|
|
Post by mushymarionette on Sept 25, 2024 15:53:44 GMT
C5-C5
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Sept 25, 2024 19:47:48 GMT
No, i'm not. I've specified exactly the opposite in my previous post (that your description of my 'focus' is what people generally do, and that is helpful pragmatically, but is incorrect). Not sure how that was lost. Unsure how to respond to you claiming something about my own voice, but all good mate :) Passaggi at G4/C5 is impossible if you're a male singer with a normal voice. D4/G4 is already a high tenor. Earlier in this thread you claimed to have sung A1 in chest voice, which is impossible for any singer with soprano passaggi - including Bruno de Sa. Again, not at all sure how to respond to this but to say "no". And I shall leave it there, other than to note I do not claim to have an A1. It's happened twice, unexpectedly, and I can't even guarantee it was chest (but, I am literally unable to fry below like F2 so, seems sus to claim it is fry, so I haven't). |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Sept 26, 2024 5:21:09 GMT
amadeusd that makes no sense to me. Maybe it would if you posted some clips. ed twice, unexpectedly, and I can't even guarantee it was chest (but, I am literally unable to fry below like F2 so, seems sus to claim it is fry, so I haven't). Depends which you're referring to, but I would assume you're talking about the A1, which I wouldn't claim, or be able to get a clip of as both times it's happened, it's been entirely unexpected. I can try if you like, though. Not sure if you're in the Discord but plenty of clips there (only down to B1, though). If you mean the fry problem, yes, it makes no sense and is likely a result of my never wanting to fry to get low, so never did, and now have no 'muscle memory' for it. I can fry down to F2 (maybe E if i really push it). Otherwise, I'm stuck to chest notes LOL. Which is a shame, as fry G#1s are fun. I wouldn't count it in my range, but it would be fun. |
|
jwo
Vocal Novice
Offline
Posts: 11
Likes: 4
Join Date: February 2023
|
Post by jwo on Oct 2, 2024 22:20:09 GMT
This is something I wrote and sang years ago when my technique was very poor. I'm trying to work out whether the A4 at 2:25 is mixed or head voice, I had no idea at the time and I have no idea now but I'd like to get that sound again if I can. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ZffOwvI1A |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 3, 2024 18:42:07 GMT
This is something I wrote and sang years ago when my technique was very poor. I'm trying to work out whether the A4 at 2:25 is mixed or head voice, I had no idea at the time and I have no idea now but I'd like to get that sound again if I can. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ZffOwvI1ASounds like chest voice to me. Mixed in the sense that it's way over your primo passaggio. Unrelated to this post, but I'm picking up here that your conception of passgios includes 'middle voice'? That makes sense of what you've said earlier.. Is that the case? I don't consider there is any passagio between chest, middle and upper middle by anything but name. There does not appear ot be anything to support the idea that there's any mechanical change whatsoever. Perhaps a slight difference in resonance due to cord placement, but nought else in the lit that I've ever seen.. That would also seem to suppose that M1/M2 'overlap' which also seems counter to the physical reality of those mechanisms... Resonances overlap, but that doesn't seem to be anything which could indicate a 'register' switch allowing for a 'passagio' at that tonal threshold.. |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 4, 2024 6:22:22 GMT
According to your way of thinking :
Here are the register ranges offered by Richard Miller for a lyric tenor:
Strohbass – G2 to C3
Chest – C3 to G3
Middle (or mixed) – G3 to G4
Lower Middle – G3 to D4
Upper Middle – D4 to G4
Head – G4 to C5
Falsetto – C5 to G5
Here's the zona di passaggio according to the same person :
Tenore lirico:
Primo passaggio – D4
Secondo passaggio – G4
The voice doesn't automatically switch from one register to an other just because it reaches some note. My voice starts to want to go over into the M2 register from C#4 and moreso at F#4, but because I have trained my voice I can easily continue upwards in M1, and also push it into octave 5. Likewise, when singing in M2 my voice wants to go over into M1 at F#4 and moreso from C4, but I can continue in M2 downwards from C4, but it's not very useful.
These are fundamental registers, in addition to the M0 register which Miller calls "strohbass". Any tenor is able to take M1 further down than C3, so that zone seems to represent where Miller thinks it would be useful for that singer to switch. Likewise, anyone can take M0 further down than G2, but there will be a gradual loss of quality until there is just clicking sounds and no tone.
