What is the most important consideration when training the voice?

[Robert Lunte]

Please participate in this poll... this "Poll" post has been opened up for discussion as well.

[Judge MOTW]

Hello, 1st post in here, I'd like to thank the guys in here for all the efforts that they make to help other vocalists in their path to vocal mastery.

For me, there are few points I want to work on in my voice, that are not listed here:

- vocal maintenance.

- getting a chestier tone between D5 and G5 (like daniel heiman and jorn lande)

- more power in extreme lows, most teachers focus on highs and almost never mention lows.

- consistency of notes higher than F5, they seem to come and go easily.

- quality in lower volumes, I sing metal, jazz and blues, but I need that pianissimo from time to time.

I've chosen "training formants and vowels" from the list as it might give me ways to reach these goals.

[Robert Lunte]

Hello, 1st post in here, I'd like to thank the guys in here for all the efforts that they make to help other vocalists in their path to vocal mastery.

For me, there are few points I want to work on in my voice, that are not listed here:

- vocal maintenance.

- getting a chestier tone between D5 and G5 (like daniel heiman and jorn lande)

- more power in extreme lows, most teachers focus on highs and almost never mention lows.

- consistency of notes higher than F5, they seem to come and go easily.

- quality in lower volumes, I sing metal, jazz and blues, but I need that pianissimo from time to time.

I've chosen "training formants and vowels" from the list as it might give me ways to reach these goals.

 

Hi Judge, welcome to TMV World forum, and your welcome.

 

 

- vocal maintenance.

 

This is a bit vague. What does "vocal maintenance" mean? Vocal health? If you mean vocal health, that is probably a valid consideration.

 

- getting a chestier tone between D5 and G5 (like daniel heiman and jorn lande)

 

Already, addressed in this question.

 

Training Belt Technique (0 votes [0.00%])

 

- more power in extreme lows, most teachers focus on highs and almost never mention lows.

 

Probably because this is a relatively easy thing to discuss and get a handle on, vs high notes.

 

- consistency of notes higher than F5, they seem to come and go easily.

 

Interesting, but notes above C5 have diminishing returns in regards to their application and use. At some point a high note can't be used for anything other then a scream.

 

- quality in lower volumes, I sing metal, jazz and blues, but I need that pianissimo from time to time.

I've chosen "training formants and vowels" from the list as it might give me ways to reach these goals.

 

I THINK YOU CHOSE WELL!  The physiology follows the acoustics. Master the acoustics and you command and control, more or less, the physiology. Chase the physiology around and never understand the acoustics of singing, and there will be some break throughs with your voice you will never experience and problems that will never be fixed. 

[Judge MOTW]

Hello maestro, thx for the fast detailed response.

This is a bit vague. What does "vocal maintenance" mean? Vocal health? If you mean vocal health, that is probably a valid consideration.

well i do mean vocal health including warm downs AND recovery acceleration exersices and "potions" that many guys talk about. I know they use that when someone has a vocal injury, but it seems right to me to use just to be able to get back on stage (to the studio) as fast as possible with a fresh voice, after a tiring performance.

Already, addressed in this question.

Training Belt Technique (0 votes [0.00%])

Maestro what i read in many threads was that chest voice can be pulled only to high C for tenors only, so according to you, one (even a baritone like me) can belt a F5 healthily?

Probably because this is a relatively easy thing to discuss and get a handle on, vs high notes.

Maestro extreme low notes lower than E2 are somehow accessible, without vocal fry or growl, yet it's hard to get them to sound as big as i want (like a bass would ). Scales for exemple (from my understanding) start from C3 and above in your training program

Thanx alot

[Jabroni]

Hello maestro, thx for the fast detailed response.

well i do mean vocal health including warm downs AND recovery acceleration exersices and "potions" that many guys talk about. I know they use that when someone has a vocal injury, but it seems right to me to use just to be able to get back on stage (to the studio) as fast as possible with a fresh voice, after a tiring performance.

Maestro what i read in many threads was that chest voice can be pulled only to high C for tenors only, so according to you, one (even a baritone like me) can belt a F5 healthily?

Maestro extreme low notes lower than E2 are somehow accessible, without vocal fry or growl, yet it's hard to get them to sound as big as i want (like a bass would ). Scales for exemple (from my understanding) start from C3 and above in your training program

Thanx alot

 

Just my input, but I would say yes. Bruce Dickinson is a singer who could belt above C5 and he can still do it to this day... in the song The Talisman, he belts D5 during "Westward" (5:28) (skip to 2:30 to get to the high parts):

 

 

And his range:

 

[Jens]

Maestro what i read in many threads was that chest voice can be pulled only to high C for tenors only, so according to you, one (even a baritone like me) can belt a F5 healthily.

