Jump to content

How far can chest voice be strached?

Rate this topic


Singingnewbie
 Share

Recommended Posts

At 4:25

I am a bit confused. I was told told that G5 could be hit in chest register and after the first shock :o i decided to search if it could be done (humans don't stop to amaze me both directions). The closest is this one, not a G5 but really sky-high and excellent quality/weight, i believe live would be even more impressive. It doesn't convince me as chest and neither as head voice, more a chest-heavy mix(?).

Could someone really hit even a D/E5 on chest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not singing that in chest he's in mix. It was something like an F5 he sang I think.

Pretty much any male you hear singing a G5, the heaviest they're ever doing it is a head dominant mix. It's just ridiculous to pull the chest up that high, it would actually sound terrible. Generally speaking there's never any need to pull chest higher than maybe E5 for men (that's about the highest I might have heard it done in contemporary music) and still that's very very rare and the folks who do it are probably putting themselves on the brink of a hemorrhage in the process.

IMO it's a waste of energy and time and possible vocal damage to even bother taking the full chest voice weight higher than maybe D5 if you're in a heavy rock band, C5 for most other applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to sources I have read, especially with more classical singing, even tenors are modifying by E4 and F4 is considered a bridge point. Which means that at anything in the 5th octave, you are not in "chest," even if it sounds "chesty."

But I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this video

Some classcial singer don't switch from chest voice to chiaro scuro voice.

Melcoci singers starts to switch to chiaro scuro around F#3.

Lyric tenor like Pavarotti switch to chiaro scuro around the passagio zone(that's say F4)

Seem like if a guy has a nature bright voice ,he could stay on his chest voice longer.

Those who has darker voice(dramatic tenor)may not using chest voice but chiaro scuro voice in the whole singing range.

I think it's all about vocal placement(timbre) issue.

Some modern singer may use very high placement to get high note which does sound powerful but their sound loss some chestiness.

Again,sorry for my english.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends.

Chiaro scuro is a vocal timbre that avoids TA over dominate the vocal folds(pure chest voice) though,in my opinion.

Tenelli emphasizes the difference between chest voice/chiaro scuro and head voice/fallsetto a lot.

And chiaro scuro is a vocal register in his terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general: isn't it all a mix of TA & CT up until the point where it's only CT? (except pulse reg. of course)

That CT only would correspond to CVT flageolet (problematic definition) and falsetto (M2)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CVT flageolet doesn't have to be CT only. It can be done with and without TA activity. Falsetto (both airy and non-airy) is the only thing that's always CT only.

For anything full voiced, I don't think of it as a mix of TA and CT, but rather just varying degrees of TA that you're using. I don't worry about CT at all. The TA (together with the interarytenoids and lateral cricoarytenoid) are responsible for the intensity in the voice. So a more intense sound is a more intense usage of these muscles; a less intense sound just engages them less. As you go higher into your range while still keeping a similar intensity, these muscles will remain engaged, and the TA will thin out a little bit while the interarytenoids kick in more. This is what I would call a thinner chest voice or what some people call a mix. This coordination can continue all the way up to the top of your range, well beyond high C.

Hey, Cuno. Is there a way then that I can train the interarytenoids and lateral cricoarytenoid isolated ( which I think is not possible probably ) or where they take a more dominant role on the phonation? Is working on adduction of the folds from C5 and up a way to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Dante.

But the reason why some people don't reckon full voice(mix voice,thin chest voice,whatever) as chest voice is also

revealed by your post.

Since the full voice coordination isn't quite the same as pure chest voice,

there are plenty of reasons to call it different name.

Also,I have seen a lot of so called full voice demonstrate video which claim to mix or strech chest way up high

,but most of them just sounds heady in high range.

Even Ken sings very heady in his "she is gone" video,unlike Michael who could really bring chest timbre up high,

I hear mostly head voice.

I could sing in my head voice even before I grasp the feeling of mid voice(whatever).

To me it's obvious that the full voice approach just shading toward head voice up high.

Very few male singer could delay the switch around E5,while most male will switch around A4.

Some may bring the bright sound to the point that even their G4 A4 sounds heady or light mix voice.

Again,sorry for my English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Dante.

But the reason why some people don't reckon full voice(mix voice,thin chest voice,whatever) as chest voice is also

revealed by your post.

Since the full voice coordination isn't quite the same as pure chest voice,

there are plenty of reasons to call it different name.

Also,I have seen a lot of so called full voice demonstrate video which claim to mix or strech chest way up high

,but most of them just sounds heady in high range.

Even Ken sings very heady in his "she is gone" video,unlike Michael who could really bring chest timbre up high,

I hear mostly head voice.

I could sing in my head voice even before I grasp the feeling of mid voice(whatever).

To me it's obvious that the full voice approach just shading toward head voice up high.

Very few male singer could delay the switch around E5,while most male will switch around A4.

Some may bring the bright sound to the point that even their G4 A4 sounds heady or light mix voice.