C5 seems to be where Miller thinks that the lyric tenor should switch over into the M2 register. Which means that what he calls "head" is really M1 being taken above the secondo passaggio. And G5 is as high as Miller thinks he should sing in M2, which doesn't mean that that singer cannot go even higher. The result is the typical operatic tenor range of C3-C5 where the lyric tenor is supposed to sing in the M1 register. (Which is not what operatic tenors did 250 years ago, they used to sing falsetto in upper octave 4 before the early 1800s).
What Miller calls "chest" refers to an absolutely pure chest voice. I can feel a very small shift going on somewhere in that area, but the zona di passaggio is more interesting because this is where the voice naturally wants to switch between the M1 and M2 registers, and is therefore difficult to negotiate properly.
Here's a demonstration that I made right now, where I sing in M1 from A3-A4 then in M2 from A4-A3. Can you tell the difference?
|
|
jwo
Vocal Novice
Offline
Posts: 11
Likes: 4
Join Date: February 2023
|
Post by jwo on Oct 5, 2024 18:03:56 GMT
This is something I wrote and sang years ago when my technique was very poor. I'm trying to work out whether the A4 at 2:25 is mixed or head voice, I had no idea at the time and I have no idea now but I'd like to get that sound again if I can. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ZffOwvI1ASounds like chest voice to me. Mixed in the sense that it's way over your primo passaggio. Thank you - so just a strained shout then really! |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 5, 2024 18:40:46 GMT
Sounds like chest voice to me. Mixed in the sense that it's way over your primo passaggio. Thank you - so just a strained shout then really! I don't think it was as bad as that. At A4 you're bound to be somewhere over your passaggi. "Head" in terms of Richard Miller's fine grained system. |
|
jwo
Vocal Novice
Offline
Posts: 11
Likes: 4
Join Date: February 2023
|
Post by jwo on Oct 6, 2024 21:53:38 GMT
Thank you - so just a strained shout then really! I don't think it was as bad as that. At A4 you're bound to be somewhere over your passaggi. "Head" in terms of Richard Miller's fine grained system. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 7, 2024 0:31:53 GMT
offered by Richard Miller Preamble: We're not going to agree. I've been through a bunch of your discussions and it's not likely we're speaking the same language, or are trying to ascertain the same thing. That said: (read from the quote about Miller's 'offerings') Which are hotly debated, do not rely on any empirical data regarding registers and seem to rely on role-inferences. More later... Basically, not a good metric at all. Miller's system doesn't at all do what we're trying to do here. It is a vague 'I think this' from one guy who is erroneously assigning register changes to feelings instead of actual register changes. There is no passagio anywhere between my C4 and A4. That's simply the facts of my voice. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I can make it break anywhere above Eb4 to get a softer (or harsher) sound, but there is absolutely no need until about A4. "Head" in terms of Richard Miller's fine grained system. Which should show you, quite clearly, that his system is incoherent. He comes from a school that doesn't seem to think people can do things outside of what's written for them, and that what's written represents the limits of one's voice. The result is the typical operatic tenor range of C3-C5 where the lyric tenor is supposed to sing And adding this mess of parochial claim to the mix, we can see, clearly, with no real debate, that his system is intended to classify roles. Not voices. Acknowledging that, unless relying on roles sung, categorising voices is fraught, and often impossible (i've variously been given 'bass' 'baritone' and 'tenor' by different (well-trained) singing instructors, as would many voices), Miller's system should be focusing on that. This is most likely why it hasn't been taken up or agreed upon. It's just the most thorough treatment. He talks about voices as though every Soprano/Tenor/Bass etc.. is biologically identical lol. It's an extremely immature system, in this sense. Edit: Sorry,. I entirely missed commenting on your clip; The first note is chest voice. The next is what Miller would call 'middle', or what hte forum calls 'mixed' and the top two notes are pure head voice. On this reading, you're illustrating that the 'primo passagio' would be around a G#4 for you as this is where you slipped into head voice? Otherwise, I don't know what you're even talking about - two chest registers or something? odd stuff. All the notes in the second run are falsetto. What are you suggesting this says about our discussion? It says nothing, prima facie. We're not talking about falsetto at all. |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 7, 2024 6:16:53 GMT
I can sing the F#4 inside the zona di passaggio, but I didn't in that clip. That note is optional for me in terms of how I sing it. So the F#4, G#4 and A4 are sung in the zone that Richard Miller refers to as "Head". The A3 isn't absolutely pure chest voice, but it may be a tiny bit more pure than the B3. C#4 is where I'm inside the zona di passaggio.
The A3-A4 scale is fundamentally all chest voice being naturally thinned out from the primo passaggio and on. Just the way that Miller intends for the singer in his example to sing all the way up to C5. For me it's sufficient to know which fundamental register I'm in, and where I am in relation to my passaggi. There's also an acoustic shift point in the M2 range that matters, for me it's found between B4 and C5.