Belting an F5 is very extreme, jorn does it in like three diffrent songs, however he's up around E5 more often. Heiman does not belt that much it's more of the rockers screamthing but he's extremly good at it, getting the result you Want is done by training the entire voice. So yes you can learn, but it's not Easy and takes alot of dedication

Cheers

[Robert Lunte]

Belting an F5 is very extreme, jorn does it in like three diffrent songs, however he's up around E5 more often. Heiman does not belt that much it's more of the rockers screamthing but he's extremly good at it, getting the result you Want is done by training the entire voice. So yes you can learn, but it's not Easy and takes alot of dedication

Cheers

 

Agreed... Belting or Pulling M1 up to approximately a C5 is still difficult and requires a lot of training, but more common. An E5, will be a lot more rare... but as I said below... at some point, the physiology and the physics of the acoustics don't really lend themselves all that well for M1 that high anyways... At E5, its a scream... any configuration you give it, its a scream for most people... 

[Judge MOTW]

Jabroni, well that proves that one can belt above C5 healthily (unless bruce is complete freak, I tend to think so sometimes ). Thanx alot for giving that exemple.

Jens, thx for the answer. I've heard few of your videos, and wow, you are a true inspiration. U found that thing Daniel Heiman does I think, could you be more specific about what he does in highlander in 8:33 and 10:30? If this is off topic, pm me to start a new thread about it if you want. Thank you all so much.

[Judge MOTW]

Thx maestro Lunte, for your answer. So is there a way i could get sounds chesty at E5 even in M2. I mean the idea of covering a heady placed sound in m2 could be applied that high? I can vocalise C5s and sometimes D5s sounding chesty and still can't know if it's m1 or m2 covered

[Jens]

It's the same thing that Robert teaches in pillars, so if you dont have a copy it's certainly gonna give you an edge to get it it helped me alot!

 

Heiman has a very specific way to use his vowels with is the key to get to similar sounds, so when you got a good strong foundation you start going towards that direction.

The thing is with a singer like heiman:

1. His headvoice can sound like his chestvoice

2. His chestvoice can sound like his headvoice

So he just gets this superbig onevoice, even if he decides to go hooty falsetto it still has the core of the rest of his voice.

[Judge MOTW]

Yeah Jens I actually think Robert has the best program on the market today, I talked to him in facebook about it and was willing to buy it last week, then had financial problems, so decided to continue my old method "feeling my way through my voice and smart-guessing using teasers" till I can get the money again.

Thanx for the answer

[Judge MOTW]

Heiman has a very specific way to use his vowels with is the key to get to similar sounds, so when you got a good strong foundation you start going towards that direction.

The thing is with a singer like heiman:

1. His headvoice can sound like his chestvoice

2. His chestvoice can sound like his headvoice

The fact that it's related to the use vowels not some natural un-learnable thing gives me hope :D

[Jens]

The fact that it's related to the use vowels not some natural un-learnable thing gives me hope

Well it's alot of work, but it's technique. I can do alot of the things guys like jorn and heiman can do, but there's still alot i cant do hopefully il get more When My technique improves further

cheers

[Judge MOTW]

u made my day. Hope you reach the level you want to reach, you have a great technique already so I can't wait to hear an even improved version of that, that would be as great as it could be

[Robert Lunte]

Thx maestro Lunte, for your answer. So is there a way i could get sounds chesty at E5 even in M2. I mean the idea of covering a heady placed sound in m2 could be applied that high? I can vocalise C5s and sometimes D5s sounding chesty and still can't know if it's m1 or m2 covered

 

 

Thanks for your input Jens... Jens is a great singer and really knows what he is talking about in regards to voice technique. A real professional student of voice technique and extreme singing... and been here at TMV World Forum for years. Check out his YouTube videos, BTW.

 

Judge... FOR SURE!  Yes, you can coordinate and strengthen physical configurations "inside" of an M2/heady position... and sing up into it from below as well. It seems the industry and culture around voice training techniques refers to this kind of approach as, "top-down" training. It may suffice as time goes on to call it "M2 Orientation" training vs "M1 Orientation" training.  Jens is correct when he points out that TVS and "The Four Pillars of Singing" have a lot of "M2 Oriented" training techniques that focus on bridging the passaggio / vocal break, and building strength and coordination from inside an M2 placement. It is very critical training, because it:

 

M2 Orientation Training:

1. Releases the constrictors and stops the "pushing".
2. Trains students how to bridge from M2 to M3 seamlessly and get coordinated for this fundamental movement.
3. Through the work of specialized onsets, (TVS), coordinate specific musculature sequences and contractions that need to be built into the muscle memory of your voice, to enable your M2 notes to configure properly to sound like M1.
4. Learn to appreciate and coordinate a lighter mass phonation, characterized by less vocal fold mass (acoustic overload), possibly less respiration, more TA engagement (less compression), for the purpose of lighter mass singing styles.

