

i didnt start this post as a CVT vs TVS vs SS/SLS debate. i do believe that there is more than one way to do this stuff we call singing and that its up to the student to reseach/try out methods for what feels most comfortable and is most sonically pleasing for them. so let me clarify....

Robert, let me explain what undesirable is to me. any pitch or sound/tone that uses more muscle or air than is needed for its outcome.

the only true twang sound i can make lifts my larynx so high on the higher pitches that it actually starts to constrict my throat. this is maybe because i have never trained twang specifically (i have never felt the need to for an effect, plus my current technique seems to be doing just fine for the vocal style i sing most often - clean and melodic somewhat similar to geoff tate, roy khan etc with rock and melodic metal music) if you are able to produce a twang that does not come with constriction then thats cool. however i dont see how any coordination that lifts the larynx isnt using some same musculature that is involed in swallowing-though whether they are the same undesirable elevating muscles i cant say.

the sound i can make and what im refering to a pharyngeal is somewhat similar in quality (I.E. it has a similar ´ring` to it but maybe with a more cry, whimpering sound added aswell) but for me does not include any constriction and is possible to produce on all vowels.

i would have to agree with Elration on the brett/pharygeal score. he does alot of work with pharyngeal and in fact is about to soon release an advanced version of SS that deals with pharyngeal as a means of aquiring a strong, full sounding mix.

Martin H, obviously the larynx does not have to rise for higher pitches by the fact that slightly lowered larynxed classical/opera singers and balanced larynxed singers can sing to very high pitches. whether you like the sound produced by those methods is personal preference. as for the narrowing resonance space, well this is kinda what i started the post about. one that seems to produce a good ´´ring`` and some ´´cut`` is a horizontal contraction not necessary a vertical one. it seems as if its somewhat independant of larynx postion. if you then feel a need or want to produce it with a high larynx, then thats up to you.

as for locking the larynx too low, i too believe that this does indeed prevent some singers from producing high pitches (from what i have read the very low larynx stuff you hear alot of in classical/opera today is infact a fairly new technique in the overall history of opera singing but somehow managed to become very prominant in many schools of technique) just as i believe locking the larynx too high prevents it from making correct coordinations. i dont believe in locking the larynx in any postion which is why i like a neutral, balanced larynx. its not locked in a neutral/balanced position its actually, and probably a better way of describing it is more in a free, floating postion where by the larynx has been deactivated from elevating, depressing or constricting muscles. if you then choose from this free, floating postion to go to a higher or lower laryxned position then, yeah its probably not the end of the world and at least as Elrathion said you have had the concious ability to choose for it to do so. Martin i do not have the 2008 version of CVT. does catherine now decribe twang more along the lines of the Estill description such as a contracted AES? i do find it intersting how she has replaced the term belting with edge. in SLS terminolgy edge is the sound that can be produced from the crying, whimpering and pharyngeal sounds. guess its just another variable vocal terminolgy thing!

Martin, you are right the balanced larynx is old news.....hundreds of years old. it seems to be doing quite well :cool: as for it not producing high and loud notes, all i can say is that has not been my experience with the method or many i have seen/heard use it.

Elrathion, i dont know if its always been that way but SLS teaches very much in the same way as Brett in the sense of teaching correct foundtion first (or homebase) and then helping the singer achieve their stylistic goal whilst keeping in mind homebase (i assume the exception to this might be were the singer wants to add growls or death metal sounds, in which case they would be reffered on to a teacher that teaches such stuff). i had a lesson with Dave Stroud a couple of months ago and he pretty much explained that theres homebase and its about being aware how far and for how long you can stray from home base before it becomes a problem. i also believe like you said, its not necerssaraly bad to do growls, rasps etc (as they seem to be taught safely by CVT and mellisa cross) its just that it can be more dangerous if you dont do them right.

