Tag Archive for mix

Brian Lee | March 18, 2012
2 comments

What’s the point of falsetto?

On a singers board recently, my advice to a tenor with squeezing and pushing problems that he needs to work with falsetto exercises has met with a lot of resistance. What I heard from a couple of other tenors (I am also a tenor) was that they found no use for falsetto exercises and that they developed their head voice without them. One called falsetto a “dead end”. Apparently he was making falsetto sounds without any idea of their purpose in the big picture. After several more anti-falsetto posts, I realized that in these cases, there had been no explanation of what training purpose falsetto vocalizing can serve.

To give a little bit of context, I’d say that my work with falsetto exercises comprises about 2 minutes of a typical male’s voice lesson, and is followed up by coordinative (full-voice) exercises.

“What does falsetto contribute if we don’t actually perform with it?” is the question. The cricothyroid group of muscles (CTs) which stretch the folds to create pitch are easily overpowered by the thyroarytenoid group (TAs) which bring the folds together to make the “full voice” sound, especially in men. A separated, uncoordinated, operatically-useless falsetto allows pitch-making to happening without stress. With the TAs out of the way, the CTs are able to contract and release without interference. We thus send signals to the body that pitch-making is a function of the voice that CAN happen without force.

Look at sprinters getting ready to start a race. So many rituals of stretching, loosening, setting their feet and arms just so – they don’t run with stretching and loosening movements, but they feel that those help them with “the real deal”. Falsetto and lip trills are like that – two of many possible types of vocal activities that are used for training, and not used for performance.

I was in a dressing room once with another tenor who was making awful sounds. I asked him what he was doing and he said “It’s a falsetto warmup from Cornelius Reid”. It was nothing like the falsetto exercises I learned from a Reid teacher, and he had no idea what to do with it. There are a lot of flavors of falsetto. The ones that help open the throat and lead to easier pitch-making in real, full-voiced singing have to be demonstrated, and the student and teacher have to understand why they’re doing it, or they shouldn’t do it.

Category: featured, registration | Tags: , ,
Brian Lee | April 7, 2011
No comments

But what about "middle voice"?

If we stick with Garcia’s definition of “register” as tones following a similar mechanical principle, then we have the chest (thyroarytenoid dominant) and the falsetto (cricothyroid-dominant), and that middle area that gets all kinds of names is where they dance. Sometimes one leads, sometimes the other does. Each can go to the other’s neighborhoods, but they should take the native along as an escort.
People who do not have a smooth register coordination in the passaggio can learn to hide it with various mechanical and/or resonance strategies, the depressed larynx being one of the ones most used in classical singing. In other styles, or depending on the personality, singers sometimes just let abrupt transitions be part of their singing. But those who have a smooth middle to their voices are dealing with coordinating two main muscular subsystems in the voice, not creating new muscle systems.
I try to be very careful to use the word “middle” by itself or with the word “range” and never with the words “voice” or “register” because that would mess up the idea of registration as I try to convey it. “Middle register” or “Mix register” don’t make sense to me. “Mixing” is a thing we DO with our two registers, not a container that we pour the voice into. “Middle” is the PLACE where it usually happens.
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,
Brian Lee | August 18, 2010
One comment

CCM Institute Report

The CCM Vocal Pedagogy Institute was fantastic. It exceeded my happiest expectations. I took all three units and got my certification, and am using what I’ve learned in my studio and in my practicing to great effect. It was the first formal vocal pedagogy course I’ve taken, and what a start! Jeannette Lovetri is a master teacher and her fellow faculty members also did a great job.