M1 Orientation Training:

1. Fundamental for great belting sound colors to make high notes sound more "chesty".
2. Essential for building strong, full vocal mass engagement by strengthening the CT, Arytenoids, the Aryepiglottic sphincter (vocal fold compression / twanging) for the required hyper adduction required for good belting, the tongue and coordinating larynx dampening skills.
3. Endurance and great vocal health.
4. Improving the passaggio bridging challenge because ... M1 oriented training truly takes you to a "one voice" solution and sound.
5. And other great benefits... 

As you can see... both "top-down" and "bottom-up" training techniques are equally important! The trick is to understand and appreciate what the benefits are and reasons' why for either approach. There are some coaches that seem to only advocate "bottom-up", belt training and I maintain that this is risky. Belt training, for most people, is a bit more advanced and needs to be approached only after you have a foundation built that enables you to at least; bridge your vocal break smoothly (even if its a lighter mass), understand how to modify vowels and why, understand the resonant placements & energy in your vocal tract (formant tuning), understand what an "onset" is and how to use them in your training and singing, ... have trained many hours to get the above mentioned details pretty solid... that would include some light belt training as well. However, some people... if they dive right into "bottom-up", belt training as beginners without first training the body to release the voice (constrictors and other nasty habits), they will just end up making their problems worse and get into a shouty, pushy, chokey mess.

 

So... both approaches are equally important, you don't and should not be asked to make a choice... my advise is... if your a beginner or have problems with constricting and you can't bridge yet, work on "top-down" techniques for a while to get coordinated, then migrate to including the "bottom-up" techniques to your routines. 

 

Jens and others tend to "kinda"... perceive TVS and "The Four Pillars of Singing" as strong in "Top-Down" training ideas. That is because quite simply, a lot of my older students have the older versions of "Pillars". But I want to be very clear, as the video below and many more to be published in a few days point out, TVS and "The Four Pillars of Singing" now offers a full and comprehensive set of videos, lectures, routines and content for "bottom-up" / Belt training. Lately, I have not only been teaching it to all my teachers and students, and getting amazing results, but Im working a lot on it for my own voice... and getting amazing results.

 

"The Four Pillars of Singing" is a program where you don't have to make a choice. It is a program that offers you BOTH M1 and M2 oriented training techniques and content. So regardless of what your needs are and your level of experience, you will have everything you need to get progress, quickly.  I hope this helps.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kbrqXJrduw

[Robert Lunte]

Just my input, but I would say yes. Bruce Dickinson is a singer who could belt above C5 and he can still do it to this day... in the song The Talisman, he belts D5 during "Westward" (5:28) (skip to 2:30 to get to the high parts):

 

 

And his range:

 

 

Love Bruce Dickinson. I was majority influenced by him all my life... a great belter. My favorite Iron Maiden recordings of Bruce are "Number of the Beast", Stranger in a Strange Land"... and his best album with IM, "Piece of Mind". But Bruce Dickinson's solo albums are even more impressive in some ways... check out the tracks on the album, "Chemical Wedding"... great belting. Dickinson is a guy that never lost his voice... he has stayed in great shape through the years. 

 

[VideoHere]

Hi Judge,

 

All of these folks are giving you great advice, I just wanted to say from my experience that so much of belting or taking full voice up high has to do with how you breathe and control your exhalation. I find, as I try to improve year after year so much has to do with not bombarding the vocal folds with too much air, yet you still have provide them with the required air pressure for the note.

 

So you need to power them, for let's say a solid C5, you're up there and the folds are thin and taut (and vulnerable) and at the same time not overpower them (which is easy to do).....fun, fun, fun

[ronws]

Hi Judge,

 

All of these folks are giving you great advice, I just wanted to say from my experience that so much of belting or taking full voice up high has to do with how you breathe and control your exhalation. I find, as I try to improve year after year so much has to do with not bombarding the vocal folds with too much air, yet you still have provide them with the required air pressure for the note.

 

So you need to power them, for let's say a solid C5, you're up there and the folds are thin and taut (and vulnerable) and at the same time not overpower them (which is easy to do).....fun, fun, fun

Amen, and amen, brother Bob.