Steven, what i find interesting in the Mado Robin video is that although it looks as if there is some laryngeal movement going on she doesnt sound high laryxed I.E. it doesnt sound like the upper harmonics or formants are being squeezed/compressed to create that distintive piecinging, affected sound of a high larynx. the sounds she is producing actually sound more neutral larynx level. (as a comparison look at the ´females hitting soprano C in full voice` in related videos side bar- i know its mostly a different style but as a basis most of those examples display a high larynx sound that is far more shrill and affected sounding).

also have a listen to the clips of these opera singers singing high F´s above tenor high C on this site. ( they dont sound like thay have gone to a high laryxned postion to achieve it but have maybe had to raise it from a lower one to a more balanced level one. also perversely the great Pavarotti seems to be the worst at it, having to go to what sounds like a disconnected coordination to acchieve it.)

http://www.dutchdivas.net/highC.html

one video you may find helpful to analyze that displays a high male voice using a balanced laryxned level as well as the pharyngeal ´ring` and ´cut`that i have been mentioning is this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vIsiR43Zw5M

personally i think some of his very highest notes sound like they are possibly approaching a little higher larynx but its debateable. i know the SLS camp use this as an example of how a male can sing high with a balaced level larynx and how singing high doesnt have to sound affected. oh and before all you other guys say, well actually i think hes doing this or doing that, doent it just show how what the SLS camp is teaching may be more similar to other techniques than you first thought :cool:

another vid everyone should look at is this, and make sure you read the more info bit! (it is what i have been talking about in the differece between twang and pharygeal. note how there is real ´cut` but no epiglotal tilt. there does seem some laryngeal rising, unless its the camera moving, but once incorporated it can be applied to a balanced level. note also how it is quite similar albeit from a higher voiced female to the guy in the jefferson airship vid above, though of course it sounds much louder on the larynx vid for obvious reasons)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AMhSTtnVSuI

[Steven Fraser]

one video you may find helpful to analyze that displays a high male voice using a balanced laryxned level as well as the pharyngeal ´ring` and ´cut`that i have been mentioning is this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vIsiR43Zw5M

personally i think some of his very highest notes sound like they are possibly approaching a little higher larynx but its debateable. i know the SLS camp use this as an example of how a male can sing high with a balaced level larynx and how singing high doesnt have to sound affected. oh and before all you other guys say, well actually i think hes doing this or doing that, doesn't it just show how what the SLS camp is teaching may be more similar to other techniques than you first thought :cool:

Centre: I enjoyed listening to that piece. I hear a very clear, (mostly) neutral larynx vocalism, easily and securely produced. Its an accurate voice, too. Some of the shorter top notes got a little pinched, but overall very well done. I set up the spectrograph and watched while the tune was playing. The lead singer has good vibrato, very clearly defined harmonics, a fairly bright pronunciation of the vowels, and uses 2nd-formant tuning of his higher notes :-) It was very effective. It has that sense of ease that makes the audience think the singer is no where near their top. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll give some thought to what you said about Mado Robin, and respond sometime over the week-end.

[Elrathion]

I just know of Dave that he's not able to do some of the heavier things, since he was asked in a workshop. I can't tell more about it, first got to ask the person who told me if it's allowed :> However those things Brett was able to do, and I've heared many of the SlS teachers thinking they went heavy, but didn't in reality. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's limited, if you do want more, you do have to look into squeeze and support, which is not always encouraged among SLS ;>

Look it depends aswell on what a level SLS you get. 1/2 doesn't have to teach all that Seth says, 5 does. So if Seth says that "Belting" hurts the ear and is wrong (you can see it in one of his masterclass videos), his level 5's are supposed to teach the same thing - However those level 1/2's and leavers of the organisation often "take" all what is good in SLS, which is alot, and add onto that those things that are not considered very good. SLS is Modern Bell Canto, it comes from a more classical background actually, and from an adverse feeling throwards opera singers just belting through songs and darkening everything and using un-natural vowels. Seth came admids all of this and tried to change that.

I like what Brett says however on this matter: People who say it's all about this and not about that are right in what they assert, and wrong in what they deny. For Seth the singing process was really all about the vocal cords, but he hardly payed any attention to breath control. Therefore something lacked. Then you have those techniques that deny the existance of passagio's and wanna do everything new, but they limit themselves too. Same with those only focusing on support, or only on twang. Teach everything! Because everything is needed! And search within the individual what his weaknesses are and focus on those.

About twang, here's my experience. I think it comes with experimenting with the voice. For me personally, yes there were times when I trained it that I felt irritation while or after. Actually quite a few time. But somewhere along the practising you discover how to do it good. If you get a big alarm bel the first time you feel some soreness and just throw in the towel, you might not find it. However when I do feel such way I think what I did wrong and try to analyse it, and I do treat my voice good so the feeling quickly fades. But if we don't challange our voice at all, and always play 100% safe, we might not discover alot of things...

I'll have to do alot of reading on what you posted later, but seemed very interesting indeed.