Again,sorry for my English.

actually that bright sound is chest voice, the ping comes from chest not head, head is the dark timbre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep but to make a distinction between the tonality and the range

volume & thickness:

belting: brighter

neutral: darker

range:

low notes: darker

high notes: brighter

what changes is that the pharyngeal area is narrowed (brighter) or broadened (darker) more.

hey geran are you sure about that or just winging it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more ta activation is going to give you a brighter pingy tone the less will give you an airy wooly sound. i don't know about the unique ness of the cvt "special terms" and where they lay in range but i can speak from experience that if i want a darker full voiced high c i am a bit headier and narrower and softer, if i want a brighter pingier High c i need to be a bit more open and chesty and loud. I am obviously speaking from experience of doing both not just spouting out a bunch of research that may or may not be true unless you yourself can accomplish it.

And notice on the examples of the video, the major difference of intensity.

You need not bombard yourself with terms and definitions and anatomy but merely start accomplishing these things by following just a "few" simple principles in the act of phonation itself..(I think I'm going to copyright that):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually that bright sound is chest voice, the ping comes from chest not head, head is the dark timbre.

wow,instresing.

So does that mean guys like Michael in his prime use some kind of mix voice?

The way Ken sings it sounds just too light,and too thinner compare to Michael.

I always throught that chest voice(resonance) is darker,rounder,and head voice is lighter,thinner sound.

Just about one years ago,note above B4 is actually easier for me to sing than F4 G4 A4.

I could only sing G4 either with strain or weaky airy volume.

On the contrary,B4 is way more easier to sing but it sounds bright and kind of thin.Which is why I don't like it.

Since I bought KTVA,I used to believe if I can stretch my mid voice really far,

I could solve the problem that my high note sounds bright.

But your comments makes me to rethink of it.

Maybe KTVA's full voice approach does't fit my purpose because they just want to bring bright(chest or not) voice all the way up.

BUT I goad is try to build fuller,darker voice around E5.

I will try to dig in,thank you so much.

Again,sorry for my English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notation of heavy/light in terms of singing is sometimes a bit misleading because as a singer you don't really "feel" your chords directly. From a physiological perspective Dante is definitely correct, that it is mostly the degree of TA activation that determines the "heaviness" of your phonation. For all singers it usually works like this:

- in chest voice you increase TA an CT simultaneously to increase pitch

- in head voice or "mix" you let go of TA activation while leaving CT constant

- in falsetto you increase CT activation and leave TA totally relaxed

- In the heaviest phonation possible you will activate TA and CT up to 100% before switching to head voice strategy (backing off of TA)

- In a "light mix" configuration you will only activate TA and CT up to lets say 50% and then start backing off of TA. Because of this, it is very hard to sing "connected" on very high pitches with a light mix, because you have to sustain an incredibly low level of TA activation (otherwise you would flip to falsetto).

However, this has nothing to do per se with a light or dark timbre. The timbre is determined by the acoustic approach you use.

There is the "bright chestiness" approach that is used often in contemporary singing, which is mainly based on tuning your 1st formant to the 2nd harmonic. This strategy makes your phonation sound more heavy from an acoustic perspective, but it doesn't increase the physiological heaviness on your folds. The timbre gets increasinly brighter for this approach the higher you go because the 1st formant (which is kind of an "amplifier" in your vocal tract) has to "follow" the 2nd harmonic when you get up in pitch. This way, on a higher note, higher overtones are amplified, giving you a brighter timbre. This acoustic strategy is sometimes also called the "megaphone strategy".

Another acoustic approach is the "inverse megeaphone", which is mainly used by opera singers. This approach gives you a darker sound, but is not lighter in terms of fold activation, even though being darker in sound. In this approach the 1st formant is "decoupled" from the 2nd harmonic during passaggio and the larynx is kept lower, giving you a darker sound.

Along with these 2 factors there is a 3rd factor that is often associated with "chestiness", which is the compression of your folds. High compression gives you a more "edgy" or "metallic" sound, but again not neccessarily means that the phonation is "heavier" in terms of mass. There are basically three important general rules here:

1. Compression is higher when your timbre is brighter (higher larynx)

2. Compression is higher when your TA levels are higher

3. if your compression is too high you will break/strain

4. if your compression is too low you will flip into falsetto

Opera singers using the inverse megaphone approach usually have to maintain higher levels of TA, because their compression is lower (lower larynx). This means that, while having a darker timbre, opera singers usually are singing heavier than contemporary singers.

So it is often not the case that darker timbre = lighter phonation. In case of opera singers it is actually even the other way round. There are lots of combinations between light/heavy phonation, acoustic strategy and compression that you can use, resulting in different sounds and different degrees of "heaviness".

The 4th factor that comes into play is the vibration mode of the folds, which can be modal or non-modal in style. At some point in your range the vibration mode will change to non-modal, which will give you a phonation that sound a little thinner with less overtones. Falsetto is ALWAYS non-modal in style, but also full voice flips into non-modal mode at some point. Personally, I think this point is also exactly the point where you can go when you use the maximum amount of TA+CT activation, (see below), so its around A4 for basses, B4 for baritones and C5 for tenors.