The main things I got out of this were:
- A structure for the lesson. A way to think about and implement the idea of a flow to the lesson that takes into account the student’s vocal and psychological needs.
- Many examples of Jeanie teaching students which showed a very different approach to both the particulars and the overall feel of a voice lesson. Her way of following “branching logic” to offer exercises particular to that student’s needs was very helpful.
- Supervised teaching experiences that helped with how to implement a Somatic Voicework(tm) approach.
- An opportunity to be a masterclass student where Jeanie took me through the steps of how to connect to a song in a more personal way and enable a classically inhibited singer such as myself to develop a much more jazzy approach to a tune that begs for that treatment. I offered “Stardust” and told her that I felt awkward with it and wanted to make it “more jazzy”. It was a fantastic and helpful lesson that had me sounding like a very different singer.
- Some helpful additional exercises and teaching tips for specific purposes.
- Much useful information from various professionals in the areas of vocal health and Broadway career coaching.
- Met many extraordinary teachers, singers, students and PEOPLE. It was such a cooperative, loving experience. So different from most events involving singing teachers! I had so much fun in and out of class with these wonderful new friends.

All of the faculty sang on the faculty recital and most displayed their crossover capabilities in contrasting selections. Kathryn Green’s Faure song followed by her gospel-style number were gripping! Jeanie sang a lovely Mozart aria plus Cole Porter’s Ballad of the Oyster.

This training is enriching my teaching and my singing. The functional approach is right up my alley, and this was a wonderful way to grow further in that direction as a teacher and student of singing.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,
Brian Lee | December 28, 2009
3 comments

On the “mix” needed for some nonclassical styles of singing

First: Laryngeal height

The way to balance a voice has often been described as a “balancing act” between the “stretcher muscles” (cricothyroid) and the “closer muscles” (mostly thyroarytenoid). This is a handy two-dimensional model, but the larynx, being a physical thing, has a third dimension, or it wouldn’t be a physical object. This other dimension of the larynx is the level of suspension, or “altitude” in the throat. The suspension of the larynx makes a big difference in the tonal quality of the voice.

When people put on a fakey “opera voice” they yank their larynxes very low, to emphasize the darkness we associate with that kind of singing. When people want to portray an annoying or whiny sound, they will often pull the larynx up. Now, these people are not saying “I shall now lower my larynx 1 cm”. They just do it! As singers in any genre we have to find the ways to “just do it” to get the right vocal style for the music we are singing. Consciously manipulating the laryngeal height because we know that that is one of the characteristics of good singing is not effective because other factors are at work, and altering one thing can mess up things that are not mechanically adjustable.

Second: Vowel Choices

Besides laryngeal suspension, the concept of vowel is crucial. Some vowels are possible with a lowered larynx, others with a higher larynx, some with both. The vowel “flavors” that we pick are a key element in singing in the correct style. The same vowel can have versions that are bright, dark, speechy, optimally resonant, etc. For certain effects on particular notes we can go beyond the norm for that style, if we want. But first, we must develop the main vowel vocabulary of the style.

Third: How to train

How then, are we to train to coordinate the chest with the head voice in order to produce the right “mix” for the music we want to sing? We must find the patterns of vowel, pitch, and intensity, delivered with effective rhythmic ideas, that will allow new responses to happen. This is very much the sort of thing that Cornelius Reid says in his writings on the subject. He was more geared toward classical singing, where acoustic volume is optimized, but the principles are the same for all singers. Conceiving of vowel, pitch, and intensity is much more effective than mechanical manipulation of larynx height and oropharyngeal shape because so much of the “action” happens at a subconscious level. The body responds to what’s needed in a more optimal way than mechanistically moving certain body parts can do.

With many women, I find that the lack of clarity about what chest voice is, to be a hurdle. It is the thyroarytenoids’ function to add clarity, brilliance, and volume to the entire voice. As we descend below the staff, however, where the pitch-making stretch of the cricothyroids is minimal, we start to encounter what some call “raw chest”. I like to explore this thoroughly, by insisting on it being big and bold. Downward scales with crescendo often lead to breaking through to a large, primal sound that can be taken WAY down. This is worth exploring because it often shows the singer that her low singing was previously rather “heady” after all. Full engagement of chest is what we’re after. This is our basis, and our source of power. It is the base of the pyramid. I call it the “Earth Mother (or Mama) Voice”. It is from this voice that we start to “mix in” head voice function.