[Martin H]

another vid everyone should look at is this, and make sure you read the more info bit! (it is what i have been talking about in the differece between twang and pharygeal. note how there is real ´cut` but no epiglotal tilt. there does seem some laryngeal rising, unless its the camera moving, but once incorporated it can be applied to a balanced level. note also how it is quite similar albeit from a higher voiced female to the guy in the jefferson airship vid above, though of course it sounds much louder on the larynx vid for obvious reasons)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AMhSTtnVSuI

I don't know if you catched my earlier post but in twang the epiglottis cartilage barely tilts. So basically what you define as pharyngeal is the same as twang.

Also there are different degrees of twang so maybe what you hear as a pharyngeal is not a 100% twang but maybe only 70% - but it's still twang. (CVT talks about "Necesary twang" and "Distinct twang)

PS. I wrote earlier:

(Well twang is a narrowing of the epiglottical area. More concrete it's about bringing the area of the arytenoid cartilages closer to the lower part of the epiglottis (also called petiole). The epiglottical cartilage doesn't tilt very much. IF it's tilted then a "growl" is produced.)

:)

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

hi all,

Elrathion, yeah maybe Dave doesnt do some heavier stuff but then maybe thats not really his background. as far as i know he comes more from a pop/soul stevie wonder style music background. i have had lessons with Greg Enriquez and he has more of a rock background. i got him to sing a tiny bit of ´take hold of the flame`by Queensryche and it sounded cool!

this is the thing, yes SLS does have some ideals that if you wish too, you can stick too but its about being able to apply the good foundations you have learnt from the technique to whatever style you then want. you can be a master at technique but it doesnt make you a master at all styles though having mastered technique you will probably pick up faster and be better at the style you apply it too. to apply your technique to a specific certain style its a slightly differnt training process then.

i do also believe you can take many possitive things away from many techniques and that you should not limit your knowledge unless you dont find said peice of knowledge helpful.

anyways like i said i didnt want to make this thread so much about technique/school vs technique/school

Martin, yes i read the posts its just you said originally the larynx had to come up to make the resonance space smaller.

anyway yes you may be right about the pharyngeal being a varied degree of twang.once again it comes down to ones personal interpretation of a vocal term. for instance some of the metalic or edgy stuff i have heard catherine sadoline do sounds more pharyngeally than twangy but then as you said maybe its to do with the degree of metal/edge and the mode( i have also noticed how there seems to be a display of more twangy vs pharyngeal sounds in some of the TVS vids though i dont know if they are considered different coordinations in the TVS method). i did find it interesting how on the vid info its says how the pharyngeal displays little to no twang but as i said before maybe its do with various interpretations of twang, or maybe they really are two very different things. to me it becomes more twang once there is more epiglotal tilt and a higher larynx but then maybe thats just my interpretation.

Martin i have some questions about CVT but i think it would be better to start another thread, so i will do that soon

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

the pharyngeal sound is a unfinished sound that is not meant to be used in its pure form but when applied to more neutral/ pure chest and head tones creates ´ring`` but i guess how much of it you want to apply is up to the singer. i guess some full on forms of it might be considered ugly by some.

[Robert Lunte]

Centre...

There are many different , healthy ways to train a voice... it comes back to the genre' and what the artist wants to do mostly... it also depends greatly on the voice teacher's foundation and what they were taught. Some techniques are great for country singers, jazzy lounge singers and people that dwell in their chest voice with dispositions of conservatism... but if you want strong, powerful and convincing head tones, raging range and the ability to sing interesting distortion effects, ect... you have to take your training to another level... thats when you will need to explore some more advanced laryngeal configurations.

I really like your passion and interest in this topic... what I would advise is that you move away from thinking one thing is better then the other just because someone said so. Voice pedagogy is not about seeking the truth in one method... its seeking the truth in exploring all and taking what you need to apply to your art.

we can go on and on and on with the twang, lifted larynx arguments, etc... but any ideas that tilted or lifted configs. are unhealthy is wrong. Its been proven for some time now that twang configurations are not only healthy but a normal thing for the human voice... and I teach it very successfully every weekend... lets all get with the program. If your efforts to twang hurt you, your not doing it right. If your constrictors are activated and not isolated, your not doing it right... I could teach you how in about 20 minutes... Its is not easy for some people, others can pick it up quickly.

Great discussion.