Regarding the M2 part, E4 feels about as natural to sing in falsetto as G4, but going further down than C4 takes a bit of an effort, the primo passaggio (and below) is decriptive of where the voice doesn't find choosing between registers to be optional any longer. Male singers typically don't go there, but operatic sopranos often go as low as where they are still in control, to maximize the head voice (M2) part of their range. To somewhere corresponding to my taking it down to A3.
If you think that your voice is fundamentally different from everyone else's voices at the biological level and that you can be a bass or a tenor as you choose, then all power to you. Singing in fry voice and in "mixed voice" without the vocal coach noticing may however help with confusing that person, if you're good at it. Historically "mixed voice" refers to modifying falsetto by way of the TA muscle in the throat so that it sounds more like chest voice. Female singers and high tenors often use this technique to even out the sound as they traverse the area around and above where they typically choose to switch between registers, it works well for singers with a naturally brighter timbre.
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 7, 2024 19:00:51 GMT
I can sing the F#4 inside the zona di passaggio, but I didn't in that clip. That note is optional for me in terms of how I sing it. So the F#4, G#4 and A4 are sung in the zone that Richard Miller refers to as "Head". The A3 isn't absolutely pure chest voice, but it may be a tiny bit more pure than the B3. C#4 is where I'm inside the zona di passaggio. The A3-A4 scale is fundamentally all chest voice being naturally thinned out from the primo passaggio and on. Just the way that Miller intends for the singer in his example to sing all the way up to C5. For me it's sufficient to know which fundamental register I'm in, and where I am in relation to my passaggi. There's also an acoustic shift point in the M2 range that matters, for me it's found between B4 and C5. Regarding the M2 part, E4 feels about as natural to sing in falsetto as G4, but going further down than C4 takes a bit of an effort, the primo passaggio (and below) is decriptive of where the voice doesn't find choosing between registers to be optional any longer. Male singers typically don't go there, but operatic sopranos often go as low as where they are still in control, to maximize the head voice (M2) part of their range. To somewhere corresponding to my taking it down to A3. If you think that your voice is fundamentally different from everyone else's voices at the biological level and that you can be a bass or a tenor as you choose, then all power to you. Singing in fry voice and in "mixed voice" without the vocal coach noticing may however help with confusing that person, if you're good at it. Historically "mixed voice" refers to modifying falsetto by way of the TA muscle in the throat so that it sounds more like chest voice. Female singers and high tenors often use this technique to even out the sound as they traverse the area around and above where they typically choose to switch between registers, it works well for singers with a naturally brighter timbre. I'll give responses to each paragraph, as they're fairly well-contained: 1. You're conflating mechanism and tone. This explains why almost everything you've said about where these notes lie in relation to certain register changes doesn't make any sense at all. Your descriptions using the mechanisms betrays your claims using the 'register' terms like 'head'. I simply think you are plainly wrong here. 2. I think you're playing hide the ball. Nothing here is relevant to our disagreement - it's just some discussion of other things. That said, I have noticed a complete new claim, that betrays several others: primo passagio is somehow related to where you are unable to use falsetto, v where you can use falsetto (i.e where I've noted I could use falsetto down to about Eb4). Preposterous. 3. A. I don't think you're reading my posts, if this is your response. I have been classified by trained vocal coaches variously as bass, baritone and tenor because I can sing those roles, as far as they are concerned. Nothing to do with what i think. Feel like you're purposely missing a lot of context for things i've said here...Funnily enough, you have (almost literally) used my own argument from biology to make an opposite, but less clear objection. I'm not sure you're being particularly intellectually honest here.. B. I think perhaps you should stop projecting your own limitations on others. I can, passably, sing bass roles, baritone roles, and tenor roles. Simple. Not great at any of them as I'm chorally trained (and years ago) rather than operatically trained, but there you go. Solid down to D2(chest), solid up to C5(head/mixed depending on definition). That's simply a fact you either need to swallow, or call me a liar. I am, however, a very obvious middling baritone if you want to simply place my voice on a spectrum, and cut it into three (i.e tenor, baritone, bass) statistically. The idea that i would "trick" someone into classifying my voice is honestly mildly insulting, given it seems to be ad hominem. C. As far as I know, no it doesn't. And it doesn't mean that today, either. Mixed refers to softer, upper modal voice. An extremely salient example is Steve Balsamo getting hte first G4 in Gethsemane. "Take this cup away from me". Nothing to do with falsetto. However, if you're one of those who, for whatever reason, thinks falsetto is a 'tone' of head