[Jabroni]

Love Bruce Dickinson. I was majority influenced by him all my life... a great belter. My favorite Iron Maiden recordings of Bruce are "Number of the Beast", Stranger in a Strange Land"... and his best album with IM, "Piece of Mind". But Bruce Dickinson's solo albums are even more impressive in some ways... check out the tracks on the album, "Chemical Wedding"... great belting. Dickinson is a guy that never lost his voice... he has stayed in great shape through the years. 

 

 

Rob, those are all great albums! One of his best performances is "Where Eagles Dare"... that E5 at the end is pure awesomeness.

 

Also, I have "The Chemical Wedding" album as well as the "Accident of Birth" album, 2 really great solo albums by him.

 

Here are a couple more great solo songs by Bruce:

 

 

[KillerKu]

For me number one is probably none of the above. I think the number one most important thing for me may be an artist may be finding timbre(s) that works stylistically for a given artist in their art form with enough control to utilize.

 

Like Johnny Cash. Never heard him bridge, never heard high notes, but he trained an aesthetically appealing timbre that had enough freedom to express his given artistic intentions.

 

Most of these other goals, seem like they would be be secondary goals for me. Sure Johnny Cash likely expanded his range within the context that fit his desired artistic platform, but he started with a timbre that 'worked' for his artistry, and applied pitch to it, rather than seeking pitch, and attempting to force a timbre that worked for his artistry in reverse.

 

If Johnny Cash started with goals of hitting a C5, it may simply not be right and could prove more of a barrier or distraction from his choices in arts. So yeah, I think there is potential value in thinking about what timbres you want to use in music, and then think about what pitches would fit this context, rather than vice versa. Not every timbre works on every pitch.

[Jens]

For me number one is probably none of the above. I think the number one most important thing for me may be an artist may be finding timbre(s) that works stylistically for a given artist in their art form with enough control to utilize.

 

Like Johnny Cash. Never heard him bridge, never heard high notes, but he trained an aesthetically appealing timbre that had enough freedom to express his given artistic intentions.

 

Most of these other goals, seem like they would be be secondary goals for me. Sure Johnny Cash likely expanded his range within the context that fit his desired artistic platform, but he started with a timbre that 'worked' for his artistry, and applied pitch to it, rather than seeking pitch, and attempting to force a timbre that worked for his artistry in reverse.

 

If Johnny Cash started with goals of hitting a C5, it may simply not be right and could prove more of a barrier or distraction from his choices in arts. So yeah, I think there is potential value in thinking about what timbres you want to use in music, and then think about what pitches would fit this context, rather than vice versa. Not every timbre works on every pitch.

But thats what we are discussing, a majority of people want a big range to be able to express Their musical emotions. The ones that want the Johnny cash thing will ofc search for people that can teach that.

The moment we start trying to get the students away from their personal goals is When we invade on the musical expression

[KillerKu]

But thats what we are discussing, a majority of people want a big range to be able to express Their musical emotions. The ones that want the Johnny cash thing will ofc search for people that can teach that.

The moment we start trying to get the students away from their personal goals is When we invade on the musical expression

 

But certain tones are likely physically impossible at certain pitches. People can instead research what tones have historically been possible at certain pitches, and look for realistic goals in who can help them achieve them those tones at specific pitches. Then they could compare and contrast whether that suits their musical aspirations from a more educated standpoint.

 

You can focus on range alone, but you might end up with a misinformed idea of what you could achieve than if you consider what tones have been historically achieved within those ranges. If someone has more information on they want out of their voice, they can make a more informed decision on what to pursue. If you just throw away any concept of what you want to sound like, of course anyone can promise you X note. I think it is useful for people to step back and think of what they want to sound like first rather than assume they could force any tone into any pitch.

 

If Johnny Cash thought he could sound booming, warm, relaxed, commanding, rich, and 'and sound like like Johnny Cash to the average listener at a powerful D5', maybe he would have invested his time into seeking a D5s rather than writing and singing songs. But if he realized, ok, I probably could hit a strong D5 'of some kind', but it will likely sound a lot 'different' from the strong identity of the voice he was currently pursuing, he might just say eff it and do, what he did.

 

There's a good chance if radio listeners heard Johnny Cash belting A4 through D5 with advanced singing technique, they wouldn't even know who he was. Even his biggest fans would likely be completely lost.  In that range, he probably wouldn't sound like the Johnny Cash people already know, as the mechanisms in place to achieve this sound are so vastly different he'd have to change huge elements of his vocal tract into something unrecognizable to achieve them. It could severely impact album sales too. Damage his identity as an artist to fans. So if people like and want the sounds a certain technique can achieve in a certain range, learn it. If people only care about range or are aware about potential tonal limitations in certain ranges, go for it.  But if you think you can maintain a timbre on any note, it would be misleading.