[Robert Lunte]

the pharyngeal sound is a unfinished sound that is not meant to be used in its pure form but when applied to more neutral/ pure chest and head tones creates ´ring`` but i guess how much of it you want to apply is up to the singer. i guess some full on forms of it might be considered ugly by some.

I can assure you , by the vast majority... when done properly... it is considered to be amazing, is what bands want, is what is required for an entire genre' of music, is what 80% of my clients are looking for, feels good, sounds killer, gets you the job, also helps a lot with bridging for some people, sells records, gives you range and makes you feel like a super-human, laser shootin, face meltin vocal metal thunder Goblet... :cool:

[Martin H]

Also tjeck this out:

Patti Labelle is a master of twang...and a lot of it....I personally DON'T consider this singing performance to be ugly..LOL

Also in the end when she sings away fro the mic and you can still hear her that's just great twanging! and she would NEVER be able to pull that of without it...

[Elrathion]

Patti Labelle is great at keeping chest engaged, and actually a properly singing female :>

She was very talented by nature, being able to sing high C's without any training

You wanna be thought proper technique that's the bottom line. As for the quest in how you wanna sound, I feel that's more your responsability. It's you who have to listen to tons of singers, and experiment and take elements into your sound. You gotta build it, not your technique coach.

And don't get me wrong twang is great, and it has helped me alot, but it ain't like OOHMDG lets glorify it, as it kinda seems being done here. It's just one of many important aspects of proper singing, which always needs to be there but you decide the quantity depending on how YOU wanna sound.

" Its probably great for country singers, jazzy lounge singers and people that dwell in their chest voice extensively with limited velocities and dispositions of "nice-nice"... but if you want strong, powerful and convincing head tones, raging range and the ability to sing interesting distortion effects, ect... you have to take your training to another level."

Lets not get into a taste discussion here. You're making a bit fun of those singers now. I can listen for hours to Luther Vandross while he didn't keep his chest engaged all the way, he was a master of contrasts and putting emotion into a song. For some people I can understand that they like to listen to really powerful vocals, others like other music. Lets not advocate one or the other but teach both.

And lets not get into a bash one technique or the next because tbh in any technique that Ive studied so far I've found things lacking or wrong and things that were really smart and inovative. Anyone who thinks he got the perfect thing for everyone is by definition wrong, since only by realising we don't know everything and don't have all the answers we keep looking to beter ourselfs. Furthermore, lets not go claim the superiority from one technique to the next. Some techniques will teach the "advanced" thing beter, while others will teach the ground level beter. However try to do that advanced thing good without having the groundwork done. It's like the architect telling the constructors that they are inferior. They both have their strenghts, and neither work is superior.

[Martin H]

Well this topic IS called: ring,squillo,cut...twang,pharyngeal,cry

So I think we DO need to : "Glorify it, as it kinda seems being done here." :)

[Robert Lunte]

Patti Labelle is great at keeping chest engaged, and actually a properly singing female :>

She was very talented by nature, being able to sing high C's without any training

You wanna be thought proper technique that's the bottom line. As for the quest in how you wanna sound, I feel that's more your responsability. It's you who have to listen to tons of singers, and experiment and take elements into your sound. You gotta build it, not your technique coach.

And don't get me wrong twang is great, and it has helped me alot, but it ain't like OOHMDG lets glorify it, as it kinda seems being done here. It's just one of many important aspects of proper singing, which always needs to be there but you decide the quantity depending on how YOU wanna sound.

" Its probably great for country singers, jazzy lounge singers and people that dwell in their chest voice extensively with limited velocities and dispositions of "nice-nice"... but if you want strong, powerful and convincing head tones, raging range and the ability to sing interesting distortion effects, ect... you have to take your training to another level."

Lets not get into a taste discussion here. You're making a bit fun of those singers now. I can listen for hours to Luther Vandross while he didn't keep his chest engaged all the way, he was a master of contrasts and putting emotion into a song. For some people I can understand that they like to listen to really powerful vocals, others like other music. Lets not advocate one or the other but teach both.

And lets not get into a bash one technique or the next because tbh in any technique that Ive studied so far I've found things lacking or wrong and things that were really smart and inovative. Anyone who thinks he got the perfect thing for everyone is by definition wrong, since only by realising we don't know everything and don't have all the answers we keep looking to beter ourselfs. Furthermore, lets not go claim the superiority from one technique to the next. Some techniques will teach the "advanced" thing beter, while others will teach the ground level beter. However try to do that advanced thing good without having the groundwork done. It's like the architect telling the constructors that they are inferior. They both have their strenghts, and neither work is superior.