voice (empirically wrong) then this makes more sense and we're probably talking about the same thing, but it seems you're not running those terms together elsewhere, so I think not - just wrong. I will say, though, it seems like you're switching hte terms out when it suits (falsetto in that clip should have been head voice to make the point you wanted to make - and in the first run, you did. It just happened to be the point I was making. The second run didn't have anythign to do with the discussion). I don't want to get into a pissing match here, so I'll just say you appear to be wrong almost across the board. Voices are all different, is there is no absolute limit for any passagio besides the physical limitations of what vocal cords can do, and where pitches can resonate. An overly-academic attempt to classify voices will just, as seems to be the case here, ignore all evidence to the contrary because in practice, theory falls apart. This seems most clear when you look at the literature on modal voices and falsetto voice in males. From another thread (the context is not relevant to us here, but hte references clearly indicate much of what I'm claiming from an empirical standpoint): Jul 8, 2024 13:50:54 GMT 13 Bink said:
Because it's not, and never has been. Even if you look online for like lessons on how to active your falsetto, you can see that it really is just a subset of head voice. And we've been applying this to TRP for quite a while now.My reply: *grits teeth harder* This is simply not true on a physical level. They are physically different registers engaging your larynx differently. So does whistle. This can be relatively easily illustrated to one's self. There's a reason singers who can't use their head voice can use falsetto.. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0892199788800717karger.com/fpl/article-abstract/24/1/19/139391/The-Male-Operatic-Head-Register-versus-Falsetto?redirectedFrom=PDFwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1484948/?page=26www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0892199720304860www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14015430902879918I would recommend very, very strongly against taking internet voice teachers seriously. |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 7, 2024 19:33:27 GMT
I said no such thing. I said that it takes an effort to go lower than the primo passaggio, in my case from C4 and downwards. For me going down to C3 and lower is no problem, but volume fades and there isn't much point in the artistic sense.
First you claimed to have your primo passaggio at G4, later you claimed that you have no passaggi between C4 and A4. You also claimed to have a reproducible B1 in chest voice and at the same time being unable to sing in fry voice below F2. All of that is nonsense.
Some tenors are able to sing bass in a choir, which requires some level of volume in most of octave 2. That doesn't mean that they are basses, it means that they are able to sing well in fry voice.
From the article at your link :
"In 1831, a revolution took place in the male singing voice in Luca, Italy. French tenor Gilbert Duprez presented a C5 in “Do di petto” in Rossini's opera, William Tell.22 Duprez's high C5 was not sung using the traditional bel canto falsetto-dominant vocal mechanism, but rather using the modal (chest) register, which is now commonly used by contemporary tenors.
Which is exactly what I said. The article then goes on to discuss what I termed "mixed voice", which really is modified falsetto.
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 8, 2024 4:59:22 GMT
First you claimed to have your primo passaggio at G4, later you claimed that you have no passaggi between C4 and A4. You also claimed to have a reproducible B1 in chest voice and at the same time being unable to sing in fry voice below F2. All of that is nonsense. Regarding the Falsetto intimation, you certainly did: sing in falsetto as G4, but going further down than C4 takes a bit of an effort, the primo passaggio (and below) is decriptive of where the voice doesn't find choosing between registers to be optional any longer This is a clear indication that 'primo passagio' is descriptive of where falsetto is no longer accessible, on a down-ward facing reading of one's range. That is exactly what this says. So, unsure why you're denying it? I'll cop to switching between G# and A4. It's a semi-tone and day-on-day, either could be the limit of my pure chest - the point is that your claim around the 'primo passagio' is (almost certainly) completely erroneous (what is hte passagio between? which registers?) I take it this is you calling me a liar re: the B1. Feel free. It wont change anything *shrug*. I have the recordings. Some tenors are able to sing bass in a choir, which requires some level of volume in most of octave 2. That doesn't mean that they are basses, it means that they are able to sing well in fry voice. Yep. I didn't claim otherwise. I expressly pointed that out, actually - the below*** goes someway to this, as it applies to myself but you can extrapolate. However, your immediate impugning of anyone able to sing tenor, not being able to sing in second octave without fry is, forgive me, dumb. You're generalising all tenors (by role, not 'type') aren't able to sing in second octave without fry... my brother in Christ, what? ***I have been classified by trained vocal coaches variously as bass, baritone and tenor because I can sing those roles, as far as they are concerned I then, elsewhere, went over the fact that this