But to come back to the original question "how far can chest voice be stretched?" there are several answers depening on what your definition of "chest voice" is:

1. Maximum CT+TA activation is usually reached between A4 and C5 for males, my personal experience is that its A4 for basses, B4 for baritones and C5 for tenors. After that point you have to let go of TA slowly. It is also the point where your voice goes into non-modal mode if you use the heaviest phonation possible.

2. Maximum point where you can use the F1->H2 tuning depends on the vowel you are using. On an EH/UH shading it can be used up to something like C5.

3. Maximum limit for "full voice" (slight TA still active) is reported to be in the area of G5-C6 for males.

I think the difference you hear between Ken Tamplin and Michael Jackson imo is pretty much the fact that Ken is a baritone and his voice goes into non-modal mode around B4, while Michael is a really high tenors whos modal voice probably goes up to something like C5/D5. They are both singing "full voice" (so TA and CT active), but Kens voice sounds a little thinner and less overtone-rich, because he is already in non-modal voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow,instresing.

So does that mean guys like Michael in his prime use some kind of mix voice?

The way Ken sings it sounds just too light,and too thinner compare to Michael.

I always throught that chest voice(resonance) is darker,rounder,and head voice is lighter,thinner sound.

Just about one years ago,note above B4 is actually easier for me to sing than F4 G4 A4.

I could only sing G4 either with strain or weaky airy volume.

On the contrary,B4 is way more easier to sing but it sounds bright and kind of thin.Which is why I don't like it.

Since I bought KTVA,I used to believe if I can stretch my mid voice really far,

I could solve the problem that my high note sounds bright.

But your comments makes me to rethink of it.

Maybe KTVA's full voice approach does't fit my purpose because they just want to bring bright(chest or not) voice all the way up.

BUT I goad is try to build fuller,darker voice around E5.

I will try to dig in,thank you so much.

Again,sorry for my English.

It's the same shit, michael is just very good at it. Everything depends on what you compare it to. For instance if you pit michael vs singers who are more chesty(Jorn lande,dio ect) his highs in comparison will sound falsettoish/heady

Link to comment
Share on other sites

benny and daniel......awesome posts...benny....buddy you've got a way with words. dan, you tell it like it is....

i would just like to say (to beginners) reading this stuff. taking ta and ct engaged high up (that is always desired it seems) requires very good support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phil Moufarrege

I have been trying for a while to sing B4 dark and loud.

In a good day,when I sing a B4 with Eh vowel while I try to engange as much TA as I can,and lower my larynx

I feel some presssure in my thorat,and a lot of presssure in my waist,I need to power through this situation then I can somehow relax on the note.

But most day I just end up either shouting off pitch or my B4 becomes unstable.

Ken doesn't recommand lower larynx postion,maybe his approach doesn't mean to be sing this way.

I have a doubt that maybe I don't have enough physical strength and support.

Sure I want to try to figure out what vowel should I use in lower larynx postion.

@benny82

This post makes things so much clear for me.

Thanks you so much:)

@Jens

I don't know through.I'm not good at English,and I pretty much running out of words right now.

But I feel like when Michael was in his prime,even his hooty note like(uhh uhh)just sounds more rich than others full voice.First time I heard Michael's "BEAT IT",I was completed stunnd and amazed,just wow what am I hearing now.

I had watched some of your youtube video in the past,I know you are the man who speak from your true knowledge(experience).But in my mind a doubt that nobody can sounds exactly him is always there.

I do wish I can sound exactly him through.

Again,sorry for my English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually Ken starts you out in a lowered larynx position in stage 1 and gradually allows you to relax it over time to a more neutral position

Yes,I can somehow relax to neutral position if my volume is low.

If I try to add volume,I feel like my larynx will rise,not much, around Bb4 A4,then I will try to pull that down to neutral position.

I feel ok with that.

But if i try to get darker,fuller sound,I will dampen my larynx more and lots of problems will come.

Ken teachs people to sing in neutral larynx position,imo.

I can't even remind where he exactly demonstate how to dampen their larynx(I learn this from TVS).

Yes,he teach people to raise soft plate and drop tongue,but that's not all about damping larynx in my experience.

Despite I raise my soft plate at his limit and put my tongue in postion,

I can still use some muscle to drop my larynx a little more.

Since you are japan,I suppose you can read japanese.

http://remivoice.jp/voice-training/sternothyroid-muscle.html

I think muscle I use to drop the larynx more is called 胸骨甲状筋 in japanese.

Ken doesn't tell people to use that kind of muscle structure to lower larynx to the point the larynx is low,imo,

especially on high note.

Maybe Ken encourges lower larynx positon in the beginning is to prevent his student choke on high note because their larynx is too high,not for the purpose to get dark sound on top.

I think I'm done with that issue.I have no serisou problems with that.

Again,sorry for my English.

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...