Agreed "El"... I chilled my post. Man, you can really get charged with this discussion...

[Robert Lunte]

To follow up on Martin's comment... I guess in my defense... one of the things (centre) that gets me a little excited is when I read that twang is considered to be "ugly" and other little comments that are purely from your personal opinion ...

Your "balanced larynx" teacher & books that have build vocal franchise empires for the last 20 years on this idea... are in dire need of an update and an appreciation that "balanced" configurations do not and can not produce all the sounds that some singers are in need of. Its not enough to just say, "Ya, Im perfectly, completely balanced and when I sing, I dont feel anything because Im not flexing any intrinsic muscles enough to feel anything... Im safe, Im sane, I go to bed early, I never take risks, Im perfectly balanced... it feels like my speech voice so that must be right."

Its not wrong.. it IS right... its a great thing. A balanced larynx is a good place to start... its a exactly where I will take a very bad chest puller and constrictor...its what those people need first... it trains isolation and stops constriction and chest pulling... it is great in this regard! But, once you have established that... most singers need to move on to begin experimenting with some different configs. Once the isolation is solid (all bad habits removed), then you can begin to work on tilts and twang and distortion... the style. The argument comes into play when you quickly realize as a professional teacher and singer that the balanced larynx config. does not produce a sound that is applicable to a lot of contemporary styles of singing. You dont get an aggressive, amplified overtone & cut in the head voice, you dont get a sense of "aggresion" if your a rocker and you most certainly dont get any distortion effects.... Sure, train the balance to get isolated... then begin to build something that will make people stand up and shout. In the end you want to be able to calibrate between projected sounds and contracted sounds... you want the ability to sing either way. At TVS we train both configurations and encourage singers to learn how to calibrate for more twang or throttle back for more "hoot". Why would you not want to be able to do both?

I too have had lessons with Dave Stroud ... (not many, but a few just to see what they are doing)... and they will tell you themselves that they are all about bringing the voice back to balance... but not about taking it to the next step of stylistic training, effects and tilts. They just dont go there because Seth wont go there... but other vocal teachers and methods do.

What ever the case... when i read through this discussion I see a LOT of really bright people and I get the sense that we all agree on the vast majority of points here... what really needs to get done is maybe some research on these vocal modes.

I propose that we conduct a TMV sponsored research project on "ring, squillo, cut, la voce faringea, pharyngeal, twang"... lets look inside and better understand its physiology, acoustics, etc... that is how we can now take this discussion and combined mental capacity that is TMV forum to another level.

Centre, just because I argue, it does not mean that I dont respect your knowledge, understandings and passion... I think its great. Martin and I have gone at it before too... and we learn from eachother ... consider each others arguments... modify our beliefs a bit and out of that, you grow to respect your fellow TMV Power Forum users.

[Steven Fraser]

I propose that we conduct a TMV sponsored research project on "ring, squillo, cut, la voce faringea, pharyngeal, twang"... lets look inside and better understand its physiology, acoustics, etc... that is how we can now take this discussion and combined mental capacity that is TMV forum to another level.

Robert: Hey, that would be fun, eh? :cool:

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

i wasnt saying that twang is necessarily ugly. the point i was trying to make was that some of those sounds in their purest form (such as pharyngeal)can sound over the top, ugly or strange but are used more as a training tool as supposed for singing that exact way, but when applied to a more ´´normal `` sound/production are helpfull and sound cool. very much related to Darrison´s post on the importance of ugly vocalise.

Martin, the patti labelle vid i find interesting because i would consider whats she doing alot in her lower ranges as twang (as it has that affected twang sound*) but the high notes that shesa doing at the end dont sound twanged to me, they just sound higher larynxed. i can do the exact same notes nearly the exact same way (albeit without the slight distortion she has) and im not twanging it, just my larynx coming up. as for the mic picking her voice up further away theres no doubt whats shes doing isnt a whisper lol but there are other factors such as the mic could be a cardioid pattern so it could have a fairly wide pickup, it could have compression on it, it could be a condenser making it more sensitive etc. its a very common thing for a mic to pick up further sounds, thus why loud bands and feedback can be such an issue. it very much depends on the mic and the processors being used.