does not indicate my voice 'type', which is a middle baritone. I speak around G2/F2. Are you entirely sure you want to continue this, on this level of missing things? I'm not trying to be rude, it just seems so patent that things are being missed. and you're responding to positions I don't hold and claims I have either not made, or expressly rejected. Which is exactly what I said. It is not. We can read back and see that this is not what you said, and doesn't have anythign to do with what you said. The point, as far as that goes: Falsetto is a totally separate mechanism to modal voice, which covers chest and head voice. These are simply mechanistic facts about how the male voice works. I've presented several articles which, empirically, point this out and which, generally, agree with each other. I'm unsure that cherry-picking one historical narrative example (which seems counter to several others, in terms of Bel Canto habits of hte 19th century - but, that's a nice point, tenors using modal voice to reach C5 does seem to come after this. Doesn't say much for what we're on about here, though)is helpful. You would want to 'debunk', as it were, the empirical claims of those articles. That doesn't seem likely, does it? I apologise, as it seems clear to me I must have come off combative. That was not my intention. I am just convinced, based on the facts, that you are wrong (in one sense, you couldn't possibly be right - you do not know my voice, at all. You've just mde sweeping claims). You are missing plenty of things I'm saying, charging me with positions I don't hold and are plum ignoring the empirical aspects of hte discussion, in favour of (i take it) what you want to be hte case. I think, if we cannot be a bit more constructive that we have been so far, there is no point arguing. You're convinced you know better than me about my own voice, and I can only laugh. You are convinced that you know better than several empirical research articles, and that seems both arrogant and extremely unlikely, since your position is based on Miller's vibes. If that is the case, could you simply ignore the rest and answer the following: Can you explain what you mean by 'modified falsetto'? Unfortunately for this assessment, falsetto is a different physical mechanism to modal voice (which is where head voice exists) so your claim wont go through, but I am interested genuinely as to what 'modification' you're thinking of, and how that actually happens? Similarly, if you could please explain why you assume anything below, lets say G2 is fry (for someone who can sing tenor), that would be helpful. I ust can't understand why these claims factor into your takes... And once again, I apologise for any combativeness that came across previously. |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 8, 2024 6:08:09 GMT
I've never said anything else. Then there's a confusion of terms.
Some use the term "head voice" to refer to singing above the secondo passaggio, while others use the same term to refer to a specific tone when singing in the falsetto register. Female singers use the term to refer to the falsetto register in general, some transfer the term to male singers and use "head voice" and falsetto interchangeably.
People use the term mixing and "mixed voice" about thinning out chest voice to take it up, and also about modifying falsetto to make it sound more like chest voice. Some only about the latter.
Some use the term "chest fry" or "mix fry" to refer to singing in fry voice without noticeable rattle so that it sounds more like chest voice.
That's why it's useful to take things down to which fundamental register is used, then discuss how that register is applied, afterwards. M0/fry, M1/modal, M2/falsetto
The main source of confusion in this discussion may be about the use of the term "chest voice". I tend to use the term interchangeably with "modal voice". Which is what the article at your link did : "modal(chest)". Some, like Richard Miller, use the term only to refer to chest voice in the purest sense, up to G3 or so. Some use it about modal voice below the primo passaggio, then refer to anything above that as "mixing" and "chesty mix" or "heady mix".
In general, people are good at confusing themselves. They think that they have found a way of singing lower in chest voice, but it's really chest sounding fry. They think that they have managed to expand their modal range upwards, but what they discovered was mixed voice as in modified falsetto. I don't know if any of that applies to you. But the numbers that I quoted you on don't make any sense. "Solid D2 through C5" as you said about yourself, that is however possible.
Richard Miller's position is not my position. If you go back and read where I introduced Richard Miller, I wrote "in your way of thinking". In my way of thinking, modal voice (M1) below, inside and above the passaggi and the concept of thinning it to take it up, is sufficient. Richard Miller's system is an example of treating modal voice in terms of "mixing" chest voice and head voice. Which I find unuseful because it suggests that one is mixing two different registers, and people are often left with the impression that they are supposed to mix chest voice and falsetto. Especially female singers that typically refer to their falsetto range as head voice to begin with.
Like I said previously, mixed voice relies on using the TA muscle in the throat to make falsetto sound more like chest voice. The article at your link that I discussed treats this as "a third register" but it isn't really.