[Jens]

But certain tones are likely physically impossible at certain pitches. People can instead research what tones have historically been possible at certain pitches, and look for realistic goals in who can help them achieve them those tones at specific pitches. Then they could compare and contrast whether that suits their musical aspirations from a more educated standpoint.

 

You can focus on range alone, but you might end up with a misinformed idea of what you could achieve than if you consider what tones have been historically achieved within those ranges. If someone has more information on they want out of their voice, they can make a more informed decision on what to pursue. If you just throw away any concept of what you want to sound like, of course anyone can promise you X note. I think it is useful for people to step back and think of what they want to sound like first rather than assume they could force any tone into any pitch.

 

If Johnny Cash thought he could sound booming, warm, relaxed, commanding, rich, and 'and sound like like Johnny Cash to the average listener at a powerful D5', maybe he would have invested his time into seeking a D5s rather than writing and singing songs. But if he realized, ok, I probably could hit a strong D5 'of some kind', but it will likely sound a lot 'different' from the strong identity of the voice he was currently pursuing, he might just say eff it and do, what he did.

 

There's a good chance if radio listeners heard Johnny Cash belting A4 through D5 with advanced singing technique, they wouldn't even know who he was. Even his biggest fans would likely be completely lost.  In that range, he probably wouldn't sound like the Johnny Cash people already know, as the mechanisms in place to achieve this sound are so vastly different he'd have to change huge elements of his vocal tract into something unrecognizable to achieve them. It could severely impact album sales too. Damage his identity as an artist to fans. So if people like and want the sounds a certain technique can achieve in a certain range, learn it. If people only care about range or are aware about potential tonal limitations in certain ranges, go for it.  But if you think you can maintain a timbre on any note, it would be misleading.

Thats the thing we Will never know... He might aswell sound exactly the same up on d5, but me id rather find out what how i sound When im up on d5 then not.

I can hit D5 in the same way as i do my lower notes, and with good technique and dedication most people will be able to.

I dont agree you should form your voice after things thats not possible, but rather practice technique and i promise you Will be able to do things you didnt think was possible.

What limits you is your skill, get better you get more choices and are able to improve more things.

[KillerKu]

Thats the thing we Will never know... He might aswell sound exactly the same up on d5, but me id rather find out what how i sound When im up on d5 then not.

I can hit D5 in the same way as i do my lower notes, and with good technique and dedication most people will be able to.

I dont agree you should form your voice after things thats not possible, but rather practice technique and i promise you Will be able to do things you didnt think was possible.

What limits you is your skill, get better you get more choices and are able to improve more things.

 

If you noticed, I never told you what you should do. I said the most important thing is for a student to think about the tone they want (if any), and for a teacher to be able to ask them what kind of vocal use they're interested in (be it a style, like opera, pop, metal, soul, or their own idea of what they want to achieve), and then go from there. You've concluded it 'doesn't matter to you if it sounds similar or not' which still fits into my framework so long as you've considered this issue first.

 

On the contrary, you told me what to do. Which is focus on improving my singing technique to achieve goals I may not want? See how that works?

 

And I really doubt Johnny could sing Ring of Fire using D5 with remotely the same emotional expression in his art sounding like Johnny to his current fans. I doubt anyone would recognize him even oif he did already figure out how, recorded it, and has already released it anonymously.  It's just physiology. The voice is an anatomical device that when used certain ways, does certain things. You can't use the voice the same way on a D5 as a D2. That's pretty much denial.

 

If someone measured your throat anatomically, it would have vastly different coordination, of fold length, tension, fold repetitions (frequency), muscular activations, and so forth, and likely your tract would be altered in various ways. If you want to go to an ENT and sing both notes with the same technique, you can prove me wrong on a video and with confirmation from a trained ENT. I know Cathrine Sadolin and Joe Estill have put a lot of research into these subjects. I've been to ENTS myself and seen my own folds in action.

 

Technique is anatomical usage of the body. In order for sound to change, anatomy has to change. That's how science works. Sound is physically produced and physically measurable. Choosing to invest in a timbre that is desirable (and known to be achievable) for an artform rather than trying to force a potentially impossible anatomical coordination to acheive a specific note with a specific timbre, is a really good option to have on the table for any singer. It's valuable to think about how known and achievable certain sounds are, and figuring out where they fit into your roadmap.

[Jens]

The problem is it's sounds, what happens mechaniqly does not matter what matters is how IT sounds like. if your bottom notes sound like your topnotes that what counts.

Thats what the audience hears... Just browse around this forum Young find many guys singing D5 sounding the same like one big voice

what Johnny cash could or could not do is speculation.