*let me just make it clear that i dont relate affected as a negative thing necessarily, its not something i want alot of in my voice but there a many singers i love that sound very affected. i mean im a big fan King Diamond for gods sake!!!

Robert,

i do agree that there are probably a number of ways of singing that are safe or healthy, personally my vocal ideal is very clean, flexible and quite `straight´ without an over emphasis on stylistic touches not unlike the vocal in the jefferson airship vid i posted earlier or say a singer like roy khan from kamelot or some of james labrie in his clean voiced moments. what im doing at the moment seems to be helping me get to my vocal goals but who knows maybe i will move on if i find something more helpful and makes more sense. i agree that if you want to do growls, or distortion or whatever then you would probably have to employ different laryngeal configurations than SLS use. thats why SLS will refer a singer on to a style specialist once they have got the foundation, knowlegde and feeling secured. like i said my goals are actually quite close to the SLS ideal so i would not require a style specialist but i understand how many rockers/metallers for instance would want a more stylised sound. from watching some videos of SLS summer camps as well as the SLS client list there do seem to be quite a few styles going on. no death metal as yet though

i think one of the views on things like belt, twang, high larynx etc is not so much that its damaging per sey more to do with it requiring more effort than is needed and that you may be able to build up the strengh initially but that all that extra baggade will catch up with you eventually. thus why the older rockers like Plant, gillan, halford etc. lost their range. seth is like 76 or something and can still produce VERY high notes.

anyway this is turning once again in to a technique/school debate. its all good as long as it makes sense to you, feels comfortable and is getting you were you wanna go!

Robert, i agree, rather get into this, one better than the other stance it would be more helpful to just analyze these sounds for their own sake to see whats going on ( i think Steve could be benificial to this!!!) and although we all may have different views on certain subjects the sheer passion and enthusiasm earns my respect unquestionably.

[Martin H]

Martin, the patti labelle vid i find interesting because i would consider whats she doing alot in her lower ranges as twang (as it has that affected twang sound*) but the high notes that shesa doing at the end dont sound twanged to me, they just sound higher larynxed. i can do the exact same notes nearly the exact same way (albeit without the slight distortion she has) and im not twanging it, just my larynx coming up.'

Please do post an example of you doing that!!!

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

i will try and get one up Martin. like i said i cant do her slight distortion because i think its probably coming from patti over blowing/pushing air and i cant make that kind of distortion ( i dont really want to either lol). range was never a problem for me. back in the day when i was singing lots of high larynxed metal stuff my top note was about an A-B above tenor high C. i was singing all the rob halford screams/high notes before i had ever had a lesson in my life. singing some thing like the song painkiller was a walk in the park where the highs were concerned. my problem was a very big disconnection between chest and head. there was no mix.

[CentreOfTheUniverse]

i dont have access to my recording gear at the mo. so the best i can do is show you an old clip (before i studied SLS)of me singing painkiller acapella which has some similar high notes. when i recorded it i didnt check the key. turns out the original was a tone higher which wouldnt have been a problem for me-i think the top note on this recording is a high G. i dont sing this way anymore (sounds too affected to me and those highs are actually pretty easy to learn when produced that way ), especially with a high larynx. i also added a tiny bit of grit which is something i rarely did. as you can hear my main problem was disconnection and some sub glotal pressure at the end. back then i sounded like a cross between rob halford and king diamond

http://media-mobi.com/en/?play-y1wo564z7drqzqjqx9dy7p27gwsfvai9

in relation to the topic of `ring´ etc. i dont think the highs in my old clip have real ring to them just squeezed harmonics and cut from the high larynx, they are more screetch metal screams rather than ´singing` but up high like the opera singers high F´s from the dutchdivas site i posted earlier.

[Steven Fraser]

i will try and get one up Martin. like i said i cant do her slight distortion because i think its probably coming from patti over blowing/pushing air and i cant make that kind of distortion ( i dont really want to either lol). range was never a problem for me. back in the day when i was singing lots of high larynxed metal stuff my top note was about an A-B above tenor high C. i was singing all the rob halford screams/high notes before i had ever had a lesson in my life. singing some thing like the song painkiller was a walk in the park where the highs were concerned. my problem was a very big disconnection between chest and head. there was no mix.

Centre: If you want some help analyzing her distortion... characterizing what is going on/how she does it... point me at a particular recording, and I would be happy to listen and acoustically analyze it. Just say the word.