I don't assume that per default. The operatic tenor Michael Spyres has demonstrated an ability to take chest voice down to a B1 in one of his videos. Which is extremely rare for an actual tenor.
|
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 8, 2024 6:21:19 GMT
I've never said anything else. I think it may pay to read through your posts. Several positions were put forward, and while I agree there's a confusion, it seems you're using hte terms to mean different things at different points. That would be a very good explainer as to why we got here :P People use the term mixing and "mixed voice" about thinning out chest voice to take it up Agreed, but disagreed that it's used to discuss falsetto at all. In 20 years, i've never seen this. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but clearly a rather small subset. Some use the term "chest fry" or "mix fry" to refer to singing in fry voice without noticeable rattle so that it sounds more like chest voice. Yes, they do. That's why it's useful to take things down to which fundamental register is used But that would mean almost entirely jettisoning Miller's system. Is that the vibe? I tend to use the term interchangeably with "modal voice". This seems inapt. There are three distinct registers in male modal voice. Why would we conflate them? This explains some of your passages, though. Some, like Richard Miller, use the term only to refer to chest voice in the purest sense, up to G3 or so As with in other places, its baffling that a note is chosen here. Each voice will have a different passagio in terms of bridging, and switching. There is no 'G3' about it again, unless you're taking written roles as the limit of one's voice (though, in this way, Miller's system goes through - he just cannot make any claims about mechanism along with it). In general, people are good at confusing themselves. They think that they have found a way of singing lower in chest voice, but it's really chest sounding fry. They think that they have managed to expand their modal range upwards, but what they discovered was mixed voice as in modified falsetto. I don't know if any of that applies to you. But the numbers that I quoted you on don't make any sense. "Solid D2 through C5" as you said about yourself, that is however possible. Hmm...with respect, this is you trying to assess all voices with claims that could not apply without a specific example. About my own voice, those notes make complete sense. They're not only possible, they are the case, and this isn't particularly rare. Axl Rose, Mike Patton, Justin Vernon to name three I've sung today lol. Again, I just have to conclude that my assessment is you're wrong on several points here, but my concern is more about not being able to discern, from your posts, WHY you think these things. If you could re-read the comment you've quoted from and have a look at the final section, I would really appreciate some clarity there. |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 8, 2024 6:24:44 GMT
Richard Miller's position is not my position. My dude, then why is there a rather combative exchange about 'primo passagio' that seems to still be driving your replies? You clearly took that position at the outset, which is clearly Millerian. What changed? Thank you for the direct replies to the other two questions. |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 8, 2024 6:37:27 GMT
Richard Miller's position is not my position. My dude, then why is there a rather combative exchange about 'primo passagio' that seems to still be driving your replies? You clearly took that position at the outset, which is clearly Millerian. What changed? Richard Miller didn't invent the concept of the passaggi. The concept is from classical singing and is hundreds of years old. kaji discussed what I call "mixed voice" in the James Corden thread : "Well it is a belt imitation in the M2 mechanism so I'd call it mix (most of his fifth octave)."
Which is what a lot of metal tenors do to ascend octave 5, including some that aren't actually tenors. I'm not sure if that applies when Axl Rose takes what has been referred to as his "Mickey Mouse voice" up lower octave 5 (Sweet Child O Mine up to Eb5, for instance). Some times they use other techniques that actually do involve M1, but it's no longer what I would call regular modal voice. |
|
kaji
Grand Vocalist
Offline
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 1,957
Join Date: September 2019
|
Post by kaji on Oct 8, 2024 16:44:27 GMT
Unless you're referring specifically to the distinct flute register (which falls under the M2 mechanism and is sometimes called the "upper head voice", though this term is misleading as it also extends into the fourth octave), and I do not think you are - the register commonly described as 'falsetto' - such as the one Max Cencic is often described as using - is essentially the same register that classical sopranos or mezzo-sopranos employ, which is known as head voice. Unless you're trying to present some gendered register hypothesis I don't really see what you're trying to do here. The so-called male 'head voice' - essentially the classical, covered full voice - is still produced within the M1 mechanism. The key difference here lies in the acoustic strategy used, not the configuration of the larynx. So, unless you’re proposing a hypothetical fifth mechanism that exists between M1 and M2 or between M2 and M3, your statement would generally conflict with most modern vocal pedagogy. I’ve reviewed the paper by Large, Iwata, and von Leden that you mentioned, and it does not contradict the distinctions I’ve outlined above. |
|
|
|
Post by amadeusd on Oct 8, 2024 19:00:59 GMT