I don’t think one can teach singing via writing, but what this means in terms of exercises is that with all women I start arpeggios rather low, and make sure that most of them bridge over the break area. We make them break (yodel), and we make them smooth (coordinate) by any means necessary in the beginning, and build the strength to have options from that point. Knowing how to coordinate and how not to coordinate is crucial for having lots of options available. Reduced volume levels are usually one very helpful adaptation to getting the first “mix” happening. So-called “closed vowels” can help too. More detail than that would be foolish to give here.

What emerges is that “beltier” styles may require a larynx that is suspended slightly higher than for classical styles, but the key point is that the larynx height does NOT change for pitch change. Wherever the base height is for a particular vowel, that is where it needs to stay throughout the range.

It should be noted that during the training, I don’t mind if the singer is actually still performing, as long as I am sure that she is not hurting herself. It is perfectly possible and enjoyable to continue singing while there is still a definite “break” in the voice. Some people make careers out of playing with this break (Whitney Houston comes to mind). There are times in a tune where the break can be a perfectly useful express device. It is what the voice wants to do after all. It is when we go against nature (as in straining or hurting) that we get into trouble.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,
Brian Lee | November 22, 2009
4 comments

Legit and non-legit

These are styles, not physiological phenomena. There may be common tendencies in the technical approaches to some songs in some styles, but there are not hard and fast rules. An attempt to try to describe belt as “constricted” reflects a misunderstanding of what an ideal performance of a belt song would sound like. Judy Garland and Ethel Merman and Kate Smith had open throats and clear diction and options available to them that screamers do not have.

Why do I say this? Because the Mid-Atlantic region of the National Association of Teachers of Singing, published the passage below as guidance in helping teachers choose rep for their students to sing in the Musical Theatre division of the NATS Student auditions:

Scientific Characteristics of each style:
OPERA: Moderate subglottic pressure and glottal adduction, moderate jaw opening,
lowered larynx, peak glottal permittance, short closed phase, good visibility
of folds, strong fundamental, strong singer’s formant.
MIXED: Moderate subglottal pressure, moderate glottal adduction, wider jaw opening,
slightly raised larynx, second formant highest (but first was present,) side walls
of pharynx slightly advanced, folds less visible, singer’s formant present.
BELT: 10 decibels louder, high subglottic pressure, high glottal adduction, widest jaw
opening, raised larynx, side walls very advanced, sinus piriform small, no
fundamental, long closed phase, folds almost hidden, low singer’s formant.
TRANSLATION
OPERA: Moderate breath pressure and folds touching loosely, mouth open small amount,
throat relaxed and open, larynx low, “ring” in sound.
MIXED: Moderate breath pressure, folds pressed together some, mouth moderately open, throat slightly constricted, larynx slightly raised, “ring” present but less than in opera.
BELT: High breath pressure and volume, folds pressed tightly together, mouth wide open, larynx raised, throat very constricted, no amplification of pitch being sung,
no “ring”.

complete document available here:

http://www.scnats.org/auditions/pdf/Music_Theatre_Category_Revisions_Information_for_NATS_members_for_website_2008.pdf

If belt numbers were always performed with the “scientific characteristics” attributed to the “belt” section above, I would hate them all. But this is not how good singers in any genre sing! This description of “belt” blurs the distinction between technique and style, and comes off as condescending to those who sing “nonlegit” rep.

I do not think it is wrong for NATS to change the rules to try to level the playing field a bit and require one legit and one nonlegit song for all the MT audtionees, but if they are expecting students to sing the “belt” numbers with a “very constricted” technique, why bother making this change? I am in discussion with some NATS folks and hope to get clarification on this. It seems that the problem is that they are afraid to use the terms legit and nonlegit or belt in the category descriptions and have painted themselves into an embarrassing corner with the “scientific” descriptions of the differences.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,