Unless you're referring specifically to the distinct flute register (which falls under the M2 mechanism and is sometimes called the "upper head voice", though this term is misleading as it also extends into the fourth octave), and I do not think you are - the register commonly described as 'falsetto' - such as the one Max Cencic is often described as using - is essentially the same register that classical sopranos or mezzo-sopranos employ, which is known as head voice. Unless you're trying to present some gendered register hypothesis I don't really see what you're trying to do here. The so-called male 'head voice' - essentially the classical, covered full voice - is still produced within the M1 mechanism. The key difference here lies in the acoustic strategy used, not the configuration of the larynx. So, unless you’re proposing a hypothetical fifth mechanism that exists between M1 and M2 or between M2 and M3, your statement would generally conflict with most modern vocal pedagogy. I’ve reviewed the paper by Large, Iwata, and von Leden that you mentioned, and it does not contradict the distinctions I’ve outlined above. HI Kaji, Despite the following, I really appreciate both of your time and engagement. That said, I really cannot fathom what you're talking about, as regards the resources i've given. They discuss different mechanisms between modal and falsetto voice - the M1/M2/M0 are not the only relevant factors here. Mechanistically, different things are required to engage these registers. Cord closure is the most salient - it is basically a 1:1 match, as between the registers. Its really simply explained, and is quite clear as between both males and females. The concept that falsetto is "essentially" or "substantially" the same as head voice is counter to all the links given and plenty more... It's pretty damn clear that the literature on this does not comport with the pedagogy, so I simply reject pedagogy that doesn't align with the physical facts. This is, i'm sorry to say, the correct way to assess the data at hand to my mind. Narratives are not helpful, when they're not aligning with the data. (if this boils down to you assuming 'mechanistic' refers, solely, to M1/M2/M0, then perhaps that's the issue.. but if not..) But, that notwithstanding, I've also included the Wesley article, which is case studies. It comports with the empirical sources when you stop pretending that cross-meaning uses of words like 'head voice' aren't actually inaccurate. You can see, through all of these examples, that there are three distinct registers being, interchangeably referred to as head or falsetto. The funny thing, there at least, is that the evidence being relayed is counter to the words being used. Not surprising, though. I'm in the process of requesting full versions, to provide the remainder of what's required to support these claims (though, it is patently obvious in the abstracts that your contentions aren't accurate at all). There are plenty of further sources for the fact that falsetto differs from modal voice (which includes head voice). If this isn't the conflict, then I can't see what either of you are arguing about here. Regarding the Leden et all article, I don't see that, but I also don't really feel the need to address it given the above. Seems pretty clear this is simply a misuse of terms (in the sense that they make no sense, as used in your ways). Richard Miller didn't invent the concept of the passaggi. Apologies but this is again, an attempt to change what I've said. You began by relatively aggressively charging me with lying about my range, specifically in relation to the primo passagio. It would seriously be quite helpful if you could stick to responding to what I've said, or intimated, rather htan a mis-representation of it :) what I call "mixed voice" Which, it appears, is referring to a reinforced falsetto. No problem with that - and in that quote, I would probably agree with, but would have argued away the use of 'mixed' as inapt. It's just falsetto with bells. To me it's just a really, seriously unhelpful way of using 'mixed' to my mind - which is fairly well illustrated by this confusion we're having between us hehe. But that's no disparagement, merely an opinion on usage. Again, very much appreciate both of you. |
|
kaji
Grand Vocalist
Offline
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 1,957
Join Date: September 2019
|
Post by kaji on Oct 8, 2024 20:17:56 GMT
Unless you're referring specifically to the distinct flute register (which falls under the M2 mechanism and is sometimes called the "upper head voice", though this term is misleading as it also extends into the fourth octave), and I do not think you are - the register commonly described as 'falsetto' - such as the one Max Cencic is often described as using - is essentially the same register that classical sopranos or mezzo-sopranos employ, which is known as head voice. Unless you're trying to present some gendered register hypothesis I don't really see what you're trying to do here. The so-called male 'head voice' - essentially the classical, covered full voice - is still produced within the M1 mechanism. The key difference here lies in the acoustic strategy used, not the configuration of the larynx. So, unless you’re proposing a hypothetical fifth mechanism that exists between M1 and M2 or between M2 and M3, your statement would generally conflict with most modern vocal pedagogy. I’ve reviewed the paper by Large, Iwata, and von Leden that you mentioned, and it does not contradict the distinctions I’ve outlined above. HI Kaji, Despite the following, I really appreciate both of your time and engagement. That said, I really cannot fathom what you're talking about, as regards the resources i've given. They discuss different mechanisms between modal and falsetto voice - the M1/M2/M0 are not the only relevant factors here. Mechanistically, different things are required to engage these registers. Cord closure is the most salient - it is basically a 1:1 match, as between the registers. Its really simply explained, and is quite clear as between both males and females. The concept that falsetto is "essentially" or "substantially" the same as head voice is counter to all the links given and plenty more... It's pretty damn clear that the literature on this does not comport with the pedagogy, so I simply reject pedagogy that doesn't align with the physical facts. This is, i'm sorry to say, the correct way to assess the data at hand to my mind. Narratives are not helpful, when they're not aligning with the data. (if this boils down to you assuming 'mechanistic' refers, solely, to M1/M2/M0, then perhaps that's the issue.. but if not..) But, that notwithstanding, I've also included the Wesley article, which is case studies. It comports with the empirical sources when you stop pretending that cross-meaning uses of words like 'head voice' aren't actually inaccurate. You can see, through all of these examples, that there are three distinct registers being, interchangeably referred to as head or falsetto. The funny thing, there at least, is that the evidence being relayed is counter to the words being used. Not surprising, though. I'm in the process of requesting full versions, to provide the remainder of what's required to support these claims (though, it is patently obvious in the abstracts that your contentions aren't accurate at all). There are plenty of further sources for the fact that falsetto differs from modal voice (which includes head voice). If this isn't the conflict, then I can't see what either of you are arguing about here. Regarding the Leden et all article, I don't see that, but I also don't really feel the need to address it given the above. Seems pretty clear this is simply a misuse of terms (in the sense that they make no sense, as used in your ways). Richard Miller didn't invent the concept of the passaggi. Apologies but this is again, an attempt to change what I've said. You began by relatively aggressively charging me with lying about my range, specifically in relation to the primo passagio. It would seriously be quite helpful if you could stick to responding to what I've said, or intimated, rather htan a mis-representation of it :) what I call "mixed voice" Which, it appears, is referring to a reinforced falsetto. No problem with that - and in that quote, I would probably agree with, but would have argued away the use of 'mixed' as inapt. It's just falsetto with bells. To me it's just a really, seriously unhelpful way of using 'mixed' to my mind - which is fairly well illustrated by this confusion we're having between us hehe. But that's no disparagement, merely an opinion on usage. Again, very much appreciate both of you. I don’t see how these issues can be classified as 'terminology misuse' especially when even scientists disagree on the meanings of these terms. Trying to enforce one interpretation as the definitive one is problematic, especially since voice science prioritises the understanding of the concepts behind the terms rather than the specific words used. It would be more beneficial if you could a) clarify your perspective and b) provide examples of how you define these terms. There are significant discrepancies between the various studies, and they often don't fully align with each other. Additionally, changes in vocal fold closure or glottal open / closed quotient don’t alter the fundamental registration. This viewpoint is widely supported by Sundberg, Titze, and other leading figures in both contemporary and historical voice science literature, as long as the concept has been recognised. And of course 'falsetto' (a term which I reject) differs from modal voice. It is not modal voice. Neither is the classical female head register. I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I will respond properly later but here are the papers you requested: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ht1ZHrOwFzJwVzt1i3ROq2R1r95eLiAQ?usp=sharing |
|
Steingrim
Vocal Master
Online
Elvis Presley, 1969
Posts: 892
Likes: 757
Join Date: February 2022
Favourite singer: Sinatra Elvis Bono Sting, George Michael LedZep1+4
|
Post by Steingrim on Oct 8, 2024 21:26:42 GMT
what I call "mixed voice" Which, it appears, is referring to a reinforced falsetto. No problem with that - and in that quote, I would probably agree with, but would have argued away the use of 'mixed' as inapt. It's just falsetto with bells. To me it's just a really, seriously unhelpful way of using 'mixed' to my mind - which is fairly well illustrated by this confusion we're having between us hehe. But that's no disparagement, merely an opinion on usage. Again, very much appreciate both of you. I'm not familiar with that term, but if reinforced falsetto is about making it more solid and less breathy than just straightforward falsetto, then it's not the same as what Kaji called a "belt imitation in M2". Richard Miller didn't invent the concept of the passaggi. Apologies but this is again, an attempt to change what I've said. You began by relatively aggressively charging me with lying about my range, specifically in relation to the primo passagio. It would seriously be quite helpful if you could stick to responding to what I've said, or intimated, rather htan a mis-representation of it :) I didn't say that. It's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about. Considering that your primo passaggio has gone from G4 to 'no passaggi inside C4-A4' to G#4-A4 during this discussion, all of which are impossible, that seems fairly likely. |
|
Lukasy
Vocal Beginner
Offline
Posts: 3
Likes: 1
Join Date: February 2023
|
Post by Lukasy on Oct 8, 2024 23:14:42 GMT
B0 in subharmonics
Ab1 in chest
Bb4 in chest
C6 in falsetto
These are all when my voice is at it's best, but these are also all recording-quality notes (In my own music)
|
|
